idk both =0 tbh

Ukraine is a founding member of UN.

Russia is not

Greenland is not a UN member

Isn't like the main pitch of "post-WW2 consensus of rules-based international order and self-determination/sovereignty" that neither claim has any legitimacy at all? Maybe my understanding is wrong, but I don't feel like there is much room for different shades of legitimacy?

@rayman2000 Violations of sovereignty simply being considered as "zero legitimacy" and as such both equally invalid is a fair point, but in practice international organizations like the UN and ICC are forced to make decisions that clearly focus attention on one evil over another to adhere to broad guidelines like severity, historical connections, humanitarian situation, illegitimacy of the dominant powers, unclear facts, and others. For example, in the conflict between the UPDF and LRA, the ICC focused on the LRA's crimes and not the UPDF's.

@spiderduckpig But I would not equate "attention" with "missing legitimacy". As you state, there are lots of factors that influence what gets how much attention, but I would say that legitimacy is one of those factors, not the outcome of them (and maybe there is valid criticism that other factors are weighted over it).
There may be (e.g. moral or historical) viewpoints from which this question has interesting answers, but specifically the lens "rules-based international order and self-determination" seems pretty clear to me?

Vote