There are 2 major schools of thought regarding the validity of Ukrainian statehood and sovereignity:
- Ukraine is a sovereign country, proponents of this argument based this on the fact that Ukraine is an active member of the UN
- Ukraine is an invented nation, and their arguments stem from an in-depth understanding of the complex historical background that led to Ukraine in the first place.
There is only one LEGAL school of thought, and that is that Ukraine is a sovereign nation, active member of the UN and recognized by all other nations, including the Russian Federation.
The second ”school of thought” you mention is just delirious ranting from Putin and his followers.
The existance of sovereign nations has nothing to do with history, ethnicity and what a territory or its inhabitants represented in the past. Sovereignty is about present and the accepted statehood recognized at the UN by other countries.
Saying that Ukraine is not Sovereign and belongs to Russia is similar to saying that South American nations should not be sovereign , because based on the complex historical background they belong to Spain and Portugal.
Ukraine has its own president, government, parliament and internationally recognized borders. It is a full member of the UN and it is rcongnized by all other member countries. You can’t get any more sovereign independent country than that.
| Kyiv | August 23–24 | Met with President Leonid Kuchma. Marked the 10th Anniversary of Ukraine's Independence. |
There is only one LEGAL school of thought, and that is that Ukraine is a sovereign nation, active member of the UN and recognized by all other nations, including the Russian Federation.
The second ”school of thought” you mention is just delirious ranting from Putin and his followers.
The existance of sovereign nations has nothing to do with history, ethnicity and what a territory or its inhabitants represented in the past. Sovereignty is about present and the accepted statehood recognized at the UN by other countries.
Saying that Ukraine is not Sovereign and belongs to Russia is similar to saying that South American nations should not be sovereign , because based on the complex historical background they belong to Spain and Portugal.
Ukraine has its own president, government, parliament and internationally recognized borders. It is a full member of the UN and it is rcongnized by all other member countries. You can’t get any more sovereign independent country than that.
American ammunition is no longer effective... THE WASHINGTON POST
A significant portion of American precision-guided munitions has proven vulnerable to interference from Russian electronic warfare systems. After a sharp drop in their effectiveness, the Ukrainian Armed Forces stopped using certain types of Western weapons, The Washington Post writes.
As senior Ukrainian military officials told reporters, projectiles that are aimed at a target using a global positioning satellite system - GPS, are vulnerable to interference.
These precision weapons performed well at the beginning of the war, but over time the Russians found countermeasures to them. Now, some weapons that were previously considered powerful tools no longer provide an advantage.
“I’m not saying that nobody cared before, but now they [Americans] are starting to worry.
As we share information with our partners, and our partners share with us, the Russians are certainly also sharing with China," said one senior Ukrainian military official. For example, the success rate of Excalibur precision projectiles, which are fired from 155 mm artillery, has sharply fell within several months - to less than 10%. After this, the Ukrainian Armed Forces were forced to abandon the use of these ammunition last year. These shells have not been supplied to Ukraine for six months.
Similar problems have arisen with precision-guided JDAM bombs, which are dropped from aircraft. Within a few weeks of their appearance at the front, their accuracy dropped sharply, and the bombs sometimes began to miss their targets by hundreds of meters. However, in this case, the manufacturer was able to make improvements, and now Ukraine continues to use these bombs. Ground Launched Small Diameter Bombs (GLSDB) also proved ineffective. The Americans are now working on new settings before making them available again.
The M30/M31 high-precision missiles, which are launched by the already legendary HIMARS and M270 launchers, did not escape the sad fate. They showed themselves powerfully during the first year of the war, destroying many Russian ammunition depots and command posts.
"But in the second year it was all over: the Russians deployed electronic warfare, turned off satellite signals, and HIMARS became completely ineffective. This ineffectiveness led to the fact that very expensive shells were increasingly used to hit lower priority targets," a senior Ukrainian military official said.
In January, Ukrainian military commanders called on Western partners to provide an alternative: M26 cluster munitions, which can also be launched from these multiple launch rocket systems. These low-tech unguided missiles are resistant to obstacles, and cluster submunitions can hit targets over a wide area even if the shot is inaccurate.
It is noted that Kyiv still considers its HIMARS missiles to be effective, but Russian jammers can cause them to miss their target by 15 meters or more.
“When it is, for example, a pontoon bridge... but there is a 10-meter deflection, it [the projectile] hits the water,” said the Ukrainian official with whom the authors of the publication spoke.
American ammunition is no longer effective... THE WASHINGTON POST
A significant portion of American precision-guided munitions has proven vulnerable to interference from Russian electronic warfare systems. After a sharp drop in their effectiveness, the Ukrainian Armed Forces stopped using certain types of Western weapons, The Washington Post writes.
As senior Ukrainian military officials told reporters, projectiles that are aimed at a target using a global positioning satellite system - GPS, are vulnerable to interference.
These precision weapons performed well at the beginning of the war, but over time the Russians found countermeasures to them. Now, some weapons that were previously considered powerful tools no longer provide an advantage.
“I’m not saying that nobody cared before, but now they [Americans] are starting to worry.
As we share information with our partners, and our partners share with us, the Russians are certainly also sharing with China," said one senior Ukrainian military official. For example, the success rate of Excalibur precision projectiles, which are fired from 155 mm artillery, has sharply fell within several months - to less than 10%. After this, the Ukrainian Armed Forces were forced to abandon the use of these ammunition last year. These shells have not been supplied to Ukraine for six months.
Similar problems have arisen with precision-guided JDAM bombs, which are dropped from aircraft. Within a few weeks of their appearance at the front, their accuracy dropped sharply, and the bombs sometimes began to miss their targets by hundreds of meters. However, in this case, the manufacturer was able to make improvements, and now Ukraine continues to use these bombs. Ground Launched Small Diameter Bombs (GLSDB) also proved ineffective. The Americans are now working on new settings before making them available again.
The M30/M31 high-precision missiles, which are launched by the already legendary HIMARS and M270 launchers, did not escape the sad fate. They showed themselves powerfully during the first year of the war, destroying many Russian ammunition depots and command posts.
"But in the second year it was all over: the Russians deployed electronic warfare, turned off satellite signals, and HIMARS became completely ineffective. This ineffectiveness led to the fact that very expensive shells were increasingly used to hit lower priority targets," a senior Ukrainian military official said.
In January, Ukrainian military commanders called on Western partners to provide an alternative: M26 cluster munitions, which can also be launched from these multiple launch rocket systems. These low-tech unguided missiles are resistant to obstacles, and cluster submunitions can hit targets over a wide area even if the shot is inaccurate.
It is noted that Kyiv still considers its HIMARS missiles to be effective, but Russian jammers can cause them to miss their target by 15 meters or more.
“When it is, for example, a pontoon bridge... but there is a 10-meter deflection, it [the projectile] hits the water,” said the Ukrainian official with whom the authors of the publication spoke
This concept of legal and illegal that is defined by superficial institutions like the UN, is by its nature a Western propaganda, like I said, no one should be fooled by the 'international' stickers that the West slap on to anything to make them look legitimate, they're not. And that includes the United Nations (UN) which is in its very heart, a Western institution, ignore the 'Nation's sticker that they slap as it means nothing.
The only reason why nations entered the UN is because they have yet to build anything strong enough as a 'alternative' to this masquerading Western institution as most of the world even at this point lack what it takes, not because they wanted to dwell in the swamp called the UN.
So the fact that Ukraine is an active member of the UN (a Western institution) meant nothing, Ukraine is still an invented country that is a national security issue for Russia and must be secured before they become a permanent cancer.
Back then the Japanese would describe Korea as a dagger pointed at Japan's soft underbelly, Ukraine is the equivalent to Russia foday what was Korea was to Imperial Japan. It must be secured at all cost, and me a student of political realism wholly endorse this.
You seem to have a hard time understanding the concept of legal and illegal. If you join an institution and sign treaties where you accept a certain set of rules, you should abide by those rules. The UN is not a Western institution. It is a global institution where all memebers joined on a voluntary basis. Nobody was forced to be part of the UN against their will.
If a country doesn’t agree with the legal world order set up under the UN, it has the right to withdraw from the UN and any other treaties they signed, and declare those rules and laws null. Only after doing that they will no longer have to adhere by those rules.
Russia is a part of the UN. It is even a security council permanent member with veto rights, so a privileged memeber. They also recognized Ukraine as an independent sovereign state.
When they invaded Ukraine, they did it against the rules and laws that they recognized and bowed to adhere to. This is why we say it is ILLEGAL.
I am eager to see an alternative to the UN created by such amazing nations like Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. I wonder what the principles of such organization will be like? Maybe they will start with a rule that borders are non-binding and countries are legally allowed to invade and expand their territory. I wonder how many non-imperialist nations will like to sign-up to such an alternative UN.
To clear it out for you, that “alternative“ UN never happened because nobody trusts countries like Russia and China, and even those who cheerlead for them feel safer under the US-led world order.
This is why Russia and anyone thinking this way will not be able to create an alternative to the UN. If rules and treates have no value for you, why should someone sign up to the rules you propose, knowing that you will never abide by them?
And just like with the Japanese and Koreans, Russia will not be able to secure Ukraine, and in the future Imperial Russia will be converted into a pacifist nation that is no longer an empire and has US military bases on its territory, in order to contain China. And just like the Japanese had to apologize to the Koreans for all the abuses done to them, the Russians will have to apologize to Ukrainians.
That's not how it works, the U.S. recognized Iraq as a sovereign country as far back as the 50s but invaded anyway.
Just because Russia decided to break the rules, doesn't mean it is time to leave the organization entirely. A good statesman should know when those rules are to their advantage and press for them to be honored and at the same time know when those rules are to be broken when it's no longer to their advantage. And Putin, is very good at this, I acknowledge it.
Back when Russia was the Soviet Union, while imperfect, the rules were to their advantage. And we saw a less aggressive Soviet Union. After the fall of the Union, Russia found itself at an extreme disadvantage and it's no surprise that it led to the current launch of military operations. Nothing wrong.
So if Indonesia understood this way back when it was just a young pup in int'l power politics, then a veteran player like Russia would've known better.
What Putin is doing makes sense and the fact that he chose to ignore the LEGAL and ILLEGAL that is termed by the UN (a Western institution) underscores his deep understanding of how world affairs work. He is a gem when you compare him to many Non-Western politicians.
This is not true, the U.S.-led UN leadership only makes sense for Europe and most notably Eastern Europe, Indonesia for example doesn't feel threatened by Russia. In Africa, Sahelian nations are kicking out French troops and involvements while inviting Russians.
Russia today has its share of success, but also its share of defeats and humiliation (such as losing the Soviet Empire), they'll not be as reckless as the Japanese. And Putin, a master politician that comes from obscurity will understand it better not to pick an unwinnable fight, but rather a slow methodical approach that pays off (like invading Ukraine and not the Baltics).
Russia should have been kicked out of the UN, if Western leaders had any backbone. You don’t respect the rules, you’re out.
The US never tried to annex Iraq territory and it never claimed Iraq is not a country. You see, if Russia just tried regime change in Ukraine, and when it failed withdrew from the war, we wouldn’t be in the current situation. Where Putin failed miserably is when he started annexing territories, first with Crimea and then with the other Ukrainian provinces.
If Putin was not an amateur, he would have created an independent country in Crimea (Kosovo style), that would be fully independent from Russia, self governing and democratic (at least in appearance). He could have tried the same thing for the Dontetsk and Luhansk republics.
In time, if the local population of those regions was happy with the new status quo as independent countries, it would have been difficult for Western nations to oppose their independence.
But the moment Putin accepted the annexation of territories, he removed any doubt about his imperialistic intentions and he broke all the rules he promised to adhere by. This is when Putin los all his credibility and turned Russia into a pariah state.
Russia should have been kicked out of the UN, if Western leaders had any backbone. You don’t respect the rules, you’re out.
While Putin is playing the rules to his perceived advantage, he is ruining Russia’s credibility and standing. When you respect the rules only when it suits you, nobody trusts you anymore.
If they don’t like the rules, they should first withdraw from the treaties, and only after that they should act against the rules.
If not, they are just rule-breakers that cannot be trusted in the future for any new treaties and negotiations. This is why nobody is willing to negotiate a peace deal with Russia right now. Because Putin’s word and signature is worth less than toilet paper.
Indonesia had all the reasons to contest the UN world order, where a small number of nations had privileges and veto powers. But Russia has no such reasons, because Russia is a big beneficiary of the UN. You are confusing the UN for a Western institution, when in fact the UN is an institution that serves the interests of exactly five countries: US, UK, France, China and Russia.
Those five countries are more “equal” than the others under the UN system. Western countries like Germany, Italy or Canada are actually undermined by a system where China or Russia hold more power than they do.
What you call his deep understanding of world affairs, I call plain ignorance and stupidity. Putin is unable to play and win by the rukes of the XXI century, so he tries to bend the rules in his favor, without knowing that the anarchism he promotes in world affairs would be his downfall.
“Might is right” does not favor Russia, and Putin still didn’t realize that. He thought he can do whatever he wants in his backyard, but the US is watching and can slap him whenever it sees fit, while Putin has no way to fight back and has to ignore every humiliation.
Indonesia doesn’t feel threatened by Russia, but would you say the same about China? Would you prefer a world order ruled by Russia and China instead, where Russia is allowed to rule its backyard (Eastern Europe and Central Asia) while China gets the South China Sea and Southeastern Asia?
Be careful what you wish for, as it might come true.
Yes, Putin is aware of his weakness and not as reckless as Imperial Japan. But he was still stupid enough to fall into the trap and invade Ukraine. The slow methodical approach works both ways.
What I see is the US slowly normalizing the idea that US weapons can be used to shoot at Russian military assets without any repercussions for the US. First in Ukraine, then in Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, and soon in Russia proper. By the end of the year we will most likely see US missiles pounding Russian military assets inside Russia, while Russia being too afraid to fire a single shot at the US military. Something like that was unthinkable two years ago, but Putin’s “strategic leadership“ made all this possible.
Legal or illegal, you may say? There is no such thing?One of the biggest mistake that the sons of Adam has made in the 21st century is adopting the LEGAL and ILLEGAL approach on international politics.
Fun fact, there is no such thing as legal and illegal in power politics, and especially great power politics.
The Russian military operation in Ukraine is 'ILLEGAL' in the sense that it goes against the interest of the West. In Indonesia, the majority thinks that Russia is doing what it needs to do.
This concept of legal and illegal that is defined by superficial institutions like the UN, is by its nature a Western propaganda, like I said, no one should be fooled by the 'international' stickers that the West slap on to anything to make them look legitimate, they're not. And that includes the United Nations (UN) which is in its very heart, a Western institution, ignore the 'Nation's sticker that they slap as it means nothing.
Russia being a long time great power understand this, the Soviet Union (and many non-Western countries) entered the UN because it has yet been able to create a challenger/alternative to the institution, not because they actually believe in this tools of Western imperialism masquerading as a truly global institution. The idea back then is to wait for the Soviet Union to be strong and far reaching enough and prolly came up with a competitor to the UN. The Soviet Union collapsed before it could happen but the logic stays. The only reason why nations entered the UN is because they have yet to build anything strong enough as a 'alternative' to this masquerading Western institution as most of the world even at this point lack what it takes, not because they wanted to dwell in the swamp called the UN.
So the fact that Ukraine is an active member of the UN (a Western institution) meant nothing, Ukraine is still an invented country that is a national security issue for Russia and must be secured before they become a permanent cancer.
Back then the Japanese would describe Korea as a dagger pointed at Japan's soft underbelly, Ukraine is the equivalent to Russia foday what was Korea was to Imperial Japan. It must be secured at all cost, and me a student of political realism wholly endorse this.
Legal or illegal, you may say? There is no such thing?
Then some people can say that about Palestine.
Also it is really interesting that person who is against Western Imperialism is for other people Imperialism and activity looking for any presedan.
As I have said on these boards many times, when someone looks at the world in the prism of hate and oversimplifie everything, sooner or later he will come to the paradox
The real politic is never based on that but it's now.
The same things can be used to justify Russian intervention in Syria? The same things can be said when USSR invaded Afghanistan?Legal and Illegal definitions that is based on the assumption of some Western institutions like the U.N should never be used as standards. That's what I meant.
Simply put, the Russian military operation is illegal according to the UN, but completely legal according to Russia. and that's fine, diverging opinions must be accepted. The pro-West will justify UN resolution against Russia because it suits their goal, while some anti-West justify Russian operation because it suits theirs.
I'm neither pro-West nor pro-Russia, but I could understand why taking over Ukraine is such a huge importance for Russia, and it's completely justified from a power politics lens.
Good that you put Palestine into the argument. Palestine is damning evidence that the order in which the UN thrives and continues to promote is at best, Western. Right now, the West is dumping whatever imaginary credibility they have so that Israel could take Gaza, a small desolate city while Russia is gaining on their loss of credibility to justify its takeover of Ukraine, a 'country' with abundant natural resources and fertile farmland.