‘The losers don’t put the victors on trial’ Reactions from the Kremlin’s cronies to Europe’s prosecution plans against Putin
European officials are planning a special tribunal to prosecute Vladimir Putin for ordering the invasion of Ukraine. “Russia must be held accountable for its aggression — and it must pay,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said of the decision. While senior legal experts at the European Commission, the European External Action Service, and the Council of Europe have framed the tribunal as a step toward justice, the Russian authorities have responded predictably, dismissing it as illegitimate and toothless. Here’s how they and pro-Kremlin media are reacting.
In a February 4 press release, the European Commission announced that the “legal foundations” had been laid to establish a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression Against Ukraine. The tribunal, which will be formed through a bilateral agreement between Ukraine and the Council of Europe, has been a long time coming. Ukraine first pushed for an international tribunal to try Vladimir Putin just days after Russia launched its full-scale invasion.
Nearly three years later, that effort is finally taking shape. “Today we have seen important progress which will have a major impact on the people of Ukraine for generations to come,” said Council of Europe Secretary General Alain Berset. “We will not stop until Russia is held fully accountable and justice is done.”
While the final steps for establishing the tribunal are expected this spring, the language surrounding it leaves little doubt about its target. An unnamed E.U. official told European Pravda that the tribunal is “essentially a tribunal against Putin.” Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, echoed that sentiment, telling reporters, “There is no doubt that Putin has committed the crime of aggression, which is deciding to attack another country.”
Meduza has condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine from the very start, and we are committed to reporting objectively on a war we firmly oppose. Join Meduza in its mission to challenge the Kremlin’s censorship with the truth. Donate today.
News of the special tribunal has predictably outraged Russian officials, though only a handful have commented publicly so far. Leonid Slutsky, chairman of the State Duma’s Foreign Affairs Committee and leader of the ultranationalist political party LDPR, is Russia’s highest-ranking figure to react.
Speaking to the Russian state outlet TASS, Slutsky dismissed the tribunal as a “stillborn initiative” and claimed it was nothing more than an “anti-Russian propaganda stunt” designed to “distract from the dire state of Ukraine’s Armed Forces on the front line.” He insisted the tribunal “has no legitimate basis” and argued that Russia’s withdrawal from the Council of Europe rendered its decisions meaningless. “The E.U. has never dictated terms to us,” he said.
The lawmaker also lashed out at those behind the tribunal, asking, “And who are the judges? War criminals? Psychopaths? Sponsors of nuclear blackmail and terrorists?” He predicted the effort was “doomed to fail.” Slutsky further claimed that in the future, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his “accomplices” would stand trial instead. “And it will be a fair trial, without double standards and lies,” he told TASS.
Another Russian figure weighing in is Maxim Grigoriev, a member of Russia’s Civic Chamber and chairman of Russia’s so-called “International Public Tribunal on the Crimes of Ukrainian Neo-Nazis.” He told TASS he believes the plan is part of a “hybrid information war” against Russia.
“All these arguments for the special tribunal are just a continuation of the world community’s disinformation campaign,” he said, calling the effort “extremely cynical.” Grigoriev also told TASS he believed the tribunal was “just as illegal” as the actions of the International Criminal Court, which issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin in March 2023 over the illegal deportation of children from occupied Ukrainian territory.
Pro-Putin media has also sought to discredit the tribunal. Tsargrad TV, a right-wing Orthodox Christian news network, mocked it as a “phantom” that “will never actually happen” and framed the effort as a sign of European weakness. The outlet argued that “the Old Continent” is doing “everything possible” to prevent “Washington, Moscow, and other world powers” from negotiating an end to the conflict in Ukraine. However, instead of pressuring Putin, Europe’s tribunal “has only helped him without [them] even realizing it,” argued a guest who appeared on Tsargrad TV.
Sergey Latyshev, another commentator on the network, went further, calling the tribunal’s creation a “pitiful” attempt to go after the “harmless Putin,” who spent years “vainly pleading with the West not to turn Ukraine into Russia’s enemy.” The president is now less susceptible to European threats, added Latyshev, adding, “The less Putin travels to the West and its colonies, and the more he focuses on his own country, the better it is for Russia and its people.”
Russian billionaire and Tsargrad Group CEO Konstantin Malofeev also mocked the E.U. tribunal, declaring, “For the first time in history, the losing side is planning to put the victors on trial.”
But while Russian officials and pro-Kremlin media are busy trying to dismiss the tribunal as illegitimate and futile, in Ukraine, it’s seen as a long-overdue step toward justice.
“This is not just about Ukraine; it is about global justice and the message we send to the world,” said Iryna Mudra, a senior staff official in President Zelensky’s administration. “Once we launch the Tribunal, we will prove that we are serious about enforcing peace and international law, that the perpetrators of the crime of aggression will be punished, and justice will be served for the victims.”
Mariia Mezentseva-Fedorenko, the head of Ukraine’s delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), also welcomed the resolution, calling it a clear win. “PACE has almost called Putin a terrorist — this is undoubtedly a victory,” she said. She noted that while Ukraine had pushed for a straightforward declaration — “Putin is a terrorist” — the final resolution opted for legal wording that he “commits terrorist acts.” “For us, the meaning remains the same,” Mezentseva-Fedorenko said.
