Russia and Belarus have indisputably carried out acts of aggression since the invasion of Ukraine

On December 14, 1974, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 3314 "Definition of Aggression".

According to the UN resolution, the acts which qualify as acts of aggression are:

A military invasion, attack or military occupation of any duration;

A bombardment of the territory of another State or the use of other weapons;

A blockade of the ports or coasts of another State by the use of armed forces;

An attack by armed forces on the armed forces of another State;

Unauthorized use of armed forces deployed on the territory of another State after the end of the UN mandate or extending the UN mandate;

Authorizing the use of its territory, waters or airspace for the purpose of aggression;

Sending armed groups (gangs) or mercenaries to commit aggression against another state.

Russia did not formally violate the UN resolution on aggression when it annexed Crimea in 2014. The seizure of power was carried out by armed men with no insignia and no declared affiliation to the Russian armed forces. It was only several years later that the Russian President admitted that this was a covert operation by the Russian armed forces. However, the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 is taking place without any deception. The Russian armed forces are attacking the Ukrainian armed forces, there are missile strikes and bombardments, there is a blockade of Ukrainian ports. Basically, Russia spits on the common understanding of all the countries of the world of how international conflicts should be resolved and is clearly positioning itself as the aggressor.

According to the UN definition, Belarus must also be considered an aggressor, because a state that allows its territory, waters or airspace to be used for aggression also becomes an aggressor.

The military actions in the direction of Chernobyl and Kyiv were carried out by the Russian armed forces from Belarusian territory and with the authorization of the Belarusian leadership, and therefore Belarus is also an aggressor according to the UN definition.

At the same time, Russia has violated the United Nations Charter, Article 2(4) which states: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

According to the UN Charter, the use of force must be in conformity with the international legal system and the UN alone has a monopoly on the use of force.

In order to prevent the use of provocations to occupy other states, the UN principles say that a state may use force only in the event of an armed attack, only to repel the attack and without entering the territory of the aggressor state: "the victim of aggression may not occupy the territory of the aggressor" (Professor Juris Bojārs' interpretation). The first use of force by one state against another, in violation of the UN Charter, is generally considered as proof of aggression.

Article 33 of the UN Charter states precisely how disputes between states are to be settled: "The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice."

Unfortunately, the UN General Assembly resolution is not binding on the UN Security Council, as Article 39 of the UN Charter states that "the Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression."

Russia can therefore exercise its veto and block the decisions of the UN Security Council, but, whatever the formal decisions, the Putin regime has positioned itself as the aggressor and this reputation will remain in the international community forever.

Unfortunately, however the international legal system is constructed, one has to agree with Rebecca Wallace (International Law):

"Modern international law may prohibit the use of force, but international law is no more capable of excluding the use of force than domestic criminal law is of preventing murder."