Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Is Donbas Russian or Ukrainian territory? Are there any legitimacy of the Russian Authorities
Executive Summary
Russia does not hold lawful title to the Donbas under widely accepted international law standards, and the self-styled authorities Moscow backs in Donetsk and Luhansk lack recognized legitimacy outside a small set of sympathetic actors; the international community and major rights groups treat Russian annexation, recognitions, and wartime referenda as illegal and invalid. Control on the ground is contested: portions of Donetsk and Luhansk have been under Russian occupation or influence since 2014 and more extensively since 2022, but control does not equal lawful sovereignty, and legal and diplomatic institutions continue to treat these lands as part of Ukraine [1] [2] [3]. Domestic governance structures imposed or supported by Russia may attain limited internal effectiveness, yet their external non-recognition and the circumstances of their creation—coercion, military occupation, and sham votes—undercut claims to legitimacy [4] [5].
1. The Claim: Who says Donbas is Russian — and on what grounds?
Russian authorities and the proxy administrations in Donetsk and Luhansk assert statehood or incorporation largely on political and strategic grounds, citing historical ties, alleged protection of Russian speakers, and staged local consent through referenda; these claims are presented as justification for recognition or annexation. International legal scholars and Western governments counter that these narratives ignore key legal principles—most centrally the prohibition on acquiring territory by force and respect for existing borders—and point to violations of the Minsk framework and Ukraine’s territorial integrity as decisive legal obstacles to Russian claims. Strategic and symbolic motives do not create legal title, and analysts stress that Moscow’s assertions are pragmatic assertions of control rather than grounded legal transfers of sovereignty [6] [7] [8].
2. The Law: Why most states and institutions say the Russian acts are illegal
Multiple authoritative analyses conclude that Russia’s recognition of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR), and subsequent annexation-like steps, breach international law principles, including non-intervention and prohibition on conquest, rendering those acts void in the eyes of most states and international bodies. International organizations, including the United Nations and rights groups, have repeatedly emphasized that any change in territorial sovereignty produced under military occupation or coercion lacks legitimacy; the duty of non-recognition is invoked to prevent acceptance of outcomes obtained through force. Legal assessments underscore that bilateral or unilateral recognitions by a foreign power cannot retroactively validate territorial seizures carried out in violation of treaty obligations and UN Charter norms [2] [7] [3].
3. The Ground Reality: Control, occupation, and everyday governance in Donbas
Since 2014—and in a far more comprehensive way after 2022—Russia and Russia-backed authorities have administered territories in Donetsk and Luhansk, providing security, public services, and bureaucratic functions that can create de facto governance and some level of local order. Scholarly work on “internal legitimacy” shows such entities may achieve practical acceptance by parts of the population through service provision, coercion, or limited political inclusion, producing a gap between de facto authority and de jure sovereignty. Nevertheless, occupation-era governance is shaped by external military dependence, population displacement, and human-rights abuses documented by international observers; effectiveness at local governance does not resolve the sovereignty question or negate international non-recognition [5] [1] [4].
4. The Referenda and Recognition: Why votes held during occupation are widely dismissed
Referenda organized under military occupation or overt political control are broadly characterized as sham exercises by human-rights organizations and many states because they fail to meet standards of free expression, impartial administration, and voluntary participation; Amnesty and other monitors deemed the 2022-era votes illegitimate and part of a deliberate strategy to manufacture consent. A handful of states endorsed or recognized these outcomes, reflecting geopolitical alignments rather than a consensus-building process; partial recognition by politically aligned states does not undo the broader international repudiation and remains insufficient to establish lawful territorial transfer under customary or treaty-based international law [4] [3] [1].
5. The Big Picture: Implications for diplomacy, security, and Ukraine’s sovereignty
The long-term status of Donbas remains tied to military realities, diplomatic negotiations, and enforcement of legal norms: continued non-recognition by the majority of the international community preserves Ukraine’s territorial claims, constrains Moscow’s ability to legitimize annexation, and shapes sanctions and accountability measures aimed at reversing or penalizing territorial grabs. Policymakers face a choice between insisting on legal restoration of borders and exploring pragmatic stabilization measures that protect civilians; the discrepancy between de facto control and de jure sovereignty will continue to fuel legal, humanitarian, and security challenges until a negotiated resolution or a decisive shift in control occurs [6] [2] [3].