The invasion was not at all defensive as defined in U.N. charter article 51. This war is a direct violation of article 2. Russia is a party to the charter, this

The invasion was not at all defensive as defined in U.N. charter article 51. This war is a direct violation of article 2. Russia is a party to the charter, this war is expressly prohibited under it. Russia is also a party to the Budapest Memorandum in which they recognized Ukraine's sovereignty and 1994 borders, with the only condition being Ukraine become a non-nuclear nation under the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty. Had Ukraine been a member of NATO or the EU would Russia have invaded? Almost certainly not, and that's because of the credible use of overwhelming military power to repel such an attempt. Why is the U.N. system inadequate in this case? Article 39 and 41 give the Security Council the power to repel breaches to the peace using armed force. But Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council and thus effectively has a veto vote (lack of consent to use armed forces against itself is a certain outcome). This exposes a real problem when the belligerent is a member of the Security Council. And as Russia cannot be trusted to honor their agreements, and the U.N. Security Council in matters involving Russian aggression can't be depended on, it is completely reasonable for the EU to bring in Ukraine and Georgia as members rather than have Russia initiate yet another war right on Europe's doorstep. This is the third time Putin has waged an aggressive war without provocation or any compelling case for defense. And hopefully it still is a post-WW2 world. Putin is seemingly making a case of a pre-WW2 view of "might makes right" without any international system of peacefully resolving disputes. He's certainly not bound by any agreements. It's a recipe for a very expensive second Cold War.