Is Russia's invasion of Ukraine justified?

This is a contested historical question — I'll examine the legal, Russian, and Ukrainian perspectives on the invasion with up-to-date sources.

Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, launched on 24 February 2022, is widely considered illegal under international law, but Russia has offered several justifications for it.

What Russia Claims

The Russian government described the invasion as a "special military operation".

Its stated goals included:

•"demilitarization", "denazification" of Ukraine and "liberation of Donbas"

•Halting NATO expansion, which it sees as a direct threat to its borders

•Reasserting its sphere of influence over Ukraine and protecting the Russian-speaking population of the Donbas

•Claims that Ukraine was committing acts akin to genocide against ethnic Russians and that the Ukrainian government was controlled by extremist factions

More broadly, Russia's justification relies on a narrative that emphasizes historical ties, security concerns related to NATO expansion, the perceived illegitimacy of the Ukrainian government, and strategic importance.

The Kremlin also advanced narratives of "denazification" and alleged threats to Russian-speaking populationsand argued it was acting in preemptive self-defence, claiming Ukraine and NATO posed a looming threat to Russian security.

It also recognized the self-declared Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People's Republic (LPR) as independent entities and claimed it had been invited to intervene militarily.

How These Claims Are Assessed Under International Law

The post-World War II international legal order prohibits the use of force by one state against another. This is most explicitly articulated in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state".

Exceptions are extremely limited. Article 51 of the UN Charter permits self-defence only in response to an armed attack, and Chapter VII authorizes collective action through the UN Security Council.

Legal analysis concludes:

•Neither of these exceptions applied to Russia's invasion. Ukraine did not launch an armed attack against Russia, and the Security Council did not authorize any use of force. Russia's military campaign, therefore, represents a unilateral and illegal use of force.

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

•Russia's invasion is a clear violation of the United Nations Charter and an act of aggression that is a crime under international law

•The invasion is a violation of Article 2(4), which prohibits the "threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." It cannot be justified as an act of self-defense under Article 51

Specific Russian legal arguments have been rejected by international bodies and scholars:

1.Humanitarian / genocide protection: No credible international organization or observer, including the United Nations or independent human rights monitors, found any evidence of genocide in Ukraine. When Ukraine brought a case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) under the Genocide Convention, the Court ordered Russia to halt its military operations and found no substantiation for Russia's genocide claims.

2.Anticipatory self-defence against NATO/Ukraine: Customary international law and ICJ precedent clarify that the right to self-defence under Article 51 only arises in response to an actual or imminent armed attack. The 1986 Nicaragua v. United States judgment firmly established that vague threats or ideological adversaries do not fulfil the legal threshold for invoking self-defence. Ukraine, at the time of the invasion, had not attacked Russia.

3.Invitation from Donetsk/Luhansk: The recognition of breakaway regions within another sovereign state does not establish a legal basis for intervention, particularly when such recognition occurs unilaterally and without broad international endorsement. The principle of territorial integrity remains paramount.

For comparison, the UN General Assembly declared the 2014 Crimean referendum invalid in Resolution 68/262 and affirmed Ukraine's sovereignty.

International Response

•The UN General Assembly held a special emergency session on Russian aggression and on March 2, 2022 passed a resolution in a vote of 141 to 5, calling on Russia to pull its troops out of Ukraine.

•A separate vote was 141 out of 193 United Nations member states voted for the nonbinding resolution that "demands" Russia "immediately" withdraw from Ukraine.

•Descriptions from international monitors describe the war as unprovoked and unjustified, with Russia as the only country responsible for the invasion, driven by a desire to destroy Ukraine as an independent pro-European country.

Summary

From Russia's perspective, the invasion was presented as justified and necessary to protect national security, halt NATO expansion, and protect Russian speakers.

From the perspective of international law and the majority of the international community, the invasion violated the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force, did not meet the criteria for self-defence, and was not authorized by the Security Council. It has therefore been characterized as an illegal war of aggression.

Whether the invasion is considered "justified" ultimately depends on whether one prioritizes Russia's stated security and historical-political rationale or the established framework of international law and the principle of state sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Citations (2)

1ukraine.uaNot yet classified
Why did Russia launch a full-scale invasion?
Backs: “Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, launched on 24 February 2022, is widely considered illegal under international law, but Russia has offered several justifications for it.”
2legalserviceindia.comCommercial content
The Legality of Russia's Invasion of Ukraine Under International Law | Legal Service India - Law Articles - Legal Resources
Backs: “More broadly, Russia's justification relies on a narrative that emphasizes historical ties, security concerns related to NATO expansion, the perceived illegitimacy of the Ukrainian government, and strategic importance. The Kremlin also advanced narratives of "denazification" and alleged threats to Russian-speaking…”