Russia's invasion of Ukraine has been widely condemned.
But is it any more serious than other wars fought over the past three decades?
While some argue that the outrage merely reflects the fact that it's happening in
Europe and threatens Western interests, there's in fact more to it than that.
From a legal and political perspective, this war goes far beyond anything we've seen before.
There are in fact good reasons to argue that Russia's invasion represents an
unprecedented challenge to the entire system of modern international relations.
Hello and welcome. If you're new to the channel, my name is James Ker-Lindsay and
here I take an informed look at international relations, conflicts, security, and statehood.
Russia has faced a huge barrage of criticism on the world stage for its war against Ukraine.
As well as facing widespread sanctions, a General Assembly resolution deploring Moscow's aggression
was supported by 141 - or three quarters - of the 193 members of the United Nations.
However, while many countries stand against the war,
the conflict has inevitably led to comparisons with other major invasions of modern times,
including the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq,
in 2001 and 2003, and even the NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia, in 1999.
But just how valid are these comparisons?
While there are certainly some important similarities linking all these conflicts,
what we're now seeing in fact represents something substantively different from
anything we've seen since the end of the Cold War.
Indeed, it could well represent the most fundamental challenge
to the established international order since the end of the Second World War.
To understand why, it's important to consider the conflict in terms of three
interlinked but nevertheless separate concepts that underpin
international politics: sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence.
While other invasions have violated one or two of these principles,
Russia's actions in Ukraine represent an unprecedented challenge to all three.
And while this may at first seem like a cold academic debate that ignores human suffering,
as I'll explain it's far more important than many realise.
The starting point for any discussion is sovereignty.
This is the universally understood right of countries to determine
what happens within their borders.
Having emerged as a fundamental principle in the middle of the 17th century,
it underpins our modern understanding of statehood.
And while there have been some moves to challenge the universality of this principle - such
as the responsibility to act when the state systematically violates the human rights of its
citizens - the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other states
nevertheless remains the foundation of the modern international order.
Indeed, it's enshrined in the charter of the United Nations.
In this regard, all invasions by one state or a group of states against another
are by very definition a violation of a country's sovereignty.
If one country enters the territory of another country without its permission,
it has invaded its sovereignty - regardless of intent or justification.
This applies to all cases, whether it's Iraq Libya Serbia Kuwait Afghanistan Cyprus Ukraine
or any number of other examples we can name.
While countries may use terms like peace interventions and special operations,
these are sanitised descriptions of invasions.
The second principle is territorial integrity.
Like sovereignty, this too is a fundamental principle of the
international system and is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.
However, it can be understood in two ways.
It can mean the responsibility not to violate the borders of a state.
However, for this discussion this is encapsulated by sovereignty.
Alternatively, it can mean that states have a responsibility to respect one another's
defined physical boundaries; whether that's land borders or maritime limits.
By and large, the principle of the territorial integrity of states
has in fact been respected in modern times.
Wars of territorial conquest are rare.
There are few examples where a country has sought
to conquer the territory of another state and then claim it as its own.
Indeed, even where this may be the effective goal
most countries have denied that that's what they're after.
For most of the modern era, formal annexation of conquered territory has been unknown.
Crucially neither the U.S. invasion of Iraq nor Afghanistan resulted in any border changes.
Both countries preserved their territorial integrity.
Indeed, efforts by the Iraqi Kurds to proclaim independence have been strongly opposed.
In this sense, and regardless of how one feels about the reasons for the invasions,
while they represented a violation of Afghan and Iraqi sovereignty,
they didn't in fact challenge either's territorial integrity.
Of course, the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia eventually
led to Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence.
In this sense, the outcome did violate Serbia's territorial integrity - even if the countries
that recognised Kosovo's independence argued that they were extenuating circumstances.
But even here the end goal was never the
annexation of that territory by any of the protagonists.
Nor did any other country benefit directly.
A condition for Kosovo's independence
was that it wouldn't be allowed to unite with neighbouring Albani.
That said, and again, regardless of where one stands on the merits of the case we can
argue that Kosovo represented a violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia.
Meanwhile, Russia's violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity is absolutely clear-cut.
It invaded and then annexed Crimea in 2014.
While some may argue that it had once been Russian territory,
Moscow had recognised that change when Ukraine became independent.
And, once accepted, it had no right to violate those borders.
Moreover, Russia has seemingly prepared the way for further annexations by
recognising the independence of Luhansk and Donetsk just days before the current war.
If Russia does succeed in overrunning Ukraine,
the expectation is that these areas will also be incorporated into the Russian Federation.
In this sense, Russia has not only invaded Ukraine's sovereignty,
but it has also violated its territorial integrity.
The third principle is political independence.
As with sovereignty and territorial integrity, this is also explicitly stated in the UN Charter.
And this too is subject to several different readings.
Most obviously, it can mean the existence of a
state as a sovereign entity in the international system.
Like invasions aimed at territorial conquest,
invasions aimed at the formal extinction of a state are now in fact rare.
Indeed, international law no longer accepts conquest
as a legitimate basis for state extinction.
In modern times, the best example of an attempt to
wipe out a sovereign state as an entity was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, in 1990.
Crucially, none of the major western interventions saw this happen.
Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, which later evolved into the Republic of Serbia,
all continue to exist as formal member states of the United Nations.
In contrast, Russia has suggested that the very existence of an independent
Ukrainian state may be at stake.
President Putin has already said that he regards Russians and Ukrainians as one people.
More to the point, he has now openly stated that Ukraine's future as an independent state
is now at risk.
But the concept of political independence can also have a different more subtle meaning.
While sovereignty signifies the right of a state to exercise control within its borders,
and territorial integrity represents the right to have those borders respected,
independence is the extent to which a state controls the decisions made within those borders.
This is important because many invasions are aimed at regime change.
This can be understood as a challenge to the political independence of a state.
Given that the United States and its partners wanted to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban and
Iraq of Saddam Hussain, the invasions did amount to a violation of both countries
respective political independence - even if one believes that the reasons for the interventions,
certainly in the case of Afghanistan, were ultimately justified.
In contrast, in the case of Yugoslavia regime change was never NATO's goal.
In Ukraine, regime change is also on the agenda.
Putin has justified this war on the grounds that Ukraine needs to be
'demilitarized and de-Nazified'.
Even if Russia doesn't annex Ukraine as a whole, there's a sense that Moscow
will install a puppet regime and that Ukraine could well be drawn into some sort of confederal
arrangement akin to the relationship between Russia and neighbouring Belarus.
To this extent, it becomes clear that what sets the current Russian action apart from
any other major conflict of modern times is that, one way or another,
it violates all three of these fundamental principles of modern international relations.
Whereas all invasions are violations of sovereignty,
we could argue that while the U.S.-led invasions of Iraq and
Afghanistan challenged their independence they didn't violate their territorial integrity.
Likewise, while the NATO action against Serbia did result in a violation of the
country's territorial integrity, it didn't challenge its political independence.
In contrast, Russia has violated Ukraine's sovereignty, its territorial integrity,
and is set on abolishing its independence in one way or another.
Now, this may all sound rather academic and distance.
However, it isn't. It's very real and important.
These are the fundamental rules of the international system.
This is how countries choose to understand the limits of their behaviour towards one another,
and have done for over 70 years.
By acting in the way that it is,
Russia is violating every one of the principles that underpin this system.
The fact that it's a permanent member of the Security Council, and is using threats
of nuclear retaliation if anyone tries to help Ukraine directly, makes it even more disturbing.
It indicates that Russia has now absolutely no respect whatsoever
for the basic principles and norms of international relations.
It's not just violating the rules. It's ripping up the rule book entirely.
The moment any sovereign state invades another country
is necessarily a hugely significant event in international relations.
More than anything, it's a very real human tragedy.
And this should never be forgotten.
Tens of thousands will lose their lives
and millions will be forced from their homes in this war.
This should never be overlooked in Ukraine, or anywhere else.
However, when looked at from a more detached perspective,
this war is in fact more significant than it may seem.
It has the potential to profoundly affect the world we live in.
And while such debates may seem irrelevant, especially considering the loss of life,
they aren't.
How countries understand the way the system works affects the way they in turn act.
If they believe that the rules don't apply to them,
or that the rules can be broken by others, then they behave accordingly.
To this end, and as uncomfortable as it will be for many to hear, the Western states must
accept that we are where we are today because they have also helped to erode those rules.
I realise that the argument for doing so may have been strong:
that they were done to create democratic states or stop human rights abuses.
But from a detached perspective, it doesn't matter.
Other countries will inevitably justify their violations on similar grounds.
But that doesn't alter the fact
that Russia's actions in Ukraine go far beyond anything we've seen before.
Its invasion has the potential to mark a fundamental break
with the entire system of global politics that's been built up over the past 70 years.
And no matter how flawed that system has been on occasion,
it has nevertheless been an improvement on the 'might makes right' approach to international
affairs that marked the pattern of world politics in the past - and may well be returning.
Other interventions may deserve to be condemned.
This one certainly deserves to be opposed.
I hope you found that useful. If so, here are some more videos that you might find interesting.
Thanks so much for watching and see you in the next video.