Ukraine: “We Will Continue to Fight for Our Future”

Oleksandra Matviichuk

Head of the Center for Civil Liberties, Ukraine

Thursday, 27 February, 2025

The link has been copied

As talks over Ukraine continue – largely without Ukrainian representation – the focus remains on minerals and money, security and territory. Nobel Peace laureate and IWPR board member Oleksandra Matviichuk argues that any meaningful settlement must address the human cost of war. She calls for a shift in perspective to acknowledge the scale of war crimes, secure the return of abducted children, ensure the release of detainees, and deliver compensation for victims. Above all, she calls for accountability. Without a framework for justice, she warns that any resolution will not hold.

IWPR: You have said that occupation is merely war under cover. Does that mean open war is preferable, or is almost any peace better?

Oleksandra Matviichuk: Occupation is not the end of suffering – it is just the beginning. From my own experience documenting war crimes for 11 years, occupation means enforced disappearances, torture, rape, denial of your identity and language, filtration camps and mass graves.

In occupied territories, people live in a grey zone, with no tools to defend their rights, property or even their children. There are 1.6 million children under Russian occupation in Ukraine, at risk of being forcibly taken and re-educated to see Ukraine as an enemy, to be used in future as soldiers against Ukraine.

Under international law, occupation is still an international armed conflict. People sometimes assume that occupation reduces suffering, but in reality, it just makes it invisible. It is not peace at all.

The US and Russia are engaging in talks about a potential settlement, yet Ukraine and Europe are excluded. What is the biggest risk of this approach?

The biggest risk is that it will lead to nothing, because Russia doesn’t want peace. Russia wants to achieve its historical goals.

When Putin started this full-scale invasion, he didn’t just want to capture another part of Ukrainian territory. He wanted to occupy the entire country and go further. He wants to forcibly restore the Russian empire. He dreams about his legacy.

This is not just a war between two states. It is a war between two systems – authoritarianism and democracy. Putin is trying to prove to the world that democracy and the rule of law are illusions, because they couldn’t protect anyone during war. That is his message.

Unfortunately, after three years of full-scale invasion, he hasn’t given up on proving this –because human lives are the cheapest resource in Russia.

You have said the human dimension is missing from these negotiations. What did you mean and what would you put on the agenda?

To achieve sustainable peace, security guarantees must be the first priority – not temporary measures that postpone war for months or years, but real guarantees that make it impossible for Putin to achieve his goals. Yet I am shocked that politicians speak about natural minerals, ceasefires, territories and other important things – but not about people.

What will happen to the more than 20,000 Ukrainian children illegally deported to Russia? What about the thousands of civilians and prisoners of war subjected to daily torture? What about Ukrainian women under occupation, living under the constant threat of rape? This is the human dimension that must be on the agenda. Justice must be central to any peace process.

How would you judge efforts to establish accountability for war crimes so far?

Overall, I want to see the international community trying harder. It’s the third year of war, and we still have no special tribunal on aggression. There’s just not the political will to create it.

If we want to prevent future wars, we must punish the states and their leaders who start them. Except for the Nuremberg Trials, every other tribunal has focused on crimes committed during war, but did not prosecute the leaders who launched those wars in the first place. We must put the crime of aggression itself under legal scrutiny.

There is nothing extraordinary from the legal point of view in this crime, we just have to fill the gap of accountability to create a new international institution and start their work. As the International Criminal Court requires physical presence of the accused, I think an aggression tribunal can proceed in absentia, which means it could get to work quickly.

The Council of Europe has proposed a legal framework for a Special Tribunal on Aggression. Is this a breakthrough?

It's a very important step, and high representatives of the EU are making progress.

I have only two questions. Will the special tribunal have the power to prosecute Putin? If this tribunal will be created as a hybrid court [incorporating both international and domestic law], it will have no jurisdiction to overcome the immunity which Putin has according to international law.

Second, what will be the time frame covered by the tribunal? Will the judges consider aggression starting from 2022 or from 2014 when the aggression actually started? If we start just with the full-scale invasion, it means we will leave Crimea and the eastern regions outside the process. And that’s not just territories – we are speaking about dozens of thousands of people who suffered in these first eight years of war.

As for trials within Ukraine, most of these are in absentia, Russian soldiers are nearly always convicted and there are no charges for war crimes against Ukrainian soldiers. So how do you assess the national judicial process?

We are stuck. We have 140,000 criminal proceedings. It's impossible to prosecute properly and investigate in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It's impossible even for the best national system of the world. And Ukraine doesn't have the best national system of the world.

What is good in this situation is that Ukrainian civil society and Ukrainian authorities have documented a lot. Probably this is the most documented war in human history. And international crimes have no statute of limitations. It means that if today we have capacity problems, tomorrow we can always solve these problems and provide better results.

Is European political and security integration still a realistic goal for Ukraine?

It’s not just realistic, it’s essential. We are paying the highest possible price for our European future. And the question is not whether Ukraine is ready for Europe. The question is whether Europe is ready for Ukraine.

Because if the EU and NATO do not provide Ukraine with a clear path to membership, they will show to the whole world that democracy can be destroyed by force, and that a country’s democratic choice does not matter. That would be a dangerous message to send – not only to Ukraine but to others around the world who are watching what happens here.

This war is about reshaping the world order. If we allow impunity now, we are setting a precedent that wars of conquest are acceptable, and human rights and democracy do not matter.

Civil society in Ukraine has played a crucial role in keeping the country resilient. How are people feeling at this moment?

It is incredibly difficult to endure a full-scale invasion for such a long time. War is one of the most devastating things that can happen to you. Living in this reality means living in total uncertainty. You can’t plan your day, or even the next few hours, because you have no idea what will happen.

People live in constant fear for their loved ones, even if they are not fighting at the front. There is no truly safe place in Ukraine. Anywhere, at any time, a Russian missile could strike. When we go to bed, there is no guarantee we will wake up the next morning.

This uncertainty is emotionally exhausting, and it takes a toll on everyone. Ukrainians' morale rises and falls, because grief is everywhere. Every day, I open Facebook and see announcements of deaths: people I know personally. Even after eleven years, I can’t get used to it, because it is not normal.

But my colleague, the Ukrainian writer Larysa Denysenko, put it well, "When we are down, we are not down. We are in emotional trenches – we retreat, regroup, and push forward." No matter how we feel, we will continue to fight for our future.

After three years, what is your defining memory from this struggle? What gives you hope for Ukraine’s future?

I do not want to remember this period solely for its horror. I want to remember the solidarity of people from different countries who have supported us. Within Ukraine, there have been incredible acts of courage, humility and unity. When people risk their lives for strangers, it restores faith in humanity. I have seen teachers rebuild schools under shelling, volunteers deliver food through front lines, and families shelter strangers as if they were their own. This resilience will outlast any dictator. That is what gives me hope for the future.