UPDATE: Putin's "red lines" and our "red lines"
International Law and the U.N. Charter
UPDATE See footnote 5 for latest developments
Vladimir Putin has been adept in using his "red lines" to strike fear into the hearts of Joe Biden and Western leaders that he will be provoked (e.g., to use nuclear weapons) if they are crossed.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry warned the U.S. on Thursday not to send Ukraine long-range missiles which could hit Russian territory because to do so would cross one of Putin’s red lines”.1
Al Jazeera reported the following;
Russia’s Foreign Ministry has said that if the United States decided to supply Kyiv with longer-range missiles, it would cross a “red line” and become “a party to the conflict” in Ukraine.
In a briefing on Thursday, Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova added that Russia “reserves the right to defend its territory”.
“If Washington decides to supply longer-range missiles to Kyiv, then it will be crossing a red line, and will become a direct party to the conflict,” Zakharova said.
US officials say Ukraine has promised not to use US rockets to strike Russia itself.
Under modern international law there is no such thing as being a party to the conflict. The U.N. Charter in 1945 did away with the old concept of being a party to the conflict, except in the narrow context of international humanitarian law which is not relevant here.
Under the Charter the relevant concepts are the illegal use of force (which Russia is engaged in) and the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense (in which Ukraine and its allies are engaged).2
Russia is obviously concerned that the U.S. might supply Ukraine with missile and rocket systems that would enable it to strike bases in Russia from which missiles are fired at targets in Ukraine including cities and civil infrastructure.3
At the same time, the Russian ambassador to Germany has stated that Germany has crossed a “red line” by sending heavy weapons to Ukraine.4
Putin has weaponized the “red line” concept.
Now, anything Putin doesn’t want Ukraine or its allies to do amounts to crossing one of his “red lines”.
Originally, the “red line” warnings were coupled with an implicit threat of using nuclear weapons. Now, they only mean some action Ukraine or its allies are taking, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense, which Putin doesn’t like.
Putin’s “red line” warnings have lost much of their credibility. Nonetheless, they still seem to be affecting Biden’s thinking.5
It is vitally important for the victory of Ukraine and the West in their war of self-defense against Russian aggression that Putin's latest threats be ignored.
Ukraine has an absolute right to strike targets in Russia from which armed attacks are being launched against its cities and territory.
The U.S. and Germany and other NATO countries have an absolute right to provide Ukraine with weapons in exercise of the right of collective self-defense.
The "inherent right" of individual and collective self-defense is a fundamental norm of international law which is also guaranteed by Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
The real "red lines" are the prohibition of the use of force in Article 2 paragraph 4 of the U.N. Charter, and the right of individual and collective self-defense in Article 51.6
Any attack against a state exercising the right of individual or collective self-defense is itself a further violation of the prohibition of the use of force.
Putin's "red lines" are no more than threats made by a war criminal directing a war of aggression against Ukraine.
What Putin is saying is merely that he may be provoked to escalate his illegal use of force if Ukraine tries to defend iself, e.g., by sending missiles to knock out missile batteries in Russia that are launching attacks against Ukrainian cities and territory.
It is time for the United States and NATO countries to stand up to Putin and defend the real "red lines" in the U.N. Charter.
Putin is on weak ground here, as the overwhelming majority of countries in the world support these "red lines".
The U.S. and the West should relax their restrictions on the type of weapons and their use that may be supplied to Ukraine for its self-defense.
If Putin escalates and uses a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine, the U.S. and NATO countries should intervene with conventional military forces against Russian forces in Ukraine, in exercise of their right of collective self-defense.
This may require nerves of steel and careful management of any escalation on a step-by-step basis. The alternative is capitulation in the face of nuclear threats and defeat.
Real "red lines" like the "red lines" in the U.N. Charter are important and must be defended.
They are the "red lines" of the entire international community, including China,7 not the arbitrary threats of a war criminal committing the crime of aggression.
“Russia warns US not to provide longer-range missiles to Ukraine; Russia’s foreign ministry says if the US sends Ukraine longer-range missiles, then it would become a ‘party to conflict,'" Al Jazeera (English),, September 15, 2022 (updated 17:22 GMT).
For clarification of these concepts, which are often confused, see “Ukraine War, April 28, 2022 (I): The risk of nuclear war is greater than people think; The challenge of ramping up war production to meet Ukraine’s needs; Fear among Western officials of conflict expanding beyond Ukraine; Being “at war” with Russia,” The Trenchant Observer, April 28, 2022.
See Reuters, “Russia says longer-range U.S. missiles for Kyiv would cross red line,” Euronews, September 16, 2022 (12:00).
Reuters reports,
Washington has openly supplied Ukraine with advanced GMLRS rockets, fired from HIMARS launchers, that can hit targets up to 80 km (50 miles) away.
“If Washington decides to supply longer-range missiles to Kyiv, then it will be crossing a red line, and will become a direct party to the conflict,” Zakharova said.
U.S. officials say Ukraine has promised not to use U.S. rockets to strike Russia itself.
HIMARS launchers can also be used to fire longer-range ATACMS tactical missiles, which can have a range of up to 300 km. A senior Ukrainian official declined to say on Aug. 19 whether Kyiv now had ATACMS.
There has been no full public explanation of an attack on Aug. 9 that hit a Russian air base at Saky, around 200 km from the nearest Ukrainian-controlled territory, on the Crimean peninsula, which Moscow captured in 2014 and considers Russian territory.
Caitlin McFall, “Russia says Germany 'crossed' red line in arms supply to Ukraine,” Yahoo!News, September 16, 2022.
Russia's ambassador to Germany Sergey Nechayev told state-owned media on Friday that Germany had "crossed" a red line by proving arms to Ukraine.
"Supplying the Ukrainian regime with German weapons is not only against Russian servicemen, but also against the Donbas civilians," Nechayev told RT. "It is certainly the red line which the German authorities should not have crossed."
The ambassador’s comments come one day after German defense officials pledged weapons and equipment for Ukraine as it faced backlash at home and abroad for not doing more.“
1) See “Ukraine War, September 17, 2022: Biden remains fearful of Putin, maintaining restrictions on types of weapons and their use; Washington supplies weapons to keep Ukraine in the fight but not to win,” The Trenchant Observer, September 17, 2022.
2) See David E. Sanger, Anton Troianovski, Julian E. Barnes, and Eric Schmitt, “Ukraine Wants the U.S. to Send More Powerful Weapons. Biden Is Not So Sure; President Biden wants to avoid provoking Russia at a moment when American officials fear Vladimir V. Putin could escalate the war to compensate for recent losses, New York Times, September 17, 2022 (Updated 1:57 p.m. ET).
See "Ukraine: Putin's "red lines" and the "red lines" of the U.N. Charter and international law," The Trenchant Observer, December 3, 2021.
See “Ukraine War, September 15, 2022 (I): China's Xi Jinping backs Kazakhstan's sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence,” The Trenchant Observer, September 15, 2022.
Good article with important information about the UN charter.
To date, creating war to make peace has not been the answer. Yet, what else can be done?