Unsuccessful diversification of responsibility

The theme of diversification of responsibility for the war in Ukraine manifested vividly in the rhetoric and documents of the NATO and G7 summit that took place the day before in Brussels.

It was in this way that the countries of the Western alliance tried to personify President Putin's responsibility for the decision to start and subsequently wage, in the Russian version, "a special military operation" and, in the Ukrainian version, a war.

A statement from the leaders of the NATO-G7 says that "to further strengthen our cooperation in terms of the unjustified, unprovoked and illegal Russian aggression and war of President Putin's choice against independent and sovereign Ukraine...we will stand shoulder to shoulder with the government and the people of Ukraine.

An attempt to personalize Putin's responsibility and diversify it from Russia's overall responsibility was further captured in the document, such as, "We stand in solidarity with our partners who have to pay an increasing price for President Putin's unilateral choice to wage war in Europe." True, the document speaks of the responsibility of the officials of the Lukashenko regime; however, the personalization of the responsibility is nevertheless noticeable. 

In reality the attempt to shift the responsibility to larger extent to Putin only cannot be justified. It would be more correct to talk about the responsibility of the state and society. According to a March 1-3 poll by EADaily, 87 percent of readers supported Putin's actions. Over 25,000 people took part in an interactive vote. This data is confirmed by social surveys conducted by various centers in Russia. We may not trust such opinion polls. However, our random interviews with people in Russia and the former Soviet Union about the attitude of the Russians towards the war show that Putin's actions do have a lot of support among them. Interestingly, such a demonstration of state power abroad has always had considerable public support.

Another important point that makes the document unprincipled and inconsistent is the assessment of the actions of the Russian state in respect of Ukraine. The statement peculiarly uses the term "aggression" and not just a naked word with an unambiguous meaning, but with epithets: unjustified, unprovoked and illegal. Is any aggression legal or justified? The definition of the aggression was approved by the resolution 3314 (XXIX) of the General Assembly of the United Nations dated December 14, 1974. It is interpreted as follows: Aggression is a concept of modern international law which covers any unlawful use of force by one state against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state from the point of view of the UN Charter.

According to the definition of the UN General Assembly, the aggression cannot be justified by any considerations of any nature, whether political, economic, military or other, and is a crime against international peace. And in this context, the attempt to diversify types of aggression is in itself nonsense to damage the reputation of the authors and the meaning of the statement.

Amid these two cautions and inconsistencies, the only clear signal that offers hope for an adequate perception of reality and consistency is British Prime Minister Johnson's statement: "Everyone wants to take care that if Putin's aggression increases, then we can increase our contribution to protecting Ukrainians”. He promised to take care to provide Ukraine with weapons of "the quality and quantity" to thus enable Zelensky "to defend his country from an aggressive neighbor."

However, Johnson's statement does not reflect the general mood of NATO members, most of whom hold moderate positions. From the very beginning of the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian army to the present day, NATO countries have stated that they do not intend to intervene directly in the war. They prefer to strengthen the defense of NATO itself. These moves include the deployment of combat teams in Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, similar to those already based in the Baltics and Poland.

The cautious and resolute manner in which the NATO countries are simultaneously trying to present themselves is indicative of the fact that the alliance is determined to seek every way to appease Russia and at the same time, until this goal is achieved, to strengthen support for the resistance of the Ukrainians. To what extent the former will succeed will depend not on Putin, but on the attitude of the Russian people to the war, or rather on their awareness of the need to stop the aggression against Ukraine. But for this, a signal about collective responsibility and consequences must be sent to the Russian people, which, in this case, will be more effective and will accelerate the end of the war.

Mehman Aliyev