• 

Putin is attempting to justify the unjustifiable

The Russian government’s justifications for its war in Ukraine — the largest, most destructive military operation in Europe since World War II — are not persuasive.

In defending the invasion, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s primary emphasis has been on the threat of Ukraine joining NATO. But that action would have been perfectly legitimate under international law.

The UN Charter, an instrument of international law, does not ban membership in military alliances.

In fact, Russia is engaged in a great many such alliances itself. It currently heads, for example, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, a military alliance composed of six nations in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

Putin’s focus on NATO is based on the notion that Russia’s national security would be endangered by the existence of a NATO nation on its border. But why are Russia’s national security concerns more valid than those of nations on Russia’s borders — particularly nations that, in the past, have been invaded and gobbled up by Russia or the Soviet Union?   

If a feared threat to national security provides valid grounds for a military invasion, this would justify military attacks by many other nations as well. And the degree of danger to Russia posed by NATO might well be questioned, as the Western alliance has never attacked Russia during its 73 years of existence.

Furthermore, as a practical matter, before the Russian invasion occurred, Ukraine’s joining NATO was not imminent, for key NATO nations opposed membership. Indeed, in late March of this year, more than two months ago, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky offered to have Ukraine give up its NATO aspirations and become a neutral nation.

But the Russian government has not accepted this termination of the supposed NATO danger as a sufficient reason to end Russia’s invasion. Instead, the Russian war effort grinds on, ever more ferociously and destructively.

Putin’s claim that Ukraine requires “denazification” rings particularly hollow.

Like most other nations, Ukraine has fascists among its population. 

But, unlike many others, where fascist views are rampant and there are large rightwing parties with fascist elements operating within the government, Ukraine’s rightwingers have been drawing only about 2 percent of the vote. They have only one representative in Ukraine’s parliament and none in its executive branch.

Russia’s vastly exaggerated claim of Nazi control is based heavily on the existence of fascists within the Azov regiment. But it’s worth noting that most of that fighting force was either killed or captured during the Russian siege of Mariupol.

Ironically — and hypocritically — Putin himself has been a strong supporter of neofascist parties throughout Eastern and Western Europe. And they, in turn, have celebrated him.

Whatever the justifications, the massive Russian military invasion of Ukraine is a clear violation of the UN Charter, which has been signed by all the war’s participants. In Article 2, the charter says: “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

Lest there be any doubt about the relevance of this statement to the Ukraine situation, the International Court of Justice ruled March 16 that the Russia must halt its military operations there.

After a UN Security Council resolution along these lines was vetoed by Russia, the UN General Assembly voted 141 to 5 to demand Russia “immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders.”

The only five countries that supported the Russian position were Russia, North Korea, Syria, Belarus and Eritrea. China and Cuba abstained, but did not oppose the resolution outright.

Aside from its illegality, the Russian war in Ukraine is clearly an imperialist war. It is an attack by one of the world’s mightiest military powers upon a much smaller, weaker nation, with the clear goal of seizing control of all or part of Ukraine and annexing it to the Russian empire.

Although the Russian government formally agreed to respect Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty through the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, it earlier seized Crimea and militarily intervened in eastern Ukraine to support pro-Russian separatists.

In a lengthy public statement Putin issued in July 2021, he denied the existence of an independent Ukrainian nation. Then, three days before the massive Russian invasion of February 24, 2022, he announced Ukraine was “Russian land.”

This June, in a clear reference to his military conquest of Ukraine, Putin compared himself to Peter the Great, the 18th-century Russian czar whom he praised for waging decades of war to take back Russian territory.

Of course, Putin and his apologists are correct when they observe that other major powers have also flouted international law and the opinions of the world community at times.

But that abysmal standard could justify almost anything — from torture, to nuclear war, to genocide. It’s hardly a prescription for the just and peaceful world that people of all nations deserve.

Lawrence Wittner, syndicated through PeaceVoice, serves as an emeritus professor of history at SUNY/Albany. He is the author of Confronting the Bomb, published by the Stanford University Press.

Comments

@@pager@@
Web Design and Web Development by Buildable