The Kremlin's "capitulation to Ukraine" and even negotiations for a "military respite" are not succeeding. On the contrary, the position of official Kiev has become more resolute and uncompromising. The Ukrainian authorities simply refuse to negotiate with the Kremlin without the complete de-occupation of their territories. The strikes on Ukraine's energy infrastructure have further isolated Russia at the international level and led to it being recognised in the EU as a country sponsoring terrorism. And this means that the Russian leadership cannot escape responsibility for its crimes. And the propagandists of "the oldest nationality and profession" are beginning to understand this as well.

A panic note begins to slip in the speeches of the main Kremlin propagandist Margarita Simonyan. In particular, as early as on Vladimir Solovyov's talk show, Margarita Simonyan warned that if Russia is defeated in the current war against Ukraine, all those involved in the aggression will face the Hague tribunal.

"If we manage to lose, the Hague, conditional or concrete, awaits even the janitor who sweeps the paving stones inside behind the Kremlin wall. What do we care if one more district of Kiev is left without light or not? The scale of the catastrophe our country will turn into if we manage to do it [lose] cannot even be imagined"., — Simonyan stated.

The well-known Russian opposition blogger Anatoly Nesmiyan wrote in his article "Fear" (https://telegra.ph/Strah-12-01-4) about the fact that all those involved in the current aggression against Ukraine will face an international tribunal similar to the Nuremberg tribunal after Margarita Simonyan's speech. Moreover, he makes it clear that he will have to answer not only for crimes against Ukraine, but also for supporting separatism of previously occupied foreign territories, including Abkhazia and Tskhivali region: "The topic of an international tribunal against Russia over the events related to Ukraine (here, of course, not only events after February 24, but all preceding, since 2014, are taken into account) - this topic did not emerge by accident.

Fairness, human rights, international law and the restoration of territorial integrity - these motives of the West are not questionable. But there is another issue that is already on the agenda.

As you know, the European Union has repeatedly stated through its various representatives that the funds confiscated from Russia (the exact amount is not very clear, as we are talking about state, corporate and private seizures, and it is already measured in hundreds of billions of dollars), in general, these funds cannot be easily used for the stated purposes of the reconstruction of Ukraine. Why? Because the West does not want to create not only a precedent, but also a mechanism of such withdrawal and redistribution. Who knows how things will turn out in the future, so the right of ownership - a sacred right - cannot be exchanged for a current tactical objective.

Such a solution must be legal but unprecedented, that is - it cannot be mechanically transferred to any other events. The fact is that part of the West is legally in the zone of continental law but part is in the zone of case law. Therefore, the general approach is already outlined. There must be a court decision, but the court itself must have an exclusive and one-off format so that other courts cannot apply its decision as a precedent.

The closest analogue of such a court is the Nuremberg Tribunal, which was created for a specific cause, was not a regular institution and ceased to function after its verdict and execution. However, the tribunal's jurisdiction was strictly limited by its statute.

Logically, this topic comes up now, especially as the occasion is literally there. The analogies are quite transparent and the approach therefore looks almost flawless.

Of course, there are several bottlenecks to this approach. The first is that such a tribunal can take place only after an unambiguous defeat for the Kremlin, a change of regime and the extradition of all those who will be called before such a tribunal as defendants. It is clear that this is impossible without a change of regime. A decision in absentia is technically possible, but this is a last resort if the current regime manages to retain power after its defeat. The situation is highly hypothetical, but possible.

The second narrow point is "Who are the judges?" What's the problem? It is problematic to hold such a tribunal under the auspices of the United Nations while Russia is a member (and a permanent member, with veto power) of the UN Security Council. And China's position is also difficult to predict. Under the auspices of the OSCE, again, it is possible, but it is a European institution, and the assets seized are not located only in Europe. Pool of victorious powers? - Also doubtful, as it requires the fact of Russia's occupation, which no one is going to do.

The problem is actually not an easy one, as a legally uncontroversial structure is required and has yet to be created.

There are some other obscure points, but even the first two are enough to get an idea of the direction things are going to take.

First, the favourite tale of Russian propaganda that the West will get tired (alternatively it will deplete aid supplies, freeze, or generally collapse in a severe crisis when Ukraine is no longer relevant) is a fairy tale. No one will stop anything. And it is foolish now, when the outcome is already clear, to abandon such a profitable business.

Secondly, it is worth expecting that the problem of the UN Security Council will be solved at the same time as the problem of rendition of war criminals - through a change of regime in the Kremlin. If this happens, the next government "after Putin" will be happy to extradite everyone itself, just for the sake of "unsealing" Russia from the current sanctions. It will vote in the Council as the victors want it: for a tribunal, for extradition, for its consent to any verdict. Well, nothing new here - "Woe to the vanquished!"

Therefore, the sequence seems to be as follows - first the military defeat, then the defeat politically, with the return of all territories as of 1991 (at the same time it will affect the territory of Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, it may be necessary to satisfy the Baltic demands - remember, how Putin promised a dead donkey's ears, not the Pytalovsky district - there will be an issue with it too for sure). This will be followed by an attempt at regime change in Moscow and then by a final decision on the tribunal and the fate of the confiscated assets - those that have already been confiscated and those that will be charged in the future.

It seems unreal now, but who could even on 23 February predict with any certainty what will happen the next day? And yet it did."  End of article.

It is conceivable that Nuremberg 2 at the end of the current war in Ukraine could become an international tribunal on separatism. And the world community is already being led to this by Ukrainian officials.

In particular, the deputy speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, Elena Kondratyuk, said that all the deputies of the Russian State Duma and senators of the Russian Federation Council who voted for the annexation of Crimea and "recognition" of the fake "independence" of the separatist "republics" of Donbas should face an international tribunal, but not only them. Russian officials and officials of the Russian Foreign Ministry, including Sergey Lavrov-Kalantarov and propagandists like Margarita Simonyan, who organized a "diplomatic cover" for the lawlessness, are also likely to face an international tribunal.

However, the support for separatism that led to the current Ukrainian war did not begin in 2014, but much earlier. It is not only Crimea and Donbas that will be held accountable. Those who organized separatism in Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region, used this separatism as an excuse and organized aggression against Georgia in 2008 will be subject to an international tribunal. Given the fact that the separatist wars were ignited in the early 90s and the first of them was the Karabakh war, those involved in crimes against humanity in the wars in Karabakh in 1992-1994 and in Abkhazia in 1992-1993 should not be held responsible. Including the genocide of civilians in Khojaly in 1992 and in Sukhumi in 1993.

The current representatives of the separatist authorities, as well as collaborators "on the ground", will also not be immune to international justice. Of course, those of them who are lucky enough to survive the trial and to not be liquidated by "their" patrons of separatism from the FSB. As unnecessary witnesses.

Grigol Giorgadze