-4

I have read many articles claiming the armament of Ukraine or other post-Soviet states to consist an act of aggression vs. Russia.

However the UN charta gives the following definition of aggression:

"Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition."

Is this definition outdated? Where can I find the most recent definition of aggression?

Aggression as defined by UN charta

Timur Shtatland
  • 12,328
  • 2
  • 30
  • 80
CuriousIndeed
  • 1,181
  • 1
  • 7
  • 17
  • 8
    That is Russian propaganda that is being used to justify their actions in invading Ukraine. – Joe W Mar 29 '22 at 17:15
  • 3
    @JoeW Propaganda need not be false. The US considers the arming of Cuba to be an act of aggression and before that the USSR considered the arming of Turkey to be an act of aggression (prompting the arming of Cuba). The question can still be answered on that merit regardless of contemporary situations. – uberhaxed Mar 29 '22 at 17:19
  • 1
    Do you have any reason to believe that as far as international law is concerned the UN's definition is outdated? Whether any given act is aggressive can be a matter of perspective, but since this question is asking about the actual internationally-agreed definition, there's a clear factual answer, which is already quoted in the question. – Bobson Mar 29 '22 at 17:27
  • @uberhaxed When you are the only person/place defining something in a way to justify an invasion I would question the reliability of the definition. From everything we have seen that is just one of the many reasons that Putin said had to invade Ukraine over. – Joe W Mar 29 '22 at 17:58
  • That link is not to the United Nations Charter (charta is an incorrect spelling). Your definitions of "aggression" refers to the United Nations charter, and so can't be part of it. – DJClayworth Mar 29 '22 at 21:33
  • International law is basically not a thing in the sense that this question and most questions about international law assume it to be. – ohwilleke Mar 29 '22 at 22:35
  • https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/71199/isnt-sending-weapons-to-ukraine-an-escalation Related, you might be interested. – Allure Mar 30 '22 at 07:55
  • Can downvoters elaborate what's wrong with the question? I find it stunning that in Germany even the widely popular satire television "Die Anstalt" used an apparently wrong definition of aggresssion. The show has 100k's to million viewers and is state funded... – CuriousIndeed Mar 30 '22 at 08:36
  • @Rubus - I downvoted because the question doesn't provide any reason to think that the UN definition is outdated. While it's perfectly acceptable for the same user to post a question and answer it, a question that contains the answer within itself is generally not a good question. Also, note that the dictionary definition of aggression doesn't necessarily have to agree with the UN version, but it's the UN version that matters for international law. – Bobson Mar 31 '22 at 18:01
  • @JoeW This is nothing reserved to Russia, other countries see armament of their enemies as an aggresion. – convert Mar 31 '22 at 22:28
  • @convert Do you have evidence to point to that as I would have to disagree about it being seen as an act of aggression – Joe W Apr 01 '22 at 00:33
  • @JoeW Looks like you misunderstood me again. I said that there are more countries which see armament of their enemies as an aggresion, so this point of view is not reserved just for Russia. – convert Apr 01 '22 at 11:05
  • @convert And as far as we can tell Russia is the only one who uses that definition, I don't see any examples of any other country using it. – Joe W Apr 01 '22 at 12:22
  • @JoeW For example Israel uses a similar definition. – convert Apr 01 '22 at 12:36
  • @convert Making claims of other countries using it as a definition of aggression is meaningless unless you can show evidence that what you say is correct. It is also meaningless as that would just be two countries in the world and not how most of the world and global organizations define it. And I would still question a major supplier in the global arms treaty using that as the definition as that would make them an aggressor in most of the world. – Joe W Apr 01 '22 at 12:51

3 Answers3

10

If supplying weaponry was an aggression in international law, and therefore illegal, wouldn't the whole international arms trade be illegal, by definition? A trade in which Russia is a pretty big participant.

Also, what timeline is this question about? Pre 2014? 2014-2021? From invasion on?

It is unlikely to be considered an aggression to give a weaker country some means to defend itself versus a more powerful aggressor (the term aggressor shouldn't be too controversial when applied from 2014 on). From a purely military viewpoint, the armament range handed out to Ukraine also wouldn't exactly be on the shopping list of a country wanting to attack another.

i.e. Taiwan wouldn't consider itself at risk from massive amounts of Chinese antitank missiles and surface to air missiles, if those were the bulk of PLA weapons. An invasion requires another set of armaments.

Invading Ukraine as a pre-emptive war due to those weapons? Unlikely to be considered as a serious justification given the disparities in GDP, weaponry and armed forces.

Sorry, questions about Russian concerns about NATO admission are on firmer grounds and still don't justify invading.

Italian Philosophers 4 Monica
  • 83,219
  • 11
  • 197
  • 338
  • That is a good point, Russia is a major player in the international arms market and they seem to object only when it is something they don't like. – Joe W Mar 29 '22 at 18:19
  • Generally a good point but IIRC Russia was merely claiming the weapons supplied were tipping the balance against the separatists from LPR & DNR. The claims vis-a-vis Russia's security were much more vague and broad like the US was going to put hypersonic weapons in Ukraine at some unspecified point in the future, etc. – the gods from engineering Mar 29 '22 at 19:52
  • 3
    If supplying weaponry was an aggression in international law, and therefore illegal, wouldn't the whole international arms trade be illegal, by definition? Not really, since arms trade involves buying and selling, while supplied weapons are free. – Allure Mar 30 '22 at 07:51
  • 1
    @Allure: for what's worth it, it seems the USSR sent most of their weapons to Vietnam as aid (unlike China, which demanded deferred payment). – the gods from engineering Mar 30 '22 at 11:19
  • @Allure: and after war the Vietnam sent some captured US equipment as aid to various guerillas in South America https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/vietnam-covertly-supplied-weapons-to-revolutionaries-algeria-and-latin-america – the gods from engineering Mar 30 '22 at 11:26
  • @Allure that's a good point but I am not sure if the question was really specific about the pricing part. To be honest, this question both manages to not quote actual Russian statements and instead quotes a very generic definition of aggression which doesn't mention weaponry at all. So I answered in a fairly generic sense. Also, in the past, many countries have handed out bargain weapons to others for various reasons. Russia does too – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 30 '22 at 15:57
4

The answer rests in the difference between preemptive war and preventive war. According to some interpretations, a preemptive war is legitimiate if the threat is both real and imminent. The problem with that is who makes that determination. The winners who write the history? The international community at the time?

When it comes to the specific case, the Russian leadership seems to be at least as afraid of a successful Colour Revolution in a culturally close country, and that is not a legitimate reason to go to war.

o.m.
  • 108,520
  • 19
  • 265
  • 393
1

This definition of aggression by an international body, of which Russian Federation is still a member, is the most recent and the most complete.

Another recent definition of aggression agrees:

Definition of aggression
1: a forceful action or procedure (such as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aggression

Russian Federation (RF) has defined is somewhat differently, as you know. This is the reason that RF has been criticized by some, but not all, world community members.

Timur Shtatland
  • 12,328
  • 2
  • 30
  • 80
  • 2
    This answer could do better without the last couple of parts about who Russia is attacking and the war crimes accusations. – Joe W Mar 29 '22 at 18:21
  • @JoeW Thank you for the constructive comment. Removed the last couple of parts that I think give the proper context for the first part, but are not essential. – Timur Shtatland Mar 29 '22 at 19:06