Content uploaded by Goddy Uwa Osimen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Goddy Uwa Osimen on May 11, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Political Science and International Relations
2023; 6(2): 38-48
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/jpsir
doi: 10.11648/j.jpsir.20230602.12
ISSN: 2640-2769 (Print); ISSN: 2640-2785 (Online)
Paradigms of Humanitarian Intervention and Peace Support
Operation in War Zone: A Reflection of Russo-Ukrainian
War
Osimen Goddy Uwa, Moyosoluwa Dele-Dada
Department of Political Science and International Relations, Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria
Email address:
To cite this article:
Osimen Goddy Uwa, Moyosoluwa Dele-Dada. Paradigms of Humanitarian Intervention and Peace Support Operation in War Zone: A
Reflection of Russo-Ukrainian War. Journal of Political Science and International Relations. Vol. 6, No. 2, 2023, pp. 38-48.
doi: 10.11648/j.jpsir.20230602.12
Received: April 12, 2023; Accepted: April 28, 2023; Published: May 10, 2023
Abstract:
Humanitarian intervention and Peace support operation has become an increasingly important and as well as
turning into controversial topic over time. The Russian-Ukrainian War, which began in 2014, serves as a relevant case study
for the discussion of humanitarian intervention and Peace support operation. The Russia-Ukraine war is a complex and
politically sensitive matter involving several parties with competing interests. The violence within the region has resulted in a
substantial amount of human suffering, including displacement, injuries, and deaths; as a result, there is an immediate need for
humanitarian relief to assist those who have been affected. However, before taking any action, especially one with military
repercussions, there is a need to weigh the political ramifications and ensure that doing so will not only make things worse but
also violate international norms. Thus, the difficulty lies in bringing about a permanent and peaceful conclusion to the conflict
while also providing adequate humanitarian aid in various forms. Therefore, this paper examines the impact of humanitarian
intervention and Peace support operation in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian War. From the findings of the paper, it was
revealed that the war has had a huge humanitarian impact on both Russia and Ukraine. While allies of either side could not
officially participate in the war, they provided each side with various supports ranging from military assistance, financial aid,
healthcare services to diplomatic support, to bring the woes of the war to an end. This paper concludes that the Russian-
Ukrainian War serves as a key example of the complexities and challenges of humanitarian intervention in situations of war. It
highlights the importance of finding new and innovative approaches to address mass atrocities, while also emphasizing the
need for the international community to find a way to address the humanitarian crisis in conflict-affected regions.
Keywords:
Conflict, Humanitarian Intervention, Peace Support Operation, Russia-Ukraine, War
1. Introduction
Within the context of the global community, the question
of whether or not to engage in humanitarian intervention and
peace support operation is one that is becoming increasingly
contentious. According to Finnermore, it refers to the use of
military force by one or more states to alleviate human
suffering in another state [1]. This could occur in a single
state or across multiple states. According to Weiss, the idea
of humanitarian intervention and peace support operation has
developed over the course of time, and the obligation to
protect principle has gained growing support as a rationale
for intervention as a result of this development [2].
Nonetheless, the concept is subject to a great deal of criticism,
the most prominent of which are worries regarding
sovereignty and the possibility of abuse.
It is essential to keep in mind that the question of whether
or not to engage in humanitarian intervention as well as
Peace support operation is a nuanced and contentious one,
with a variety of viewpoints and arguments surrounding it [3].
The conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which started in
2014, is a good illustration of a situation that could benefit
from the application of humanitarian intervention and peace
support operation. According to Lava, de Luca, Milani,
Leroy, Ritz, and de Winter, the conflict that erupted as a
result of Russia's annexation of Crimea and the subsequent
39 Osimen Goddy Uwa and Moyosoluwa Dele-Dada: Paradigms of Humanitarian Intervention and Peace Support Operation in
War Zone: A Reflection of Russo-Ukrainian War
uprising in eastern Ukraine has resulted in a significant
number of civilian casualties and displacement [4]. This
conflict began as a result of Russia's annexation of Crimea
and the subsequent uprising in eastern Ukraine. The current
crisis in Ukraine has spurred debate across the globe over the
right response, including the potential use of military force
for humanitarian reasons [5]. According to Welt the problem
with the involvement of humanitarian organisations in the
conflict between Russia and Ukraine is that it is a
complicated and politically delicate matter that involves
multiple parties with competing interests [6]. These parties
include Russia, Ukraine, other bordering nations, and the
international community. Lava et al., observed that the
violence has resulted in a substantial amount of human
suffering, including displacement, injuries, and deaths [4]. As
a direct consequence of this, there is an immediate need for
humanitarian relief in order to assist those who have been
impacted. The political consequences must be carefully
considered before any action is taken, especially one having
military repercussions, to ensure that it would not make
matters worse and would not be in violation of international
conventions. The challenge is in bringing about a permanent
and peaceful resolution to the war while simultaneously
giving enough assistance to those in need of it on the
humanitarian front. In the context of the Russian-Ukrainian
War, this paper will investigate the history of the conflict, the
reaction of the international community to the war, the ethics
of humanitarian intervention and Peace support operation,
and the constraints of such involvement. In addition to that, it
will investigate the idea of humanitarian intervention and
peace support operation, including its origins, its
development through history, the basis for its application,
and the effects it has during times of conflict. The aim of this
study is to provide a comprehensive and well-rounded
analysis of the impact of humanitarian intervention and Peace
support operation during war, with particular reference to the
current war between Russia and Ukraine.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Concepts of Humanitarian Intervention and Peace
Support Operation
The use of military action or the threat of military action
by a state (or states) across borders to stop egregious and
widespread human rights violations in a state that has not
provided permission for the use of force is an illustration of
humanitarian intervention [1]. According to Reychler,
humanitarian interventions are only considered to be those
that aim to alleviate the most extreme forms of suffering [7].
As a result, activities such as maintaining peace, building
peace, and providing aid for development do not fall under
the category of humanitarian interventions. According to
Finnermore, the term "humanitarian intervention" does not
have a universally accepted or legally recognised definition
[1]. Stahn argued that the distinctions in definition include
whether or not humanitarian intervention is restricted to
circumstances where the host state does not consent, whether
or not humanitarian intervention is limited to punishing acts,
and whether or not humanitarian intervention is limited to
cases where the United Nations Security Council has
explicitly authorised action [8]. The threat and use of military
force is crucial in the context of humanitarian intervention; it
is an intervention in the sense that it comprises interfering in
a state's internal affairs by deploying military troops into the
territory or airspace of a sovereign state that has not
committed an act of aggression against another state; and it is
an intervention in response to situations that do not
necessarily pose direct threats to a state's strategic interests [9,
8].
In a further explanation, Pringle and Hunt stated that the
goal of humanitarian assistance in times of war is to reduce
the amount of human suffering that is occurring and to
safeguard the lives and well-being of civilians [10]. The
international community may take action to prevent mass
atrocities, such as the killing of innocent people, forced
displacement, and human rights violations, in conflict zones
where the government is either unable or unwilling to
provide its citizens with basic security and protection. This
action may take place in areas where the government is either
unable or unwilling to provide basic security and protection
[11]. Thus, Menon came to the conclusion that the purpose of
humanitarian interventions is to put an end to human rights
violations committed against individuals who are not citizens
of the state that is carrying out the intervention [9]. In the
same vein, [11] stated that the sole purpose of humanitarian
interventions is to alleviate the most extreme forms of human
suffering. As a result, humanitarian intervention is a reaction
to circumstances that do not necessarily pose direct threats to
the strategic interests of states; rather, humanitarian
intervention is driven by the desire to achieve certain
humanitarian goals. To prevent its misuse by hegemons and
aggressors and to allay fears that this is a licence to use force,
it must be constrained in terms of its objectives, scope, and
methods, [12]. In other words, in the context of these studies,
peace support operation is the overall strategic impact of
promoting peace in war zone; it can be understood as a
process of reducing conflict dynamics in the area of
operation over a particular period of time, in the context of its
mandate and resources, [13].
2.2. Historical Overview of Humanitarian Intervention
Humanitarian action as a notion is centuries old, with
historic precedents. Nonetheless, it wasn't until the 20th
century that the global community started to formalise the
idea and develop criteria for how it should be used.
One of the oldest examples of humanitarian intervention
was in the 19th century, when European countries interfered
in the Ottoman Empire to defend Christians from persecution,
[14]. This was followed by a number of interventions in the
20th century, one of which being an intervention in Somalia
in 1992 led by the United States of America and a coalition
of other countries to alleviate a humanitarian crisis brought
on by civil conflict and hunger [9]. In 1999, NATO launched
Journal of Political Science and International Relations 2023; 6(2): 38-48 40
military intervention in Kosovo in order to save ethnic
Albanians from being persecuted by the government of
Serbia [15].
The inability of the international community to stop the
genocide that took place in Rwanda in 1994 provided the
impetus for a reexamination of the concept of humanitarian
intervention. The inaction of the international community in
the face of widespread atrocities was the impetus for the
formulation of the "responsibility to protect" principle. This
principle asserts that states have a responsibility to protect
their populations from widespread atrocities and that the
international community has a responsibility to intervene
when a state is either unable or unwilling to do so on its own.
[13].
In the past, humanitarian efforts were restricted to saving
one's own citizens or those in other states that were ethnically
or religiously comparable to those in the home country (e.g.,
Christian countries intervening on behalf of Christians in
non-Christian countries). Nonetheless, in reaction to shifts in
the structure of the international system, the idea of
humanitarian intervention has developed over time. The end
of the Cold War and the advent of globalisation have led to
an expanded involvement for non-state actors in
humanitarian operations. These non-state actors include
international organisations and non-governmental
organisations. [16]. In addition, the utilisation of developing
technologies like drones has ushered in both new obstacles
and new chances for intervention. The United Nations
Charter, which prohibits the use of force in international
relations with two exhaustive exceptions—action taken by
the UN Security Council under Chapter VII and self-defense
against an armed attack—has supplanted the idea of
humanitarian intervention in international customary law,
which dates back to Hugo Grotius and 17th-century
European politics [17]. From the 19th century, both the
nature and the frequency of humanitarian interventions have
undergone considerable shifts, with the latter experiencing a
particularly notable increase following the end of the Cold
War [18].
During the course of the 20th century (and particularly
after the end of the Cold War), the categories of people who
were seen to be deserving of humanitarian assistance
expanded beyond populations that shared a religious or
ethnic background with them to encompass all individuals.
Since NATO's intervention in Kosovo in 1999, humanitarian
intervention has remained a fascinating foreign policy issue,
as it emphasises the contradiction between the principle of
state sovereignty – a defining pillar of the United Nations
system and international law – and emerging international
norms linked to human rights and the use of force. This
tension has been highlighted by the fact that humanitarian
intervention has remained a compelling foreign policy topic
[19]. In addition to this, it has sparked normative and
empirical debates on its legality, the ethics of using military
force in response to violations of human rights, when it
should occur, who should intervene, and how effective it is.
The 2011 NATO action in Libya, which was authorised by
the UN Security Council to protect people from attacks by
the government of Muammar Gaddafi, is one of the most
fairly recent cases of humanitarian intervention. The goal of
this operation was to protect civilians from attacks. The
mission was met with widespread opposition and criticism
for going above and beyond its mandate to protect civilians
by actively seeking Gaddafi's ouster from power. [20]. The
historical instances of humanitarian intervention that have
been offered above are not meant to serve as an entire list;
rather, they are meant to highlight the development and
shifting nature of the notion. It is crucial to note that these
historical examples are not exhaustive. Nevertheless, it is
also important to note that not all instances of humanitarian
intervention have been effective or well-received by the
world community.
2.3. The Justification for Humanitarian Intervention and
Peace Support Operation in War Zone
During times of conflict, the protection of human rights
should be a primary concern for humanitarian organisations,
which is one of the primary arguments for intervening in
such conflicts [20]. Disproportionate civilian deaths, rape,
forcible population transfers, and other types of violence are
just some of the human rights abuses that can result from a
war [11]. The international community must step in to
preserve human rights and help those impacted by armed
violence [1].
The obligation to protect principle was approved by the
General Assembly of the United Nations in 2005. It serves as
a basis for international law regarding humanitarian
intervention [8]. This concept asserts that governments have
a responsibility to protect their people from mass atrocities
and that the international community has a responsibility to
intervene when a state is incapable or unwilling to protect its
population from mass crimes [21]. The idea also
acknowledges that the use of force should be a last resort and
that all non-military measures, including diplomacy and
economic penalties, should be used before resorting to the
use of armed conflict [23].
In the most recent few years, the responsibility to protect
principle has been used to legitimise a number of different
humanitarian interventions and peace support operation, such
as the NATO action that took place in Libya in 2011. On the
other hand, the notion has been attacked for neglecting the
sovereignty of states and for being exploited as a justification
for bringing about changes in governments [24].
Another controversial topic is to the question of what part
the international community should play in humanitarian aid
[25]. The United Nations (UN) is the primary international
organisation tasked with preserving international peace and
security. The UN Security Council is the body within the UN
that is vested with the authority to decide whether or not the
use of force is justified in the service of protecting civilians
[26]. On the other hand, there is frequently a lack of
consensus within the Security Council about the question of
whether or not to authorise humanitarian interventions, and
certain members have the power to reject such authorizations
41 Osimen Goddy Uwa and Moyosoluwa Dele-Dada: Paradigms of Humanitarian Intervention and Peace Support Operation in
War Zone: A Reflection of Russo-Ukrainian War
[27].
In the years immediately following the conclusion of the
Cold War, the phrase "right of humanitarian intervention and
peace support operation” was not utilised until 1990, when a
group representing the United Kingdom did so for the very
first time [28]. This occurred as a direct result of Russia and
China voting against the establishment of a no-fly zone
above Iraq. Thus, the concept's dual humanitarian and
political purposes include skirting the UN Security Council
through the invocation of rights. Critics, on the other hand,
point to the Westphalian concept of international law to
support their claims that the international community should
not interfere with the internal affairs of independent states
[29]. Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter from 1945
bolsters this idea by making clear that the organisation will
not meddle in matters that are properly the purview of
individual nations. As a consequence of this, and due to the
fact that those who are in favour of humanitarian intervention
and peace support operation do not have their separate legal
underpinnings in the charter of the United Nations, there is
still an ongoing debate on whether or not sovereignty or
humanitarian causes need to take precedence. The United
Nations has also shown a persistent concern with issues
relating to humanitarian intervention. In recent years, the UN
has become involved in an increasing number of conflicts
that occur within the borders of individual countries [30]. As
a result, new mechanisms for authorising and enforcing
intervention have emerged, including coalitions of the willing
and the deployment of regional institutions like the African
Union. Some have argued that by avoiding the United
Nations, these options are less accountable to the global
community.
2.4. Forms of Humanitarian Intervention in War Zone
In spite of the fact that the vast majority of academics are
in agreement that humanitarian interventions have to be
carried out on a multilateral scale, there is still some
discussion regarding which specific actors — the United
Nations, regional organisations, or a group of states – ought
to engage in response to widespread breaches of human
rights [31]. The choice of actor has repercussions for the
problem-solving strategy of collective action, which involves
the mobilisation of political will and material resources.
Questions surrounding the efficacy, behaviour, and
motivations of a possible intervener, as well as the level of
both internal and external support, and legal authorization,
have been brought up as potential variables that might be
used to determine the legitimacy of a potential intervener.
Pragmatic humanitarian intervention: Since the end of
World War II, the concept of genocide has been the most
well-known benchmark for humanitarian intervention. In
accordance with the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Genocide, which was signed in 1948, the term
"genocide" refers to acts committed with the goal to
eliminate, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or
religious group [32]. The standard, on the other hand, is
being questioned. This is due to the fact that if the
international community uses the genocide standard to
determine whether or not to engage in humanitarian
intervention, it may be too late to make a meaningful
intervention that could have prevented widespread mass
killing in the country in question.
These well-known guidelines for humanitarian assistance
do not resolve the trade-offs that states have to make between
their moral responsibilities and the potential costs of their
actions [33]. In addition, the commitment that states have to
their own citizens could be put in jeopardy if they intervene
without first formulating a feasible plan and developing a
strategy that can be implemented. It is also important to keep
in mind that sometimes the sole effect of humanitarian
involvement is unbridled anarchy in the country without any
significant advancement [34].
Unauthorized interventions: At least in certain cases,
individual nations or groups of states have used force to
interfere in situations without first receiving authorization
from the United Nations Security Council. This has been
done at least in part in reaction to allegations of severe
abuses of fundamental human rights. Both the protection of
the Kurds in northern Iraq following the Gulf War and
NATO's involvement in Kosovo are instances of
interventions that occurred fairly recently [36]. There are
four distinct approaches or perspectives that may be
distinguished with regard to the legitimacy of humanitarian
action in the absence of authorizations from the Security
Council:
Status quo: A military intervention as a response to crimes
is only possible if it has been sanctioned by the United
Nations Security Council or if it can be justified as an
exercise in the right to self-defense. Other than that, the
status quo remains in effect. Hence, the NATO involvement
in Kosovo was a flagrant disregard for the provisions of
Article 2(4) [35]. Many countries, including Russia and the
People's Republic of China, are staunch supporters of this
view. The proponents of this approach point to the actual text
of the United Nations Charter and emphasise that the high
threshold for authorising the use of force aims to minimise
the use of force, promote consensus as well as stability by
ensuring a basic acceptance of military action by key states,
and prevent the use of force from being used as a means of
settling international disputes [36]. The conflict in Kosovo,
on the other hand, brought to light the shortcomings of this
strategy. The Kosovo war brought to light the shortcomings
of this method, most notably in situations when effective and
consistent humanitarian intervention is made improbable by
the geopolitical reality of relations between the Permanent
Five members of the Security Council. This results in the use
of the veto and inconsistent action in the face of a
humanitarian crisis.
Excusable breach: Humanitarian action without a mandate
from the United Nations is technically in violation of the
principles of the United Nations Charter, but under certain
rare circumstances, it may be ethically and politically
justified [37]. This strategy has a number of advantages, one
of which is that it does not consider the creation of any new
Journal of Political Science and International Relations 2023; 6(2): 38-48 42
legal rules governing the use of force. Instead, it creates an
"emergency exit" in situations where there is a conflict
between the rules that govern the use of force and the rules
that protect fundamental human rights. Although it is
doubtful that intervening states will be held accountable for
breaking the law, they do run the danger of breaking the laws
in order to achieve what they perceive to be a more important
goal. On the other hand, if this were to be put into effect, it
might cause people to question the validity of the legal norms
themselves because they would be unable to justify actions.
Customary law: In this strategy, an examination of the
development of customary law is carried out in order to find
a legal foundation for unauthorised humanitarian action in
exceptional circumstances. This strategy investigates the
possibility of locating a developing principle of customary
law, with the goal of determining whether or not
humanitarian intervention can be understood to be not only
morally and politically justifiable, but also lawful in
accordance with the normative framework that governs the
use of force [38]. Yet, there are not very many cases that
exist to provide justification for the development of a norm.
According to this approach, ambiguities and differences of
view regarding the legality of an intervention may discourage
states from taking action. Another potential cause for concern
is the possibility that laws controlling the use of force could
become laxer over time.
Codification: The fourth strategy advocates for the
codification of a clear legal theory or right of intervention.
This strategy contends that such a doctrine might be
developed through some formal or codified mechanism, such
as an amendment to the United Nations Charter or a
declaration from the United Nations General Assembly [39].
Although states have been hesitant to advocate for this
approach, a number of scholars and the Independent
International Commission on Kosovo have made the case for
the establishment of such a right or doctrine with specified
criteria to guide assessments of legality [23]. One of the most
compelling arguments in favour of codifying this right is that
it would strengthen the legitimacy of international law and
find a solution to the conflict that exists within the United
Nations charter between the concepts of human rights and
sovereignty. Nonetheless, the historical record on
humanitarian intervention is sufficiently murky that it argues
for modesty regarding efforts to identify in advance the
situations under which nations can use force, without
Security Council authorizations, against other states to
preserve human rights.
Responsibility to protect: The creation of a "Responsibility
to protect" (R2P) is noteworthy, while being generally
viewed as radically dissimilar from most notions of
humanitarian intervention. The Canadian government
established the International Commission on Intervention and
State Sovereignty (ICISS) in response to Kofi Annan's
question of when the international community must act for
humanitarian causes; the resulting 2001 report is titled R2P
[40]. According to the findings of the research titled "The
Duty to Protect," which was commissioned by the Canadian
government, sovereignty not only bestowed upon a state the
authority to "regulate" its internal operations, but it also
bestowed upon the state the primary "responsibility" for
safeguarding the safety of its own citizens [41]. In addition,
the report made the suggestion that when a state fails to
safeguard its people, whether due to a lack of capability or a
lack of willingness, the responsibility for doing so should be
transferred to the larger international community. The
purpose of the report was to develop a clear set of principles
for establishing when it is right to intervene, what the
appropriate channels are for sanctioning such intervention,
and how the action itself needs to be carried out.
In addition to promoting a greater dependence on non-
military means, the responsibility to protect initiative works
towards the establishment of a more transparent code of
behaviour for humanitarian interventions [42]. In addition to
this, the study offers criticism of the discourse and
terminology that surrounds the topic of humanitarian
intervention and makes an attempt to alter it. It contends that
the concept of a "right to intervene" should be abandoned in
favour of the R2P since it creates more problems than it
solves [8]. According to the R2P doctrine, rather than having
the right to intervene in the actions of other states, states are
regarded as having the responsibility to step in and protect
the residents of another state in situations in which the first
state has failed in its responsibilities to protect its own
citizens.
A rapid and effective collective reaction, international
assistance and capacity building, and state protection
obligations are often cited as the three pillars on which this
duty rests. There is widespread support for the idea of R2P in
some places, like Canada and a few European and African
countries, and among human security advocates, but there is
also widespread criticism of the idea from other locations,
with a number of Asian countries being among the most
vocal opponents of the concept [43].
2.5. Challenges of Humanitarian Intervention and Peace
Support Operation in War Zone
Critiques can be made of humanitarian intervention,
despite the fact that its goals are to reduce suffering and
safeguard human rights. This section will examine three of
the most common arguments against humanitarian
intervention: concerns over sovereignty, the possibility for
abuse of the notion, and the efficiency of such operations.
Sovereignty concerns: The assertion that humanitarian
intervention and peace support operation undermines the
sovereignty of governments is among the most significant
complaints levelled against it. It is generally agreed upon that
the idea of sovereignty, which maintains that states have the
right to rule themselves free from intervention from other
nations, is an essential component of the system of
international relations [44]. Some people believe that
humanitarian intervention and peace support operation can
serve as a smokescreen for other, more nefarious goals, such
as the overthrow of a government or the promotion of
particular economic interests [9]. For instance, the US-led
43 Osimen Goddy Uwa and Moyosoluwa Dele-Dada: Paradigms of Humanitarian Intervention and Peace Support Operation in
War Zone: A Reflection of Russo-Ukrainian War
intervention in Iraq in 2003 was justified on humanitarian
grounds; nevertheless, it has been contended that the true
reasons were to control Iraq's oil resources and to remove a
danger that was considered to be directed towards them
United States [45]. Another illustration of this can be seen in
the military operation that took place in Libya in 2011, which
was sanctioned by the UNSC under the responsibility to
protect principle (R2P) in order to protect civilians from the
possibility of being subjected to widespread genocide at the
hands of the government [46]. On the other hand, the
intervention was attacked for exceeding its mission, which
led to the overthrow of the government, the murder of
thousands of people, and the instability of the country [46].
Potential for abuse of the concept: Another argument
against the practise of humanitarian intervention and peace
support operation is that it can serve as a cover for a military
operation that is motivated by other considerations, such as
the overthrow of an oppressive government or the promotion
of certain economic interests [9]. Abusing the concept of
humanitarian intervention and peace support operation in
order to meddle in the internal affairs of other states for one's
own nefarious purposes is a straightforwardly possible
scenario when powerful governments are involved. For
instance, the US-led intervention in Kosovo in 1999 was
justified on humanitarian grounds; nevertheless, some have
suggested that the underlying reason for it was to strengthen
NATO's power in the region [48]. In a similar vein, the
intervention that took place in Libya in 2011 was criticised
for exceeding its mandate and resulting in the overthrow of
the government, the murder of thousands of people, and the
instability that spread throughout the country [45].
Effectiveness of humanitarian intervention and Peace
Support Operation: Another argument against humanitarian
intervention and peace support operation is that it does not
always succeed in attaining the objectives it sets out to
accomplish. Some individuals assume that military action in
a humanitarian crisis can make things worse rather than
improve the situation [49]. For instance, the purpose of the
US-led intervention in Somalia in 1992 was to restore order
and provide assistance to those in need, but instead it led to
the murder of thousands of innocent civilians and the
withdrawal of US soldiers without accomplishing either of
those objectives [9]. In a similar vein, the ongoing conflict in
Syria, despite numerous attempts at intervention and
ceasefires, has resulted in the murder of hundreds of
thousands of people and the displacement of millions more
[50].
3. The Russia - Ukrainian War:
An Overview
Russian and Ukrainian relations throughout history have
been fraught [51]. In spite of the fact that the two nations
share a lengthy history, language, and culture with one
another, they have also been at odds with one another for
many centuries. As a result of Ukraine being split and mostly
ruled by Russia throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries,
a strong sense of Ukrainian nationalism emerged in that
region [52]. In the years following World War II, Ukraine
was annexed by the Soviet Union and converted into a
republic; despite this, the country never stopped promoting
its distinct cultural and national traditions [53].
Having begun in February of 2014 and continuing to this
day, the Russo-Ukrainian War is primarily fought between
Russia and pro-Russian soldiers and Ukraine [54]. The status
of Crimea and certain parts of the Donbas, both of which are
generally acknowledged by the international community as
being a component of Ukraine, has been at the centre of the
conflict [55]. According to Woniak, the crisis in Ukraine was
sparked when President Yanukovych of Ukraine made the
announcement that he would be withdrawing Ukraine from
an agreement with the European Union in favour of
establishing stronger connections with Russia [56]. This
move was met with massive demonstrations in the country's
capital city of Kiev, which finally led to the ousting of
Yanukovych in February of 2014 [57]. In retaliation, Russian
military forces occupied and subsequently annexed the
Ukrainian territory of Crimea, while pro-Russian separatists
in eastern Ukraine declared their country's independence [58].
In April 2014, the government of Ukraine announced that it
would launch a military campaign against the separatists,
which eventually developed into a full-scale conflict [59].
In the year 2021, things began to spiral out of control.
President Vladimir Putin of Russia began an all-out invasion
of Ukraine on February 24th, 2022. Since Ukraine gained its
independence in 1991, Russia and Ukraine have had a hostile
relationship with one another [60]. Russia has maintained that
it did not initiate the conflict in Ukraine, despite the fact that
Russian forces have crossed into Ukrainian territory and
Russian missiles have struck both military and civilian targets
across the country [61]. The battle has resulted in a significant
amount of human suffering, with tens of thousands of people
having either lost their lives, been injured, or been forced to
flee their homes as a direct consequence of its impacts. Not
only has it had huge political and economic ramifications for
Russia and Ukraine, but it has also had these repercussions for
the wider area and the rest of the world community as a whole
[62, 6, 63].
In connection with this conflict, allegations of human
rights abuses, including but not limited to torture, enforced
disappearances, and arbitrary detention, as well as violations
of international humanitarian law, have been brought up [64].
The issue has become even more complicated as a result of
the involvement of foreign powers, such as Russia, which is
being blamed for providing the separatists with both military
and financial means of assistance [66]. The efforts that have
been made to find a resolution to the dispute have been
fruitless up to this point despite the fact that there have been
multiple rounds of diplomacy and international sanctions
levelled against Russia. The disagreement has not yet been
resolved, and it continues to be a key contributor to the
tension and instability that characterises the region [6].
Journal of Political Science and International Relations 2023; 6(2): 38-48 44
3.1. Humanitarian Intervention and Peace Support
Operation in the Russo-Ukrainian War
The current crisis between Russia and Ukraine has
prompted questions regarding the viability of a humanitarian
intervention and peace support operation by the international
community. Most notably, there is continued debate about
whether or not humanitarian organisations should get
involved in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. While some people
believe that such an intervention would assist to stabilise the
situation and protect civilians from damage, others argue that
it would only make things worse if it were to take place.
According to proponents of humanitarian intervention and
peace support operation, the violence has resulted in a
significant amount of human suffering, as evidenced by the
fact that over two million people have been forced to
evacuate their homes and thousands of lives have been lost
[6]. An intervention for the sake of humanitarianism has the
capacity to protect civilians and deliver relief and support to
those whose lives have been upended by the conflict. Yet,
many who disagree with this course of action refer to
Russia's involvement in the conflict as evidence that the
situation is only going to become worse. Furthermore, they
highlight how military actions have been criticised for having
unintended negative consequences [49].
The ultimate impact of a humanitarian intervention and
peace support operation in the conflict between Russia and
Ukraine would depend on a variety of factors. These factors
include the nature of the specific intervention that will be
carried out as well as the reactions of the parties that are at
odds with one another. Yet, it cannot be denied that the war
has resulted in a significant increase in the suffering of
civilians, and that additional steps need to be taken to protect
the rights of these people while also providing them with
assistance and support [64].
Humanitarian relief supplies have been delivered in large
numbers to those in Russia and Ukraine who have been
affected by the hostilities between their countries.
Nonetheless, efforts have been made to assist individuals
who have been impacted by the fighting [67]. The conflict
has had a significant impact on the humanitarian situation in
both Russia and Ukraine as a whole. These relief efforts,
which have provided essentials such as food, clothing, and
medical attention to individuals who were in need, have been
spearheaded by the governments of the two nations, in
addition to organisations from other countries [68].
Those who were forced to flee their homes as a result of
the violence have received assistance in the form of food,
shelter, medical care, and other essentials from both the
Ukrainian government and international organisations. As a
direct result of the conflict in Ukraine, the United Nations
and other humanitarian organisations have been active across
the entirety of the country. These organisations are providing
assistance to those who have been uprooted from their homes
and bolstering efforts to restore essential services to those
who continue to make their homes there [69].
Those in Russia and Ukraine who have been harmed by
the conflict have received assistance in the form of
humanitarian aid from organisations based elsewhere. The
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has been
engaged in the region, providing assistance to people who
have been forcibly displaced, injured, or imprisoned as a
result of the conflict. During this time of need, a number of
other organisations, such as Save the Children and Doctors
Without Borders, have also provided assistance to individuals
who are in need [70]. Other types of assistance include the
following:
Provision of Military and Political Support: Military aid
has been offered to Ukraine by a number of countries in
reaction to the crisis with Russia. The form and scope of this
assistance have changed throughout time, but it has always
included training, advice, and hardware for the military [71].
The United States has provided significant aid to the
Ukrainian armed forces, primarily in the form of nonlethal
military aid such armoured vehicles, radar technology, and
communication equipment. In an effort to bolster Ukraine's
armed forces and enable the country to better defend itself
against Russian aggression, military units in Ukraine have
received training and advice from the United States [72].
According to Antezza, Frank, Frank, Franz, Kharitonov,
Kumar,... & Trebesch, Canada has provided Ukraine with
non-lethal military support in the form of training, advisers,
and equipment such as helmets, vests, and first-aid kits [73].
There have been a number of additional countries, including
Poland, Lithuania, and the United Kingdom, that have
extended an offer of military assistance to Ukraine. This
assistance has been provided in the form of both material
donations, such as the provision of military equipment and
training, as well as in-kind contributions, such as the
deployment of military personnel to assist in the capacity of
advising and training [74].
Although though some countries have provided Ukraine
with military assistance, others, such as Russia, have
supported separatist rebels in the war zone, which has
contributed to the continued carnage and contributed to the
instability in the region. The providing of military support
has been a contentious issue during the entirety of the
conflict between Russia and Ukraine. While some countries
have supported Ukraine in its efforts to defend itself against
Russian aggression, others have urged for a peaceful
resolution of the crisis through diplomatic means [6].
Provision of Economic and Financial Aid: The United
States has provided assistance to Ukraine in various different
ways during the conflict with Russia. This support has been
provided in the form of both economic and military
assistance, in addition to diplomatic backing [72]. The United
States of America has extended financial assistance to
Ukraine in the form of economic aid in order to support the
country in its efforts to implement economic reforms and to
achieve economic stability. Support in the form of financial
aid, assistance in the form of technical support, and loan
guarantees have all been provided to assist in reorganising
the energy industry [74].
In addition to this, Canada has offered financial assistance
45 Osimen Goddy Uwa and Moyosoluwa Dele-Dada: Paradigms of Humanitarian Intervention and Peace Support Operation in
War Zone: A Reflection of Russo-Ukrainian War
to Ukraine in order to help economic reforms, and it has
implemented economic sanctions against Russia as a
response to Russia's actions in Ukraine [70]. Additionally,
Australia has offered financial assistance to Ukraine in the
form of aid to support the country's ongoing economic
reforms. Besides this, Australia has offered assistance in the
form of humanitarian assistance to people who have been
negatively impacted by the conflict [75]. Australia, much like
Canada, has retaliated against Russia with economic
penalties in reaction to Moscow's activities in Ukraine and
has also been an outspoken supporter of Ukraine's right to
self-determination and territorial integrity in the context of
the international community [6].
Diplomatic Support: The United States has been
supporting Ukraine diplomatically by engaging in political
and diplomatic dialogue with Ukrainian officials and
participating in international efforts to mediate the conflict.
The United States, along with other nations and international
organisations, has exerted diplomatic pressure on Russia to
cease its aggression against Ukraine and work towards a
peaceful resolution to the crisis [76]. In an effort to find a
diplomatic solution, Chinese diplomats have been meeting
with their Normandy Format allies. The government of China
has made it clear that it backs the Normandy Format and
other diplomatic initiatives aimed at bringing an end to the
conflict, and it has urged all parties involved to demonstrate
the same level of commitment [77]. China has not openly
interfered in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine;
nonetheless, it has maintained its position as a neutral party
while emphasising the importance of a peaceful resolution to
the conflict and respecting Ukraine's constitutionally
guaranteed right to self-determination [78]. Both Canada and
Australia have been active participants in international
measures aimed at bringing about a peaceful resolution to the
war, including taking part in the Normandy Format and
various other diplomatic endeavours. They have urged all
parties to preserve Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial
integrity and have highlighted the need for a peaceful
conclusion to the crisis [6].
Healthcare Services and Medical Assistance: Several
different nations have provided victims of the conflict between
Russia and Ukraine with medical aid and other forms of health
care. The healthcare system in Ukraine has been improved
with assistance from the United States, which has provided the
country with medical equipment, funded the development of
infrastructure, educated and supported healthcare personnel,
and helped educate future healthcare professionals. In addition
to providing financial assistance, the United States has also
supplied Ukraine with mobile medical units as part of an effort
to offer much-required medical attention to people who require
it, irrespective of where in Ukraine they may be located, as a
direct result of the war [79].
Additionally, Canada has assisted Ukraine in a variety of
different ways, the most notable of which are the provision of
medical equipment to Ukraine as well as the provision of
resources for the practitioners working in the country's
healthcare system. In addition, Canada has made a
contribution to the reconstruction of hospitals and other
medical facilities that were damaged or destroyed as a direct
result of the conflict [79]. In addition, international
organisations such WHO and the ICRC have provided
assistance to the people of both Russia and Ukraine. In areas
of Ukraine that have been affected by the conflict, the World
Health Organization has worked to ensure that essential
medicines and medical supplies are readily available.
Moreover, the organisation has provided Ukraine's healthcare
professionals with technical assistance and training [80]. The
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has been
particularly active in bringing medical aid to individuals who
have been hurt or are in need of medical treatment as a
consequence of the violence [81]. Overall, the accessibility of
health care and medical aid has substantially benefited the
humanitarian response to the conflict between Russia and
Ukraine. Several nations and international organisations have
contributed medical aid and support in order to assist with the
fulfilment of the needs of people whose health has been
negatively impacted as a result of the conflict [82].
3.2. The Limitations of Humanitarian Intervention and
Peace Support Operation in Russo-Ukrainian War
The crisis in Ukraine has persisted, and there is currently little
indication that it will ever be resolved, despite the efforts of the
international community. Due to the fact that political and
strategic factors are the primary drivers of the war, the impact of
humanitarian intervention on the war has been relatively
minimal. The war has continued to take a toll on the civilian
population, despite the efforts of foreign assistance groups,
which have provided some relief to those who have been
impacted by it through their efforts [81]. The absence of
international consensus has been one of the most significant
barriers to effective humanitarian intervention in the Russian-
Ukrainian conflict. It has been difficult to adequately handle the
violence and give enough assistance to those who are in need
since there has not been a cohesive reaction from the
international community [81]. In addition, the violence has
persisted despite the efforts of international organisations, which
exemplifies the constraints that are placed on humanitarian
intervention in settings where there is armed conflict.
Moreover, access restrictions have hampered humanitarian
efforts during the Russian-Ukrainian conflict [82]. It has
been challenging for humanitarian agencies to work
efficiently on the ground due to the conflict's impact on
transportation and security. As a direct consequence of this, a
significant number of individuals have been denied access to
critical forms of assistance and services.
4. Conclusion
In summary, the idea of humanitarian intervention and
peace support operation continues to be a very useful
instrument for the purpose of shielding civilians during times
of armed conflict. The international community should
proceed with prudence and make sure that any interventions
and support are well-planned, well-coordinated and well-
Journal of Political Science and International Relations 2023; 6(2): 38-48 46
executed, taking into account the opinions of the affected
population and working with regional organisations and other
actors to find a political solution to the situation. The Russian–
Ukrainian War is a strong illustration of the complexities and
difficulties associated with intervening on behalf of
humanitarian causes in times of war. It emphasises the
necessity for the international community to find a solution to
address the humanitarian crises in conflict-affected regions
while also highlighting the importance of discovering new and
innovative approaches to address mass atrocities.
References
[1] Finnemore, M. (2015). Constructing norms of humanitarian
intervention. In Conflict After the Cold War (pp. 272-289).
Routledge.
[2] Weiss, T. G. (2016). Humanitarian intervention. John Wiley &
Sons.
[3] Klose, F. (2015). The emergence of humanitarian Intervention.
The Emergence of Humanitarian Intervention. Ideas and
Practice from the Nineteenth Century to the Present, 1-28.
[4] Lava, S. A., de Luca, D., Milani, G. P., Leroy, P., Ritz, N., &
de Winter, P. (2022). Please stop the Russian-Ukrainian war–
children will be more than grateful. European Journal of
Pediatrics, 181 (6), 2183-2185.
[5] van den Driessche, J. J., Plat, J., & Mensink, R. P. (2018).
Effects of superfoods on risk factors of metabolic syndrome: a
systematic review of human intervention trials. Food &
function, 9 (4), 1944-1966.
[6] Reiffen, F., & Winters, N. (2018). "Care in crisis:
ethnographic perspectives on humanitarianism": conference
report. Medizinethnologie: Körper, Gesundheit und Heilung in
einer globalisierten.
[7] Paris, R. (2014). The ‘Responsibility to Protect’and the
structural problems of preventive humanitarian intervention.
International Peacekeeping, 21 (5), 569-603.
[8] Stahn, C. (2017). Responsibility to protect: political rhetoric
or emerging legal norm?. In Globalization and Common
Responsibilities of States (pp. 147-168). Routledge.
[9] Menon, R. (2016). The conceit of humanitarian intervention.
Oxford University Press.
[10] Pringle, J., & Hunt, M. (2015). Humanitarian action.
Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics, 1-10.
[11] Walling, C. B. (2015). Human rights norms, state sovereignty
and humanitarian intervention. Hum. Rts. Q., 37, 383.
[12] Bellamy, A. J. (2015). Humanitarian intervention. In The
Routledge Handbook of Global Ethics (pp. 139-152). Routledge.
[13] Simms, B., & Trim, D. J. (Eds.). (2011). Humanitarian
intervention: a history. Cambridge University Press.
[14] Hehir, A. (2013). Humanitarian intervention: an introduction.
Bloomsbury Publishing.
[15] Heinze, E. A. (2009). Waging Humanitarian War: The Ethics,
Law, and Politics of Humanitarian Intervention. State
University of New York Press.
[16] Krieg, A. (2012). Motivations for humanitarian intervention:
Theoretical and empirical considerations. Springer Science &
Business Media.
[17] Hilpold, P. (2014). R2P and Humanitarian Intervention in a
Historical Perspective. Responsibility to Protect (R2P): A
New Paradigm of International Law?
[18] Kelsen, H. (2017). Collective security and collective self-
defense under the Charter of the United Nations. In The Use
of Force in International Law (pp. 97-110). Routledge.
[19] Booth, K. (2012). The Kosovo tragedy: The human rights
dimensions. Routledge.
[20] Hillebrecht, C., White, T. R., & McMahon, P. C. (2013).
International Norms and Human Security: Libya, R2P, and the
Humanitarian Intervention Consensus ERIC A. HEINZE
AND HELEN KE RW IN. In State Responses to Human
Security (pp. 164-186). Routledge.
[21] Evans, G. (2015). From Humanitarian Intervention to the
Responsibility to Protect. Political Theory Without Borders,
275-292.
[22] Thakur, R. (2016). Rwanda, Kosovo, and the International
Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. The
Oxford Handbook of the Responsibility to Protect, 94.
[23] Crossley, N. (2018). Is R2P still controversial? Continuity and
change in the debate on ‘humanitarian intervention’.
Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 31 (5), 415-436.
[24] Donnelly, J. (2017). Genocide and humanitarian intervention.
In Genocide and Human Rights (pp. 385-401). Routledge.
[25] Welsh, J. M. (2019). Norm robustness and the responsibility to
protect. Journal of Global Security Studies, 4 (1), 53-72.
[26] Mingst, K. A., Karns, M. P., & Lyon, A. J. (2018). The United
Nations in the 21st century. Routledge.
[27] Kabia, J. M. (2016). Humanitarian intervention and conflict
resolution in West Africa: from ECOMOG to ECOMIL.
Routledge.
[28] Marxsen, C. (2015). Territorial Integrity in International Law–
Its Concept and Implications for Crimea. Heidelberg Journal
of International Law, 75 (1), 7-26.
[29] Alston, P., & Mégret, F. (Eds.). (2013). The United Nations
and human rights: a critical appraisal. OUP Oxford.
[30] Recchia, S. (2017). Authorising humanitarian intervention: a
five-point defence of existing multilateral procedures. Review
of International Studies, 43 (1), 50-72.
[31] Aydin, D. (2014). The interpretation of genocidal intent under
the genocide convention and the jurisprudence of international
courts. The Journal of Criminal Law, 78 (5), 423-441.
[32] Coyne, C. J. (2013). Doing bad by doing good: Why
humanitarian action fails. Stanford University Press.
[33] Stanley, B., & Brown, G. K. (2012). Safety planning
intervention: a brief intervention to mitigate suicide risk.
Cognitive and behavioral practice, 19 (2), 256-264.
[34] Valentino, B. A. (2011). The true costs of humanitarian
intervention-the hard truth about a noble notion. Foreign Aff.,
90, 60.
47 Osimen Goddy Uwa and Moyosoluwa Dele-Dada: Paradigms of Humanitarian Intervention and Peace Support Operation in
War Zone: A Reflection of Russo-Ukrainian War
[35] Duggan, N. (2017). The People's Republic of China and
European Union security cooperation in Africa: Sino-EU
security cooperation in Mali and the Gulf of Aden.
International Journal of China Studies, 8 (1), 1-23.
[36] Donnelly, J., & Whelan, D. J. (2020). International human
rights. Routledge.
[37] Hurd, I. (2011). Is humanitarian intervention legal? The rule
of law in an incoherent world. Ethics & International Affairs,
25 (3), 293-313.
[38] Asamoah, O. Y. (2012). The legal significance of the
declarations of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Springer.
[39] Badescu, C. G. (2014). The evolution of international
responsibility: From responsibility to protect the responsibility
while protecting. Int'l Stud. J., 11, 45.
[40] VanLandingham, R. (2012). Politics or Law: The Dual Nature
of the Responsibility to Protect. Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y, 41,
63.
[41] Labonte, M. (2013). Human rights and humanitarian norms,
strategic framing, and intervention: lessons for the
responsibility to protect. Routledge.
[42] Chandler, D. (2014). The Responsibility to Protect? Imposing
the ‘Liberal Peace'. In Peace operations and global order (pp.
59-81). Routledge.
[43] Alles, D., & Badie, B. (2016). Sovereigntism in the
international system: from change to split. European Review
of International Studies, 3 (2), 5-19.
[44] Bojang, M. B. (2016). The hidden agenda behind the invasion
of Iraq: The unjust war over Iraq in 2003. Central European
Journal of Politics, 2 (2), 1-14.
[45] Welsh, J. M. (2016). The responsibility to protect after Libya
& Syria. Daedalus, 145 (4), 75-87.
[46] Brockmeier, S., Stuenkel, O., & Tourinho, M. (2016). The
impact of the Libya intervention debates on norms of
protection. Global Society, 30 (1), 113-133.
[47] Richmond, S. (2016). Why is humanitarian intervention so
divisive? Revisiting the debate over the 1999 Kosovo
intervention. Journal on the Use of Force and International
Law, 3 (2), 234-259.
[48] Garwood-Gowers, A. (2016). China's “Responsible
Protection” concept: Reinterpreting the Responsibility to
Protect (R2P) and military intervention for humanitarian
purposes. Asian Journal of International Law, 6 (1), 89-118.
[49] Akbarzada, S., & Mackey, T. K. (2018). The Syrian public
health and humanitarian crisis: a ‘displacement’in global
governance?. Global Public Health, 13 (7), 914-930.
[50] Cheskin, A., & March, L. (2015). State–society relations in
contemporary Russia: New forms of political and social
contention. East European Politics, 31 (3), 261-273.
[51] Kuzio, T. (2022). Russian Nationalism and the Russian-
Ukrainian War. Routledge.
[52] Miller, A. I. (2022). National identity in Ukraine: history and
politics. Russia in Global Affairs, (4), 46-65.
[53] Angevine, R., Warden, J. K., Keller, R., & Frye, C. (2019).
Learning lessons from the Ukraine conflict. Alexandria, VA:
Institute for Defense Analyses, document NS D-10367, May, 1, 1.
[54] Petro, N. N. (2015). Understanding the other Ukraine: identity
and allegiance in russophone Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia:
People, Politics, Propaganda and Perspectives, Bristol, United
Kingdom: E-International Relations Edited Collections, 19-35.
[55] Woźniak, M. (2016). The Ukraine crisis and shift in US
foreign policy. International Studies: Interdisciplinary Political
and Cultural Journal (IS), 18 (2), 87-102.
[56] Siddiqui, S. S. M., Aamir, S. B., & Khan, S. M. (2022). Russia
Ukraine War: An Analytical Study. Pakistan Journal of
International Affairs, 5 (2).
[57] Bebier, A. (2015). Crimea and the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
Romanian J. Eur. Aff., 15, 35.
[58] Katchanovski, I. (2016). The separatist war in Donbas: a
violent break-up of Ukraine?. European Politics and Society,
17 (4), 473-489.
[59] Fedorenko, V., & Fedorenko, M. (2022). Russia’s Military
Invasion of Ukraine in 2022: Aim, Reasons, and Implications.
Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne studia nad prawem, 14 (1), 7-42.
[60] Mariotti, S. (2022). A warning from the Russian–Ukrainian
war: avoiding a future that rhymes with the past. Journal of
Industrial and Business Economics, 49 (4), 761-782.
[61] Konstantinov, V., Reznik, A., & Isralowitz, R. (2023). The
impact of the Russian–Ukrainian War and relocation on civilian
refugees. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 28 (3), 267-269.
[62] Haque, U., Naeem, A., Wang, S., Espinoza, J., Holovanova, I.,
Gutor, T., ... & Nguyen, U. S. D. (2022). The human toll and
humanitarian crisis of the Russia-Ukraine war: the first 162
days. BMJ global health, 7 (9), e009550.
[63] Health–Europe, T. L. R. (2022). The regional and global
impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Lancet
Regional Health-Europe, 15.
[64] Pezard, S. (2018). European Relations with Russia: Threat
Perceptions, Responses and Strategies in the Wake of the
Ukrainian Crisis. RAND Corporation Santa Monica United
States.
[65] Dzhus, M., & Golovach, I. (2023). Impact of Ukrainian-
Russian war on health care and humanitarian crisis. Disaster
medicine and public health preparedness, 17, e340.
[66] Ociepa-Kicińska, E., & Gorzałczyńska-Koczkodaj, M. (2022).
Forms of Aid Provided to Refugees of the 2022 Russia–
Ukraine War: The Case of Poland. International journal of
environmental research and public health, 19 (12), 7085.
[67] Yıldız, T. (2023). The European Union–Russia–Ukraine
Triangle: Historical Background of Relations, Russia–Ukraine
War, and Future Prospects. In The European Union in the
Twenty-First Century: Major Political, Economic and Security
Policy Trends (pp. 195-210). Emerald Publishing Limited.
[68] Jain, N., Prasad, S., Bordeniuc, A., Tanasov, A., Shirinskaya,
A. V., Béla, B.,... & Reinis, A. (2022). European countries
step-up humanitarian and medical assistance to Ukraine as the
conflict continues. Journal of primary care & community
health, 13, 21501319221095358.
[69] Guenette, J. D., Kenworthy, P. G., & Wheeler, C. M. (2022).
Implications of the War in Ukraine for the Global Economy.
Journal of Political Science and International Relations 2023; 6(2): 38-48 48
[70] Karolewski, I. P., & Cross, M. A. K. D. (2017). The EU's
Power in the Russia–Ukraine Crisis: Enabled or Constrained?.
JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 55 (1), 137-152.
[71] Mills, C., & Curtis, J. (2022). Military assistance to Ukraine
since the Russian invasion. House of Commons Library.
[72] Antezza, A., Frank, A., Frank, P., Franz, L., Kharitonov, I.,
Kumar, B.,... & Trebesch, C. (2022). The Ukraine Support
Tracker: Which Countries Help Ukraine and How? (No.
2218). KIEL working paper.
[73] Pronko, L., Furman, I., Kucher, A., & Gontaruk, Y. (2020).
Formation of a state support program for agricultural
producers in Ukraine considering world experience. Journal of
Environmental Management and Tourism.-2020.-Vol. 9, № 1.-
S. 364-379.
[74] El-Badawy, E., Munasinghe, S., Bukarti, A. B., & Bianchi, B.
(2022). Security, Soft Power and Regime Support: Spheres of
Russian Influence in Africa. Tony Blair Institute for Global
Changes, 23.
[75] Carment, D., Nikolko, M., & Belo, D. (2019). Gray zone
mediation in the Ukraine crisis: comparing Crimea and
Donbas. In Research Handbook on Mediating International
Crises (pp. 124-140). Edward Elgar Publishing.
[76] Zachau, J. (2021). Russia’s Instrumentalisation of Conflict in
Eastern Europe: The Anatomy of the Protracted Conflicts in
Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova. SCEEUS Reports on Human
Rights and Security in Eastern Europe, 6.
[77] Cafruny, A., Fouskas, V. K., Mallinson, W. D., & Voynitsky,
A. (2023). Ukraine, Multipolarity and the Crisis of Grand
Strategies. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 25 (1),
1-21.
[78] Awuah, W. A., Mehta, A., Kalmanovich, J., Yarlagadda, R.,
Nasato, M., Kundu, M.,... & Sikora, V. (2022). Inside the
Ukraine war: health and humanity. Postgraduate Medical
Journal, 98 (1160), 408-410.
[79] World Health Organization. (2022). Response to the Ukraine
Crisis: interim report, February to June 2022 (No.
WHO/EURO: 2022-5897-456620-65580). World Health
Organization. Regional Office for Europe.
[80] Davis, C. M. (2016). The Ukraine conflict, economic–military
power balances and economic sanctions. Post-Communist
Economies, 28 (2), 167-198.
[81] Perepelytsia, H. (2021). The dilemma of war and peace in the
trend of the XXI century (Russian–Ukrainian case). Przegląd
Strategiczny, 11 (14), 249-275.
[82] Karakiewicz-Krawczyk, K., Zdziarski, K., Landowski, M.,
Nieradko-Heluszko, A., Kotwas, A., Szumilas, P.,... &
Karakiewicz, B. (2022). The Opinions of Poles about the
Need to Provide Humanitarian Aid to Refugees from the Area
Covered by the Russian–Ukrainian War. International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19 (20), 13369.
