Hybrid tribunal or umbrella for Putin?

I don't know whether it was at someone's suggestion or a less than pure intention that back in 2014 the Russian invasion of Crimea and Donbas was called a hybrid war. At the same time, different meanings were put into this concept: combining information operations with military operations, using forces “under a false flag,” and so on. Thus, the community became accustomed to these vagueness and uncertainty, because it was easier to nominate the whole complex of hostile actions with a short phrase, and that was that.

Now that Putin has invaded Ukraine not in a 'non-hybrid' way, but in an open and bold one, and the failure of his bloody venture has become no less clear, lawyers are talking about 'hybridity'. At the end of last week in Lviv, they argued over the formats of a tribunal for the Kremlin war criminal and his henchmen, using a veritable cannonade of legal arguments, legislative novels, and emotions.

“Ukrainians insist on the creation of a special international tribunal under the auspices of the United Nations, which would open up opportunities for fair and deserved punishment of violators of the current world order responsible for aggression, genocide and other war crimes committed against the Ukrainian people. Opponents of this position say that an easier and, in their opinion, more effective way is to create a so-called 'hybrid tribunal'”

Ukrainians insist on the creation of a special international tribunal under the auspices of the United Nations, which would open up opportunities for fair and deserved punishment of violators of the current world order responsible for aggression, genocide and other war crimes committed against the Ukrainian people. Opponents of this position say that an easier and, in their opinion, more effective way is to create a so-called 'hybrid tribunal'. Kyiv objects, saying that this format of the trial will open up the possibility for Putin, Lavrov, and Mishustin (the head of the Russian government) to avoid punishment, and minor characters will be in the dock. Moreover, the Ukrainian President's Office believes that the fullness of guilt, and therefore adequate punishment, should be guaranteed by the International Criminal Court (ICC), prosecutors of which, together with Ukrainians, are already collecting the necessary materials to organize the trial. They are collecting it, but the ICC has no authority to investigate the crime of Russian aggression against Ukraine. Not only because of the lack of authority, but also because of another small detail: Ukraine has not yet ratified the Rome Statute, the founding document for the International Criminal Court.

Why? This is the topic of a separate publication, but I would like to emphasize that, in my opinion, the arguments of our government do not stand up to criticism.

That is why Bankova (presidential administration – ed.) is promoting the idea of creating a special tribunal for Putin and his gang among its partners (and a number of bilateral agreements have already been signed). In Lviv, Zelenskyy voiced this idea, emphasizing that a successful vote at the UN General Assembly is needed to start. The president's focus is on the investigation and punishment of the crime of aggression (and there is no doubt that this crime was committed by the top leadership of the Russian Federation). This is understandable. The path chosen by Ukraine and its like-minded countries – voting at the General Assembly – is also understandable. A meeting of the UN Security Council is not suitable for this – Russia still rules the roost on Ukrainian issues there, as it has the right to veto any decision that Moscow does not like. Moreover, from April 1, Russia is going to preside (in turn) (a bitter mockery of common sense!) in the Security Council.

“The EU countries are ready to vote for the Ukrainian project (not all of them are). But, apart from them, at least 90 countries should support the creation of a special tribunal for Putin. Can Ukrainian diplomacy convince those members of the international community who still directly or indirectly support the Russian regime?”

But a General Assembly resolution is not an easy way to go either. The EU countries are ready to vote for the Ukrainian project (not all of them are). But, in addition to them, at least 90 countries should support the creation of a special tribunal for Putin. Can Ukrainian diplomacy convince those members of the international community who still directly or indirectly support the Russian regime? This is a rhetorical question…

Judge Stephen Rapp of the People's Court in The Hague said that “Ukraine cannot try Putin. Gerasimov, yes, even Shoigu, but not the head of state or the prime minister. That's why we need an international court. All it takes is a vote in the UN General Assembly.”

Mr. Rapp, however, adds that he doubts the promptness and inevitability of punishment, even if the special tribunal releases its verdict. “Will such a tribunal, once established, be able to immediately take Putin into custody? The answer is no. But the presence of charges will make him an international pariah... We may see a regime change in Russia when other people come to power.”

“In my opinion, there is only one way to punish Putin – Russia must be defeated on the battlefield. And such a crushing defeat that would prevent the Kremlin and its most important 'strategist' from presenting it as a possible 'victory'”

In short, in my opinion, there is only one way to punish Putin – Russia must be defeated on the battlefield. And such a crushing defeat that would not allow the Kremlin and its most important 'strategist' to present it as a possible 'victory'. A defeat that even the potential defendants at the future tribunal – Russian top propagandists and speakers like Shakhnazarov – have already begun to speak openly about. All of them are afraid of responsibility, and accordingly, they will do everything to focus the blame on one figure.

A defeat recognized by the Russian business elites, who are still (on their own initiative, out of habit, under duress) financing the genocidal war.

A defeat that the average citizen, who has been brainwashed by imperial propaganda, will eventually have to accept.

“The only thing that inspires optimism is that regardless of when and in what format a tribunal for Putin is created, crimes of this kind have no statute of limitations.”

Only then is there hope that, as retired Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, former commander of the US Army in Europe, says, Putin will be “kicked out of the Kremlin.” “We have to tell everyone around Putin, all the elites: “You, you, you, you, and you will all be hanged for war crimes as soon as the international tribunal starts working. You will be held accountable. We have to say this publicly.”

The only thing that inspires optimism is that regardless of when and in what format a tribunal for Putin is created, crimes of this kind have no statute of limitations. Therefore, Russia, or what is left of it, will definitely be punished. If it is otherwise, the world must be prepared for the resuscitation of evil and, accordingly, for a repeat of the Ukrainian horror.

About the author. Ihor Hulyk, journalist, editor-in-chief of the Espreso.Zahid website. 

The editors do not always share the opinions expressed by the authors of the blogs.