The Rule of Law Must Prevail: Lessons from Trump and Putin

Democratic legitimacy frequently depends on unwavering adherence to international law, particularly when armed forces are employed. In such contexts, how power is exercised matters as much as why. Consistency underpins the credibility of democratic states on the world stage.

Though Russia has overtly invaded, occupied, and annexed segments of Ukraine, the United States has stopped short of military incursion into Venezuela. Yet both situations involve major powers invoking security rationales near resource-rich neighbors, with international legal norms applied unevenly.

Under international law, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits threat or use of force against another state's territorial integrity or political independence. This clause has formed the basis for allies of the US to condemn Russia’s actions, branding them a war of aggression and flagrant breaches of the UN Charter. The principle is designed to bind every nation equally.

Officials emphasize that the key distinction lies in Russia's territorial conquest versus American pressure tactics, which have yet to escalate to an invasion—even though a ground invasion has not been ruled out by President Trump.

Critics warn that selective enforcement of these standards can erode global norms, undermine civilian protections, and damage democratic authority. Former U.S. military lawyers caution that weakening these rules also exposes U.S. service members at risk.

Authoritarian regimes, such as Russia under Vladimir Putin, often exploit legal principles when they serve political ends and ignore them when inconvenient. Democracies risk forfeiting moral high ground if they adopt a similar double standard.

Precedent from the Ukraine conflict underscores that legal constraints on power are most meaningful when universally upheld. To effectively challenge autocratic behavior, the United States must hold itself to the identical legal benchmarks it expects of other nations.