The "rule-based order" usually means the Washington consensus, and "international law" means treaties like the Paris/The Hague/Geneva conventions.
International law allows for many paths, including paths that contradict each other. For example, there is both support for the self-determination of a people, and for the maintenance the territorial status quo to preserve stability. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self_determination_(international_law)
Which specific international law would you say Russia has broken?
This is a great article and I wholeheartedly agree with the main conclusion - Russia used to be a defender of stability and international laws based order, but now it is not. It acts more like US, though adopting the "American way" it didn't adopt the "American methods". If it was US that conducted a war campaign in Ukraine, we would have seen critical infrastructure destroyed, government and military command decapitated, Zelensky on a run hiding in a hole in a ground under a sheet of metal. But Russia decided to run its war half way that brought it to a less than successful first phase of the operation. Today Western weapons are flowing to the frontline totally uninhibited, Kiev sees more visits of international envoys and celebrities than New York, all of the major urban centers of Ukraine live a relatively peaceful life secure in their understanding that Russia won't bomb them. Might have Russia conducted its SMO using American methods, perhaps we would have seen less destruction and death overall in the Eastern e.g. Russian regions of Ukraine. But so far, thanks to Putin's games, they are the ones who suffered the most. Most of towns and villages where the combat actions went through are simply leveled. Ukrainian troops don't care since deep down inside they know this is not their land and Russians don't have another choice, otherwise they'll never gain control of these territories.
I could have bickered with the author about some other points like what specific international law did Russia break recognizing (staging) referendum results in Crimea or recognizing independence of the breakaway republics of South Osetia and Abkhazia, but I'm not going to do it, since overall I agree with conclusions.
Btw, please note that along with accession of the four new regions to Russia one notable exception was South Osetia, former part of Georgia. Unlike Abkhazia where desire to join Russia is much less pronounced, South Osetia wanted to join Russia and to finally form a single entity with North Osetia, an autonomous republic in Russia. But, this did not happen despite the talks of a referendum past summer. The reason Russia put a hold on incorporating South Osetia is a reward of sorts for Georgia that behaved in a much more reserved way toward Russia since February even compared to the "pro-Russian" countries like Bulgaria. For one, despite Ukrainian demands, Georgia declared no sanctions against Russia. Another message to post-Soviet states - if you behave like Ukraine, there will be consequences, including territorial ones, but, if you behave like Georgia we'll respect the status quo. Separation of the rebellious regions of South Osetia and Abkhazia from Georgia after the 5 days war of 2008 (08/08/08) worked to Georgia's advantage. After unending internal war since 1990 country finally achieved a lasting peace.
Good article: but so intellectual! I prefer V.V.'s simpler "in Russia we don't want to snip our babies' testicles off and we don't worship Satan, and we're pretty sure lots of people worldwide agree with us" argument.
Thanks for this article!
The "rule-based order" usually means the Washington consensus, and "international law" means treaties like the Paris/The Hague/Geneva conventions.
International law allows for many paths, including paths that contradict each other. For example, there is both support for the self-determination of a people, and for the maintenance the territorial status quo to preserve stability. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self_determination_(international_law)
Which specific international law would you say Russia has broken?
This is a great article and I wholeheartedly agree with the main conclusion - Russia used to be a defender of stability and international laws based order, but now it is not. It acts more like US, though adopting the "American way" it didn't adopt the "American methods". If it was US that conducted a war campaign in Ukraine, we would have seen critical infrastructure destroyed, government and military command decapitated, Zelensky on a run hiding in a hole in a ground under a sheet of metal. But Russia decided to run its war half way that brought it to a less than successful first phase of the operation. Today Western weapons are flowing to the frontline totally uninhibited, Kiev sees more visits of international envoys and celebrities than New York, all of the major urban centers of Ukraine live a relatively peaceful life secure in their understanding that Russia won't bomb them. Might have Russia conducted its SMO using American methods, perhaps we would have seen less destruction and death overall in the Eastern e.g. Russian regions of Ukraine. But so far, thanks to Putin's games, they are the ones who suffered the most. Most of towns and villages where the combat actions went through are simply leveled. Ukrainian troops don't care since deep down inside they know this is not their land and Russians don't have another choice, otherwise they'll never gain control of these territories.
I could have bickered with the author about some other points like what specific international law did Russia break recognizing (staging) referendum results in Crimea or recognizing independence of the breakaway republics of South Osetia and Abkhazia, but I'm not going to do it, since overall I agree with conclusions.
Btw, please note that along with accession of the four new regions to Russia one notable exception was South Osetia, former part of Georgia. Unlike Abkhazia where desire to join Russia is much less pronounced, South Osetia wanted to join Russia and to finally form a single entity with North Osetia, an autonomous republic in Russia. But, this did not happen despite the talks of a referendum past summer. The reason Russia put a hold on incorporating South Osetia is a reward of sorts for Georgia that behaved in a much more reserved way toward Russia since February even compared to the "pro-Russian" countries like Bulgaria. For one, despite Ukrainian demands, Georgia declared no sanctions against Russia. Another message to post-Soviet states - if you behave like Ukraine, there will be consequences, including territorial ones, but, if you behave like Georgia we'll respect the status quo. Separation of the rebellious regions of South Osetia and Abkhazia from Georgia after the 5 days war of 2008 (08/08/08) worked to Georgia's advantage. After unending internal war since 1990 country finally achieved a lasting peace.
Good article: but so intellectual! I prefer V.V.'s simpler "in Russia we don't want to snip our babies' testicles off and we don't worship Satan, and we're pretty sure lots of people worldwide agree with us" argument.
It's just cleaner.
Thanks for the article - a very compelling analysis!