– The goal of the Donald Trump administration is not justice. The U.S. president views reality through the lens of “is it profitable or not,” rather than “is it right or wrong.” When you lose your humanity, you begin to normalize cruelty. And then sparks—such as wars—ignite in different parts of the world. According to data from the International Committee of the Red Cross, the number of armed conflicts worldwide is currently the highest it has been since World War II,” says Oleksandra Matviichuk, recipient of the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize, in her first interview with Polish media. The Center for Civil Liberties, which she heads, documents Russian war crimes.
- “The global international security system has been broken. In practice, it no longer exists. It merely reenacts ritualistic actions: successive visits, debates, and votes at the UN. But this system essentially no longer decides anything,” Matviichuk tells TVP.Info.
- In her view: “This war is being fought over what the new world order will look like. Ukraine—and the outcome of Russia’s war against Ukraine—will shape the architecture of the new global order.”
- What does she think of Donald Trump’s Peace Council and the peace talks with Russia he initiated? “I believe President Donald Trump takes pleasure in the feeling that he is someone who ‘decides the fate of humanity,’ but this instrument is ineffective,” the Ukrainian lawyer argues.
- Oleksandra Matviichuk has documented 98,000 Russian war crimes in Ukraine. “I believe the word ‘peace’ has been devalued. Its meaning has eroded. Today, even the football federation FIFA awards a peace prize to President Donald Trump. Occupation is now being called ‘peace.’ Neither Russia nor the Soviet Union was ever held accountable for the crimes they committed. That is why they believe they can do anything, and they have turned torture, rape, and violence into mechanisms of war. They think they can do anything,” the Nobel Peace Prize laureate says in an interview with Piotr Kaszuwara, TVP.Info’s correspondent in Ukraine.
Oleksandra Matviichuk: We Have Documented 98,000 Russian War Crimes
Piotr Kaszuwara, TVP.Info and PostPravda.Info: Numbers can tell us a great deal. How many war crimes have the Russians committed in Ukraine since 2014? Did the number increase after 2022? Some data from the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office even speak of up to one million crimes.
Oleksandra Matviichuk, Center for Civil Liberties: Since February 24, 2022, we have been witnessing unprecedented and effectively mass commission of war crimes by Russians in Ukraine. To ensure that as few testimonies as possible are missed, we created a network of organizations documenting these crimes, collecting witness statements throughout Ukraine, including in occupied territories. So far, we have recorded reports of ninety-eight thousand Russian war crimes. That is an enormous number, but it is only the tip of the iceberg. The Russians have turned crime into a method and a technology of warfare. It is one element of their tactic designed to break the spirit and resistance of society in order to occupy the entire country.
98,000 stories—does that mean 98,000 individuals?
Not always. For example, the story of Andrii from Brovary. He is a ten-year-old boy. In the first days of the full-scale invasion, his parents tried to drive him somewhere safer, to another region. They encountered a column of Russian tanks. One of those tanks simply drove over their civilian car. Andrii recalled that his father was killed instantly. His mother was sitting next to him in the back seat. She was definitely still alive because she was speaking to Andrii. Moments later, Russian soldiers pulled the child out of the car. They threw him onto the street and shot at the car’s fuel tank. That small, ten-year-old boy described watching his mother burn alive. It is not always one story and one person. Sometimes there are multiple victims.
Is it even possible to process such a number of crimes and perpetrators through the international justice system?
Modern technology now allows us to do things we could not even dream of thirty years ago during the Balkan wars. Today we have a range of digital systems that enable us to reconstruct events, collect evidence, communicate with people in occupied territories, and identify perpetrators. The work of organizations such as Bellingcat shows that investigations can be conducted using only information available in the public domain. It is not always necessary even to be physically present at the scene of the crime. This means we now have the opportunity to challenge the long-standing belief that in times of war most people have no chance at justice because it is extremely difficult to identify perpetrators and trace the fate of every individual victim. Digital technologies are making this increasingly possible.
Are Peace Talks a Simulation? The System and Ethics Are Collapsing
Talks in Geneva and peace negotiations in general that include Russia seem aimed at ensuring these crimes go unpunished and that those responsible avoid accountability. Amnesty is reportedly one of the points in a 28-point peace plan prepared after a meeting between Putin and Trump in Alaska—the so-called “Spirit of Anchorage,” as the Russian dictator calls it. What do you think about this?
The “Spirit of Anchorage” does not inspire confidence. We understand that justice is not a priority for the Donald Trump administration. It is therefore difficult to imagine that the Russians would sign any peace agreement that includes provisions for their criminal liability. That is why we must move the issue of justice onto a separate, international, parallel track—independent of any peace negotiations.
What do I mean by that? Even if a 28-point plan providing for full amnesty for Russian war crimes were maintained—although fortunately we are not seeing that at the moment—the International Criminal Court would not suspend its proceedings or withdraw its arrest warrants. For the ICC, it does not matter what is written in any political document. As long as this window of opportunity remains open, we should launch several additional international mechanisms: a special tribunal for the crime of aggression, an international compensation commission, and a reparations credit mechanism. I am referring in particular to frozen Russian assets, located mainly in European countries, and their use. Future justice must also have a financial dimension.
So far, almost no war criminal has been punished. If so many perpetrators remain unaccountable, does that mean international institutions and legal instruments require deep reform?
Of course they require improvement, because they are relatively new institutions. The International Criminal Court was not created through a revolution, nor was it endowed with full executive powers. It has no international police force and no independent enforcement mechanisms. All of this must be developed if international justice is to function effectively. However, that is not the central issue today, because the entire system of peace and security is collapsing before our eyes. International justice mechanisms are also under pressure. As a result, the ICC itself is subject to sanctions imposed by the United States.
For many people, it is difficult to understand. Why are any talks or negotiations held with Putin—a wanted war criminal sought by international institutions? Why is anyone listening to his voice and seeking common ground, while the U.S. president walks a red carpet with him?
Perhaps the explanation I usually offer may help. My entire experience working with the consequences of mass violence has led me to conclude that the current breakdown of the international system was preceded by something else: a crisis of ethics. We have lost the ability to distinguish between what is good and what is evil. Almost no one thinks in those categories anymore. President Trump himself views reality through the lens of “profitable or not,” rather than “right or wrong.” When you lose your humanity, you begin to normalize cruelty. And then sparks—such as wars—ignite in different parts of the world. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, the number of armed conflicts worldwide is now the highest it has been since World War II.
Perhaps Donald Trump’s Peace Council will improve the situation?
Forgive me, but I do not believe this is even a serious subject for discussion. It is a personal council of President Donald Trump, who—according to its design—is to become its first and lifetime chair. How would it make decisions? That remains entirely unclear. Who would its members be? What mandate would it have? What objectives would be set before it? I believe President Donald Trump takes pleasure in feeling that he is someone who “decides the fate of humanity,” but this instrument is clearly ineffective.
For many people, it also sounds peculiar that Russia—a state that attacked another country—and Belarus, whose leader Alexander Lukashenko is often called “the last dictator of Europe,” would sit on a “Peace Council.”
I believe the word “peace” has been devalued. Its meaning has eroded. Today even the football federation FIFA awards a peace prize to President Donald Trump. What connection does a football federation have to peace? Occupation is now being called “peace.” Ukrainians are being told that Russian occupation is peace. It is not peace. It is war in another form. Occupation does not reduce human suffering—it merely makes it invisible. All of this leads us into absurdity.
Some commentators argue that focusing on accountability may hinder peace negotiations with Russia. Is justice now in conflict with political pragmatism?
It has always been in conflict with political logic. Politicians think in terms of electoral cycles. Their reasoning is: “We will freeze the conflict, and if it reignites, it will no longer be our problem because we will not be in power.” From a short-term perspective, issues of justice interfere with reaching the kind of agreement Donald Trump dreams of. But from a long-term perspective, there can be no sustainable peace without justice—everything will eventually explode again. So what really happens? The situation is not resolved; it is merely postponed until the conflict flares up once more with full force.
Oleksandra Matviichuk: Rape and Murder Are Part of Putin’s System
How is the character of Russian crimes changing? Are you observing an evolution in methods of repression against civilians in occupied territories?
The crimes are becoming more intense and more brutal. The reason is simple. When peace talks began, it became clear that the human dimension was not their priority. American negotiators seem more interested in Ukrainian natural resources than in the fate of people in occupied territories. Russian war crimes committed during this period have not even been unequivocally condemned by official representatives of the U.S. administration. The Russians concluded that there are no red lines—that they can do whatever they want. And that is why, paradoxically, this year of negotiations led by Donald Trump has become the deadliest year for Ukrainian civilians. The number of civilians killed and wounded has increased by thirty-one percent compared to the previous year. That is the result of conducting peace talks while completely disregarding human lives. It could not have ended any other way.
I remember in 2022, when reports of rapes and killings from Bucha began to reach us. It was the first time I heard sexual violence described as a weapon of war—intended to terrify people so deeply that they would flee and never want to return. Today we see that many residents of Bucha indeed do not wish to return to homes that recall those horrific weeks of occupation. Do we know how many Ukrainian women have endured such trauma?
We do not. Rape is always a crime associated with shame. People do not speak about it. And as a rule, they rarely seek legal assistance because of social stigmatization. Unfortunately, this is a common phenomenon in all wars and armed conflicts we have studied. We therefore do not know the true number of victims. We do know, however, that the victims are not only women—they are also men. Sexual violence is widespread in all Russian places of detention. It is used systematically against detainees.
In 2022, we began building a system to document these crimes. I prohibited our documentarians from taking testimony from survivors of sexual violence without proper preparation. If such interviews are conducted without appropriate expertise, they can retraumatize the victim. Then the question arises: how does one live with information one was not prepared to receive—both on the part of the person testifying and the person documenting?
Although we were not actively seeking survivors of sexual violence, we received dozens of reports from people who wanted to share what had happened to them. That is when I realized the scale of the phenomenon. If—even without active outreach—dozens of people come forward, then the true scale of the problem is extremely serious.
How do Russians treat children? What war crimes concern them? For example, does changing the education system in occupied territories also constitute a war crime?
Yes, this is an enormous problem. Approximately 1.6 million Ukrainian children were living in the occupied territories. Today, we do not know the exact figures. These children are subjected to a process of identity erasure. They are forbidden from using the Ukrainian language. They know they are not allowed to speak it—otherwise the security services may have “questions” for their parents. They live in an atmosphere of permanent fear. They are taught from Russian textbooks in which Ukraine as a state simply does not exist.
If a child came under occupation at a more mature age, they may still be able to function within a dual reality, hiding their own history and identity. But for small children, the erasure process happens very quickly—because their identity is still forming.
Children in occupied territories are also subjected to forced militarization. This process begins as early as kindergarten. It is a deliberate, comprehensive system designed to transform Ukrainian children into a future generation of Putin’s soldiers. Parents are pressured into sending their children to camps where they wear uniforms, march, and learn how to handle weapons. Unfortunately, the cult of strength is very attractive to young people—it provides a sense of belonging, dominance, of “being someone.” It completely reshapes their worldview: freedom ceases to matter; what matters is one’s place in the hierarchy of violence.
In reality, this is not only a human rights issue—it is a security issue. At the age of fourteen, these children receive Russian passports. At eighteen—already trained in the use of weapons—they can be forcibly conscripted into the Russian army. This means they may be sent to kill and die in any country to which Russia deploys them—whether to Poland, Estonia, or to countries in Africa. That is why I repeat: if we fail to act today in response to what is happening in the occupied territories, if we leave these 1.6 million Ukrainian children to fend for themselves, they will grow up—and return to us as part of a machine of violence.
It truly does sound that way. Yet every war—whether we like it or not—brings war crimes. Perhaps there have been conflicts in which such crimes were incidental or accidental. But here we are dealing with something different: a system. A systemic character of war crimes.
This entire nightmare we are going through is the result of total impunity that Russia has enjoyed for decades—and before it, the Soviet Union. While Nazi war criminals were prosecuted in the Nuremberg Trials, the Soviet Union was never held accountable for crimes committed against its own citizens. Russian military forces committed horrific crimes in Chechnya, Moldova, Syria, Mali, Libya, and other parts of the world—and were never punished for them. They came to believe they could do anything.
Two years ago, our Russian colleagues and friends from the Memorial Human Rights Center published a report analyzing Russia’s actions in Chechnya, Syria, and Ukraine. They concluded that we are dealing with the same “war crimes playbook”—a recurring operational pattern. They titled the report: “A Chain of Wars, a Chain of Crimes, a Chain of Impunity.”
If Russians have never been held accountable for the monstrous crimes of the past, then—unless we break this “chain of impunity”—they will do exactly the same thing in the next act of aggression.
Occupation and Capitulation Are Not Peace
In Poland, there are also testimonies from the time of World War II. Many people said that even the Nazis—even the Germans—were not as terrifying as the Russians who came to “liberate” Poland. You have listened to thousands of similar testimonies. How can one endure this psychologically and morally?
It is extremely difficult, because we are human beings first and professional lawyers second. When you are confronted with such an immense amount of pain every single day, at some point you begin to feel it burning you from the inside. And there is nothing you can do about it.
You document the testimony of someone whose experience is so devastating that it almost defies human comprehension. You record a story that leaves a mark on you. At the same time, you know that in that very moment, the same thing is happening in the 120 camps we have identified on Russian territory and in the occupied areas. And you cannot stop it. That inevitably creates profound frustration.
You once said that peace—when the victim simply stops defending themselves—is not peace but occupation and capitulation. Are peace negotiations with Russia leading precisely in that direction?
The Russians are prepared to make peace on only one condition—that Ukraine surrenders. Their goal is to achieve through negotiations what they failed to achieve on the battlefield.
Ukraine does not want capitulation. We see what is happening in the occupied territories. If Russia were to take over the entire country, we would simply cease to exist as a nation. Ukrainian men could be forcibly conscripted into the army of the Russian Federation and sent to attack other countries—whether Poland or any other state designated by Moscow. There would be no real life here, and there would be no peace.
What did you feel when you saw María Corina Machado handing over her Nobel Prize to President Donald Trump?
I did not think about it in any particular way, nor did I experience any strong emotions. She is a politician. On a human level, I feel somewhat sorry for her, but it was her decision and her choice.
If you were offered the following: “Give up your Nobel Prize in exchange for peace and an end to the war,” would you do it? In short: justice or peace? Which is more important today?
The question is theoretical. But some time ago, I said that if President Donald Trump were to achieve a lasting and just peace, we would gladly hand him the Nobel Peace Prize. Because achieving a lasting and just peace is extraordinarily difficult. It would mean restoring international law, holding war criminals accountable, and returning the occupied territories to Ukraine’s jurisdiction. And this is in a situation where Russia is not even prepared to agree to a ceasefire. It has repeatedly rejected proposals from both President Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Russia as a Model for Other Regimes. The War in Ukraine Will Shape the Global Order
It is often said that peace does not come in a single day—that it must be a process. Perhaps the peace negotiations we are witnessing are precisely that process, one we do not yet fully understand?
I believe the peace talks are a smokescreen. Russia is using them to buy time and to reduce support for Ukraine. For example, as a result of such negotiations, Ukraine stopped receiving financial and military assistance from the United States. Everything was put on hold. In this way, Russia sought to make it easier to occupy Ukraine.
Russia is simulating peace talks. So for me, this is a process unfolding in the background. Diplomats should work—let them work. But the key question is how to make the price of war higher for President Vladimir Putin than the price of peace. When that happens, the war will stop. There is no magic button. It requires an entire set of measures—above all, limiting and ultimately breaking the Russian economy’s capacity to finance this war.
Do you see a danger that if Russia does not face real consequences for unleashing hell in Ukraine, it will set a precedent for other authoritarian states that armed aggression pays off?
Of course. Everyone is watching closely how this war ends. In a strange way, Ukraine has found itself at the epicenter of events that will determine the future direction of the world. Will it be a world based on values and rules? Or a world based on the will of the strongest? We have already lived in a world where three or a handful of states decided what would happen, and everyone else had to submit. That was a very fragile order—a world of wars and mass violence. Frankly, I do not want to return to such a world.
Looking more broadly: in your view, is the war in Ukraine a turning point for the global security system, or rather proof of its erosion?
The global international security system has been broken. There is no point in repairing it in its current form. In practice, it no longer exists. It merely reenacts ritualistic gestures. Because human life is short, I may well spend the rest of my life watching these rituals—more visits, more debates, more votes at the United Nations. But this system no longer truly decides anything.
Let us remember: the League of Nations formally existed until 1946. World War II had already ended, and only then did the League cease to function. This kind of institutional inertia can last a very long time. But let us be honest—there is no longer an effective international system of peace and security. It was never reformed, and in its current form it has exhausted its usefulness. This war is being fought over what the new world order will look like. Ukraine—and the outcome of Russia’s war against Ukraine—will shape the architecture of a new global order.
Do you believe that Vladimir Putin will one day stand before an international tribunal? Or is that more of a symbolic aspiration meant to mobilize public opinion?
I always imagine it quite concretely. I put on my best dress and go to court—somewhere in The Hague. Red lipstick. I look like a winner. I like that image. But speaking seriously—although that image is serious too—the future is neither predetermined nor written in advance. We have the opportunity to build the future we want. We must use that opportunity. I am not someone who predicts the future. I am someone who creates it.
Serhiy Zhadan recently said in Munich that there will be no return to the past. There will be no simple “back to the way things were.” Everything has changed forever. What kind of world will emerge tomorrow?
The kind of world we create today.
