This study investigates the role of historical and identity-based claims in Russia’s discourse and actions regarding the Ukraine conflict, analyzing their significance against binding principles of international law. Employing a mixed-methods approach, the research combines thematic analysis to identify dominant meanings and narratives in official documents and political statements, with quantitative content analysis to measure the frequency and weight of these claims relative to established legal norms. The qualitative phase revealed recurring themes such as “historical legitimacy,” “protection of Russian-speaking populations,” “Russkiy Mir,” and “preservation of civilizational heritage,” demonstrating that Russia’s historical and identity-based discourse functions primarily as a framework for internal justification and political positioning. However, the quantitative findings indicate that these narratives have limited influence in legal practice: in 18 advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice, references to historical or identity factors accounted for only 10–20% of citations, while core legal principles—including non-use of force, territorial integrity, and non-intervention—constituted over 75% of effective references. Similarly, state documents show high rhetorical emphasis on historical claims but comparatively low legal weight. By linking thematic insights with measurable patterns, this study highlights the gap between political discourse and legal authority and underscores the necessity of multilateral, law-based mechanisms for peaceful resolution of territorial disputes.