Article 51 of the United Nations Charter upholds the right of individual or collective self-defence in the event of an armed attack. ‘Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.’
Under Article 51, the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2021 was illegal. Ukraine did not commit an armed attack against Russia.
But was the invasion unprovoked? Was there a threat, implied or overt, of an armed attack? The Western media keeps referring to Russia’s ‘unprovoked’ and ‘unjustified’ war.[i]
The roots of the current conflict go back to the fall of the Soviet Union in 1992.
Since 1992, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) has been extending its borders all the way up to Poland. Russia complained, saying NATO expansion threatened its security. NATO is a military alliance of 31 member states, founded by the United States in 1949.
In 2008, NATO agreed that Ukraine and Georgia ‘will become members of NATO.’ (para 23.)
In 2014, a coup installed a pro-Western government in Ukraine. It raised the odds that Ukraine would join NATO, which would allow it to place nuclear missiles on Ukrainian territory, less than 300 miles from Moscow. Imagine if Russian ballistic nuclear armed missiles were placed four minutes travel time from the territory of the United States. From the Russian perspective, it was a threat tantamount to a declaration of war.
Following peaceful demonstrations, a civil war broke out between the government and a separatist, anti-coup militia in Russian-speaking Eastern Ukraine, backed by Russia.
In 2015, a cease-fire agreement was reached with the help of European states. Ukraine would remain neutral and not join NATO. The Donbas and Luhansk were to become autonomous regions in East Ukraine.
As soon as the Minsk Accords were signed, the United States sent military equipment and training services to the Ukraine government.
The fighting resumed. Obama let lethal aid trickle in and, in 2019, Trump sent exponentially more. The Minsk Accords had collapsed.
Warnings of escalation unheeded
The US blamed Russia for the breakdown of the truce.
But back in 2015, in the lead up to the US Congressional vote for military aid to Ukraine, European leaders warned that military support from the US would broaden the armed conflict.[ii]
The then-German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen spoke against sending weapons to the Ukrainian government:
“More weapons in this area will not bring us closer to a solution, and will not end the suffering of the population…We need to put a lot of pressure on the separatists and Russia in an economic and political way to find a solution at the table and not on the (battle)field because to give input to a potential escalation is not a good solution,” she said.
Then French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told reporters that Paris has ‘no intention of delivering weapons at this stage to Ukraine.’
"Germany will not support Ukraine with weapons," then Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany agreed. "I am firmly convinced that this conflict cannot be resolved militarily."[iii]
Analysts asked in 2015, what was the US’ endgame?
Kimberly Marten, an expert on Russian foreign policy at Columbia University, observed in 2015:
‘There does not appear to be an endgame in the weapons proposal…What will the US do if the fighting becomes worse and expands to more Ukrainian territory if we send in weapons?’
Russia ‘could introduce [weapons] much more quickly than the US,’ warned Ben Barry, land warfare expert at the think tank IISS and former brigadier in the British army. He predicted that US arms ‘would be overmatched by Russian escalation.’[iv]
The Brookings Institute in the US noted the dilemma: ‘To meet a Russian counter-escalation in Ukraine, the United States would have to either escalate the conflict beyond where it was originally willing to go or be forced into a humiliating retreat. Neither is a very attractive or credibility-enhancing option. U.S. policy should work very hard to avoid confronting that unpalatable choice.’[v]
Otherwise, the Brookings Institute predicted, ‘further escalation will mean much more violence, suffering and death in Ukraine.’
In 2019, the Rand Corporation warned against ‘provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have significant advantages.’[vi]
Despite these warnings, lethal aid continues to pour into Ukraine from the US and the UK, including uranium weapons.
End goals
The US’ justification for its military intervention is that Russia is waging a war of expansion, with the end goal of threatening all of Europe.
In 2022, Russia reiterated its aims in an agreement, titled the “Treaty on the Permanent Neutrality and Security Guarantees for Ukraine” (negotiated with the mediation of the Turkish government), and said it was signed by Kyiv.[vii]
The Treaty, among other provisions, called for the permanent neutrality of Ukraine. The deal was dropped; it’s unclear why and by who.
Since 2015, the US has committed $38 billion-worth of arms to Kyiv. The Pentagon says this is to ‘weaken Russia.’[viii]
It’s part of a longer-term strategy to ‘over-balance’ and ‘over-extend’ Russia, considered a US peer rival in many key areas.[ix] Another long-term strategy is to keep extending NATO borders and stationing US nuclear weapons closer to nuclear-armed Russia. That is a recipe for disaster.
The victims of this NATO/Russia proxy war are innocent civilians and young soldiers, their deaths yet to be counted.
The war impacts poor countries deprived of Ukrainian grain. It has brought the world closer to a nuclear conflagration.
External states to the conflict must work towards reviving the Minsk Accords.
The map is of the buffer zone established by the Minsk Protocol follow-up memorandum. This article was originally published on Substack 24/06/2023 and updated 28/06/2023. Geopolitics: It's not Rocket Science | Philippa Jane Winkler | Substack.
[i] For example: February 24 2023: Russia's unprovoked and unjustified full-scale invasion and war in Ukraine one year later… | EEAS (europa.eu)
[ii] Weapons to Ukraine – DW – 02/05/2015
[iii] European defence ministers oppose sending weapons to Ukraine | Reuters
[iv] US weapons to Ukraine 'would be matched by Russian arms to rebels' | Ukraine | The Guardian
[v] Why Arming the Ukrainians is a Bad Idea (brookings.edu)
[vi] Overextending and Unbalancing Russia: Assessing the Impact of Cost-Imposing Options | RAND
[vii] Putin's Shocking Revelations Show There Can be No Negotiations with Kiev - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
[viii] Pentagon chief’s Russia remarks show shift in US’s declared aims in Ukraine | Ukraine | The Guardian
[ix] Overextending and Unbalancing Russia: Assessing the Impact of Cost-Imposing Options | RAND
Thankyou for clear analysis with references which is entirely missing from the media