Is Russia's invasion of Ukraine justified?

The invasion raises contested claims — I'll gather the Russian justifications and how international law evaluates them.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine, launched 24 February 2022 as a "special military operation," is assessed differently depending on the framework used - legal justification under the UN Charter, and political/strategic justification as claimed by Russia.

1. Russia's stated justifications

In his 24 February 2022 address, President Vladimir Putin said Russia was launching the operation to defend the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic.

Formal and rhetorical justifications included:

a) Collective self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter: Putin cited Article 51 of the UN Charter (on the right to self-defence), the decision of the Federation Council, and treaties with the DPR and LPR after Russia recognized them as independent states, stating "The people's republic of Donbas turned to Russia with a request for help... in accordance with Article 51... I have decided to conduct a special military operation".

b) Protection against alleged genocide: Putin claimed Ukraine had been committing genocide against Russian speakers in the Donbas region, and that the purpose was to "protect the people" who "for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime".

c) Denazification and demilitarization: He said Russia's goal was the "demilitarization and denazification" of Ukraine, claimed Ukraine's government were neo-Nazis under Western control, and that Russia had no plans to occupy Ukrainian land.

d) NATO threat: Putin accused NATO of expanding to the east and developing military infrastructure in Ukraine, saying further expansion and military development in Ukraine was "unacceptable", and that an "anti-Russia" hostile to Russia was being created under external control.

2. Evaluation under international law

The prevailing view among international legal bodies and most states is that the invasion violates international law:

Prohibition on use of force: Russia and Ukraine are both sovereign UN members and Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force: "All Members shall refrain... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state". The Russian invasion has been described as a violation of international law and condemned by world leaders, the United Nations and NATO.

Exceptions are limited. Article 51 states: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations", until the Security Council acts.

Why most legal analyses reject Russia's Article 51 claim:

•The DPR and LPR are not UN member states, and Putin's reference to Article 51 is regarded by a number of lawyers as incorrect. Swiss researcher Nico Krisch noted Article 51 is a right to self-defence when an attack has already begun or is imminent, and "the blurred NATO threat that Putin sees... cannot justify this military action".

•The invocation was also rejected by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

Genocide and humanitarian claims:

•Critics have responded there is no evidence of genocide of Russian-speaking people in Donbas and the claim is being misused as a political tool.

•An OSCE monitoring mission active since 2014 found no evidence of mass targeted killings of civilians in the Donbas region.

•Putin's accusation of genocide has been widely rejected as baseless by other countries and international organizations, over 300 scholars on genocide issued a statement rejecting Russia's abuse of the term "genocide", and the International Court of Justice said it had not seen any evidence of genocide committed by Ukraine.

•Language similar to the "responsibility to protect" (R2P) principle was also invoked implicitly. R2P is not a legally binding framework, and to justify force would need UN Security Council approval, which Russia did not seek.

Territorial acquisition: International law holds it is unlawful to acquire territory by force — a principle affirmed by the UN Security Council.

UN response: The UN Charter, the Secretary-General, and the General Assembly have called the invasion illegal. On 2 March 2022, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on "Aggression against Ukraine" by 141 in favour to 5 against (with 35 abstentions). The five against were Russia, Syria, North Korea, Belarus and Eritrea. The resolution deplored "in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine" in violation of the UN Charter and demanded Russia withdraw.

Peacekeeping justification: Putin initially ordered forces to perform "peacekeeping functions" pursuant to treaties with the breakaway regions. The UN Secretary-General said he was "concerned about the perversion of the concept of peacekeeping... When troops of one country enter the territory of another country without its consent, they are not impartial peacekeepers", and countries cannot unilaterally establish peacekeeping forces without consent.

3. Broader political debate

•From the Russian government perspective, the action is presented as defensive and necessary to protect Russian speakers, prevent NATO encroachment on its borders, and stop an alleged genocide and hostile "anti-Russia" project.

•From the perspective of Ukraine and most Western and international institutions, the invasion is seen as an unprovoked violation of sovereignty and territorial integrity, with no legal basis in self-defense or humanitarian intervention, and the stated rationales are viewed as pretexts.

•Analysts noting security context: Some analysts and officials had warned before the war that letting eastern European countries join NATO would be seen by Russia as a threat. Between the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the invasion, 14 Eastern European countries were admitted to NATO. Ukraine was not a NATO member at the time of invasion, having applied for a Membership Action Plan in 2008 but been refused while being told it would become a member in the future. These historical security concerns are cited in political debate, but under the dominant interpretation of the UN Charter they are not considered to create a legal right to use force against another state.

In summary, whether the invasion is considered "justified" depends on the standard applied. Under the UN Charter as interpreted by the UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, and the majority of states and international legal scholars, the legal justifications invoked by Russia have been rejected. Russia maintains its actions were justified on grounds of self-defense, protection of populations in Donbas, and national security against NATO expansion.

2.[International law issues raised by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

– Parliament of Australia](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/Research/FlagPost/2022/March/Russia_Ukraine_and_International_Law)

Citations (2)

1wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
Vladimir Putin speech on invading Ukraine - Wikipedia
Backs: “Russia's invasion of Ukraine, launched 24 February 2022 as a "special military operation," is assessed differently depending on the framework used - legal justification under the UN Charter, and political/strategic justification as claimed by Russia. 1. Russia's stated justifications. In his 24 February 2022 address,…”
2aph.gov.auGovernment
International law issues raised by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – Parliament of Australia
Backs: “Prohibition on use of force: Russia and Ukraine are both sovereign UN members and Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force: "All Members shall refrain...”