-4

Why can't NATO say, "Even though he's not in our gang, we're not going to let you steal this new kid's bicycle."

Heretofore, the US has been frightened of Putin getting angry. Doesn't that seem like a futile concern?

Is there a double standard going on?

1
  • Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on Law Meta, or in Law Chat. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.
    – Pat W.
    Commented Nov 23 at 22:02

1 Answer 1

1

According to the West, Russia is the aggressor.

  • The UN Charter has provisions for collective self-defense under the UNSC umbrella. This happened in the Korea War, because the Soviets were boycotting the UNSC at the time and China was still represented by the ROC government.
  • As it is generally understood, these provisions for UNSC-led collective action do not replace the older rights for collective self-defense, they merely augment them. Any state is allowed to assist Ukraine in their defense by joining the war between Russia and Ukraine. They could do that in Ukraine or anywhere else in the world (e.g. on the high seas, or in Siberia).
  • By assisting Russia, North Korea may be joining that war of aggression. This depends on the exact status of their personnel. There seem to be indications that they're fighting in Russian uniforms, which might give North Korea some deniability.

According to Russia, the West is the aggressor and at war with Russia.

  • State-sponsored propagandists use 'at war' while diplomats refrained from clearly declaring that 'a state of war does exist.'
  • Russia may have taken covert actions which would constitute acts of war against various NATO states and within the NATO treaty area if they were clearly attributable to Russian government agencies.

The NATO members have chosen to support Ukraine in ways which are no acts of war (according to their interpretation of international law), because they do not want the war to spread beyond Russia and Ukraine. They could offer wider-ranging support, but that might escalate the war in ways they do not want.

0

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .