The Council of Europe report was adopted by a majority, however. At the time, many observers were already aware of the implications of the Khodorkovsky trial. Firstly, the politically motivated trial was a deterrent and showed Putin's hard edge – and the compliance of a political judiciary. Secondly, it was the prelude to a reorientation of Russia. The government absorbed Yukos in order to secure control over the national oil and gas reserves, which were thus also available for the personal enrichment of Kremlin loyalists. However, this paradigm shift in an increasingly authoritarian Russia failed to deter many multinational Western companies from expanding their oil and gas business in Russia. Many cautionary voices, including the liberal Otto Graf Lambsdorff, who died in 2009, repeatedly tried to explain that investments not backed by the rule of law make little sense and are potentially at risk.

The situation deteriorated further: in 2006 we heard about the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko and the murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya; plus the fate of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, the defence counsel who became the accused and then died in custody in 2009 due to not receiving medical assistance. In February 2015, prominent liberal opposition politician Boris Nemtsov was shot dead near the Kremlin. The Russian state's actions have become increasingly ruthless. At the behest of President Putin and his secret services, the authorities have long been hunting down people whom the Kremlin regards as critics and thus enemies. The incidents that were reported in detail in the world press alone should have given Germany and Western Europe pause for thought as to what kind of political power player they were getting involved with.

Instead, political and economic ties with Moscow were increased over two decades. In 2005, the Nord Stream 1 pipeline was agreed, rubberstamped by former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and his confidant Putin. Aware of the fact that trade with the Soviet Union had been brisk, the Federal Republic of Germany entered into a new and now desired dependency, especially on Russian gas. “Change through trade” was the motto behind the Ostpolitik. The only change, however, was that the Putin regime became increasingly authoritarian. Independent press, opposition and lawyers were systematically eliminated.

At the same time, Putin militarily subdued neighbouring countries. Today, the annexation of Crimea in 2014 seems like a preparatory act for what we are currently witnessing. The supposedly “flawless democrat” has long had a vision of how he wants to build and expand his great Russian empire. He tested the waters with his predatory conduct in Crimea that seemed militarily straightforward and allowed him to test on a limited scale how the West and NATO would react to his expansionist ambitions.

The Putin regime was glossed over by many a German politician and expert for far too long after the annexation of Crimea. One had to look at the history of the Soviet Union, they said, one had to consider the country's “legitimate security interests”. The West also made mistakes. I don't even want to repeat all these partly naive, partly parroted justifications. In the meantime, however, many of the “Putin understanders” have fallen silent. A bit late in the day. The world has been a different place since 24 February. The post-war order that prevented armed conflicts between individual states in Europe has collapsed. The countless talks by Western politicians were completely in vain. They merely bought Putin time to prepare his military invasion. Russia's attack on Ukraine, a peaceful European neighbour, has isolated Putin financially, economically and politically at the international level. He may not care about the final alienation from the West, but even parts of the Russian population do not want war. 

Russia wants peace and only goes to war when a threat forces it to do so? This cynical lie, which really should not even be called “alternative facts”, has been presented time and again by the Putin regime to the Russian people. First Russia attacked Georgia in 2008 because it was allegedly “forced” to do so. Then, in 2014 Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Let us also remember the destabilisation of the Republic of Moldova through the secession of Transnistria in the 1990s. Now the attack on the whole of Ukraine in 2022 – allegedly with the aim of denazification. An outrage.

The West reacted harshly in the first weeks of the war. The United States under President Joe Biden is back on the world stage. They are pushing tough sanctions – tougher than the Europeans as regards stopping the import of Russian oil and gas. The West is sticking together and showing its might. Even British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, until recently concerned about losing his job, is now trying to probe the murky depths of the oligarchs' billions in “Londongrad”. The return of war in Europe has at least led democrats to defend democracy and its rules. Putin may still be able to secure some support among the Russian population with his stories and supposed explanations. The propaganda machinery is working, as we see from the “Z” signs on Russian streets as a symbol of support for the invasion. Outside Russia, the outrageous narratives are seen for what they really are and carry no weight. As an argument in court, they are meaningless, embarrassing even.

Putin's brutal and unscrupulous actions can only be countered with clear decisions. A functioning international legal system that makes it possible to punish those responsible for war crimes is therefore strategically important. Putin and his henchmen must also answer legally for their deeds in the future. The indictment of Serbian President Slobodan Milošević after the Yugoslav wars has already set a historical example. The key figure in these wars was indicted for crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague in 1999. Milošević was arrested and tried two years later. The final indictments included war crimes, violations of the Geneva Conventions and genocide as charges. Milošević did not recognise the court and died before a verdict was reached in The Hague.

Human Rights Watch praised the work of the prosecutors and stressed the value of the comprehensive documentation of the crimes in the former Yugoslavia, which is of historical and political value. At the same time, it warned that Milošević might not have been proven guilty of all criminal acts. But that is exactly what is important about a trial: a legitimate and at the same time differentiated judgement should be passed. During the wars, hardly anyone believed that Milošević would ever have to answer to an international court. But when he did, the trial strengthened confidence in a legal system that transcends national borders and does not shy away from the worst of the worst.

The permanent International Criminal Court in The Hague has existed since 2002. Russia's incursions in Georgia in 2008 and in Ukraine in 2014 were already illegal under international law, but a clear judicial response has yet to be given. The extent of the war crimes and crimes against the civilian population in the Syrian war, which has been going on for eleven years with the participation of Russian soldiers, has not yet been fully recorded – but according to the available information, those giving the orders are violating international criminal law.

The latest judgement of the Higher Regional Court of Koblenz against a Syrian for torture in the first years of the Syrian war suggests that the worst crimes against humanity will be punished after all. Horrific injustices have been committed in the Assad regime's torture prisons. It is the responsibility of the entire international community to respond to this in the language of law with the principle of universal jurisdiction. Therefore, as many states as possible should follow the example set by Koblenz. It is good that the International Criminal Court is now investigating war crimes in Ukraine. The chief investigator Karim Khan speaks of “reasonable grounds” suggesting war crimes as well as crimes against humanity. Likewise, Ukraine is striving to respond according to the rule of law. On the very first day of the attack, Prosecutor General of Ukraine Iryna Venediktova began investigating Russia and has since been documenting – as best she can – attacks on civilians and civilian facilities such as hospitals and homes for the blind, which are considered war crimes.

Together with Gerhart Baum, I have filed criminal charges against the political and military leaders in Russia, starting with Putin and ending with those responsible in his chain of command. Now we have to secure evidence, i.e. record the statements of Ukrainians who fled their homes about their experiences under the bombardment, document the destruction of homes and civilian facilities, save photos, videos and screenshots. The Federal Public Prosecutor General has already started to do that, within the framework of a so-called structural investigation in Karlsruhe, which is not yet directed against individual persons. Alongside the investigations of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Germany is thus making a decisive contribution to ensuring that crimes under international law do not go unpunished and that everyone involved must know that an international arrest warrant may be waiting for them.