EXPLANATION TO RUSSIA’S INVASION OF UKRAINE – PART 2B
Is Russia’s Aggression in Ukraine Justified?
Before we answer the question of whether Russia’s invasion of Ukraine per International Law is justified or not, it will be fair to re-echo the reasons given by President Putin as to why he invaded Ukraine. The reasons were deduced predominantly from various speeches of Vladimir Putin and his Foreign Affairs Minister.
1. Russia is undertaking a special military operation in Ukraine to demilitarize Ukraine on the back of President Zelenskyy’s rhetoric of Ukraine joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
2. Russia is invading Ukraine on Humanitarian Grounds to protect the interest of the self-declared Republic of Donetsk and Luhansk who according to Putin, Kyiv has been committing genocide for the past 8 years.
3. Russia is in Ukraine to de-nazify Ukraine
Analysis
1. If Russia says it invaded Ukraine to demilitarize Ukraine because of its interest to join NATO, then that is absolutely a wrong move according to international law. The reason is that every state under the UN Charter has the right to self-determination, hence, can choose freely which association to join and those it would not join. Although some may argue that Ukraine joining NATO may pose security threats to Russia since NATO being a mastermind of the US (Russia’s arch security rival) can display its military arsenal and even set up a military base on Ukrainian territory which is just miles away from Russia. This argument is neither here nor there because it is unjustifiable for Ukraine to be affected by a longstanding rivalry that exists between the US and Russia. Simply put, why should Ukraine suffer because it wants to associate with one party (the US) who is inconsonant with another party (Russia) for a global superpower? To me, this is totally unfair because Ukraine is a sovereign state and should be able to make choices in line with its national interest, especially in a world where no country is truly neutral or non-aligned.
2. For Russia to say it invaded Ukraine on Humanitarian grounds (you remember R2P?) to protect the Moscow – backed Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, is not just laughable but also brings to question, Russia’s commitment to upholding international law. The reason is that international law defines what characteristics a state should have (refer to the Montevideo convention as explained in Part I of the write). Luhansk and Donetsk are not recognized as states in the true sense of the word because, they do not have defined territories hence, unrecognized as UN member states. It is therefore wrong to stand on the doctrine of collective self-defense as enshrined in article 51 to invade the territorial integrity of Ukraine especially when the people you claim to be fighting for, in fact, are not states. Even if we assume without admitting that, Russia’s allegation of the Kiev’s Government committing genocide against the people of Donetsk and Luhansk is true (a claim they have not factually proved), it is not in the hands of Russia to determine which action should be taken (use of force) against Ukraine especially when the UNSC has not authorized them to do so and there is a Genocide Convention which can determine which actions to be taken.
Again, there is no evidence of an armed attack against Russia by Ukraine such that it is inconsistent with the purpose of the UN Charter hence, ridding on the wheels of collective self-defense by Russia to invade Ukraine is a clear violation of Article 51. This position has been argued by various Diplomats tagging the invasion as ‘unprovoked’.
3. President Zelensky has debunked claims of the third reason saying he is not a Nazist. Whiles speaking in Russian in a broadcast following the allegations, he noted that “The Ukraine on your news and Ukraine in real life are two completely different countries — and the main difference between them is: Ours is real. You are told we are Nazis. But could a people who lost more than 8 million lives in the battle against Nazism support Nazism?” President Zelenskyy, who is Jewish added, “How can I be a Nazi? Explain it to my grandfather, who went through the entire war in the infantry of the Soviet army and died a colonel in an independent Ukraine.”
NB: Nazism is a political ideology that takes the form of totalitarianism. It is an ideology that Adolf Hitler held on to and consequently fuelled World War 2. In essence, what President Zelenskyy is trying to say is that, if Nazism influenced Hitler’s decision to hate Jews, how then can a President who is a Jew be an adherent of the same ideology? That is a rhetorical question to ponder!
A Devil’s Advocate
Some people have argued that, during the reign of President Barrack Obama in 2011, NATO-led by French forces entered Libya forcefully and toppled their President, Muammar Ghaddafi. It is important to clarify that, NATO never entered Libya forcefully on their own accord but they were instead sanctioned by the UN security council to undertake that particular venture, backed by the Adoption of resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favor to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation).
Some still argue that in 2003 the USA under George W. Bush invaded Iraq to topple the government of Saddam Hussein without the backing of the UN Security Council hence, Russia’s use of force in Ukraine with the aim of toppling the government of Zelenskyy is equally justified after all what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
In as much as this argument is logically correct, it is quite misleading because two wrongs do not make a right. To wit, the fact that America did illegality does not mean Russia should follow suit because it might end up jeopardizing world peace and security where the principle of might is right will become the order of the day with smaller countries being overtaken by powerful countries. This will only take us back to the state of nature where life will be brutish, nasty, and short.
