There is nothing very new in the justification Russian President Vladimir Putin used this week for invading Ukraine. In a world ruled by an international system and the idea of just wars, one of the most efficient ways to attack a country is to say that you feel threatened by it.
“Ukraine is by no means a threat to Putin, but he knows he has to present the idea of a threat,” says British historian Jeremy Black, author of “A Short Story of War.”
“He therefore says that Ukraine’s entry into NATO would be a threat to Russia.” In technical language, this is Russian’s casus belli. His warlike justification.
The problem, says Black, is that this kind of argument is infectious. The “casus belli” of one war becomes the “casus belli” of another, and regions end up immersed in a cycle of conflicts from which they can no longer escape. That is why the Russian invasion worries the world so much, according to the historian. in other parts of the world, but the confrontation in Kiev has the most potential now to spread to the rest of the world and undermine the international order itself.
Folha — You wrote a book on the history of wars. With that in mind, he was surprised when Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the invasion of Ukraine?
Jeremy Black – What Putin said in his speech is in line with his strategic vision of Russian culture, not modern ideas of the sovereignty of nation states. For Putin, these regions of Ukraine are not nation states and democracy has no moral validity. For those of us who live in a democracy — Brazil, the UK — this approach is anachronistic.
What we expect from a casus belli is that there is an immediate threat to our integrity. Ukraine is by no means a threat to Putin, but he knows he has to present the idea of a threat.
He therefore says that Ukraine’s entry into NATO would be a threat to Russia. In general, the problem with this type of argument is that it is harmful to international relations. In regions where there is constant conflict, they become the norm and, thus, it is difficult to limit the clashes. The “casus belli” of one war becomes the “casus belli” of another.
Putin justified his attack as a defense of Russia…
Leaders often say they must declare war to protect themselves, whether in a territorial or spiritual sense. But this argument causes us to quickly slip into a situation where conflict is the rule.
Imagine that Putin succeeds and establishes a client state in Ukraine. Any attempt by Ukrainian citizens to create a civil space to discuss local politics will be understood as an act of violence, as a threat.
In recent days, there has been debate over whether Russia has a “legitimate” reason for declaring war. Did this concern exist in the wars that were fought centuries ago?
There was a need to justify a war between Christian powers. For example, between Spain and Portugal. A reason had to be given for a conflict that would kill other Christians. In the case of wars against Muslims, on the other hand, there was a constant state of animosity — the conflict existed, it did not need to be created.
In the case of Russia, Putin is apparently presenting himself as an expression of the country’s destiny, and this is a disturbing idea. It reduces a complex society, in which debate is possible, to just one individual.
How would you compare this episode with other declarations of war in the recent past?
Since the founding of the United Nations in 1945, there has been this perception that it is necessary to justify conflicts in order to comply with the statute. The common way to do this is to say that there is a threat. In the case of the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the US accused the Taliban government of harboring those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. This also happened before the UN, by the way. Before Nazi Germany invaded Poland, the Third Reich looked for excuses to use propaganda for its own people and for neutral countries.
It is rare that someone wakes up and says: we are doing the right thing to declare a war without any threat. Even the world’s most volatile state, North Korea, justifies its missile fire as a way to make its interests heard by the international community. They look for excuses. They’re not saying: we’re just firing missiles, really.
The invasion of Ukraine has attracted a lot of attention these days. But there are other countries that have been at war for years that don’t get any attention. What explains this?
The most serious war in the world until this one was that of Ethiopia. Many people were killed there, but the conflict has been ignored. There is also large-scale violence in Myanmar. People know this, but in general they take it for granted.
The reason I believe so many people care about Ukraine is because Russia has the ability to turn a regional conflict into a full-scale war. This is also true for the United States and China. Furthermore, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia has the power to destroy the architecture of international relations. There is today a fundamental challenge to the global order.
