After the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States perpetrated by the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda, the mindset of the United States shifted drastically towards one of counterterrorism. The United States initiated the Global War on Terror (GWOT), which sought to eliminate terrorism and secure the United States from any future terrorist attacks. American troops and military equipment were swiftly deployed to several Middle-Eastern countries. With the painful memories of the September 11th attacks still fresh in the mind of the American public, president George W. Bush addressed the issue during his inauguration speech, “states like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these states pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.” The United States had undertaken a massive war effort, however, would come to learn that major geopolitical and strategic issues were underestimated on different fronts.
While the United States and its army were preoccupied in the Middle-East, the growing imminent threat of Russia and President Vladimir Putin were disregarded. Despite several Russian invasions and military operations, the United States discredited the issue of the growing imperialist ideology of the Russian Federation. While American efforts were tied up in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, Russian aggression towards neighboring countries were frequently underplayed and left unpunished. This was demonstrated with the 2008 Russian invasion of Georgia, a neighboring country once under the control of the Soviet Union. The United States’ response to this aggression was mild, and the U.S. military did not send significant. Persistent invasions from Russia would continue and Washington would continue to downplay the issues in the region. This would be demonstrated again with the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea. While the United States would apply financial sanction against Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin, Washington resisted applying tighter and more restrictive financial sanctions. Military aid to Ukraine was few and far between, and the U.S. was careful with donations. Even with repeated aggression from the Russian Federation, American foreign policy was heavily tilted towards the Middle East, while mounting concerns with Russia were downplayed. Former 2012 presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, took a very different stance, however. He argued that, “Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe.” Meanwhile, former President of the United States, Barack Obama, in a presidential debate with Romney, was quoted saying, “the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” In fact, Mitt Romney’s interpretation of the Russian strategic threat was anything but outdated. This would be shown time and again in the coming years, while the United States remained entangled in a long-lasting war in the Middle East. The deemphasized stance of the United States on Russia would create a political and strategic threat. This will be discussed further.
Distribution of Power in the Region (Russian Influence in the Region):
With over 3.5 million active duty soldiers, Russia has the largest army in Europe. Globally, Russia’s military ranks amongst the largest and most powerful. However, the influence that the Russian Federation has over Europe is much deeper than military power. In 2021 alone, total trade between the Russian Federation and the European Union was valued at 257.5 billion Euro. Of which, Russia exported over 158 billion Euro worth of goods to the European Union, and approximately 98 billion Euro of which consisted of fuel and mining products.[1] The tremendous role that Russia plays in the European arena creates a strategic risk in the region and could undermine the security and stability of Europe as a whole.
This was demonstrated following the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine, when Germany and fellow European countries found themselves heavily reliant upon Russian fuel. In the past decades, Germany has expanded its dependence on foreign imported fuel, while making little progress in developing fossil-fuel infrastructure domestically. In a bid to transition to renewable fuels, Germany further rejected the use of nuclear energy. This came with the 13th amendment to the German Atomic Energy Act, which emphasized the phasing out of civil atomic energy production. Nuclear energy is set to be completely phased out from the German economy by the end of 2022.[2]
Russia plays a powerful and authoritative role in Europe, and this cannot be fully credited to them. In May 2018, Germany granted permission for the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to increase the imports of Russian gas into Germany.[3] Yet in 2018, defense expenditure as a share of GDP and annual real change from Germany was only 1.24%, falling behind the 2% target specified by NATO.[4] This sparked controversy amongst many, including former President of the United States Donald Trump, as he was quoted in a meeting with fellow NATO representatives, “So we’re supposed to protect you against Russia but they’re paying billions of dollars to Russia and I think that is very inappropriate.” He further added, “Now, if you look at it, Germany is a captive of Russia because they got rid of their coal plants, they got rid of their nuclear plants. They are getting so much of the oil and gas from Russia. I think it’s something NATO has to look at.”
Further, Russian oligarchs use European financial hubs to hide their assets and funds. London is amongst one of the most notorious safe-havens for the elite of Russia with anonymous identities and shell companies. Transparency International, an anti-corruption campaign group, identified 150 land titles with a value of 1.5 billion Pounds Sterling owned by Russian individuals who have ties to the Kremlin or illicit activity. Using tax havens and off-shore shell companies, Russian oligarchs are able to hide and transport funds while avoiding sanctions and other financial restrictions.[5] The United Kingdom’s visa regime made acquiring residence in the UK effortless for Russian oligarchs. From 2008 until February 2022, a person could acquire British residence under the condition that they invested 2 million pounds sterling or higher. While Western countries had enacted sanctions for years against Russia, oligarchs and wealthy individuals were still able to access London’s financial and real-estate markets, transporting billions of dollars of potentially illicit funds.
In addition to the economic might of Russia, the military might is equally as worrisome. President Vladimir Putin’s repeated aggression in Europe has proven Russia to be a hostile state. Further, Russia has heavy control over the neighboring former Soviet republic, Belarus. Together, these two countries pose a stark risk to regional European safety. For instance, the 2021 Belarussian orchestration of a migrant crisis on the Polish-Belarusian border in an effort to undermine the security of Poland and Eastern Europe. President of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, closely tied with President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, aimed to manufacture a border crisis to destabilize the region and provoke neighboring countries.
Putin’s imperialistic drive:
Vladimir Putin’s deep imperialistic drive continues to compromise the security of the world as a whole. His reminiscence of the Soviet Union is shown with the repeated invasion of neighboring countries, and his reference to the collapse of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”
The claims and justifications of Russia’s numerous invasions have varied, however, usually they pertain to installing a pro-Russian leadership in a neighboring country. The Kremlin has consistently worked over the 30 years since the dissolution of the Soviet Union to ensure that its neighboring states have pro-Russian leadership that will cooperate on all fronts with Moscow. Countries aiming to establish democratic and western-friendly leadership are seen as a threat by the Kremlin. History has proven this the case numerous times. The 2008 Russian invasion of Georgia was claimed to be an operation to protect Russians in the region, as well as undermine any chance of Georgia joining NATO. Similarly, Russia illegally annexed Crimea in 2014, claiming to protect ethnic Russians. Ultimately, Russia held an illegitimate referendum to vote on the cessation of Crimea from Ukraine and to join Russia.[6]
Russian leaders seek to undermine the peace and stability of their neighboring nations to destroy any pro-democratic uprising or culture. Vladimir Putin himself views NATO as a threat to Russian security, and he continues to make bold statements regarding the Eastward expansion of NATO. In a phone call with French President, Emanuel Macron, Vladimir Putin claimed that one of the main justifications behind invading was to ensure its neutral status and denazification of Ukraine.[7] Allegations of Ukraine being a Nazi state have been widely discredited and disproven by the West. Since the invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin has perpetuated baseless narratives to smear the Ukrainian government and justify the so-called “special military operation” in the Donbass. Evidence of atrocities committed by Russian troops continues to mount, including killing and torturing of civilians, and attacking of civilian infrastructure.[8] Regardless, Russia insists that its military does not target civilian or civilian infrastructure, and that any apparent atrocities in Ukraine are staged.
The Role Ukraine Plays as a Safety Buffer Between Russia and NATO:
Ukraine has historically and currently played the role of being a borderland between two global powers. The name “Ukraine” (Ukrainian: Україна), refers to the Slavic word for borderland. Ukraine has been stuck in a political grid-lock for years, as foreign powers have been working to assert dominance over the region. The Kremlin, however, has been keen to see that Ukraine fall to Moscow’s sphere of influence.
Following Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Putin claimed that the West’s interest in expanding NATO’s territory onto Ukrainian land threatened Russia’s national security. Despite NATO not reiterating these claims, Ukraine’s buffer status was called into question globally. Since the beginning of the invasion, NATO has walked the fine line between supporting the territorial integrity of Ukraine, while also not provoking war between the West and Russia.
How exactly does a country acquire NATO membership? An aspiring NATO member state must meet certain criteria to be able to join. First, an aspiring member state must be in Europe. Additionally, all prospective member states must be aligned with democratic principles. Finally, the state must be willing to consistently contribute to NATO. If a prospective member meets these criteria, it can be invited to join the Member Action Plan (MAP). The plan will provide support and create a unique plan for membership. The member state. Following this, discussions are held where states agree to the terms of NATO membership. For a country to pass any further, each current NATO member state must ratify their proposed NATO membership. This is often a strenuous and controversial task. Lastly, a country must adopt a bill of ratification following its own democratic procedures.[9]
While interest domestically exists in Ukraine to join NATO, member states have voiced doubts about letting Ukraine join while actively at war. Former Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, reiterated her 2008 stance on the blocking of Ukraine from joining NATO.[10] Corruption is a common concern among NATO member states with regard to the admission of Ukraine to NATO. While the potential for Ukraine to join NATO exists, it would require willpower and decisiveness amongst all 30 member states. This, in the near future, is an unrealistic prospect.
The repercussions of granting Ukraine membership status are alarming. NATO Article 5 states that, “that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.”[11] With Russia actively engaging in war against Ukraine, membership status would warrant full scale intervention from every member state. This prospect, for many, is stark and the will to engage in a full scale war against Russia is minimal. From the standpoint of the United States, a war of this scale would be detrimental. With the withdrawal from the 20 year military presence in Afghanistan in 2021, the United States is wary of provoking a potentially much larger war.
Perception/Interest In The US
The full scale Russian invasion of Ukraine has been met with denunciation and condemnation in the United States. President Joe Biden and his administration maintain their position, recognizing the sovereignty of Ukrainian territory, while condemning the unlawful occupation by the Russian military. On the day of the Russian invasion, President Biden, in a speech to the American people, said, “The Russian military has begun a brutal assault on the people of Ukraine without provocation, without justification, without necessity.” He would continue on to condemn the Kremlin’s invasion, while expressing support for the Ukrainian people. However, Biden was quick to address the issue of NATO troops in the region, saying, “Our forces are not and will not be engaged in the conflict with Russia in Ukraine. Our forces are not going to Europe to fight in Ukraine but to defend our NATO Allies and reassure those Allies in the east.”[12]
Financial and military aid has been at the forefront of US foreign policy with Ukraine. As of August 24, 2022, the United States has committed over 13.5 billion US dollars in security assistance to the Ukrainian army. This includes over 1,400 Stinger anti-aircraft systems, over 8,500 Javelin anti-armor systems, over 27,000 other anti-armor systems, 16 105mm Howitzers and 108,000 105mm artillery rounds, and much more. These weapons are designed to thwart attacks and help regain Ukrainian territory temporarily occupied by Russian forces.[13]
While the United States continues to send substantial military aid to Ukraine, the Biden administration has made it clear that American and NATO troops will not be involved in a conflict between Russia and Ukraine. President Biden has reiterated that the United States will, if such a situation were to arise, meet its Article 5 commitment to NATO, stating that an attack against any NATO state is an attack against all NATO states. As President Biden remarked, “As I made crystal clear, the United States will defend every inch of NATO territory with the full force of American power.”[14]
The United States, along with its European allies, has worked to isolate the Russian economy by imposing strict financial sanctions. Major Russian banks are now unable to make or receive international payments using the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT). While the movement of funds without the use of SWIFT is theoretically possible, it is still detrimental to the Russian economy to not have access to such financial resources. Further, the European Union has prohibited all transactions with the National Central Bank of Russia with regard to the management of its reserves and assets.[15]
Imports and exports to Russia have also been strictly sanctioned, restricting Russia’s economy and further removing it from the global stage. By decree of U.S. President, Joe Biden, the United States has banned the import of oil, liquified natural gas, and coal originating from Russia.[16] Similarly, the European Union has made plans to phase out the importations of Russian fuel, however, fuel exports to several member states have been entirely suspended. Additionally, Western allies have sanctioned the export cutting-edge technology, luxury items, and aviation goods and technology to the Russian Federation.[17]
President Joe Biden has maintained his policy of supporting the territorial integrity of Ukraine, while also not provoking a war with Russia. It is in the broader interests of the United States that Ukraine remains a peaceful and prosperous state, as President Biden was quoted, “We want to see a democratic, independent, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine with the means to deter and defend itself against further aggression.”
While the United States sends substantial military aid, spending for humanitarian aid to Ukraine has also increased since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As of August 29, 2022, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), has financed over 1.5 billion US dollars of humanitarian aid to Ukraine. These funds are working towards food security, heath services, logistics and relief commodities for the nearly 17.7 million people in need of humanitarian assistance in Ukraine.[18]
Success/Failure of Above
The United States’ military and financial contributions to Ukraine have played a positive role in the ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine continues to receive financial and military aid that thwarts Russian attacks on Ukrainian territory. Territory that was once occupied by Russian military forces is now falling back under the control of Ukraine. The Kremlin, at the beginning of the invasion, believed that Kyiv would quickly fall under Russian control within mere days. These erroneous expectations were soon proven to be false, as Russian forces were unable to occupy Kyiv.[19]
In recent days, Ukrainian forces have been able to liberate Russian occupied territory in the Kharkiv region of Ukraine, pushing them back towards the Russian border. However, territory in the East of Ukraine is still predominantly under Russian control. Cities such as Mariupol, Donetsk, and Luhansk have faced severe Russian bombardment and are still under Russian control. Efforts are
Perception/Interest in Russia
The perception of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is difficult to gauge amongst the Russian population. Following the February 24, 2022, invasion of Ukraine, the Russian state Duma has invoked new supposed anti-treason laws. Now, “dissemination of deliberately false information about the use of Russian Armed Forces,” is a criminal offense in Russia. Russians are now punished for so much as wearing blue and yellow clothing, holding blank posters, and private conversations against the war in Ukraine. Thus, Russians have been dissuaded from vocalizing their stance on Ukraine.[20]
Russian state media continues to propagate misinformation regarding the invasion of Ukraine in Russia, playing a major role in public opinion domestically. Just as individual citizens are prohibited from publicly opposing the war, media organizations are forbidden from spreading information that differs from the official stance of the Kremlin.[21] Journalists who do not abide by such regulations face censorship and risk their everyday livelihood. The Russian government has notoriously attacked journalists who oppose the party line. One of the most prominent journalists to be assassinated by the Russian government was Anna Politkovskaya. Politkovskaya was a Russian journalist and writer, known for her criticism of the Russian war in Chechnya and her opposition to Vladimir Putin. She was shot dead in her Moscow apartment building on October 7, 2006, which also happened to be Vladimir Putin’s birthday. It is suspected that her assassination was a contract killing with potential links to the Kremlin.[22] Later that year, Alexander Litvinenko, a critic of Vladimir Putin and his administration, was poisoned by a radioactive substance. He would soon pass away as a result of acute radiation syndrome. The European Court of Human Rights would soon find the Russian Federation guilty for the crimes committed against Litvinenko. Russian journalists are faced with the constant threat of repercussions for speaking against the Kremlin, making media opposition very rare in Russia.[23]
Repercussion for Russian atrocities
Since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine, Russia has consistently denied that its troops have committed atrocities in Ukraine. Russia maintains its stance that only military infrastructure is targeted, and that civilian infrastructure would not be a target in military operations. However, evidence has shown, time and again, that Russia has committed atrocities in cities across Ukraine. Leaders from around the world, including Ursula Von Der Leyen, Nancy Pelosi, and Boris Johnson. President of the European Commission, Ursula Von Der Leyen, was herself taken to Bucha, Ukraine, the site of mass atrocities and graves.
Over the course of the war in Ukraine, evidence of inhumane and barbaric acts of Russian soldiers has been found. The International Court of Justice is actively investigating such evidence, as countries continue to call on Russia to cease all military occupation in Ukraine. One of the most prominent sites of Russian atrocity is the mass graves discovered in Bucha, Ukraine. Satellite imagery of Bucha, as well as countless videos and photographs, show civilians’ lifeless bodies laying on streets after Russian occupation.[24] On several occasions, homes, basements, and other places of civilian dwelling were found to be used a torture chambers for innocent Ukrainian civilians.[25] Evidence continues to mount regarding Russian troops committing crimes against humanity in Bucha. On September 23, 2022, a top United Nations human rights inquiry confirmed that war crimes had in fact been committed in Ukraine.[26]
Conclusion
The United States and Russia have a long and tense relationship. At times relations appear to be improving. Recent acts of aggression in Ukraine have fomented political unrest, as the United States has scrambled to enact sanctions and other restrictions against the Kremlin. The U.S. is at a strategic crossroads with the war in Ukraine. As Russian aggression pushes closer to the border with NATO, the security of the alliance is being called into question. American or NATO soldiers on the frontline in Ukraine would cause a rapid downward spiral in relations between the nations, potentially causing a full scale war between multiple nuclear nations. On the flip side, allowing Russia to disregard the territorial integrity of a neighboring sovereign nation could threaten the security of Europe as a whole.
While keeping regional security interests in mind, the U.S. walks a fine line between supporting Ukrainian efforts, while not further provoking the Kremlin into further aggression. Along with its partners, Washington has sent billions of dollars of military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine. While American troops have not been deployed, Ukraine plays a major role in the overall security of Europe and NATO as a whole. It is in the United States’ best interests to insure that Ukraine remains sovereign and free from Russian interference.
Jack Kakasenko – Jack is working towards his BS degree in Aerospace Engineering and Russian Studies at North Carolina State University. He is interested in the political and historical relationship between Ukraine and Russia, and it’s role in international affairs.
[1] European Commission “EU trade relations with Russia. Facts, figures and latest developments.” Available at: https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/russia_en#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20the%20EU%20was%20Russia%27s%20first%20trade,the%20EU%20and%20Russia%20amounted%20to%20€257.5%20billion. Accessed October, 2022
[2] Government of the Federal Republic of Germany “German Atomic Energy Act (Atomgesetz)” Available at: https://www.nuklearesicherheit.de/en/licensing-and-supervision/the-legal-framework/german-atomic-energy-act/ Accessed October, 2022
[3] Reuters Staff “Timeline: Twists and turns in Russia’s Nord stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany” October 7, 2020. Reuters. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nordstream-poland-timeline-idUSKBN26S2AW Accessed October, 2022.
[4] North Atlantic Treaty Organization. “Defense expenditure of NATO countries (2011-2018)” July 10, 2018. Available at: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_156770.htm. Accessed October, 2022.
[5] Transparency International UK “Transparency measures must be fast-tracked to kick start dirty money crackdown” February 22, 2022. Available at https://www.transparency.org.uk/russia-sanctions-UK-latest-news-property-dirty-money-suspect-wealth Accessed October, 2022
[6] European Union External Action “Seven years since Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea” February 25, 2021. Available at: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/seven-years-russia’s-illegal-annexation-crimea_en Accessed October, 2022.
[7] President of Russia. “Telephone call with President of France Emmanuel Macron.” February 28, 2022. Available at: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67880 Accessed October, 2022
[8] United Nations. “Plight of civilians in Ukraine” May 10, 2022. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-briefing-notes/2022/05/plight-civilians-ukraine#:~:text=Since%2024%20February%2C%20the%20United,may%20amount%20to%20war%20crimes Accessed October, 2022
[9] North Atlantic Treaty Organization. “Enlargement and Article 10” July 6, 2022. Available at: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm#:~:text=NATO’s%20“open%20door%20policy”%20is,a%20say%20in%20such%20deliberations Accessed October, 2022.
[10] France24. “Merkel defends 2008 stance to block Ukraine from NATO.” April 4, 2022. Availible at: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220404-merkel-defends-2008-decision-to-block-ukraine-from-nato Accessed October, 2022.
[11] North Atlantic Treaty Organization. “Enlargement and Article 10” July 6, 2022. Available at: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm#:~:text=NATO’s%20“open%20door%20policy”%20is,a%20say%20in%20such%20deliberations Accessed October, 2022
[12] The White House “Remarks by President Biden on Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified attack on Ukraine.” February 24, 2022. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/02/24/remarks-by-president-biden-on-russias-unprovoked-and-unjustified-attack-on-ukraine/ Accessed October, 2022.
[13] United States Department of Defense “Fact Sheet on U.S. Security Assistance to Ukraine.” August 24, 2022. Available at: https://media.defense.gov/2022/Aug/24/2003063760/-1/-1/1/UKRAINE-FACT-SHEET-AUG-24.PDF Accessed October, 2022
[14] The White House “Remarks by President Biden on Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified attack on Ukraine.” February 24, 2022. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/02/24/remarks-by-president-biden-on-russias-unprovoked-and-unjustified-attack-on-ukraine/ Accessed October, 2022.
[15] Council of the European Union “EU sanctions against Russia explained.” Available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions/restrictive-measures-against-russia-over-ukraine/sanctions-against-russia-explained/ Accessed October, 2022.
[16] The White House “FACT SHEET: United States bans imports of Russian oil, liquefied natural gas, and coal” March 8, 2022. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/08/fact-sheet-united-states-bans-imports-of-russian-oil-liquefied-natural-gas-and-coal/ Accessed October, 2022
[17] Council of the European Union “EU sanctions against Russia explained.” Available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions/restrictive-measures-against-russia-over-ukraine/sanctions-against-russia-explained/ Accessed October, 2022.
[18] USAID “Ukraine – Complex Emergency” August 29, 2022. Available at: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-08-29_USG_Ukraine_Complex_Emergency_Fact_Sheet_27.pdf. Accessed October, 2022.
[19] Griffiths, Brent D. “CIA Director Bill Burns says Putin ‘is losing’ the information war of Ukraine.” Business Insider. March 10, 2022. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/cia-director-says-putin-is-losing-information-war-over-ukraine-2022-3?IR=T Accessed October, 2022
[20] Human Rights Watch. “What can get you in trouble for anti-war speech in Russia” Available at: https://www.hrw.org/video-photos/interactive/2022/08/22/what-can-get-you-trouble-anti-war-speech-russia Accessed October, 2022
[21] The Federal Service For Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media. “To the attention of the media and other information resources.” February 24, 2022. Available at: https://rkn.gov.ru/news/rsoc/news74084.htm?utm_source=time.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=time.com&utm_referrer=time.com Accessed October, 2022.
[22] BBC News “Chechen war reporter found dead” October 7, 2006. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5416218.stm Accessed October, 2022
[23] European Court of Human Rights. “Case of Carter vs. Russia” September 21, 2021. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22Alexander%20Litvinenko%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-211972%22]} Accessed October, 2022
[24] BBC News “Bucha Killings: Satellite image of bodies site contradicts Russian claims.” April 11, 2022. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/60981238 Accessed October, 2022
[25] Shuster, Simon “A visit to a crime scene Russian troops left behind at a summer camp in Bucha.” TIME. April 13, 2022. Available at: https://time.com/6166681/bucha-massacre-ukraine-dispatch/ Accessed October, 2022
[26] United Nations “War crimes have been committed in Ukraine conflict, top UN human rights inquiry reveals.” September 23, 2022. Available at: https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/09/1127691 Accessed October, 2022
