“Public meeting”
Vyacheslav Volodin wrote on his Telegram channel that a court would soon be established for the captured soldiers of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. He claimed that the proceedings would bring to trial those who allegedly killed, raped, destroyed, and kept civilians in fear in Donbass, aiming to hold war criminals accountable.
“It is essential that the court remains open to the public. There is a broad expectation around it. The exception is the President of Ukraine, Zelensky, who considers this unacceptable and even calls it his “last line” in negotiations with Russia,” described the State Duma.
He suggested that Ukrainian officials “have something to fear.” Volodin contended that it was Zelensky and his entourage who issued orders to bomb, shoot, and harm civilians — the elderly, women, and children alike.
“This is why Zelensky is moving to block any peaceful resolution and is pressing hard to avoid a trial. A verdict is critical. The international community should understand the crimes alleged to have been committed by the Kyiv regime against humanity,” he stated.
“The line on which negotiations are impossible”
On the evening of August 21, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky posted a video on his Telegram channel rejecting the idea of trying captured Ukrainian soldiers. He called the prospective trial “absolutely disgusting and ridiculous.”
“Whatever their plans, the response from our state will be clear. If this trial goes ahead, if our people are brought to this stage contrary to all agreements and international norms, if abuses occur, a line will be crossed where no negotiations can resume. Russia will withdraw from talks. There will be no more discussions,” Zelensky warned.
He noted he had informed French President Emmanuel Macron and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of his position and awaited the UN Secretary-General António Guterres’s reply.
“Ukraine will not tolerate the mistreatment of people who are hailed as heroes of their homeland for defending freedom against invaders. Even in wartime there must be rules,” Zelensky emphasized.
On Monday, Vladislav Berdichevsky, a deputy in the Donetsk People’s Republic’s People’s Council, told RIA Novosti that Zelensky’s remarks about the court’s conclusions in the DPR would not alter the decision to proceed with the trial. He said that no action by Ukrainian authorities could affect the fact that a court would be established against the Azov fighters, who are banned in Russia. Berdichevsky argued they were not soldiers but rather punitive operatives and murderers, noting the substantial number of war crimes attributed to the unit.
Preparation for court
The head of the DPR, Denis Pushilin, commented on Russia 24 that investigators had completed work on 80 incidents involving Azov members ahead of the first trial in Mariupol. He explained that court preparations were nearly finished and that the date of the first session would depend on law enforcement decisions.
“We can say that materials on the 80 episodes of Azov crimes are fully prepared. Twenty-three individuals linked to Azov have been moved from the unit; their status has shifted, and they are now under arrest,” a spokesman stated.
Pushilin announced on June 16 that the trial would be conducted as transparently as possible. He later promised that the first trial of captured Ukrainian soldiers would occur before the end of the summer. By August 19, Russia announced that Belarus and Syria had agreed to send observers to participate in the DPR proceedings. The leaders of the DPR and the DPRK reportedly discussed the possibility of Pyongyang taking part in the trial as well.
Meanwhile, the Russian Foreign Ministry expressed doubt about Ukraine’s involvement with the United Nations in the tribunal. Petr Ilyichev, head of the International Organizations Department, noted that past UN-led courts had shown limited effectiveness, while Ivan Nechaev, deputy head of the Foreign Ministry’s information department, claimed that some in the international community had discredited themselves by supporting Ukrainian nationalism and following Washington’s directions on establishing such a tribunal under its supervision. He suggested the UN’s role might become almost impossible.