U.S. Backing Russia’s Takeover Of Crimea Could Imperil UN, World Order

If the White House recognizes Russia’s annexation of the militarily occupied region of Crimea as part of a Ukraine peace deal, that would strike at a central pillar of the UN Charter and endanger the entire UN-protected world order, says a leading scholar at the Atlantic Council, one of Washington’s foremost internationalist think tanks.

“Any U.S. recognition of Russia’s seizure of Crimea would represent a direct attack on the United Nations Charter,” says Peter Dickinson, an acclaimed scholar who oversees the Atlantic Council’s publication UkraineAlert – chronicles of the Ukraine war and the global powers contending to protect or destroy the embattled democracy.

“In essence, the UN was set up after World War II to support a new world order that rejected the concept of changing borders by force,” Dickinson tells me across a sweeping interview.

This ban on armed invasions was the supreme building block in the UN Charter, which was created in 1945 to prevent the rise of another Hitler and his blood-drenched wars of takeover and empire building.

The great powers that defeated Hitler’s storm troopers and co-drafted the UN Charter stated they aimed “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.”

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” they underscore in the Charter’s all-important Article 2.

Yet using military force to capture and annex an invaded nation’s territory “is exactly what Russia is attempting to do in Ukraine,” says Dickinson, a onetime envoy of the British Council who has lived in Ukraine for nearly two decades.

“So any legitimization of these Russian efforts by the United States would be extremely damaging for this world order and would undermine the most fundamental principles of the current international security system” protected by the UN, he adds.

There is also a wider danger that handing Vladimir Putin a victory in taking over the rich Black Sea region of Crimea will impel him to seize more sections of Ukraine in the future, and inspire other expansionist powers to launch their own wars of conquest.

When Russia sent its shadow army into Crimea in 2014, then-President Barack Obama teamed up with the leaders of the EU, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom to slap sanctions on Moscow.

In their jointly issued Hague Declaration, the globe’s strongest democracies pledged their support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and independence, and warned the Kremlin: “International law prohibits the acquisition of part or all of another state’s territory through coercion or force. To do so violates the principles upon which the international system is built.”

They condemned “Russia’s illegal attempt to annex Crimea” and declared they would not recognize any change in Ukraine’s borders.

Now, the White House appears poised to break with this Hague alliance and the collective opposition to the Kremlin’s takeover of the strategic Crimean enclave, where the Russian Black Sea fleet is stationed.

This abrupt American about-face “would create a dangerous precedent and encourage Russia and others to believe that the existing prohibitions on the use of force to seize territory can now be safely ignored,” Dickinson predicts.

“Abandoning the sanctity of borders means entering a new era of war – something we have not seen on a large scale for generations.”

Alongside his riveting dispatches on Moscow’s missile blitzes on Ukraine – and threats of nuclear attacks on any Western ally coming to its aid – Dickinson has also been charting Putin’s musings and machinations on recreating the Russian Empire.

“The entire notion that Putin could be satisfied by simply freezing the war along the current front lines in southern and eastern Ukraine reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the imperialistic motives behind Russia’s invasion,” he explained in one bulletin from Kyiv.

“Putin’s imperial ambitions are not limited to Ukraine, of course.”

A victory over Ukraine could lead to “further wars of aggression against other former vassals of the Russian Empire including Finland, Poland, the Baltic states.”

If Putin’s ultimate goal is reconquering all of the former satellite states of the Soviet Union, he adds, that would also see Russian tanks and troops crashing back across the borders of the ex-Warsaw Pact nations in Central Europe that – since being liberated from their Soviet overlords – have joined NATO.

NATO was specifically founded – alongside the UN – to protect the European and American democracies from Soviet armies and atomic missiles, and has been strengthened and expanded in reaction to Moscow’s renewed military campaigns of transborder aggression.

Yet the White House’s breaking with its NATO allies in seeking a rapprochement with the Kremlin, its recent vote against a UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russia’s aggression against liberal, pro-West Ukraine, and mixed messages on whether it would help defend any NATO ally attacked by Moscow – mandated under NATO’s Article 5 – have infuriated leaders across Europe.

Former French President François Hollande told the leading Paris-based broadsheet Le Monde recently that the White House has “opened a profound break with Europe.”

“If the American people remain our friends,” Hollande said in the interview, “the Trump administration is no longer our ally.”

In light of this tectonic shift, Hollande added, “France, the United Kingdom and Germany must be the spearhead of true European security.”

“Trump has initiated the biggest transformation of U.S. foreign policy since World War II,” Dickinson tells me, and is sporadically sabotaging the Trans-Atlantic alliance.

“Most European leaders prefer not to say too much in public as they still hope for some US favor and fear being targeted by Trump.”

“But behind closed doors there are no illusions – Europeans know they cannot rely on America anymore and are now actively preparing for a post-American future.”

As the U.S. signals it could pull back its military forces across Europe, the Ukrainian army could, ironically, emerge as the EU’s main protector.

“Ukraine’s military is by far the largest in Europe and has unrivaled combat experience,” Dickinson says. “Ukraine is also at the forefront of cutting-edge defense technologies and leads the world in drone warfare.”

“This makes Ukraine a formidable military power and a key component of the new European security system that must soon emerge to replace decades of dependence on the U.S.”

The means the great European powers are likely to rapidly ramp up military aid to Ukraine and begin investing heavily in its expanding defense industry.

“Europeans know that if Ukraine falls,” Dickinson says, “they are totally unprepared to face a triumphant and battle-hardened Russian army.”