Introduction
On 24 February 2022, shortly before 6am Moscow time, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced in an unscheduled televised address that the Russian Federation would conduct a “special military operation” into Ukraine, and at around 5am Kyiv time, a number of cities, including Kharkiv and Odesa, began reporting incidents of loud explosions. The announcement came after a months-long military build-up by Russian forces on Ukraine's border. When the international community warned Russia that any military action against Ukraine would not be tolerated, Putin responded by saying that the Russian military build-up should not be interpreted as an act of aggression or prelude to war.
Russia under Putin has been a complex and at times difficult geopolitical partner in Europe. Over the past two decades, it has invaded and effectively occupied territory in two neighbouring countries, Georgia and Ukraine. It has interfered in the internal affairs of several countries through cyber attacks in order to destabilise their political processes. In the Middle East, Russia has supported the Syrian regime both politically and militarily since the beginning of the country’s civil war in 2011. Russia has also allegedly murdered its own dissidents who have criticized the government abroad.
Following Russia’s most recent invasion of a peaceful nation and member of the international community, Putin’s effective declaration of war warned that any interference by the international community would lead to unprecedented "consequences they have never seen before.” In response to the escalation, UN Secretary-General Antonio Gutteres called on Putin “in the name of humanity” to bring his troops back to Russia and “stop this war.”
These calls have gone unanswered. Moreover, demands by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for a no-fly zone enforced by NATO were met by Putin with a clear and direct threat of escalation. Putin stated that any move by Western powers to impose a no-fly zone “would be considered by us as participation in an armed conflict by that country,” thereby triggering a higher level of war conducted by two sides in possession of nuclear weapons.
Although discussing the historical and geopolitical dimensions of the region in relation to Russia, Ukraine, NATO, and the EU is of vital importance, this paper will focus on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The discussion will examine the framework for waging war, briefly discuss what should have been considered warning signs for the invasion, draw parallels to Russia’s invasion of Georgia, and analyze the response by the international community.
The question of legality
It can be argued that the international legal system that was developed after the Second World War and codified in the Charter of the United Nations and other international agreements is not only concerned with relationships between governments and their peoples but also has a specific focus on relationships between states and how they treat each other. An important aspect when analysing this international regime -- specifically as it relates to war and conflict -- is the question of state sovereignty and the prohibition of war, which was particularly resonant after 1945 and was the reason for the establishment of the UN, as evidenced in the preamble of its Charter, “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.”
Chapter 1, Article 2 (1) of the UN Charter states that the purpose of the UN is to “develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.” However, there are two generally recognized exceptions for when a state can use its armed forces for violence: (1) in self-defence, as per Article 51 of the UN Charter and (2) if there is a threat to international peace and security and the UN Security Council authorizes use of “all measures necessary,” which allows for force, according to Articles 39 and 42 of the Charter.
Another key principle of international law that is vital for the prevention of conflict is the principle of human rights. Today, this concept has achieved universal status and is the only universally-accepted value system that applies to every individual, as formulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and developed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which together formed the international bill of human rights.
The UN Charter is clear: states may use their armed forces only in self-defense, not for pre-emptive war, not to protect their national interests externally, and not to support groups pursuing the goal of external self-determination. The attack by Russian forces on Ukraine therefore does not meet these criteria. What is further damning, Russia’s military actions in Ukraine undermine the most basic values enshrined in the UN Charter and, as much as Putin wants the international community to believe that Russia is acting on behalf of the "independent" republics in Ukraine -- which it recognised only two days before commencing its attack on Ukraine -- such actions both undermine and are in direct defiance of the international normative principles of law and human rights. While the international community cannot allow this unprovoked act to go unanswered, it must also refrain from fully isolating Russia and allow pathways for communication and diplomacy
Prelude to war: warning signs of invasion
For almost twenty years, Putin has been telling the world of his intention to conquer Ukraine. In 2005, Putin said in his state of the nation address that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the “biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” He added that “for the Russian people, it became a real drama. Tens of millions of our citizens and countrymen found themselves outside of Russian territory. The epidemic of disintegration also spread to Russia itself.” While many political commentators paid little or no attention to Putin at the time, this was perhaps the first warning that offered the international community a glimpse into Putin’s mind and the depths of his ambitions.
In 2007, at the Munich Security Conference, Putin criticised the US and NATO for their ambitions to “dominate the world” by imposing their will on the international community. He added that “people are always teaching us about democracy but the people who teach us democracy don’t want to learn it themselves.” His comments can also be linked in part to the illegal invasion of Iraq by the US and its allies and the so-called War on Terror. At the same time, a number of European security experts dismissed Putin’s words as simply an attempted return to Cold War-era rhetoric and a desire for Russia to occupy a position of power similar to that of the Soviet Union. In fact, his position seems to have signaled a desire to regain control of territory lost after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Seven years later, in his speech announcing the annexation of Crimea in 2014, Putin argued it “was [historically] impossible to imagine that Ukraine and Russia may split up and become two separate states.” One can argue that the world was still not paying sufficient attention or that priorities -- at least in Europe -- were on other areas, such as supporting the US-led War on Terror and its questionable campaign in Iraq.
The aforementioned examples do not exhaust all the trouble spots that could have indicated Russia’s future invasion of Ukraine, nor are they intended to. However, they show that there were definite warning signs and missing these signs was likely not a failure of the international community or simple ignorance but rather -- and arguably -- the result of differing priorities at the time. Moreover, one might argue that it is not NATO nor the West itself that Putin fears but rather that Putin's real geopolitical fears lay in Eastern Europe itself -- or rather, the potential for strong and independent Eastern European states that might individually challenge Russia.
Russia’s playbook and the international response
Russia's current actions are strikingly similar to its actions against Georgia in 2008, when the Kremlin cancelled the large-scale Kavkaz-2008 military drill five days before the military action. The Georgian experience clearly shows that Russian rhetoric should not be trusted. In Ukraine, Putin went even further, claiming “genocide” in the Donbas region as a pretext to invade. This is not the first time that Russia has deployed the rhetoric of R2P to justify its military aggression. In its 2008 invasion of Georgia, senior Russian officials maintained that their actions were justified on the basis of the responsibility to protect Russian nationals in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, where the Kremlin accused Tbilisi of ethnic cleansing -- a charge that was eventually discredited by a European Court of Human Rights judgement in January 2021.
Moreover, Russia has illegally issued passports to Ukrainian citizens in occupied parts of eastern Ukraine, as it did in Georgia. The Russian military began evacuating citizens in the Tskhinvali region prior to the commencement of hostilities, and the Kremlin then justified its attack by claiming that it was defending its own nationals. Moscow is likely to stick to its tried-and-tested strategy until significant concessions are made.
Ukraine has also received strong support on an international level. In the UN Security Council, members have strongly condemned Russia's actions, pointing out that the country has completely disregarded international law and its core principles. The Council of Europe has also expelled Russia from human rights body.
In addition -- in a move called by many as “historic” and “uniting for peace” -- the UN General Assembly voted on Wednesday March 2, 2022 to demand that Russia stop its military offensive and immediately withdraw all troops (141 states voted in favour of the motion, five opposed, and 35 abstained). While resolutions of the General Assembly are not legally binding, they can reflect and influence global opinion. The vote occurred after the Assembly's 193 members gathered for an emergency session for the first time since 1997. Belarus, Syria, North Korea, and Eritrea were the only countries to vote with Russia; Cuba spoke out in support of Moscow but eventually abstained.
We have also witnessed the outrage with which the international community has condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This was done through international sanctions and the expulsion of Russia from international organisations and institutions. There have also been calls for Russia to be removed from the UN Security Council and the World Trade Organisation.
Indeed, the goal of the international community seems to be to punish Russia for its aggression against Ukraine. However, while sanctions are warranted, the isolation of Russia from multilateral organizations will not ultimately serve the purpose of peace. In fact, such isolation can have unintended consequences, not only for human rights but for international peace and security.
One can also argue that pushing Russia away from multilateral organizations may go against the UN Charter itself. It is necessary to condemn Russia for its actions and its attack on the territorial integrity of a sovereign state, and the global and collective outrage resulting from Russia’s grave violations of international law, international humanitarian law, and human rights justifies such condemnation. However, it is precisely at this moment that international dialogue is most urgently needed. While it is important that Russia is held accountable for its actions, its complete isolation further undermines efforts to bring about peace and normalise international relations.
As instruments of peace, the UN and its Charter have an important role to play and should be heavily relied upon, but there must be international will to work with Russia within established institutions to restore conditions for peace in Ukraine. This in turn would send a strong message emphasizing the importance of multilateralism and international protections for human rights, achieved through dialogue and the legitimacy of those entrusted to safeguard it.
This war has raised many questions on issues ranging from the nature of international responsibility and trust in the rules-based international system to global inequality and the use and legitimacy of the Security Council veto. But one thing is clear: the costs of this conflict will be high. We are already seeing the high humanitarian costs resulting from the attacks on civilian infrastructure, a massive surge in refugees, calls by Ukrainian leadership for foreign fighters to fight alongside Ukrainian troops, Ukrainian citizens (with no military experience) returning to Ukraine to fight, and the conscription of citizens to fight against an experienced and professional army, risking a long and protracted conflict with a high cost in human lives on all sides. But most of all -- while the costs of this conflict continue to rise, they can certainly increase even further if Russia is not brought back to the international diplomatic table.
Eduardo Kapapelo and Elene Gagnidze are students of the Master of Arts in Applied Human Rights program, Vienna University of Applied Arts.
Eduardo Kapapelo is originally from Angola. He is a Project Manager and Researcher at the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria in South Africa. He is passionate about supporting communities to create mechanisms to end/prevent violent conflict. He holds a PhD from the Faculty of Law at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, a Master’s Degree in Human Rights and Bachelor’s Degree in International Relations and Political Sciences from the same University. Eduardo’s area of expertise include, the African Human Rights system with a focus on violence prevention, the international politics of human rights, authoritarian regimes and political repression.
Elene Gagnidze is from Georgia. She has a law background and several years of experience in the field. Elene holds a Master’s degree from the Faculty of Public Law and Policy from Ilia State University with additional courses in Public International Law from the University of Salzburg and a Bachelor’s Degree in Law from Tbilisi State University. She is now focusing on Human Rights projects and research on Eastern Europe, specifically the Caucasus region.