I'll examine the legal and stated justifications for Russia's invasion to give you a balanced view.
Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine has been justified differently by Russia and by most of the international community. There is no consensus that it is justified under international law.
Russia's Stated Justifications
When announcing the "special military operation" on February 23-24, 2022, President Vladimir Putin claimed:
•Russian 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"
•The stated aims included "the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine"
•In public speeches and state media, the operation was also framed as protection for residents of the separatist Donetsk and Luhansk regions, a mission to "demilitarise and denazify" Ukraine, and a response to alleged threats posed by NATO expansion
In legal terms, Russia has argued:
•Use of force was lawful under Article 51 of the UN Charter as collective self-defense to defend the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic, which Russia recognized as independent states two days before the invasion
•Intervention was needed on humanitarian grounds to protect Russian-speakers in the Donbas
Framework Under International Law
International law governing the use of force is centered on 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"
•The Charter's only clear exception to prohibiting the use of force is self-defense, "if an armed attack occurs" against a country
•Similarly, the only two exceptions enshrined in the UN Charter are self-defense and an authorization by the Security Council
How Legal Experts and International Bodies Have Assessed the Invasion
The prevailing view among international legal scholars and UN bodies is that the invasion does not meet legal justifications for the use of force:
•"Under no scenario is Russia's armed invasion of Ukraine legal under contemporary international law and norms."
•Legal analyses have concluded the various claims advanced by Russia not only all fail, but most of them fail on multiple grounds, and the invasion "constitutes an unlawful use of force, an act of aggression and an egregious violation of a rule of jus cogens"
•Experts have stated "Nothing that Ukraine has done to date could be construed as an 'armed attack' on Russia and justify any Russian claim to self-defense"
•On collective self-defense, experts have argued Russia cannot rely on it because Ukraine has not threatened or attacked another nation, and because Donetsk and Luhansk "are not recognized as separate states under international law"
•On humanitarian intervention, experts note it "has not yet been widely accepted, unless the U.N. Security Council authorizes the intervention", and that even if the doctrine existed, Russia's humanitarian justifications "are widely perceived as a pretext, and are unsubstantiated by any evidence"
•Russia's comparisons to Western interventions such as Kosovo, Iraq, Libya and Syria have been dismissed as irrelevant because "one illegal act does not make a different act legal" and "one illegal use of force does not justify another"
U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said of the invasion: "It is wrong. It is against the (United Nations) Charter. It is unacceptable."
Responses at the United Nations
•United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1 "deplored Russia's invasion of Ukraine and demanded a full withdrawal of Russian forces and a reversal of its decision to recognise the self-declared People's Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk"
•The resolution was passed with the support of 141 members of the 193-nation body, described elsewhere as passed with an overwhelming 141-5 vote majority, with 35 nations abstaining
•The vote means the UN has declared Russia's invasion of Ukraine a violation of the UN Charter
•Russia's act of aggression is described as a violation of international law: a position confirmed by the UN General Assembly and the International Court of Justice in its ruling on provisional measures in March 2022
Additional International Agreements Cited
Analysts have said the invasion also violated agreements Russia had signed, 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, Russia argues its actions were necessary for security, protection of populations in Donbas, and to counter NATO expansion and alleged genocide. The overwhelming majority of states in the UN General Assembly, the UN Secretary-General, the International Court of Justice, and most international legal scholars assess that those arguments do not satisfy the legal exceptions for the use of force under the UN Charter and therefore view the invasion as illegal and an act of aggression.