Interview with genocide expert: “Now Putin wants to destroy Ukraine”

The historian and genocide researcher Eugene Finkel, born in Lviv, Ukraine, was one of the first academics to of a Russian genocide in Ukraine spoke. In an interview with ntv.de, Finkel explains what exactly constitutes a genocide and at what point Vladimir Putin might have decided that he wanted to destroy the Ukrainian people. Finkel says of ex-Chancellor Angela Merkel: She would probably no longer receive an honorary doctorate at his university today.

Mr. Finkel, when genocide is discussed in Germany, people usually think of the Holocaust, in which many millions of Jews were killed. Is the number of people killed the decisive criterion for defining genocide?

Indeed, when we talk about genocide, we often think of cases like the Holocaust, in which six million people were murdered. Or the genocide in Rwanda, in which up to a million people died, and the Armenian genocide, which killed up to a million and a half. But genocide doesn’t have to be limited to numbers. In Germany, there was a debate about the Herero and Nama genocide committed by the Germans between 1904 and 1908. This is now recognized as genocide by the German federal government and society, and we are talking about tens of thousands of deaths here and not millions.

Legally there is no limit and it is impossible to have one as we are talking about groups of different sizes. In the case of the Bosnian war, the International Criminal Court decided at the time that the number had to be “significant”. We don’t know what number that is. At Srebrenica there were 7000 people.

Is there something that all genocides have in common?

I’m generally skeptical of the United Nations’ definition of genocide as it has a few problems. The UN Convention only defines four protected groups: a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Personally, however, I see no reason why gender or sexual identity should not be included. But that’s the definition we have. So, in order for it to come under the label of genocide, a particular group must be targeted because of their identity and there must be a will to target that particular group. The intent is to cause significant harm to this group. Whether this happened is always difficult to prove and I am therefore cautious in these discussions.

However, you were one of the first scientists in Ukraine to speak explicitly about genocide when the first horrific pictures from the city of Bucha were published. What are the main pieces of evidence intended to show that this is genocide against the Ukrainian people?

It is perhaps important to say: the pictures from Bucha are terrible and one cannot and should not belittle them. But these cases alone do not have to be genocide, they can also be “just” war crimes.

But why is it not only a war crime but genocide?

We now have evidence from different places in Ukraine and have seen the aftermath of similar massacres in several cities. There is evidence that certain people were targeted because of their association with the Ukrainian state and Ukrainian identity. These are, for example, teachers, municipal officials, intellectuals or people who used to serve in the Ukrainian military. Books have been burned and there is also evidence of attempts to change the curriculum in schools accordingly. So there is a campaign against the Ukrainians, not as an ethnic group – many of them are Russians – but against the Ukrainians as a national group.

Also, Putin’s rhetoric has changed. In the past, Putin has always said that Ukraine is a “fake” state, a “fictitious” country. Saying something like that is bad, but it doesn’t necessarily imply a will to destroy the country. But that has now changed. Collective punishment is now really actively talked about, as well as “de-Ukrainization” and the destruction of identity. All these points led me to speak of genocide.

So you’re saying that it wasn’t Putin’s plan from the start to commit genocide against the Ukrainian people?

I don’t think it was his plan from the start. From what we know, in the beginning, Putin wanted to overthrow the government and possibly partition the country. But there was no intention to destroy Ukraine. The Russians thought they could take the country and be welcomed as the liberators. Then it was thought that the Ukrainians would assume their role as “younger brothers”. This way of thinking has always been like this: Russians are the “elder brothers” and the “elder sisters” and the Ukrainians are subordinates. But when the Ukrainians resisted, the plan changed. Only then did Russia start saying that there were actually many more Nazis in Ukraine than they had thought. Ukrainians were no longer portrayed as subordinate relatives, but as “anti-Russia”. The rhetoric then was: Ukraine represents everything that Russia is not, so it must be destroyed. So to answer the question, I don’t think the war started with genocide intent, but that has changed now.

Will it even be possible to prove whether Putin gave the orders to his generals to commit war crimes or even genocide?

I don’t know what orders were given. In fact, we don’t need to see these commands at all. We just have to look at what Putin has said in the past. If you look at the Holocaust, for example, there is no document from Hitler that gives the order to kill all Jews. This document may never have existed. So even if there were orders, they were probably given verbally. As I said, we just have to listen to what Putin says.

But will those who committed these atrocities be held accountable? Maybe not Vladimir Putin, but his soldiers and generals?

I hope so. We know that the Ukrainian authorities have started to secure the evidence. We also know that the United Nations and many other institutions have taken action. Realistically, Putin will not show up in The Hague. I would love to be convinced otherwise. But those who committed these atrocities are young, some of them in their twenties. They will probably live for a while and eventually under a completely different regime, since Putin will not be president forever. So for these soldiers, yes, I think there is a chance that they can be held accountable.

Let’s look at Germany’s role: Does Germany have to do more for Ukraine, precisely because of its history?

In any case, I think it would be very good if Germany did more for Ukraine. Not only because of its history, it would also just be a very good strategy. Not necessarily with heavy weapons, but with tougher sanctions. That would be good.

How is Germany’s policy towards Russia viewed by European and American academics?

In the discussions I’m having right now, I’ve noticed that the reputation of former German Chancellor Angela Merkel has suffered a severe blow in the past month. Last year my university (Johns Hopkins University, editor’s note) awarded Ms. Merkel an honorary doctorate. That may not happen again this year and quite frankly some of my colleagues say that was wrong and quite short-sighted.

Let’s also look at Israel: should Israel do more for Ukraine?

I am an Israeli citizen and in my opinion Israel should definitely do more. Both for moral reasons and for strategic ones. At present, the Israeli position is very narrow-minded, short-sighted and limited to neighboring countries and a short time horizon, without considering the long-term implications. Israel’s reputation has already been damaged and will continue to be damaged. Israel’s decision not to participate in sanctions against Russia hurts the country. Because the mood in Israel is definitely pro-Ukraine, but the government is standing in the way. I think Israel will pay the price for that.

What does it mean exactly?

Israel’s reputation as part of the West has fallen into disrepute. If aid to Ukraine is an overall Western effort to stop Russia, then you can’t be part of the team and at the same time ride it out. That simply does not work. And Israel’s reputation in the US is also under pressure. There are already voices in the Republican Party saying that if Israel continues to refuse to cooperate, then we will carefully consider whether we continue to support Israel militarily or politically.

Philipp Sandmann spoke to Eugene Finkel

source site-34