And they can't do anything about it. I mean, anything on our controlled territory, but not on the occupied left bank of the Dnipro River. To even go there is suicide or, at best, masochism (they will just rob you, maim you, take away your transport, maybe rape you, but still let you crawl out alive).
A striking example is the situation with prisoners of war. If you Google something like 'the state of Russian POWs in Ukraine,' you get a bunch of photos, videos, interviews, medical data, reports from international organizations, reports from our military, reports from local and sectoral officials... And no one knows anything about the condition of Ukrainian prisoners of war in Russia. And no one can find out, let alone check it with their own eyes, regardless of the status of the organization they represent. The massacre in Olenivka demonstrated this perfectly. The situation in the occupied, flooded Kherson region is exactly the same.
“The Red Cross, Greta Thunberg, and Amnesty are all Western organizations and activists working exclusively in the realities of the Western world. A free, liberal world where Greenpeace boats can stop huge tankers with cargo worth millions, where animal rights activists can freely destroy billionaire fur coats.”
In the end, the Red Cross, Greta Thunberg, and Amnesty are all Western organizations and activists working exclusively in the realities of the Western world. A free, liberal world where Greenpeace boats can stop huge tankers with cargo worth millions, where animal rights activists can freely destroy billionaire fur coats.
There, Greta has the opportunity to come out at least at the parliamentary level and call everyone criminals and immoral. But in Iran or another Third World country, she would be stoned to death for such an attempt. That is why wise “Gretas” do not try their tricks in the Third World. And even more so in Russia, and even in the area of active hostilities.
“The real choice for the Red Cross is to take the initiative and do nothing (for objective reasons, this is Russia) or to remain silent. They usually choose the option to remain silent as less problematic.”
In the end, the Red Cross has a real choice: to take the initiative and do nothing (for objective reasons, this is Russia) or to remain silent. They usually choose the option of silence as less problematic. Because in this way, all responsibility for the situation and for the lives lost lies with the occupiers and even partially with the Ukrainian government, which is trying to save even the residents of the occupied territories.
So, we simply do not need to count on an adequate response to Russia's crimes from those who are afraid of Russia and do not have the ability to act in the territory controlled by the occupier. If they could, they would. And so they are like the UN: useless and worthless.
About the author. Oleksiy Holobutsky, political scientist.
The editors don't always share the opinions expressed by the authors of the blogs.