Is Russia's invasion of Ukraine justified?

This question touches on international law and disputed historical claims — I'll gather the legal context and the stated justifications to answer it.

Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine is widely considered illegal under international law, though Russia has offered several justifications that are rejected by the United Nations and most legal experts.

1. What international law says

International law is governed by the United Nations Charter, which states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state".

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said Russia's invasion "is against the (United Nations) Charter. It is unacceptable", and that the invasion "directly conflicts with the United Nations Charter".

Legal analysis concludes:

•"Under no scenario is Russia’s armed invasion of Ukraine legal under contemporary international law and norms."

•"Self-defense is the only justification for use of force against another country, according to international law. This condition is found in the U.N. Charter and is binding for all 193 U.N. member countries."

•Russia's invasion "violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, a central tenet of the charter that requires UN member states to refrain from the 'use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.'”

The Charter's only clear exception is self-defense, "if an armed attack occurs" against a country. Experts note:

> "Nothing that Ukraine has done to date could be construed as an 'armed attack' on Russia and justify any Russian claim to self-defense."

Similarly:

> "The suggestion by President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials that Russia’s use of force is justified under Article 51 of the UN Charter has no support in fact or law. Article 51 provides that 'nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations.' However, Ukraine did not commit or threaten to commit an armed attack against Russia"

Other justifications have also been rejected:

•Humanitarian intervention has been asserted as "another rationale for use of force. But this justification has not yet been widely accepted, unless the U.N. Security Council authorizes the intervention."

•"Even if Putin’s false claim that Ukraine is targeting Russian-speakers in eastern Ukraine were true, it would not justify the countrywide attacks"

•Council on Foreign Relations analysis: Putin's statements that Ukraine was committing "genocide" "are also not supported by the facts and would not, in any case, give Russia a right to launch an invasion of Ukraine". "There is no evidence that Ukraine engaged in any of the defined actions" of genocide

2. What Russia has claimed

Russia's public statements have not been directly framed in legal terms but implicitly use the language of international law, including:

•Protecting Russian-speaking people in the Donbas region from genocide

•Acting in self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter

•Protecting the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, which Russia recognized as independent states. Legal analysis notes this recognition was "inconsistent with international law governing state sovereignty and secession" and that Article 51 "would not permit an action in collective self-defense, because Donetsk and Luhansk are not UN member states. Indeed, they do not even qualify as states under international law"

•Historical claims that Ukrainian lands have long been part of Russia, NATO expansion as a threat, and stated aims of "denazification" and demilitarization.

3. International institutional response

•The UN Security Council voted on a binding resolution condemning the invasion and requiring Russia to cease its military actions and withdraw, "But Russia, as a permanent member of the Security Council, vetoed the resolution."

•The UN General Assembly then adopted Resolution ES-11/1, which "[d]eplores in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine, '[d]emands that the Russian Federation immediately cease its use of force against Ukraine" and demanded it "immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces". Assembly President Csaba Kőrösi said Russia's invasion, and attempted annexation "is illegal".

•The UN General Assembly resolution also condemned "the attempted illegal annexation of the Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia regions" declaring they "have no validity under international law".

•On 16 March 2022, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered Russia to "immediately suspend the military operations" on a 13–2 vote.

In summary, the prevailing view among international lawyers, the UN General Assembly, and the ICJ is that Russia's invasion violates the UN Charter and cannot be justified as self-defense or humanitarian intervention. Russia argues it acted to protect populations in eastern Ukraine and to counter perceived security threats, but those claims have not been accepted as legal justifications by international bodies.

Citations (2)

1tufts.eduAcademic
International law says Putin’s war against Ukraine is illegal. Does that matter? – Fletcher Russia and Eurasia Program
Backs: “Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine is widely considered illegal under international law, though Russia has offered several justifications that are rejected by the United Nations and most legal experts. 1. What international law says. International law is governed by the United Nations Charter, which states: “All…”
2archive.orgNonprofits and think tanks
How Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine Violates International Law
Backs: “"Self-defense is the only justification for use of force against another country, according to international law. This condition is found in the U.N. Charter and is binding for all 193 U.N. member countries.". Russia's invasion "violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, a central tenet of the charter that requires UN…”