| My "very strained definition" is from the UN treaty on genocide. This has been the authoritative definition of genocide in international law for over 70 years. That you do not accept the definition says more about you than the definition. The first condition is intent, specifically intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Russia has provided ample evidence. For example https://uacrisis.org/en/justification-of-genocide-russia-has... is a translation into English of an article from Russian media laying out what "denazification" actually would entail. The following passage is typical and demonstrates intent: Denazification will inevitably also be a de-Ukrainization – a rejection of the large-scale artificial inflation of the ethnic component of self-identification of the population of the territories of historical Little Russia (Malorossiya) and New Russia (Novorossiya), begun by the Soviet authorities. There are many similar statements from all corners of Russian controlled media. Intent is abundantly clear. As for the second component, we need to establish a physical element. Many Russian war crimes qualify. But I specifically pointed to https://www.state.gov/russias-filtration-operations-forced-d... because the forced relocation of children for the purpose of erasing their ethnic identity is directly listed in the treaty. Do you still refuse to acknowledge that Russia has met the definition of genocide established in international law by treaty? If so, then on what grounds do you argue that this ISN'T genocide? |