History of a concept. The co-belligerent, in the most common definition, is one who fights with another against a common enemy, without being bound to him by a formal military alliance, or who helps him to supervise his military operations. Russian aggression in Ukraine has brought the notion back into the public debate. From the start of the conflict, Emmanuel Macron explained, in an interview with the LCI channel, on March 7, that he wanted “ stop this war without becoming belligerents ourselves,” justifying the very harsh European economic sanctions and the massive arms deliveries, in particular American and British – theoretically defensive in the first days, then increasingly heavy –, as well as the financial support given to Ukrainian democracy. Florence Parly, the Minister for the Armed Forces, specified before the Senate, from the 1is march, that “the direct commitment of our forces or those of our allies to support the Ukrainian army [face à la Russie] is not an option because it would make us co-belligerents”. On the other hand, Jean-Luc Mélenchon regretted, the same day, before the National Assembly, that the European Union had decided to supply the armaments necessary for a war, “decision that would make us co-belligerents”.
Prudence de Biden
The question, in fact, is not so much whether such and such a measure constitutes in itself an act of war, because, in this area, the law of armed conflict is often vague, but whether it is capable of being interpreted as such by the Kremlin. It is a narrow ridge line. Witness the extreme caution of Joe Biden, who in the early days of the conflict, for example, refused to allow Poland to supply Ukraine with Mig-29 fighter jets inherited from its past in the Warsaw Pact, and that Ukrainian pilots can use immediately, without being trained. The Biden administration feared stoking a gear.
Vladimir Putin had clearly stated, as early as March 5, that “Any country that tries to impose a no-fly zone in Ukrainian skies would be considered a co-belligerent”. Such a decision – desired by kyiv – would indeed suppose opening fire on Russian military aircraft flying over Ukraine, which would clearly constitute an act of war. Since then, the commitment of Westerners has become ever more explicit, but they continue to be careful not to put themselves in the position of being accused of representing “a party to the conflict”, a term preferred by lawyers.
You have 56.06% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.