“We just launch it and we know everything will be dead – everything that will be found there in this particular area will be dead,” says Kokhanovskyy. “There is no connection to the drone at all, you cannot see the video, nothing… Everything it sees will be killed.”
Because there are never any civilians caught in the middle of two warring armies, right? I think the ICC will be getting real busy soon.
That alone doesn't cut war crime definition to get attention to ICC and isn't really different from the usual aerial bombing. You drop the bomb from a plane or 100 of them somewhere around the densely populated area and don't know who they kill, as there is no connection to the drone.
Civilians dying in an armed conflict doesn't cut the definition of warcrime by itself. Deliberate targeting and intentional destruction of civil infrastructure that supports life or something like it is.
Then of course there is stuff that ICC isn't getting busy about which is clearly above the threshold -- the regular drone safaris in and around Kherson (city with pre-war population circa quarter million people) happening for the last few years.
A war crime's a war crime. Doesn't matter if the Ukrainians did it, or the Russians, or Palestinians or Israelis. Or The UN or USA or NATO or Canadians. The only time a war crime's not a war crime is if it's a terrorist group doing it, because then it's terrorism instead of a war crime.
"Terrorism” and "war crimes” are overlapping categories, and being done by something independently defined as a “terrorist group” isn’t what defines something as “terrorism”, rather doing terrorism is what makes a group a terrorist group.