Is Russia's invasion of Ukraine justified?

Under international law and by the overwhelming consensus of the international community, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is considered unjustified and illegal. However, to fully understand the debate surrounding this conflict, it is necessary to examine the justifications presented by the Russian government and how they are viewed and refuted by international bodies and legal experts.

Russia’s Stated Justifications

The Russian government, led by President Vladimir Putin, has presented several political, security, and historical arguments to justify what it terms a "special military operation":

1.Opposition to NATO Expansion: Moscow argues that the potential enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to include Ukraine poses an existential threat to Russian national security. Russia asserts that the West violated post-Cold War understandings regarding NATO's eastward expansion and violated the principle of the "indivisibility of security" (the idea that one state should not enhance its security at the expense of another).

2.Protection of Russian Speakers and "Denazification": Russia claimed that ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking populations in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region were being subjected to persecution and "genocide" by a hostile, "neo-Nazi" government in Kyiv. Russia claimed its military intervention was a humanitarian necessity to protect these populations.

3.Claim of Self-Defense under the UN Charter: Immediately prior to the February 2022 invasion, Russia officially recognized the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics in eastern Ukraine as independent states. Russia then claimed it was acting in "collective self-defense" under Article 51 of the UN Charter to protect these territories.

4.Historical Claims: In essays and speeches, President Putin has argued that Russians and Ukrainians are "one people" and that Ukraine’s modern borders are artificial, claiming that large portions of Ukraine are historically "Russian lands".

The International Consensus and Refutations of Russia's Claims

The United Nations, international courts, and the vast majority of sovereign states have overwhelmingly rejected Russia’s arguments, concluding that the invasion violates fundamental principles of international order:

1.Violation of the UN Charter (Article 2(4)): The UN Charter strictly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Legal experts agree that Russia's invasion constitutes a "crime of aggression" because Ukraine did not attack Russia, nor was there any imminent threat of an attack.

2.Rejection of the "Self-Defense" Claim: Article 51 of the UN Charter only permits self-defense "if an armed attack occurs" against a member state. Because Ukraine had not attacked Russia, Russia's claim of preemptive self-defense is not legally recognized. Furthermore, the unilateral recognition of separatist regions (Donetsk and Luhansk) did not make them sovereign states, meaning Russia could not claim "collective self-defense" on their behalf.

3.Lack of Evidence for "Genocide": Independent international monitoring bodies, including the United Nations and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), found no evidence of "genocide" or systematic persecution of Russian speakers in Ukraine. In March 2022, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rejected Russia's genocide claims and ordered Russia to immediately suspend its military operations.

4.Violation of the Budapest Memorandum: In 1994, Ukraine agreed to surrender the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal (which it inherited after the fall of the Soviet Union). In exchange, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom signed the Budapest Memorandum, explicitly pledging to "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" and to refrain from the threat or use of force against it. Russia's invasion is viewed as a direct violation of this treaty.

5.The Right to Sovereign Self-Determination: Under international law, Ukraine is a sovereign nation and has the legal right to choose its own foreign policy and security alliances, including pursuing membership in NATO or the European Union. A nation's desire to join a defensive alliance does not legally justify an invasion by a neighboring country.

UN General Assembly Stance

The global political consensus is reflected in the actions of the United Nations General Assembly. Shortly after the invasion began, the General Assembly adopted Resolution ES-11/1 by an overwhelming majority (141 countries in favor, 5 against, and 35 abstentions). The resolution condemned the invasion in the strongest terms, declared it a violation of the UN Charter, and demanded that Russia immediately and unconditionally withdraw its military forces. Subsequent resolutions rejecting Russia's attempted annexations of Ukrainian territories have passed with similar global majorities.

Citations (12)

1tandfonline.comAcademic
tandfonline.com
Backs: “Under international law and by the overwhelming consensus of the international community, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is considered unjustified and illegal. However, to fully understand the debate surrounding this conflict, it is necessary to examine the justifications presented by the Russian government and how they…”
2cfr.orgNonprofits and think tanks
cfr.org
Backs: “Under international law and by the overwhelming consensus of the international community, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is considered unjustified and illegal. However, to fully understand the debate surrounding this conflict, it is necessary to examine the justifications presented by the Russian government and how they…”
3harvard.eduAcademic
harvard.edu
Backs: “Under international law and by the overwhelming consensus of the international community, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is considered unjustified and illegal. However, to fully understand the debate surrounding this conflict, it is necessary to examine the justifications presented by the Russian government and how they…”
4wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “However, to fully understand the debate surrounding this conflict, it is necessary to examine the justifications presented by the Russian government and how they are viewed and refuted by international bodies and legal experts.”
5rsisinternational.orgAcademic
rsisinternational.org
Backs: “The Russian government, led by President Vladimir Putin, has presented several political, security, and historical arguments to justify what it terms a "special military operation": 1.”
6encyclopediageopolitica.comNot yet classified
encyclopediageopolitica.com
Backs: “Opposition to NATO Expansion: Moscow argues that the potential enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to include Ukraine poses an existential threat to Russian national security. Russia asserts that the West violated post-Cold War understandings regarding NATO's eastward expansion and violated…”
7westpoint.eduAcademic
westpoint.edu
Backs: “Claim of Self-Defense under the UN Charter: Immediately prior to the February 2022 invasion, Russia officially recognized the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics in eastern Ukraine as independent states. Russia then claimed it was acting in "collective self-defense" under Article 51 of the UN…”
8reddit.comForums and Q&A
reddit.com
Backs: “Historical Claims: In essays and speeches, President Putin has argued that Russians and Ukrainians are "one people" and that Ukraine’s modern borders are artificial, claiming that large portions of Ukraine are historically "Russian lands". ---. The International Consensus and Refutations of Russia's Claims”
9gov.ukGovernment
www.gov.uk
Backs: “Because Ukraine had not attacked Russia, Russia's claim of preemptive self-defense is not legally recognized. Furthermore, the unilateral recognition of separatist regions (Donetsk and Luhansk) did not make them sovereign states, meaning Russia could not claim "collective self-defense" on their behalf.”
10wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “Violation of the Budapest Memorandum: In 1994, Ukraine agreed to surrender the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal (which it inherited after the fall of the Soviet Union). In exchange, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom signed the Budapest Memorandum, explicitly pledging to "respect the independence…”
11harvard.eduAcademic
harvard.edu
Backs: “Violation of the Budapest Memorandum: In 1994, Ukraine agreed to surrender the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal (which it inherited after the fall of the Soviet Union). In exchange, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom signed the Budapest Memorandum, explicitly pledging to "respect the independence…”
12brookings.eduNonprofits and think tanks
brookings.edu
Backs: “In exchange, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom signed the Budapest Memorandum, explicitly pledging to "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" and to refrain from the threat or use of force against it. Russia's invasion is viewed as a direct violation of this…”