The intent is clear.
I would like to say the following to Mr. Trudel and Ms. McPherson.
I'm a lawyer by profession. I understand what Mr. Stewart is saying, that one must be very careful in order not to allow articles in newspapers and media to be deciding the issue of whether or not a crime has been committed. However, in this particular instance, with the advantage of media, watching CNN, watching almost live bombardments, indiscriminate bombardments, destroying literally....
Mr. Stewart was saying that one has to distinguish this, maybe, from a bombardment that was aimed at a military facility and hits a civilian region. Here we have, on a daily basis, bombardments that are aimed at civil infrastructure. Clearly, the intent here is to destroy Ukraine as a whole, to punish the civilian population for not surrendering in the first three days, as Putin had wanted to occur and unfortunately many western countries also thought would happen. Ukrainian forces have incredibly resisted and demonstrated that the Russian army is not that most powerful army that everybody was fighting with. Unfortunately, the Ukrainian civilian population is paying the high price of a genocide as a result of the success of the military.
To your earlier question on whether the courts can stop the genocide, I agree with what was said earlier. I would remind you that the International Court of Justice in March ordered the Russian Federation to stop the so-called military operations in Ukraine. Russia has clearly blatantly ignored this order and violated it on every single day since then.
The only way to stop a genocide from being committed, or to take even a larger portion of the population and the property, is not to rely on the courts. It is to provide Ukraine with defensive lethal weapons so that Ukraine can defend its territorial integrity. It is also to isolate Russia totally. Isolating Russia totally and preventing European and western dollars, including petrodollars, from funding a genocidal war, that is the way you stop a genocide.