The theory of identicide was created because of the phenomenon of the Yugoslav conflict and the intentional targeting and destruction of places—specifically, cultural heritage—that was intended to rid an area of the people who subscribed to those places, that cultural heritage. When you bomb their places, people end up moving out, and they never return because there's no connection to their places. It was used as a strategy of warfare in Bosnia.
When we talk about Crimea and identicide, we talk about genocide by talking about it as a “potential genocide” or a “possible genocide”. Those are the frameworks we're given when we're looking at what's happening in Crimea and some of the other examples you gave. We can't really call something a “genocide” until after the fact. This is one of the problems with the international convention on genocide; you can't call something a genocide while it's occurring. “Identicide” is a good term to name what's happening, so that we can get to the possible outcomes and try to stop them.
I would suggest that, yes, there's definitely identicide occurring in that area of the world. Our Canadian Forces have mechanisms to recognize these things. We've worked very closely with the U.S. armed forces in recognizing mass atrocities while they're occurring, mass movements of people, and the trigger events. We can really cull that expertise and start to make a real difference in some of these areas before it gets to a point where the international community actually can call it a genocide.