|
Ukraine – Doubling Down
The Russian side is making some progress in the war in Ukraine. While the differences on the map look small the repositioning of forces that had threatened Kiev is finished and the Russian military is now seriously degrading and grinding down the Ukrainian forces in Donbas.
March 31 2022
Source: Liveuamap – biggerApril 29 2022
bigger
According to the daily reports of Russia's Ministry of Defense the Ukraine is losing several hundred soldiers and some 30 armored vehicles per day, most of them to artillery. A flood of gruel pictures posted on Telegram by both sides confirm this. Several Ukrainian attempts to counterattack Russian forces have failed.
'Western' propagandists are noting that their side is losing.
Anders Åslund @anders_aslund 14:02 UTC · Apr 28, 2022
The War: Ukraine has experienced setback in the past few days. A senior Ukrainian official announced yesterday that Russian troops had taken part of the Kharkiv region. Yesterday, Russia announced that it has captured the entire Kherson region. No Ukrainian advances.
Not good.
The typical U.S. reaction to losing is to double down.
This can be done financially:
Jack Detsch @JackDetsch – 19:25 UTC · Apr 28, 2022
DATA: A cumulative total of U.S. military aid to Ukraine since Russia's Feb. 24 invasion.
February 25: $350m
March 12: $550m
March 16: $1.35b
April 1: $1.65b
April 5: $1.75b
April 13: $2.55b
April 21: $3.35b
April 24: $3.67b
April 28: $14.67b (if approved by Congress)
Most of above sums will go the U.S. arms industry to deliver weapons for which the Ukraine has little use or which never will reach the frontline. The rest will be pilfered by Ukrainian oligarchs.
That financial doubling down will not be very effective.
There is also the possibility of doubling down by widening the war. This could be in Bosnia where attacks on the Serbian population could drag the Russian ally Serbia into another war. An additional war could also be created in Transnistria (marked as a lengthy strip on the left of the above maps). This could involve not only forces from the Ukraine but also from Moldova, Romania and Poland. In the early 1990s a small war between Moldova and the Russian population in Transnistria ended in 1992 with a ceasefire and Russian peacekeeper troops on the ground.
In a piece about Biden's new pledge of money to Ukraine the NYT notes:
The Ukrainian military said it was moving more troops to the border with Transnistria, a small breakaway region in Moldova, on Ukraine’s southwest flank, hundreds of miles from the fighting on the eastern front.
Should those troops do something Russia does not like it will likely use its air and missile capabilities to destroy their fighting power. President Putin certainly did not mean Transnistria when he recently spoke to Russian lawmakers and threatened retaliation:
Let me emphasise once again: if anyone intends to intervene from the outside and create a strategic threat to Russia that is unacceptable to us, they should know that our retaliatory strikes will be lightning-fast. We have the tools we need for this, the likes of which no one else can claim at this point. We will not just brag; we will use them if necessary. And I want everyone to know this; we have made all the decisions on this matter.
That threat was likely a response to rumors that the U.S. and UK are planing to deliver longer range missiles to Ukraine to be use against targets on Russian grounds. That would be another form of doubling down but also a way more dangerous one.
Ukraine is a victim here but not a victim of Russia but of much bigger plans in the U.S. which did its best to instigate this war (recommended).
As Michael Hudson explains (vid), the economic consequences of this war will be catastrophic for many countries and people. But the neocons who are running the war do not care about those. They have a plan to profit from it. They want to stay the unipolar power of the globe. To them it is a game and their main motives include an ingrained hatred towards Russia.
@Arfur Mo# Apr 29 2022 19:44 utc | 84
Daniel Kovalik: Why Russia’s Intervention in Ukraine Is Legal Under International Law
That analysis is not quite correct, as Art. 51 technically does not apply in this situation. However, I do think that it does in fact apply anyway, and further that it is Ukraine that violated Art. 2(4) of the UN Charter with its aggression and war against the LPR and DPR. Accordingly, the so-called “West”, along with Ukraine, are the actual parties acting illegally under international law and illegally attacking LPR and DPR, while Russia, LPr and DPR (and Belarus) are acting in accordance with international law.
Analysis follows.
Application of Article 51
While he quotes Art. 51, he omits a key part of the language (the omitted part italicized):
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
The problem is that neither DPR nor LPR is a “Member of the United Nations” (although an armed attack was clearly occurring). However, this does not mean the Article does not apply. A number of decisions have been reached under Article 51 by the UN Security Council or General Assembly related to the State of Palestine (see here, here and here), which is not a Member of the UN, and involving the right of collective self-defense, and no party made the argument that a Member does not have the right of self-defense with a State which is not a Member of the United Nations.
Article 2(4) Does Apply
However, the analysis does not stop there. We know from the Kosovo Advisory Opinion of the ICJ that a unilateral declaration of independence does not violate international law. Accordingly, neither Lugans’k Oblast nor Donetsk Oblast violated internaitnoal law when they seceded from Ukraine and declared independence.
The ICJ in Kosovo did not reach the decision of whether Kosovo had the right to form a State. It is clear from Art. 4 of the UN Charter (related to the admission of new States as Members) that international law recognizes States that are not Members of the UN.
The generally accepted criteria for becoming a new State are set forth in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1934) (the Convention), which provides, in relevant part:
Article 1
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
…
Article 3
The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts. …
Under the provisions of Art. 1 Conversion, did DPR and LPR become states?
* A permanent population. Both LPR and DPR have had a permanent population for many centuries, and continue to have this population until today.
* A defined territory. Both LPR and DPR have a defined territory, to wit, the political borders of the former Luhans’k Oblast and Donetsk Oblast in Ukraine. (Note that Israel does not have a defined territory, but is still considered a “State”.)
* Government. Both republics clearly have a government which provides all essential services, including a police force and a military, and which provides for the general welfare of its population. In fact many years ago Ukraine cut off all electricity, energy, water, pensions, bank services, trade, etc. from these republics – which means Ukraine does not recognize these territories as its own, but as separate states.
* Capacity to enter into relations with other states. This prong is also clearly satisfied and it has done so with several states.
Thus, under international law, both LPR and DPR are sovereign States, irrespective of the lack of recognition of this status by other states, as per Art. 3 of the Convention.
Now how does Art. 2(4) of the UN Charter apply? That provision provides that:
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
….
4. 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, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Note that, unlike Art. 51, this prohibition applies to all states, not just Members of the UN.
Accordingly, when Ukraine attacked and shelled DPR and LPR, it violated international law. Accordingly, DPR and LPR had every right to defend themselves. As observed above, Russia had the right to come to their defense.
Since the actions of Ukraine are, however, illegal, the actions of the US, UK and other member of the Empire in arming and supporting Ukraine in the was is also unlawful. There is no “collective right of self-defense” with a country that is the aggressor; instead, the Empire is aiding and abetting the violation of international law, which is also illegal.
Posted by: CalDre | Apr 30 2022 1:02 utc | 161
|
