Our hearts break at the scenes of destruction broadcast out of Ukraine. Previous generations hoped that such horrors would not be repeated after the traumatic events of World War II. Alas, those hopes have been dashed with apartment buildings bombed, citizens taking up arms, and women and children packing their lives into one suitcase as they cross into neighbouring countries seeking asylum.
The current international security system was designed on the premise of protecting territorial integrity. As enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations (‘UN Charter’) and other foundational documents of the post-1945 system, sovereign states are supposed to respect the boundaries and political decisions of their neighbours, with this norm taking precedence. Yet, by looking at the current events in Ukraine along with other ongoing territorial disputes, this would be hard to believe.
Territorial Integrity | A Messy Area of International Law
Territorial integrity is a core element of modern Statehood. A norm of international law, this prohibits one State from using force against another State to violate its territory or political independence. This extends to a State’s land and maritime boundaries and the autonomy of its political affairs. In the wake of the Second World War, the UN enshrined this in the UN Charter by way of Article 2(4), which reads:
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.
Although only enshrined in 1945, this norm is arguably as old as the concept of Westphalian sovereignty and is interlinked with international law on the use of force – jus ad bellum. Yet, territorial integrity has been rarely adhered to by European powers in their journey for empire and continental conquest. It was not until 1928 with the Kellogg-Briand Pact that States abandoned war as national policy and it was not until the creation of the UN in 1945 that use of force was limited to actions authorised by the Security Council.
While no one wished to see the atrocities of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy repeated after their defeats, the current system has not been entirely successful in stopping violations of territorial integrity. From the Arab-Israeli War in 1948 to the current incursion in Ukraine, every region of the world has experienced some form of breach to national sovereignty in the late-20th or early-21st centuries. This includes the annexations of Tibet by China in 1951, East Timor by Indonesia in 1975, and Kuwait by Iraq in 1990.
Issues with territorial integrity have also been entwined with self-determination: the international law principle that all peoples have the right to determine their political status and the manner of their economic, social and cultural development. A fundamental element of the UN system, this has been enshrined in various UN conventions and resolutions, including Article 1(2) of the UN Charter, which explains that a primary purpose of the UN is:
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.
Self-determination has been a predominant reason behind the violation of territorial integrity in various case studies. The Kremlin has attempted to use self-determination of ethnic Russians to justify its occupation of the Donbas region, claiming that the peoples of this region are ethnically Russian and do not want to be part of Ukraine, concluding that Ukrainian forces had subjected them to horrific circumstances and harmed them intentionally.
The results of the Second World War, as well as the sacrifices made by our people on the altar of the victory of Nazism are sacred, but this does not contradict the high values of human rights and freedoms based on the realities that have developed during all post-war decades.
It also does not cancel the right of nations to self-determination enshrined in Article one of the UN Charter.
Let me remind you that not after the USSR was created, nor after the Second World War, no one asked people who lived in certain territories included in modern Ukraine how they themselves wanted to build their life. Our policy is based on freedom of choice for all to determine their own future and that of their children.
Vladimir Putin, televised address, 23 February 2022
Besides this, internal separatist groups have also posed a challenge to territorial integrity by seeking to carve out a part of a state to establish a new state. Yet, as indicated in the International Court of Justice advisory opinion in Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo (2010) at [80]–[84], declarations of independence do not necessarily violate territorial integrity.
This overview of territorial integrity does not even go into the issue of humanitarian intervention, a point of division amongst the international community due to no specific metric or set of agreed criteria on when this should occur and when the international community can breach a State’s territorial integrity. Putin has even claimed that the ‘special military operation’ launched by Russia was one of ‘peacekeeping’ and meant to provide humanitarian support. Although divisions remain regarding legitimate humanitarian intervention, it is quite clear this is not it.
Ukraine and Russia | A Connected and Complicated Past
The history of Ukraine and Russia is complicated and subject to substantial literature that exceeds the limits of this article. Since the 14th century, Ukraine has been under the authority of the litany of ruling forces: Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Kingdom of Poland, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Crimean Khanate, and finally the Russian Empire with the annexation of Crimea in 1783. Quickly urbanised, the previously dominant Turk population was replaced by indigenous Ukrainians, Russians, Germans, Greeks, Serbs, and Bulgarians.
It was not until the Russian Revolution in 1917 that an independent Ukraine emerged, taking various forms until the establishment of the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic in 1919. It came under the sphere of Moscow when it joined the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in December 1922. This allowed the Kremlin to retain some form of authority over most of the disintegrated former Russian Empire.
Over the course of the 1930 to the 1950s, Ukrainian borders changed and grew to their largest. While territories on the eastern and western borders were given to Russia and Moldova respectively, Kyiv gained control of ethnic Ukrainian territory from Poland in 1939, parts of Romania in 1940, Czechoslovak Ruthenia in 1945, the strategic Romanian Snake Island in 1948, and Crimea in 1954.
The most controversial territorial issue for Russians concerned Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea. Since conquering the Crimean Khanate in 1783 under Catherine the Great, Crimea symbolised the naval power of the Russian Empire with Sevastopol the Empire’s main naval base. Russia continued to maintain bases there after the fall of the USSR with a deal allowing its navy to be stationed there until 2017. Many Russians view the 1954 transfer as illegal as there was no referendum, the local population were not consulted, and there was no quorum at the meeting of the Presidium of the Supreme Council when the vote for the transfer took place on 19 February 1954. As described by Russian website Pravdu, it was ‘unconstitutional’.
Besides Crimea, Russia continues to push historical claims to most of Eastern Europe, including the entirety of Ukraine and other former Soviet States. Images broadcast on Russian state TV at the onset of the Ukrainian invasion depicted lands that were supposedly gifted to Ukraine by Tsars and countless governments as far back as 1654. This followed a speech from President Putin in which he stated:
Modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia, more precisely, Bolshevik, communist Russia. This process began immediately after the revolution of 1917 … As a result of Bolshevik policy, Soviet Ukraine arose, which even today can with good reason be called ‘Vladimir Ilyich Lenin’s Ukraine’.
Vladimir Putin, televised address, 21 February 2022
Putin should be careful of such an analysis of Ukrainian history and territorial expansion as it will also bring into question much Russian territory. This includes the Kaliningrad exclave, the Kuril Islands, and the Pytalovsky District, just to name a few. This does not even take into account the forced expulsion of various cultures from what are now considered ethnic Russian territories.
Yes, Putin is opening a dangerous can of worms that may have broader ramifications for the region.
Go West? | Ukraine’s Journey Away from Russia
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has come as a result of ego and anxiety — Putin the war hero and Putin the fearful. While he aims to present himself as a formidable force in Eastern Europe and restore the Soviet sphere of influence, he is also acting on the worry that comes with Europe creeping closer to Russian borders.
Ukraine remains strategically important for the Kremlin and its attempts to reassert Russian dominance. While it surrendered its nuclear stockpile shortly after independence and militarily cannot compete with Russia in terms of manpower and technology, its location (along with Belarus) makes it a buffer between Russia and the growing European Union and NATO. Yet, Kyiv at independence started to look westward for future alliances, becoming the first post-Soviet country to form a framework agreement with NATO in 1994.
Successive Ukrainian governments continued efforts to integrate with the West through membership of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council, the NATO-Ukraine Commission, the NATO-Ukraine Action Plan, and the conducting of joint exercises and other NATO-related administrative operations in Ukrainian territory. To demonstrate its commitment to further Western integration, the Ukrainian Armed Forces sent around 1,700 soldiers and peacekeepers to the Iraq War between 2003 and 2005, the third largest Coalition forces contingent. Ukraine also attempted to integrate further with the EU, with the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement initiating political dialogue between the two in 1994 (entering into force in 1998). As the 21st century commenced, Ukraine and the EU grew closer with the Joint EU-Ukraine Action Plan endorsed by the European Council in 2005, the EU-Ukraine Summit in 2008, and then the formation of the Eastern Partnership in 2009.
Integration stalled under President Yanukovich who refused to sign an EU Association Agreement. Ukraine instead briefly moved economically towards Russia and indicated support of the Eurasian Economic Union and Eurasian Customs Union. Yet, Euromaidan, the wave of demonstrations after the refusal to sign, and the subsequent downfall of President Yanukovich in early-2014 returned Ukraine on its westward path, with President Poroshenko finalising and signing the Association Agreement in May 2014. As the current invasion continues, Ukraine has renewed its integration efforts with the EU, pleading for EU membership to the European Parliament and filing for official candidacy on 28 February 2022.
But why does this scare the Kremlin? Besides Turkey, at the disintegration of the USSR, NATO membership at its furthest only reached Germany and Greece. Now, NATO encompasses states formerly under the Soviet sphere, including the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, and North Macedonia, along with Russian neighbours Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. Similar is true for expansion of the European Union, with 2004 and 2007 marking significant inroads into Eastern Europe.
This provides two reasons for Russia to worry. Firstly, it has lost significant power and prestige since the end of the Cold War, battling the West for influence in Eastern Europe. Secondly, should EU and NATO expansion continue eastward, NATO and European forces will be stationed across a significant portion of its border. If Europe moves to develop a stronger and more unified foreign policy and defence policy, the Kremlin will face an uphill battle in having any influence in its former domain and would be under constant fear of attack and military intervention. While it would be unlikely for there to be an invasion of Russia under such circumstances, President Putin and national leaders will depict it as such to the Russian people in an attempt to create moral panic.
Conclusion
We here in Australia cannot imagine the horrors the people of Ukraine are experiencing. The destruction of civilian areas at the hands of Putin poses a broader threat to the democratic principles which we all enjoy. This is a test for the West — success for Russia will mean a freehand for Putin and the construction of a revived Russian Empire with ambitions in ALL former imperial and Soviet territories. A loss on the other hand may be Putin’s undoing and mark the final integration of Eastern Europe into the West.
The Ukraine invasion and crisis was in the making for decades and is a longer-term consequence of the collapse of the USSR. As history has taught us, Russian power may wane, it gains territory and loses it in a turbulent manner, but its leaders will always seek a return of what they think is theirs, and its current leader has very grand ambitions in that regard.
Ukraine today. The Baltic States tomorrow. Maybe Belarus, Poland and Finland in the future. And then who knows next.
___
Author’s note: The author wishes to express their sorrow for the suffering experienced by the people of Ukraine and prays during what is one the holiest times of the Orthodox calendar that they find peace. We hope that a ceasefire will come soon and the population can return to their homes and, with the assistance of the international community, rebuild their lives.
