Is Russia's invasion of Ukraine justified?

The question of justification for the invasion is contested — I'll examine Russia's stated reasons against international law and global consensus.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine, launched on 24 February 2022 as a "special military operation," is widely considered unjustified and illegal under international law, though Russia has offered several justifications for it.

1. What Russia Claims

In his televised address announcing the invasion, President Vladimir Putin said Russia was launching 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

•NATO was building up military infrastructure in Ukraine, threatening Russia

He said Russia was acting in self-defense, that its goal was the "demilitarization and denazification" of Ukraine, and claimed Russia had no plans to occupy Ukrainian land.

More broadly, Russia has asserted that its national interests and "very existence" were under threat from the eastward expansion of NATO, characterizing the military action as an exercise of the right to self-defense, and attempted to justify its actions under the doctrine of humanitarian intervention.

These allegations were widely rejected as untrue.

2. What International Law Says

The assessment of legality centers on the UN Charter:

•Article 2(4) - Prohibition on use of force: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine 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".

•Article 51 - Right to self-defense: International law experts note that self-defense is the only justification for use of force against another country under the UN Charter and is binding for all 193 UN member countries.

The suggestion by President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials that Russia's use of force is justified under Article 51 has no support in fact or law. Article 51 provides that nothing shall impair the inherent 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 Russia could show attacks on Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk, Article 51 would not permit action in collective self-defense, because Donetsk and Luhansk are not UN member states and do not even qualify as states under international law.

•Genocide claim: Putin's statements that Ukraine was committing "genocide" against Russians, although a thinly veiled effort to justify use of force in the language of international law, are also not supported by the facts and would not, in any case, give Russia a right to launch an invasion. The Genocide Convention defines genocide as certain specified actions intended to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, and there is no evidence Ukraine engaged in any of the defined actions with such intent. Even if human rights abuses had occurred, neither the Genocide Convention nor the UN Charter authorizes parties to use force to remedy acts of genocide or serious human rights abuses.

On this point, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) said it had not seen any evidence supporting Russia's allegation of genocide, and in its March 2022 provisional order noted the court had not seen any evidence to support the Kremlin's justification that Ukraine was committing genocide against Russian-speakers.

•NATO expansion: While Russia views NATO enlargement as a security threat, international law does not recognize a perceived threat from a defensive alliance's expansion or the political orientation of a neighboring state as a legal basis for the use of force. Legal analysis concludes that under no scenario is Russia's armed invasion of Ukraine legal under contemporary international law and norms.

3. How International Bodies Have Responded

•The UN Security Council voted on a binding resolution condemning the invasion and requiring Russia to withdraw, but Russia, as a permanent member, vetoed it.

•The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on "Aggression against Ukraine" by 141 in favour to 5 against, issuing what was described as a resounding condemnation of illegal and unprovoked attacks on a sovereign state.

•A subsequent General Assembly resolution overwhelmingly demanded the Russian Federation immediately end its invasion of Ukraine and unconditionally withdraw all its military forces.

•On 16 March 2022, the ICJ ordered Russia to halt the invasion, rejecting the genocide justification as a basis for military operation.

4. Summary Perspectives

From Russia's perspective, the operation was presented as necessary to protect Russian speakers in Donbas from genocide, to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine, to prevent NATO from using Ukraine as an "anti-Russia" bridgehead, and to exercise self-defense under Article 51.

From the perspective of the UN, ICJ, and most international legal experts, none of these grounds meets the recognized exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force - self-defense against an armed attack or Security Council authorization. The invasion is therefore assessed as a violation of Article 2(4), an illegal war of aggression, and the genocide and collective self-defense arguments have been found to lack factual and legal support.

Whether the invasion is seen as "justified" therefore depends on whether one accepts Russia's political and security narratives or the prevailing interpretation of the UN Charter and international humanitarian law, under which the overwhelming majority of states and courts have found it unjustified.

Citations (2)

1wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
Vladimir Putin speech on invading Ukraine - Wikipedia
Backs: “Russia's invasion of Ukraine, launched on 24 February 2022 as a "special military operation," is widely considered unjustified and illegal under international law, though Russia has offered several justifications for it. 1. What Russia Claims. In his televised address announcing the invasion, President Vladimir Putin…”
2archive.orgNonprofits and think tanks
How Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine Violates International Law
Backs: “More broadly, Russia has asserted that its national interests and "very existence" were under threat from the eastward expansion of NATO, characterizing the military action as an exercise of the right to self-defense, and attempted to justify its actions under the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. These…”