Is Russia's invasion of Ukraine justified?

This question involves legal and historical claims — I'll gather current sources on Russia's justifications and international analysis to give you a full picture.

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

Russia's stated justifications

In his televised address on 24 February 2022 announcing a "special military operation," President Vladimir Putin said Russia was launching the 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. He had recognized the two separatist entities as independent states days earlier.

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

Specific claims made to justify the use of force included:

•Ukraine had been committing genocide against Russian speakers in the Donbas region

•Ukraine's government were neo-Nazis under Western control

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

•Broader historical and political arguments about historical injustices, the unity of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples, NATO expansion, and Western hypocrisy

On NATO, Putin said that as NATO expands to the east, "the situation for our country is getting worse and more dangerous" and that the expansion of NATO infrastructure and military development in Ukraine was "unacceptable".

He also said "We have been left no other option to protect Russia and our people" and invoked treaties of friendship and mutual assistance with the Donetsk and Luhansk republics.

Assessment under international law

The central rule governing use of force is in the U.N. Charter: “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”.

Analyses of the invasion emphasize:

•Prohibition on use of force: Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force except in narrow circumstances, principally self-defence, Security Council authorisation, or intervention validly requested by a State. None applied here.

•Self-defense exception: Self-defense is the only justification for use of force against another country, according to international law. The charter's only clear exception to prohibiting the use of force is self-defense, "if an armed attack occurs" against a country.

•No armed attack by Ukraine: "Nothing that Ukraine has done to date could be construed as an 'armed attack' on Russia and justify any Russian claim to self-defense". Even if the claim about targeting Russian-speakers were true, it would not justify the countrywide attacks.

•Invitation by Donetsk/Luhansk rejected: The entities in Donetsk and Luhansk were not sovereign States capable of lawfully inviting Russian intervention. Article 51 is the right to self-defense to aid another UN member state, but the DPR and LPR were not UN member states and were only recognized as independent by Russia.

•No lawful justification found: Legal analysis concludes a lawful justification for Russia's military invasion does not exist and the various claims advanced by Russia not only all fail, but most fail on multiple grounds. The invasion constitutes an unlawful use of force, an act of aggression and a violation of a rule of jus cogens. Similarly, "Under no scenario is Russia's armed invasion of Ukraine legal under contemporary international law and norms".

Specific Russian factual claims have been widely rejected by other states and international bodies:

•The allegations of genocide were widely rejected as untrue. Over 300 scholars on genocide issued a statement rejecting Russia's abuse of the term, and the International Court of Justice said it had not seen any evidence of genocide committed by Ukraine.

•The claim that Russian-speakers needed protection was described as unsubstantiated, oversimplifying Ukraine's diverse linguistic landscape.

•The claim that Ukraine is a neo-Nazi state was widely rejected by historians of Nazism and the Holocaust.

International response

The United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned the invasion:

•Member States overwhelmingly adopted a resolution demanding the Russian Federation immediately end its invasion of Ukraine and unconditionally withdraw all its military forces.

•The General Assembly President stated the UN Charter, the Secretary-General, and the Assembly itself had been clear – Russia's invasion, and attempted annexation of Ukrainian territory by force, "is illegal".

•A later resolution condemning Russia's "attempted illegal annexation" passed with 143 votes in favour.

•UN officials and many member states have described the war as an illegal, unprovoked full-scale invasion and an illegal war of aggression blatantly breaching core principles of the UN Charter.

By invading, Russia "did not only violate international law, but also fractured it as a universal body of arguments and justifications for states' conduct" with justifications "clearly at odds with what is generally viewed as good-faith use of international law".

In short: Russia argues the operation was justified as self-defense, protection of people in Donbas, denazification, and response to NATO expansion. The dominant view among international legal scholars, the UN General Assembly, the UN Secretary-General, and the International Court of Justice is that none of these grounds satisfies the UN Charter's exceptions for use of force, and the invasion is therefore unjustified and illegal under international law.

Citations (2)

1wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
Vladimir Putin speech on invading Ukraine
Backs: “Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 is widely considered unjustified and illegal under contemporary international law, though Russia has offered several justifications for it. Russia's stated justifications. In his televised address on 24 February 2022 announcing a "special military operation,"…”
2tufts.eduAcademic
International law says Putin’s war against Ukraine is illegal. Does that matter? – Fletcher Russia and Eurasia Program
Backs: “He also said "We have been left no other option to protect Russia and our people" and invoked treaties of friendship and mutual assistance with the Donetsk and Luhansk republics. Assessment under international law. The central rule governing use of force is in the U.N. Charter: “All Members shall refrain in their…”