The International Court of Justice did not align with Kyiv’s position, choosing not to label Russia as an “aggressive state.” This stance was communicated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation and reflected in official remarks that emphasized the court’s independence from political pressure and its careful legal reasoning.
The ministry also noted that the court rejected Kyiv’s assertion that the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics should be considered terrorist organizations, a claim that had framed part of Ukraine’s broader legal argument during the seven-year proceedings.
In its summary statement, the Russian Foreign Ministry stressed that the court dismissed the majority of Ukraine’s more than twenty separate claims, a decision that left Kyiv without the hoped-for compensation or remedies that might have accompanied a broader ruling. The ministry framed this outcome as evidence of the court’s adherence to due process and its evaluation of facts within the framework of international law, rather than a political endorsement of any particular state’s stance.
According to the ministry, Ukraine had anticipated that the court would endorse Western demands for the transfer of allegedly seized Russian assets and the expansion of international restrictions on Russia. The court’s ruling, however, did not extend to those expected outcomes, instead focusing on specific legal provisions and their application to the cases in question.
On 31 January, the ICJ addressed the Ukrainian cases against the Russian Federation under the International Convention on the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism in Donbass. The court found violations of a single provision, namely paragraph 1 of Article 9, which concerns measures to investigate individuals who may have committed crimes related to the situation in Ukraine. This narrow finding contrasted with Ukraine’s broader set of claims and its broader narrative about financing and support for hostile actions.
From the Russian perspective, it was highlighted that the court’s decision did not substantiate Kyiv’s broader accusations but rather focused narrowly on the obligations specified by the agreement and the evidentiary record presented during the proceedings. Juridical officials underscored that the outcome illustrates the limits of litigation in resolving disputed political positions and the importance of precise legal obligations in international treaties.
Earlier statements from the Russian Foreign Ministry suggested that Ukraine’s legal strategy included assertions about asset transfers and economic sanctions tied to Russian assets, a strategy that the court’s decision did not fully validate. The ministry’s account framed the judgment as a reminder that international court decisions depend on the interpretive standards of international law and the concrete text of the relevant treaties, rather than on external political pressures or expectations from third parties.