What if russia is knowingly committing warcrimes like bombing apartment complexes with civilians
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
If Russia is "knowingly" bombing apartment blocks and other civilian sites, UN, Amnesty and OHCHR investigators and multiple monitoring organisations already characterise many such strikes as war crimes and crimes against humanity, citing systematic drone and missile attacks that killed dozens in single strikes and deportations of civilians from occupied areas [1] [2] [3] [4]. Independent analysts document geolocated footage showing executions and deliberate attacks; Western monitoring groups repeatedly condemn violations of the Geneva Conventions while some Russian outlets or state organs present competing narratives and denials [5] [6] [7].
1. What “knowingly” committing attacks would mean under international law
Under the Geneva Conventions and the law of armed conflict, deliberately directing attacks at civilians or civilian objects is a war crime; intentional short‑range drone attacks and strikes that drove civilians from homes have been described by the UN Commission as crimes against humanity and war crimes when perpetrated systematically by authorities [2] [3]. Monitoring organisations and human‑rights groups, including Amnesty, have documented ill‑treatment and practices (torture, enforced disappearances) that amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, indicating investigators see patterns rather than isolated errors [4] [2].
2. Evidence cited by investigators and open‑source analysts
Open‑source geolocated footage and UN reporting have been used to attribute specific incidents: the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) and others have geolocated execution footage and reported that particular Russian units committed war crimes in named directions, while UN investigators flagged regular drone attacks that killed almost 150 people in Kherson as amounting to intentionally directed attacks against civilians [5] [1]. Amnesty and UN bodies cite deportations, repeated drone strikes along 300 km of riverfront and attacks on hospitals, schools and residential districts as systematic conduct [4] [2] [3].
3. Scale and pattern: single strikes and repeated campaigns
Reporting documents both high‑casualty single incidents—such as missiles that killed 20 children in Kryvyi Rih and strikes on apartment blocks—and campaigns of drone and missile launches numbering in the hundreds in single nights, suggesting a pattern of sustained targeting of civilian infrastructure in some areas [1] [8]. ISW reports frequently mention mass drone and missile barrages and explicitly states it condemns violations of international humanitarian law even where its operational focus is elsewhere [7] [8].
4. Attribution, open evidence, and investigative limits
Investigative bodies rely on geolocated videos, weapon signatures, launch arcs and state declarations; the UN Commission and OHCHR have published findings tying actions to Russian authorities in occupied oblasts, while open‑source groups geolocate unit‑level abuses [2] [5]. Available sources do not mention internal Russian war‑crime prosecutions establishing state‑level orders for apartment strikes; Russian state media and government statements often frame attacks as responses to Ukrainian actions or deny wrongdoing, creating competing narratives that investigators must disentangle (p1_s6; [14] — note: [13] and [14] record Russian claims and documents).
5. Consequences if attacks are proven “knowing” and systematic
If investigators and courts establish that attacks were deliberate and systematic, the legal consequences include war‑crime and crimes‑against‑humanity prosecutions of commanders and officials, potential reparations measures, asset freezes and wider diplomatic penalties—measures already being discussed by states and bodies described in reporting such as EU asset freezes and reparations frameworks [9]. The OHCHR report already frames deportations and coordinated attacks as crimes warranting international accountability [2].
6. Historical and political context that shapes interpretation
Analysts point to precedents where state violence against civilians produced political effects; past controversies about apartment bombings in Russia in 1999 show how allegations of state‑directed attacks can be politically decisive and contested in public discourse, complicating both attribution and policy responses [10] [11]. That history makes rigorous, transparent international investigation critically important to prevent politicised or premature conclusions [12].
7. What investigators still need and where reporting is limited
Investigators need corroborated launch data, chain‑of‑command evidence, intercepted orders, witness testimony and forensic weapon analysis to prove “knowledge” and intent; many reports present strong circumstantial and geolocated evidence but do not publish the full chain showing explicit orders from senior officials [5] [2]. Available sources do not mention a complete public dossier proving a formal, written order from Russia’s highest political leadership explicitly directing apartment bombings; that gap shapes legal prospects and political choices (not found in current reporting).
Conclusion — competing narratives and stakes
Multiple UN and human‑rights reports, and open‑source analysts, conclude that repeated drone and missile attacks against civilian areas—along with deportations and ill‑treatment—meet thresholds for war crimes and crimes against humanity when carried out systematically [2] [1] [4]. Russian state sources present alternative accounts and denials that complicate public attribution [13] [14]. The central practical hurdle remains producing incontrovertible chain‑of‑command evidence of knowledge and intent required for criminal prosecutions; until that material is publicly disclosed and litigated, the international community will rely on the accumulating weight of investigations and open‑source documentation [5] [2].