Ukraine is striving to ensure that the future special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine does not become a process solely against the Russian leadership. Kyiv believes that if the aggression was not only a decision by Moscow but also a result of assistance from Russia’s allies, then responsibility should extend beyond the Kremlin. The tribunal should cover not only the top leadership of the Russian Federation but also those who clearly facilitated Russian aggression. Among such participants, it named Belarus, North Korea, and possibly Iran.
This was stated in an interview with “European Truth” on May 5, 2026, by Iryna Mudra, Deputy Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, who is involved in bringing Russia to international accountability.
For Israel, this topic does not seem distant. Once again, regimes that are directly or indirectly connected with the war against Ukraine and the general anti-Western axis are in the same row: Russia, Belarus, North Korea, and Iran. And it is Iran that makes this story particularly important for the Israeli audience.
Why Ukraine wants to expand the scope of the tribunal
The future special tribunal should consider the crime of aggression — that is, the very fact of waging war.
This is different from investigating individual war crimes: murders, torture, deportations, strikes on civilian objects.
According to Mudra, more than 250,000 cases of war crimes have already been registered in Ukraine. But the crime of aggression is a different level of responsibility: it involves a significantly smaller circle of people, approximately up to 30 representatives of the top political and military leadership. At the center of this structure are those who made the decision to attack, prepared it, and launched the mechanism of a large war.
That is why Kyiv does not want to limit itself to just names from the Russian authorities. If other regimes provided territory, weapons, ammunition, missiles, drones, military specialists, or political cover, their role should also be considered.
Belarus occupies an obvious place in this logic. Its territory was used by Russia for the offensive against Ukraine, including the direction towards Kyiv. North Korea appears as a regime that helps Moscow with military resources. Iran is a possible participant in supporting the Russian war, including through military technologies and drone components.
The Hague, Chisinau, and timelines: when the tribunal might start working
According to Iryna Mudra, on May 14–15, 2026, at the ministerial meeting of the Council of Europe in Chisinau, the stage of political decision-making on the creation of the tribunal should be completed. There, it is planned to sign a legal instrument of the Council of Europe — a partially extended agreement that will complete the preparation of the tribunal’s structure.
The tribunal itself is expected to operate in The Hague. The Netherlands has already identified a specific building for the initial stage — the so-called Skeleton Tribunal. At this phase, a steering committee should be in place, which will be responsible for recruiting judges, prosecutors, and investigators.
This means that loud political statements do not turn into verdicts overnight. Mudra directly states: the work of prosecutors and investigators, according to Kyiv’s expectations, will not begin before the end of 2027, and possibly in 2028. Accordingly, the first verdicts are also possible no earlier than 2028.
As of today, according to her, 24 countries have confirmed their readiness to join the agreement, but Kyiv expects at least 40 participating states. This is important because such a tribunal should not look like a Ukrainian initiative alone, but as an international mechanism of accountability for aggressive war.
Why this is not just symbolism
At first glance, it may seem that a trial of Putin or his entourage in The Hague will be mostly symbolic. Russia is unlikely to voluntarily hand over its leaders. Some processes may take place in absentia.
But in the interview, Mudra explains: the meaning of the tribunal is not only whether the world will see Putin personally in the dock. It is important whether the world is capable of legally naming aggression as a crime and convicting those who started it. According to her, if the act of aggression remains unanswered, it will be an invitation for new invasions.
For Israel, this logic is understandable. When international law does not work against the aggressor, the next step is not peace, but testing the limits of what is permissible. Authoritarian regimes closely watch how other people’s wars end.
If the seizure of territory, strikes on cities, deportations, and destruction of infrastructure can be waited out, and then return to world politics without punishment, this is a dangerous signal not only for Ukraine. It is a signal for the entire Middle East.
Iran in this story is not an accidental detail
Mentioning Iran alongside Russia, Belarus, and North Korea is especially important for the Israeli reader. For Ukraine, Iran is a possible participant in military support for Russian aggression. For Israel, Iran is a strategic enemy building a network of threats through proxies, missiles, drones, and military infrastructure around Israeli borders.
That is why the topic of the special tribunal goes beyond the Ukrainian-Russian war. It shows a broader picture: around Moscow, a circle of regimes is forming that help each other bypass isolation, support wars, and test the resilience of the Western security system.
NANews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency views this topic not only as a Ukrainian legal initiative but as part of a broader struggle for international accountability. If Iran indeed comes into the focus of the future tribunal, it will be significant for Israel: for the first time in such a context, the question of Tehran’s role may be raised not as a “supplier” or “ally,” but as a participant in the mechanism of aggression.
Belarus, North Korea, Iran: different roles, one result
These regimes have different functions.
Belarus provided Russia with space for the attack. North Korea strengthens the Russian military machine with resources and political support. Iran, if its role is proven in the future process, may appear as a source of technologies, weapons, or other assistance that allowed Moscow to continue the war.
But the overall result is the same: Russian aggression became possible not only because of the Kremlin’s decisions. It relies on a network of allies who believe that the international order can be broken without serious consequences.
It is this network that Ukraine is trying to bring out of the shadows.
Why Russia is so afraid of the topic of accountability
In the interview, Mudra emphasizes separately: the issue of Russia’s accountability is not a subject of bargaining.
According to her, Ukraine does not intend to trade justice for negotiating concessions, and partners do not demand that Kyiv abandon legal prosecution of Moscow.
This explains Russia’s nervous reaction to the topic of the tribunal. For the Kremlin, not only sanctions and frozen assets are dangerous. The legal fixation itself is dangerous: who started the war, who helped the aggressor, who gave orders, who provided political and military cover.
Russia is used to selling the world the idea of a “complex conflict,” where supposedly all sides are guilty of something. The tribunal destroys this construction. It brings the question back to the beginning: who attacked, who helped the attack, and who should answer for it.
Compensations and frozen assets
In parallel with the tribunal, Ukraine is promoting a compensation mechanism. According to Mudra, along with the losses of the state, business, and citizens, the amounts could exceed 1 trillion dollars. She also talks about $300 billion in frozen Russian assets as a possible legitimate source for a future compensation fund.
This is an important part of the entire structure. Ukraine seeks not only verdicts but also financial accountability. For the aggressor, war should become not a way to expand influence but a source of political, legal, and material catastrophe.
What this means for Israel
Israel should closely monitor the creation of the tribunal. Not because The Hague itself will solve all security issues. And not because international law always works quickly and fairly.
But because a precedent is being formed here: aggression should not dissolve in diplomatic formulations. The helpers of the aggressor should not hide behind the phrase “we did not fight directly.” Regimes that supply weapons, open territory, provide technologies or political cover cannot remain outside the field of responsibility.
For Ukraine, this is a matter of justice after Russian aggression.
For Israel, it is a reminder that Iran does not act in isolation. It is embedded in a broader camp of states that see the West’s weakness as an opportunity for pressure, war, and blackmail.
And if the future Hague tribunal indeed touches not only Russia but also its allies, it will be an important signal: the era of impunity should end not only for Putin but also for those who helped his war.
Special tribunal for aggression against Ukraine: key dates and stages
February 24, 2022 — the start of full-scale aggression
Russia began a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It was after this date that Kyiv began to seek a separate international mechanism to punish those who made the decision to attack.
January 19, 2023 — European Parliament resolution
The European Parliament adopted a resolution calling for the creation of a special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine.
Platform: European Parliament.
May 17, 2023 — Damage Register in Reykjavik
At the Council of Europe summit in Reykjavik, a Damage Register was created for the aggression caused by Russia against Ukraine.
Platform: Council of Europe.
Significance: the first practical element of the future system of accountability and compensations.
July 3, 2023 — ICPA center in The Hague
The International Center for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine — ICPA began its work in The Hague.
Platform: Eurojust, The Hague.
Task: collecting evidence and preparing cases on the crime of aggression.
May 9, 2025 — political agreement in Lviv
In Lviv, representatives of 35 countries and the Council of Europe agreed on the movement towards the creation of a special tribunal. At this stage, legal instruments were practically prepared.
Platform: Lviv.
Initiators: Ukraine, Council of Europe, and Core Group countries.
May 14, 2025 — Ukraine’s official request to the Council of Europe
Ukraine officially requested the Council of Europe to create a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine.
Platform: Council of Europe.
June 24, 2025 — decision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe authorized the creation of an extended partial agreement and empowered the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe to sign a bilateral agreement with Ukraine.
Platform: Council of Europe.
June 25, 2025 — signing of the agreement in Strasbourg
Ukraine and the Council of Europe signed an agreement on the establishment of a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine.
Platform: Strasbourg.
Signatories: Ukraine and the Council of Europe.
July 15, 2025 — ratification in the Verkhovna Rada
The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine ratified the agreement between Ukraine and the Council of Europe on the creation of the special tribunal.
Platform: Kyiv.
October 17, 2025 — the Netherlands confirmed readiness to host the tribunal
The Netherlands officially confirmed the offer to host the special tribunal on its territory at the preparatory stage.
Platform: Netherlands.
January 23, 2026 — Council of Europe and EU agreement on funding
The Council of Europe and the European Union signed an agreement on funding the advance team — the forward team that should prepare the launch of the special tribunal.
Platform: Council of Europe / EU.
2027–2028 — expected launch of full-fledged work
According to Ukrainian estimates, prosecutors and investigators of the future tribunal will be able to start work no earlier than the end of 2027 or already in 2028.
Task of the stage: transition from organizational structure to real investigations and judicial procedures.