The three types of war crimes that the Russians committed during their invasion of Ukraine

Vladimir Putin will not be remembered as the president who transformed Russia and placed it at the top of its history. On the contrary, he will go down in history as the man who committed war crimes during the invasion he ordered to perpetrate Ukraine on February 24 to take over the country, change its president and keep a large portion of its natural resources with which to continue extorting the world. That is what most international analysts say. But how can the Russian head of state be seated in front of an international court?

The Economist raises other crimes that could place him in front of judges in The Hague, recalling what were the trials against the Nazi hierarchs after the end of World War II. “The battlefield tests confirm that the Russians have committed at least three types of crimes in the war,” the magazine notes.

“The first are war crimes”, notes the publication, stating that these are well defined in international jurisdiction. “The Geneva Conventions, which Russia has signed, define war crimes as intentional murder, deliberately causing great suffering, deliberately attacking civilians and destroying or appropriating property. Summary executions in Bucha would be war crimes. So would the bombing of the Mariupol theater, which was the largest bomb shelter in the city and had the Russian word 'children' written in letters large enough to be seen from the sky. The Geneva Conventions determine what international legal obligations are in all military actions. It doesn't matter that Russia has not formally declared war in Ukraine.”

Vladimir Putin will not be remembered as the president who transformed Russia and placed it at the top of its history. On the contrary, he will go down in history as the man who committed war crimes during the invasion he ordered to perpetrate Ukraine on February 24 to take over the country, change its president and keep a large portion of its natural resources with which to continue extorting the world. That is what most international analysts say. But how can the Russian head of state be seated in front of an international court?

The Economist raises other crimes that could place him in front of judges in The Hague, recalling what were the trials against the Nazi hierarchs after the end of World War II. “The battlefield tests confirm that the Russians have committed at least three types of crimes in the war,” the magazine notes.

“The first are war crimes”, notes the publication, stating that these are well defined in international jurisdiction. “The Geneva Conventions, which Russia has signed, define war crimes as intentional murder, deliberately causing great suffering, deliberately attacking civilians and destroying or appropriating property. Summary executions in Bucha would be war crimes. So would the bombing of the Mariupol theater, which was the largest bomb shelter in the city and had the Russian word 'children' written in letters large enough to be seen from the sky. The Geneva Conventions determine what international legal obligations are in all military actions. It doesn't matter that Russia has not formally declared war in Ukraine.”

Secondly, The Economist lists, the invasion ordered by Putin 41 days ago constitutes itself a crime beyond the methods used. “It is a crime of aggression. This is explained in the statutes of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which judges individuals for actions under international law. The ICC defines aggression as invasion, military occupation, land annexation, shelling and blocking ports.”

Thirdly, “the magnitude of Russian actions around Kiev (and elsewhere) clearly suggests that Russia is guilty of crimes against humanity. The ICC defines this as participation and knowledge of 'a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population'. Thousands of Ukrainians have been killed and more than 4 million have been expelled abroad.”

However, the publication finds it difficult that this could happen since Moscow will systematically reject not only the accusations but the jurisdiction of the international tribunals. Even if Putin were expelled from power, his successor could decide to continue to protect him in order to avoid international justice. Nor could it be forced by the statutes of the United Nations where Russia has veto power. “Judicial proceedings will continue and are likely to be a further setback to Russia's legal case and diplomatic position. Meanwhile, Ukraine's allies will have to find other ways to increase pressure on Putin. Among them, more sanctions and more lethal weapons for Ukraine,” says the media.

“Even before the horrors revealed by Russia's withdrawal from Kiev, NATO allies had begun to offer heavier weapons. The New York Times reported on April 1 that the Biden administration planned to transfer Soviet-made T-72 tanks to reinforce Ukrainian forces in the Donbas region. These would be the first tanks provided to Ukraine by the United States, which had previously insisted that its military aid was purely defensive. On March 16, Britain began providing Ukrainians with its advanced Starstreak anti-aircraft missile; on April 1, a video showed how a Starstreak apparently shot down a Russian helicopter. Other advanced weaponry is likely to be offered soon. As well as another round of sanctions, the fifth in all,” said The Economist.

Horror in Bucha

Russia denied that its soldiers executed civilians before their withdrawal in Bucha, and today its UN ambassador, Vasili Nebenzia, assured that its soldiers left the city and only days later the bodies appeared in the streets. “It was a setup,” he said at a press conference. However, satellite images published by The New York Times contradict the Russian version of the massacre in Bucha, the Ukrainian city where they appeared this weekend dozens of civilian bodies, some tied up or in mass graves.

They show that the bodies that can be scattered on the streets were over a week ago, when Putin's invading troops were still in Bucha.

KEEP READING: