“Anniversaries are moments not only for reflection, but for resolve. They remind us that this war is not over, that its consequences are not abstract, and that solidarity must be sustained,” noted our Director of Outreach & Communications, George Leech, as we marked four years since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Ukraine’s Office of the Prosecutor General has registered approximately 200,000 war crimes committed by Russia’s forces. As Ukraine faces mounting pressure to enter negotiations on Moscow’s terms, including proposals for amnesty for Russian combatants, we organised a public discussion at the Václav Havel Library to examine what can still be done to ensure justice for the victims and accountability for those responsible.
The discussion addressed difficult but urgent questions. Could a tribunal for crimes committed by Russia be established? What political and legal obstacles stand in the way of prosecuting those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity? And could those ultimately responsible, including Vladimir Putin, ever be held accountable? The answers, as the speakers agreed, are far from straightforward.
One of the central themes of the evening was Europe’s political response to the war. Valeriya Korablyova, sociologist and Head of the Ukraine in a Changing Europe Research Centre at Charles University, argued that Europe is struggling with a deeper conceptual issue: “The main crisis we’ve been collectively living through is the crisis of political imagination. The way that we cannot imagine an outcome where Russia loses, and we bind to the Kremlin rhetoric that it is a superpower…that is a European problem.”
Korablyova claimed that Russia’s global status has long been inflated by political narratives rather than reality. “We remember, Barack Obama famously called Russia ‘a regional power’, and it was not meant to be an offense. And that is basically the fact. The war was largely initiated by the Kremlin to achieve recognition as if it is a superpower, which it is not by any means,” she stated.
The discussion also focused on the lived reality of the war for Ukrainians themselves and possibilities to preserve cultural heritage, as well as to prevent further damages to the culture. Kateryna Chuyeva, former Deputy Minister of Culture of Ukraine and a cultural heritage expert with the National Interests Advocacy Network, spoke about the human cost of prolonged violence and uncertainty.“If you talk to people and ask, how can you stand for four years? People say: we have no choice,” she explained. “We did not choose it, it happened to us. We are suffering on a daily basis, the cost is enormous, but we have no choice.”
She also highlighted the emotional isolation many Ukrainians feel as the war drags on. “People feel left alone. From this perspective, maintaining any kind of human communication nowadays is as important as donations and all the nice things that have been given and that we’re very grateful for,” Chuyeva said to the audience.
From the perspective of a former investigator with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Vladimír Dzuro described how the nature of evidence has changed since earlier international tribunals. “We had a lack of evidence in ICTY. Now we have information overload,” he said, pointing to the vast amounts of material coming from civilians, journalists, and satellites.
While this creates new opportunities, it also presents serious challenges. Dzuro explains, “It’s actually very difficult for investigators to process it, yet they cannot ignore it, so it becomes very expensive. And the question is whether the international community is willing to put the money in it.” Dzuro also noted the legal limitations of digital evidence. “As soon as you put something on Facebook, the background metadata disappears. The person who is actually bringing it up in a courtroom needs a witness, a person who actually recorded it, so he can testify about it,” Dzuro pointed out from his practical perspective.
He also emphasised that the collected testimonies are time-sensitive: “Some of my colleagues are currently in Ukraine working with the International Criminal Court and other agencies to help Ukrainian prosecutors collect evidence. This needs to happen as quickly as possible, because the longer the time between a crime being committed and investigators being able to collect evidence, the more that evidence deteriorates.”
Together, the speakers underscored that justice for Ukraine is not only a legal challenge, but a political and moral one — and that the choices made by Europe and the international community now will shape whether accountability remains possible at all.
The evening opened with a screening of an excerpt from Divia, a Ukrainian documentary film by Dmytro Hreshko produced with the support of the Prague Civil Society Centre.