The language question in Ukraine goes back centuries. It is deeply rooted in the history of old empires and Ukraine’s position as the borderland between the West and the East.
Ecological damage, risk of nuclear accident and the economic fallout from war all affect countries well beyond the conflict zone. How should the world deal with these borderless threats?
The setting was grand, so too was the plan. But behind the peace plan put forward by China and welcomed by Russia, is the question, what do both nations seek?
Talk of peace in Ukraine has taken a backseat to a media narrative promoting the continuation of the war. It’s time to pursue other ways to end the conflict – such as reconciliation.
The International Criminal Court’s charges against Vladimir Putin are likely to have a minimal impact on him, but it does signal that wartime atrocities have consequences — and the world is watching.
The Genocide Convention says the forced transfer of children could constitute genocide if the intent was to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.
Dangerous war games, such as the Russian interception of a US drone over the Black Sea, have the potential to trigger real conflict. But there is no international law governing such behaviour.
Xi may speak with both Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy next week to push China’s peace plan for Ukraine, but we shouldn’t expect radical change in its foreign policy overnight.
International law states that states have to operate ‘due regard’ for the right of nations to fly drones above international waters. Washington claims Russia violated this standard in incident.
The Battle of Bakhmut embodies Russia’s ill-planned war in Ukraine. Even if it succeeds in taking the city, the divisions it’s created within its armed forces will erode Russia’s ultimate aims.
Gareth Jones reported on Moscow’s genocide against the Ukrainian people in the 1930s. His story holds lessons and an example for those reporting on the latest conflict.