How far to go? in the war in UkraineWestern countries are advancing down a gorge, seeking to intensify their military aid to the kyiv government but guarding against direct intervention that would make them co-belligerents against Russia.
Until now, if we base ourselves on the law of armed conflict, the countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have not crossed this red line and this despite the increase in military support, stresses Julia Grignonresearcher at the Strategic Research Institute of the Military School (Irsem).
“Financing, equipping or training armed forces is not enough for a State to enter an armed conflict”said this specialist in the law of armed conflict.
“If this were the case, every time a State finances, equips or trains foreign armed forces, then the Third World War would have broken out long ago, since States sell weapons to each other, train soldiers abroad, etc. ..”Add.
By supplying armored type “cheetah” (Germany), Caesar guns (France) or Starstreak anti-aircraft missiles (Kingdom United), Western countries, which announced on Tuesday an increase in their military aid to the Ukrainian government, continue to respect the rule at least theoretically.
“The mere fact of supplying weapons and other support materials to the Ukrainian armed forces does not mean that the states that support them are part” of the armed conflict, points out the American professor michael schmittspecialist in matters related to international humanitarian law and the use of force.
The matter would be different if they decided to participate directly in hostilities by sending troops to the ground, something ruled out until now by the West, in the first place. USA. That’s right.
“From the moment NATO troops, currently stationed in the countries bordering Ukraine, enter Ukrainian territory, there would be no doubt” of their co-belligerence, considers Grignon.
de facto co-belligerents
The issue could also arise if Western countries are involved in military planning and supervision of military operations, as was the case with the international coalition in its fight against the Islamic State organization in Iraq and in Syria.
Regarding the issue of a no-fly zone, ruled out by NATO itself, it would de facto make co-belligerent countries that apply it and enforce it.
“If some states, perhaps for humanitarian purposes, declare a no-fly zone in parts of Ukrainian airspace and then use force against Russian planes and helicopters to enforce it,”we will be in the case of an armed conflict “between them and Russia”considers Professor Schmitt in a note published at the beginning of March.
After the semantic and legal debate, there is uncertainty about the magnitude and nature of Russia’s reaction, which has been threatening since the beginning of the invasion in the event of interference.
“Participating in an armed conflict means that you can carry out offensive attacks or be the object of defensive attacks on your territory”Grignon says.
Speaking before parliament on Wednesday, the Russian president Vladimir Putin warned against any foreign intervention in the conflict in Ukraine, promising if necessary a quick response as a “flash of lightning”.
Two days earlier, the head of Russian diplomacy Sergei Lavrov he had denounced Western supplies of sophisticated weapons, armored vehicles and cutting-edge drones to Ukraine, in what he sees as a provocation aimed at prolonging the conflict rather than ending it.
“NATO in substance has entered into a war with Russia through an intermediary and also arms that intermediary. That means war.”he declared, before guaranteeing that Russia does everything to preserve the principle of not resorting to nuclear weapons.
Source: Gestion
Ricardo is a renowned author and journalist, known for his exceptional writing on top-news stories. He currently works as a writer at the 247 News Agency, where he is known for his ability to deliver breaking news and insightful analysis on the most pressing issues of the day.
