Thread by @mariekedehoon

Kremlin has just posted #Putin's speech in English: en.kremlin.ru/events/preside…
Dissecting it a bit for references to international law justifications for using force. Spoiler alert: Russia (obviously) does not have right to use force. It is #aggression. It's a crime of aggression. 1

https://twitter.com/mariekedehoon/status/1496033033526423556

It starts by referring to Ukrainians not as foreigners but embracing them as if they are Russian nationals. "Ukraine is not just a neighbouring country for us. It is an inalienable part of our own history,culture and spiritual space. These are our comrades, those dearest to us" 2

Nationality of course is a very strong legal concept on the basis of which a lot is allowed: if #Ukraine is not foreign but domestic, it is "law enforcement" rather than "armed attack"; it is "protection" rather than "invasion"; it is "helping them" rather than "annexing from". 3

This connects to #passportization strategy. #Russia provides passports to Ukrainians, then says it protects its nationals. Only: int'l law does not allow military force. Just not. Unless you argue it's not abroad. Or that it's independent and invites you to.. Well, there it is. 4

A few paragraphs later Putin drops "Nobody asked the millions of people living there what they thought". This goes straight to right to self-determination, suggesting this is violated and they have right to secede (which int'l law doesn't allow with help from foreign military). 5

Next, USSR's dissolution, how #Russia helped #Ukraine, and the injustices UKR did to RUS. Putin argues UKR broke agreements, blackmailed RUS and stole gas: suggesting UKR violated legal obligations (and thus this is a counter-measure? - countermeasure cannot be use of force) 6

Then speech moves to corruption in #Ukraine, steeling from the people, and towards suggesting Ukraine is a "failed state". Failed states are often understood as states that lack effectiveness and legitimacy. As if you could invade. But no, international law does not allow that. 7

Moving to statements on UKR gov stealing from its people, human rights violations by UKR gov, and violations of internal self-determination of pro-Russians. Goes to flirting with humanitarian intervention (or R2P) as if that would justify military invasion (it does not). 8

Then #Crimea. References to self determination. Even if it were true that plebiscite was held fairly, international law does not allow another state to "help" free a people and annex it as own territory by placing their military (remember the little green men) on the territory. 9

And finally self-defense-rhetoric: there's a threat of (nuclear) armed attack, supported by foreign forces, so we must fight (back)."In fact, this is nothing other than preparation of hostilities against our country, #Russia" Classic.Brings back memories of WMD in Iraq (US/UK) 10

Moreover, references to #NATO troops as posing a threat to #Russia. This is not a lawful appeal to right to self-defense either: these troops don't pose an "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no time for deliberation"-type threat to armed attack on Russia. 11

But more importantly, Russia is not really threatened by NATO. See for instance:

https://twitter.com/jmkorhonen/status/1496047637065355267?s=20&t=FGS_xws8gpcbtCFWY_stkQ

And creating "empire" is not a lawful ground for use of force, obviously. Quite the contrary, it is what the UN was created for to prevent and collectively defend against. 12

"Self-defence"-arguments incl "that the risk of a sudden strike at our country will multiply" & "confirm the possibility of a so-called preemptive strike", which is not an armed attack nor one that's about to occur, see tweet 11's Caroline-criteria. So no justification either. 13

Then a very interesting paragraph on clashing values (or is it interests..?), in which Putin claims that the West would issue sanctions regardless of what Russia does, and they would fabricate a pretext, because the goal of the West is to hold back the development of #Russia. 14

And after all that build-up, the concl: "Russia has every right to respond in order to ensure its security. That is exactly what we will do." Calling situation Genocide & invoking UNSC Res to tick off all types of legal justifications. But none are actual legal justifications. 15

Ending with: Recognition of the independence and sovereignty of DPR and LPR. Followed by deployment of Russian troops in DPR/LPR. This recognition is a violation of territorial integrity, #passportization is violation non-intervention principle, invasion is act of #aggression. 16

And to "But Russia doesn't care about international law": Russia does, otherwise it wouldn't try to justify its actions, here, in Crimea & Georgia. It twists and turns int'l law and human rights to make it *sound* lawful or legitimate. That's #lawfare. Just don't fall for it. 17