Putin should face war crimes

Warrants for the arrest of Vladimir Putin on war crimes charges by the International Criminal Court in The Hague are of immense symbolic significance. The Russian despot is the first head of state of a permanent member of the UN Security Council to be targeted with such warrants. The court has never moved so swiftly against a central figure in a major conflict. Such indictments are normally issued much later. There will be satisfaction, too, in the court’s listing him in official documents as “Vladimir Putin – fugitive” alongside his fellow “fugitive”, Maria Lvova-Belova, Russia’s so-called commissioner of children’s rights. Both are accused of the war crime of responsibility for the “unlawful deportation” and “unlawful transportation” of at least 16,000 Ukrainian children by Russian forces. The children have allegedly been abducted and taken to Russia to “strip them of their Ukrainian identities”. Australia is among Western nations that have previously imposed sanctions on Ms Lvova-Belova over removal of the children.

As historic and significant as the arrest warrants are, they must not be seen as a substitute for the main priority for the democracies supporting Kyiv – providing Ukraine with the weapons and resources it needs to vanquish Mr Putin on the battlefield. That is imperative as Chinese ruler Xi Jinping prepares to arrive in Moscow on Tuesday to build on the “no limits” friendship he announced with Mr Putin just before Moscow launched its invasion on February 24, 2022. Appeals for Chinese weapons supplies are said to be high on the agenda for Mr Xi, who will also hold a video conference with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky, apparently to promote Beijing’s previously announced “plan for peace” in Ukraine.

Moscow’s contempt for the ICC following Friday’s announcement of the warrants is no surprise. Mr Putin’s disregard for international law was writ large at the weekend when he travelled to Crimea — and then Mariupol — on the ninth anniversary of Russia’s unlawful annexation of the Ukrainian territory and the West’s failure, under successive US presidents, to do much about it. The ICC should not be deterred by such past failure. The court’s prosecutor, British barrister Karim Khan KC, has acted with commendable speed in investigating the allegations of war crimes against Mr Putin and getting the ICC to act.

Barring a radical change in Russia, it may be unlikely the Russian tyrant will ever end up in the dock in The Hague. But the war crimes for which he is ultimately responsible make it imperative every effort is made to bring him to book. As Mr Khan said: “We’ve hollowed out the phrase ‘never again’ since Nuremberg and made it an empty promise … (I) think it’s not a naive optimism (about achieving the prosecution of Mr Putin).” Ukrainian prosecutors have catalogued 73,000 war crimes committed by Russia, naming more than 600 Russian suspects. All must be fully investigated. The 123 nations that are signatories to the 2000 Rome Treaty that set up the ICC should assist. Mr Putin cannot escape the disgrace that his listing as “Vladimir Putin – fugitive” in the ICC court rolls means for his status as a global pariah.