v1.2

I. International Complicity in the Organization of Internal Terror in Ukraine

The European Union, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Japan, and other donor states bear direct international legal responsibility for complicity in organizing large-scale internal terror on the territory of Ukraine. By continuing to provide multibillion-dollar unconditional funding to the Ukrainian regime in the context of official derogation from its human rights obligations, these states effectively ensure the uninterrupted operation of a repressive apparatus committing systematic international crimes.

Part of the donor countries’ funds is directed toward financing:

• Forced mobilization of citizens, including elements of violence, criminal prosecution for refusal, and the hunting of men both inside the country and abroad;

• Systematic abductions, disappearances, extrajudicial detentions, and torture;

• Killings of civilians during raids, street arrests, and “deployments” to the front without medical examination or legal procedures;

• Obstruction of evacuation — including border closures, bans on exit, denial of documents, and the capture of men near checkpoints and border areas;

• Mass unlawful restrictions on freedoms — including freedom of movement, expression, access to justice, and religious and civil rights;

• Dismantling of freedom of speech: arrests of journalists, media censorship, shutdowns of independent internet platforms, and monopolization of the information space;

• • Violent intrusions into places of worship,

• • Seizures and closures of churches,

  • Criminal prosecution of clergy,

  • Administrative bans on canonical services,

  • Destruction of the Church’s canonical succession as an institution historically tied to the identity and faith of millions of citizens;

    Repressions against religious communities, especially the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, including:

• Administrative pressure on refugees abroad — via consulates and passport services, where incidents have been recorded of:

  • Refusal to issue or renew documents;

  • Forced military registration without consent;

  • Transfer of personal data to Ukrainian military commissariats;

  • Blackmail, threats, and denial of assistance based on Ukrainian citizenship.

This funding is provided:

• Without human rights conditions, international monitoring mechanisms, or restrictions on how the funds may be used;

• With full public awareness on the part of donor states regarding the nature of the violations — documented not only by international human rights organizations and UN bodies but also confirmed by hundreds of thousands of refugee testimonies within their jurisdictions, as well as by a vast array of open-source materials from social media, media reports, and civic investigations;

• In a context where Ukraine has officially withdrawn from key international obligations, including individual human rights protections (derogations from the ECHR and ICCPR).

Silence and the continued unconditional funding of a regime that systematically violates human rights, dismantles elections, destroys religious institutions, and mobilizes the population under threat of repression — this is not neutrality, and it is not humanitarian support. It is international complicity in crimes against humanity, falling under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court pursuant to Article 25(3)(d) of the Rome Statute, as well as the UN Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001).

According to Article 56 of the UN Charter, member states undertake to act jointly to promote and observe human rights. Failure to fulfill this obligation, and the conscious assistance to a regime that commits internationally wrongful acts, entails direct responsibility — both for aiding and abetting crimes against humanity and for violating the fundamental principles of international law.

 

II. Repressive Infrastructure: How Donor Funds Are Actually Used

The financial assistance provided to Ukraine by the European Union, the United States, the United Kingdom, and other states is being systematically directed toward funding institutions involved in internal repression, political persecution, and the dismantling of civil society. These funds are used to directly sustain agencies responsible for widespread violations of international law and fundamental human rights.

Specifically, the following elements of the repressive apparatus are being financed:

• Territorial Recruitment Centers (TRCs):

TRCs conduct not only overt forced mobilization and abductions of citizens in public spaces but also covert operations involving systematic deprivation of liberty without legal grounds. Detentions occur in the streets, at railway stations, markets, and near borders — without any judicial procedure or access to legal protection. These actions violate Articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Articles 3 and 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Many TRCs operate illegal closed facilities, including basements, where men who refuse to sign mobilization orders or otherwise express dissent are unlawfully detained. These individuals are held for days, weeks, or months without formal status, without notifying their families, without access to lawyers, and without the right to appeal. Thousands of video records from such places are publicly available and widely circulated.

Conditions of detention closely resemble those of penitentiary institutions: beds, minimal food, complete isolation, and psychological pressure aimed at breaking the will of detainees. The main goal is to obtain a “voluntary” signature or to fabricate consent. There have also been reports of the use of gas in closed rooms causing suffocation and panic attacks, which may qualify as torture under the UN Convention Against Torture and Article 7 of the Rome Statute.

There have also been documented cases of emergency medical teams being denied access to Territorial Recruitment Centers (TRCs) even in critical situations. This violates the norms of international humanitarian law and creates zones effectively removed from the rule of law, where mobilization authorities operate without judicial oversight.

A matter of particular concern is that officers of the National Police refuse to intervene, citing unofficial bans or fear — indicating the de facto autonomous and unlawful status of these institutions. TRCs thus perform not only mobilization functions but also operate as an extrajudicial penitentiary network outside the judicial system.

Given the nature of these conditions and their targeted application against a specific demographic group (men of conscription age), such actions fall under the definition of deliberate infliction of conditions calculated to bring about the partial destruction of a group — as defined in Article II(c) of the 1948 Genocide Convention.

Despite the presence of documented evidence and video materials, funding for TRCs continues through international donors under budgetary support programs, macro-financial assistance, and direct transfers. The absence of human rights conditions and oversight mechanisms renders these transfers legally qualifiable as international complicity in crimes against humanity and acts bearing signs of genocide.

• Security Service of Ukraine (SBU):

The SBU is regularly used for illegal surveillance, fabrication of criminal charges, politically motivated arrests, persecution of dissenters, and suppression of independent media. These actions violate both Article 19 of the ICCPR (freedom of expression) and Article 7 (prohibition of cruel and degrading treatment). The SBU receives funding via “budget support” and targeted assistance programs in the field of “national security.”

• Ministry of Internal Affairs and National Police:

These agencies are involved in repression against civil activists, representatives of religious communities, and the opposition. Their routine operations include arbitrary detentions, property seizures, and violent raids — in complete disregard of Articles 9 and 17 of the ICCPR, as well as Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR.

• The digital system “Oberig” and other registries:

Designed for collecting data on citizens — including those abroad — surveillance, and coordination of mobilization and punitive actions. These digital systems, created with technical assistance from Western partners, are used as instruments of repressive control and intimidation. They violate the right to privacy, freedom of movement, and personal security (Articles 12 of the ICCPR, and Articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR).

Legally significant facts:

• No aid package contains legally binding restrictions on the use of funds for repressive agencies.

• No agreement provides for the suspension of funding in case of human rights violations.

• No donor country demands Ukraine’s compliance with basic international human rights standards — despite systematic violations confirmed in reports by the UN, HRW, Amnesty International, and independent media.

Conclusion:

The financing of Ukraine’s repressive infrastructure by Western countries is being carried out deliberately, with full awareness of the consequences. This makes donor states not merely observers but direct accomplices in the commission of widespread human rights violations — falling under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (Article 7 of the Rome Statute) and the definition of state complicity in crimes against humanity and genocide.

 

III. Documented Awareness of Donor States: Intent and Complicity in International Crimes

The donor states — the European Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom, and others  — cannot invoke ignorance regarding the systematic human rights violations occurring in Ukraine. The volume of information, available sources, and control mechanisms at their disposal excludes the possibility of innocent unawareness. Under international law (including Article 25(3)(d) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court), such conduct qualifies as intentional complicity in crimes against humanity.

Legally significant facts:

• Mass personal testimonies from Ukrainian refugees:

Over four million Ukrainians are officially registered as temporarily displaced in EU countries, and approximately 250,000 in the United States. Virtually all of them are either direct witnesses or victims of systemic repression — or have relatives subjected to violence, forced mobilization, abductions, unlawful detention, arrests of clergy, media censorship, closure of political parties, and other forms of destruction of the Ukrainian ethnic group.

Tens of thousands of official asylum cases filed within the jurisdictions of donor countries contain documented evidence of persecution, threats, killings, torture, filtration procedures, and repressive policies. These statements have been submitted as sworn testimony under legal liability. These are not hypothetical claims — they serve as the legal basis for international procedures and constitute a systematic body of evidence, confirmed within the domestic legal systems of the donor states themselves.

Accordingly, the governments of the EU, the US, and the UK have direct access to millions of data points within their jurisdiction, eliminating any pretense of ignorance and establishing a legally meaningful awareness.

Moreover, the systematic concealment of the content of these testimonies from their own populations, the absence of any public legal response, and the simultaneous continuation of funding Ukraine’s repressive structures — despite such awareness — constitutes indicators of criminal conduct not only at the international level but also within the framework of the donor states’ own national jurisdictions.

The sworn testimonies of Ukrainian refugees are officially recorded in the immigration and humanitarian law systems of the EU, US, and UK. According to their domestic laws, this evidence should have triggered investigations, sanctions, and the suspension of support lacking human rights conditions.

The absence of such measures, despite the existence of legal evidence within their own systems, makes the donor states complicit — both under international law and within their own national legal frameworks.

• Open Digital Evidence Base:

Hundreds of videos and publicly available media posts document systematic abductions of civilians, street violence, arbitrary arrests, raids by Territorial Recruitment Centers (TRCs), the closure of churches and media outlets. These materials are available in the public domain (YouTube, Telegram, TikTok, X/Twitter) and accessible to the analytical services and governments of donor states.

• Direct Diplomatic Presence and Involvement:

Embassies, military attachés, USAID personnel, the European External Action Service, and other representatives of international missions are permanently present on Ukrainian territory and maintain direct contact with the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), the Ministry of Defense, and other structures involved in repression. Their observations are regularly reported to national governments. The absence of reaction in the face of full awareness constitutes legally significant silent acquiescence.

• Disregard for International Reports and Official Findings:

Despite documented evidence of widespread violations presented by UN missions, the OSCE, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other organizations, not a single governmental body in the donor states has initiated a legal or political response as required by international law. This constitutes a breach of the obligations under Article 1 of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

• Official Derogation Notices as Legal Evidence of Conscious Complicity:

Particular legal weight in assessing international complicity lies in Ukraine’s official notifications of derogation from international human rights obligations — notifications that were registered and received by the donor states:

On March 16, 2022, Ukraine submitted an official notification to the Council of Europe of its derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), citing its inability to guarantee compliance with:

• Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life),

• Article 10 (freedom of expression),

• Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association),

• Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement).

On March 1, 2022, Ukraine submitted a formal notification to the United Nations under Article 4(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), declaring a derogation of obligations due to the imposition of martial law following the Russian invasion.

The notification stated that Ukraine could not temporarily guarantee full compliance with several provisions of the Covenant, including but not limited to:

• Article 9 – Right to liberty and security of person

• Article 12 – Freedom of movement

• Article 17 – Right to privacy and protection of family life

• Article 19 – Freedom of expression

• Articles 21 and 22 – Freedom of assembly and association

Additional derogations were later specified in the amended communication submitted on March 4, 2022, encompassing rights under a wider range of ICCPR articles and corresponding provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Both documents were officially registered and published by international organizations. They apply to the entire territory of Ukraine and contain no exceptions for regions or categories of citizens. Thus, donor states were officially notified of Ukraine’s suspension of fundamental rights — including rights directly related to the protection of the Ukrainian ethnic group.

Since the introduction of martial law on 24 February 2022, Ukraine has consistently and systematically restricted constitutional and internationally recognized human rights, officially notifying the Council of Europe in accordance with Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Between March 2022 and February 2025, Ukraine submitted 19 official derogation notifications, each accompanied by an extension of the martial law regime and the imposition of additional restrictions. These measures affected a broad range of rights, including:

• the right to liberty and personal security (Article 5),

• the right to a fair trial (Article 6),

• the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8),

• freedom of expression (Article 10),

• freedom of assembly and association (Article 11),

• the right to an effective legal remedy (Article 13),

• as well as the fundamental principles of non-discrimination, freedom of conscience, and the prohibition of forced labour (Articles 4.3, 9, 14, 16).

Of particular concern is the fact that the restrictions targeted precisely those articles which serve as fundamental safeguards against arbitrariness: the right to personal freedom, judicial protection, freedom of belief, and peaceful assembly.

Only in April 2024 did Ukraine partially withdraw derogations under five articles (4.3, 9, 13, 14, 16). However, the majority of the restrictions remained in force, including derogations under Articles 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 13. This means that until early 2025, Ukrainian citizens remained subject to a legal regime under which the following were permitted:

• detention without immediate judicial oversight,

• simplified procedures for investigation and arrest,

• remote interrogations without the physical presence of a defence lawyer,

• restrictions on public gatherings and expression of opinion,

• compelled participation in investigative actions, and other measures incompatible with the spirit of the Convention’s legal standards.

The official legal justification for these derogations was the alleged impossibility of complying with legal procedures during wartime, which in practice became a mechanism for institutionalizing legal arbitrariness. Article 615 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, in its wartime version, explicitly permits the automatic extension of pre-trial detention, indefinite postponement of investigations, and the admissibility of evidence obtained without procedural guarantees.

Thus, the derogation regime in Ukraine has assumed the character of a normalized system of rights restrictions, operating for three consecutive years without adequate mechanisms of compensation, legal protection, or international oversight. This warrants a legal assessment as a systematic state withdrawal from its human rights obligations.

Legal Significance:

• The continuation of unconditional funding in the presence of official derogations rules out any possibility of good-faith ignorance on the part of donor states.

• The absence of human rights conditions in financial agreements establishes conscious and direct culpability of donors.

• Ignoring these derogations while continuing assistance constitutes legally qualifiable international complicity in the destruction of the Ukrainian ethnic group.

In accordance with Article III(e) of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, complicity in genocide is an independent international crime. Moreover, Article I of the Convention obliges each state not only to refrain from committing genocide but also to take active measures to prevent it.

Accordingly, any state that continued to fund Ukraine after receiving these notifications bears direct legal responsibility as an accomplice in the creation and maintenance of conditions leading to the partial destruction of the Ukrainian ethnic group — within the meaning of Article II(c) of the aforementioned Convention.

 

IV. Funding as a Legally Qualifiable Form of Complicity in Genocide Against a Segment of the Ukrainian National Group

Financial and Documentary Basis:

• The “budget support” programs from the EU, IMF, and World Bank provide direct financing to the Ukrainian state budget, from which expenses are covered for the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU), the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), the Prosecutor’s Office, the Ministry of Justice, and Territorial Recruitment Centers (TRCs) — entities that are systematically involved in human rights violations.

• According to official statements from the Ukrainian government (including the Ministry of Finance, Cabinet of Ministers, and Office of the President), international funds are used to pay salaries, maintain the administrative apparatus, and support the entire state infrastructure — including repressive structures.

• The EU-funded program “EU4DigitalUA” provides the technological basis for digital mobilization, including surveillance registries, filtration mechanisms, biometric data collection, and algorithmic control over citizens. This creates a digital tool for segregation and coercion.

• International supplies of equipment — including vehicles, monitoring and surveillance tools, digital terminals, and scanners — are used by Ukrainian authorities for raids, identification, abductions, and forced conscription. These deliveries are documented in reports from the Ministry of Defense and are part of intergovernmental cooperation with donors.

Legal Qualification:

• According to the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, specifically Article III(e), “complicity in genocide” is a distinct international crime, equal in gravity to the act of genocide itself.

International funding provided without political or human rights conditions, and in the presence of proven awareness of widespread violations, may be considered a conscious form of indirect complicity in genocide. This legal qualification is supported by several key international precedents:

• Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu (ICTR-96-4): The first conviction for genocide in history, which established that liability is not limited to direct perpetrators. The court recognized that creating the conditions for genocide, tolerating crimes, or failing to intervene constitutes responsibility. The ruling affirmed that state institutions may be guilty of genocide even without physically committing killings, if they knowingly contributed to its realization.

• Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić (IT-94-1): A landmark case at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which established the doctrine of “joint criminal enterprise.” Liability extends not only to individual actions but also to participation in a coordinated criminal plan. In the context of this document, it reinforces the position that coordination between Ukraine, donor states, host countries, and Russia forms a unified mechanism for which all parties bear responsibility.

• Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), ICJ Judgment 2007: The first case in which the International Court of Justice explicitly recognized a state’s breach of its duty to prevent genocide. The court found that Serbia knew (or should have known) about the planned genocide in Srebrenica but failed to take any measures to prevent it — a violation of Article I of the Genocide Convention. Similarly, donor countries, despite having access to open and diplomatic evidence, continue to fund repression, thereby violating the same obligation.

Legal Conclusion:

Funding Ukraine amid full awareness of systemic crimes cannot be considered neutral. It serves as a direct enabling factor for the continuation and intensification of repression, and therefore constitutes a form of international complicity in crimes against humanity and, where a deliberate policy of destruction is present, in genocide.

As a result, donor states:

• bear direct legal responsibility under international law;

• are subject to investigation under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court;

• lose their status as a “third party” and become active participants in the criminal process of destroying members of the Ukrainian national group.

V. International Coordination of Destruction: Legally Significant Complicity of Multiple States in the Formation of Genocidal Elements

The combined actions of several states — including internal repression by Ukrainian authorities, unconditional international funding by donor countries, denial of international protection by host states, forced return of refugees, and military pressure from the Russian Federation — constitute an interconnected, legally documented system of demographic destruction that meets the criteria of genocide as defined in Articles I and II of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Legally Relevant Facts:

• The state of Ukraine has implemented measures that prevent men of conscription age from leaving the country, including criminal penalties for attempting to leave, passport confiscation, digital tracking, and forced conscription — all in systematic violation of Articles 7, 9, 12, and 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Articles 3 and 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

• Donor states (EU, USA, United Kingdom), despite being fully informed, continue unconditional financing of the Ukrainian state budget — including funding for TRCs, Ministry of Internal Affairs, SBU, Ministry of Defense, digital registries, and domestic repressive mechanisms — without any human rights safeguards, establishing a legal basis for complicity under Article III(e) of the Genocide Convention.

• Host countries (notably Poland, Germany, Czech Republic, Lithuania, and others) systematically refuse to extend temporary protection for Ukrainian citizens, deport men of conscription age, or threaten re-admission to Ukraine, despite clear risks of torture, arbitrary detention, and forced mobilization — all in violation of Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention (non-refoulement principle) and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture.

• Along the western border of Ukraine with EU states (including Poland, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia), physical, digital, and technical measures are employed to prevent the escape of members of the Ukrainian national group. These include night-vision surveillance systems, drone patrols, thermal imaging cameras, prohibitions on approaching within 20 km of the border, and engineered barriers such as barbed wire fences along the Tisza River (Ukraine–Hungary border). These measures are not aimed at protecting from external threats but are designed to block the departure of members of the Ukrainian national group from areas of repression and forced mobilization. Such practices violate Articles 12 and 13 of the ICCPR and constitute a physical element of obstruction, forming part of an internationally coordinated system of demographic destruction.

An Example of Family Destruction as an Element of Genocide: Indirect Killing Through Evacuation Prohibition

One of the clearest examples of structural violence by the state is the forced separation of families through restrictions on the right of men to leave the country, which results in the covert but legally significant destruction of the family as an institution. In the context of armed conflict, this creates not only humanitarian consequences but also direct legal implications falling under international criminal jurisdiction.

Factual structure:

• A man subject to mobilization is restricted from leaving the country in violation of Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR);

• The woman and child are legally permitted to leave, but do not do so for an obvious reason — solidarity with their husband and father;

• After a certain period, the family is killed as a result of shelling carried out by the Russian Federation.

Although the immediate act of destruction is the use of force by the aggressor, legal responsibility is not limited to the direct perpetrator. In this case, the structure of coordinated behavior is of primary importance, where:

1. The state (Ukraine) illegally detains a civilian in an active war zone without proper legal procedures, violating Articles 9, 12, and 13 of the ICCPR, as well as Articles 3 and 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR);

2. The system coerces families to remain in a danger zone, creating artificial barriers to evacuation, both physical and psychological;

3. International partners continue to fund the infrastructure that enables this detention, despite documented awareness, thus participating in the creation of life-threatening conditions for civilians.

Legal significance:

Creating such conditions, in which civilian families are deprived of the possibility of separation, evacuation, and survival, constitutes a deliberate destruction of the group as a social unit — not only in the physical sense, but also in demographic, reproductive, legal, and psychological dimensions.

This mechanism falls under Article II(c) of the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, which defines genocide to include:

“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”

Accordingly, the death of a civilian family as a result of a coordinated policy of preventing evacuation, regardless of the nature of the final fatal strike, constitutes a form of indirect genocide, for which legal responsibility lies with the executing state (Ukraine), the sponsoring states that support the repressive system, and, undoubtedly, with the aggressor state (Russia) that carried out the shelling.

Exploitation of Mobilized Individuals and Denial of Social Protection

Even mobilized servicemen are not exempt from paying taxes, utility bills, and fulfilling debt obligations. Their salaries are taxed, their families are left without sufficient support, and in case of injury, the state systematically denies medical assistance, disability status, and compensation. Soldiers are forced to fight for their lawful rights for years through courts and administrative bodies. There have also been documented cases of Ukrainian servicemen being transferred to the territory of the Russian Federation, including to Kursk, without international mandate or legal grounds, which violates international humanitarian law and casts doubt on their legal status. All of this confirms that even those who were mobilized are subjected to neglect, exploitation, and a destructive policy by the state.

The Russian Federation, simultaneously with the aforementioned measures, conducts large-scale military operations, systematically destroying civilian infrastructure and blocking evacuation routes, which exacerbates the impossibility of escape for the population and increases the risk of forced mobilization and death, effectively turning the territory of Ukraine into a sealed high-risk zone.

Additionally, Russia has restricted exit routes from the occupied territories of Ukraine, leaving civilians with only two options to cross the border: through Sheremetyevo Airport in Moscow and the Ludonka checkpoint in the Pskov region on the border with Latvia. All other directions are blocked or declared illegal, making evacuation virtually impossible. At the same time, a filtration system operates in these territories, accompanied by interrogations, confiscation of devices, seizure of documents, and arbitrary detentions. Ukrainian citizens are subjected to segregation and deprived of basic rights, including a ban on registering or re-registering property in the occupied territories, which violates Articles 12, 17, and 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Legal Conclusion: An International System of Demographic Destruction

The mechanism in which one group of states blocks exit routes, another denies protection, a third forcibly returns people to zones of violence, and a fourth funds repressive infrastructure constitutes an internationally coordinated system aimed at the destruction of part of the Ukrainian national group—primarily its demographic core: men, students, doctors, and other civilian representatives.

This system:

• eliminates the possibility of escape;

• eliminates access to international protection;

• eliminates any legal mechanism for resistance;

• creates a closed cycle of persecution, mobilization, disappearance, and destruction.

Legally, such a system constitutes a deliberate international coordination directed toward the partial or complete destruction of a social group. It meets the criteria of crimes against humanity and genocide under Articles 7, 25, and 28 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, as well as Articles II and III of the Genocide Convention, and is further supported by the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice and international tribunals (ICTY, ICTR).

Accordingly, each state involved in this system—through funding, repression, facilitation of forced repatriation, border restrictions, or passive inaction in the face of documented evidence—bears international legal responsibility as an accomplice to crimes against the Ukrainian national group, particularly its civilian population.

VI. The Role of the Russian Federation: Evacuation Blockade, Filtration, and Territorial Restrictions as Elements of Demographic Pressure

An additional element of the internationally coordinated scheme reinforcing indicators of genocide is the conduct of the Russian Federation. These actions are aimed at blocking legal exit routes for Ukrainians from occupied territories, imposing discriminatory administrative restrictions, conducting filtration procedures, and prohibiting lawful movement, residence, and property ownership.

Legally Significant Facts:

• Along the entire border and line of separation between Ukraine and Russia, there are no legal crossing points available for Ukrainian citizens. Formally, entry into Russia is only permitted through Sheremetyevo Airport and the Ludonka checkpoint in the Pskov region. However, since the beginning of the war, Ukraine’s airspace has been completely closed, direct flights are not operating, and land routes are either blocked or deemed “illegal.” As a result, evacuation to third countries via Russian territory has become virtually impossible for the majority of Ukrainians.

• Ukrainian citizens are subjected to filtration procedures, during which their documents are confiscated, they are interrogated, biometric data is collected, phones are seized, correspondence is reviewed, and their connections to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, volunteer organizations, or any “disloyal” behavior are investigated. Cases of detention, disappearance, and deportation following filtration have been documented.

• Under Russian law and administrative decrees, Ukrainian citizens are prohibited from re-registering, acquiring, or formalizing property rights in the occupied territories (including Crimea, and parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions), violating Articles 17 and 18 of the ICCPR and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR.

• In practice, Ukrainians residing in occupied areas are deprived of freedom of movement, access to justice, healthcare, education, and protection from violence, while also being denied the opportunity to evacuate to safer regions. As a result, they are under constant risk of forced mobilization, repression, or coerced assimilation.

Legal Implications:

Russia’s actions are part of an international mechanism aimed at isolating, segregating, and dismantling a portion of the Ukrainian population. In conjunction with Ukraine’s exit restrictions, the EU’s denial of protection and repatriation policies, and international funding of repressive structures, this forms a unified, effect-based mechanism wherein the physical, legal, and territorial freedom of a specific population group is being systematically destroyed.

Legal Qualification:

• Exit blockades, filtration, restrictions on property rights, and citizenship-based segregation constitute elements of crimes against humanity (Article 7 of the Rome Statute). In conjunction with the failure of other states to prevent these outcomes, these measures create conditions that may qualify as acts of international genocide.

• According to the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice (Bosnia v. Serbia, 2007), a state bears international responsibility not only for committing genocide but also for failing to prevent it when it had the capacity to do so.

Conclusion:

By implementing filtration, territorial restrictions, exit blockades, and systemic destruction of Ukrainians’ rights, the Russian Federation is an integral participant in the mechanism of demographic destruction. Combined with the unconditional support from donor states and the refusal of protection by host countries, this constitutes a coordinated international model that meets the legal criteria for genocide under Article II of the Genocide Convention.

 

VII. Legal Responsibility for Coordinated Systemic Genocide: All Participating States as Co-Perpetrators

The Russian Federation, as the aggressor state, occupying power, and initiator of the armed invasion, bears primary responsibility for the destruction of Ukraine’s population, territory, and statehood. However, it does not act in isolation.

Within the framework of the current repressive system of pressure, Russia has international accomplices. Internal repression is carried out by Ukrainian authorities—through systematic forced mobilization, criminal prosecution of draft evaders, blocking the exit of members of the Ukrainian national group, and forcibly holding individuals in active combat zones. These actions directly violate Articles 9, 12, and 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Convention.

Donor states (the European Union, the United States, the United Kingdom) continue to provide unconditional funding for Ukraine’s repressive infrastructure—territorial recruitment centers (TCCs), the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and digital control systems—without any political or human rights conditions, despite the presence of well-documented evidence of mass human rights violations. Meanwhile, host states deny Ukrainians protection, terminate temporary status, and facilitate forced returns to dangerous conditions—directly violating the principle of non-refoulement (Article 33 of the Refugee Convention) and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture.

This coordinated mechanism of action forms a transnational system of demographic destruction targeting specific groups within the civilian population—namely members of the demographic core of the Ukrainian national group, including military-age men, students, medical personnel, single parents, and other civilians.

According to Articles II and III of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, these actions exhibit the characteristics of systemic genocide, in particular:

• the deliberate creation of conditions excluding the group’s physical survival;

• obstruction of evacuation;

• forced return to zones of violence;

• creation of a closed cycle of persecution, mobilization, and destruction.

Furthermore, under Article 25(3)(d) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, participation in a crime through knowing support or assistance, with awareness of the crime being committed, is grounds for criminal liability. Articles 7, 25, and 28 of the Rome Statute explicitly establish the responsibility of both individuals and states for crimes against humanity and genocide.

None of the states involved in this mechanism can be considered neutral. Each is a co-perpetrator, acting systematically, knowingly, and with full awareness.

VIII. Legal Conclusion

It is important to emphasize that for the victims of repression and surviving Ukrainians, the nature of what is happening is beyond doubt: forced mobilization, blocked emigration, family separation, and denial of medical assistance are perceived as clear and intentional acts aimed at the destruction of the civilian population. However, under the conditions of a large-scale apparatus of internal repression in Ukraine—including criminal prosecution, censorship, platform bans, and physical threats—citizens’ ability to publicly testify about these events is severely restricted.

The absence of mass public statements from the population cannot be interpreted as an absence of genocide. On the contrary, it serves as further evidence of the existence of a repressive system in which any dissent can lead to persecution. This must be taken into account when conducting legal analysis and determining the structure of responsibility.

Gurina Precedent: Criminal Punishment for Human Rights Video Recording

(EUNSS: 725/4553/24, NP: 11-kp/822/56/25)

In December 2024, a resident of Chernivtsi, Anzhela Gurina, known on social media as a civil activist and human rights defender, was sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment under Part 2 of Article 114-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine for publishing a video recorded near the building of a Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center (TRSSC). The court qualified her actions as “dissemination of information about the location of a military facility,” despite the fact that the recording was done from the street, did not contain classified data, and the stated purpose was to document a possible unlawful detention of a man, which had been reported.

The appeal left the sentence unchanged. The court ignored testimonies regarding human rights violations, lack of intent, and the presence of a psychiatric opinion recognizing the activist as sane but suffering from bipolar disorder. Her personal phone, which was used for recording, was confiscated.

 

It should also be noted that the systematic shelling of civilian infrastructure by the Russian Federation—residential buildings, hospitals, schools, humanitarian corridors, energy, and water facilities—cannot be justified on the grounds of military necessity. These attacks, which lack strategic or tactical value, constitute a form of terror, destabilization, and intimidation of the civilian population. Accordingly, they should be legally qualified as an element of terrorist policy aimed at undermining living conditions, forcing displacement, and physically destroying part of the Ukrainian people. In the context of ongoing coordination with internal repression and blocked evacuation, these actions intensify the characteristics of genocide as defined in Article II of the Genocide Convention.

Particular attention must be paid to the fact that the forced confinement of members of the Ukrainian national group within the country, and the blocking of evacuation from combat zones, is deliberately withheld from the public in donor countries. Videos of violent actions, testimonies about abductions, and confessions by Ukrainians claiming they are hostages of the regime are systematically blocked on social media, deleted from platforms, and the accounts sharing them are sanctioned. This censorship—implemented through close cooperation between Ukrainian authorities and Western digital platforms—creates a system of disinformation.

This means that donor governments are not only financing repression but are also deliberately concealing it from their own citizens, thereby depriving them of the ability to demand accountability and oversight of their countries’ foreign policy. This violates principles of transparency, undermines democratic oversight, and significantly increases the legal weight of their international complicity.

 

 

 

 

 

***

Note:

We live in a reality where millions of people are trapped in a physical and digital concentration camp, forced to seek protection from the very accomplices of repression and to rely on the mercy of those who finance their enslavement. This is not merely absurd — it is a historic catastrophe unfolding before the eyes of the entire world.

History shows: genocide is never recognized at the time of its commission. It is denied, mocked, masked as “mobilization,” “reform,” or “national security” — until it is too late. International organizations do not intervene because they are bound by political interests. Politicians — because they are participants in complicity. And citizens of democratic countries — because they are misled and do not want to believe that they are funding the destruction of a people under the guise of humanitarian aid.

They will deny the obvious. They will claim they are “helping,” that “there is a war,” that “this is necessary.” They will appeal to morality and speak of “higher goals.” But destruction is destruction. And it is happening now. This document does not convey emotions — it lays out legal constructs, substantiated by facts, figures, laws, legal precedents, and international norms.

The author of this document is not a lawyer. But he is a living person, a citizen, who could no longer remain silent. And if any judge of an independent tribunal — whether from the future or the present — reads this document with open eyes, they will see one thing: this is not an accident, not a mistake, and not a “tragic necessity.” This is a systemic, deliberate, and multi-layered destruction of the Ukrainian people — with the silent (or active) participation of the entire international community.

This is not rhetoric. This is an indictment. And let time put everything in its place.

This article does not aim to present an exhaustive body of evidence sufficient for international legal classification of genocide, human trafficking, or other crimes in court. That is the task of investigation and justice, which possess the authority, experience, and access to witnesses and materials. Nevertheless, all elements presented in this document are based on open sources and are subject to verification — this constitutes their legal and evidentiary value.

For those inclined to accuse such statements of “conspiracy theories,” it is worth recalling: when necessary, the global system demonstrates an excellent capacity for coordination — even among geopolitical adversaries. The example of global measures during COVID-19 showed how cohesively all centers of power can act when systemic interests are at stake. Therefore, in the context of the destruction of Ukraine’s civilian population, similar coordination under the guise of war cannot be ruled out.

The absence of emphasis on the actions of the Russian Federation in this document does not imply justification of aggression or a minimization of the responsibility of the occupying state. On the contrary — any act of military aggression, occupation, or undermining of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty deserves unequivocal condemnation. Russia’s responsibility is obvious and has been repeatedly confirmed by international bodies. Yet it is precisely this obviousness that allows us not to waste time repeating known positions, but to focus instead on what is being silenced: the complicity of other states whose role in organizing and financing the repressive system remains ignored. The purpose of this document is not political agitation nor pro-Russian rhetoric, but the legal documentation of facts — facts about what is happening to Ukrainian citizens who are being forced into silence, divided by loyalty, and effectively deprived of their basic rights. Any attempt to interpret this text as a “pro-Russian” position is not only a manipulation — it is an insult to the millions of Ukrainians who have become victims of both aggression and repression simultaneously.