“Putin is the biggest child kidnapper in the world”

Oleksandra Matviichuk during a meeting with a recepient of the Sakharov Prize in 2022. Photo: European Parliament / flickr.com

ANDRII KUTSYK: Your organization, the Center for Civil Liberties (CCL), is one of the founding members of the Tribunal for Putin initiative, which, among other objectives, documents war crimes committed by Russian forces. How many such crimes have been documented?

OLEKSANDRA MATVIICHUK: We are part of a joint initiative called “Tribunal for Putin” — a coalition of numerous organizations, primarily based in the regions, that operate under a unified methodology. Our goal is to document every instance of war crimes, even those committed in the smallest villages. Currently, our database contains over 89,000 recorded episodes of war crimes. Unfortunately, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Russia systematically uses war crimes as a method of warfare. In essence, it has weaponized pain – deliberately inflicting suffering on the civilian population in an attempt to break their resistance and facilitate occupation.

One of the war crimes for which the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, the Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights, is the forced deportation of Ukrainian children. How many such cases has your organization documented? How many children have been successfully returned so far?

We rely only on official figures. Ukrainian authorities estimate that approximately 20,000 children have been deported. However, according to data from Yale University’s Humanitarian Research Lab, at least 35,000 Ukrainian children have been identified and tracked as having been forcibly taken to Russia — suggesting the actual number may be significantly higher. The exact figure remains unknown. What is clear, however, is that this is a systematic and widespread practice. That is why, in 2023, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Commissioner for Children’s Rights, Maria Lvova-Belova.

What do you think are the chances of bringing Vladimir Putin to justice for war crimes, particularly for the deportation of Ukrainian children?

 I would say that there is a chance — and that, in itself, is a luxury. Having a chance is not the same as having a guarantee, and people often confuse the two. In life, we rarely have 100 per cent guarantees — whether in justice or in any other sphere. But we do have a chance, and it’s our responsibility to use it. History shows us that authoritarian regimes do fall, and leaders who once considered themselves untouchable have ended up in court. In our region, a powerful example is Slobodan Milošević. Serbia initially refused to hand him over — he was considered a national hero — but eventually he faced trial. A more recent case is former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. I doubt he ever imagined he would be investigated by the International Criminal Court, yet here we are. This is precisely why Vladimir Putin and his inner circle are uneasy. Their public bravado about impunity is contradicted by their actions. In every negotiation over the past 11 years — starting with the Minsk agreements — one of Russia’s consistent demands has been amnesty for international crimes. That alone reveals how concerned they are. They know their future is far from certain.

Russia is conducting a large-scale disinformation campaign aimed at concealing and justifying the crime of deporting Ukrainian children. In your opinion, what should be the effective mechanisms for countering this disinformation? Have you personally encountered politicians or public figures in the West who are influenced by Russian narratives?

We monitor Russian propaganda on this issue. Russia tries to justify this war crime with claims that it is merely “evacuating” these children — but that narrative falls apart when confronted with the many documented cases of so-called evacuations. In reality, Russia arrests the children’s parents, separates them from their families, and takes the children to Russia, preparing them for forced adoption. During this time, the children remain under the control of the Russian state, often in conditions of confinement. This propaganda might work on the Russian population — it may even be primarily targeted at them. Russia wants to present itself as morally upright, showing that it’s “rescuing” Ukrainian children through these evacuations. But I don’t really see this narrative gaining traction internationally. The real problem is different: on the international level, there is still very little awareness about this practice —especially in certain regions of the world, such as Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia. For many, this is entirely new information. I recall meeting with a senior official in the United States and their advisor. When I spoke about the deported children, the follow-up question they asked made it clear that this was also an unfamiliar or underexplored issue for them. So even in places where we assumed everyone was already aware, that turns out not to be the case. This is the real problem: we are dealing with an oversaturated information environment. And in such conditions, we must consistently and clearly explain the crimes Russia is committing against children — and that Vladimir Putin is, in fact, the biggest child kidnapper in the world. And that’s not a metaphor. We base that statement on the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court.

 Do you believe that the US political elite is currently ready to work on the issue of returning children from Russian captivity? Is there political commitment?

There are very different opinions on this, because children are always something that draws special attention in any society. A crime against children is a red line, no matter which children are involved. First and foremost, we are human beings. That is why this issue resonates with politicians. The question is how to address it correctly and what actions to take. We see, for example, that a bipartisan resolution has been introduced in Congress regarding the abduction of Ukrainian children, and it proposes addressing this issue by linking sanctions to such cases. This means that, at the highest federal level, certain individuals responsible for a vast number of processes involved in committing this crime are being targeted. At the lower level, there are soldiers, social workers who transport these children, and also teachers who tell the children that they are not Ukrainians but Russians. So the focus here is on sanctioning those at the top — people who have something to lose from these sanctions. This is one possible way to influence the situation and bring about change. And we are seeing that such initiatives do exist within the American political scene.

You have undertaken many advocacy trips across Europe. Is there a difference in the understanding of the issue of abducted Ukrainian children between Europeans and Americans?

Europe is very diverse — there are countries that are more aware of this issue, and there are those that are less informed. I wouldn’t generalize when speaking at the level of individual countries. At the European Union level, the issue of deported children is often mentioned in public statements by top officials. But, ultimately, the right words must be followed by the right actions. We are also waiting for some concrete and active steps to be taken. Of course, it is extremely difficult to create a clear, four-step algorithm that would result in the return of these children tomorrow or in the foreseeable future. Russia ignores decisions made by international organizations. Russia disregards the norms of international humanitarian law. And yet, these are children. We must do everything possible to bring them back.

We are also aware of precedents where ICC decisions have not been enforced, including by Mongolia, as well as Hungary’s decision to withdraw from the Court’s jurisdiction. Do you believe these are isolated cases or signs of a systemic threat to the ICC’s existence?

This is a sign that the entire international system of peace and security, which was created in the last century, is collapsing and falling apart. And the system of international justice is just one fragment of that broader structure. We also see that the problem runs much deeper. In the past, we could respond to global challenges — sometimes more effectively, sometimes less so — but today, the system is simply stalling, reduced to ritualistic motions. For example, the work of the UN Security Council is completely paralyzed by Russia’s veto power. These are all signs that everything has an expiration date, and this system has reached the end of its own. The world has changed, yet no meaningful reforms have been implemented. The system still operates as it was originally designed after the Second World War. And it’s now very clear that it can no longer effectively carry out its functions of prevention and protection against mass atrocities. When it comes to the International Criminal Court (ICC), this is not the first time arrest warrants have been ignored. I can recall the case of Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir. He was issued an arrest warrant by the ICC for the genocide in Darfur, yet he travelled freely across various African countries for years. They also completely ignored and failed to fulfil their obligations under the Rome Statute. So unfortunately, this is not new. The ICC doesn’t have an international police force — it relies on the goodwill and cooperation of its member states. That said, we have seen that the arrest warrant has indeed made the world smaller for Putin. Yes, he was able to visit Mongolia — because Mongolia is geographically trapped between Russia and China and finds it very difficult to pursue an independent and bold foreign policy.

But for example, in 2023, when the President of the Republic of South Africa Cyril Ramaphosa invited Putin to the BRICS summit, Putin ultimately could not attend, because South African civil society spoke up and insisted that if he arrived, he would have to be arrested. And in 2024, when Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva invited Putin to the G20 summit in Brazil, he again did not go — for the same reason. Civil society in these countries, despite all their internal challenges, is active and democratic. And in such conditions, Putin feels insecure.

Does genuine global solidarity the kind Ukraine needs — exist today? Do you see anyone who has taken, or is ready to take, responsibility for leadership in this struggle between democracy and authoritarianism?

The reality is that our world is vast, and Ukraine is not the only hotspot. There are many terrible places around the globe where wars are raging or where hateful regimes are committing mass violence against their own people. Naturally, this shifts and divides attention — and with it, solidarity — because these situations also require a response. Another factor is that Ukraine has not always been proactive in telling its own narrative — who we are. For three centuries, we lived in the shadow of the Russian Empire. And when you travel to parts of the world farther from Europe, people often only know that you come from the same region as Russia. Everything they know about Ukraine is what Russia has told them over the years and decades.

Now, for perhaps the first time, we have the opportunity to speak with our own voice and tell the world what Ukraine truly is: a sovereign state, and that Ukrainians are a people distinct from Russians. That we have our own language, that books are written in this language, and people in Ukraine read them. For many, this is a revelation, because it completely contradicts what they’ve been told by Russia. At the same time, I must say that this is a two-way street. Ukrainians, who expect solidarity from others, must also show solidarity in return. As I mentioned, there are many hotspots in the world today, and we must also stand with people who are fighting for freedom, for justice, and for human dignity — not just wait for support, but be willing to give it too.

In your Nobel Peace Prize speech, you said: “You don’t have to be Ukrainians to support Ukraine. It is enough just to be humans.” Almost three years have passed since you received the Nobel Peace Prize. Among the politicians you’ve met during this time, have you often encountered “people with a human face”?

You know, we are all shaped by our professions. For example, I’m a human rights defender, and I have a very strong emotional response to injustice — no matter where it happens or who it affects. My worldview is not confined by national borders. Human rights violations in other countries resonate with me just as strongly. That’s partly because of my personal beliefs — after all, they led me into this field — but also because this perspective has been trained and reinforced through years of practical work. Politicians also have their own professional issues. And like any group of people, they’re very different from one another. There are those who simply have a different value system. I’m not saying it’s better or worse — it’s just different. Some of them take a transactional approach. They might say: “I’m sorry about your country, but why we have to help you?” And you have to know how to answer that, too.

Today, there are differing opinions about Europe’s stance on the war in Ukraine. Some say that the world and Europe — are growing tired of Ukraine, while others believe that Europe has actually awakened and is ready to invest in Ukraine and its own security. How do you see and feel this?

It’s natural that, over time, attention to Ukraine fades. And again, this is connected to the emergence of new flashpoints — new outbreaks of violence in other parts of the world. These are natural processes, which is why we must come forward not just with stories of suffering, but with meaning. Because today’s victims featured in newspaper headlines will be replaced by new ones tomorrow. Simply saying “We were attacked” is clearly not enough. I always remind myself: the war in Sudan has been ongoing for 23 years. Horrific crimes are being committed there, and many people fall victim to them every day — but even that is often not enough to write about it in the news. Sadly, people have become used to it, and this evil has been normalized. To avoid the same fate, we must speak through meaning — we must explain how Ukraine’s fight for freedom fits into a broader global context. And this is, of course, much easier to explain to European countries. Because Russia is an empire. An empire has a centre — but no borders. An empire always seeks expansion. And these European countries are safe today because Ukrainians continue to fight and hold back the Russian army. This growing awareness — that helping Ukraine is not an act of charity, but an investment in their own security — is beginning to take root.

But we also see Hungary and Slovakia, where the governments are anti-Ukrainian and the same could potentially happen in Poland.

You mention Hungary, which has long been the subject of numerous reports detailing how democratic institutions there are being dismantled, freedom of speech is disappearing, and the judiciary is being brought under the control of the president’s inner circle. These are processes that are moving in the opposite direction of democratization. So there’s nothing surprising here.

Authoritarian leaders tend to support one another situationally because they share a common worldview. They see people as objects to be governed. They deny rights and freedoms not only to others but also to their own citizens. And that makes it very easy for them to find mutual understanding, even if they have other points of disagreement. I believe we need to speak more with populations within societies and explain that we are living in an era of turbulence, and we can no longer afford a childish mindset. This is something we practiced as kids. We played tag, and when you got tired or were about to lose, you could fold your hands into a little triangle and say, “I’m in the house.” That meant no one could touch you. It was fine when I was a child but it doesn’t work in adult life. In adult life, when challenges come, you can’t just opt out. You have to take responsibility. And unfortunately, the challenges we’re facing are of such magnitude that this responsibility cannot be placed solely on politicians. I think we need to find the right vocabulary and the right language and speak without preaching, without arrogance, without contempt. We need to explain things simply and clearly to people and societies: that we need their engagement now. That we are witnessing a global struggle, a struggle between authoritarianism and democracy. This war is just one manifestation of that broader struggle. And that is why it will ultimately determine the kind of world their children will live in.

“Pessimism is a luxury we cannot afford. When strength runs out, character takes over.” How often do you return to this quote? Do you still have strength left or have you been living and working on character alone for a long time now?

That’s exactly why I wrote that quote and mind you, it was even before the full-scale invasion. Even then, there were times when I had to rely on sheer character to keep going. But what gives me strength is people. Truly. You know, in these dramatic times — times no one would wish to live through, there is also something remarkable: they allow people to show their best qualities. To fight for freedom. To take responsibility onto their own shoulders. To be brave. To help one another. And that is incredibly inspiring. I believe that since we are already engaged in this fight against an authoritarian military machine, then regardless of what the future holds, we have already entered the pages of world history with dignity.

Oleksandra Matviichuk is a human rights defender and head of the Center for Civil Liberties. She received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2022. In 2016, she received the Democracy Defender Award from the OSCE. In 2017, she participated in the Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program at Stanford University. In March 2022, together with other partners, she created the “Tribunal for Putin” initiative. Also in 2022, she was awarded the Sakharov Prize from the European Parliament. She is the initiator of the #SaveOlegSentsov campaign (renamed #LetMyPeopleGo after Oleg Sentsov’s release), which is aimed at securing the freedom of Ukrainian political prisoners. She is the author of a number of alternative reports submitted to several international institutions, including the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the European Union, the OSCE, and the International Criminal Court. She is also a member of the Ukrainian PEN Club.

Andrii Kutsyk holds a PhD in Philosophy of Media (Lesya Ukrainka Volyn National University/Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań) and a Master’s Degree in Eastern European Studies (University of Warsaw). He is currently a Research Fellow at the Institute of Political Science at the University of Gdańsk, a member of the Research Institute for European Policy, and secretary of the European Journal of Transformation Studies. In 2024, he also received the Ivan Vyhovsky Prize.

New Eastern Europe is a reader supported publication. Please support us and help us reach our goal of $10,000! We are nearly there. Donate by clicking on the button below.

freedom, Russian invasion of Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine-West relations, war crimes