With potential peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine on the horizon, the future of international accountability for Russia’s war crimes faces increasing uncertainty. Fredrik Wesslau, a distinguished policy fellow at the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies, warns that failing to establish a tribunal before any agreement is reached could lead to a dangerous precedent.
The ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war has raised global concerns, particularly amid signals from former U.S. President Donald Trump that indicate a shift in Washington’s stance toward Moscow. Since taking office in January, Trump has advocated for direct negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow to end the war. His approach, coupled with past controversial statements—including suggestions about annexing Greenland and Canada—reinforces the importance of an international tribunal to send a clear message: territorial invasions and war crimes will not go unpunished.
Expert Warns of a ‘Bad Peace Deal’ for Ukraine
In an opinion piece published by Politico on March 18, Wesslau highlighted that a “bad peace deal for Ukraine” is becoming increasingly likely. Such an agreement, he argues, would make justice for Russian war crimes even more elusive than at any time since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022.
The Trump administration’s willingness to negotiate peace on terms favorable to Russia has already led to concerning decisions. A prime example is the U.S. withdrawal from the International Center for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine. This body was established to investigate the leadership’s responsibility for launching the war, and its abandonment signals a weakening commitment to accountability.
“The current U.S. administration is hostile to international justice,” Wesslau states, pointing to sanctions imposed on the International Criminal Court (ICC). These sanctions, which were put in place due to investigations into Israeli officials, now indirectly hamper the ICC’s ability to pursue war crimes cases in Ukraine.
Could Trump Accept Amnesty for Putin?
One of the most alarming possibilities, Wesslau suggests, is that Trump may accept an amnesty clause for Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Kremlin officials involved in the war. Such a move would align with Trump’s broader worldview that “might makes right” and his well-documented admiration for authoritarian leaders like Putin.
Granting amnesty for serious international crimes would not only violate international law but also set a dangerous precedent, encouraging other authoritarian regimes to seize foreign territory without fear of consequences.
Urgent EU Action Needed to Secure Justice
To prevent this outcome, Wesslau urges the European Union to act swiftly before peace negotiations begin. The key, he argues, lies in the establishment of the Special International Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression.
“Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is the original crime that paved the way for all other international crimes committed in Ukraine,” Wesslau emphasizes in his Politico article. Unlike war crimes and genocide, aggression as a crime currently lacks an established international tribunal for prosecution. This gap underscores the need for an ad hoc tribunal.
Nearly 40 countries have been collaborating with Ukraine since 2023 to establish such a tribunal, and Wesslau notes that negotiations are nearing completion. However, if a peace deal includes amnesty provisions, setting up the tribunal afterward would become politically and legally challenging.
Why Establishing the Tribunal Now is Critical
The proposed tribunal would focus on holding Russia’s top leadership accountable for launching the war against Ukraine. Designed as a treaty-based initiative between Ukraine and the Council of Europe, the tribunal would document the origins of the war in a manner similar to the Nuremberg Trials after World War II.
By establishing the tribunal before peace talks begin, it would ensure that accountability mechanisms remain intact, regardless of any political pressures that might arise during negotiations. Furthermore, securing legal frameworks ahead of time would prevent any post-agreement attempts to dismiss war crimes in favor of diplomatic compromise.
As discussions about a potential peace deal gain momentum, global leaders must act decisively to protect justice and uphold international law. Allowing a peace agreement to override accountability efforts would not only weaken Ukraine’s position but also embolden future aggressors worldwide. Establishing the tribunal now is a crucial step in ensuring that war crimes do not go unpunished, regardless of the political landscape.
