Skip to main content

The Provision of Weapons to Ukraine and the Responsibility to Protect

Category
Fresh Perspectives
Date
The Provision of Weapons to Ukraine and the Responsibility to Protect
Soldiers from the 173rd Airborne Battalion Combat Team fire a live Javelin medium anti-tank missile during training at the Joint Multinational Training Center. The Soldiers from 173rd Airborne Battalion Combat Team are training together for the first time since their transformation into a BCT and in preparation for deployment for Operation Iraqi Freedom. (U.S. Army photo by Gary l. Kieffer) (Released)

In this piece, Lucas de Belmont addresses the reasons for the supply of weapons to Ukraine by Western countries, analysing the risks this involves in terms of the protection of civilians from atrocity crimes.

Ever since reports of the risk of an imminent invasion of Ukraine by Russia started to surface, it was known that Russian forces possessed a military superiority that could hardly be matched by Ukraine, despite all of the significant efforts employed by the Ukrainian government and their allies in the West to reduce the size of this gap.

Based on this assessment, the initial expectations seemed to be that the Russian invasion would be hard to resist. However, it appears that the reality is not in accordance with the initial expectations, with Russian forces having faced significant setbacks and dogged resistance from Ukrainian defenders. Yet Ukraine's need for military assistance is clear, and Ukraine's President Zelensky is very aware of that, given his insistent calls for Western countries to send weapons and to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine. Even though NATO leaders have refused the request for a no-fly zone, they have responded to the demand for weapons, sending in hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of military equipment, such as various arms, ammunition, vehicles, missiles, protective gear and fuel.

 

The case for sending weapons to Ukraine

The rationale behind the Ukrainian request and the response by Western countries is quite straightforward: the weapons are needed to repel the Russian invasion and to protect the Ukrainian territory and population. In light of the potential commission of war crimes by Russian forces, the argument for the delivery of weapons to Ukraine can be framed in line with the international responsibility to protect populations from atrocity crimes, mainly under the banner of international assistance aimed at protection from atrocity crimes, as outlined by the second pillar of R2P. James Pattison has argued that R2P entails a responsibility to undertake direct action, which may include a responsibility to provide arms to states that are fighting forces which are committing mass atrocities. A better equipped Ukrainian army is more capable of discharging its responsibility to protect the population from atrocity crimes committed by Russian forces, and it would be the responsibility of the international community to assist Ukraine to exercise such duty, as envisioned by the second pillar of R2P. For instance, it may be argued that the international provision of weapons to the opposition to Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, in 2011, followed such rationale.

But are there generally any cons in this approach?

 

Addressing the risks

One of the main risks of supplying weapons to a country involved in a conflict is that it would likely lead to the escalation and prolongation of the war, which could result in the commission of more atrocity crimes and in more displacement of civilians. For these reasons, Pattison links his argument for a responsibility to provide arms to the condition that this should effectively help to address mass atrocities and not cause long-term harm, pointing to the fact that this is “generally very unlikely”, because, otherwise, it could lead to more violence and consequently more atrocities in the future. This was the concern behind UN Security Council resolutions 2117 and 2220, which affirm that the misuse of weapons contributes to instability and insecurity, fuels armed conflicts, and has resulted in grave crimes, such as genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The UN’s Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes also notes that the availability of arms increases the risk of the occurrence of atrocities, while the UN Secretary-General in a 2013 report highlighted that the presence of armed groups is an atrocity risk factor, especially in the context of proliferation of arms.

These concerns were addressed by the international community via the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which aims to contribute to international peace and security and to reduce human suffering. The ATT prohibits states parties of transferring weapons when they have knowledge at the time of authorisation that the arms would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against human­ity or war crimes and obliges states to assess the potential that the arms could be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of International Humanitarian Law or International Human Rights Law. These provisions have a direct contribution to discharging responsibilities under R2P, by helping to reduce atrocity risks.

 

The case of Ukraine

In the particular case of Ukraine, from a strategic point of view, the delivery of weapons by Western countries may encourage Russia to attack the military supply lines coming into Ukraine from countries such as Poland and Romania, risking the escalation of the conflict and the direct involvement of NATO in the war. In fact, the Russian government has already affirmed that it sees the convoys of military equipment entering Ukraine as legitimate targets. More importantly, however, is the fact that the exportation of so many weapons may have a grave humanitarian impact on the lives of civilians, including the escalation and prolongation of the war as noted above.

In Ukraine, the supply of weapons may present greater risks due to factors such as the creation of combat militias with loose or inexistent control by the Ukrainian government, which includes radical far-right armed groups like the Azov Battalion and other neo-Nazi organizations with a record of committing war crimes and human rights violations. The distribution of weapons to these militias may increase the level of instability, criminality, and violence in Ukraine, including against immigrants and minorities, especially in the case of collapse of the Ukrainian state institutions. In the hands of non-state groups, these weapons may either lead to the prolongation of the war, with even more civilian casualties, or, in the case there is a negotiated peace between Ukraine and Russia, to some loss of control over the country, with the potential emergence of heavily armed criminal organizations and terrorist groups.

The presence of foreign fighters in Ukraine, including members of Western far-right groups, is also a risk, given that it may lead to illegal trafficking of weapons into and out of Ukraine, and to the exportation of violence and instability to countries in the region upon their return to their home countries. Furthermore, there is a great risk that the military equipment provided by Western countries may be captured by advancing Russian forces and consequently used against civilian populations.

This presents a dilemma to the Ukrainian government and to Western countries willing to provide military assistance against the Russian invasion. There is no easy solution. It is clear that to watch idly the aggression carried out by Russia is not an option to the West. Crucially though, when making their decisions, the arms suppliers should carefully consider the issues raised by the ATT, UNSC resolutions 2117 and 2220, the 2013 UNSG report on R2P, and the Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes. They must do their best to mitigate risks. Secondly, what the US and Europe may demand in their exchanges with Ukraine is that the government will restrict access to weapons, especially the most lethal ones, to those under their command and control. Furthermore, all involved parties should strive for a resolution to the crisis that includes addressing the widespread presence of arms in the Ukrainian society in the aftermath of the war, such as provisions for demobilization and disarmament of non-state armed groups.

Lucas de Belmont is a PhD Candidate at the University of Leeds. His research is focused on the international responsibility to protect the indigenous peoples of the Brazilian Amazon from atrocity crimes and is supervised within the European Centre for the Responsibility to Protect.

 

If you are interested in submitting a blog post for the ECR2P’s Fresh Perspectives series, then please contact Dr Richard Illingworth by Email (r.illingworth@leeds.ac.uk) or Twitter (@RJI95).