The situation in Bakhmut is becoming increasingly fraught as Russia continues to feed into the meat grinder there, progressing with an encirclement of the city and putting its remaining supply/ now escape routes under significant stress. It's a Russian plan in progress, one which has been moving at the pace of a glacier that is yet to finish - perhaps it will never be fully successful.

The headline uses the analogy of a noose, but that hardly seems unreasonable considering the context.

Would you prefer reporting which did not reflect developments on the ground?

How exactly is that statement or anything else Reuters states in the article "pro-Russian"?

Kulak was a classification for a wealthy peasant farmer, not anything specific to Ukraine or any other minority nationality in the USSR. They were not by any means a national, ethnic, racial or religious group to put things into the context of the convention you'd mentioned.

> 90 years is quick?

This resolution may be more concerned with current political events than it is with the veracity of what is being asserted.

You've listed the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. To emphasis what you've stated, where I feel its important

> genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such....

Was the collectivised farming (and it's failures) performed with the "intent to destroy (in whole or in part)" the Ukrainian people (or any other minority nationality, ethnicity, racial or religious group)? I am not aware of that being the case. You can starkly condemn the collectivisation process and its outcomes, but using the charge genocide for those failures seems inappropriate to me.

At the very least one I think one must admit it's not a clear-cut "yes, Genocide was committed there". Proponents of this argument also often seem to be unwilling to countenance allegations of genocide committed in other instances by their own nation or nations theirs are allied to.

I would not be so quick to declare the Soviet Famines of 1930-1933 as genocide(s). BadEmpanada did a long-form analysis video of this matter (and how it's discussed) which I'd recommend watching.

I think he makes a good argument that genocide did not occur (and provides substantial evidence for his conclusion), although he does not disagree that some sort of crime(s) against humanity would have occurred with those famines.

I think this is important to keep in mind because there is a long-standing attempt to create a "two-genocides" narrative (of equal badness, by implication) which equate "the Holodomor" with massacres of Jewish peoples by the Ukrainian fascist collaborators during WWII (a clear act of genocide, in my view at least). As such this narrative (that the famines were genocide) is used to try implicitly justify those latter massacres and white-wash the figures involved in them (such as Stepan Bandera).