On May 1, 2026, at the Dnipro Center for Contemporary Culture (DCCC), the Raphael Lemkin Society brought together members of parliament, government officials, prosecutors, civil society representatives, and media professionals for a roundtable discussion titled “Tools for Countering Cognitive Warfare.”
Participants discussed how Ukraine can more effectively respond to Russian cognitive attacks, including the use of culture, history, and law as instruments of war.
A full video recording of the event is available on the YouTube channel of the Coalition of Cultural Actors.
Cognitive Warfare as a New Dimension of Russian Aggression
Cognitive warfare refers to actions that do not involve direct military or armed confrontation, but that influence human thinking in order to disrupt, undermine, or alter decision-making processes, as well as an adversary’s ability to conduct combat operations and achieve military-strategic objectives.
Vitalii Tytych, Chair of the Board of the Raphael Lemkin Society, attorney, and officer with the Command of the Unmanned Systems Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, emphasized: “Thanks to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the enemy has been unable to achieve its strategic objective on the battlefield. As a result, it is increasingly investing in another form of warfare — cognitive warfare.”
In this context, attacks on cultural heritage can no longer be viewed solely as a preservation issue. They represent a hybrid and cognitive threat — and an increasingly serious security challenge. For this reason, the Raphael Lemkin Society and The Antiquities Coalition are joining forces to help NATO counter the use of cultural heritage as an instrument of cognitive warfare.
Today, Ukraine still lacks effective mechanisms to counter Russian informational and cognitive threats. These include the falsification of history, the destruction of culture, the promotion of narratives of capitulation, the dehumanization of Ukrainians, and the use of cultural heritage as a weapon of war.
The Systematic Nature of Crimes Against Ukrainian Culture
Countering cognitive warfare requires not only documenting individual threats, but also understanding their strategic purpose. As the Russian Federation has repeatedly made clear, its aggression is aimed not only at Ukrainian territory, but also at the very existence of the Ukrainian nation. Ukraine’s response must therefore be strategic — supported by appropriate plans, instruments, and a legal framework.
In the cultural and legal spheres, this means that Ukrainian law enforcement agencies must have the proper legal tools to investigate and qualify such crimes.
As Vitalii Tytych emphasized, it is important not only to record individual incidents, but also to demonstrate the systematic nature of crimes against Ukrainian culture. This systematic character is essential for qualifying such acts under international criminal law, including in accordance with the Elements of Crimes applied by the International Criminal Court.
Consolidating evidence may provide grounds for expanding suspicions against individuals higher in the chain of command, including the military and political leadership of the Russian Federation. This would make it possible to treat crimes against cultural heritage not as isolated incidents, but as part of a broader policy aimed at destroying the Ukrainian nation.
Cultural Genocide and the Limits of International Law
Pavlo Pushkar, visiting lecturer at the University of Strasbourg and the Ukrainian Catholic University, explained that the need to establish a special tribunal for the crime of aggression by the Russian Federation stems from the need to close an accountability gap in international law. He also outlined what he described as a “blind spot” in international law regarding cultural genocide.
“International criminal law lags behind the reality in which Ukraine exists, and at times even behind its own moral foundations,” Pavlo Pushkar stressed.
According to him, Ukraine is balancing between two risks. On the one hand, international criminal law and the Criminal Code operate with relatively narrow, formally logical categories that do not fully capture the Ukrainian context or the scale of what is happening. Political declarations can help articulate this reality, but legal terms and definitions — particularly those related to genocide and genocide in the context of aggression — remain much narrower. On the other hand, there is a risk of using the term “genocide” too broadly or politically, which could dilute its legal meaning.
Pavlo Pushkar emphasized the paradox: the large-scale destruction of Ukrainian culture is an obvious element of a strategy to destroy the nation, yet neither international criminal law nor the provisions of Ukraine’s Criminal Code currently allow for prosecution specifically for the destruction of a nation’s culture and cultural heritage as a component of the crime of genocide.
To address this problem, Pavlo Pushkar outlined three possible approaches: adopting an additional protocol to the Genocide Convention; developing a separate international crime of “cultural genocide” or “cultural destruction of a group,” with its own elements and evidentiary standards and with due regard for the historical context of this crime’s definition; or adopting a coordinated interpretation of the existing elements of the crime, recognizing that the deliberate destruction of culture may constitute a means of carrying out the intent to destroy a national group.
National Legislation as a Basis for International Advocacy
Yevheniia Kravchuk, Deputy Chair of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Humanitarian and Information Policy and a member of Ukraine’s Permanent Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, emphasized the need for a coordinated advocacy and procedural strategy. She also noted that while the concept of “cultural genocide” may be used in public speeches, articles, and advocacy materials, it currently has no separate legal status in international criminal law.
Mykyta Poturaiev, Member of Parliament of Ukraine and Chair of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Humanitarian and Information Policy, stressed the need to return to the concept of cultural genocide, which was part of Raphael Lemkin’s early work. Lemkin was the lawyer who coined the term “genocide” and was one of the drafters of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
“It is known that the part of Raphael Lemkin’s proposed concept that directly concerned cultural genocide was removed from the final version. Clearly, this decision was driven by certain political motives. I am convinced that today we must return to this issue,” Mykyta Poturaiev said.
According to him, thanks to colleagues from the Raphael Lemkin Society, a proposal to amend Ukraine’s Criminal Code based on Raphael Lemkin’s wording already exists. Mykyta Poturaiev believes that, given the current work of parliament, such amendments could realistically be adopted as early as September 2026. In the future, they could serve as a basis for international advocacy and possible amendments to the Statute of the International Criminal Court.
At the same time, Mykola Kniazhytskyi, Member of Parliament of Ukraine, emphasized the need for internal awareness and a legal definition of genocide: “Unfortunately, we are speaking more about this now than we are bringing our domestic legislation in line with what we expect from our international partners.” In his view, Ukraine must begin with national legislation — in particular, by supplementing the Criminal Code with provisions on Ukrainophobia and the destruction of cultural heritage. Such changes, he believes, would create grounds for further advocacy among international partners.
The Work of State Institutions and Civil Society
Ivan Verbytskyi, First Deputy Minister of Culture of Ukraine, spoke about the Ministry’s work in three areas: improving the response mechanism for damage to cultural heritage sites, monitoring damage and coordinating data; evacuating cultural property from frontline regions; and digitizing information on stolen museum objects and cultural property that remains in temporarily occupied territories for entry into the State Museum Register.
According to him, the Ministry also cooperates with law enforcement agencies conducting proceedings related to damaged and stolen cultural property. The mechanisms for this cooperation still require improvement, and the Ministry expects to work on this together with other stakeholders.
Vasyl Yatsynyn, a representative of the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, spoke about the creation of a unit within the Office focused on countering crimes committed in the context of armed conflict, including crimes against culture. According to him, prosecutors are documenting attacks on cultural sites, the looting of cultural property, and persecution in temporarily occupied territories. The Office of the Prosecutor General is also issuing notices of suspicion to high-ranking officials of the Russian Federation.
At the same time, he noted that investigating this category of crimes is difficult because of their scale and the lack of extensive international practice. “We effectively had no international experience in investigating this category of crimes. We began acquiring it in the course of our work — taking into account approaches under international law and with the support of international experts who helped us build the proper investigative strategy,” Vasyl Yatsynyn said.
Olha Sahaidak, Chair of the Board of the Coalition of Cultural Actors, expert in cultural heritage and cultural diplomacy, and moderator of the event, noted that civil society is contributing its expertise and capacities to state and international initiatives aimed at ensuring accountability for crimes against cultural heritage. She also emphasized: “Civil society has a clear demand for justice and for fair punishment of those who destroy our cultural heritage, erase our identity, and kill our people.”
Conclusion
Participants agreed that countering cognitive warfare requires a systematic response. This is not only about documenting crimes against cultural heritage, but also about creating legal mechanisms that would allow these crimes to be treated as part of a broader policy aimed at destroying the Ukrainian nation.
Ukraine must combine the efforts of state institutions, law enforcement agencies, parliament, civil society, and international partners to develop an effective response to the use of culture as a weapon in cognitive warfare.