Exploring whether Russia's invasion is seen as justified — I'll examine the stated reasons and how international law views them.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine, launched on 24 February 2022, is presented as justified by Russia and as unjustified and illegal by Ukraine and by the majority of states and international legal experts.
1. Russia's Stated Justifications
In a televised speech on 23-24 February 2022, President Vladimir Putin announced a "special military operation" to defend the Russian-speaking territories in eastern Ukraine — the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic — under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
Putin claimed that:
•Ukraine had been committing genocide against Russian speakers in the region
•Ukraine's government were neo-Nazis under Western control and Ukraine was developing nuclear weapons
•NATO was building up military infrastructure in Ukraine, threatening Russia
Russian legal theories have centered on three arguments:
1.Self-defense and collective self-defense under Article 51 - that the "operation" is an exercise of Russia's right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter, and that it was acting at the request of the Donetsk and Luhansk republics after recognizing them as independent states. Russia has used its treaties with the separatist regions in Donbas to push for preemptive and collective self-defence.
2.Humanitarian intervention / protection against genocide - that the invasion is designed to prevent "genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime" against Russians and Russian-speakers, trying to justify humanitarian intervention through accusations of "genocide".
3.Historical and security grievances - invoking "historical injustices," pointing to verbal assurances of NATO's non-expansion given to the USSR in the 1990s and the West's own record of illegal interventions. Russia has also compared its actions to interventions by the United States and its allies in Kosovo, Iraq, Libya and Syria.
The stated aims of the operation also included "the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine".
2. Position of International Law and Most States
The prevailing view among international lawyers, the UN General Assembly, and institutions such as the Council on Foreign Relations and Amnesty International is that the invasion violates international law and cannot be justified on the grounds Russia has offered.
•Prohibition on use of force: Russia's invasion violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, a central tenet that requires UN member states to refrain from the "use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state". The UN Charter sets conditions under which states may legally resort to force, with self-defense and Security Council authorization as the only two exceptions.
•No legal basis for Article 51 claim: Experts state that the suggestion by Putin that Russia's use of force is justified under Article 51 has no support in fact or law. Article 51 preserves the right of self-defense if an armed attack occurs, but Ukraine did not commit or threaten to commit an armed attack against Russia or any other UN member state. Even if Ukraine had planned attacks on Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk, Article 51 would not permit collective self-defense because Donetsk and Luhansk are not UN member states and do not even qualify as states under international law. Scholars have noted Russia cannot rely on collective self-defense because these regions are not recognized as separate states.
•Genocide claim rejected: Putin's statements that Ukraine was committing "genocide" are not supported by facts and would not give Russia a right to invade. There is no evidence that Ukraine engaged in defined acts of genocide with intent to destroy a group, and even serious human rights abuses would not authorize use of force under the Genocide Convention or UN Charter. Scholars have described Putin's allegations of genocide and comparison of Ukraine to a Nazi state as baseless, and experts have rejected the humanitarian justification as widely perceived as a pretext and unsubstantiated. International law on whether humanitarian intervention allows use of force is heavily disputed.
•General assessment by experts: Under no scenario is Russia's armed invasion of Ukraine legal under contemporary international law and norms, with self-defense described as the only justification for use of force against another country. Amnesty International said Russia's acts "cannot remotely be justified on any of the grounds that Russia has offered".
•Comparison to Western interventions: Arguments comparing Russia's actions to Kosovo, Iraq or Libya have been dismissed as irrelevant because one illegal act does not make a different act legal, and experts note these arguments would carry little weight in any court of law.
3. Response at the United Nations and Other Bodies
•The UN General Assembly has been clear - Russia's invasion, and attempted annexation of Ukrainian territory by force, "is illegal".
•On 2 March 2022, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution condemning the invasion and demanding withdrawal with 141 votes for, 5 against, 35 abstaining, also described as an overwhelming 141-5 vote majority.
•The EU condemned Russia's "unprovoked and unjustified military aggression against Ukraine" which "grossly violates international law, the UN Charter".
•At the UN Security Council, Russia vetoed a resolution calling for it to immediately cease its attack.
•The invasion has also been qualified by legal experts as a crime of aggression under Article 8bis(1) of the Rome Statute, a category that includes invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State.
In summary, whether the invasion is considered justified depends on the framework applied. Russia asserts it is justified as defensive and protective action under Article 51 and to prevent alleged genocide and NATO encroachment. The overwhelming majority of international legal experts, the UN General Assembly, and regional bodies characterize it as an unprovoked, illegal use of force in violation of Article 2(4) and not covered by self-defense or humanitarian exceptions.