I recommend clicking on the link and reading the whole piece. It is long at 25 pages, but is a comprehensive (and thought-provoking) discussion of the legal and political aspects of the Ukraine conflict since the events of 2013. – Natylie
David C. Hendrickson is a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Peace & Diplomacy, Professor Emeritus of political science at Colorado College, and President of the John Quincy Adams Society.
The way in which commentators have looked upon the legal issues raised by Russia’s war in Ukraine is inadequate. Western leaders have focused exclusively on Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, both in 2014 and 2022. By territorial integrity is meant the principle that every state has a right to preserve itself in its own borders against external aggression. Undoubtedly, that is an important principle of international law. It is what makes the invasion or occupation of another state’s territory a categorically unjust act. This principle alone does not fully penetrate the legal issues, however, because its standing has to be assessed alongside other important principles in international law, especially the right of revolution and the right of national self-determination.
By choosing to view the Ukraine crisis solely through the lens of territorial integrity, Western policymakers systematically overlook one critical aspect of sovereignty. The principle of territorial integrity is only the external dimension of sovereignty—the more holistic concept. It is the application of international law to the external boundaries of states. But sovereignty also has an internal dimension: the right of a people to choose the sovereign whose authority they will abide by.
On the night of February 24, when Russian forces crossed the western and northern borders of Ukraine, the world’s attention was riveted on the fate of Kiev. Hardly anyone paid attention to the far south in the Black Sea, some 140 kms from Odessa, when Russian Navy attacked that night and captured the entire Ukrainian garrison on Snake Island, an obscure small clump of rock with little obvious value, just 46 acres of rock and grass.
But yet another massive attempt by Ukrainian forces on June 20 early morning to land troops on Snake Island signals that the Russian occupation remains under stiff challenge still. The Russians say they spotted a Global Hawk RQ-4 strategic reconnaissance UAV of the US Air Force at high altitudes near Snake Island, apparently feeding coordinates to the Ukrainian combat positions.
The MOD in Moscow issued a lengthy account (in English) on Snake Island during the daily briefing on Tuesday by Lt. Gen. Igor Konashenkov, the chief spokesman. The statement said:
“On June 20, at about 05.00 AM, the Kiev regime attempted to capture Snake Island.”
“The plan of the operation composed by the Kiev regime was supposed to launch massive air and artillery attacks at Snake Island, to disembark troops and capture it.”
“The air attack involved more than 15 Ukrainian attack and reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) adjusted by two Bayraktar-TB2 UAVs.”
“Russian means detected a Global Hawk RQ-4 strategic reconnaissance UAV of the U.S. Air Force at high altitudes near Snake Island.”
“Ukrainian UAVs were supported in air by S-300 air defense systems from their combat positions near Tuzla and Ochakov (in Odessa Region).”
“Missile and artillery attacks at Snake Island were launched by Ukrainian Tochka-U ballistic missiles, Uragan multiple rocket launchers and M777 155-mm howitzers from their combat positions to the west from Odessa and in Kubansky island.”
“Russian air defence means (Pantsir air defense missile and cannon system and Tor air defense missile system) have destroyed all the destruction means of the enemy launched at Snake Island.”
“The destroyed targets were: 13 UAVs, 4 Tochka-U missiles and 21 projectiles of Uragan multiple rocket launcher.”
“No Ukrainian destruction means have reached their targets in Snake Island.”
“The unsuccessful fire attack forced the enemy to abandon the landing to Snake Island.”
Control over Snake Island is of strategic importance. Located near the southern coast of Odessa, it is a necessary springboard for the expected Russian operation on that port city in a conceivable future. By the same token, the removal of the Russian control of Snake Island becomes important for Kiev.
If the Ukrainian military regains control of the island, it can not only ensure the safety of the air and sea near Odessa, but can also be used for the supply of military equipment by NATO by sea. Although the Snake Island is only a fraction of a square kilometre in size, its importance for control of the sea lanes in western Black Sea is not in doubt.
If Russians set up their long-range air-defence systems they will control the sea, land and air in the north-west part of the Black Sea and in the south of Ukraine. It would also give Russian troops the chance to break into Transnistria, Moldova’s breakaway territory under Russian control that lies next-door to Ukraine and not far from Odesa. The US is working feverishly to do “another Ukraine” against Russia in Moldavia which has a president and top officials with dual American citizenship who seek EU and NATO membership.
Snake Island is only 45km away from the coast of Romania, which is a member of NATO, where the alliance has deployed an estimated land force of upto 4,000 troops currently drawn from the US, Germany, France, UK, Poland, etc. Snake Island lies close to the mouth of the River Danube, which delineates Romania’s border with Ukraine. Military analysts have pointed out that Russian troops on Snake Island could be in a position to control traffic into the Danube delta, the gateway to south-eastern Europe. Romania’s Black Sea port of Constanta is not far south.
Clearly, the involvement of the US and UK in the planning and conduct of Ukraine’s repeated attempts to regain control of the Snake Island shows that they have given the Snake Island a vital and almost mythical status in the war. Any Russian deployment of S-400 missile system in Snake Island would of course endanger NATO’s southern flank.
Suffice to say, the NATO’s permanent presence in the Black Sea and future expansion toward the Caucasus and the Caspian and Central Asian regions will remain problematic so long as Russia is in control of Snake island.
Snake Island epitomises the hopelessness of the Ukraine war. Russia cannot end its operation even after a successful completion of the Battle of Donbass. Kiev is unlikely to sue for peace. Kiev is seriously preparing for a counteroffensive once the heavy weapons arriving from the US are deployed.
Kharkiv is only 40 kms from the Russian border and Ukrainian forces are in no mood to give up there. In the south, Kiev vows to retake Zoporozhizhia, Kherson and Mykolaiv regions which the Russians plan to integrate. The Ukrainian forces are well ensconced in Odessa. Clearly, the NATO is preparing for a big fight for Odessa. The ongoing battle for Snake Island is symptomatic of that.
The two US weapon systems that could be game-changers in an island fight are Harpoon anti-ship missiles and High-Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS). While Harpoons could help the Ukrainians cut off the Snake Island from seaborne resupply, HIMARS could allow them to bombard the island at will.
The Black Sea Fleet remains in control of the Black Sea and Russians apparently managed to ship a Tor air-defence system to Snake Island. But that may change once the US supply of truck-mounted launchers for Harpoon anti-ship missiles reach Ukraine. The Harpoon has a range of 150 kms or more. HIMARS can fire M30 rockets out to a distance of over 70 kms —more than enough to reach Snake Island.
To be sure, a long war lies ahead and it cannot really end without the collapse of the Ukrainian state and abject surrender. Most certainly, Ukrainians will renew their assault on Snake Island. It is evident that unlike eastern region, southern Ukraine is the priority in NATO’s planning.
From the New Atlas YouTube channel. Link to program here.
“Ukraine’s Minister of Foreign Affairs has a plan to achieve victory for his nation. All it requires is the West creating and transferring over a full-scale army and air force-worth of heavy weapons.
The recent op-ed penned by Dmytro Kuleba demonstrates the two different conversations taking place among the West regarding Ukraine – one of pure fantasy and one regarding the stark reality of Ukraine needing to make concessions.”
David T. Pyne, Esq. is a former U.S. Army combat arms and H.Q. staff officer with an M.A. in National Security Studies from Georgetown University. He currently serves as Deputy Director of National Operations for the EMP Task Force on National and Homeland Security and is a contributor to Dr. Peter Pry’s new book Blackout Warfare.
It has now been over one hundred days since Russia invaded Ukraine with no end to the war in sight. The war has the potential to drag on for months, if not years, and lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of more Ukrainians, as well as the destruction of more cities that will fuel a worsening humanitarian crisis. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has confirmed that over 4,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed during Russia’s invasion while the Ukrainian government claims a death toll of over 27,500. The war has resulted in the greatest refugee crisis since the end of World War II. It is estimated that nearly five million Ukrainians have left the country while an additional eight million have been displaced within Ukraine. These are staggering numbers that equate to over one-third of Ukraine’s citizens being forced to leave their homes. Furthermore, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky recently declared that Russian forces now control 20 percent of Ukraine’s territory.
While Western media outlets continue to mistakenly report that Ukraine is winning the war, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has indicated that Russia is making incremental progress towards achieving its military objectives. According to a recent Western intelligence report, even though the United States is providing Ukraine with four to five times more military aid than Kyiv spends on its armed forces each year, Ukraine is losing the Battle of the Donbass and suffering “extreme losses” while being “outgunned 20 to 1 in artillery.” Ukrainian troops are running out of ammunition, increasingly demoralized, and beginning to desert. The report also revealed that most Ukrainian artillery is limited to a range of twenty-five kilometers while Russian artillery and rocket launchers can strike from twelve times that distance. It also stated that Ukraine’s bargaining position has been weakened since Russia has more than ten times the number of prisoners of war than Ukraine. The intelligence report concluded by stating: “It is plain that a conventional war cannot be won if your side has several times fewer weapons, your weapons hit the enemy at a shorter distance, and you have significantly less ammunition than the enemy.”
While conceding the risks of Russian nuclear escalation, President Biden recently clarified that the United States does not seek a direct war with Russia, nor will it support the overthrow of Russian president Vladimir Putin. After declaring last month that its objective was to weaken Russia and destroy its ability to wage offensive war, the Biden administration now says that the purpose of U.S. military assistance is to strengthen Ukraine’s ability to negotiate a more favorable peace agreement. When asked if Ukraine might have to cede some of its territory in a negotiated peace agreement with Russia, Biden did not rule out that possibility.
What follows is a proposed fifteen-point peace plan to end the Russo-Ukrainian War. These are the best and most realistic terms Ukraine can hope for, as well as the terms most likely to be agreeable to both sides. Such a negotiated compromise peace agreement could be mediated by France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, and Israel and would be followed by a cessation of all military operations and the withdrawal of all Russian military forces from Ukraine outside of the Donbass region. To my knowledge, this is the first comprehensive peace proposal that has been published in a Western journal and it attempts to permanently resolve, rather than postpone the resolution of, all existing areas of contention between Russia and Ukraine to ensure that Russia won’t have any reason to resume hostilities against Ukraine in the future. This proposal also addresses some of Russia’s most pressing security concerns while serving to enhance the security of NATO members by reducing the prospects of a future conflict with Russia.
Fifteen Point Peace Plan to End the War in Ukraine
1. Ukraine will amend its constitution to become permanently neutral. Its independence, neutrality, national sovereignty, and territorial integrity will be guaranteed by the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and conditioned upon Ukraine’s compliance with the terms of the peace agreement. In return, Russia will recognize the legitimacy of the current government of Ukraine and renounce any intention to replace current Ukrainian government leaders with ones more amenable to Moscow.
2. Ukraine recognizes Russia’s 2014 reunification with Crimea and renounces all intentions to recover it by force or otherwise.
3. Russia will withdraw all of its military forces to their pre-invasion positions, including from the Kharkiv, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts but except for the Donbass region where the new line of control between Russia and Ukraine will be revised to the line of control as it exists at the execution of this agreement.
4. A popular referendum will be held by September 2022 for the entire Donbass region, including both the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, on whether their citizens wish to become independent or return to Ukrainian control. This referendum will be conducted by the respective governments of the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts on each side of the line of control and will be supervised by United Nations or other neutral international observers. All citizens of the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, including refugees, shall be permitted and encouraged to vote in the referendum. The votes of the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts shall be counted together so that the results shall be the same for both regions. In the event that a majority of their citizens vote to remain part of Ukraine, the Donbass region shall be permanently demilitarized with the withdrawal of all Russian and Ukrainian troops. As previously agreed to by Ukraine under the Minsk II agreement, Ukraine’s constitution shall also be amended to guarantee the rights of Russian-speaking minorities. However, if the Donbass region votes for independence, all Ukrainian troops shall be withdrawn. Russian troops may remain only if invited to do so by the Luhansk and Donetsk Republic governments. Regardless of the outcome of the referendum, Ukraine agrees to make Russian one of its official languages again.
5. Russia will support Ukraine’s application to join the European Union.
6. Ukraine will permanently suspend all NATO ties, including military trainers, exchanges, and joint military exercises, along with all NATO arms shipments except for small arms. Additionally, Ukraine will prohibit the stationing of NATO troops or bases on its territory. Ukraine also agrees to end its membership in the NATO Partnership for Peace program and terminate its November 2021 strategic partnership agreement with the United States.
7. Ukraine will reduce its ground forces to no more than 150,000 active-duty troops and a maximum of 100,000 troops in reserve.
8. Ukraine agrees to destroy all of its “strike systems” under Russian supervision. (This provision would likely be interpreted by Russian negotiators to include fighters, fighter-bombers, bombers, attack aircraft; helicopter gunships and UAVs equipped with bombs, rockets, or missiles; artillery and mortars larger than 155mm in caliber, multiple rocket launchers, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and medium to long-range surface to air missiles). Ukraine shall be prohibited from developing or acquiring any of these expressly banned weapon systems. (For a specific list of Ukrainian weapons that Russia would likely consider “strike systems” please see my previous article “How Biden Can End the War in Ukraine.”) Furthermore, Ukraine shall be prohibited from developing weapons of mass destruction including nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, and shall shut down all twenty-six of its U.S.-funded biological research labs within six months of the signing of this agreement and allow Russian inspectors to access the labs to ensure that they are closed.
9. All prisoners of war, refugees, and any civilians in captivity will be returned to their respective countries with their treatment and care governed by the provisions of the Geneva Convention.
10. There will be no reparations issued by either side and no international war crimes tribunals. Any war crimes tribunals shall be conducted by the nations to whom the offending troops belong.
11. The United States and European Union will agree to provide the necessary amount of economic aid to assist in the process of Ukraine’s reconstruction.
12. Full diplomatic relations between Russia and Ukraine, as well as between Russia and all NATO countries, will be restored following the signing of this agreement.
13. Upon the execution of this peace agreement by both parties, all post-invasion economic sanctions placed against Russia shall be immediately rescinded and any public and private Russian financial and economic assets that were seized will be returned to their owners. Conditional on Russian adherence to its terms, both sides agree to normalize trade relations within twelve months of the signing of this agreement.
14. The United States and NATO shall issue written guarantees that NATO will never expand eastward into additional former Soviet republics or along Russia’s borders (i.e. Finland). In exchange for these guarantees, Russia will acquiesce to Sweden’s ascension into NATO as well as that of any other European country that does not border Russia and wishes to join the alliance.
15. Russia and NATO agree to commence discussions to include Russia in the security architecture of Europe, renew the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, and negotiate a follow-on agreement to the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty. A follow-on agreement to the CFE treaty will reduce the number of American, Western European NATO, and Russian troops and bases in Eastern Europe. This will include all of the nations that joined NATO after 1999, as well as Belarus and Ukraine, and lower troops levels to less than 9,000 on each side. This agreement shall provide that, in the event that Russia further reduces or even eliminates its military presence in Belarus and continues to honor the terms of its peace agreement with Ukraine, then the United States and Western European NATO members will also reduce or eliminate their combined troop presence and close all bases in the Baltic states, Poland, Romania, Hungary, and Slovakia to match Russian troop withdrawals in Belarus. This will potentially return Eastern Europe to the status quo that existed before the July 2016 Warsaw Summit. As part of this agreement, the United States will also agree to withdraw all Aegis Ashore anti-ballistic missiles and dismantle its Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Sites in Redzikowo, Poland, and Deveselu, Romania in exchange for a withdrawal of all Russian nuclear-capable delivery systems from Belarus.
If the Donbass region votes for independence, this would amount to the loss of approximately 6.5 percent of Ukrainian territory held prior to Russia’s invasion. However, most of the coastal territories Ukraine would regain from the peace agreement would compensate Kyiv for its loss. Given that Kyiv has no real hope of regaining these lost territories militarily, it would have much to gain from a “land for peace” agreement. Negotiating a peace agreement will also save the lives of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Ukrainian citizens, sparing its cities from further destruction, and allowing thousands of its roads, bridges, schools, and hospitals to be rebuilt. The cost of rebuilding is estimated to be $600 billion. Although the war has forced half of Ukraine’s businesses to close, a peace deal could allow them to reopen and millions of Ukrainians could return to work. A peace deal would also end Russia’s devastating Black Sea naval blockade and restore Ukraine’s ability to engage in international trade while enabling most of its nearly 13 million refugees to return home. Finally, ending the war by July would prevent the projected 60 percent decrease in Ukraine’s gross domestic product if the war continues until the end of the year.
It is in the United States’ national security interests to incentivize Russia and Ukraine to negotiate a peace agreement as soon as possible and avoid a potential Russian escalation to the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine or against frontline NATO states. The Biden administration could do so by offering to suspend the implementation of all new economic sanctions against Russia, U.S. troop deployments to Eastern Europe, and lethal military assistance to Ukraine in exchange for an immediate and sustained Russian ceasefire, a halt to Russian military advances, and the resumption of serious peace negotiations along the lines outlined above. A relaxation of sanctions following a peace deal would likely provide badly needed economic relief for Americans by significantly lessening fuel, food, and energy prices. It would also significantly lessen the severity of the worsening global food crisis, which threatens to starve millions of people in the Global South.
With Ukrainian military and territorial losses in the Battle of the Donbass increasing, the longer the Biden administration and its NATO allies delay in persuading Ukraine to negotiate a peace agreement with Russia, the weaker Ukraine’s negotiating position will be. If Zelensky decides not to negotiate a peace agreement following the Russian conquest of the Donbass, Putin has made it clear that he intends to formally annex the entire Donbass region and the Kherson oblast while keeping control of 70 percent of Ukraine’s Black Sea coastline. One Russian general has stated that Moscow would then stage a follow-on offensive to capture Odessa and cut Ukraine off from the Black Sea, making it a land-locked country and further weakening its economic and territorial security. For all of these reasons, it is in the United States and Ukraine’s national interests to finalize a peace agreement ending the war as soon as possible.
