A shortened version of this text was published in The Economist.

For most Ukrainians, the Russian invasion divided life into "before" and "after." I am no exception. I was once the Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine. Today, I serve in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, working on issues related to the law of war, including the collection of evidence from the battlefield (battlefield forensics). For a period, I lived in a dugout near Pokrovsk, witnessing firsthand the courageous defense of Ukrainian lands and people.

Our losses are enormous. There is almost no time to reflect. And yet, I cannot stop thinking about my former work – specifically, about how the system of international justice is failing. Russia seeks to evade accountability for its crimes – and, to some extent, it is succeeding.

Ukraine and its partners are currently weighing a U.S.-Russian peace plan that proposes "full amnesty for wartime actions," with the parties "agreeing not to bring claims or settle further disputes." However, a blanket amnesty fundamentally contradicts international law, as no state can nullify the gravest crimes. If such provisions are adopted, they will entrench impunity and undermine the foundations of the international legal order, including efforts to establish a Special Tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. To fully understand what is at stake, it is worth recalling the path Ukraine has taken.

​​Before the full-scale war, I organized and coordinated Ukraine's investigations into war crimes. I began in 2016 as a prosecutor for the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, and later as Deputy Prosecutor General. Prior to that, there was no systematic work on international crimes in Ukraine, as the field was unfamiliar and underdeveloped. Even the legal classification of events at the time was, to say the least, inaccurate. Back then, I believed that if we collected enough evidence – documenting every destroyed building, every injured civilian, every extrajudicial killing – justice would inevitably prevail. But it turned out to be far more complicated.

We are documenting international crimes, and new evidence emerges every day. That is why justice today is as strategic a necessity as victory itself. Justice – not revenge. Deoccupying territory alone does not guarantee justice. True justice can only be achieved through a comprehensive set of measures, including holding perpetrators accountable.

​​Yet many still misunderstand the roots of this war. Some trace it to 2022, others to 2014. In reality, Russia's campaign to erase Ukrainian identity has spanned centuries – from suppressing language and culture to undermining statehood. This is not merely a war over territory. It is a war for Ukraine's very existence.

When talks of ceasefires resurface, one fact must be stated clearly: there can be no genuine, lasting peace without justice. In March 2022, during negotiations in Istanbul, Russia tried to compel Ukraine to renounce its legal claims. The Russian memorandum submitted in June 2025 again demanded that Ukraine abandon any "mutual claims" regarding committed crimes. These attempts continue even now. Ukraine is being offered the illusion of peace in exchange for its territory and for justice.

Justice, or a mere imitation of it?

Achieving justice has always been a challenge for the international community and has often been perceived as the prerogative of the "victors." In the age of hybrid wars, identifying these "victors" is far more difficult. The situation becomes even more troubling when the victim state itself is expected to prosecute the aggressor. Ukrainian courts are not the centuries-old Old Bailey of London. They lack both the institutional capacity and the international legitimacy required for such trials. Investigating hundreds of thousands of incidents requires the involvement of a credible international mechanism.

Some proposed models may appear convincing on paper, but they are unlikely to stand up in practice. For instance, creating a "regional" tribunal under the auspices of the Council of Europe may seem logical, yet its jurisdiction is limited, and even its launch is currently at risk. Moreover, under such a model, the highest-ranking Russian officials – the president, prime minister, and foreign minister – those who bear the greatest responsibility, would likely remain protected by immunity.

One promising solution could be the creation of a hybrid justice mechanism that would cover the full spectrum of international crimes: aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Hybrid models have already proven their effectiveness: in Sierra Leone, a sitting head of state was prosecuted, and in Bosnia and Herzegovina, international expertise was integrated into the national system. Another noteworthy example is the Central African Republic, which could provide valuable lessons for Ukraine.

Such partnerships not only ensure justice but also strengthen national legal institutions. Until 2019, Ukraine had almost no infrastructure for investigating international crimes. Even today, it lacks the experience and capacity to handle the most complex cases independently. The involvement of international judges and prosecutors is essential to ensure that investigations are credible and authoritative.

Impunity is contagious

Justice for Ukraine is justice for the world. If a nuclear-armed state can invade another country and commit atrocities without consequence, what meaning do international norms truly have?

We are witnessing the erosion of international criminal justice. Mongolia and Tajikistan have refused to execute the ICC's arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin. The United States has imposed sanctions on officials of the Court itself. Hungary has effectively halted its cooperation with the ICC. These actions undermine the only permanent court charged with prosecuting the gravest crimes. The Court also faces challenges from within. In the early stages of an institution's development, the human factor is crucial, as this work demands dedication and a commitment to justice. The recent removal of the ICC prosecutor, following a year of allegations of misconduct, represents yet another fracture in the fragile structure of international justice.

The ICC can issue arrest warrants, but without enforcement, they remain largely symbolic. If the Court cannot ensure its own decisions are respected, what hope can a newly established tribunal have? Russia and other states are actively undermining the very concept of universal jurisdiction. They ridicule the Court, threaten its judges, and hide behind diplomacy. If impunity becomes the norm, international justice loses all meaning.

Yet I have not lost hope. We continue to collect evidence, now as part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Near Pokrovsk, I witnessed Russian forces shooting Ukrainian prisoners at point-blank range. I saw wounded Ukrainian soldiers executed despite offering no resistance. Such brutality keeps all of us focused on the pursuit of justice.

Russia's war is a test of the international legal order. If these crimes go unpunished, it will send a clear message that might makes right and that borders can be redrawn through violence. The harsh reality is that Ukraine cannot uphold justice alone. The world must actively defend the standards it claims to uphold. Declared values such as human dignity and justice carry weight only when grounded in virtue – wisdom, integrity, and true commitment to justice. Only by practicing these virtues, rather than merely proclaiming them, can the legal and moral order that sustains a free world be preserved.