Is Russia's invasion of Ukraine justified?

Is Russia's invasion justified under debate — I'll gather the competing legal and political arguments to give you a balanced answer.

Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine is evaluated differently depending on the framework used - Russia's stated rationale versus international law:

1. Russia's Stated Justifications

On 23-24 February 2022, President Vladimir Putin announced a "special military operation" in Ukraine. He claimed that 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". He also said the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics - which Russia had recognized as independent states two days before - had requested assistance, and listed aims including "the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine".

In communications to the United Nations, Russia's formal legal justification was self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Specifically, Russia has argued that its use of force is lawful under Article 51, which preserves rights to defend against "an armed attack" and to engage in "collective self-defense," claiming it was defending the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic.

Other stated political reasons cited by Russian officials before and during the invasion included concerns about NATO expansion, repression of Russian speakers, and questioning Ukraine's statehood.

2. Position Under International Law and the United Nations

Since the beginning, the invasion has been described as violating international law including the Charter of the United Nations.

The UN Charter sets out when force is lawful. Article 2(4) provides that 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", and Article 2(3) requires settlement of disputes by peaceful means. The only two exceptions enshrined in the Charter are self-defense and authorization by the Security Council.

Key UN actions:

The invasion is also described by legal experts as a crime of aggression under Article 8bis(1) of the Rome Statute, defined as an act which "by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter", including invasion or attack by armed forces of another state's territory.

3. How Legal Experts Have Assessed Russia's Legal Arguments

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", and Ukraine did not commit or threaten an armed attack against Russia.

The invasion is also cited as violating other agreements Russia is party to, including the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in which Russia agreed "to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine".

In summary, the Russian government presents its actions as justified as self-defense, protection of populations in Donbas, and response to security threats including NATO expansion. The United Nations General Assembly, the majority of states, and most international law scholars assess the invasion as a violation of the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) and not covered by the self-defense exception.