The war in Ukraine, now past its third year of full-scale invasion, delivers a daily torrent of violence — missiles on civilian centers, front-line grinding, and the relentless toll of death. Yet, behind this “day-to-day litany of horrors,” an analytical consensus is hardening among legal scholars, human rights experts, and political leaders: this is not merely a war of territorial aggression, but a systematic, long-term campaign designed to erase the Ukrainian nation as a distinct cultural and political entity.
This chilling premise — that Russia harbors a deliberate “intent to destroy” — was the focus of a recent conference of global experts at Georgetown University. The evidence presented did not just catalogue war crimes; it constructed a legal and ideological case for genocide, drawing a stark line from imperial history to the atrocities of the present day.
Imperial Blueprint
To understand the nature of the current violence, one must look beyond the battlespace and into the bedrock of Russian state ideology. For many participants, the conflict is viewed not as a fresh war, but as a violent continuation of the past. Congressman Mike Quigley, Co-Chair of the Ukraine Caucus, articulated this continuity, noting, “What we are witnessing today is not a new conflict, but the continuation of a centuries-long campaign to deny Ukraine the right to exist as a free and independent state”.
This ideology provides the motive for the scale of destruction. Joel Helman, Dean of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown, pointed to the source of this eliminationist mindset: “One only needs to hear and listen to the rhetoric that comes from Putin himself… the eliminationist rhetoric, the genocidal rhetoric… that denies the existence of Ukraine as an entity, denies the existence of Ukraine as an independent culture”. This is an imperial worldview that views human beings as resources to be used in service of empire, and any resistance is deemed an obstacle to be eliminated.
The Mechanism of Erasure: Targeting the Nation’s Future
The systematic acts committed on the ground provide the circumstantial proof that validates this rhetoric. The legal definition of genocide extends beyond mass killing to include acts like the forced transfer of children. Andre Pasichnik, Counselor from the Embassy of Ukraine, underscored the calculated nature of this crime, declaring, “This is not merely a war of Putin’s imperial ambitions. It is a deliberate intent to destroy”.
This deliberate act is most visibly demonstrated by the campaign against Ukraine’s children. Svitlana Valko, Lead of the Ukraine field team for the International Partnership for Human Rights, provided harrowing data, noting that approximately “19,000 of kids were transferred” to Russia or Russian-controlled areas — a confirmed figure that likely understates the true number by several orders of magnitude. This is a calculated effort to destroy a nation’s future by placing children in “reeducation programs aimed at stripping them of their Ukrainian identity”.
The legal challenge lies in proving the specific intent to destroy the group. Professor Susan Farbstein, Director of the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School, clarified how this is inferred: “It’s also a qualitative question in terms of who’s being targeted… I think there’s a very clear pattern where Russia is targeting leaders. It’s targeting activists. It’s targeting people who openly identify themselves as Ukrainian. It’s targeting parents, people of reproductive age. It’s targeting children who hold Ukraine’s future in their hands”. Targeting those essential to the group’s survival — the political, intellectual, and reproductive core — allows analysts to infer the special intent required to prove genocide.
Imperative of Accountability
The documentation of these crimes is a necessary first step toward justice, but it is not sufficient. Congressman Joe Wilson, Co-Chair of the US Helsinki Commission, highlighted the unique nature of this evidence: “This is the first cell phone war recorded in real time in history”. This evidence forms the bedrock of legal procedures, with Wilson expressing confidence that “War Criminal Putin will one day be similarly tried for his crimes”.
However, justice also requires victory. The failure to stop aggression signals weakness to autocrats worldwide, making accountability inseparable from the military outcome. Congressman Quigley issued a stern warning that “Peace built on impunity is no peace at all. It will only embolden Putin and every autocrat watching around the world”.
The recognition of the war as a campaign of erasure immediately clarifies the only viable global response: decisive defense and victory. The consensus is that accommodation is not an option. This mandate requires an immediate recommitment to providing Ukraine the resources necessary to achieve victory, as Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur stressed: “Our effort must begin with our recommitment to provide Ukraine the resources that she needs to achieve victory”. Simultaneously, the strategic objective must be to render Russia’s capacity to continue the war untenable, as articulated by RAND researcher, Dr. Michael Cecire.
Beyond the battlefield, the international community must relentlessly pursue sustained accountability, bolstering international courts, and developing legal strategies to utilize seized Russian assets for reconstruction. This commitment to justice must be viewed as an imperative to strengthen democratic alliances and defend the fundamental “rules-based international order” that the free world upholds. The final goal is to secure Ukraine’s freedom and prosperity for future generations, ensuring the rebuilding effort stands as a powerful testament to the triumph of justice over aggression.
This defining struggle for existence was best captured by Dr. Anastasiia Donets, Legal Team Lead at the International Partnership for Human Rights, who shared a quote from a Ukrainian soldier: “We’re holding on, but we’re dying out”.
The world, having recognized the “intent to destroy,” must now ensure that its own collective “intent to defend” prevents this fate from ever materializing.
Rusa Shelia is an independent journalist based in Washington, DC and a 2025 Eurasia Democratic Security Network Media Fellow.