The Ukraine Conflict's Legal Issues

A day of musings at MoA

Today’s primary topic at the Moon of Alabama blog was “Does Trump Really Have A Plan For Ukraine?” The question elicited many comments some of which actually sought to provide an answer. For many months now, my approach to finding a solution for the Ukraine conflict rests on a pile of legalities that begin with the 2014 Coup. My initial comment and answer started the second page of comments and said the following:

In his chat with Judge Napolitano, Ambassador Chas Freeman said that Trump is "foreclosing" on Ukraine, but aside from that Trump has no outstanding plan as he has no cards to play. Putin in his interview with Zarubin presented a variety of carrots aimed at furthering the improvement of relations. However, it's very clear that Russia is in no hurry to reach a negotiated end, although it does want one that specifically conforms to Russia's desires. That sentence paraphrases numerous Russian officials recently and over many previous months and must be considered Russian policy.

But the issue is whether or not Trump has an actual plan. Perhaps Witkoff's statement about using the abandoned Istanbul grounds as a starting point--a position that Putin has forwarded--IMO is what the US will use as its initial negotiating point, and some of the points raised within that aborted treaty have been floated as balloons by Team Trump.

The big disconnect by many that swallowed the false narrative for this war is that NATO/Outlaw US Empire have/are suffered/suffering a decisive defeat at the hands of Russia--no matter how badly they thirst to defeat Russia they cannot in any way whatsoever attain that goal, now or at anytime in the future. The very longstanding War against the Russian Empire, USSR, and Russian Federation is over, and all those Hawks cannot accept that primary fact.

Some in the EU have a plan for the future, but the vast majority don't. They are stuck inside a hamster wheel of their own creation and don't know how or don't want to leave it. Trump clearly has escaped the hamster wheel but remains in the cage and is looking for an exit. Rhetorically he's trying very hard to absolve the Outlaw US Empire of its guilt in having started this war of aggression against Russia. Witkoff and others have flipped the Narrative and now say the war was provoked, which we all know since the world's aware of Nuland's confession to Pyatt. No amount of spin can deny that basic fact. But I don't see Trump's rhetoric fooling much of the world.

IMO, Trump will have some inner disappointment that the treaty ending the Empire's conflict with Russia won't be ready to sign on 9 May. I'll be surprised if it's ready by 4 July. Remember, the biggest, most important part of this treaty will be the new Eurasian Security Structure, for that will need to be ready for Russia to end its SMO. Does Team Trump know that's what it will be tasked to do? Gabbard might. IMO, Trump may also be realizing he has few cards to play against China, too. Trump has slowed the speed of the Outlaw US Empire's plumet into the abyss created by its decline but it's still headed downward. What his administration does until the next one supplants it will determine how hard the landing is.

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 25 2025 19:52 utc | 101

It was a rather general comment that answered the question but posed another, which is why doesn’t Trump have a plan? The thread’s content deviated wildly from the initial question because of the news that some sort of deal was made over the funding/rare earths issue that in reality is neither here nor there as many have noted since they’re mostly within the territory Russia controls and those that exist are economically unviable—too expensive to extract. Fellow substack author Roger Boyd then replied and noted Russia’s military situation will dominate the outcome to which i replied:

Roger Boyd | Feb 25 2025 20:19 utc | 114--

Thanks for your reply. it appears my analysis is too long for barflies to read and comment upon. Yes, Russia's military hasn't stopped and is currently creating more hotspots along the FEBA. Russia just completed the capture of a very stubborn locale that will allow it to bound forward. The decision to end the Kusk incursion instead of using it as a major meat grinder is now in motion with the aim of turning it into a vast cauldron. And there remains the need to secure all the new oblasts which means crossing the Dnieper to retake Kherson and beyond.

IMO, Russia's political position is rock solid and immovable. Larry Johnson offers evidence related to what I wrote about the inability of the Cold Warriors to accept the reality that they've lost the longstanding War against Russia:

I hope the Russians understand that Donald Trump’s views towards Russia reflect a minority view in the United States. Most of the Republican and Democrat politicians, as well as the majority of intelligence and defense officers, see no difference between the Russia that exists today and the Soviet Union. Today, for example, a friend shared an email with me that he received from his buddy, a recently retired CIA case officer who is still doing contract work for the Agency. I am an acquaintance of that former CIA officer. In the email he voiced outrage at Trump “cozying up” to Putin and exclaimed: “I’ve spent forty years fighting those bastards and Trump is surrendering.” [Emphasis Original]

IMO, Russia's well aware of that since it's constantly reminded by Europeans daily.

Another reason for Trump's seeming inaction/lack of plan is that he knows getting any treaty ratified that can be interpreted as the US being the loser will have little chance of getting the required 2/3s Senate approval. That's a very real consideration I've seen no one mention. In other words, attaining peace with Russia doesn't depend on Trump; it depends on the US Senate.

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 25 2025 21:40 utc | 158

This was the first major legal consideration I mentioned aside from who was responsible for the war. Further replies caused further musings with this one being the first:

Absolutely an issue, especially about the Senate and public opinion. Nothing will get through the Senate right now. RF knows this for certain.

But I'm not really sure peace requires the US to be a party to any treaties. The US is not a belligerent even though a case may be made to the contrary. It depends upon the scope of the security architecture.

Posted by: frithguild | Feb 25 2025 21:48 utc | 161

This prompted the following reply:

frithguild | Feb 25 2025 21:48 utc | 161--

Thanks for your reply. Several months ago I wrote about the legal snags related to the composing of any peace treaty. Legally, the war began with the 2014 Coup that was instigated by the Outlaw US Empire that amounted to a declaration of war for we know the aim was to capture Crimea for use by NATO and to destroy any pro-Russian sympathy and resistance by ethnic Russians and Russian speaking Ukrainians. Russia effectively declared war with its alliance with the Donbass Republics that it then legally annexed upon the choice of the Republic's citizenry. Although the Outlaw US Empire was the clear initiator, NATO soon became the main Ukrainian ally and thus partner in the Empire's war against Russia. So, we have four main players: Russia, NATO, Ukraine, and the Outlaw US Empire. IMO, those are the parties that will need to agree on the peace treaty, which makes that treaty the perfect vehicle for the establishment of a new Eurasian Security Structure that doesn't include NATO.

Now, given that we can see that it will take months of negotiations to arrive at what Russia will accept. So, militarily Ukraine may well be defeated in 2025 but the treaty formally ending the war might not be concluded until 2027. And even then, it's very possible the US Senate will reject it. Indeed, the 2026 midterm elections for the Senate may well be decided on that one issue.

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 25 2025 22:10 utc | 169

While I was composing the above, by buddy psychohistorian wrote:

In response to
"
Another reason for Trump's seeming inaction/lack of plan is that he knows getting any treaty ratified that can be interpreted as the US being the loser will have little chance of getting the required 2/3s Senate approval. That's a very real consideration I've seen no one mention. In other words, attaining peace with Russia doesn't depend on Trump; it depends on the US Senate.

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 25 2025 21:40 utc | 158
"

You are correct and it says that Russia needs to continue its SMO until Ukraine surrenders and exclude the US from negotiations of surrender.....how can they assert agency in conflict if no boots on the ground?.../s

Russia executing their SMO to conclusion in Ukraine makes some things simpler. Since Ukraine is not part of NATO, Europe will have to stand back and decide how they want to proceed into the new normal. Trump can resume relations with Russia unhindered by the Ukraine situation, eh?

I posit that Ukraine will surrender before any potential Trump/Putin meeting to focus on Ukraine. I have been wrong with most of my prognostications but that doesn't stop me, though it might have slowed me down.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 25 2025 22:02 utc | 166

He then followed with this:

@ karlof1 | Feb 25 2025 22:10 utc | 169 who seemingly differs with me in believing that the US has agency to end a proxy war with a US treaty approved by congress.

I think the SMO is between Russia and Ukraine and it will be concluded between those two parties w/o a US treaty in the middle......in 2025

Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 25 2025 22:20 utc | 174

You see how cross-posting messes with the discourse. Here’s my reply:

psychohistorian | Feb 25 2025 22:02 utc | 166--

Thanks for your reply. The legal issues are bigtime queer, some of which I outlined @169. Indeed, Putin has hammered the point that Zelensky is illegitimate and thus cannot legally sign anything. That the head of the Rada might do so is possible but not 100% certain the last time I heard Putin mention that possibility. Given all that, it appears that there are only two parties to any peace treaty--Russia and Ukraine. Thus, there's no place for any NATO state or any other. Now, it's possible for another party to negotiate on Ukraine's behalf--be its power of attorney in the matter--but such an entity must be assigned by Ukraine, and as far as I'm aware, Trump nor anyone else has been so empowered. But the entity that must agree and sign is Ukraine and no one else.

All that seems to me to be correct. There are no direct, legal declarations of war by any of the parties, only de facto declarations. Now, the 2014 Outlaw US Empire coup could or perhaps ought to be seen as an act of aggression against Ukraine and that the war began between the Empire and Ukraine with the Empire employing its Terrorist Nazi Expeditionary Legion as its troops at the outset. The question arises: How were proxy or undeclared wars legally resolved in the past? I presume many never had any legal resolution.

And all of that prompts more musings.

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 25 2025 22:39 utc | 180

And again:

psychohistorian | Feb 25 2025 22:20 utc | 174--

Again, thanks for your replies--they prod me to think. AS you see at my @180, I agree that Trump has no agency to negotiate for Ukraine. Perhaps that's why at Riyadh only the resumption of relations were discussed. Imagine a court case built around the events before, during and after the coup. We have a confession as to who was responsible for the Maidan and coup violence as provided by Nuland which establishes the fact that the Outlaw US Empire invaded and took over the Ukraine government. Thus, it must be assumed that all further actions beyond then were driven by the Outlaw US Empire as there was no freedom allowed for Ukrainians to declare their self-determination. In other words, everything that has occurred within Ukraine since the coup is illegitimate--everything.

I recall an interview with Putin from 2024 when he shrugged his shoulders and asked who do I negotiate with--who's legitimate? Where's Judge Judy?

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 25 2025 22:55 utc | 182

My buddy appears to be getting flustered, but I know it’s because we’re not conversing naturally as we do when we chat. Here’s my next:

In response to my friend Karl
"
How were proxy or undeclared wars legally resolved in the past? I presume many never had any legal resolution.

And all of that prompts more musings.

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 25 2025 22:39 utc | 180
"

How about Korea, Afghanistan, ???? was something signed with Vietnam?

Might-Makes-Right has been the only 'legal' resolution for humans for a long time....the paper niceties are part of the show.

Let me be clear, Trump wants peace through hegemony, not win-win cooperation and we have yet to see him having to face the loss of God Of Mammon empire....increased bloviating and threatening.

Again, let me remind that there is reality and then there is narratives created and pushed by those that can't accept reality. Europe is going to push its narrative just like Trump will push his but Russia has the straight-flush reality on the ground.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 25 2025 23:08 utc | 188

And my reply and attempt to ease his frustrations:

psychohistorian | Feb 25 2025 23:08 utc | 188--

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I understand the Might Makes Right solution. The problem is that can't become the basis for the solution because the Eurasian Security Pact must be a collective, law-based, solution, and arriving at that Pact is the key to establishing the peace. Fortunately, the Outlaw US Empire isn't going to be invited to that Pact, so the Senate is no worry.

The basic issue of ending the SMO once Russia attains its goals is simple. Putin, however, is a strict constructionist type and will insist on following international legalities--something the West never does--and self-determination will be offered those remaining within the confines of the current Ukraine as if it's a colony undergoing decolonization, which is very close to the situation's reality. Will a Ukraine state even exist after that? If it does, will it be held responsible for the debts of the previous Ukraine? I would think not.

The world--Humanity--must evolve to the rule of law instead of the rule of the gunman/gunmen otherwise wars will continue to be waged, and the Cult of Mammon will never be defeated.

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 25 2025 23:48 utc | 204

And now we get closer to the heart of the bigger problem with Trump:

@ karlof1 | Feb 25 2025 23:48 utc | 204 with the follow up...thx

I think Ukraine is facing unconditional surrender whereas the deal Trump just made with Ukraine may complicate that...what will Russia say to a conditional surrender that honors the new US/Ukraine agreement? I think they will say, "Stuff it!"

The problem for Trump is that it is going to be hard to move through this transition to multipolarity and equality of nations....Trump will push for a section of the world to rule over and will be politely told NO FUCKING WAY! by both Russia and China and the RoW.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 25 2025 23:59 utc | 206

I appreciate my buddy psychohistorian for carrying on the discourse since no other participant really entered. A Might is Right conclusion would see most of Ukraine absorbed back into Russia from whence it came with the odd outliers returning to the nations they were snipped from. The Eurasian Security Pact would be concluded with non-NATO Eurasia since most are already in favor. Once NATO dissolves then individual nations could apply to enter the Pact. All Cold Warriors would be as livid as they are now and will die that way. That’s the simple solution.

A negotiated peace poses many more legal issues as I outlined above. The first point involves determining who the genuine parties are to the negotiating process. Russia clearly invaded Ukraine citing UN Charter Article 51 that it was defending the Donbass Republics, but against who? As noted above, no legitimate entity ever replaced the Outlaw US Empire running Ukrainian political processes—Ukrainians were he puppets with the string-pullers always backstage. It could be argued that the regime that signed the Minsk Agreements was deemed legitimate by the UNSC as it became a UNSC Resolution. I that case, then there are only wo parties to the negotiations—Russia and Ukraine: No NATO since Ukraine’s government is deemed legitimate. So, why is Trump involved or the EU/NATO? They deny being at war with Russia but insist on being part of the negotiating process. Sorry, but only those officially at war are allowed—unless one or both of the parties appoints an agent(s) to represent it. (An aside, Ukrainians ought to sue the Outlaw US Empire for waging war on it in 2014 that caused the change in government and subsequent hostilities with Russia and demand many Trillions in damages.) Not only has Zelensky issued an edict not to negotiate with Russia, he hasn’t appointed any agent to represent Ukraine as to do so would violate his edict. As Putin has said many times, the edict must be removed before talks can commence. In this scenario, some portion of the current Ukraine is assumed to remain under the control of the current government, meaning that some form of non-NATO security arrangement will need to be agreed; and IMO, Russia will not sign a peace agreement that lacks a security arrangement it agrees with. And since Russia has said the SMO will continue until the peace settlement is finalized, denazification and demilitarization will continue. That’s the complicated solution.

Again, Trump needs no plan unless the Empire is to negotiate for Ukraine. If Team Trump is to negotiate for Ukraine, it will need to execute what Ukraine wants since the Empire is its agent, not its boss. Of course, Ukraine could choose another agent. And again, Zelensky’s illegitimate and thus has no standing to name any agent. IMO, he can’t even rescind his edict. I’d love to run all this by a Russian official for an opinion. Russia says its position hasn’t changed, but there’re many little points that aren’t expressed in that overall position. As usual, the devil’s in the details.

How will Russia act? As a Great Power and impose Might is Right. Or will it stand by the legal UN process and confirm its word to be a defender of the UN Charter and pursue that slower route to arrive at the lasting peace it seeks?

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!