Can Russia Lawfully Strike British Military Targets Over UK Support for Ukraine?
- Edmarverson A. Santos
- 6 minutes ago
- 20 min read
Introduction
On August 27, 2026, Russia warned that British military installations and equipment could be targeted in Ukraine and beyond its borders if Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory continued with British-supplied long-range missiles (Reuters, 2026). The threat placed Russia and UK military targets at the center of a direct international-law dispute. On the facts publicly established, however, British military assistance to Ukraine does not by itself provide Russia with a lawful basis for using force against the United Kingdom. The origin of a weapon does not determine which state is legally responsible for the operation in which it is used.
The warning followed a significant British decision concerning long-range missile production. On August 24, the UK government authorized MBDA to release classified information concerning British components of SCALP, the French-produced counterpart to Storm Shadow that incorporates shared French-British technology. The measure was intended to permit Ukrainian assembly of the missile in Ukraine (UK Government, 2026). It represents a further form of military assistance, but assistance and belligerent participation are not legally synonymous.
Under international humanitarian law, a state does not become a party to an international armed conflict solely because it supplies weapons or military equipment to a belligerent. A supplying state may cross that threshold if it itself resorts to armed force against another belligerent, including through effective involvement in military operations (ICRC, 2024). Britain’s weapons transfers, training, and technology support cannot accordingly be treated, without further evidence, as proof that the United Kingdom is itself using armed force against Russia.
A separate body of law governs Russia’s threat. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits both the threat and use of force against another state, while Article 51 preserves the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs (United Nations, 1945). In its Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice held that a stated readiness to use force is unlawful when the contemplated force itself would violate the Charter (ICJ, 1996, para. 47). Russia’s description of British support as complicity cannot replace the conditions required for a lawful resort to force.
The legal position could change if reliable evidence established a materially different form of British involvement. Ukrainian use of a British-manufactured missile does not, on that fact alone, make the strike attributable to the United Kingdom. British instruction, direction, or control over a particular Ukrainian operation could raise attribution questions, while direct attacks conducted by British armed forces would constitute British state conduct and could affect the United Kingdom’s status as a party to the conflict. These are distinct legal inquiries and depend on the nature of the conduct actually proved.
Geography creates another important distinction. British-made equipment operated by Ukrainian forces may be attacked if it qualifies as a military objective and the applicable rules on the conduct of hostilities are respected. Any British personnel or British-operated facilities in Ukraine would require a separate assessment based on their status, function, and activities. An attack on British territory would raise an additional and independent question under the jus ad bellum: even an object that qualified as a military objective under international humanitarian law could not be attacked there unless Russia also possessed a lawful basis for using force against the United Kingdom. On the presently established facts, British support for Ukraine does not itself supply that basis.
1. What Russia Threatened on August 27
On August 27, 2026, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova warned that British military installations and equipment could be targeted in Ukraine and beyond its borders if Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory continued with British weapons. She also accused London of approaching legal complicity in attacks that Russia characterizes as terrorism against Russian civilians (Reuters, 2026a). The warning was conditional, but it expressly connected continued British military support with the possibility of Russian force against British assets.
The statement followed a significant British decision concerning long-range missile production. On August 24, the UK government authorized MBDA to release classified information concerning British components of SCALP, the French-produced counterpart to Storm Shadow that uses shared French and British technology. The authorization was intended to allow France and Ukraine to establish local assembly lines in Ukraine (Prime Minister’s Office, 2026). Prime Minister Andy Burnham also described the decision more broadly as approval of Ukraine’s request for access to Storm Shadow technology (Reuters, 2026b).
Moscow’s warning came one day after an attack in Russian-controlled Donetsk. Russian-installed authorities alleged that British-supplied Storm Shadow missiles had been used and reported civilian injuries around a shopping center. Reuters could not independently verify either the circumstances of the strike or the claimed use of Storm Shadow at the time (Reuters, 2026a). Donetsk remains internationally recognized as part of Ukraine notwithstanding Russia’s attempted annexation, which the UN General Assembly rejected as unlawful in Resolution ES-11/4 (UN General Assembly, 2022).
The substance of Russia’s August 27 warning was not unprecedented. Moscow had previously warned that British military assets could face attack in connection with British support for Ukraine. Its significance lay instead in the unusually forceful and urgent language used immediately after the missile-technology decision and in Zakharova’s attempt to characterize British assistance as approaching legal complicity in Ukrainian attacks. That formulation raises distinct legal questions: whether British support changes the United Kingdom’s status in the armed conflict, whether Ukrainian operations can become legally attributable to Britain, whether Russia could invoke self-defense against the UK, and whether the location and function of a British target would alter the legal analysis.
2. UK Military Targets and the UN Charter
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter requires members to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations (United Nations, 1945, art. 2(4)). A military warning is not prohibited merely because it refers to the possible use of force. Its legality depends on the force being contemplated and the circumstances in which the state indicates that force would be used.
The International Court of Justice addressed this relationship in its Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion. The Court held that the concepts of threat and use of force under Article 2(4) stand together: if the contemplated use of force would itself be unlawful, a declared readiness to employ that force would likewise be unlawful (ICJ, 1996, para. 47). The relevant issue is consequently not the severity of Russia’s rhetoric alone, but whether the military action contemplated by the warning could lawfully be carried out.
Zakharova did not publicly identify a particular installation outside Ukraine, and the expression “beyond its borders” cannot automatically be read as a specific threat against British territory. If Russia contemplated attacking an installation in the United Kingdom, however, the operation would constitute a use of force against another state. A lawful basis would then have to be found within the Charter framework, principally self-defense under Article 51 or Security Council enforcement action following the determinations and authorization contemplated by Articles 39 and 42 (United Nations, 1945).
Weapons supply and political responsibility do not constitute additional exceptions to Article 2(4). Even extensive military assistance does not create a general right to use armed force against the assisting state. Nor can an otherwise unlawful attack be converted into lawful force by describing it as punishment or retaliation for military support. Russia would need to establish that the conditions of an accepted Charter justification were satisfied. Absent such a justification, a sufficiently concrete threat to carry out the contemplated attack would face the same legal objection as the attack itself.
3. Does UK Support Make Britain a Party to the Conflict?
The hostilities between Russia and Ukraine constitute an international armed conflict for the purposes of international humanitarian law. That classification follows from the resort to armed force between states and does not depend on the legality of the original resort to force or on either belligerent’s characterization of the conflict. The ICRC continued to describe the situation as the Russia–Ukraine international armed conflict in 2026 (ICRC, 2026).
British support for Ukraine does not by itself make the United Kingdom another party to that conflict. The ICRC’s position is that a state does not become a party to an international armed conflict solely because it supplies weapons or military equipment to one of the belligerents. The position changes when the supporting state itself resorts to armed force against the opposing belligerent, including through effective involvement in military operations against that state (ICRC, 2024).
The distinction is significant because British assistance extends beyond the delivery of individual weapons. The United Kingdom has supplied military equipment, committed substantial financial resources, and trained Ukrainian personnel. In June 2026, the UK Ministry of Defence reported that more than 63,000 Ukrainian personnel had completed training through the UK-led Operation Interflex (UK Ministry of Defence, 2026). The August decision concerning SCALP technology further increased Ukraine’s capacity to produce long-range weapons domestically. None of those facts, considered alone, establishes a British resort to armed force against Russia.
The analysis becomes more difficult if assistance moves into the conduct of particular military operations. Strike-specific operational direction, direct participation in targeting, control over weapons employment, or the use of British armed forces against Russian forces could carry different legal consequences. Public information does not establish that British personnel select or authorize particular Ukrainian Storm Shadow targets, and the UK government does not generally disclose details of specific intelligence capabilities or operations. The absence of public confirmation is not proof that a particular form of assistance does not occur; it means that conclusions about direct operational participation require evidence rather than inference from the existence of military cooperation.
Party status must also be distinguished from the legality of joining the conflict. If British armed forces used force against Russia at Ukraine’s request in circumstances satisfying the requirements of collective self-defense, Britain could become a party to an international armed conflict with Russia while maintaining that its resort to force was lawful under Article 51 of the UN Charter. International humanitarian law applies to an interstate armed conflict regardless of which state has acted lawfully under the jus ad bellum. Describing Britain as a party to the conflict would thus determine the applicability of IHL between Britain and Russia; it would not establish that Britain had committed aggression or otherwise resorted to force unlawfully.
4. Are Ukrainian Strikes Attributable to the United Kingdom?
Ukrainian military operations are ordinarily attributable to Ukraine. Article 4 of the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility provides that the conduct of any state organ is considered an act of that state under international law (ILC, 2001, art. 4). The Ukrainian armed forces are organs of Ukraine. Their use of British-manufactured weapons does not transfer legal authorship of their operations to the United Kingdom.
The same principle applies separately to British conduct. Actions performed by British state organs in their official capacity are attributable to the United Kingdom. If British military personnel themselves carried out part of an operation, their conduct would be British state conduct under the ordinary rules of attribution. That does not mean that every connected act of the Ukrainian armed forces would also become attributable to Britain. Responsibility may attach to different states for different conduct within the same broader operation.
Article 8 of the ILC Articles addresses a different attribution problem: conduct by persons or groups acting on a state’s instructions or under its direction or control (ILC, 2001, art. 8). The International Court of Justice has treated the effective-control rule reflected in Article 8 as part of customary international law. In Nicaragua, extensive US financing, training, equipment, intelligence, and other support for the contras did not make all contra conduct attributable to the United States; attribution required effective control over the military or paramilitary operations in which the relevant violations occurred (ICJ, 1986, para. 115). The Court reaffirmed the operation-specific character of that standard in the Bosnia Genocide judgment (ICJ, 2007, paras. 398–406).
That rule does not provide the principal framework for Ukrainian armed forces, which are organs of another sovereign state rather than a private armed group. A more relevant but legally distinct rule appears in Article 17 of the ILC Articles. It addresses the responsibility of one state that directs and controls another state in committing an internationally wrongful act, provided that the directing state knows the circumstances of the wrongful act and that the act would have been internationally wrongful if committed by the directing state itself (ILC, 2001, art. 17). Article 17 concerns responsibility for direction and control; it does not convert the directed state’s act into conduct attributable to the directing state.
The ILC Articles are not themselves a treaty, and individual provisions must be assessed according to their status in customary international law and their treatment by international courts. The ICJ has expressly relied on the customary rule reflected in Article 8. Article 17 is best used here as the ILC’s framework for responsibility arising from one state’s direction and control over another, rather than treated without qualification as an independently established treaty obligation.
Applied to Storm Shadow operations, these distinctions prevent several shortcuts. Providing missiles, technical expertise, maintenance, training, intelligence, or targeting information would not, without more, make a Ukrainian strike a British act. Evidence that British officials themselves performed part of an operation could establish responsibility for that British conduct. Evidence that Britain directed and controlled Ukraine in committing a particular internationally wrongful act could raise the separate issue addressed by Article 17. Aid or assistance falling short of direction and control presents another question under Article 16.
Operational facts remain critical. Who selected the target, who authorized the mission, who supplied coordinates, who programmed the missile, who retained the ability to cancel the attack, and who controlled its execution may all help determine the nature of British and Ukrainian involvement. None of those factors is a universal test that automatically transfers attribution. British participation in one component of an operation may create responsibility for British conduct without turning the entire Ukrainian operation into an act of the United Kingdom. On the facts publicly established, the British origin of Storm Shadow and the broader UK–Ukraine military relationship are insufficient to attribute Ukrainian missile strikes to Britain.
5. Does Aid or Assistance Make Britain Legally Responsible?
Russia’s allegation that Britain is becoming legally “complicit” in Ukrainian attacks is better assessed through Article 16 of the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility. Article 16 addresses aid or assistance by one state in the commission of an internationally wrongful act by another. Responsibility requires knowledge of the circumstances making the assisted conduct wrongful, and the act must also have been internationally wrongful had it been committed by the assisting state itself (ILC, 2001, art. 16). The International Court of Justice has treated the rule reflected in Article 16 as part of customary international law (ICJ, 2007, para. 420).
The ILC commentary adds that assistance must actually facilitate the wrongful conduct and describes the rule as applying where assistance is given with a view to facilitating that conduct. The latter formulation has generated debate over whether Article 16 contains a distinct requirement of intent beyond knowledge, so it should not be reduced to a simple rule that any state knowingly providing useful military support becomes legally responsible. General assistance to Ukraine does not engage Article 16 unless the required connection, knowledge, and facilitation exist in relation to an internationally wrongful act.
That last requirement is decisive. A Ukrainian strike does not become unlawful merely because it crosses the internationally recognized border into Russia. Ukraine is the victim of Russia’s continuing armed attack and may exercise individual self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. International law does not confine lawful defensive force categorically to the defending state’s own territory. Necessity and proportionality remain governing requirements of self-defense (United Nations, 1945, art. 51; ICJ, 1986, para. 176).
The legality of an individual attack must still be assessed separately under international humanitarian law. Russia and Ukraine are parties to Additional Protocol I, whose rules require attacks to be directed against military objectives, protect civilians and civilian objects, prohibit attacks expected to cause excessive incidental civilian harm, and require feasible precautions in attack (Additional Protocol I, 1977, arts. 51, 52 and 57). A Ukrainian strike inside Russia could violate IHL because of the target selected, the civilian harm expected, or the manner in which the attack was conducted even though cross-border defensive operations are not unlawful as a category.
British responsibility for such a violation would require more than evidence that a British-manufactured missile was used. The relevant conduct of British state organs would need to satisfy Article 16’s requirements in relation to the particular wrongful act. Supplying Storm Shadow missiles for Ukraine’s broader defense differs legally from knowingly facilitating a specific attack in circumstances that render that attack internationally wrongful.
Even where Article 16 responsibility were established, the legal consequence would be state responsibility rather than a right of armed retaliation. Countermeasures under Articles 49 and 50 are limited to temporary non-performance of international obligations toward the responsible state for the purpose of inducing compliance. They cannot affect the obligation under the UN Charter to refrain from the threat or use of force (ILC, 2001, arts. 49–50). Responsibility for unlawful British assistance could support claims for cessation, assurances, reparation, or other lawful responses. It would not authorize an armed reprisal against the United Kingdom.
6. Can Russia Invoke Self-Defense Against the United Kingdom?
Article 51 of the UN Charter provides the principal possible basis for Russia to justify force against the United Kingdom. The right of self-defense arises when an armed attack occurs. International law accordingly distinguishes an armed attack from less grave uses of force, other internationally wrongful acts, and hostile conduct that may be politically or strategically significant without crossing the Article 51 threshold.
The International Court of Justice drew this distinction in Nicaragua. It identified sufficiently grave uses of force as capable of constituting armed attacks while holding that assistance to rebels in the form of weapons, logistical support, or comparable aid did not itself amount to an armed attack (ICJ, 1986, para. 195). The case concerned support to non-state armed groups rather than military assistance to another state, but its central distinction remains relevant: supplying substantial military assistance and carrying out an armed attack are not legally equivalent.
Nothing publicly established about Britain’s current assistance shows an armed attack by the United Kingdom against Russia. Storm Shadow transfers, missile technology, training, financing, and broader military support do not acquire that character merely because they strengthen Ukraine’s ability to strike Russian forces. Ukrainian operations also cannot simply be redesignated as British attacks. A Russian claim of self-defense against Britain would have to rest on British conduct that satisfies the relevant legal rules on attribution and armed attack.
Direct British force would create a different legal situation. Article 51 recognizes collective as well as individual self-defense. Ukraine may request military assistance from other states in response to Russia’s armed attack, and the International Court of Justice has treated a request from the victim state, together with necessity and proportionality, as central to collective self-defense (ICJ, 1986, paras. 199, 232). If British armed forces used force against Russia pursuant to a valid Ukrainian request and within those limits, Britain could invoke collective self-defense rather than being treated automatically as an aggressor.
Article 51 also requires measures taken in self-defense to be reported immediately to the Security Council (United Nations, 1945, art. 51). That reporting obligation is distinct from the substantive requirements of necessity and proportionality, but it forms part of the Charter framework governing the exercise of self-defense.
British participation in hostilities would have consequences under IHL even if its resort to force were lawful. If Britain became a party to an international armed conflict with Russia, members of the British armed forces, other than specially protected medical and religious personnel, would generally be targetable by status unless hors de combat. That rule concerns the conduct of hostilities. It does not decide whether Russia is entitled under the Charter to expand its use of force to British territory.
The separation between the two bodies of law is particularly important if British force were itself lawful collective self-defense. Russia could not create a new and unrestricted right of self-defense against the United Kingdom merely by relabeling lawful defensive action as an unlawful British armed attack. Hostilities between Russian and British forces could bring IHL into operation between them while the legality of each state’s resort to force remained governed separately by the jus ad bellum.
7. Targets in Ukraine and Targets on British Territory
British manufacture does not give military equipment immunity from attack. Article 52(2) of Additional Protocol I defines military objectives, in relation to objects, as those which by their nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose destruction, capture, or neutralization offers a definite military advantage in the circumstances ruling at the time (Additional Protocol I, 1977, art. 52(2)). A Storm Shadow missile transferred to and operated by the Ukrainian armed forces can be attacked on the same legal basis as comparable Ukrainian military equipment.
Launch platforms, ammunition stores, command facilities, and other objects must each satisfy the military-objective test. Russia remains bound by the rules of distinction, proportionality, and precautions in attack. The presence of a lawful military objective does not permit an attack expected to cause incidental civilian harm excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, nor does it remove the obligation to take feasible precautions (Additional Protocol I, 1977, arts. 51 and 57).
British personnel in Ukraine present a different question because the rules governing persons are not the same as the Article 52 test for objects. If Britain became a party to the conflict, members of its armed forces would generally be targetable by status, apart from medical and religious personnel and persons who are hors de combat. British civilians, including advisers, technicians, contractors, or intelligence personnel who retained civilian status, would be protected against direct attack unless and for such time as they directly participated in hostilities (Additional Protocol I, 1977, art. 51(3)).
Facilities are assessed by function rather than nationality. A building does not become a military objective because British personnel operate it or because it supports Britain’s relationship with Ukraine. A facility used for operational command, weapons employment, or another activity satisfying Article 52(2) may qualify as a military objective. Diplomatic, residential, administrative, or other civilian facilities remain protected unless their nature, location, purpose, or use brings them within the military-objective definition.
British territory introduces a separate legal barrier. A military airbase, command center, weapons depot, or similar installation in the United Kingdom might satisfy the IHL definition of a military objective if an armed conflict existed between Russia and Britain. That conclusion would answer only whether the object could lawfully be selected for attack under the jus in bello. It would not authorize Russia to initiate or extend force onto British territory.
Jus ad bellum and jus in bello answer different questions. A state can violate the UN Charter by resorting to force while complying with IHL in the conduct of a particular attack. A state acting lawfully in self-defense remains equally bound by IHL. Russia cannot derive authority to use force against the United Kingdom merely by showing that the object it proposes to attack would qualify as a military objective. A separate Charter justification would still be required.
8. When Could UK Involvement Change the Legal Position?
British involvement in Ukraine encompasses activities with different legal consequences. Weapons transfers, technology licensing, military training, financial assistance, intelligence cooperation, operational participation, and direct combat cannot be treated as points on a single legal scale. Each form of conduct engages particular rules and depends on its connection to identifiable military operations.
General weapons or technology support can remain outside party-to-conflict status while still becoming relevant under Article 16 if it knowingly facilitates an internationally wrongful act. Intelligence likewise varies in legal significance. Broad situational information may be remote from the execution of an individual attack, while intelligence supplied specifically for target selection or weapons employment may create a closer connection to a particular operation. The result depends on what British officials knew, what assistance they provided, and how that assistance was used.
Closer operational participation raises other questions. British personnel selecting targets, exercising command authority, controlling weapons employment, programming a missile, or carrying out part of an attack could create responsibility for British state conduct or engage rules on aid, direction, and control. Direct attacks by British armed forces against Russia would make the question of party-to-conflict status considerably clearer. The legality of those attacks under the UN Charter would still have to be considered separately, including any reliance on collective self-defense.
Later disclosures must be connected to the doctrine they actually affect. Evidence of strike-specific intelligence would not automatically make every Ukrainian operation attributable to Britain. Proof of direct British combat participation would not establish that Britain’s resort to force was unlawful. Neither fact, standing alone, would automatically establish a Russian entitlement to attack the United Kingdom. Attribution, state responsibility, party status, armed attack, self-defense, and targetability remain separate legal questions even when they arise from the same military relationship.
9. A Russian Strike and NATO Articles 4, 5 and 6
Russia’s warning also raises questions under the North Atlantic Treaty. Article 4 permits consultation whenever, in the opinion of any ally, the territorial integrity, political independence, or security of a member is threatened (North Atlantic Treaty, 1949, art. 4). No armed attack is required. A serious threat against the United Kingdom could accordingly lead to NATO consultations before Article 5 became relevant.
Article 5 applies to a qualifying armed attack. The parties agree that such an attack against one or more of them will be considered an attack against them all and that each ally will assist by taking the action it considers necessary, individually and in concert with the others, including the possible use of armed force (North Atlantic Treaty, 1949, art. 5). The provision operates through the individual and collective right of self-defense recognized in Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Article 6 limits the geographical scope of Article 5. It covers attacks on specified allied territories and, in defined circumstances, attacks on allied forces, vessels, and aircraft within particular geographical areas. An attack on British forces located in Ukraine would not fall within Article 6 merely because those forces were British or because Ukraine lies geographically in Europe. The treaty’s provision concerning attacks on allied forces is narrower and tied to the areas specifically described in Article 6 (North Atlantic Treaty, 1949, art. 6).
An armed attack on the territory of the United Kingdom would present a substantially clearer Article 5 situation. Even then, Article 5 does not amount to an automatic declaration of war or prescribe an identical response by every ally. Each member determines the action it considers necessary, and military force is one possible form of assistance rather than a mandatory predetermined response (NATO, 2025).
NATO membership does not alter the legal test governing the initial Russian use of force. If Russia unlawfully attacked the United Kingdom, Article 5 could create collective-defense consequences among the allies. The legality of Russia’s attack would still be governed principally by the UN Charter, while NATO would regulate the treaty obligations and options available to member states in response.
Also read
Conclusion
Britain’s present military support for Ukraine does not, on the publicly established facts, make Ukrainian attacks acts of the United Kingdom, amount to an armed attack by Britain against Russia, or establish that Britain has become a party to the Russia–Ukraine international armed conflict. Storm Shadow transfers, technology sharing, training, financing, and other forms of assistance may engage international responsibility in particular circumstances, but they do not collapse attribution, complicity, armed attack, and belligerent status into a single legal category.
The location and character of a potential target remain decisive. British-made equipment operated by Ukrainian forces may qualify as a military objective within the existing conflict. British personnel and British-operated facilities in Ukraine require separate assessments according to their status, activities, and function. A proposed strike on UK territory raises an additional question that IHL cannot answer: Russia would need an independent legal basis under the jus ad bellum for using force against Britain.
More direct British operational involvement could change some of these conclusions. British state organs participating in specific attacks could incur responsibility for their own conduct; assistance connected to an internationally wrongful Ukrainian operation could raise Article 16 questions; and direct British use of force against Russia could establish an international armed conflict between the two states. Lawful collective self-defense of Ukraine, however, would remain analytically distinct from party status under IHL.
On the facts publicly established, no lawful basis has been identified for a Russian use of force against British territory. Moscow’s description of Britain as “complicit” and the British origin of weapons used by Ukraine cannot supply that missing justification. If Russia communicated a sufficiently concrete intention to carry out force that would itself be unlawful under the Charter, the threat would fall within the prohibition contained in Article 2(4).
References
Additional Protocol I (1977) Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978, 1125 UNTS 3.
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (2024) ‘Arms transfers to parties to armed conflict: what the law says’ [online]. Available at: https://www.icrc.org/en/document/arms-transfers-parties-armed-conflict-what-law-says (Accessed: 27 August 2026).
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (2026) ‘Russia–Ukraine international armed conflict: Your questions answered about the ICRC’s work’ [online]. Available at: https://www.icrc.org/en/article/FAQ-icrc-work-russia-ukraine-international-armed-conflict (Accessed: 27 August 2026).
International Court of Justice (ICJ) (1986) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), merits, judgment, 27 June 1986, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14.
International Court of Justice (ICJ) (1996) Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, advisory opinion, 8 July 1996, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226.
International Court of Justice (ICJ) (2007) Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), judgment, 26 February 2007, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43.
International Law Commission (ILC) (2001) ‘Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries’, in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session, UN Doc. A/56/10, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, vol. II, Part Two.
NATO (2025) ‘Collective defence and Article 5’ [online]. Available at: https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/collective-defence-and-article-5 (Accessed: 27 August 2026).
North Atlantic Treaty (1949) signed at Washington, DC, 4 April 1949, entered into force 24 August 1949, 34 UNTS 243.
Prime Minister’s Office (2026) ‘Britain is 100% behind you: Prime Minister Andy Burnham visits Kyiv on Ukrainian Independence Day for first international trip’ [online]. London: 10 Downing Street. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/britain-is-100-behind-you-prime-minister-andy-burnham-visits-kyiv-on-ukrainian-independence-day-for-first-international-trip (Accessed: 27 August 2026).
Reuters (2026a) ‘Russia says it could strike UK military targets in response to Kyiv’s use of British missiles’ [online]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-it-could-strike-uk-military-targets-response-ukrainian-strikes-using-2026-08-27/ (Accessed: 27 August 2026).
Reuters (2026b) ‘Britain, France pledge stronger support as Ukraine marks Independence Day’ [online]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraine-wants-peace-wont-give-zelenskiy-says-independence-day-2026-08-24/ (Accessed: 27 August 2026).
UK Ministry of Defence (2026) ‘UK-led Operation Interflex enters new phase of specialist training for Ukraine’ [online]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-led-operation-interflex-enters-new-phase-of-specialist-training-for-ukraine (Accessed: 27 August 2026).
UK Parliament (2025) ‘Ukraine: Intelligence Services’, Written Question 36426, answered 12 March 2025 [online]. Available at: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-03-07/36426 (Accessed: 27 August 2026).
UN General Assembly (2022) Territorial integrity of Ukraine: defending the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, Resolution ES-11/4, UN Doc. A/RES/ES-11/4, adopted 12 October 2022.
United Nations (1945) Charter of the United Nations, signed at San Francisco 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI.
