Russia's invasion of Ukraine remains widely disputed — I'll gather the legal positions and each side's stated justifications to give you a balanced overview.
Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, launched on February 24, 2022, is described as a "special military operation" by Russia. Whether it is justified depends on the legal and political framework used to evaluate it. Russia has offered justifications which it considers valid, while the overwhelming majority of states and international legal authorities consider it unjustified and illegal.
1. Russia's Stated Justifications
The Russian government has given several overlapping reasons:
•Protection of people in Donbas: President Vladimir Putin claimed military intervention was necessary to "protect people who have been subjected to abuse and genocide" by the Ukrainian government and to "protect Russia and our people". In his announcement, he said the purpose was to "protect the people" in the Donbas who he said had "been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime".
•Demilitarization and Denazification: The stated aims of the "special military operation" included "the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine". Russian officials stated: 'We are carrying out a special operation against nationalists to protect the residents of Donbas and for the purposes of denazification and demilitarization'.
•NATO expansion as an existential threat: Russia has opposed NATO's expansion into Eastern Europe, viewing it as a security risk, and has frequently cited NATO’s enlargement as a justification for its military actions, including the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2022 invasion. From Russia's perspective, the war was framed as a preventative measure—to stop NATO’s advance and reshape Europe’s security order. Related arguments include protecting the Russian-speaking population of the Donbas and reasserting its sphere of influence over Ukraine.
Russia also initially said it was not seeking to occupy Ukraine or "impose anything on anyone by force".
2. Counter-Arguments and International Law Perspective
Most international lawyers, Western governments, and international institutions argue the invasion does not meet legal justifications for the use of force:
•Prohibition on use of force: Under international law, the prohibition on the use of force is central. Russia's invasion is described as a "quite blatant violation of Article 2(4) of the UN charter, which provides that states are not allowed to use force in their international relations".
•No valid exception: International law authorizes force only in self-defense after an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Neither exception applied: Ukraine "did not launch an armed attack against Russia, and the Security Council did not authorize any use of force". Under that framework, the campaign "represents a unilateral and illegal use of force, in direct contradiction to the established legal framework".
•UN Charter violation: UN Secretary-General António Guterres condemned Russia’s full-scale invasion as a “blatant violation” of the UN Charter. Other statements describe it as "Russia’s illegal war of aggression blatantly breaches the core principles and rules of the UN Charter, including the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine"and "a manifest violation of international law, including the UN Charter". Under this view, "Under no scenario is Russia’s armed invasion of Ukraine legal under contemporary international law and norms".
•NATO expansion argument rejected as legal justification: Analysts note that NATO's expansion "did not violate any binding international agreement with Russia" and that verbal assurances to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 about not expanding NATO "one inch eastward" were informal and not a legal commitment. Russia's invasion, however, directly violated the Budapest Memorandum's commitments to Ukraine's sovereignty.
•Denazification/genocide claims disputed: Western governments and fact-checking organizations have disputed claims of genocide in Donbas and characterized the denazification rationale as false, noting Ukraine's government is led by a democratically elected president.
3. International Response
The United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly for a resolution deploring Russia’s invasion and called for immediate withdrawal. In an emergency session, 141 of the 193 member states voted for the resolution. The only countries that voted against alongside Russia were Syria, North Korea, Belarus and Eritrea, while 35 abstained. General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding but are seen as reflecting international opinion.
Summary
•From Russia's perspective, the invasion is presented as justified as a defensive, preemptive action to protect Russians and Russian-speakers in Donbas, to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine, and to prevent NATO expansion toward its borders.
•From the perspective of international law and the majority of the international community, the invasion is considered unjustified because it violates the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force, lacks Security Council authorization or a valid self-defense claim, and violates Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Judgments about justification therefore largely depend on whether one accepts Russia's security and humanitarian narratives or applies the standard of the UN Charter and international law as interpreted by the UN and most states.