-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Is this definition outdated?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

Improve this question
15
  • 8
    That is Russian propaganda that is being used to justify their actions in invading Ukraine.
    – Joe W
    Commented Mar 29, 2022 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
    Commented Mar 29, 2022 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    Do you have any reason to believe that as far as international law is concerned the UN's definition is outdated?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
    Commented Mar 29, 2022 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
    Commented Mar 29, 2022 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
    Commented Mar 29, 2022 at 21:33

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
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.

Improve this answer
6
  • 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
    Commented Mar 29, 2022 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.
    – 264 champagne bottles on ice
    Commented Mar 29, 2022 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
    Commented Mar 30, 2022 at 7:51
  • 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).
    – 264 champagne bottles on ice
    Commented Mar 30, 2022 at 11:19
  • @Allure: and after war the Vietnam sent some captured US equipment as aid to various guerillas in South America wilsoncenter.org/publication/…
    – 264 champagne bottles on ice
    Commented Mar 30, 2022 at 11:26
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.

Improve this answer
3
  • "not a legitimate reason" nowadays. It was in Metternich's time.
    – 264 champagne bottles on ice
    Commented Mar 29, 2022 at 18:47
  • @Fizz, the divine right of kings used to be subject to papal oversight. Those are long gone, too.
    – o.m.
    Commented Mar 30, 2022 at 4:15
  • True, but Metternich lived in the 18-19th centuries... around the time that the fabled maps of Novorossiya as a province existed.
    – 264 champagne bottles on ice
    Commented Mar 30, 2022 at 7:27
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.

Improve this answer
2
  • 2
    This answer could do better without the last couple of parts about who Russia is attacking and the war crimes accusations.
    – Joe W
    Commented Mar 29, 2022 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
    Commented Mar 29, 2022 at 19:06

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