Is Russia's invasion of Ukraine justified?

The question touches on contested international law and competing justifications — I'll gather the Russian claims, Ukrainian and UN positions, and legal assessments to answer it fully.

Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, launched 24 February 2022, is presented very differently depending on the framework used to assess "justified" - Russian government justification, Ukrainian/international legal framework, and public opinion.

1. Russia's stated justifications

The Kremlin has given several overlapping reasons:

•Protection, demilitarisation and "denazification" - In public speeches and state media, President Vladimir Putin framed the operation 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

•More broadly, Moscow has justified its war through a collection of security arguments: protection of Donbas, threats from NATO expansion, self-defence claims and the stated objective of "denazification."

•When the invasion began, Russian President Vladimir Putin cited reasons like "denazification," protection from "genocide" in the Donbas region, and claims of NATO infrastructure building inside Ukraine

•On February 24, 2022, Russia initiated a "special military operation," framing the objective as a countermeasure against NATO's expansion and the U.S.'s growing influence in the region, and emphasizing the defense of Donbas, as well as the demilitarization and "denazification" of Ukraine

In legal filings, Russia sought to justify in part by claims that Ukraine was engaged in acts of genocide within the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts.

Ukraine filed a case at the ICJ arguing Russia has falsely claimed genocide had occurred in Luhansk and Donetsk regions, as a prelude to its so-called 'special military operation'. Ukraine emphatically denies a genocide occurred.

2. How international law assesses the use of force

The central legal rule is Article 2(4) of the UN 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, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations

Similar formulations note:

> 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 (4) of the Charter prohibits the threat or use of force and calls on all Members to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other States

There are only two generally recognized exceptions to this prohibition - authorization by the UN Security Council, or self-defense in response to an armed attack.

The assessment by most states and international bodies is that neither exception applied:

•The EU and other states have described Russia's illegal war of aggression as blatantly breaching the core principles and rules of the UN Charter, including the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. It has been described as a manifest violation of international law, including the UN Charter and the resolutions of the General Assembly.

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

•The Assembly also condemned Russia's invasion as illegal in a resolution on 2 March 2022. On 12 October 2022, 143 countries supported a resolution condemning the recent referendums in Ukraine and demanding Russia reverse its annexation declaration.

•The International Court of Justice (ICJ) - the UN's principal judicial body hearing the case Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) - issued an Order on 16 March 2022 indicating that "the Russian Federation should immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced on 24 February in the territory of Ukraine".

From this perspective, the invasion is considered a violation of the prohibition on the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, and an act of aggression against a sovereign state.

Russia, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, has a veto over any Security Council action, and has already used its veto to block any reaction to the situation in Ukraine, which led to the use of the General Assembly's 'Uniting for Peace' procedure.

Russia and its supporters dispute this legal characterization, arguing the operation was defensive and necessary to protect Russian-speaking populations and to prevent NATO from using Ukraine as a staging ground.

3. Public opinion

Polling in multiple countries shows majorities view the invasion as unjustified, though views vary by country:

•In the U.S., 68% say Russia was not justified in sending troops into Ukraine while just 10% say it was justified

•In Taiwan, a poll found among adults a strong majority of 64.9% thought Russia's invasion of Ukraine was unjustified, while only about 7.9% thought it was justified

•Over 75% of the Bulgarians surveyed see Russia's invasion of Ukraine as unjustified

•Conversely, a section of Chinese public opinion views the invasion of Ukraine as a legitimate move on Russia's part, given the general rivalry against US-led "Western hegemony". In the eyes of those who defend the invasion, the so-called great nations are entitled to enjoy security on their borders.

Summary

Whether the invasion is "justified" depends on the standard applied:

•Under the Russian government's stated standard - protection of Donbas residents, denazification/demilitarization, and countering NATO expansion - Moscow describes it as justified and necessary.

•Under the UN Charter and the interpretation adopted by the UN General Assembly, the ICJ, and the majority of states - it is considered an illegal use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of Ukraine, in violation of Article 2(4).

•In global public opinion polling outside Russia, majorities tend to say it was not justified, though a minority, particularly in Russia and in parts of other countries skeptical of U.S./NATO influence, view it as justified.

If you are evaluating the question for legal, historical, or moral analysis, it can be useful to distinguish between legal justification under international law, strategic justification from a security perspective, and moral justification.

Citations (1)

1parliament.ukGovernment
The UN General Assembly condemns Russia: But what can it actually do?
Backs: “The UN General Assembly President, the Secretary-General, and the Assembly itself had been clear – Russia's invasion, and attempted annexation of Ukrainian territory by force, "is illegal".”