The more setbacks Russian forces endure on the battlefield, the greater the pain they are inflicting on Ukrainian civilians. Russian attacks on dams, on bridges, on power stations, on hospitals, on other civilian infrastructure are increasing, constituting a brazen violation of international humanitarian law. This week, President Putin said that Russia would not hesitate to use, and I quote, "all weapons systems available," end quote, in response to a threat to its territorial integrity, a threat that is all the more menacing given Russia's intention to annex large swaths of Ukraine in the days ahead. When that's complete, we can expect President Putin will claim any Ukrainian effort to liberate this land as an attack on so-called "Russian territory." This from a country that in January of this year, in this place, joined other permanent members of the Security Council in signing a statement affirming that, and I quote, "nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought." Yet another example of how Russia violates the commitments it's made before this body, and yet another reason why nobody should take Russia at its word today.

We have a land war in Europe that we thought was only to find in history books. It is a flagrant breach of international law. For Russia, this attack (against Ukraine) will have severe political and economic consequences.

With Ukraine and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we were very clear, this was a very egregious breach of the United Nations Charter, a breach of territorial sovereignty and integrity. And if invasions like this can be justified on the basis of historical errors and crazy decisions, the world will be a much less safe place, and we will be very vulnerable. And that is why even though there wasn’t a United Nations Security Council Resolution, we decided to take steps to impose sanctions, which we did. No other ASEAN country has done this; many other countries in the global south have not done this. But we decided to take this step, because it crosses and breaches some very fundamental principles, which we believe in and uphold.

Mr. Putin’s actions have triggered massive sanctions, with more to come if he launches a full-scale assault and attempts to seize the entire country. These would devastate not just his country’s economy but also his tight circle of corrupt cronies — who in turn could challenge his leadership. What is sure to be a bloody and catastrophic war will drain Russian resources and cost Russian lives — while creating an urgent incentive for Europe to slash its dangerous reliance on Russian energy. ... Such an act of aggression would almost certainly drive NATO to significantly reinforce its eastern flank and to consider permanently stationing forces in the Baltic States, Poland and Romania. ... And it would generate fierce Ukrainian armed resistance, with strong support from the West.

The Ukraine end-game becomes more dangerous by the day, and many experts in the US realize that Ukraine cannot win. Nevertheless, NATO and EU escalate further at the expense of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives, sacrificed on the altar of US and NATO expansion. The Western indifference to death reminds me of Madeleine Albright’s cynical assessment that toppling Saddam Hussein was worth the lives of 500,000 Iraqi children (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tihL1lMLL0). Some in the Biden administration pretend that they can still snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat. At best we can hope for a frozen conflict, which, alas, can break out into renewed hostilities. At worst, we face nuclear Apocalypse. The long-term consequences of the conflict are not limited to Ukraine. The question arises about the viability of existing international institutions like the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, which have allowed themselves to be hijacked by the US for its geopolitical agenda. NATO’s policies have seriously damaged our faith in the system of international law, diplomatic law and international criminal law, which functioned – albeit with difficulties -- before the orgy of treaty-violations, sanctions regimes and blockades that have upended Rechtssicherheit, international trade, supply chains and rendered the sustainable development goals unattainable. The use of indiscriminate weapons including drones, cluster bombs and depleted uranium have done long-term damage to international humanitarian law. Another US fantasy: the piecemeal absorption of Ukraine into NATO, which Russia will counter, because it cannot allow the use of Ukrainian territory as a springboard for renewed proxy wars. It seems that the US, not Russia, has deliberately thrown the Westphalian system of law and diplomacy out of the window.

Russia's actions (in attacking Ukraine) very clearly damage Ukraine's sovereignty and go against international law. We once again criticize these moves and strongly urge Russia to return to diplomatic discussions. Should the situation worsen, we'll move quickly to take further action.

Right now the destiny of our country is being decided. The destiny of our people, whether Ukrainians will be free, whether they will be able to preserve their democracy. Russia has attacked not just us, not just our land, not just our cities; it went on a brutal offensive against our values, basic human values. It threw tanks and planes against our freedom, against our right to live freely in our own country choosing our own future.

Here is Russia, blatantly threatening a neighboring state with war if it seeks to pursue an independent foreign policy, yet we are so habituated to Russian flouting of international law that we barely notice any more.

During a Valdai club session I chaired, [Vladimir] Putin told foreign journalists and academics that the unipolar world had been a "means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries" – but the emerging multipolar world was likely to be still more unstable. The only answer – and this was clearly intended as an opening to the west – was to rebuild international institutions, based on mutual respect and co-operation. The choice was new rules – or no rules, which would lead to "global anarchy".
When I asked Putin whether Russia's actions in Ukraine had been a response to, and an example of, a "no-rules order", Putin denied it, insisting that the Kosovo precedent meant Crimea had every right to self-determination. But by conceding that Russian troops had intervened in Crimea "to block Ukrainian units", he effectively admitted crossing the line of legality – even if not remotely on the scale of the illegal invasions, bombing campaigns and covert interventions by the US and its allies over the past decade and a half.
But there is little chance of the western camp responding to Putin's call for a new system of global rules. In fact, the US showed little respect for rules during the cold war either, intervening relentlessly wherever it could. But it did have respect for power. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, that restraint disappeared. It was only the failure of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – and Russia's subsequent challenge to western expansion and intervention in Georgia, Syria and Ukraine – that provided some check to unbridled US power.

Russia, an aging tyranny, seeks to destroy Ukraine, a defiant democracy. A Ukrainian victory would confirm the principle of self-rule, allow the integration of Europe to proceed, and empower people of goodwill to return reinvigorated to other global challenges. A Russian victory, by contrast, would extend genocidal policies in Ukraine, subordinate Europeans, and render any vision of a geopolitical European Union obsolete.

Because of the work of generations, because we’ve stood together in a great alliance, because people across this continent have forged a European Union dedicated to cooperation and peace, we have made historic progress toward the vision we share -- a Europe that is whole and free and at peace. And yet, as we gather here today, we know that this vision is threatened by Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. It is a brazen assault on the territorial integrity of Ukraine -- a sovereign and independent European nation. It challenges that most basic of principles of our international system -- that borders cannot be redrawn at the barrel of a gun; that nations have the right to determine their own future. It undermines an international order where the rights of peoples and nations are upheld and can’t simply be taken away by brute force.

One month ago, the Russian Federation launched a massive invasion of the sovereign territory of Ukraine in violation of the UN Charter. It was done after months of building up a military force of overwhelming proportion along the Ukrainian border. Since then, we have seen appalling human suffering and destruction in cities, towns and villages. Systematic bombardments that terrorise civilians. The shelling of hospitals, schools, apartment buildings and shelters. And all of it is intensifying — getting more destructive and more unpredictable by the hour.

Failing at least initial moves towards such a compromise, it does indeed look likely that there will be some form of new Russian attack on Ukraine, though by no means necessarily a large-scale invasion. In the event of war, however far the Russian army marches will be followed by a new Russian proposal for a deal in return for Russian withdrawal. The only difference between then and now will be that NATO will have been humiliated by its inability to fight, the West and Ukraine will be in a much weaker position to negotiate a favorable deal—and that in the meantime, thousands of people will have died.

Everything the UN stands for is at stake in Ukraine. If Putin is allowed to succeed, a new world will be born, in which larger states will once again be able to invade their neighbors with impunity. A brief period in human history, when the settled sovereign will of the people served as the basis for government, will end. Neo-imperial revisionist powers will create “spheres of influence” using economic pressure, political capture, disinformation, and military coercion to turn smaller neighbors into vassals. A world that is more open, connected, and safer will give way to one that is more closed, fragmented, and violent.