Yale’s Timothy Snyder recently gave a lecture at Boston University arguing that Vladmir Putin and the Russian Federation are committing genocide in Ukraine.
Your points here and elsewhere about the spuriousness of the "genoicidation" (to coin an awkward term) of the Vendee atrocities/war crimes have totally persuaded me. Sounds like a French species of the right-wing, "oh us poor persecuted Catholics" kind of rhetorical maneuver of the sort Samuel Alito keeps putting out there....
At least in Putin's rhetoric, however, he really seems intent in wiping out any idea of an Ukrainian identity or people distinct from Russia.
Indeed, he denies that the national category "Ukrainian" even exists. I'm not quite sure what sort of rubric a program of erasing a national group out of existence belongs under. Genocide-adjacent?
And on what basis can you be sure that "Russians today know perfectly well that they do not have the capacity to exterminate the Ukrainian people." I wouldn't be so sure or categorical in making that statement. It seems quite possible to me that some number of brainwashed Putinistas in the armed forces DO believe just that!
I’m a lawyer interested in French history, and I enjoy your substack. I don’t know the evidence well enough to weigh in on whether the killings in the Vendee qualify as genocide, but I wanted to write because I think your analysis is incorrect. Under Lemkin’s definition, genocidal intent is, as you say, purpose (i.e. the acts have the intended object of destroying a group, as such, in whole or in part). But this does not also require knowledge that “the criminal conduct in question could have realistically caused that result”, as you suggest. As a general matter, that is not a thing in criminal law… which is why Person A who makes a foolish attempt to rob a bank with a steak knife will generally be charged the same as Person B who came oh so close to succeeding.
Along the same lines, there is no requirement in Lemkin’s definition that the perpetrators of genocide *know* that they have “the capacity” to exterminate the entire people. Failing to account for this element is not “defining down” genocide; I think you are considerably defining up the state of mind required to commit the crime.
And certainly, some statements from members of the Convention, and in the republican forces, plainly express the purpose to destroy a group (“brigands” of the Vendee, or sometimes just “Vendeans”). That’s decent evidence of the requisite criminal state of mind. I think the harder question is whether Vendeans were “a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” that were being destroyed “as such”. But even Martin seems to recognize that the Vendeans qualified as a group. The reason he does not accept the genocide label is because the Convention had Vendean allies, and thus, as he put it, there was no “system to destroy an entire population”. Perhaps a fair point, but again, Lemkin’s definition of the crime does not require this (because you can commit genocide if you intend to destroy a group, as such, in part, and you can do it unsystematically).
In any event, I understand that historians and lawyers may use the term genocide differently, but I think you dismiss the genocide argument a little too easily. The fact that this is a hobby horse for obnoxious right-wingers is not really an argument against it either.
Perhaps John Mearsheimer gets it right when he says that the goal of Russia is to “wreck” Ukraine.
Your points here and elsewhere about the spuriousness of the "genoicidation" (to coin an awkward term) of the Vendee atrocities/war crimes have totally persuaded me. Sounds like a French species of the right-wing, "oh us poor persecuted Catholics" kind of rhetorical maneuver of the sort Samuel Alito keeps putting out there....
At least in Putin's rhetoric, however, he really seems intent in wiping out any idea of an Ukrainian identity or people distinct from Russia.
Indeed, he denies that the national category "Ukrainian" even exists. I'm not quite sure what sort of rubric a program of erasing a national group out of existence belongs under. Genocide-adjacent?
And on what basis can you be sure that "Russians today know perfectly well that they do not have the capacity to exterminate the Ukrainian people." I wouldn't be so sure or categorical in making that statement. It seems quite possible to me that some number of brainwashed Putinistas in the armed forces DO believe just that!
Good point.
I’m a lawyer interested in French history, and I enjoy your substack. I don’t know the evidence well enough to weigh in on whether the killings in the Vendee qualify as genocide, but I wanted to write because I think your analysis is incorrect. Under Lemkin’s definition, genocidal intent is, as you say, purpose (i.e. the acts have the intended object of destroying a group, as such, in whole or in part). But this does not also require knowledge that “the criminal conduct in question could have realistically caused that result”, as you suggest. As a general matter, that is not a thing in criminal law… which is why Person A who makes a foolish attempt to rob a bank with a steak knife will generally be charged the same as Person B who came oh so close to succeeding.
Along the same lines, there is no requirement in Lemkin’s definition that the perpetrators of genocide *know* that they have “the capacity” to exterminate the entire people. Failing to account for this element is not “defining down” genocide; I think you are considerably defining up the state of mind required to commit the crime.
And certainly, some statements from members of the Convention, and in the republican forces, plainly express the purpose to destroy a group (“brigands” of the Vendee, or sometimes just “Vendeans”). That’s decent evidence of the requisite criminal state of mind. I think the harder question is whether Vendeans were “a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” that were being destroyed “as such”. But even Martin seems to recognize that the Vendeans qualified as a group. The reason he does not accept the genocide label is because the Convention had Vendean allies, and thus, as he put it, there was no “system to destroy an entire population”. Perhaps a fair point, but again, Lemkin’s definition of the crime does not require this (because you can commit genocide if you intend to destroy a group, as such, in part, and you can do it unsystematically).
In any event, I understand that historians and lawyers may use the term genocide differently, but I think you dismiss the genocide argument a little too easily. The fact that this is a hobby horse for obnoxious right-wingers is not really an argument against it either.