Uni.lu Academics, Public Address Difficult Questions Surrounding Ukraine War

On Monday afternoon, the University of Luxembourg held a hybrid public forum on the subject of "The War in Ukraine".

More than 20 people tuned in to this topical event via Webex, whilst another dozen or so attended in person on the university's Belval campus in Esch-sur-Alzette.

Josip Glaurdić, Associate Professor and Head of the Institute of Political Science at the University of Luxembourg, moderated a panel of four fellow experts on the subject: Viktoria Boretska, Research Associate at the Luxembourg Centre for Contemporary and Digital History (C2DH); Robert Harmsen, Professor and Head of the Department of Social Sciences at the University of Luxembourg; Matthew Happold, Professor in International Public Law at the University of Luxembourg; Eleftheria Neframi, Professor in European Law at the University of Luxembourg.

Introducing this public forum, Prof Dr Josip Glaurdić said that he hoped this event would serve in channeling our emotions in some way regarding the developments of the past three weeks. "We find ourselves in a terrible war that feels like it belongs in the first half of the 20th century rather than today", he noted, adding that "[we are] witnessing a destruction of the European and international order". Prof Dr Glaurdić raised a number of questions to be addressed during this afternoon's event, for instance: Did the Putin regime miscalculate? Did the western alliance, particularly the European Union (EU) finally find its resolve, unity and sense of purpose which was lacking in the last few decades? What is the role of China? What will be the role, if any, of rule of law in this new world order being built before our eyes?

"There are many questions, which are largely meaningless to Ukrainians because their cities and lives are going up in flames in this senseless agression", he continued, before urging attendees to "open [their] hearts, schedules and wallets to help the people of Ukraine directly". In the meantime, this public forum would "hopefully help us get some answers to the questions raised".

Viktoria Boretska, who is originally from western Ukraine and whose research focuses on the history and circulation of ideas during the Cold War as well as memories of Luxembourg's industrial past, spoke about the "war of words", i.e. the power of language and its role in "inform[ing] our actions as people, as individuals, as parts of society". Ms Boretska addressed the issue of the "idea of Ukraine as an artificial state". "Language creates reality", she emphasised, adding that such language had manifested in recent "denazification" claims and people like Vladimir Putin asserting their right to destroy a state "by pretending it does not exist". She also highlighted how Mr Putin’s recent speeches have already been compared to those of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Ms Boretska concluded by stressing the importance of looking at how words are translated into action.

Prof Dr Robert Harmsen, whose research interests include human rights and Europeanisation, addressed the position of NATO and the EU in relation to this "new unstable situation". He explained that it was difficult to "understand how we got into this without understanding the extreme personalisation of power in Russia". Whilst he deemed current sanctions, such as those imposed on Russian oligarchs, as "morally justifiable", Prof Dr Harmsen felt that it would be more effective to put pressure on the country's "security apparatus", if possible. In any case, the current situation can mean "nothing good" for the European security order. He added that this "new era is one of fundamental structural instability".

Concerning the role of NATO, Prof Dr Harmsen said that the situation had "strongly reinforced" the North Atlantic Alliance "in its inital purpose", i.e. as a defensive alliance of its members. However, this has also sparked debate in countries such as Finland and Sweden since it has become clear that "you are either in or you are out" of NATO. For its part, the EU has "performed well so far in its necessary secondary role". Prof Dr Harmsen recalled that the EU was "not really built" for such hostile situations, rather for contexts of "peace and prosperity". One major development could be Germany's miltary reinvestment. However, the EU "needs actual operational military capabilities and a coherent [...] discourse". For this, according to Prof Dr Harmsen, the EU requires a "workable stable relationship" with both the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK).

Regarding the origins of the war in Ukraine, he looked at the situation from two perspectives: the "cold historical analysis" and the "moral judgment on the act of aggression itself". Whilst the latter places blame on Vladimir Putin and recognises the war as "an unprovoked act of aggression", the former implies that it is also useful to try to "understand the pattern of interaction between Russia and the west over the past 20 years". For instance, did the west fail to seize certain opportunities? Could the west have taken a harsher approach to matters such as the annexation of Crimea in 2014? Looking at its own conduct of diplomacy "retrospectively" and "critically" could prove beneficial to the west going forward. 

Matthew Happold, who specialises in public international law, international investment arbitration and international human rights law, began his presentation by describing Russia's invasion of Ukraine as "unambiguously illegal". He looked back on attempts throughout the 20th century to "abolish war through law" and to establish international institutions aimed at prohibiting the use of force and creating a sense of security. However, the situation is a "difficult" one for lawyers since the rules continue to apply but the international institutions do not appear to be functioning at the global level, he noted. Prof Dr Happold added that the United Nations (UN) Security Council had condemned Russian military activities at its recent General Assembly, but could only make suggestions. Nevertheless, the "legal position is clear - it is unambiguously unlawful", as well as "morally wrong".

Prof Dr Happold agreed with Prof Dr Robert Harmsen that one should look at what preceded such a situation, not only in terms of politics but also from a legal perspective. He argued that events such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, whilst in no way justified Vladimir Putin's actions today, has led certain countries, particularly those in the Global South, to question the west's intentions and claims to support "global values".

Prof Eleftheria Neframi then looked in more detail at the Ukraine war from an EU law perspective. She recalled that the Council of the European Union had adopted sanctions quickly and unanimously. Such sanctions may be challenged before the Court of Justic of the European Union. The EU also recently activated its Integrated Political Crisis Response (IPCR), temporary protection for Ukrainians (although certain procedures remain unclear) as well as the European Peace Facility (EPF), aimed at strengthening the capabilities of Ukraine's armed forces and protecting civilians from Russian aggression.

Prof Neframi also addressed Ukraine's recent application for EU accession, noting that this process will take time and thus "cannot stop the war now". She added that the EU is a political actor rather than a military power. She later noted that most actors were in agreement that the sanctions imposed on Russia "came too late", adding that "unfortunately progess is made in Europe via crisis".  

Prof Dr Josip Glaurdić then opened the floor to questions from audience; questions touched on several aspects of the war, from the impact of Russian broadcasting sanctions to the role of individual Russians in stopping the war. Participants also debated the challenging question of how to deescalate this situation and "stop the spiral of violence". Most agreed that there was no straightforward solution and certainly not one that would be acceptable to all sides involved.

Prof Dr Josip Glaurdić concluded on a more optimistic note, saying that "we should all be curious and courageous". He spoke of a "glimmer of hope", which for him took the form of "the bravery and vigour with which Ukrainians are fighting back", as well as "the extent to which are countries seem to be coming together" at the European and global level. He also highlighted those Russians, particularly young people, who took to the streets in Moscow, Saint Petersburg and other cities to voice their opposition to the war. "In those little acts of defiance is great courage", he said.