On Nov. 20, 2025 – on the 80th anniversary of the opening of the main Nuremberg Trial, which prosecuted Nazi leadership for aggression and mass atrocities of World War II – details of the allegedly proposed new “peace” plan for Ukraine emerged. The initiative, widely perceived as an attempt to force Kyiv’s capitulation rather than as a viable pathway to peace, is being renegotiated. And yet, it has surfaced one of the Kremlin’s recurrent demands: full amnesty for wartime atrocities – the very acts Nuremberg sought to punish and prevent.
Nuremberg’s symbolism has been poignantly woven throughout Russia’s onslaught on Ukraine. Russia denies that the Red Army committed any crimes during World War II and criminalizes critiques exposing them. By fortifying narratives about its allegedly unique role in defeating Nazis and branding Ukrainians as their successors, Russia assigns itself the role of a liberator who can never be a perpetrator – neither during World War II, nor during the ongoing aggression. Hence, the requested blanket amnesties.
The Kremlin’s demands for amnesties are not new – they have been persistent since its initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014. During and following the Minsk negotiations in 2015, Russia opposed not only atrocity prosecutions, but any holistic support to survivors, through reparations and other transitional justice measures.
Such demands contravene the spirit and letter of international law.
International law is adamant on States’ duty to prosecute, punish, and prevent international crimes – war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and aggression – as well as serious human rights violations such as enforced disappearances and torture. The universally ratified Geneva Conventions that protect civilians, prisoners of war, and wounded in war also oblige States to prosecute or extradite alleged perpetrators. Statutes of limitation do not apply – these atrocities may be tried decades after commission. War-related amnesties are possible, but only for sedition-like activities – not for the gravest international crimes. The rise of amnesties for military junta-era atrocities during democratic transitions and peace processes across Latin America prompted the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to consistently confirm the inadmissibility of amnesties for serious human rights violations. The Inter-American Human Rights Commission has recommended that States avoid far-reaching amnesty legislation. Nuanced prosecutions can also contribute to truth-seeking and wider redress, which can be essential to sustainable post-conflict recovery.
Russia’s crimes against Ukrainian civilians and prisoners of war are well-documented: they include widespread torture and sexual violence, enforced disappearances, child deportation, and concerted attacks on hospitals, power stations and civilian areas.
Several considerations prevent Ukraine – and its democratic and law-abiding partners – from agreeing to amnesties or de facto impunity for such atrocities.
First, ceding more territories to the Kremlin, as the “peace” plan also proposes, would expose more Ukrainians to Russian crimes. International law’s prohibition of torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide is absolute. Russia has disregarded this prohibition consistently by committing or facilitating numerous atrocities in Georgia, Syria, Ukraine, CAR, and elsewhere – and has also withdrawn from the Council of Europe anti-torture convention. Joining agreements which would place Ukrainians under the direct reach of the Russian government and in the viable danger of such atrocities, with no prospect of accountability, would arguably breach peremptory norms of international law. This would make such arrangements void under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (see article 53, for instance).
Second, Russia’s amnesty demands, unlawful from the outset, cannot restrain numerous prosecutions of its atrocities launched globally. Apart from Ukraine’s 204,000+ war crime proceedings (reflecting individual incidents, per Ukraine’s Code of Criminal Procedure), Russians’ crimes are investigated by the International Criminal Court (ICC), with six arrest warrants, and by third countries, under universal jurisdiction. The Council of Europe has recently endorsed the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression Against Ukraine. Under international law, treaties do not bind non-parties. In contrast, all States must prosecute international crimes – or extradite the suspects for trial. Regardless of what temporary arrangements might be imposed on Kyiv, countries around the world should continue their investigations of Russian perpetrators, back the aggression tribunal and step up their support for the ICC, in its work on Ukraine and globally.
Crucially, justice for war crimes has been consistently demanded by Ukrainians, even during the most challenging periods of the invasion. Eighty-two percent of Ukrainians find trials “very important,” and ninety percent emphasise the urgency of supplementary redress through non-judicial channels such as reparations and truth-seeking. This stance is supported by leading actors: the U.N. Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture and the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner emphasize that justice is not a hindrance, but a pre-condition to sustainable peace for Ukraine.
Any compromise on prosecuting Russian perpetrators would further undermine the fragile system of international criminal justice painstakingly developed since World War II and Nuremberg. Amnesties for Russian war criminals would question the standing of the ICC amid one of its most vulnerable periods and its pending arrest warrants, against Vladimir Putin, but also other State leaders. Russia has used double-tap attacks and conducted warfare by means of atrocities in Ukraine, Syria, Mali and elsewhere. It may even create a precedent that would shield ex-Syrian President al-Assad, responsible for mass torture and many other serious crimes against Syrians (and already benefitting from Russian protection). Giving the Kremlin an accountability carte blanche would signal impunity to victims of al-Assad and other abusers backed by Russia and its proxies. Allowing the Kremlin to get away with crimes against humanity would also gravely weaken international efforts to conclude an overdue international treaty against these crimes.
Nuremberg was far from perfect. Hitler and some of his clique escaped by committing suicide or through the ratlines of the Cold War. Some convicted Nazi-lenient industrialists obtained early releases, as post-war Europe accelerated its economic recovery. And yet, with all of Nuremberg’s flaws, it was “one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason,” as emphasised by Robert Jackson, Nuremberg’s Chief Prosecutor for the United States and (and a U.S. Supreme Court Justice). It prevented the likes of Göring or Ribbentrop from walking around freely, without charge or trial.
We should not establish a precedent to the contrary now.
