By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On January 1, Russian forces attacked Feldman Ecopark near Kharkiv with a glide bomb, injuring a volunteer and causing significant damage. The attack destroyed winter houses for predators and birds, with founder Oleksandr Feldman reporting injuries to lions and the likely death of most birds. Additionally, the Russians attacked the Kholodnohirskyi district of Kharkiv and seven settlements in the region, injuring an 84-year-old woman and damaging multiple civilian structures. These attacks, including the use of glide bombs and drones, are part of the ongoing conflict and impact the city of Kharkiv.
Read the original article here
Russians bomb ecopark near Kharkiv, injuring a woman and killing animals, and the initial reaction is one of pure, unadulterated outrage. The fact that a place intended for the enjoyment of nature and, presumably, the protection of animals, becomes a target is sickening. It feels like a deliberate act of cruelty, a display of callous disregard for life and a visceral demonstration of the war’s inherent evil. The reports of injured individuals and the loss of animal lives evoke a profound sense of sadness. It’s hard to fathom the mindset that leads to such actions.
This isn’t an isolated incident. The bombing of this ecopark is just another addition to a growing list of alleged war crimes committed by Russia. It appears to be part of a larger, disturbing pattern of targeting civilian infrastructure, cultural sites, and now, places dedicated to wildlife. The claim that these are “military targets” rings hollow. It’s reminiscent of the kind of rhetoric used to justify almost any atrocity, and it’s difficult to accept when dealing with a place like an ecopark, an environment dedicated to animals and visitors.
The use of specific terminology, such as the targeting of glide bombs, which are intended to have a high degree of precision, raises serious questions. It implies an intentionality that makes the act even more reprehensible. This brings up the question of war crimes and the possibility of legal ramifications. This bombing adds to the already overwhelming evidence of systematic violations of international law. The 1954 Hague Convention, which protects cultural property during armed conflict, and its subsequent additions, should apply here. These conventions specifically prohibit acts of hostility against places that constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples, or that have to do with the environment.
The condemnation, however, is likely insufficient. There’s a weary cynicism that creeps in: how many strongly worded statements, how many letters of protest, before actual action is taken? While these declarations of disapproval are important, they are not enough. The response needs to be more decisive. Whether this involves further sanctions, prosecution of those responsible, or increased military support for Ukraine, the international community has to step up.
Considering the fact that the ecopark has been bombed previously, and that these attacks were alleged to have included cluster munitions, a particularly inhumane weapon, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that this is a deliberate strategy. The park, which has children as visitors, should be off limits. It’s a tragic example of the wider conflict.
The blame lies squarely with Russia. The war began with their invasion and they have the power to stop the bombing at any moment. The arguments about Ukraine’s actions, about possible stray missile strikes, about any “whataboutism,” are beside the point. No one should be surprised when Russian propaganda and lies are spread.
The difference between collateral damage and the intentional targeting of civilians is stark. One is tragic, the other is a deliberate act of malice. Russia’s actions in this war have consistently leaned toward the latter, and the bombing of the ecopark is yet another, sickening example.