Article 2(4)

Reports that Merkel is negotiating a settlement with Putin that would recognize Russian annexation of the Crimea, in violation of peremptory norms of international law

Forbes describes reports that German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President Vladimir Putin are working on “a closed-door peace plan” that would recognize Russian annexation…


Putin’s de facto partners: EU members—-and their further responses to ongoing Russian aggression in Ukraine

Looking at this broad picture as a whole, one can see clearly that the EU and the U.S. have in effect acted as silent partners with Putin and Russia in the latter’s aggression against the Ukraine. Succumbing to the temptations of appeasement in the face of Russian aggression and threats of further aggression, they have in fact emboldened Putin. Nowhere was this more clearly demonstrated than after the invasion of the Crimea, when they responded with a slap on the wrist, in the form of the mildest of “targeted sanctions” aimed at only a few individuals. Shortly thereafter, undeterred, Russia annexed the Crimea.

By not responding effectively, the West has become the co-dependent enabler of Vladimir Putin and Russia in their ongoing aggression against the Ukraine. In Europe and the United States, appeasement and pacifism have triumphed when faced with the mighty Russian Bear.

Europe and the United States have become Putin’s silent partners, his co-dependent enablers, as he proceeds to tear down the fundamental principles of international law and the U.N. Charter which prohibit the threat or use of force across international frontiers. “Co-dependent” on the bully who abuses them, they also remain silent on Putin’s violations of fundamental human rights in Russia itself.
…It is time for Putin’s silent partners in aggression to end their co-dependent relationship with him and Russia.

It is time for them to understand the broader consequences of continuing Russian aggression.

It is time for them to act to bolster the deterrent effect of the U.N. Charter’s prohibition of the threat or use of force by imposing real, “third-stage” sanctions aimed at restoring the status quo ante existing prior to Russia’s invasion of the Crimea.




UKRAINE: Russia military intervention underway in Crimea, in flagrant violation of international law

Developing Background “Ukraine: Russian military interventiom underway or likely, as Putin follows Hitler’s playbook in the Crimea,” The Trenchant Observer, February 27, 2014. “U.S. should…


Next Steps: Obama, like a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming car, must now take steps to deal with the Syrian crisis—ALL OF IT

The publication by the U.K. on August 29 of a summary of its legal justification for taking military action against Syria is a most welcome…


A strong but narrow legal justification for military action in Syria: The key to building a strong coalition

The Necessity and Challenge of Crafting a Strong Legal Justification for Military Action in Syria President Barack Obama is learning, however belatedly, that other nations…


New strategy and accompanying military action needed in Syria; Justification under International Law

President Barack Obama’s strategy for dealing with Syria has demonstrably failed. That strategy consisted mainly in looking the other way, providing fitful and ineffectual covert…


REPRISE: The U.N. Charter, International Law, and Legal Justifications for Military Intervention in Syria—Obama’s Debacle in Syria — Update #90 (December 12, 2012)

This article was first published on September 1, 2012 The situation in Syria (is) unfolding “in front of our eyes”, with the regime deploying fighter…