Auditioning for an audiobook

 

WHY ARE WE SLEEPWALKING INTO ARMAGEDDON?

Russia's President Putin has now said that if NATO forces assist Ukraine by providing long-range missiles that can strike deep into Russia, it will mean the NATO allies are at war with Russia, and he will respond in kind. And without any other framing context, he is perfectly entitled to do so. Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and NATO has no business in getting involved beyond the ancient code of war: act in your own interest; might is right. 

But in the context of war with Russia, this is the counsel of fools. Russia is a nuclear power, and although it has thus far hesitated to use nukes, there is no doubt it would do so if it ever felt its territory and defence capabilities were being seriously threatened. And even if the current conflict only continues on a tit-for-tat basis, NATO cannot defeat Putin without risking the ultimate option, and bringing on Armageddon.

So why are they playing this dangerous game, one that cannot be won? Why is the conflict being framed as a 'war' with Russia when there is another, much larger context in which we could – and should – be dealing with it? For every country in the UN is signatory to its Charter – which means we have all agreed that no member state will attack another sovereign state. It's right there in Article 2.4: "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."

Like any other legal document, this is a binding contract. Russia is signed up to it, and through its attack on Ukraine, is clearly in breach of that agreement. If this were a domestic dispute, they would be taken to court, but the court that ultimately decides such issues at the UN is the Security Council – and the five permanent members (of which Russia is one) can veto any decision which would allow the UN to formally take action against them. This seems to be the sticking point at which everyone gives up, the inbuilt fatal flaw. 

But wait: though we seem to have forgotten, it turns out the drafters of the UN Charter had thought of that. Here's the relevant section, clearly stated in Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective [my emphasis] self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. 

This means that even without the formal authorisation of the Security Council, other member states are allowed – and even morally bound – to assist Ukraine in defending itself against Russia's illegal attack on its territory. There should be no hesitation in saying this. It's not enough to say, as NATO leaders do, that Putin is acting illegally – yet prevaricate over whether and how they should provide assistance. Under the existing law, in the absence of a Security Council resolution, they have every right to give Ukraine what it needs to defend itself, including the provision of troops if necessary. 

The West is, of course, worried about escalation. But this is not the point. Any conventional war risks escalation – but this is not a conventional war. This is about upholding the law, the only effective alternative to war. We accept that principle absolutely within our own countries. Why do we not now insist that the same principle be upheld internationally? We've all agreed that naked aggression cannot be accepted. Russia's signature is there on the same page as everyone else's. This conflict is not about war, it is about enforcement. We should not be shy about saying so, and acting accordingly.