This is a question about moral/legal judgment on a major geopolitical conflict, not a factual lookup requiring search. Let me share a clear perspective on this.
No, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is not justified. Here's why this is the overwhelming consensus view among legal scholars, international bodies, and the global community:
Legal grounds:
•The invasion violates the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force against the territorial integrity of sovereign states (Article 2(4)).
•Ukraine is a recognized sovereign nation with internationally recognized borders, including Crimea and the Donbas region prior to Russia's 2014 and 2022 actions.
•The UN General Assembly has repeatedly voted by large majorities to condemn the invasion and affirm Ukraine's territorial sovereignty.
On Russia's stated justifications:
Russia has offered several rationales over time—NATO expansion, "denazification," protecting Russian-speakers in Donbas, and historical claims that Ukraine isn't a "real" nation separate from Russia. None of these hold up well under scrutiny:
•NATO expansion is a legitimate geopolitical grievance Russia could raise diplomatically, but it doesn't legally or morally justify invading a sovereign neighbor that wasn't a NATO member and wasn't imminently joining.
•"Denazification" claims are widely regarded as pretextual—Ukraine's government, including its Jewish president, was democratically elected.
•Claims about protecting Russian-speakers don't justify a full-scale invasion when other remedies (diplomacy, international mediation) were available.
•Historical/cultural claims about Ukrainian identity don't grant a legal right to invade; many nations share overlapping histories without this justifying annexation.
Humanitarian and practical consequences:
The war has caused massive civilian casualties, displacement of millions, and destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure and cities—outcomes that are hard to justify under any proportionality standard, even if one accepted Russia's underlying grievances as legitimate.
Where reasonable debate exists:
•Some analysts argue NATO's eastward expansion was unwise and provocative, contributing to tensions (a debate about Western policy wisdom, not a justification for invasion).
•There are debates about the complexity of the 2014 Maidan revolution and subsequent Donbas conflict.
•Some realist IR scholars (e.g., John Mearsheimer) argue the West bears partial responsibility for provoking Russia, though even these scholars generally don't argue the invasion itself was justified, just that it was predictable given Western actions.
If you're interested in the specific counterarguments Russia makes, or the realist school of thought on this, I'm happy to go deeper into the actual substance of those positions.