What is the Legal Basis of Russia's Claim to the Annexation of Ukrainian Territory?

5:41 PM Sunday.

My comment on Daniel Davis: Russia Preparing Retaliation | Oreshnik Deployed & Seizing Odessa: 

Russia has valid security interests. So does the West. Those can be negotiated. What doesn't seem able to be negotiated without completely tearing up international law is Russia's annexation of Ukrainian territory. Is Russia now recognizing Israel's annexation of the Syrian Golan? Does Trump's recognition of defensive Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights set a precedent for Russia's defensive annexation of Ukrainian territory? Perhaps Russia claims that it has both a historical and defensive right to the annexation of Ukrainian territory. If so, perhaps this right should apply to all of Ukraine. Why shouldn't Ukraine and Russia agree to settle the question in a contentious case at the ICJ? Russia's disrespect for the Court is not consistent with its responsibilities as UNSC P5 Member.

A rebuttal from @kgbgb3663:

What a ridiculous argument. Have you never heard of the principle of Self-Determination of Peoples? Or the recently Western-invented principle of the Responsibility to Protect? The Russian-speakers of east Ukraine exercised their self-determination to leave a state that wanted to exterminate them and join a state that wanted to protect them. Almost the exact opposite of the situation in the Golan.

My response:

I have heard of both the Self-Determination of Peoples and R2P, but I am not sure I would classify R2P as Western, given the history of its development with Kofi Annan and ICISS. It sounds like you are saying that Moscow is not making a historical claim for the reunification of Mother Russia, or a defensive annexation claim (as Israel has in the Golan) in response to NATO encroachment, but rather an R2P annexation argument in response to a cultural genocide of Russian-speakers in the eastern Ukraine. Have I understood you correctly?

End 5:47 PM.