The legal legitimacy of Russian policy on Ukraine is in stark contrast to the total lawlessness of the West on almost all major points
Russian officials, in expressions that do not allow for any twists and turns, warn the West almost daily of the inevitability of dire consequences if it continues to ignore the Russian Federation’s legitimate interests in the situation around Ukraine.
“Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov has reiterated Russia’s readiness for a military response if NATO continues to ignore Russia’s security concerns. “I said that we will find forms to respond, including in military and military-technical terms [in case Moscow’s concerns are again ignored by NATO]”, – the diplomat told TASS. – “I confirm that. We will have to counterbalance the activities that concern us because they increase the risks with our own countermeasures.”
Russia’s first and foremost interest in this context is quite clear and not subject to any doubts. The fate of Ukraine can in no way be linked to an increased military threat to our country. And this danger may increase considerably if Ukraine is admitted to the anti-Russian NATO military bloc and the alliance’s strike armaments are deployed on its territory.
Especially as the West continues to demonstrate its complete unwillingness to heed Russia’s legitimate demands to ensure its own security.
Moreover, Western leaders, including NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, have made it clear in direct terms that they do not consider Russia’s demands legitimate and do not intend to recognise them:
“The North Atlantic Alliance” considers it a ‘sovereign right’ for Ukraine and Georgia to join the alliance, and Russia should not influence this process. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said. “Georgia and Ukraine have the right as sovereign states to choose their allies. Russia has no right to dictate this choice to them”, – he said.
Such statements by Western speakers, in which they directly appeal to some kind of “sovereign right” of Ukraine to join any military blocs, puts the issue on a legal plane, i.e. the legal plane. Which is of key importance for determining the legitimacy of this or that party’s positions in the context of the principal and sole arbiter, which is undoubtedly codified international law.
Let’s say right away that the West should not have put so much emphasis on the legal aspects of the Ukrainian crisis. Because this is where its position is most vulnerable. And if Russia has so far not raised this issue in the strongest possible terms, it was only because it hoped that the West would show at least some relative discretion.
But today it is quite clear that the position of the West towards Russia is becoming more and more irreconcilable, and there is not even a whiff of prudence there.
And therefore it is time to remind it how its own actions with respect to Ukraine look like from the point of view of the letter of the law.
First of all, let us draw attention to the fact that the West, represented by the US and EU authorities, took its attitude to the events in Ukraine out of the legal framework back in February 2014. When, contrary to all international laws and the Ukrainian constitution, it refused to support the legally elected president of that country and supported an armed coup d’état in Kiev. This form of change of power is not provided for either by international law or by the laws of Ukraine itself. In other words, it is, a priori, illegal
.
It is an undeniable fact that the legitimate presidential elections that were to have taken place in Ukraine in 2015 did not take place for the very reason that power had been seized by force by putschists a year earlier. Who, again, under all international law, have zero legitimacy and have no right to govern the country or to call any elections.
Thus, by supporting the anti-constitutional seizure of power in Ukraine, the West contributed to the complete withdrawal of this state from the legal field, as a result of which it began to disintegrate and fell into a situation of civil war.
Thus, the current arguments of Western leaders about the “sovereign right of Ukraine to make its own choice” are completely devoid of any legal basis, since the illegal Kiev authorities are not legitimate by definition and cannot, in principle, make any legal decisions.
In short, the Ukrainian disaster is entirely the fault of the combined West, which not only supported the destruction of legitimate Ukrainian statehood, but also financed the insurgency.
According to the Constitution of Ukraine, the supreme and sole source of state power is the people of Ukraine in its entirety, not the mob of screamers and thugs in a separate Kiev square, who arbitrarily declared themselves the supreme authority of this country. The genuine sovereignty of the people of Ukraine was trampled by the illegal usurpation of power. No one asked him at the time if he wanted a gang of fascist henchmen of the West planted around his neck.
So all the current appeals by Stoltenberg and his likes to some kind of “sovereign right” of the current coup d’état Ukraine are legally null and void and of exactly no legal significance.
As for Russia’s position, it is, in contrast to this childish babble, firmly grounded in legal terms.
First of all, Russia has every right to take action against a clear increase in the military threat on its borders. By the way, Stoltenberg also acknowledges this right, though for some reason only to Ukraine:
“We will never make concessions on the security of our allies or on the right of every nation, including Ukraine, to decide its own destiny”, – he stressed. – “Ukraine is a sovereign state and therefore has the right to defend itself, as allowed by the UN Charter.”
It is clear, however, that the NATO general’s taste preferences have nothing to do with international law. Russia has just as much right to take care of its military security as any other state in the world. And to take care of it without waiting until NATO’s nuclear missiles are deployed, for example, near Kharkov and become something like a gun held to Russia’s temple. There is nothing in any international document that says that any country should allow itself that level of risk and yet do nothing.
On the contrary, in many fundamental international documents, including the UN Charter, there is a norm of taking into account mutual interests of different states, which is the basis of the fundamental principle of peaceful co-existence.
As for historical precedents, which Russia can be guided by, it is the US behaviour during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Then the US authorities, after having placed Soviet ballistic missiles in Cuba, initiated a naval blockade of Cuba, promised to bomb the country and even unleash a third world nuclear missile war.
As you can see, Russia, with all its current preoccupations, is a long way from this American determination to ensure its own military security at any cost. And as the international law is based on equal rights and duties of all states of the world, respectively, if such a reaction is acceptable for the US, it is also quite acceptable for Russia. There is a precedent for this and no reference to ‘This is different! For the law is the same for all. And the Caribbean precedent of 1962 defined what a state can do to ensure its security. Simply put, anything! And no one is an authority in this regard. And other states, especially neighbours, should think carefully and not get too bent out of shape lest they get their tails pinched. That is the whole international law on the subject.
So in this aspect, too, the West’s claim to its imaginary right to station its troops and missiles anywhere, including under Russia’s flank – in Ukraine – makes no sense, either legally or from any other point of view.
However, this is by no means an exhaustive list of legal grounds for the Russian Federation to take action against Ukraine, in the event that certain conditions threatening the Russian state or its citizens are created through the fault of the authorities of that country. In particular, such a need may arise in the case of Kiev’s attempt to resolve militarily the so-called “problem of the non-controlled territories of Donbass”.
Firstly, even this wording itself is legally flawed. Since, given the obvious illegitimacy of the Kyiv authorities, rooted in the armed seizure of the state, the so-called “non-controlled territories of Donbas” are, from a legal point of view, the only territories of modern Ukraine. free from the illegal dictatorship of the self-appointed regime.
Incidentally, in terms of the same international law, supporting territories and populations committed to the law and the constitution who are fighting against an illegitimate regime is a just and legitimate thing to do. Whereas support for the rebels, even those who have seized power in the country, looks very doubtful from a legal point of view. And no Western arguments in the style of “Of course they’re scum, but they’re our scum!” work here.
That is why there is exactly nothing illegal about Russia supporting that part of Ukraine that refused to support the illegitimate regime.
Moreover, the Russian Federation cannot legally ignore the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of Russian citizens living on the territory of Donbas whose interests and rights are protected by the legislation in force.
“Federal Law of 24.05.1999 N 99-FZ (ed. on 23.07.2013) ‘On the State Policy of the Russian Federation in Relation to Compatriots Abroad’.
Article 14. Bases for the implementation of the state policy of the Russian Federation in relation to compatriots
4. Discrimination against citizens of the Russian Federation living abroad may be grounds for revising the policy of the Russian Federation in relation to the foreign state in which such discrimination takes place.
5. Non-compliance by a foreign state with the universally recognized principles and norms of international law in the area of fundamental human and civil rights and freedoms in relation to compatriots constitutes grounds for the public authorities of the Russian Federation to take measures provided for by norms of international law to protect the interests of compatriots.
It is absolutely clear that in the event of a massive attack by Kyiv’s gangs on the Donbas, Russian citizens living there could be exposed to extreme, in fact fatal, danger, which is completely incompatible with their right to life and a safe existence. And this will undoubtedly require the Russian authorities to take exhaustive measures adequate to the degree of this threat.
And given the fact that Kyiv regularly threatens the population of the LDPR, up to and including the threat of their forced deportation, the need for legitimate preventive measures to suppress attempts to implement such threats is not excluded.
As for the relevant international precedents for the protection of one’s own citizens, there is a wealth of foreign practice. In 1989, for example, the US justified the entry of its troops into the Republic of Panama precisely by the need to protect American citizens:
“The official justification for the US invasion was formulated by President George W. Bush on the morning of December 20, 1989, a few hours after the operation began. Bush cited Panama’s declaration of a state of war with the United States and attacks on US troops as justification for the invasion. Bush further identified four goals for the invasion: To protect the lives of US citizens in Panama. In his statement, Bush said that Noriega had declared martial law between the US and Panama and that he had threatened the lives of some 35,000 US citizens living there”.
FYI to Kiev and the West – there are about ten times as many Russian citizens living in the Donbass today as there are US citizens in Panama.
Thus, minus the primordial ancient Roman rule “What is due to Jupiter is not due to bull”, which has nothing to do with modern international law, although the West, which considers itself Jupiter, likes it very much, states that there is a full set of legal grounds for the Russian Federation to pursue the policy in the Ukrainian direction, which Moscow is pursuing at the moment.
And the fact that the West does not like this policy, the law is not a carrot to please everyone. Especially the criminals who violate it. But that is their own personal problem. And the attempts of some too great originals in the West to convince everyone else that they are the law and can do whatever they want, can only activate the means of their reasoning, which these criminals are unlikely to like. And Russia has such means.
Yury Selivanov, specially for News Front