From: jameskerlindsay
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has garnered widespread condemnation globally, facing a barrage of criticism and extensive sanctions [00:00:00] [00:00:43] [00:00:49]. A United Nations General Assembly resolution deploring Moscow’s aggression was supported by 141 of 193 member states [00:00:51] [00:00:55]. While comparisons have been drawn to other major invasions of modern times, such as the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003, and the NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999 [00:01:04] [00:01:10] [00:01:13], Russia’s invasion of Ukraine represents something substantively different [00:01:27].
From a legal and political standpoint, this conflict goes far beyond previous incidents, posing an unprecedented challenge to the entire system of modern international relations [00:00:17] [00:00:24] [00:00:28]. It potentially represents the most fundamental challenge to the established international order since the end of the Second World War [00:01:34] [00:01:38].
Core Principles of International Relations
To understand the unique nature of this conflict, it is essential to consider it through three interlinked yet distinct concepts that underpin international politics [00:01:42]:
- Sovereignty [00:01:50]
- Territorial integrity [00:01:50]
- Political independence [00:01:50]
While other invasions may have violated one or two of these principles, Russia’s actions in Ukraine challenge all three [00:01:57] [00:02:00]. These principles are fundamental rules of the international system, guiding how countries understand the limits of their behavior towards one another [00:09:57] [00:10:00].
Sovereignty
Sovereignty is the universally recognized right of countries to determine what happens within their borders [00:02:15] [00:02:19] [00:02:23]. Emerging in the mid-17th century, it is the foundation of modern statehood and the principle of non-interference in domestic affairs, enshrined in the United Nations Charter [00:02:25] [00:02:29] [00:02:42] [00:02:47] [00:02:52].
Any invasion by one state or group of states against another inherently violates that country’s sovereignty [00:02:56] [00:03:02]. This applies regardless of intent or justification to cases such as Iraq, Libya, Serbia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Cyprus, and Ukraine [00:03:06] [00:03:10] [00:03:14]. Terms like “peace interventions” or “special operations” are merely sanitized descriptions of invasions [00:03:24] [00:03:28].
Territorial Integrity
Territorial integrity is another fundamental principle of the international system, also enshrined in the UN Charter [00:03:32] [00:03:35] [00:03:38]. It signifies a state’s responsibility to respect the defined physical boundaries of other states [00:03:53] [00:03:58] [00:04:03]. In modern times, the principle of territorial integrity has largely been respected, with wars of territorial conquest being rare [00:04:03] [00:04:07] [00:04:10]. Few examples exist where a country has sought to conquer and claim another state’s territory [00:04:13] [00:04:15].
Notably, neither the US invasion of Iraq nor Afghanistan resulted in border changes, and both countries preserved their territorial integrity [00:04:30] [00:04:37]. Efforts by Iraqi Kurds to declare independence were strongly opposed [00:04:40]. Thus, these interventions violated sovereignty but not territorial integrity [00:04:45] [00:04:49] [00:04:54].
The NATO campaign against Yugoslavia eventually led to Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence, which did violate Serbia’s territorial integrity [00:04:57] [00:05:01] [00:05:04]. However, the end goal was not annexation, nor did any other country directly benefit [00:05:15] [00:05:17] [00:05:21] [00:05:24].
In stark contrast, Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity is clear-cut [00:05:42]. Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, despite having recognized Ukraine’s post-independence borders [00:05:49] [00:05:53] [00:05:56] [00:06:00]. Furthermore, Russia recognized the independence of Luhansk and Donetsk just days before the current war, seemingly preparing for further annexations [00:06:04] [00:06:09]. If Russia succeeds in overrunning Ukraine, these areas are expected to be incorporated into the Russian Federation [00:06:14] [00:06:17]. Therefore, Russia has violated both Ukraine’s sovereignty and its territorial integrity [00:06:22] [00:06:26].
Political Independence
Political independence, also explicitly stated in the UN Charter, refers to a state’s existence as a sovereign entity and its control over decisions made within its borders [00:06:29] [00:06:33] [00:06:39] [00:06:42] [00:06:45] [00:07:51] [00:07:56] [00:08:00]. In modern times, invasions aimed at the formal extinction of a state are rare, and international law no longer accepts conquest as a legitimate basis for state extinction [00:06:48] [00:06:51] [00:06:55] [00:06:59]. Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 is a key example of an attempt to eliminate a sovereign state [00:07:01] [00:07:04] [00:07:07].
Crucially, major Western interventions did not result in the extinction of states; Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia (which became Serbia) continue to exist as UN member states [00:07:10] [00:07:15] [00:07:20]. However, these interventions often aimed at regime change, which can be understood as a challenge to a state’s political independence [00:08:06] [00:08:11] [00:08:15]. For instance, the US and its partners sought to remove the Taliban from Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein from Iraq, violating their political independence [00:08:15] [00:08:20] [00:08:25]. In contrast, regime change was never NATO’s goal in Yugoslavia [00:08:35] [00:08:38].
In Ukraine, regime change is explicitly on Russia’s agenda [00:08:40]. President Putin has justified the war by stating that Ukraine needs to be “demilitarized and de-Nazified” [00:08:44] [00:08:48]. He has openly stated that Ukraine’s future as an independent state is at risk, regarding Russians and Ukrainians as “one people” [00:07:25] [00:07:30] [00:07:32] [00:07:38] [00:07:44]. Even if Russia does not annex all of Ukraine, there is an expectation that Moscow will install a puppet regime or draw Ukraine into a confederal arrangement similar to the relationship between Russia and neighboring Belarus [00:08:51] [00:08:55] [00:09:01] [00:09:05].
The Unprecedented Nature of Russia’s Actions
What distinguishes Russia’s current actions from any other major conflict of modern times is its violation of all three fundamental principles of modern international relations [00:09:05] [00:09:10] [00:09:14].
- While all invasions violate sovereignty [00:09:19].
- The US-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan challenged their independence but did not violate their territorial integrity [00:09:23] [00:09:26] [00:09:31].
- The NATO action against Serbia violated its territorial integrity but did not challenge its political independence [00:09:31] [00:09:35] [00:09:40].
- In contrast, Russia has violated Ukraine’s sovereignty, its territorial integrity, and aims to abolish its independence in some form [00:09:40] [00:09:46].
Significance and Implications
While these distinctions may seem academic, they are profoundly important [00:09:50] [00:09:53] [00:09:57]. By acting in this manner, Russia is violating every principle that underpins the international system, which has been established for over 70 years [00:10:00] [00:10:05] [00:10:08] [00:10:10]. The fact that Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council and uses threats of nuclear retaliation exacerbates the gravity of the situation [00:10:15] [00:10:19]. It suggests that Russia has no respect for the basic principles and norms of international relations; it is “ripping up the rule book entirely” [00:10:25] [00:10:30] [00:10:33].
The invasion is a profound human tragedy, with tens of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced [00:10:47] [00:10:51] [00:10:53] [00:10:55] [00:10:58]. Beyond the human cost, this war has the potential to fundamentally alter the world order [00:11:03] [00:11:06] [00:11:10]. The way countries understand and adhere to the international system’s rules directly affects their actions [00:11:21] [00:11:26]. If states believe rules can be broken or do not apply to them, they will act accordingly [00:11:28] [00:11:31].
Western states must acknowledge their role in eroding these rules, even if their justifications for interventions were strong (e.g., creating democratic states, stopping human rights abuses) [00:11:32] [00:11:38] [00:11:44] [00:11:48] [00:11:52]. Other countries will inevitably use similar justifications for their own violations [00:11:56] [00:12:00]. However, Russia’s actions in Ukraine go far beyond anything seen before, potentially marking a fundamental break with the global political system built over the last 70 years [00:12:02] [00:12:08] [00:12:11]. While flawed, this system has been an improvement over the “might makes right” approach that characterized past world politics, an approach that may now be returning [00:12:17] [00:12:20] [00:12:25].