By Andrew Klein and Sera Elizabeth Klein
Abstract
This paper examines the language used in the Australia–Ukraine Bilateral Security Agreement, signed on 23 September 2026, as a case study in what we term the “language of selective sovereignty.” It argues that the rhetorical architecture deployed in support of Ukraine — “battle-tested expertise,” the “rules-based order,” “unprovoked invasion,” and “starving the war machine” — is structurally identical to the language used to justify, obscure, and market the destruction of Gaza. The paper examines the historical context of NATO expansion, the demographic catastrophe in Ukraine, the development of Ukraine’s export-oriented drone industry, and the documented pipeline of Australian F-35 components to Israel. It concludes that the question is not whether Ukraine deserves support, but whether the language of support can be separated from the language of empire — the language that decides which violations of international law are “unprovoked” and which are “security,” which dead children are mourned and which are counted as collateral damage.
I. Introduction: Two Statements, One Architecture
On 23 September 2026, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed the Australia–Ukraine Bilateral Security Agreement on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. The joint statement declared that “Ukraine’s battle-tested expertise, complemented by its cutting-edge defence sector, will offer valuable lessons for Australia” and that the agreement “demonstrates Australia’s enduring commitment to Ukraine’s security and the global rules-based order”. Foreign Minister Penny Wong said Australia would “continue to work with partners to impose costs on Russia and starve its war machine”.
The same government, over the same period, has described its arms exports to Israel as “non-lethal components,” expressed “deep concern” about civilian casualties in Gaza, and resisted calls to suspend the F-35 component pipeline.
This paper asks a simple question: can the language of support for Ukraine be separated from the language of empire that has been used to justify, obscure, and market the destruction of Gaza?
The paper argues that it cannot. The rhetorical architecture is the same. The difference is not in the language. It is in the application.
II. The Australian Statement: Key Phrases and Their Function
2.1 “Battle-Tested Expertise”
The joint statement describes Ukraine’s military as having “developed one of the world’s most innovative and agile fighting forces” whose “battle-tested expertise” will offer “valuable lessons for Australia”. News.com.au reported that the agreement lets Ukraine’s military share “battle-tested expertise” with Australian soldiers and weapon-makers.
“Battle-tested” is not a neutral description. It is a marketing category. It signals that technology and tactics have been proven in real combat. Ukraine’s drone industry has adopted this language deliberately: the US Army has bought Ukrainian “battle-tested” reconnaissance drones, and Ukrainian firms “now see export potential for battlefield-tested systems”. The Raybird drone has flown “more than 350,000 combat hours” and the company “has marketed that record as evidence of low attrition rates and resilience”.
This is precisely the language used by Israel’s defence industry. Israel achieved record arms sales of $15 billion in 2024, with weapons “marketed as battle-tested, following their use in the genocide war launched by Israel on the Gaza Strip”. The Palestine Laboratory documents how “cutting-edge military and surveillance technology is being used on Palestinians… before being marketed to international clients as ‘field-proven’ and ‘battle-tested’“.
The linguistic convergence is not accidental. It reflects a shared logic of commodification: the battlefield becomes a laboratory, and the bodies of the dead become the proof of concept.
2.2 “The Global Rules-Based Order”
Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles stated that the assistance “demonstrates Australia’s enduring commitment to Ukraine’s security and the global rules-based order”.
This phrase is the central legitimating device. It positions Australia as a defender of international law while obscuring the selective application of that law.
As John Menadue wrote in the Asia Pacific Report: “Western leaders defend the rules-based international order when it suits them, but remain largely silent as those same rules are breached by the United States and Israel. The result is a system that shields the powerful and abandons the vulnerable — most starkly in Palestine”. He added: “Greenlanders are special, but not Palestinians”.
The United States has breached the rules-based order repeatedly: the invasion of Iraq in 2003 without UN authorisation; the NATO bombing of Kosovo in 1999 without UN authorisation; the invasion of Panama in 1989, condemned by the UN General Assembly as a violation of international law; and military presence in Syria from 2014 onward without Syrian consent or UN authorisation. Israel has occupied Palestinian territory for decades in violation of multiple UN resolutions. None of these breaches generate the same moral outrage as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
2.3 “Unprovoked and Unjustified Invasion”
The statement describes Russia’s invasion as “unprovoked and unjustified” and “a clear violation of international law and the United Nations Charter”.
The description is accurate. Russia’s invasion was a violation of the UN Charter. But the language of “unprovoked” is applied only to Russia. It is never applied to the United States’ invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, or Panama. It is never applied to Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestine.
This is not to justify Russia’s invasion. It is to note that the language of “unprovoked” is a rhetorical choice that erases the historical context in which the invasion occurred. NATO expanded eastward after the collapse of the Soviet Union, incorporating former Warsaw Pact nations and former Soviet republics. As one analysis noted, “the post-Cold War expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders, without seriously considering Russia’s inclusion or its security concerns, is presented as a ‘tragic mistake'” that “ultimately contributed to an alienated Russia and the current adversarial relationship”.
The same erasure occurs when Western leaders discuss Israel’s actions in Gaza without reference to the Nakba, the occupation, or the blockade.
2.4 “Starve Its War Machine”
Foreign Minister Wong said Australia would “continue to work with partners to impose costs on Russia and starve its war machine”.
This is a military euphemism that frames economic sanctions as a humanitarian act. The phrase “starve its war machine” evokes the language of siege warfare — the cutting off of supplies to a besieged population. It is the same logic that Israel has applied to Gaza, where the blockade has been described by human rights organisations as a form of collective punishment.
III. The Historical Context: NATO Expansion and Post-Soviet Dynamics
The Australian statement’s framing of the war as “unprovoked” obscures the post-Soviet context.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO expanded eastward. Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joined in 1999. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined in 2004. The process remained “open-ended,” leaving countries like Ukraine and the Baltic states as potential candidates for the next wave.
Russian leadership made it clear from at least 1995 that the former Soviet countries were “central to” Russian interests. As one NATO document notes, “the process of NATO enlargement is perceived in Moscow to have damaging implications for Russian relations with the countries of the former Soviet Union”.
This is not to justify Russia’s invasion. It is to note that the language of “unprovoked” erases the historical context in which the invasion occurred. The same erasure occurs when Western leaders discuss Israel’s actions in Gaza without reference to the Nakba, the occupation, or the blockade.
IV. The Demographic Dimension
The war has produced a demographic catastrophe on both sides.
Ukraine’s population has declined from 52 million in 1991 to approximately 25 million today. In the first half of 2026 alone, the number of deaths exceeded births by a factor of four. Ukraine’s Institute of Demography estimates the population could fall to 20 million within ten years and to 15 million by the end of the century.
Russia’s fertility rate is 1.375 (2025), far below the replacement rate of 2.1.
This is the context in which Ukraine is building an export-oriented drone industry. A state claiming to fight an existential war for its survival is simultaneously developing a battle-tested export product. The logic is the same as Israel’s: the war is not just a defence of territory. It is a product demonstration.
As one analysis noted, Ukraine “conseguiu desenvolver drones de US$ 2 mil capazes de explodir um tanque de guerra russo de US$ 20 milhões” — it developed $2,000 drones capable of destroying $20 million tanks, “transforming the battlefield in Eastern Europe into a laboratory of new weapons and tactics”.
V. The Comparison with Gaza
The Australian government’s language on Ukraine and its language on Gaza operate on the same rhetorical architecture.
1. Moral Justification Through “Rules-Based Order”
· Ukraine: “Australia’s enduring commitment to Ukraine’s security and the global rules-based order”.
· Gaza: Australia expresses “deep concern” about civilian casualties while continuing to export F-35 components. An Australian court ordered disclosure of arms exports to Israel, revealing a secret pipeline of F-35 parts including a gasket for the 25mm cannon.
2. Euphemistic Labelling
· Ukraine: “Battle-tested expertise,” “starve its war machine.”
· Gaza: “Non-lethal components,” “defensive systems,” “precision strikes.”
3. Distortion of Consequences
· Ukraine: The $60 million in aid and the security agreement are presented as support for sovereignty and territorial integrity. The demographic collapse is not mentioned.
· Gaza: More than 21,000 Palestinian children have been killed. The Australian government continues to describe its arms exports as “non-lethal” while a court orders disclosure of what those exports actually are.
4. Dehumanisation Through Language
· Ukraine: Russia is “reprehensible,” Putin is “immoral”. The Ukrainian people are “brave” and “resilient.”
· Gaza: Palestinians are “casualties,” “collateral damage,” “human shields.” The same leaders who call Putin “reprehensible” call Israeli actions “self-defence.”
5. The “Battle-Tested” Bridge
Both Ukraine and Israel use the same marketing language. Gaza has become “the world’s deadliest weapons laboratory.” Ukraine has become a laboratory for drone warfare. In both cases, the battlefield is the showroom.
The Australian government has already begun to import Ukraine’s “battle-tested” technology. The Australian Army tested the Vector AI reconnaissance drone during Southern Jackaroo exercises in Townsville — a drone that Ukraine “hardened for combat use”. Two Ukrainian defence companies are in negotiations to establish drone manufacturing in Australia.
VI. Conclusion: The Language of Selective Sovereignty
The Australian government’s statement on Ukraine is not false in its facts. Russia did invade Ukraine. The invasion was a violation of international law. Ukraine does have a right to defend itself.
But the language used to describe that invasion — “unprovoked,” “rules-based order,” “battle-tested expertise” — is the same language that has been used to justify, obscure, and market the destruction of Gaza. It is a language that applies the rules selectively, that mourns Ukrainian civilians while minimising Palestinian casualties, and that treats some battlefields as laboratories for exportable weapons while treating others as humanitarian crises to be managed with “deep concern.”
The question is not whether Ukraine deserves support. The question is whether the language of support can be separated from the language of empire — the language that decides which violations of international law are “unprovoked” and which are “security,” which dead children are mourned and which are counted as collateral damage.
That language is the subject of this paper. The answer is that it cannot be separated. The architecture is the same. The difference is only in the application.
References
1. Australian Government. (2026, September 24). Agreement on long-term support and cooperation between Australia and Ukraine. Prime Minister of Australia. https://www.pm.gov.au/media/agreement-long-term-support-and-cooperation-between-australia-and-ukraine
2. News.com.au. (2026, September 24). Australia slaps sanctions on Russia, inks security pact with ‘brave’ Ukraine. https://www.news.com.au
3. Menadue, J. (2026, February 1). Greenland and Western hypocrisy over the rules-based international order. Asia Pacific Report. https://asiapacificreport.nz
4. Press TV. (2026, June 26). Australian court orders disclosure of arms exports to Israel amid ongoing genocide in Gaza. https://www.presstv.co.uk
5. Al-Quds. (2025, December 21). Israel Achieves Record Arms Sales of $15 Billion After Marketing Them as Tested in Gaza War. https://alquds.com
6. Kyiv Post. (2026, September 21). US to Spend $10 Million Evaluating War-Tested Ukraine Drone. https://www.kyivpost.com
7. Vesti.ru. (2026, September 24). Украина исчезает на глазах, пока Запад аплодирует Зеленскому, заявила Мендель. https://www.vesti.ru
8. Sputnik News. (2025, July 31). 专家：北约与欧盟破坏《赫尔辛基最后文件》中的一体理念，建立新分界线. https://cdn.sputniknews.cn
9. New Politics. (2025, December 11). The Year in Review: Australia’s silence, complicity and the politics of avoidance. https://www.newpolitics.com.au
10. Euromaidan Press. (2026, July 12). Drone Australia just trialed learned to fly through Russian jamming over Ukraine. https://euromaidanpress.com
11. Consortium News. (2025, July 1). EU Buying Weapons Tested on Palestinians. https://consortiumnews.com
12. Pax for Peace. (n.d.). Overview of Arms Imports. https://paxforpeace.nl
13. Kyiv Post. (2026, September 21). US Army Buys Battle-Tested Ukraine Observation Drone. https://www.kyivpost.com
14. Polish Radio. (n.d.). Red liquid thrown at Israeli booth at Poland arms fair. https://www.polskieradio.pl
Reader’s note: We do not need readers to agree with us. We need them to check the sources, test the argument, and reach their own conclusion — even if that conclusion is that we are wrong.
Verification notes: Every factual claim in this paper should be checked against the sources provided. Readers are encouraged to verify independently. If any claim does not hold, it should be discarded — including by the authors. The analysis of the language of selective sovereignty is interpretive and is offered as a framework for further investigation, not as an established finding.
This paper examines the language of the Australia–Ukraine agreement, the “battle-tested” marketing category, the selective application of the “rules-based order,” the historical context of NATO expansion, the demographic catastrophe in Ukraine, and the comparison with Gaza. The core argument is that the language of support cannot be separated from the language of empire.
