Russia Damages E.U. Diplomatic Offices: Implications for International Law

Even though the Vienna Convention of 1961 includes protections for diplomatic and consular properties in active war-zones, Russia’s attack of 629 missiles and drones on Kiev, Ukraine, came within 50 meters of the E.U.’s diplomatic offices there late on August 27, 2025, severely damaging them but killing nobody in the E.U.’s delegation. The two bombs that hit nearby were enough to give the Europeans the impression that President Putin of Russia did not consider himself bound by international law in war. To the extent that fighting between two sovereign countries, Russia and Ukraine, fits Hobbes’ infamous state of nature, international law is really not law at all, for jurisprudence, including mutually acknowledged rights, requires an overarching polity to enact and enforce laws. So the E.U. could not enjoy a right to be sparred death and destruction at its diplomatic offices in Kiev during the war there, but the Union could claim another right at Russia’s expense within the E.U.’s territory.

After the bombing, the E.U.’s president, Ursula von der Leyen, said of it, “It shows that the Kremlin will stop at nothing to terrorize Ukraine, blindly killing civilians—men, women and children and even targeting the European Union.”[1] Even though it was not clear that two bombs going off in the vicinity necessarily means that Putin was targeting the E.U., António Costa, chairman of the European Council, which represents the state governments, stated, “The EU will not be intimidated. Russia’s aggression only strengthens our resolve to stand with Ukraine and its people.”[2] In return for the E.U. having just come in close contact with brazen Russian military might, E.U. President Von der Leyen “promised to tighten the screws on the Russian war machine with a 19^th package of EU sanctions.”[3] That so many so-called packages had already not worked gives little credibility to what a 19^th might do in terms of making a difference to Russia’s war calculus.

Fortunately, Von der Leyen said that the E.U. would work at the federal level “on new ways to further mobilize Russia’s frozen assets, worth about €210 billion, that are “on EU soil, to finance Ukraine’s defence capabilities and reconstruction.”[4] Even though international law put constraints on confiscation of the funds, and an E.U. spokesperson said the efforts would continue to pertain to “the windfall profits, rather than the money itself,” I contend that if it can be proved that Russia had violated international laws militarily in Ukraine, the E.U. should be released of any legal and moral obligation not to confiscate the frozen Russian assets.[5] It would be unfair to Ukraine, as well as the E.U., were international law to be applied to only one side while the other ignores the very existence of law internationally in line with how Hobbes describes the state of nature prior to any social contract.

It was obvious at the time that Ukraine could use any additional military support that could come from the E.U. confiscating the frozen Russian assets in the E.U., but perhaps even more significant would be the decision that could be taken on whether international law itself pertains to the war. In deciding that no law applies to both sides because of a lack of de jure and de facto recognition by both sides and enforcement, the question of even whether there is such a thing as international law—whether jurisprudence applies in a domain in which enforcement mechanisms are lacking, whether institutionally, as by a militarized international federation or a coalition of the willing.

The lack of any enforcement can be distinguished from a weakness in enforcement or even an abject failure of an extant enforcement effort. That no enforcement mechanism existed at least as of 2025 on international law arguably renders such “law” as merely wishes by some people or organizations. If Russia’s Putin and Israel’s Netanyahu were able to treat international law as such, this is all that would be required to render international law as something less than law itself. For other people to continue to refer to international law would be an error predicated on a mere wish rather than being a statement of fact. A dictum could be presented to the world wherein international agreements cannot, or at least should not, be labeled as law unless credible enforcement mechanisms exist; by credible, I mean likely to be efficacious in constraining culprit governments. In short, federal officials of the E.U. should not feel constrained by international law on confiscating the frozen assets, just as Russia’s President Putin had been ignoring international “law” in having invaded a sovereign country. With so many obvious attacks on civilians and kidnapping of Ukrainian children, taking them inside Russia far from Ukraine, the very concept of international law goes out the window.

Applied to Russia and Israel in 2025, the invasions would have had to be stopped with the invaders pushed back for there to be such a thing as an international law against invasion (or targeting civilians). To claim that there is such a thing as international law while a genocide or even holocaust is underway unimpeded involves cognitive dissidence, if not an abject refusal to think at all. In Cameron’s film, Titanic, an employee of the ship tells third-class passengers that they cannot go through a passageway only to be knocked into the rising water by Dawson. Without enforcement, the employee can only be regarded as strongly expressing a desire. Similarly, a food-aide or medical-aide worker in Gaza could shout again and again at Israeli tanks, you can’t come into Gaza City, but if those tanks keep rolling in, it is not as though the worker would be supposing that a law is being broken, for there is no viable enforcement to force the Israelis out of Gaza; not even a coalition of the willing had emerged to do so in more than a year. Netanyahu could easily dismiss such shouting as pleas rather than even a demand, much less a law. Anyone watching the tanks continue onward would regard any onlooker making a demand as crazy. I submit that it is just as crazy to refer to international law in the context of the Russian and Israeli invasions in the mid-2020's.

---

1. Jorge Liboreiro, “EU Delegation in Kyiv Severely Damaged by Shock Wave of Russian Strike,” Euronews.com, August 28, 2025.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Jorge Liboreiro, “EU Summons Russian Envoy after Strike Damaged the Bloc’s Delegation in Kyiv,” Euronews.com, August 28, 2025.

Lawbreakers at the Mexico-California Border: Appealing to Law

At the Tijuana-San Diego border between Mexico and California on November 25, 2018, a “peaceful march by Central American migrants veered out of control . . . as hundreds of people tried to evade a Mexican police blockade and run toward a giant border crossing.”[1] In response, the U.S. Government shut down the border crossing in both directions and fired tear gas to push back migrants from the border fence. The American media made much of the use of tear gas, with convenient stories from migrants of their kids having been affected. To be sure, the suffering of innocent children is horrible, so at the very least the use of gas is debatable. Yet this focus came at the expense of another on the mentality and conduct of the adult migrants, including parents, largely from Honduras.

Migrants trying to evade a police blockade were not interested in respecting Mexican law. Additionally, an Associated Press reporter saw U.S. agents use tear gas after “some migrants attempted to penetrate several points along the border. Mexico’s Milenio TV showed images of migrants climbing over fences and peeling back metal sheeting to enter [California].”[2] A migrant from Honduras reported seeing “migrants opening a small hole in concertia wire at a gap on the Mexican side of a levee, at which point U.S. agents fired tear gas at them.”[3] Missed in defining the main question as whether the use of gas was necessary or appropriate is the point that a significant number of migrants felt free to evade laws of other countries, and yet while appealing for lawful asylum. Whereas the Mexican government had enabled to law-breaking at Mexico’s southern border, the U.S. Government said no and meant it. Like enabled alcoholics used to manipulating people, running up against the wall of unmanipulatable people can trigger frustration and anger such that even outright force is used. To force oneself into another country over its objections indicates an attitude that presumes that law does not apply to the person.

Living in Phoenix at the time, I witnessed a lot of citizens and legal residents ignoring the law so blatantly that I had the sense that the underlying mentality is one of not being subject to the law. Watching people cross the light-rail tracks even to climb on the train platforms and even climb over moving freight-train cars to cross railroad tracks, not to mention crossing streets between intersections even in traffic, I could discern an arrogance in presuming to be above the law. Interestingly, though police and security guards go too far in trying to intimidate even law-abiding people, rarely had I seen a person committing a blatant act be stopped and held accountable. Once while approaching a light-rain platform, I saw a man run through traffic and cross the tracks to reach the platform in time to catch the oncoming light-rail train. On the train, I mentioned this to one of the several security guards in the car what I had witnessed and who the man is. “The street is not our property,” a guard told me, “so we can’t do anything.” Such convenient impotence! “But he crossed your tracks,” I retorted. Even though the guard had seen even that himself, he did not answer me. What an interesting stance for a security guard to have, especially as the guards presume to be entitled to cluster so much on a car as to intimidate paid customers.

So I contend that the main issue concerning the 3,000 migrants who had been unrestrained by Mexico to be able to reach the border with California is one of attitude toward the law—even valuing the law, even of another country. Considering the size of Mexico, moreover, it is interesting that so many migrants were able to make it to the California border so quickly. Perhaps there is not as much respect for law in the state of Mexico as there are in the U.S. states. Indeed, what unifies diverse populations in the U.S. is in large part an agreement to respect the law. For migrants who have demonstrated in action a mentality (or set of values) that is antithetical to what the U.S. stands for, barring entry (except for legitimate asylum) is arguably prudent as well as ethical. For as I witnessed especially in Arizona, the U.S. at the time had more than enough people without respect for the law. Would it be prudent to add even more? Eventually, the cultures of the states would change, with new default attitudes of law resulting.  

---

[1]Maya Averbuch and Elisabeth Markin, “Migrants in Tijuana Run to U.S. Border, but Fall Back in Face of Tear Gas,” The New York Times, November 26, 2018, italics added.

[2] Christopher Sherman, “U.S. Border Patrol Launches Tear Gas At Migrants Over Attempt To Breach Fence,” The Associated Press, November 26, 2018.

[3] Ibid.