Subscriptions
Read our Monthly Magazine
And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system
There are red lines when it comes to wars. There are things that are excluded from the list of what is acceptable conduct in the prosecution of a war.
Some of those red lines can be applied by a party of a war against itself, there are red lines that can be imposed by allies even of a party to a war. There are explicit warnings over what may happen as a result of overstepping those red lines. And then there are fake red lines. It is wise to understand which is which and what effect they are having on the war between Russia and Ukraine.
When it comes to the kind of red lines that describe unacceptable conduct during armed hostilities, these are rules that have been devised over the years by the international community at large. Collectively, those rules of law are described as the Geneva Conventions. These conventions are a collection of treaties, ratified by the international community in the aftermath of the Second World War, that address matters such as the rights of prisoners of war, and they provide protections for civilians in and around war zones. Russia is in breach of all of this.
Photos of Ukrainian POWs released in the most recent prisoner exchanges between Ukraine and Russia show that the Ukrainians were emaciated from malnourishment. Many had lost significant amounts of their body mass. Some of the men were little more than skin and bones. Contrary to this, filmmakers and international organisations are granted access to the camps in Ukraine where Russian POWs are held and found that they are well-fed, housed in sanitary conditions, and not ill-treated. Ninety percent of former detainees returned to Ukraine report that they were tortured.
At the present time, precisely because this is directly relevant to how this war is unfolding in real time and because of the effect that they have on charting the further course of the war, the red lines to focus on today are those being imposed on Ukraine by some allies, and the red lines being repeatedly implied by Vladimir Putin and the record of what happens when taboos are broken and those supposed red lines are crossed. We will come back to the question of the war crimes previously described later, The Hague is the appropriate format to hear the evidence for them and decide on the appropriate punishments for the perpetrators.
How Russia’s War on Ukraine Opened the Door to New Partnerships That may End its Only Remaining Leverage
Since Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine Central Asian states and the EU have been forging ties to end their reliance on the sanctioned country
Red Lines are Changing and Bluffs are being Exposed
The most significant recent episode of the war, Russia’s escalation by attempting to again invade and occupy parts of Ukraine’s Kharkiv region, has caused some of Ukraine’s allies to modify red lines that they had previously set limitations on how their weapons may and may not be used by Ukraine. For example, the Americans had previously declared that their weapons should not be deployed against targets inside of Russia itself. That limitation, imposed because of fears of an escalation leading to a direct conflict between the US and Russia, has recently been lifted, with Ukraine now being permitted to hit targets inside Russia “near Kharkiv”. This new policy is both welcome and also folly.
The policy changed is welcomed because it was a bad strategy to have to allow Russian forces to enter Ukraine before they could then be engaged by Ukrainian infantry troops. Russia’s troop advances are always preceded by artillery shelling to reduce resistance to their attacks and to destroy anything of value worth defending. With the artillery units carrying out those shaping attacks located inside of Russia, they were effectively but far from literally beyond the range of an appropriate response by Ukraine.
Why Deploying Western Special Forces to Ukraine may Help Prevent Global Conflicts
With conflicts simmering across the globe, NATO should help Ukraine more and introduce special operations forces and intelligence assets in preparation for future wars
In essence, the Russians could shell at will, and then send amassed forces across the border from a safe haven where they had gathered – for the purpose of invading – and those advantages were given to them by Ukraine’s allies. Now that policy has changed, Ukraine is allowed to hit those firing positions and troop gathering, but only “near Kharkiv.” Why?
Let’s look at the logic of the new policy. It is the right thing to do. It reduces the dangers to Ukrainian troops and civilians alike by stopping Russia’s attempts to open a new front. While the “near Kharkiv” use of US-supplied weapons is of practical benefit in saving lives and