In the months since, more than three dozen investigators on the ground and a team of lawyers in The Hague have been working to uncover evidence of possible war crimes committed as part of Russia’s brutal invasion of its neighbor. Meanwhile, in a pale yellow conference room in central Moscow around the same time, a very different investigation was underway: the International Public Tribunal for Ukraine. It is the work of Maxim Grigoriev, a member of the quasi-governmental Chamber of Citizens of the Russian Federation. Of stated goal is to “collect data and prove the Kiev regime’s commission of war crimes, discrimination against its citizens and persecution on linguistic, ethnic and ideological grounds”. The court has held a series of hearings and press conferences since April, with Grigoriev producing and publishing videos of his tours across occupied Ukraine. Opening the court, Grigoriev accused the Ukrainian government of being responsible for “murders and repression”, a “huge wave of neo-Nazism” and “persecution of the Orthodox Church”. But, he said, the ICC “simply refuses[d] to accept” all this alleged evidence — which prompted him to hold his own hearings. Sitting next to Grigoriev at the conference table in the horseshoe-shaped chamber was Russia’s secret weapon in its quest to portray itself as a victim: the West. Maxim Grigoriev, a member of the Municipal Chamber of the Russian Federation, speaks at the International Public Court for Ukraine. (Political Chamber of the Russian Federation) Grigoriev had invited Americans, Canadians and Europeans living in Russia to present their own evidence of Ukraine’s alleged crimes, boasting that more than 20 countries were represented at the court. Since April, the court has streamed videos in English and Russian on domestic social media sites such as VK and Rutube and on YouTube — collectively garnering millions of views. But experts say the court is Moscow’s way of fighting and discrediting legitimate efforts to hold soldiers, generals and politicians accountable for very real atrocities taking place in Ukraine. And since many of Grigoriev’s so-called star witnesses have a history of spreading disinformation, there is concern that, as the war drags on, the tribunal could be a powerful propaganda tool for Russia. “It’s very important to understand that the Russian domestic audience really matters here,” said Tim Squirrell, head of editorial and communications at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a think-tank that studies Russian disinformation. “One of the reasons you’re going to bring in foreign influencers to testify — in front of what is, essentially, a sham court — is to try to show the Russian people, the domestic public, that other people are on their side. “

Boycott of international proceedings

Since the start of Russia’s invasion, investigators — professional and amateur — have documented evidence of war crimes in Ukraine. There have been allegations that Russian forces have used rape, torture, summary executions and kidnappings, as well as targeted attacks on civilians, chemical facilities and nuclear plants. In many cases, the allegations have been supported by numerous eyewitness accounts, social media posts by the perpetrators, wiretapping of radio and telephone conversations, video and photographic evidence, and satellite imagery. Some of these figures also implicate Ukrainian fighters in abuses, although these incidents appear to be largely isolated. Video surfaced in April, for example, that appears to show Ukrainian fighters the execution a wounded Russian soldier. It is this body of evidence that serves as the starting point for the International Criminal Court’s investigation. Other international bodies, including the International Court of Justice and the Court of Justice of the European Union, have also opened cases, and Ukraine has initiated its own domestic legal proceedings. In late May, a Russian soldier he pleaded guilty and was sentenced in the shooting of an unarmed civilian. A Ukrainian court sentenced Russian soldier Vadim Shishimarin to life in prison in May for the killing of a Ukrainian civilian, in the first war crimes trial since the Russian invasion. (Efrem Lukatsky/The Associated Press) Russia has refused to participate in any of the proceedings. It boycotted proceedings at the International Court of Justice earlier this year – and the court later ordered Moscow to do so to stop his invasionalthough he cannot enforce such a decision. The International Criminal Court, which is based in Ukraine and collects evidence, has the power to issue arrest warrants for those who, he believes, are directly responsible for the crimes or who issued the illegal orders. Squirrell says the Grigoriev hearings are a direct response to these legitimate war crimes investigations. “A court in particular is a mechanism that tries to transfer power, that tries to transfer expertise and tries to transfer serious problems to the process,” he said. “So the idea is to effectively adopt the suit of law and justice and that allows you to believe the court’s findings.”

The Russian tribunal on Ukraine is not entirely new: Grigoriev has launched similar investigations in the past, accusing the US of crimes against humanity in Syria. Ukraine for war crimes in the Donbas region. and the Syrian opposition to chemical weapons attacks against civilians in that country’s bloody civil war — despite International unanimity that dictator and Russian ally Bashar al-Assad is responsible. He has done all of this as an appointed member of the Municipal Chamber, which is nominally independent of the Russian executive — but, like most Russian state apparatuses, is seen as staunchly loyal to President Vladimir Putin. The witness list for Grigoriev’s trial includes two Americans, a Canadian, a German, three French citizens, an Israeli, and many others from across Europe. Most are described on the court’s official website as “journalists”. But several of these witnesses have a long history of spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories. John Mark Duggan — a former Florida police officer who was under investigation for computer hacking when he fled to Moscow in 2016 — has appeared in court several times. Over the years, Dougan has moved on conspiracy theory that a murdered Democratic official, not Russia, was responsible for the leak of Hillary Clinton’s emails to WikiLeaks and, more recently, that America operates covertly bioweapons laboratories in Ukraine. In his first appearance in April, Duggan testified that Ukraine was deliberately endangering civilians as human shields. “These are actually war crimes by any definition,” he told the panel through a Russian translator. John Mark Duggan, a former Florida police officer who was under investigation for computer hacking when he fled to Moscow, appeared several times at the International Public Tribunal for Ukraine. (Political Chamber of the Russian Federation) Russia has repeatedly made this claim during the war, but evidence has shown consistent targeting of civilian infrastructure. Russia, for example, categorically denied that it had targeted a hospital in Mariupol and then claimed, without evidence, that the hospital had been used as a scenery for the Ukrainian army. The World Health Organization estimates that Russia hit some 200 Ukrainian hospitals only in the first 100 days of the war. And Ukraine’s health ministry said earlier this month that more than 800 health care facilities had been damaged, with 14 health workers killed in the strikes.

Canadian blogger in court

Dugan told CBC News that while he considers himself a journalist, he has accompanied Russian forces on the front lines, joined Russian fighter jets on sorties over Ukraine and trained Russian fighters in anti-tank weapons. “I’ll give them a way to fight back,” he said in an interview. Another court witness is Eva Bartlett, a Canadian blogger who has lived in Russia since 2019 and is a frequent contributor to RT, the Russian state television channel. Bartlett became a frequent RT guest amid Syria’s civil war, repeating the Syrian government’s line that opposition forces, even medics, were carrying out chemical weapons attacks — “false flag” attacks, she called, that were intended to slander Assad. That’s what it was for most welcome to Syria to take part in a government-sanctioned tour of the war-torn country. He will later testify on behalf of the Assad government in the UNalthough her claims have been repeatedly debunked as misleading or false. Eva Bartlett, a Canadian blogger and frequent contributor to Russian state TV channel RT, is one of the Westerners who spoke at the International Public Tribunal for Ukraine, held in Moscow. (Political Chamber of the Russian Federation) “Here, we’re seeing the same situation we saw in Syria,” Bartlett told the court in April. “The population is terrorized by the Ukrainian forces.” He insisted that “people in the West are just being brainwashed by the media and are just willing to support Ukraine.” Bartlett declined an interview request for this story, instead appearing on RT in June — which former employees has its editorial line he dictated from the Kremlin — to deride the CBC as Canada’s “state-sponsored media,” saying they do “the Canadian government’s bidding.”

“Use as a counter-narrative”

While Grigoriev’s court has no legitimacy from international courts—it has no standing in international law, nor does it appear to have legal powers under Russian law—it has nonetheless proved a useful forum for advancing Moscow’s talking points. “The ‘international’ members of the Court all have a long history…