► “Western countries are not parties to the conflict”
Bruno Tertraisdeputy director of the Foundation for Strategic Research and geopolitical adviser at the Institut Montaigne
“Western countries have not entered a state of co-belligerence, we must be clear on this point. First of all, it should be recalled that this concept does not exist in international law. A country is party to a conflict or it is not. Since no western country has sent forces to fight in Ukraine, either on the ground or in the air, these countries are not involved in the conflict. There is no ambiguity on this point. Helping a country to defend itself, whether by sending military aid, defense equipment or training its army, all of this is in accordance with the United Nations Charter, which recognizes the right to self-defence. This in no way implies becoming a party to this war. It is true that the military assistance from the Americans and Europeans is constantly increasing and, therefore, it represents a real asset – increasingly important – for the Ukrainian army. But this is a quantitative change, not a qualitative change.
NATO absolutely not involved
Conversely, since the start of the conflict in Ukraine last February, Russia has continued to declare that it is at war against the West, and in particular against NATO. These statements are made in defiance of any legal or military reality. So regardless, in the end, of the amount and quality of military assistance granted to Ukraine, it is hard to see how this could change Russia’s strategic calculation vis-à-vis the West.
Western countries have long been cautious about the quality of the materials they sent to Ukraine. They also refused to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine, which otherwise could have effectively made them co-belligerents. Furthermore, it should be noted that NATO as a military organization is absolutely not involved in the conflict. Most member countries provide this military assistance individually. Not only are Western countries not parties to the conflict with Ukraine, but NATO as such is in no way involved in this war. »
► “The balance point has moved since the start of the invasion”
Jean-Pierre MaulnyDeputy Director of the Institute of International and Strategic Relations
“If we look at the Hague Convention, we are far from the definition of a neutral State… but the question of co-belligerence does not arise like that. What needs to be looked at is how the state helping Ukraine perceives its own action, and how this action is perceived by Russia, and see how these two elements fit together. However, we note that the balance point has shifted since the beginning of the invasion, with the delivery of ever more sophisticated equipment, and current debates on the training of Ukrainian soldiers by the European Union.
However, basically, as long as the Russians do not consider the Europeans and the Americans to be co-belligerents, everything is fine. The day they consider us to be co-belligerent is the day they will attack us! The notion of co-belligerency has no meaning as such, because it has no fixed definition. It’s dialectical: the actors in the conflict decide whether they are in co-belligerence.
A matter of perception
The real question is that of the extension of the conflict. And as a priori no one wants to, there is no co-belligerence. I think the Russians are aware that they would lose in a conventional confrontation with the West and would soon be confronted with the necessity of using nuclear weapons, at the risk of inevitably losing. And they don’t want to be in that situation any more than we do.
I think it is this calculation that leads to steps being taken, but these steps remain measured, as shown by the refusal to deliver long-range American missiles for the Himars multiple rocket launchers. In a way, the West is now a rear base when it comes to equipment delivery. But again, co-belligerence is not a matter of delivered material, it is a matter of perception. I’m not saying that to deny that there are risks. We are in a very dangerous situation. This is why it is still quite legitimate to wonder what, in the eyes of the Russians, would get us to the other side of the barrier.
It is also interesting to see that not all Western states perceive this danger in the same way. The French do not reveal all of what they supply to Ukraine, because we take this risk very seriously. The Germans need to communicate more on this aspect, because they are accused of complacency towards the Russians because of their energy dependence. And the British talk indiscriminately about their arms deliveries, which makes the French hysterical!
On the Russian side, the media discourse tends to put everyone in the same basket, by denouncing the actions of what they call “the collective West”. But they know how to tell the difference. Rather than a global response, I think they will seek more to “punish bad students” to try to divide, to separate Europeans. »