Comments by "Meh Pluribus Unum" (@pluribus_unum) on "Separatist leader announces evacuation of residents to southeast Russia" video.

I have to ask, was this "evacuation" voluntary, or mandatory? When do we get independent confirmation that this isn't displacement? "Article 49, first paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.”
48
@herbescobar2974 - My supposition is that it should be treated as a potential mass forcible transfer¹, not an issue of protected persons. _____________________________ ¹the transfer of civilian populations to other areas against their will
4
@herbescobar2974 - It's not a declared war, and even if it was, Russia denies being the occupying power. That said, I think it's reasonable to assert that it is in fact a war and that Russia is an occupying power proposing (possibly already conducting) the evacuation of civilians as an occupying power,using the instrument of their proxy militias. Under that assertion, the laws of war and the definition of this intended action are primary considerations. Is it a[n] evacuation by an occupying power for the safety of the civilian population in a conflict zone, [or] is it displacement with a different purpose, like possibly strategically removing witnesses from the site(s) of cross-border military infiltration or military incursion[?]
3
@herbescobar2974 - Not looking to become a lawyer, definitely raised on politics and U.S. Gov and civics history. A small-holding vegetable farmer and ex-CTO with decades working with politicians, politics and political media, including the industry standard practice big-data enabled behavioral modification of consumers and audiences for "fun and profit". I could be wrong in my understanding [that] the qualifying term "occupying power" which the article uses is intended to refer to the context of a declared war by aggressors or combatants who are also signatories.
2
@herbescobar2974 - I eventually stopped fueling extremism for the right wing pundit I was doing the modern media business model gig for. As she was becoming one of the top dollar revenue generating personalities in FOX's bullpen, my rationalizations -- or devil's bargains -- as my position made qualifying for the farm mortgage possible -- were more desperate and objectively detestable. My first major political gig was for a polar opposite citizen action trailblazer turned national political candidate, so there was also the political betrayal guilt factor. And, you're spot on. Social media, and much of for-profit and/or political media uses a business model that runs on (and generates new reservoirs of) anger, outrage and animosity because those emotions drive far greater -- and malevolent -- engagement. The profits from this model dwarf those of the tested positive or benevolent engagement strategy models, so society be damned.
2
@snoop05 - I'm interested in the nature of these events and agree that most countries involved in warmaking use undeclared wars, proxy forces, and often the rationales or articles of the Geneva conventions for selfish reasons, including at times using the pretense of the conventions themselves in order to violate them. Just as I believe Russia's government is trying to do now, for domestic political and overall geopolitical benefit.
1
@AntonVelibor - Thanks for that, Anton. I'll wait for more reliable and relevant sources to do their thing.
1
@marilynrich3456 - Just as a bystander, I'm also curious about Milena's expanded input.
1