Since Russia unleashed war in eastern Ukraine, writers and commentators have argued over semantics – what are the correct terms to describe these events? Ukraine did not do itself any favors by clinging to the “Anti-Terrorist Operation” euphemism, coined in the early days but clearly outdated and understated by the wretched summer of 2014. At that point, when the Russian army was shelling Ukrainian territory from across the border, Ukraine should have declared itself to be the victim of an unprovoked attack from a foreign power.
There are many parties guilty of misnaming this war, or incorrectly describing this war. In some cases this has been deliberate; often it is accidental.
Some of the most obvious falsehoods, largely stamped out from even accidental use by bona fide commentators today, are the terms “civil war” or “internal conflict.” Anybody who has ever used either term has either deliberately or accidentally been part of furthering a false narrative.
The only place either narrative sticks today is with media or individuals linked to the Kremlin, like Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who thought he could con the world into accepting such alternative facts at the recent Munich Security Summit. His speech was received too politely, and he should have been challenged more strongly. His intelligence-insulting falsehoods, uttered to a room of senior international figures, warranted more than a little tutting.
I see no problem in switching between the terms “war” and “conflict” as they’re not mutually exclusive, both are correct, but if a journalist diplomat or politician is talking about or writing about a Russian citizen, whose identity is known, and that individual has participated in military operations in Ukraine, why would he be described as a “pro-Russian” fighter? He’s not – he’s just Russian.
In a recent article in the Financial Times the words “Russian separatists” were used consecutively. This formulation is illogically incoherent: a person must be one or the other. A Russian citizen in Ukraine is a not a “separatist,” and nor is that person a “rebel,” because the definition of “rebel” is someone taking a stand against their own authorities, not the authorities of an independent neighboring state.
‘Both Sides’
Another group accused of adopting Kremlin friendly terminology, by accusing “both sides” of being in breach of obligations relating to Minsk, is the OSCE. This warrants examination, because the Special Monitoring Mission of the OSCE is the eyes and ears of the world when it comes to this war.
The OSCE SMM has a difficult role for many reasons. Firstly they operate in an exceptionally dangerous environment, they have lost one of their members to a mine explosion and they are regularly threatened at gunpoint. The mission members deserve our respect and gratitude for the work that they do.
But the OSCE is not beyond criticism. When they talk about “both sides” being responsible for ceasefire violations, technically this may be true, as neither side should be firing. But when one side is attacking defensive positions, and the other side is exercising their absolute right to defend themselves and their land, it is not appropriate to talk about “both sides” being in violation of the ceasefire.
It is true that “both sides” have heavy weapons in areas where there should not be heavy weapons. This is because there is a war on, with the same attacking and defending logic as before. Only one side is fully justified in its actions – the side that is defending itself. The other side is attacking Ukrainian towns, cities and forces with Russian-supplied heavy artillery and/or tanks. Talking about “both sides” being responsible for the fighting is not just the wrong way to explain the situation, it directly assists Russian propaganda by allowing them to make claims to the international community that “both sides” are bad actors.
In truth, the handicap that has created this problem – the ambiguous nature of some of OSCE reports, which are then taken out of context and abused by Russia – is that the operations of this organization have to be approved unanimously by all OSCE members states. And Russia is an OSCE member state. So therefore Russia essentially has input on the make-up of the monitoring mission, Russian citizens are part of this team, enabling them to infiltrate the thinking within the mission – something they no doubt take full advantage of.
Because of the “unanimity” required for decision making, Russia also has also had a degree of control therefore over setting the standards for the language used in the OSCE SMM’s reports about/from this conflict.
But there is a solution here. The evidence of Russia’s involvement of the war in eastern Ukraine is now so overwhelming and irrefutable, the OSCE should immediately consider adopting sanctions against Russia by stripping them of their role in the decision making process.
A precedent for this exists, during the Balkans conflicts Yugoslavia, obviously a party to those events, was set aside, decisions were then made on a new basis simply called “unanimity minus one.” The restriction of voting rights in the OSCE is a sanction against Russia that should have been imposed a long time ago.
UN peacekeeping mission
One important issue the international community is mulling now is the make-up of a peacekeeping force for eastern Ukraine. However, the Russians are already drawing red lines on what is or is not acceptable to them. Russia, for instance, refuses to allow any such mission to go ahead if it contains any NATO members.
How is Russia dictating terms of what is going to happen in a neighboring independent sovereign state? Well, that comes down to their veto right as one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. With this ace in their pocket, Russia demands that it dictate which nations may be permitted to participate in any peace keeping mission. (Actually, as language matters, it should be called a peace-restoring mission, as eastern Ukraine was a peaceful place until Russia started the war there).
Removing Russia’s veto right – let’s say until they end their occupation of Crimea – might solve this issue, and also enable the world to make some progress in ending the horrendous conflict in Syria, where Russia not only plays an active role in bombing civilians in their homes and then destroying medical facilities and targeting of aid workers (both physically and with their propaganda). Russia has enabled the war there to continue by abusing its UNSC veto.
Maybe there should be a motion to strip Russia of their present veto right? Perhaps the idea could be that any P5 state who invades and/or annexes the territory of another country loses their veto right until their illegal actions are unilaterally reversed? Maybe that might be enough to get Russia to go back to respecting the borders of sovereign countries and to make them refrain from trying to move borders by military force.
Of course Russia will be able to buy bully and cajole some countries into not supporting such a motion, as it has in the past. The island nation of Vanuatu is a notoriously cheap ally for vote-buyers at the UN, and Russia’s Syrian client Bashar al-Assad would certainly vote with the Kremlin, indebted as he clearly is to Moscow.
So such a reform of the United Nation would probably never go through. But a vote on the issue would provide a healthy reminder of who Russia’s friends are on the international stage, and show how isolated the Kremlin really is. It has as allies only a motley handful of rogue states, and is opposed by the world’s civilized nations.
And no amount of word twisting alters that fact.
