Reply To: Russian Tensions
“Just cause: The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot, therefore, be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: “Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations.”
Russia has an arguable case here, claiming that they acted to protect the populations of Donetsk and Lugansk from shelling and further depredations by Kyiv (also, the later claim that Kyiv was organising for a massive onslaught to pacify those reasons).”
With you so far.
“Now, the doctrine of national sovereignty would apply here, as Kyiv was putting down an internal revolt”
OK, we’ve a problem here. Ukraine was no longer a sovereign country. Its legitimate government had been overthrown in a US funded coup. Victoria Nuland publicly admitted to spending $5 billion on the overthrow of the government. She personally chose the new cabinet. This government launched the war in the Donbass which caused a massive refugee exodus and disenfranchised similar numbers of voters with sympathies toward Russia. This disenfranchisement ensured that all future governments, including the current one, are not legitimate. Kiev is Washington’s pawn. Washington scuttled peace talks with Russia and entirely funds its government and military apparatus. Ukraine, therefore, is not sovereign. So, an appeal to sovereignty is moot.
“so Moscow would need to rely on a case of grave violations of human rights (of which, see more below). This justification fails if it could be shown that Moscow had instigated the uprisings in those reasons to engineer a justification for war.”
Russia didn’t instigate the uprisings. The Washinton and its hand picked fascist coup plotters did when they overthrow a legitimately elected government, massacresd their opponents and banned the speaking of Russian.
“Competent authority: Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war. “A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Dictatorships (e.g. Hitler’s Regime) or deceptive military actions (e.g. the 1968 US bombing of Cambodia) are typically considered as violations of this criterion. The importance of this condition is key. Plainly, we cannot have a genuine process of judging a just war within a system that represses the process of genuine justice. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice”.
This is interesting: Russia’s denial that it was going to invade, right up until the moment it did vitiates this criterion”
The Kremlin had no intention of intervening in the civil war until the last minute. At least if US officials are to be believed.
U.S. Intelligence Says Putin Made a Last-Minute Decision to Invade Ukraine
“that Moscow made no international appeals, or bilateral moves or publicly stated it had to act.”
It did all these things. Russia strenuously argued for the implementation of the Minsk 2 Agreement which former Ukrainian and German presidents both recently agreed was a ruse to re-arm Ukraine and prepare it for war with Russia. Russia also proposed a security agreement halting NATO’s eastern expansion which was summarily ignored by the west.
“Likewise, the shifting goalposts, from defending the Russian minority in Ukraine”
These goal posts have never shifted.
“to the annexation of territory”
Kiev lost its right to rule over ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine once it attempted to ethnically cleanse them from the region. The people there exercised their right to self determination and chose the Russian Federation over rule by a death cult of suicidal Nazis.
“means that Russia does seem to be delinquent in this regard.”
If you base your reasoning on faulty assumptions you’ll reach faulty conclusions.
“Probability of success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success”
Says who? Sounds awfully arbitrary to me. In a war against Nazis you’re going to give them a “fair fight” are you? Why would you do that when instead you can deploy overwhelming might to crush them as they deserve and thereby shorten the conflict?
“Herein is Moscow’s gravest sin, plainly, the probability of success was low”
Erm, newsflash, the Kremlin’s initial plan almost succeeded. It would have left Ukraine a functioning polity. But Ukraine is not sovereign so the puppets in Kiev followed NATO orders and remained belligerent. This forced Russia’s plan B. Pulverising Ukraine’s military. It is close to achieving this end and forcing unconditional surrender. It doesn’t matter whether or not you believe this to be true because reality does not conform to your personal beliefs. It is as it is. Ukraine is losing catastrophically and soon even Guardian Brahs will have to admit the fact.
“their initial gamble didn’t pay off”
Plan A failed in part though it succeeded in much of the east. As for the conflict writ large you’ve fallen in to the same trap as All-in; calling the match at the half time whistle after one team has accrued 6 red cards.
“and confrontation with a large military force that was going to require destruction and bloodshed far greater than the ill they were professing to address.”
You’ve no way of knowing how destructive the ethnic cleansing of Donbass would have been. Nor of the repercussions of a nuclear armed Ukraine on Russia’s border and the consequent possibility of nuclear conflagration.The supreme war crime is starting a war. Kiev started the war. Russia is finishing it.
“Now, whether their conduct in the war is within the realms of just war theory is a matter for another time, my point here is that their justification for war in the first place is sufficiently weak that it is plausible that even without atrocity their actions constitute war crimes.”
That’s your opinion. Scott Ritter has argued there is a legal case supporting Russia’s actions. Putin is a trained lawyer and surely has legal advisers who’ve crafted a similar opinion. Perhaps these justifications will be interrogated one day. Until then, the Nazis will get the shellacing they deserve.
