“No great genius has ever existed, Aristotle said, without some touch of madness. So, we mortals keep a safe distance, drawn by the allure of rare talent but wary of what might go along with it.”

– Anonymous

THE relevant international law to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine can be stated quite simply. The use of force by States is prohibited by Art. 2 (4) of the UN Charter unless the action is excused as self-defense or if an armed attack occurs under Art. 51, or is authorized by the Security Council. But how does this apply in the case of Ukraine?

The Russian attack on Ukraine is beyond comprehension if we are to make use of the international law on armed conflict. Everything Putin has been saying since Feb. 24, 2022 shows that his mindset is narrowly nationalistic, that Russia’s entitlement is based on a sphere of influence, the borders of which happen to coincide with the tsarist empire of colonial times. His attacks on a now sovereign state are pure aggression and not defensive at all.

Next, Putin claims Ukraine is a puppet of NATO, unmindful of Ukraine’s right to join alliances it wants to join. In short, it manifests NATO’s acceptance of states’ right to self- determination which the Kremlin does not.

All this actually exposes Putin’s long held political hold over Russia which disregards the normative principles prohibiting the use of force against another state (to which Ukraine defends itself against Russia’s armed attacks). In the past 14 weeks, Putin’s Russia has been completely in disregard of the international law of armed conflict or the law on the conduct of armed hostilities, e.g., the legality of weapons and the manner in which they are used; risk to the civilian population placed in the path of hostilities; and humanitarian obligation to the civilian population.

In this connection, mention should be made of the experience of lawyers who got involved in “asymmetric warfare,” a war between a standing professional army and an insurgency or resistance movement which often have the status of unlawful combatants. Lawyers faced numerous challenges arising out of intricacies involved when groups intertwine their fighting in and among civilian population — booby-trapping residential areas, using sensitive sites such as hospitals and religious buildings for weapons storage, and actually using civilians as human shields.

Asymmetric warfare

Asymmetric warfare was expe

rienced in Afghanistan which appeared to have stretched the meaning of “armed attack” in Art. 51 of the UN Charter to encompass an attack by non-state actors (al-Qaida and the Taliban), in contrast to the prevailing view that the attack must be by another state, or by non-state actors sent by or on behalf of that state. In Syria, the AlAssad regime of violence came into focus in connection with Art, 2(4) of the UN Charter which says that “all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. However, the provision is not absolute. Exceptions include the right of self-defense and the right of the UN (under Chapter VII of the Charter) “to authorize collective action to respond to a perceived threat … determined by the Security Council (SC). Herein lies the problem. Any action taken by the SC is subject to veto by five permanent members of the Security Council (the US, the UK, France, China and Russia) to any proposed action for any reason whatsoever. Often, the ability or inability of the international community to intervene when states systematically violate the rights of their people depends on which of the five permanent members the aggressor state has the backing of, leading to the perception of bias in the Security Council or the belief that the UN is powerless to act.

Lawfare

One of the developments in the armed conflict mentioned above is “lawfare” — the abuse of legal avenues as an alternative method of warfare. Lawfare may be utilized in order to obtain an operational objective. An example is the Taliban’s campaign to delegitimize aerial drone strikes on the international stage has become their principal effects-based defense methodology due to their inability to defend themselves adequately against such strikes. Lawfare also involves the use of legal proceedings in foreign states and international tribunals to delegitimize the manner in which opposing states implement the use of force.

Lawfare may also be used to undermine public support that is indispensable to Western democracies. Since non-state actors have no regard for the rule of law, they have no qualms about accusations of violations of the international humanitarian law by the opposing state. In comparison, these states spend time and resources to investigate all such claims. More often, the damage that the initial accusation has done in terms of media attention and public opinion cannot be undone, even if the accusations are found baseless and untrue.

In contemporary conflicts, the struggle for the hearts and minds is as crucial as the physical fight. Public opinion becomes as decisive in a conflict’s outcome as military might. Media and public relations become tools by which to wage battle and weaken the other side.

Obviously, the abuse of legal avenues is very much evident in Putin’s stand on his war against Ukraine. Be that as it may, where is humanity in Putin? His record in domestic affairs is known to be authoritarian and repressive. Human rights are reportedly abused. Independent thinking is not encouraged. He wants his people to believe in nationalist propaganda and ignore historic truth.

Only a Putin mind can fathom or process the “mystery.”