Is Russia's invasion of Ukraine justified?

This is a complex question about legal and political justifications — I'll examine Russia's stated claims alongside international law and global response.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine, launched February 24, 2022 as a "special military operation", is described by Russia as justified and by the vast majority of the international community and international law experts as unjustified and illegal.

What Russia has claimed as justification

When authorizing the invasion, President Vladimir Putin provided justifications that implicitly used the language of international law:

> "(1) Following a request from the authorities of the Donetsk and Lugansk republics for assistance in repelling Kiev's military aggression...(2) and to protect the people of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, who have for eight years been exposed to humiliation and genocide by the regime in Kiev...we seek the (3) demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine."

Other official Russian statements have included:

•Denazifying and demilitarising Ukraine as well as ensuring its neutral status as among the main reasons

•Protecting the residents of the self-proclaimed separatist entities in Eastern Ukraine from alleged genocide

•Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated: "The goal of Russia's special military operation is to stop any war that could take place on Ukrainian territory or that could start from there"

Putin has also referred to historical claims, such as that "modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia", and that Ukraine is part of the Russian world, protecting Russian civilizational space and the ongoing war in the Donbass.

Unofficially, analysts note Putin's motives are linked to goals including reunification of former Soviet states and concerns about NATO presence on Russia's doorstep, viewing NATO and the West as existential threats and demanding a guarantee that Ukraine would never join NATO.

How international law assesses those claims

State sovereignty, a nation's absolute right of territorial integrity, is the bedrock of the current international order and the United Nations Charter is based on the principle of sovereign equality.

1.Violation of the UN Charter: Russia's invasion violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which requires UN member states to refrain from the "use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state".

2.Self-defense claim rejected: The suggestion that Russia's use of force is justified under Article 51 has no support in fact or law. Article 51 permits self-defense only if an armed attack occurs, but Ukraine did not commit or threaten to commit an armed attack against Russia. Under no scenario is Russia's armed invasion of Ukraine legal, as self-defense is the only justification for use of force under the Charter.

3.Genocide / humanitarian intervention claim rejected: Putin's statements that Ukraine was committing "genocide" are not supported by facts and would not give a right to invade in any case. The Genocide Convention defines genocide as actions intended to destroy a group, and there is no evidence Ukraine engaged in such actions. Even reports that roughly 14,000 people died in the Donbass conflict do not meet the elements of genocide, with no evidence of state-sanctioned targeted discrimination or intent. The International Court of Justice in a 13-2 decision ordered Russia to cease military actions because claims of genocide are unfounded.

4.Invited intervention / secession claim rejected: Even claims of intervention at the request of Donetsk and Luhansk would not permit collective self-defense because they are not UN member states and do not qualify as states under international law. No media outlet except Russian state media has suggested the Donbass leaders actually reached out to Putin.

5.Denazification claim rejected: There is no principle in international law that permits invasion where a neighboring state is militarized, and denazification has been noted as puzzling because President Zelenskyy is himself Jewish and was elected with over 70% of the vote. Even assuming far-right groups like the Azov battalion exist, Ukraine's far-right party received only 2.15% of the vote.

Overall assessment by experts is that Putin's invasion is a violation of international law cloaked in a veil of legitimacy, with stated justifications without evidence and without following UN Charter procedures.

International institutional response

•The UN Secretary-General said the use of force by one country against another is against the Charter and is wrong and unacceptable.

•The UN General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted a resolution demanding the Russian Federation immediately end its invasion and unconditionally withdraw all its military forces. The resolution deplored in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine in violation of the UN Charter.

•A later General Assembly vote condemned Russia's attempted illegal annexation, with the Assembly President stating Russia's invasion and attempted annexation by force "is illegal".

•The European Union and others reiterated condemnation of the unprovoked and unjustified war of aggression which constitutes a manifest violation of international law including the Charter.

In addition to legal assessment, Russia was isolated in international bodies. A UN Security Council resolution condemning the invasion was vetoed by Russia as a permanent member, leading the Council to refer the matter to the General Assembly under the Uniting for Peace resolution.

In summary, Russia argues its actions are justified to protect Russian speakers, prevent genocide, neutralize a perceived Nazi and NATO threat, and respond to requests from Donetsk and Luhansk. International law scholars, the International Court of Justice, the UN General Assembly, and most states conclude those grounds have no basis in fact or law and that the invasion constitutes an illegal use of force and act of aggression against Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Citations (3)

1gwu.eduAcademic
Putin’s Official Justifications for Ukraine Invasion are Unfounded. What Are His True Intentions?
Backs: “What Russia has claimed as justification. When authorizing the invasion, President Vladimir Putin provided justifications that implicitly used the language of international law: "(1) Following a request from the authorities of the Donetsk and Lugansk republics for assistance in repelling Kiev's military…”
2archive.orgNonprofits and think tanks
How Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine Violates International Law
Backs: “State sovereignty, a nation's absolute right of territorial integrity, is the bedrock of the current international order and the United Nations Charter is based on the principle of sovereign equality. Violation of the UN Charter: Russia's invasion violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which requires UN member…”
3tufts.eduAcademic
International law says Putin’s war against Ukraine is illegal. Does that matter? – Fletcher Russia and Eurasia Program
Backs: “Self-defense claim rejected: The suggestion that Russia's use of force is justified under Article 51 has no support in fact or law. Article 51 permits self-defense only if an armed attack occurs, but Ukraine did not commit or threaten to commit an armed attack against Russia.”