Can Russia justify their

An effective electoral system should include social and proportional representation alongside secret, clear and simple voting with a good choice of candidates. Moreover, it is necessary to have a system that forms a strong opposition and a strong government that can effectively lead and control the country. All systems have elements of these requirements but it is debatable whether there is a system that covers all of them, or is that too much to ask?

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has entered its first-year anniversary on the 24th February 2023, and so far there is no end in sight. The Kremlin for the past year has repeatedly accused Ukraine of supporting Nazi groups, genocide, and NATO for its provocation against Russia. Putin repeatedly reiterates the point of NATO’s eastward expansion, citing it as a direct threat towards the sovereignty of Russia, and stated that this “special military operation” was forced to be conducted by Western powers. On the other hand, we see western media outlets constantly fighting back against Putin, describing Putin as an evil figure, who wishes to jeopardize global security and achieve global domination. Yet just how much of these claims are true, and in the end, is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as justified as Putin says?

The Kremlin’s rhetoric: NATO broke their promise of eastward expansion

Putin’s annual speech on the 21st of February continued the Kremlin’s usual stance and proceeded to blame the West for the war. He cited the expansion of NATO and New European anti-rocket defence systems as provocative to Russia and accused the West of having “infinite power” as their ultimate objective. Since 1991, NATO has incorporated 11 Eastern European countries and three former Soviet Republics into the military alliance, and most of these incorporations happened before Putin became President of Russia. US Secretary of State James Baker’s “not an inch eastward” assurance towards Gorbachev during his visit to Russia on the 9th February 1990 under the pretext that the Soviet Union would accept the unification of Germany, is often times the quoted sources in accusing the West for breaking the promise. In short, this view of Russia’s arose mainly from former Cold War dialogues between then USA and USSR while discussing the future of Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall. During these dialogues, the west adopted the stance of promising no further eastward expansion of NATO, in exchange of hoping that the USSR would agree to a unified Germany that has links with NATO. However, in the final treaty no such legal terms were written down and signed, meaning that such verbal promises technically had no legal obligations. At the same time the scope of discussion is also debated, as to whether diplomats at the time were referring “East” to East Germany, or in general Eastern Europe as a whole.

Assessing the viewpoints of both sides, it can be said that there technically are arguments for both. For NATO, their claim is that they never violated any terms this is valid on a legal basis. They never actually signed or committed to any terms that required them to not expand eastward. Therefore, they did not actually violate any treaty or obligation in opening dialogue with Kyiv, discussing their relations with NATO or directly supporting Ukraine through military and economical means. Besides, NATO still upholds the treaty signed during the unification of Germany up until this day, and hence why we see a reduced number of foreign troops stationed in East Germany, as well as different restrictions put upon what types of weapons are allowed to be stationed in Germany. From the Kremlin’s point of view, it is also technically valid for them to say that NATO did violate their commitments of no eastward expansion. Historical context provides us with evidence of verbal agreements made by western diplomats during the flurry of negotiations done by both sides in this period. However, whether violating a verbal agreement made 30 years ago during a period of constant negotiations is sufficient to accuse the other of violating its own commitments is debatable. On top of this, many countries have joined NATO post 1991. All former Warsaw Pact countries such as Poland and Hungary turned NATO. If Russia was to commit to their argument that the West violated their agreement, perhaps they should have voiced louder when these countries decided to join NATO after the breakup of the Warsaw Pact.