Russia-Ukraine Crisis

Authored by Rishi Khemnani

INTRODUCTION

Imagining Britain claiming India as part of its empire is almost unthinkable. However, Russia is currently targeting Ukraine's capital city with powerful and robust ballistic missiles, weakening Kyiv's defense system. All of this is being done in the hopes of securing an unachievable goal. The world cannot afford another war. Russia and Ukraine must sit down at the negotiating table to de-escalate tensions and bring the terrible crisis to a peaceful conclusion. The Russian attack is a breach of international law and order, endangering the sovereignty and the integrity of Ukraine.

HISTORY OF CONFLICT

On the banks of the Dnieper River, Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus were born over 1,200 years ago in Kievan Rus, a medieval superpower that included a large portion of Eastern Europe. However, linguistically, historically, and most crucially, politically, Russians and Ukrainians diverged. The annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014, [1]following the ousting of Victor Yanukovych as President, was the first major military confrontation between the two countries. Sanctions were imposed in response to Russia's invasion of Crimea. Russia, on the other hand, continued to occupy Crimea, and its recent operations have focused on fomenting rebels in the eastern Ukraine.

In January 2021, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky filed a petition to USA for allowing Ukraine to join NATO, and as a result, Russia began gathering soldiers near Ukraine's eastern borders. Tensions rose swiftly after Russia was asked by NATO to cease its military activity in Eastern Europe and Ukraine in December 2021, which was followed by a Russian cyberattack on the Ukrainian government website. On February 22, Russia recognized the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk republics in eastern Ukraine's Donbass region and dispatched Russian troops to these areas. Finally, Russia has invaded the Ukrainian territory.

Putin, on the other hand, has repeatedly stated that Russians and Ukrainians are "one people," and that they are both part of the "Russian civilization," which also includes Belarus. Ukrainians are skeptical of his statements. In 2005 and 2014, Ukraine went through two revolutions, both opposing Russian rule and trying to join the European Union and NATO. Putin is particularly outraged at the thought of NATO facilities being built near his borders, and by the claims that Ukraine joining the US-led transatlantic alliance would be a "red line" crossed.

Ukraine is the world's second-largest country after Russia, following the collapse of the Soviet Union. In 1996, Kyiv gave up all of its nuclear weapons in exchange for signing the Budapest Convention, which secured Ukraine's territorial integrity. The Russian attack has heightened the level of uncertainty in global power dynamics. Revolutions, two world wars, and now the threat of a third global war with the all-too-real use of atomic weapons on Ukraine's far less capable forces, poses the threat of casualties and deaths of millions.

Russia can no longer send its military soldiers and cover the region under the guise of "peacekeeping forces" to urge pro-Russians living in east Ukraine to attack Ukrainians. This suggests that Russia is not interested in restarting the Minsk agreements. [2]Russia's greatest objective should be peaceful coexistence. The main question that the Kremlin needs to ask and answer is if Russian President Vladimir Putin has learned anything from previous occurrences or not. The free world is keeping an eye on the developments.

The fundamental background to this battle is that when Ukraine expressed its desire to join NATO, Russia became enraged and began military exercises across the Ukrainian border in response, prompting Biden to threaten Russia with heavy penalties. Putin states that his only goal is to restore the world order that existed prior to the Soviet Union, and he is concerned that the West is attempting to influence Europe. Russia alleges that the pro-Russian region of Donbas in Ukraine has become a hotbed of ethnic Russian human rights violations. Russia claims that Ukraine was never a separate country and has been an integral part of Russia from its foundation.

INDIA’S POSITION

India is caught in the middle of a tug of war. India recently inked a deal with Russia for the procurement of S-400 weapons, which has resulted in US CAATSA sanctions. It is important to note that the White House is considering granting India a waiver. As a result, India is going through a sensitive and difficult period. When asked about India's position on current tensions in Europe during a Quad meeting, External Affairs Minister S. Jai Shankar changed the conversation and replied that QUAD was envisioned for Indo-Pacific, which is an apt argument. However, during his visit to Germany and France, he tried to turn the focus back to the Indo-Pacific, which reflects India's current situation. Despite being pressed by both sides to take a position, India recently abstained from voting on a proposal for a draft resolution on the "Russian invasion of Ukraine."[3] India took a balanced approach, keeping its own interests, strategic imperatives, and relationships in mind. This balanced approach has been “welcomed” by Russia, which has argued that Kashmir issue is bilateral one. Currently, New Delhi has prioritised the safe return of students from the war-torn country, which is seen as a benign gesture of humanity for which the country is known for. [4]

INTERNATIONAL PERSECTIVE

The actions of Russia have been extensively denounced, and they raise various issues about international law violations.

The concept of non-interference in domestic matters is the bedrock upon which the existing international order is built. The principle is incorporated in UN Charter article 2(4), which prohibits governments from using or threatening to use force against a state's territorial integrity or political independence. It outlaws any type of forcible trespassing on another state's territory, even if it is only for a few hours or days, like a 'in and out' operation. The Russian attack on Ukraine is a violation of the non-intervention principle and, in international law, constitutes aggression.

Aggression is defined by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974) as a state's use of armed force against another state's sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence. Allowing one's territory to be utilised by another state in an act of aggression against a third state is also an act of aggression. As a result, Belarus can be held liable for aggression because it permitted Russia to utilize its territory to attack Ukraine. Under customary international law and the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court, aggression is also considered as an international crime.

One of the main reasons for Russia's use of force against Ukraine is its aim to keep Ukraine out of NATO. Under article 2(4), this is a violation of Ukraine's political independence, as a sovereign state is allowed to choose which organizations it wishes to join. Russia has also breached article 2(3), which requires states to settle their differences through peaceful ways in order to maintain world peace and security.

Ukraine has the right to self-defense under international law if Russia uses force against it. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter allows a state to use individual or collective self-defense until the Security Council takes action to safeguard international peace and security. Because Russia is a permanent member with veto power, it appears unlikely that the UNSC will reach a resolution in this matter. Ukraine, on the other hand, has the right under international law to seek aid from other countries in the form of military assistance, weapon supplies, and so on.[5]

Russia, on the other hand, has stated that it is acting in self-defense. This accusation is debatable, considering Ukraine has made no use of force or made any threats against Russia. Russia has warned that Ukraine might obtain nuclear weapons with the help of Western allies. However, in the Legality of Nuclear Threats case, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that mere possession of nuclear weapons does not always imply a threat.

As a result, even if Ukraine possesses nuclear weapons or acquires them in the future, it does not constitute a basis for Russia to invoke self-defense. Furthermore, simply being a member of a defense organization like NATO, does not automatically imply a threat of war against Russia. As a result, Russia is unable to use the doctrine of self-defense in this situation.

Russia cannot likewise claim anticipatory self-defense because, according to the Caroline test, such an invocation would necessitate an immediate and overwhelming need for self-defense, leaving no choice of means and no time for thought. However, this is not the case in the present condition.

WAY FORWARD

The Russia-Ukraine confrontation is jeopardizing the world's fragile equilibrium. The escalation of tensions between Russia and Ukraine might have far-reaching consequences on a global scale. There is a compelling need for de-escalation, since a peaceful resolution of strained ties is in everyone's best interests in the area and around the world. The free world urges Russian President Vladimir Putin to reconsider and withdraw his troops' equipment, as well as meet with Ukraine's president and other world leaders, to avoid igniting a global conflict.

With backing from other European allies such as the UK, Germany, and France, the USA can play a significant role in the management of the Russia-Ukraine crisis. The goal of negotiations and strategic investments should be to find a long-term solution to the issue. It will not be sufficient to just reduce the challenges. Attention must be paid to the structure of the military withdrawal in order to reduce the risk of backsliding.

As a result, NATO's response is awaited. If it intervenes militarily, a full-fledged crisis could erupt. If sanctions are imposed on Russia, Europe's energy problem may worsen. If nothing is done, the United States will be seen as weak, unable to control world events. Therefore, it could be stated that the response of NATO will lay down the future course of the present contention between Russia and Ukraine.

References:

[1] Jane Clinton, Why did Russia annex Crimea? What happened when Putin invaded in 2014 and how NATO reacted to annexation, iNEWS, (Jan. 29, 2022), Why did Russia annex Crimea? What happened when Putin invaded in 2014 and how Nato reacted to annexation (inews.co.uk). [2] Al Jazeera, Ukraine-Russia crisis: What is the Minsk Agreement?, AL JAZEERA (Feb. 9, 2022), Ukraine-Russia crisis: What is the Minsk agreement? | Russia-Ukraine war News | Al Jazeera. [3] Express News Service, India abstains from UNSC procedural vote to call for General Assembly session on Ukraine crisis, THE INDIAN EXPRESS (Feb. 28, 2022), https://indianexpress.com/article/world/india-abstains-from-unsc-procedural-vote-to-call-for-general-assembly-session-on-ukraine-7793999/. [4] Express Web Desk, All you need to know Operation Ganga, launched to evacuate Indians from Ukraine, THE INDIAN EXRESS (Feb. 28, 2022), https://indianexpress.com/article/india/russia-ukraine-crisis-india-evacuation-operation-ganga-7794534/. [5] The Charter of the United Nations, 1945, art. 51.