The origins of NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine and the role of international law – ft. Michael von der Schulenburg

In this second part of our interview with european MP Michael von der Schulenburg, we focus on the origins of the russo-ukrainian conflict and, importantly, the role of international law in today’s global disorder. As Michael emphasizes, the purpose of international law is not simply to proclaim abstract principles, like the moral condemnation of war. Conflicts have always existed. Its real innovation lies in creating institutions, procedures, and shared frameworks that allow states to manage disagreements and resolve them peacefully. From a theoretical perspective, this recalls Gramsci’s critique of both abstract universalism and cynical particularism. International law is a concrete universal: its norms are historically negotiated, mediated through social practice, and verified in praxis. They exist only so long as they are recognized and enforced within the balance of powers that sustains them. When that mediation collapses, we fall into a false dichotomy. Abstract universalism becomes moral rhetoric, hiding particular interests behind the language of humanity or rights. Brute force, on the other hand, is celebrated as the only reality, negating the very possibility of a universal. The seemingly irreconcilable contradictions between the “human rights interventions” of Obama and the glorified exceptionalism of Trump, then, exist primarily at the ideological level, masking the material continuity of american imperialism in its various superstructural forms. Others, such as tensions between global powers or the core and periphery, reflect real structural conflicts that require deeper negotiation and management. The practical lesson is clear. As Michael reminds us, “between warring parties, the one that invokes morality wants war; the one that explicitly states its interests wants a deal.” Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West repeatedly refused negotiation, reduced its opponent to the caricature of a new Hitler, and sabotaged every attempt at a settlement – all while cloaking its actions, first of all its constant expansion eastwards, in abstract moral principles. The core message is this: if we want to avoid endless escalation, we need to negotiate with Russia, acknowledge its interests, and stop pretending it is an absolute evil with whom no agreement can ever be reached. Rebuilding international law as a historically mediated concrete universal depends on restoring dialogue, not moralistic demonization or brute force.