Stoltenberg Defends Ukraine’s Incursion into Russia as Legitimate Self-Defense Under International Law

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has justified Ukraine’s incursion into Russia’s Kursk region as a legitimate act of self-defense. This military operation, discussed at a NATO-Ukraine Council meeting, was initiated by Kyiv following a significant wave of Russian air attacks.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky explained that the operation aims to create a buffer zone to prevent further Russian attacks across the border. While Stoltenberg acknowledged the risks involved in such a bold move, he emphasized that it is ultimately Ukraine’s decision on how to defend itself.

Ukraine’s allies have expressed cautious support for the operation, which reportedly resulted in Kyiv capturing around 500 square miles of territory. However, there is ongoing speculation about the broader objectives of the incursion, particularly as Russian forces continue to make gains in other regions, such as the Pokrovsk sector of Donetsk.

Despite these developments, Ukraine’s actions have been defended under international law. The U.K., referencing Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, affirmed Ukraine’s right to project force onto Russian territory in response to Moscow’s attacks on civilian infrastructure.

Fergus Eckersley, the U.K.’s political coordinator at the U.N., further supported Ukraine’s right to self-defense, including the projection of force into Russian territory, as long as these actions comply with international law.

Eckersley argued that Russia cannot escalate the war from within its borders while attacking civilians and expects Ukraine not to respond by targeting the source of the threat. This stance highlights the international community’s recognition of Ukraine’s need to take defensive measures, even if they extend beyond its borders.

As Ukraine continues to strike at Russian territory, it has urged the Biden administration to lift restrictions on the use of U.S.-supplied long-range weapons against military targets in Russia. This appeal comes amid differing views within the European Union regarding the use of European-supplied arms for such purposes.

EU High Commissioner Josep Borrell stated that it is up to individual EU member states to decide whether to permit Ukraine to use the long-range weapons they have provided, indicating a lack of consensus within the EU on this matter.

Military experts, like David Silbey from Cornell University, caution against the belief that any single weapon could decisively alter the course of the war. Silbey notes that since the war’s inception, there has been a recurring expectation that specific Western-supplied weapons, such as tanks or missile systems, could shift the battlefield dynamics in Ukraine’s favor.

However, he argues that while these weapons have been useful, they are not “war-winning” solutions. The conflict is unlikely to be resolved by any one technological advance, underscoring the complexity and protracted nature of the war.