Russia is invading Ukraine. The war will be short, deadly and one-sided. Russia will win. Ukraine, quite possibly, will cease to exist.
It strikes as unusual, because in living memory it is. Whatever Russian President Vladimir Putin says about it, he has undertaken an invasion of conquest of another sovereign state. We haven’t seen anything like it, apart from Saddam Hussein’s abortive attempted takeover of Kuwait in 1991, since World War II. Prior to that, of course, this kind of thing had been de rigueur for any self-respecting major player.
The nation state is a relatively modern invention, but the law recognises it as a definite thing and modern international law has it as its bedrock. Sovereignty — territorial and political — is fundamental.
What the law says about Russia invading Ukraine is simple: it’s illegal. Wars of aggression, as this would be defined, have only been explicitly unlawful in international law since 1974, but the idea that they should be has been around for a very long time. Since the League of Nations was created out of the ashes of World War I, there has been general acceptance that invading other countries is wrong.
The United Nations turned its mind specifically to “aggression” in 1967. After seven years of arguing over semantics, a special committee reported back to the General Assembly, which adopted Resolution 2330 without demur. It defines what is an “act of aggression”, for the purposes of the UN Charter established in 1945.
The resolution speaks of “aggression” as “the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force”. Specifically, aggression is defined as “the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State”. It includes invasion, bombardment, blockades or any other form of attack by armed forces. It describes every single thing Russia is doing to and in Ukraine.
Crime without punishment
Russia is breaking the law, but what are the consequences? Under the UN Charter, acts of aggression are the domain of the Security Council, which has power to decide on measures in response, including armed force. Member states are bound to assist. In the case of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, that’s what happened: the Security Council said it was illegal and everyone got together to kick the Iraqis out.
Russia, as a permanent member of the Security Council, has a right of veto over any decision the council wants to make. There is no principle of conflict of interest; a member state is not obliged to recuse itself from decisions relating to its own conduct. So, nothing will happen there. (In any event, China would certainly exercise its own veto over any action against Russia.)
No “coalition of the willing” then, and the technical illegality of Russia’s actions will lead to the same dead end as any threat of practical response. Nobody’s coming to Ukraine’s rescue, militarily or legally.
Russia’s action is also, separately, a crime. International criminal law recognises a crime of aggression, as a category of war crime. Again, the concept has been around for ages (since a bunch of high-ranking Nazis were convicted of “crimes against peace” for starting World War II). It was added in 1998 to the Rome Statute, which governs the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The crime, which can be prosecuted and punished by the ICC, involves the “planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression”, as defined by Resolution 3314.
Basically, it means that Putin, being the guy driving all this and causing Russia to commit an illegal act of aggression against Ukraine, is personally committing a war crime.
Problem: Russia is a not a signatory to the Rome Statute and has not subjected itself to the ICC’s jurisdiction. Putin can’t be prosecuted for invading Ukraine. He can, arguably, be prosecuted for acts of aggression committed within Ukraine, which is a member of the ICC.
Practically, that’s not going to happen, although Putin’s personal freedom of movement may now be impinged, because of the theoretical risk of being arrested and sent to the ICC if he ventures into a country which is an ICC member and where there’s a government and court brave enough to try it on.
In one sense, this is all academic, because the law won’t stop this disaster any more effectively than empty threats of retaliation. However — and this is something of which we should never lose sight — there is a reason why, in the world post-World War II, what Russia is doing by invading Ukraine is so exceptional. The international rule of law, for all its faults, has contributed substantially to making invasions of conquest largely a historical relic.
So we should call it out as the crime that it is, even if that’s all we can do, lest it become the unexceptional way of things once more.
How selective memories can be. The US has engaged in this type of behaviour for decades, and well before then. Often cloaked in secrecy, the US crimes cover well over 50 countries invaded, illegally, under some pretext. The indignation of “the West” is laughable, and our fool of a PM somehow thinks this is a game we have to play. Pathetic US lapdog.
I am not a big fan of the over reach effect of any country, whether America or aliens.
The point of fact is U.S is NOT invading Ukraine, U.S has not got Taiwan aligned in it’s sights as a takeover.
So! No matter how you portray my earlier comment it is factual and concise
XI and Putin did meet in China, Putin eould have told Xi of his plans and China is sitting back watching in anticipation.
Morrison is more worried about what is goi g on over in Europe rather than focusing on the scenario of China v Taiwan.
And to what point does not imposing sanctions straight away as opposed to giving companies time to adjust help?
Impose sanctiobs immediately, not in 1 months time.
Incorrect. China doesn’t interfere unlike “the West”. China and Taiwan are a Chinese matter. Taiwan is not a recognized Sovereign nation, it is a province of China and this is accepted by both the PRC and ROC.
And the international community- including the Australian and interestingly, the US governments- since the early/mid 1970s. Makes you wonder what sort of game we the wonderful White Hat West think we’re playing at in Taiwan, doesn’t it?
China has not interfered to the extent of the US in AUstralian politics,
WIth the Dismissal of the Whitlam Government in 1975 for is very clear for Governor General Kerr, who was not only the Queen’s representative, but part of the Anglo American intelligence establishment. He was leading light in the Australian Association for Cultural Freedom, described by Jonathan Kwitny of the Wall Street Journal in his book, “The Crimes of Patriots: as “an elite, invitation-only group … exposed in Congress as being founded, funded and generally run by the CIA”. The CIA “paid for Kerr’s travel, built his prestige … Kerr continued to go to the CIA for money”.
The Crimes of Patriots: A True Tale of Dope, Dirty Money, and the CIA
Jonathan Kwitny
W. W. Norton & Company: New York, NY; 1987 ISBN:9780393336658
LC: HG3448.N846 K95 1987
LC:JQ4029.S4 T66 2019
What has also come to light recently is that the then chief of CIA Counterintelligence from 1954 to 1975, James Jesus Angleton, in the year before the Dismissal had already wanted to have the Whitlam Government removed from power. Brian Toohey relates this in his new book, SECRET*… he obtained such information from John Denley Walker the CIA chief of station in Australia during the Whitlam years… which is also confirmed… as Angleton said so in an interview with the ABC’s Correspondant’s Report in 1977.
SECRET The Making of Australia’s Security State
Brian Toohey
Melbourne University Press. 2019
ISBN 9780522872804
LC:JQ4029.S4 T66 2019
Yes . The “West” is in a mad panic that the other lot are thinking it’s OK to do what we have done.
The US did something bad, so now we’re obliged to support Russia doing something bad?
Sorry Ukraine, can’t do anything because we didn’t stop the US invading Panama in 1989.
“We haven’t seen anything like it, apart from Saddam Hussein’s abortive attempted takeover of Kuwait in 1991, since World War II.” The Soviets in Afghanistan? The US in Afghanistan, Iraq …?
You’ve completely missed the point. Bradley is not referring to the invasion or even occupation, but the intention of seizing and annexing territory.
The annexed territories were formally part of Russia before gifted to Ukraine by Kruschev They are returning to their rightful place. If Ukrainians were not so xenophobic about Russians the status quo could have persisted.
Only the Crimea was gifted to Ukraine, and it was cut off from the rest of Russia by Ukrainian territory.
Donetsk & Luhansk were Ukrainian in 1918.
If you want to talk about Crimea’s rightful place, then it would be as an independent country. It only became part of Russia due to Russian Imperialism during Tsarist times, in 1783. The fact that it is so overwhelmingly Russian is due to Russian colonisation of Crimea, and the mass murder and deportation of Tartars, Ukrainians, Armenians, Bulgarians and Greeks amongst others from it. Giving it to Russia again would be rewarding Russia for its crimes.
As for Ukrainians so call “xenophobia”, while most Ukrainians had some distrust of Russia (understandable given Russia’s ongoing attempts to destroy Ukrainian identity and culture), held no ill will to Russians until the Russian invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014. The great irony is that by doing this, Putin actually made Ukrainians more nationalistic. If you want to know real Xenophobia, spend time in Russia.
Agreed, solid and accurate observations. Not quite so in agreement with the last point. I can attest there was some readily apparent prejudice against Caucasians and black people in the eighties and nineties among a significant proportion of the population. The latter could be quite nasty, also applied to Roma (they all steal). Re the Africans, was more the casual racial stereotyping that would have been typical throughout Australia until recently, not to say that is an excuse. But lots of Russian/Soviet citizens were open minded and welcoming of cultural diversity.
Russian and Ukrainian history, of being in a controlled society, where social movements were restricted or disallowed and the press was controlled, meant this was not surprising. Social movements in the West have been keys to creating and demanding more tolerant attitudes and affirmative actions for disadvantaged and marginalised people, from women through to trans-gender people. In both Russia and Ukraine social movements have also been playing this role but from further back in the field. And in Russia of course, civil society has been quite stifled under Putin and homophobia is government policy.
Sadly crimes of genocide as well as anti-semitism can be found in Russian and Soviet history. Stalin’s expulsion of the Crimean Tartars is one example. One can also look at the Russian empire’s treatment of the Circassians as another. Warning, this history will probably make you feel sick. It does have parallels with Australian and the United States treatment of indigenous peoples.
Crimea was gifted though. A majority of the population in the region voted for independence in the 1991 referendum – it was lower than the rest of the country but still a majority.
Cyprus, Kosovo, West Bank, Golan Heights, NW Syria…
The territory seized by Israel is relevant. But Kosovo? Cyprus is of course a ghastly mess still unresolved after decades, but it has not been annexed.
Kosovo was gifted to Albania, fyi
Pretty sure the Palestinians don’t consider it irrelevant and it is most certainly relevant. Annexed by Israel. No action by “the West” of course.
You are arguing with me because I said it’s relevant?
Why?
Bad behaviour is still really bad, even if not technically illegal. God is not on America’s side (or any side for that matter), and we can’t turn to the UN for salvation either.
Meanwhile climate catastrophe forges ahead, quite oblivious to these distasteful shenanigans
Israel anyone? Still waiting on Sanctions for this.
Well…how about Israel ‘seizing and annexing territory’ that rightly belongs to the Palestinians?
Not to mention Indonesia’s actions in West Papua???
What is it about my agreement that Israel’s occupation of land is relevant that you don’t get?
The USA seized the entire country of Iraq, wrung all the money they could out of it and then left it a smoking ruin for ISIS to take over. This was a “limited in time” seizure of another country solely to steal it’s wealth. Presumably Russia will rebuild Ukraine following the invasion rather than leave it a smoking ruin like USA did to Iraq. I”m not for any invasion but I’m also not in favour of the white washing of history.
But then the USA left. That’s the difference between just invading, where there are many examples, and annexing territory, which is rare.
The US is familiar with the concept of invasion, declaring victory then skedaddling the smoking ruins – annexation would require responsibility, with which it is not.
Not true – The US annexed a massive amount of continental and external territory; they even made an attempt to take Canada:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny
Smedley Butler. And this was before WWII…
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
“I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912.”
“Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
Smedley Butler 1935, (edited by me ,to give time frames)
Who was a Major General in USMC, the highest authorised rank at that time, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.
He is one of 19 men to receive the Medal of Honor twice, one of three to be awarded both the Marine Corps Brevet Medal and the Medal of Honor, and the only Marine to be awarded the Brevet Medal and two Medals of Honor, all for separate actions
but then the USA left it a smoking ruin and a perfect place for ISIS to then wreak havoc on hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians
Legal semantics.
Hardly. If you live in your own house and someone breaks down the door, smashes the place, injures some of those who live there and goes away, no doubt you’d be quite cross. If you live in your own house and someone breaks down the door, smashes the place, injures some of those who live there and tells you ‘This is now all my property and you all do what I say from now on’, no doubt you’d be quite cross again; but you’d also see the difference is a lot more than legal semantics.
Yes, there’s a technical difference between invasions that annexe geographical territory and invasions that don’t, but the difference is irrelevant in terms of illegality and effect – akin to the difference between murdering someone with a gun and murdering someone with a knife. So we cannot understand the purpose of the point that Bradley is making.
To make a big deal of the difference is to misunderstand the reality of modern capitalist imperialism, which no longer needs (or wants) to annexe territory. The capitalist imperialists like the US can rape and pillage the invaded nation much more economically (and just as effectively) by exploiting its economy and resources through unfair and exploitative trading and investment rules – eg. the US didn’t need to annexe Iraqi geography, it just needed to force it to open up its oil industry to US oil companies. When it’s the resources you want, you can just steal the resources; you don’t need to waste your own money running the nation forever afterwards.
Your analogy above would be more accurate if the first option was:
‘You live in your own house, and someone breaks down the door, smashes the place, injures the occupants, steals the life savings you had stashed under your mattress, steals and alters the title deeds to your house, and then leaves but charges you rent for the rest of your life to stay living in your own house under threat of returning to beat the daylights out of you if you stop paying.’
The USA has done far more damage as evident in
Killing Hope: US and CIA Interventions since WWII/ William Blum/2004
Common Courage Press:MNE. USA: ISBN: 9781567512526 LC JK468.I6 B59
An A-Z of the countries that the USA has interfered with in the name of “freedom” by assassinations, coups, meddling in internal politics, supporting dictators, jihadis, terrorists or just plain straight out invasion…
Afghanistan 1979-1992: 2003-
Australia 1973-1975 and still meddling
Albania 1949-1953, 1991
Angola 1975 to 1980s
Bolivia 1964-1975
Brazil 1961-1964
British Guiana 1953-1964
Bulgaria 1990
Cambodia 1955-1973
Chile 1964-1973
China 1945 to 1960s
Congo 1960-1964
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Cuba 1959 to present
Dominican Republic 1960-1966
El Salvador 1980-1994
East Timor 1975
Ecuador 1960-1963:
France/Algeria 1960s
Germany 1950s
Ghana 1966:
Greece 1947-1950s:1964-1974
Grenada 1979-1984
Guatemala 1953-1954:1960-1980s
Haiti 1959-1963: 1986-1994
Indonesia 1957-1958: 1975
Iran 1953: 1979-
Iraq 1990-1991: 2003-2021
Italy 1947-1970s
Jamaica1976-1980
Korea 1945-1953
Laos 1957-1973
Libya 1981-1989 and still meddling
Morocco 1983
Nicaragua 1978-1990-
Panama 1969-1991
Peru 1960-1965
Philippines:1940s and 1950 but also early 20th century
Seychelles 1979-1981
Suriname 1982-1984
Syria 1956-1957: 2009-
Uruguay 1964-1970
Venezuala 1895.1908-1935, 1948-58, 2002-
Vietnam 1950-1975
Zaire 1975-1978
Thanks HM, hard to argue with that, although all forgotten by the West and the MSM, if it was ever in their consciousness.
And that’s excluding the 18 years since the book was published!
US admonishment would carry more weight if it supported rather than shunned the International Criminal Court. But it doesn’t, for all too obvious reasons.
What we can hope is ( given no one is likely to stop him) that he establishes control, puts in a puppet ruler and government, makes it clear that Ukraine is not going to join NATO, the US backs off on this and Putin and most of his troops go home.
And fewer lives are lost 🙁
What is more likely is Afghanistan in Europe – probably the Russian occupied version rather than the American occupied version. Roughly half the country (the east) reasonably under control and the other half in the west in a state of constant insurgency. And lots of lives lost.
Ukraine is not suited to rural guerilla insurgency, it is mostly flat steppe and now lacks the dense forest that was a feature in guerilla war conducted against Nazis and later Soviets during and after WW2. It is a largely urbanised country of well educated city dwellers. People living in apartment buildings and going about their business in offices and shops and on buses and trains. Easy targets for an army and later secret police. Pretty much as people in Australian cities would be.
Nice point at the tail there.
Not actually the case. The East is flat. Not so much the western part (which is mostly the former Poland). More mountains and forests. If you look at how long resistance to Soviet control after WW2 went on across these areas (it was until well into the 1950s before Soviets stamped them all out) then the potential is there. Especially as Poland and Romania have indicated they would send supplies to any resistance. I am not sure about the Romanians staying power in the face of the Russian threats that will likely follow from doing that, but I think the Poles would stick it out given their history.
As for suppression of urban populations – quite likely to work reasonably well – but would mean a lot of occupation troops (or Ukrainian levies). It does not take a lot of people to make urban control difficult and provoke a response that is likely to alienate the population (think of the IRA in Northern Ireland – only with nastier weapons).
The Economist has an interesting article on Russia’s options by Michael Kofman.
You may be right but my understanding was that even Poland is basically part of the relatively flat plain that stretches to the Urals. Also the natural forest in Ukraine is much less than it was in the 1950s. Been replaced with plantations. All very different to Afghanistan anyway. Either way we are looking at a completely pointless humanitarian catastrophe.
Oh gosh, would there ever be an Australian version of La Résistance a la Mad Max?
The USA like Russia is not a signatory to the Rome Statute. This whole thing may be likened to a “falling out amongst thieves”
Why is Russia invading Ukraine so exceptional and egregious? The USA has invaded and bombed many countries who posed no threat to it. I won’t list them, a well educated man like you knows who they are. All of these actions by the US were war crimes so why the the article.
Laws that are unenforceable aren’t crimes at all. If a non signatory “commits” one of these transgressions they haven’t committed a crime because they don’t fall within the jurisdiction.
If I live in New Zealand and it’s not a crime to kill an emu and I kill one at the zoo, then unless there is a New Zealand law that provides jurisdiction over my actions then I haven’t committed any crime.
If the “leaders of the free world” i.e. USA had a moral compass and signed on to these international laws and didn’t continually “breach” them, the laws would have some standing. The fact that thee US wipes its arse on all of these agreements makes them irrelevant.
It’s quite amazing that since it was a US Judge and Leading Council for the Prosecution (Robert Jackson) at the Nuremberg trials who created a lot of the precedents for “International Law” that the US should be the ones who have devalued them so convincingly to all the other despots of the world.
It might be said that laws are made for honest people of good will. Something you could never accuse the USA, Russia the UK or China of.