The Russian invasion of Ukraine was a clear violation of international law. It meets the definition of a war crime under the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force, barring cases of self-defense.¹²³
Even if we agree that NATO expansion "baited" Russia into attacking, Russia still took the bait, rather than pursue alternative avenues for peace.
Just as Israel should not be allowed to claim "self-defense" when it goes beyond its borders to lay total siege to the Palestinian people in Gaza, Russia cannot claim a legitimate justification for their "special operation." ¹² It too deserves condemnation. But to stop our analysis there is to fall into the familiar trap of selective outrage, one that conveniently aligns with Western power interests while ignoring the far more systematic violations of international law carried out by the United States and its allies over the past several decades.
To champion an anti-war, anti-imperialist position, we cannot afford to adopt a framework in which international law only applies when it serves Western (or conversely - Russian) strategic objectives.
If Russia's actions warrant international condemnation, which they do, so too do the U.S.-led wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and the numerous covert operations that have resulted in regime change, mass civilian casualties, and the systematic destruction of nations.
The United States has waged aggressive wars based on outright fabrications—most notably in Iraq, where the Bush administration manufactured a case for invasion based on non-existent weapons of mass destruction. That war killed hundreds of thousands, destabilized an entire region, and strengthened extremist groups. Yet, no calls for perpetual hostilities or sanctions toward the Unite States followed. No demands for the permanent ostracization of the United States from the international system were issued.
If we are to be honest about the situation, we must ask: How would Washington react if Russia or China began stationing military bases in Mexico or Canada? Would the United States simply respect their “right” to do so, or would it launch a preemptive war? The answer is obvious. The Cuban Missile Crisis provides the precedent—when the Soviet Union placed missiles in Cuba in 1962, the United States was willing to risk nuclear war rather than accept foreign military installations so close to its borders. Yet we are expected to believe that Russia should simply accept NATO’s expansion into Ukraine—an expansion accompanied by U.S. missile systems already operational in Romania since 2016 and Poland since 2024, along with plans to integrate Ukraine into NATO’s military structure.
If we are to be serious about opposing war, we must apply the same principles universally. This means condemning Russia’s actions while also refusing to support a war effort that only serves to extend suffering indefinitely. There is no moral consistency in insisting that Russia must be punished perpetually for its invasion while simultaneously turning a blind eye to U.S. crimes in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq, and beyond. The logical conclusion of such a stance is perpetual war, an endless cycle of vengeance and retribution that guarantees only further death and destruction.
The only viable path forward—if we are to uphold the principles of peace and diplomacy, rather than the hypocrisy of selective enforcement—is negotiation. That does not mean appeasement, nor does it mean ignoring Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty. It means working toward a diplomatic resolution that prevents further suffering and reduces the possibility of future conflict. The alternative is an endless war, fought down to the last Ukrainian, at the expense of an entire generation and for the sole benefit of Western arms manufacturers and geopolitical strategists who view human lives as mere calculations on a chessboard.
As critics of imperialism, we must ask: Are we genuinely opposed to war crimes, or are we only opposed to war crimes committed by those designated as official enemies of the United States? Or for those who stand steadfast against the imperialism of US empire (of which NATO is an extension), will we fall into the opposite trap, where we defend the imperial actions of Russia, placing the blame entirely on NATO, excusing Russia's actions much the way others defend US aggression? The answer to that question determines whether we stand for peace or merely serve as functionaries of power, bending principles to the interests of one imperial faction or another.
The temptation to mainly focus on condemning Russia or the US is understandable, but ultimately we have to assign responsibility to both of them while focusing on taking responsibility for the actions of our own government.
To paraphrase John Pilger, only when we recognize and challenge the war criminals in our own government will these endless conflicts ever have a chance of ending.
Empire
War & Peace