For starters, the Donbass republics requested Russia's aid in defending itself prior to Russia starting its military operation in Ukraine. Now, I will grant that Russia has gone beyond the borders of what the Donbass republics held prior to Russia putting boots on the ground in Ukraine, but, at least in so far as the Donbass Republics' referendums, there is a difference between a country going to a place by force and going there by invitation.
Secondly, illegal according to whom? Thirdly, I don't see anyone decrying the elections held in Afghanistan or Iraq when the U.S. was occupying those countries. Forthly, the most important thing isn't that someone's law is being broken, but what is the best thing to do in a given situation. As journalist and science fiction author Frank Herbert once wrote:
"Law always chooses sides on the basis of enforcement power. Morality and legal niceties have little to do with it when the real question is: Who has the clout?"
They were not invited by Ukraine.
I never claimed Ukraine had invited them. I was referring to the Donbass Republics:
**
If he decides to intervene, Vladimir Putin can invoke the international obligation of “
Responsibility To Protect ” (R2P). But he knows that whatever its nature or scale, the intervention will trigger a shower of sanctions. Therefore, whether its intervention is limited to the Donbass or whether it goes further to put pressure on the West for the status of Ukraine, the price to be paid will be the same. This is what he explains in his speech on February 21.
That day, he acceded to the request of the Duma and recognized the independence of the two Republics of Donbass and, in the process, he signed treaties of friendship and assistance with them.
The Ukrainian artillery bombardments on the populations of Donbass continued and, on February 23, the two Republics requested military aid from Russia. On the 24th, Vladimir Putin invokes Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which provides for mutual military assistance within the framework of a defensive alliance.
**
Source:
Jacques Baud, a NATO expert, denounces western coverage of the Ukraine invasion.
scheerpost.com
If the Northwest Territories invited Russia in would Canada lose its territorial sovereignty?
A better example would be the Province of Quebec. Quebec actually had not one, but 2 referendums to leave Canada. Fortunately for Canada, more Quebecers preferred to stay in Canada then leave it:
The Québec referendum of 1980, on the Parti Québécois government’s plans for sovereignty-association, was held in fulfilment of a promise that the party ha...
www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca
Held on 30 October 1995, the referendum on Québec sovereignty was settled by a narrow victory for the “No” camp — as had been the case in the 1980 refere...
www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca
There are good reasons for this. One is that Canada has always respected Quebec's language rights. Compare the Ukrainian government that took power after Euromaidan, which tried to diminish the role of the Russian language the very day after they took power:
**
On the night of 22 February activists of Euromaidan seized the government quarter
[367] left by law enforcement authorities and made a number of new demands—in particular, immediate resignation of the president Yanukovych.
[368] Earlier that day, they stormed into Yanukovych's mansion.
[369]
On 23 February 2014, following the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, the Rada passed a bill that would have altered the
law on languages of minorities, including Russian. The bill would have made Ukrainian the sole state language at all levels.
[370] However, on the next week 1 March, President Turchynov vetoed the bill.
[371]
**
Source:
en.wikipedia.org
If only the Euromaidan crew had learned from that experience, which led to things such as the Donbass rebellion. But no, they continued to push to alter the language law, finally doing so in 2019:
Ukraine’s new language law, passed at the end of the former president’s rule, makes another attempt to divide Ukrainian citizens.
www.opendemocracy.net