Representative Press Blog

There's been an 8-year civil war in Ukraine and the side using neoNazis to attack ethnic Russians in the east of Ukraine is not only in the wrong, but it also has questionable grounds to call themselves the legitimate government of Ukraine. When, after a coup, does a government get the status of legitimate, and on what basis? As far as what was happening during the civil war, last year Zelensky signed decrees which were plans for military assaults on Crimea and the Donbas. This year, in mid-Feb, Ukraine's western supported side launched a major attack with drastically increased shelling of Donbas, they continued this attack even after Russia formally recognized the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic. DPR and LPR requested help from Russia and Russia intervened in accordance with Art. 51 of the UN Charter to protect DPR and LPR from the aggressor which is Ukraine's western supported side.

Kosovo was recognized as having the right to declare itself an independent state so why shouldn’t LPR and DPR have that right? In July 2010, the International Court of Justice declared that the “adoption of the declaration of independence of February 17, 2008 did not violate general international law because international law contains no 'prohibition on declarations of independence” The United States formally recognized Kosovo as a sovereign and independent state on February 18, 2008 (2 years before the  International Court of Justice’s opinion.)

Russia intervened in accordance with Art. 51 of the UN Charter to protect DPR and LPR from the aggressor, we can only declare Russia’s actions to be a violation of international law if we use a double standard. By the standard the U.S. has set, Russia’s action was legal.  

Article 51 of the UN Charter states: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense 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.

“The United States has maintained that its action in South Vietnam in not unlawful aggression since it is participating in collective defense against armed attack from the North. … The United States had argued convincingly that even though South Vietnam is not an independent sovereign State or a member of the United Nations, it nevertheless enjoys the right of self-defense, and the United States is entitled to participate in its collective defense.”

“Under the self-defense doctrine, the bombing of North Vietnam for the purpose of repelling or impeding an armed attack which had its roots in that area would be legally justifiable if no more force was used than was necessary. … “The United States had justified its action not merely as a defense measure but one undertaken in fulfillment of an international legal obligation as well as a moral obligation.” - Benjamin B. Ferencz