What is NATO? Why can’t NATO help Ukraine directly? Does Russia have a legal cover in its invasion of Ukraine? And why did the US president resort to economic sanctions instead of military intervention?

What is NATO? Why can’t NATO help Ukraine directly? Does Russia have a legal cover in its invasion of Ukraine? And why did the US president resort to economic sanctions instead of military intervention? Russia-Ukraine war legal or purely political? Information series in the article, I wish you an enjoyable reading On March 4, 1947, the Treaty of Dunkirk was signed by France and Britain, and the goal of the treaty was to have a legal umbrella for mutual assistance in the event of any possible attack by Germany or the Soviet Union in the aftermath of World War II . In 1948 the scope of the treaty was expanded to include additional countries, and it was later known as the Brussels Treaty Organization. This alliance developed into a new military alliance that led to the signing of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty Organization by the member states in Brussels in addition to the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. The goal of the NATO treaty is to assist its members in the event of an armed attack against any member state, and one of the most important goals of NATO was to confront the threat of Russian expansion after the war in Europe. Russia considered NATO a threat to it from the strategic side, and a review of offensive and military forces, so it responded to this alliance in 1955 by creating its own military alliance from the communist countries of Eastern Europe, which it called the Warsaw Pact, but this alliance did not last long, as a number of One of its members requested to join NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union. As for Ukraine, it is a former Soviet republic bordering Russia, not a member of NATO but a “partner country.” This means that there is an understanding that Ukraine may be allowed to join the alliance at some point in the future, but Russia wants assurances from Western powers that this will not It never happens. Against this, the United States and its allies view Ukraine as a sovereign state that should be free to decide on its security alliances. President Putin always claims that Western powers are using NATO to attack Russia by deploying ballistic missiles, wants NATO to stop its military activities in Eastern Europe, and always claims that the United States has breached the 1990 guarantee that NATO will not expand in Eastern Europe, On the other hand, NATO rejects Russia’s allegations and says that only a few member states have a common border with Russia, and that it is only a defensive alliance. Historically, what has NATO done in the past regarding Russia and Ukraine? When Ukrainians deposed their pro-Russian president in early 2014, Russia annexed Ukraine’s southern Crimea. It also supported the pro-Russian separatists who had seized large swathes of eastern Ukraine. NATO did not intervene at the time, but it responded by deploying Allied forces to several Eastern European countries for the first time. These forces were designed to act as a “stumble wire” in the event of a Russian invasion of NATO territory. Since Russia’s annexation of Crimea, NATO has positioned battle groups in Eastern Europe: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and a multinational brigade in Romania. NATO has also expanded the scope of its air operations in the Baltic states and Eastern Europe to intercept any Russian aircraft that crosses the borders of the member states. While Russia is demanding the exit of these forces; Because that is a threat to its security and sovereignty. From a legal point of view, Article 5 of the NATO Treaty is the legal basis for the legality of military intervention in the event of any attack on a member state of the treaty, and this article was used almost once, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. In contrast, Russia considers that its intervention or invasion of Ukraine falls under Chapter VII of the United Nations document, entitled: Actions taken in cases of threats to the peace, breach of peace and aggression; It sees its intervention as a result of a threat to Russian peace, protection of Russian minorities, and separatists in Ukraine. Therefore, it believes that there is a legal justification that gives it the legitimacy of that intervention. The action that will be taken is to resort to the UN Security Council to pass a resolution condemning Russia’s attack on Ukraine based on Article (II) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat of use of force and calls on all member states to respect the territorial integrity of other states. Of course, the draft conviction will be doomed to failure; Given that Russia – a member of the Security Council – will use its veto, and China is expected to abstain from the vote. From what has been indicated, it is clear that the war between Russia and Ukraine, although it is motivated by political factors, is legal in nature, through the two parties to the conflict seeking to find a legal umbrella that legitimizes his actions! The US President and the rest of the allies have resorted to economic sanctions that do not entail legal accountability, in contrast to the military intervention that lacks legitimacy, and may exacerbate the situation. Hence, one of the reasons for the weakness of public international law becomes clear, in the absence of the body that has full authority to impose its rules and legal systems. to members of the international community