The bombing is the latest in a series of assassinations of high-ranking Russian military and political figures carried out by Ukrainian forces and marks the highest-ranking Russian military figure to have been assassinated.
Was he killed in combat? Was he killed by a member of the armed forces? Was he on active duty?
I think in his case it is not so clear to deem him a combatant and legitimate target by the laws around warfare.
His assassination is kind of similar to the attack on the Pentagon in 09/11. That is the part attacking US army personnel in the building, not the abducting and murdering civilians in a plane part.
He is a high ranking paper pusher at home, rather than an armed or at least deployed fighter. The attack was not carried out by regular armed forces, but by intelligence or intelligence affiliated partisan/terrorist (depending on point of view) groups.
In a similar question one would have to ask, if the assassination of JF Kennedy wasn’t a murder then, since Kennedy was the leader of an invading army in Vietnam.
EDIT: before downvoting i suggest people to read the following discussion regarding the legality of this act. This assassination was clearly not in accord with the Geneva convention, specifically the prohibition of the use of civilian items as booby traps and the prohibition of perfidious attacks.
The laws of war are way more permissive than you think. All military officers are lawful targets. Even civilians working for the “war machine” are lawful targets. Munitions manufacturing plants, for example, tend to be full of civilian employees. They are lawful targets because destroying the enemy’s ability to conduct war is a lawful objective of military necessity.
Although the term treachery did not feature in the article, the sense that certain acts violate the law of war principle of chivalry, which is reflected in the work of the earlier scholars, was clear. In Article 101 of the Code, however, the term did appear, demonstrating its centrality to how war was not to be fought: “While deception in war is admitted as a just and necessary means of hostility, and is consistent with honorable warfare, the common law of war allows even capital punishment for clandestine or treacherous attempts to injure an enemy, because they are so dangerous, and it is difficult to guard against them.” In subsequent national and international codification efforts, treachery assumed a place of prominence in the treatment of assassination, as it had historically.
The most recent comprehensive treaty governing the conduct of hostilities is the 1977 Protocol Additional (I) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts. Additional Protocol I’s Article 37 styles acts during an armed conflict that were previously labeled assassination as “perfidy.” The article confirms again that the essence of the prohibition is treachery, not mere deception or trickery.
It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
(a) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
(b) the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
(d) the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
Note that the examples refer to the second sentence, to give someone false security by suggesting he would be entitled to protection under laws.
Blowing someone up with an explosive disguised as a civillian item in a civllian environment seems to be quite perfidious.
Assassination during wartime denotes (1) the treacherous, (2) wounding or killing, of (3) individual adversaries, in other words, perfidious attacks. Although the two terms often appear in the disjunctive, it is also reasonable to include outlawry, such as putting a price on the enemy’s head, within the scope of the definition assassination, as was done in the Lieber Code and suggested by Greenspan.
Military manuals have occasionally suggested that assassination is limited to non-combatants or requires a particular mens rea. […] However, the historical intent of the prohibition during armed conflict was to encompass the treacherous killing of the enemy, not just non-combatants. This is clear from the Hague Regulations’ Article 23(b)’s reference to “individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army,” which would include civilians and members of the armed forces. Additionally, the prohibition of assassination contains no mens rea requirement beyond an intent to betray a confidence or to encourage others to kill the individual(s) by placing a price on their head.
It is perfectly reasonable to speak of a murder here. The guy was targeted as an individual, he was killed and the attack was clandestine and treacherous, as he had no chance to guard against it and it was done in a way that could have killed uninvolved civilians easily, so it was also treacherous. In total the attack was probably perfidous and therefore illegal under the Geneva convention.
Under your interpretation of perfidy, what kind of killing would be permitted in war? Does a soldier at the frontline have a chance to defend against an incoming artillery strike, or a sniper? Are wars to be conducted only as a series of honourable sword duels?
The mention of “clandestine” is from the Lieber code, which is not an international law. The Geneva Conventions do not use it. Ukrainians and Russians do not need to observe internal American military law.
The feigning of civilian status is possibly relevant depending on how the assassin conducted the assassination. If all the assassin did was evade notice, that is not perfidy - they must invite confidence, as you quoted, which you cannot do by not being noticed. The same protocol that your quote comes from discusses this with regard to “ruses of war” such as camouflage.
Regarding whether or not Kirillov was a legitimate target: Even if he really, genuinely did not order the war crimes he is accused of ordering, he is still a combatant under the Article 43 of the 1977 Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions. Russian government comments seem to reflect this too. Russia Today quotes State Duma Defense Committee chairman Andrey Kartapolov describing Kirillov as a “Worthy Russian general,” and a “Real officer.” Russia describes one of the responsibilities of his forces as “Causing loss to the enemy by using flame-incendiary means.” If you are the guy that orders the flamethrowering of enemy soldiers then yes, you are a combatant.
“clandestine” is an important category to understand what is considered treacherous. The geneva convention does not refer exclusively to inviting confidence of protection. It is just an explicit specification, like the examples given under a to d are examples, to have them already covered. That does not mean that they are exclusive.
For the fighting on the front line every soldier knows he is at risk. Also Private Ivan is not targeted as Private Ivan. If instead there was Private Alexej in his place, Alexej would be dead and Ivan life another day. The same applies when command centers are attacked. They are attacked as the command structure. And if General Mikhail is visiting that day and the attack is done specifically on that day because he is there it is legitimate as he knowingly went to a legitimate target. Same i would argue for the command center in Moscow, e.g. the distance to the front is not relevant.
But being blown up by a booby trapped civilian device in a civilian area seems quite treacherous. In particular as booby trapping civilian devices is also prohibited.
The geneva convention does not refer exclusively to inviting confidence of protection.
It does not refer to anything but that. If you think it does, quote it. Your personal feelings on whether or not it has perfidious vibes aren’t really enough here.
But being blown up by a booby trapped civilian device in a civilian area seems quite treacherous.
Russia thinks that the bomb was monitored and manually detonated, which would make it not a booby trap. As such it’s now just “combatant kills enemy combatant with a grenade from a hidden position, no civilian casualties”. The Ukrainians are not required to warn an enemy general about the specifics of how he might get hurt in the war he is fighting.
“Booby-trap” means any device or material which is designed, constructed, or adapted
to kill or injure, and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an
apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act.
Article 7
Prohibitions on the Use of booby-traps and other devices
1. Without prejudice to the rules of international applicable in armed conflict to treachery and perfidy, is prohibited in all Circumstances to use booby-traps and
devices which are any way attached to or associated with: […]
2. It is prohibited to use booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless
portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed contain explosive
material. .
3. Without prejudice to provisions of Article 3, it is prohibited to use weapons to
which this Article applies in any city, town, village or other area containing a similar
concentration of civilians in which combat between ground forces is not taking place or
not appear to be imminent, unless either:
(a) they are placed on or in the close vicinity of a military objective; or
(b) measures are taken to protect civilians from their effects, for example, the
posting of warning sentries, the of warnings or the provision of fences.
The Prohibition of specific booby traps such as medical devices explicitly notes that it does not limit the scope of treachery and perfidy. So it even links the use of booby traps to the categories of treachery and perfidy, because it is blatantly obvious to be exactly that.
The definition of booby-traps does not make any limit on how they are triggered.
means any device or material which is designed, constructed, or adapted
to kill or injure
clearly an exploding scooter is designed to do exactly that.
and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an
apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act.
The key here is that the unexpectedly is from the perspective of the victim. This becomes clear as it relates to the victims approach to the object or interaction with it, which should not lead to the object exploding under normal circumstances. From the attackers perspective it is always expected to explode, be it by manual trigger or some sort of automation.
A scooter is not expected to explode as you pass by it. Also the remote detonation is irrelevant to the general prohibition of using them outside an area where fighting is ongoing or imminent.
Flat out wrong. Your entire point rests on your equation of using a civilian vehicle (a scooter) to hide a bomb with “the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status” which is categorically false. Feigning civilian, non-combatant status is very specific. It means dressing your soldiers up as civilians and approaching the enemy in order to use your false civilian status to get them to let their guard down, then attacking:
Citing Article 37 of Additional Protocol I as support, it defines perfidy (and thus treachery) as “acts that invite the confidence of enemy persons to lead them to believe that they are entitled to, or are obliged to accord, protection under the law of war, with intent to betray that confidence.”
In no way did a scooter parked on the street invite Kirilov’s confidence to believe he was protecting the scooter under the law of war.
That is what perfidy means: using the protection of civilians specifically and treacherously to launch an attack while disguised as civilians. This requires that the enemy see you dressed as a civilian and let his guard down.
This did not happen since Kirilov never saw his attackers.
2. Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation.
That is what perfidy means: using the protection of civilians specifically and treacherously to launch an attack while disguised as civilians. This requires that the enemy see you dressed as a civilian and let his guard down.
This did not happen since Kirilov never saw his attackers.
Using civilian items to hide booby traps is of course treacherous. It is based on creating the idea that there is no danger coming from this item. It is additionally specifically prohibited to booby trap civilian items under the geneva convention
“Booby-trap” means any device or material which is designed, constructed, or adapted
to kill or injure, and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an
apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act.
Article 7
Prohibitions on the Use of booby-traps and other devices
1. Without prejudice to the rules of international applicable in armed conflict to treachery and perfidy, is prohibited in all Circumstances to use booby-traps and
devices which are any way attached to or associated with: […]
2. It is prohibited to use booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless
portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed contain explosive
material. .
3. Without prejudice to provisions of Article 3, it is prohibited to use weapons to
which this Article applies in any city, town, village or other area containing a similar
concentration of civilians in which combat between ground forces is not taking place or
not appear to be imminent, unless either:
(a) they are placed on or in the close vicinity of a military objective; or
(b) measures are taken to protect civilians from their effects, for example, the
posting of warning sentries, the of warnings or the provision of fences.
This is textbook. The Scooter didnt have the explosive attached, but hidden in it. It was used in an area were fighting was not ongoing or imminent and away from military objectives and there was no warning whatsoever.
But most importantly: The rules for booby traps mention explicitly, that they can constitute treachery and perfidity
So how did he get into the explosion range of the scooters explosives? Did he life his entire life there?
The item was placed specifically on his way and detonated, when he got into the explosive range. So it was exploded as he approached it. It is irrelevant that he did not intend to use the scooter. He had no way of recognizing it to be explosive. Which also brings us to the next problem. No civilian was able to discern the device, or recognize that they are in an area requiring particular care as fighting was not ongoing or immanent.
A soldier hiding in a bush is a combatant. The grenade in his hand is a weapon. It is easily discernible as such both by other soldiers and by civilians. And both soldiers and civilians will expect a grenade to explode when it is thrown at them, or at least they understand the risk of a grenade potentially exploding, if it is laying around. So they expect it to be explosive.
Yeah, sure, they expect it if they see it and know what it is. The grenade does not suddenly become a booby trap just because you throw it at someone that isn’t looking, so the target knowing about it clearly cannot be a requirement here. Again, concealment alone is not perfidy. Inviting and betraying trust is. If you disagree, then I ask you again, quote it. Kirillov had no reason to give the scooter a second thought whatsoever; there is no invitation of trust from a scooter being parked at the side of the road.
The entire bit about definitions here hinges on the word “when”. To me, “…which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs…” means that the function is dependent on the disturbance or approach. To you, it just means at the same time. So let’s look at the word “when”, since you decided to quote the dictionary
If you scroll down to the grammar notes in your link, you will see “If or when?”, a section about the usage of “when” as a conditional. So clearly we can’t just ask the dictionary here.
You know what’s much more helpful? The part immediately after that definition of booby traps.
“Other devices” means manually-emplaced munitions and devices including improvised explosive devices designed to kill, injure or damage and which are actuated manually, by remote control or automatically after a lapse of time.
Since manually-emplaced and -triggered munitions are “other devices”, they clearly aren’t booby traps under this protocol.
“Other devices” are still relevant to some of what you raised, particularly article 7.2 in this context. Whether a vehicle like a scooter counts as “portable” or not is ambiguous, as yes you can move them, but under their own power. You certainly can’t (easily) pick them up and carry them. Since you’ve already referenced Lieber extensively, https://lieber.westpoint.edu/booby-traps-ukraine-conflict/ provides:
Second, booby-traps may not take the “form of an apparently harmless portable object which is specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material and to detonate when it is disturbed or approached” (art. 7(2)). The U.S. Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual provides the example of “booby-traps manufactured to resemble items, such as watches, personal audio players, cameras, toys, and the like.” It observes that the “prohibition is intended to prevent the production of large quantities of dangerous objects that can be scattered around and are likely to be attractive to civilians, especially children” (§ 6.12.4.8).
In that regard, note that the provision does not bar the booby-trapping of actual harmless objects, such as cameras or houses. The prohibition only applies when the booby-trap is intentionally designed to look harmless, as in a booby-trap made to look like a camera. Nor does it prohibit booby-trapping non-portable harmless things, like a gate. And it only applies to booby-traps designed or otherwise manufactured to serve as a booby-trap. Accordingly, it does not apply to field-expedient booby-traps or otherwise improvised ones. More information on the nature of the Russian booby-traps is required to determine whether this particular prohibition has been violated.
In this case it’s discussing Russian usage of such devices, so there shouldn’t be a bias towards leniency. So by the sources you’ve been relying on:
This wasn’t a booby trap
Even if it was, it still wouldn’t be a war crime or perfidy
Can you link to a source for your respective claims?
I am not unhappy, that he is gone, but i am also not unhappy about other people being gone, where legally it is considered a murder.
The allegations that he was a war criminal, which probably is true, doesn’t justify killing him without a conviction, albeit afaik the ICC does not hand out death sentences.
Are generals sitting at home active duty soldiers? I don’t know, but again this means, that any killing of any head of state that is also considered commander in chief is legal, if their country is involved in an invasion or illegal occupation. So assassinating US presidents would be perfectly legal by this logic like it would be to assassinate Putin.
Military intelligence is not regular armed forces and i strongly doubt that Ukraine will be providing detailed evidence who committed the killing, so it is well possible that they used a third party.
That you refer to humans as “pest” does indicate though, that you have a strong disregard for basic human rights. It is a language that fits the Russian invaders and other war criminals, who rely on dehumanization to further their crimes.
Murder is a legal category. It does not matter how much you or i think it is morally justifiable. Devalueing humans as “pest” however is always a strong indication, that someone has no interest in rule of law.
Saying “murder” about a military participant in an ongoing invasion reeks of propaganda, not reliable news coverage.
Was he killed in combat? Was he killed by a member of the armed forces? Was he on active duty?
I think in his case it is not so clear to deem him a combatant and legitimate target by the laws around warfare.
His assassination is kind of similar to the attack on the Pentagon in 09/11. That is the part attacking US army personnel in the building, not the abducting and murdering civilians in a plane part.
He is a high ranking paper pusher at home, rather than an armed or at least deployed fighter. The attack was not carried out by regular armed forces, but by intelligence or intelligence affiliated partisan/terrorist (depending on point of view) groups.
In a similar question one would have to ask, if the assassination of JF Kennedy wasn’t a murder then, since Kennedy was the leader of an invading army in Vietnam.
EDIT: before downvoting i suggest people to read the following discussion regarding the legality of this act. This assassination was clearly not in accord with the Geneva convention, specifically the prohibition of the use of civilian items as booby traps and the prohibition of perfidious attacks.
The laws of war are way more permissive than you think. All military officers are lawful targets. Even civilians working for the “war machine” are lawful targets. Munitions manufacturing plants, for example, tend to be full of civilian employees. They are lawful targets because destroying the enemy’s ability to conduct war is a lawful objective of military necessity.
I now had time to look into the matter. It seems people here who assert it to be legal are quite off:
https://lieber.westpoint.edu/assassination-law-of-war/
Note that the examples refer to the second sentence, to give someone false security by suggesting he would be entitled to protection under laws.
Blowing someone up with an explosive disguised as a civillian item in a civllian environment seems to be quite perfidious.
It is perfectly reasonable to speak of a murder here. The guy was targeted as an individual, he was killed and the attack was clandestine and treacherous, as he had no chance to guard against it and it was done in a way that could have killed uninvolved civilians easily, so it was also treacherous. In total the attack was probably perfidous and therefore illegal under the Geneva convention.
Under your interpretation of perfidy, what kind of killing would be permitted in war? Does a soldier at the frontline have a chance to defend against an incoming artillery strike, or a sniper? Are wars to be conducted only as a series of honourable sword duels?
The mention of “clandestine” is from the Lieber code, which is not an international law. The Geneva Conventions do not use it. Ukrainians and Russians do not need to observe internal American military law.
The feigning of civilian status is possibly relevant depending on how the assassin conducted the assassination. If all the assassin did was evade notice, that is not perfidy - they must invite confidence, as you quoted, which you cannot do by not being noticed. The same protocol that your quote comes from discusses this with regard to “ruses of war” such as camouflage.
Regarding whether or not Kirillov was a legitimate target: Even if he really, genuinely did not order the war crimes he is accused of ordering, he is still a combatant under the Article 43 of the 1977 Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions. Russian government comments seem to reflect this too. Russia Today quotes State Duma Defense Committee chairman Andrey Kartapolov describing Kirillov as a “Worthy Russian general,” and a “Real officer.” Russia describes one of the responsibilities of his forces as “Causing loss to the enemy by using flame-incendiary means.” If you are the guy that orders the flamethrowering of enemy soldiers then yes, you are a combatant.
“clandestine” is an important category to understand what is considered treacherous. The geneva convention does not refer exclusively to inviting confidence of protection. It is just an explicit specification, like the examples given under a to d are examples, to have them already covered. That does not mean that they are exclusive.
For the fighting on the front line every soldier knows he is at risk. Also Private Ivan is not targeted as Private Ivan. If instead there was Private Alexej in his place, Alexej would be dead and Ivan life another day. The same applies when command centers are attacked. They are attacked as the command structure. And if General Mikhail is visiting that day and the attack is done specifically on that day because he is there it is legitimate as he knowingly went to a legitimate target. Same i would argue for the command center in Moscow, e.g. the distance to the front is not relevant.
But being blown up by a booby trapped civilian device in a civilian area seems quite treacherous. In particular as booby trapping civilian devices is also prohibited.
It does not refer to anything but that. If you think it does, quote it. Your personal feelings on whether or not it has perfidious vibes aren’t really enough here.
Russia thinks that the bomb was monitored and manually detonated, which would make it not a booby trap. As such it’s now just “combatant kills enemy combatant with a grenade from a hidden position, no civilian casualties”. The Ukrainians are not required to warn an enemy general about the specifics of how he might get hurt in the war he is fighting.
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1996/05/19960503 01-38 AM/Ch_XXVI_02_bp.pdf
Definition:
The Prohibition of specific booby traps such as medical devices explicitly notes that it does not limit the scope of treachery and perfidy. So it even links the use of booby traps to the categories of treachery and perfidy, because it is blatantly obvious to be exactly that.
The definition of booby-traps does not make any limit on how they are triggered.
clearly an exploding scooter is designed to do exactly that.
The key here is that the unexpectedly is from the perspective of the victim. This becomes clear as it relates to the victims approach to the object or interaction with it, which should not lead to the object exploding under normal circumstances. From the attackers perspective it is always expected to explode, be it by manual trigger or some sort of automation.
A scooter is not expected to explode as you pass by it. Also the remote detonation is irrelevant to the general prohibition of using them outside an area where fighting is ongoing or imminent.
Neither approaching nor disturbing the scooter caused this bomb to function according to Russia. It does not meet this definition of a booby trap.
deleted by creator
Flat out wrong. Your entire point rests on your equation of using a civilian vehicle (a scooter) to hide a bomb with “the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status” which is categorically false. Feigning civilian, non-combatant status is very specific. It means dressing your soldiers up as civilians and approaching the enemy in order to use your false civilian status to get them to let their guard down, then attacking:
In no way did a scooter parked on the street invite Kirilov’s confidence to believe he was protecting the scooter under the law of war.
That is what perfidy means: using the protection of civilians specifically and treacherously to launch an attack while disguised as civilians. This requires that the enemy see you dressed as a civilian and let his guard down.
This did not happen since Kirilov never saw his attackers.
Using civilian items to hide booby traps is of course treacherous. It is based on creating the idea that there is no danger coming from this item. It is additionally specifically prohibited to booby trap civilian items under the geneva convention
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1996/05/19960503 01-38 AM/Ch_XXVI_02_bp.pdf
Definition:
This is textbook. The Scooter didnt have the explosive attached, but hidden in it. It was used in an area were fighting was not ongoing or imminent and away from military objectives and there was no warning whatsoever.
But most importantly: The rules for booby traps mention explicitly, that they can constitute treachery and perfidity
It was not a booby trap! He was entering his apartment, he wasn’t approaching the scooter. It was just there!
So how did he get into the explosion range of the scooters explosives? Did he life his entire life there?
The item was placed specifically on his way and detonated, when he got into the explosive range. So it was exploded as he approached it. It is irrelevant that he did not intend to use the scooter. He had no way of recognizing it to be explosive. Which also brings us to the next problem. No civilian was able to discern the device, or recognize that they are in an area requiring particular care as fighting was not ongoing or immanent.
Removed by mod
Yeah, sure, they expect it if they see it and know what it is. The grenade does not suddenly become a booby trap just because you throw it at someone that isn’t looking, so the target knowing about it clearly cannot be a requirement here. Again, concealment alone is not perfidy. Inviting and betraying trust is. If you disagree, then I ask you again, quote it. Kirillov had no reason to give the scooter a second thought whatsoever; there is no invitation of trust from a scooter being parked at the side of the road.
The entire bit about definitions here hinges on the word “when”. To me, “…which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs…” means that the function is dependent on the disturbance or approach. To you, it just means at the same time. So let’s look at the word “when”, since you decided to quote the dictionary
If you scroll down to the grammar notes in your link, you will see “If or when?”, a section about the usage of “when” as a conditional. So clearly we can’t just ask the dictionary here.
You know what’s much more helpful? The part immediately after that definition of booby traps.
Since manually-emplaced and -triggered munitions are “other devices”, they clearly aren’t booby traps under this protocol.
“Other devices” are still relevant to some of what you raised, particularly article 7.2 in this context. Whether a vehicle like a scooter counts as “portable” or not is ambiguous, as yes you can move them, but under their own power. You certainly can’t (easily) pick them up and carry them. Since you’ve already referenced Lieber extensively, https://lieber.westpoint.edu/booby-traps-ukraine-conflict/ provides:
In this case it’s discussing Russian usage of such devices, so there shouldn’t be a bias towards leniency. So by the sources you’ve been relying on:
Removed by mod
Can you link to a source for your respective claims?
I am not unhappy, that he is gone, but i am also not unhappy about other people being gone, where legally it is considered a murder.
The allegations that he was a war criminal, which probably is true, doesn’t justify killing him without a conviction, albeit afaik the ICC does not hand out death sentences.
Are generals sitting at home active duty soldiers? I don’t know, but again this means, that any killing of any head of state that is also considered commander in chief is legal, if their country is involved in an invasion or illegal occupation. So assassinating US presidents would be perfectly legal by this logic like it would be to assassinate Putin.
Military intelligence is not regular armed forces and i strongly doubt that Ukraine will be providing detailed evidence who committed the killing, so it is well possible that they used a third party.
That you refer to humans as “pest” does indicate though, that you have a strong disregard for basic human rights. It is a language that fits the Russian invaders and other war criminals, who rely on dehumanization to further their crimes.
Murder is a legal category. It does not matter how much you or i think it is morally justifiable. Devalueing humans as “pest” however is always a strong indication, that someone has no interest in rule of law.