By Dejan Mirovic, 

In connection with the tragic events in Ukraine, in Serbia and in the West, in a Russophobic context, an artificial analogy is made between the NATO aggression against the FRY in 1999 and the war in Ukraine, as well as the secession of the so-called Kosovo and the independence of the DNR and LNR. However, the legal facts show that this is not true. On the contrary, there is room for a completely different comparison. NATO, major Western countries and the so-called Kosovo for more than 20 years, do not respect the UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which is binding on all States under international law.

In addition, Ukraine, NATO and leading Western countries have not complied with Security Council Resolution 2202 for 7 years, which guarantees autonomy for Donbass and linguistic self-determination to the Russian minority on the basis of the Minsk Agreement.

When recognizing the DNR and LNR, Lavrov referred to UN General Assembly Resolution 2652 of 1970, which, according to the generally accepted theory of qualified secession in the West, allows secession if the central authorities do not respect the human rights of the minority. In Donbass, this was more than obvious because at the time of recognition by Moscow, the civilian population was exposed to a military attack by the central authorities in Kiev.

On the other hand, when the so-called Kosovo declared its independence in 2008, there were no Serbian soldiers on that territory, and there was no war. Therefore, there was no threat to Kosovo at that time, i.e. if we literally applied the qualified theory of secession, it would turn out that Kosovo seceded from NATO and KFOR. Finally, at the beginning of the war, the Russian president referred to Article 51 of the UN Charter, which guarantees the right to self-defense. Shortly before, Ukrainian President Zelensky had publicly stated that his country would use nuclear weapons in dealing with the Russian Federation.

Under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the president's statement is binding on the State and constitutes its official position. This was casus belli. Add to this the fact that even then the war (artillery strikes and sabotage groups) spilled over from Ukraine into the Russian territory. On the other hand, the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, although Saddam Hussein did not threaten them with a nuclear strike or attack their border areas. Moreover, it turned out that he did not even have chemical weapons. Thus, the ideological Russophobic hysteria tries to hide the legal fact that there is no analogy between Ukraine and Kosovo.

Translated by Svetlana Maksovic

February 28, 2022