Humboldt Foundation postdoctoral Fellow, Zentrum für Baltische und Skandinavische Archäologie – Written Evidence (RUI0015)

Implications of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine for UK-EU relations

By Dr Stepan Stepanenko

Humboldt Foundation postdoctoral Fellow,

Zentrum für Baltische und Skandinavische Archäologie

About the Author

Dr Stepan Stepanenko, a Humboldt Foundation postdoctoral fellow at the Zentrum für Baltische und Skandinavische Archäologie in Germany, specialises in Ukrainian archaeology, having been awarded a fellowship for exceptional research contributions and international collaboration. With a career spanning over a decade, he has dedicated his expertise to the study of Ukrainian heritage, including engaging in extensive fieldwork. Furthermore, Dr Stepanenko has contributed his insights to a London-based foreign policy and national security think tank, where he has presented research on topics such as defence procurement, Indo-Pacific strategies, and the conflict in Ukraine.

Dr Stepanenko is also serves as a correspondent for the Kyiv Post and has authored articles for esteemed publications like the Express, Jerusalem Post, CapX, politics.co.uk, and various other UK and international media outlets.

About the Zentrum für Baltische und Skandinavische Archäologie

The Zentrum für Baltische und Skandinavische Archäologie, a distinguished research institution, is dedicated to the meticulous exploration of archaeological and cultural heritage within the Baltic and Scandinavian regions. With a profound commitment to academic excellence, this center engages in extensive research initiatives and collaborative projects, serving as a beacon of knowledge and expertise in the field. Its pursuits in the study of prehistoric and early historical eras have led to invaluable contributions to our understanding of Northern European heritage.

Summary

• The UK and the EU have an opportunity to cooperate in providing Ukraine the means to bolster its reparations claim by assisting in documenting damage, destruction and loss to Ukraine’s cultural heritage, thus assisting Ukraine’s reconstruction financing.
• Supporting reparations efforts of Ukraine through the application of damage to cultural heritage, the UK has a chance to further endear itself with the people of Ukraine, who would welcome the support for the preservation of their cultural identity.
• Cultural impact of Russian invasion: The Russian invasion of Ukraine, beginning in 2014 and escalating in February 2022, has severely damaged Ukraine's cultural heritage, affecting both tangible and intangible elements.
• Destruction of heritage: Historical sites, artefacts, monuments, museums, and cultural landmarks have been extensively damaged, impacting Ukraine's rich cultural identity.
• Threat to intangible heritage: The conflict has disrupted cultural practices, endangering intangible heritage, including traditions, customs, languages, and knowledge.
• Displacement's impact: Forced migration has disrupted communities and severed the transmission of oral traditions, affecting intangible heritage.
• EU and UK cooperation: Collaborative efforts between the UK and the EU are crucial in recording heritage damage and training armed services personnel to systematically address loss, destruction, and damage to all forms of heritage.
• Intangible heritage valuation: The UK and EU must work together to create a system for quantifying and valuing damage to intangible heritage, facilitating reconstruction and reparations.
• Support for Ukrainian heritage: The UK can lead in tracking Ukrainian artefacts abroad, identifying looted items, and encouraging parliamentary attention to the issue, ultimately raising awareness and addressing reparations with EU cooperation.

Evidence

1. Loss of Ukraine’s heritage: The full scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, that began on 24 February 2022, together with the invasion of Eastern Ukraine and illegal annexation of Crimea since 2014, have had a devastating impact on the country's cultural fabric, causing irreparable damage to its tangible and intangible heritage. Russian aggression has resulted in the destruction of historical artefacts, structures and sites that held immense significance in shaping Ukraine's rich cultural identity.

2. Numerous historical sites and artefacts have fallen victim to the indiscriminate violence of Russia’s destruction, invasion and occupation of Ukraine. Centuries-old monuments, such as the Cuman statues in the Donetsk region[1], have been damaged. Museums and cultural landmarks have been reduced to ruins, such as the looting of the Kherson Museum[2] and the bombing of the Kupiansk Museum[3]. Tangible evidence of Ukraine's recent diverse history and cultural heritage have been destroyed through the damage to villages and homes in northern, eastern and southern Ukraine. Damage to intangible heritage, through loss of lore and lore carriers, are yet to be calculated.

3. The invasion's impact on Ukraine's intangible heritage is equally catastrophic as to its tangible counterpart. Intangible heritage encompasses traditions, customs, languages, and knowledge that are transmitted from generation to generation and shape a community's cultural identity. However, the displacement of people, the destruction of communities and the disruption of cultural practices during the war have threatened the continuity of these intangible traditions. While the tangible damage is relatively easily calculated and quantified, the challenge of estimating the damage to the intangible remains an unresolved issue.

4. The forced migration of people, particularly from areas with deep-rooted cultural significance, has upended the living embodiments of intangible heritage. The loss of communities that carry oral traditions from one generation to the next has severed the connections that breathe life into these cultural practices. With an overall externally displaced population of 6.2 million and an internally displaced population of 5.1 million[4], Ukraine presently suffers from entirely unpopulated zone in the regions that border active fighting, or under Russian occupation. Villages such as Sulyhivka, Virnopillia and Kamianka [5], that contained carriers of local lore and legends, especially among the elderly – one of the most vulnerable age groups – are almost entirely without people, and may lose the link to their intangible heritage forever. A situation that is omnipresent in eastern and southern Ukraine – the zones of Russia occupation.

5. The interlinked nature of tangible and intangible heritage is particularly evident in Ukraine, where historical artefacts and structures were intrinsically tied to the people who gave them meaning and carried it forward through oral tradition. The destruction of one has profoundly affected the other, creating a void in the cultural fabric of the nation.

6. Russia is removing Ukraine’s heritage from occupied regions. On October 14, 2022, General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine issued a statement saying “In the temporarily occupied territory of the Ukrainian Crimea, the occupying authorities issued an order specifying the procedure for evacuating museums. In particular, internal (within the occupied region) and external (to the territory of the Russian federation) evacuation plans have been approved for the museums of the temporarily occupied region. Exhibits with the greatest material value are subject to priority evacuation”.

7. Ukraine’s damaged, destroyed and stolen heritage needs to be a part of the reparations claim. A critical aspect of reconstructing Ukraine will be the issue of finances. Currently estimated to be 411 billion US dollars by the World Bank[6], the cost is predicted to be over a trillion dollars by more conservative and more current accounts[7]. In turn, the damage to heritage is yet to figure in the calculations for reconstruction, which predominantly focus on infrastructure.

8. UK and Europe focus on finding reconstruction resources, through public and private sources, but the topic of reparations for damaged, destroyed and stolen heritage remains underdeveloped. Currently, there is no systematic means of recording damage to and destruction of heritage in Ukraine as a direct result of the Russian largescale invasion of February 2022.

9. Damage to Ukraine’s tangible heritage: as of 2 November 2023, UNESCO has officially confirmed damage to 327 cultural locations since 24 February 2022. These include 124 places of religious significance, 142 structures with historical and/or artistic value, 28 museums, 19 monuments, 13 libraries, and one archive[8]. On November 7th, Russia has Damaged the Odesa National Museum of Art[9].

10. UNESCO is the only resource to document damage and destruction of heritage, such recordings need to be made in a systematic manner, compatible with the appropriate legal procedures that would lead to compensation.

11. The stolen heritage value is not only equivalent to the monetary value of its material composition. The Russian theft and destructon of heritage not only robs Ukraine, Europe and the world of their shared history but also deprives these objects of their true cultural context. By severing artefacts from their archaeological sites and historical backgrounds, they lose the wealth of knowledge they once held. These objects become objects of monetary value, devoid of their stories, narratives and significance to human history. Preserving the cultural context of these artefacts is essential to understanding the past, fostering cultural appreciation and mutual understanding and this context has to be considered in the reparations procedure.

12. A UK and EU lead initiative to adequately record damage to heritage now. There have already been limited US[10] and EU[11] initiatives to train members of the Ukrainian armed forces and address damage to heritage, but they are insufficient in quantity, funding and scale, and do not provide a systematic approach applicable to legal procedures associated compensation and reparations.

13. Protection of Ukrainian cultural heritage in war time falls under the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court[12] and the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (the Hague Convention)[13].

14. Ukraine is a signatory of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and has ratified it, becoming a State Party to it on February 27, 2002.

15. Russia signed the Rome Statute on September 13, 2000, but it has not ratified it, and it declared in 2016 that it no longer intends to become a party to the Rome Statute.

16. Russia has violated Article 8:2:b:v of the Rome Statute, “Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives”.

17. Russia has violated Article 8:2:b:v of the Rome Statute “Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives”.

18. Russia has violated 8:2:b:ix of the Rome Statute “Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives”

19. Both Ukraine and Russia are signatories to the 1954 Hague Convention. The convention aims to protect cultural property during armed conflicts. Ukraine signed the convention on August 18, 1954, and ratified it on June 26, 1962. Russia signed the convention on December 12, 1956, and ratified it on September 13, 1958.

20. The UK can spearhead support tracking of Ukrainian artefacts abroad. Identification of looted items, their return and compensation have to be conducted in a manner appropriate for the procedure and with the support of police and other bodies.

21. Parliamentary attention to the issue of Ukraine’s heritage was touted but is yet to occur. A debate on the issue was speculated by Lord Cormack but is yet to occur, saying ““It is a pretty devastating list of the historic buildings destroyed so far but what makes it even worse is the way in which things have disappeared and been pilfered and traded on the illicit market, particularly in Russia itself. I have applied to hold a debate to draw attention to the issue of looting.”[14]. Tabling such a debate would bring more attention to the issue of damage to Ukraine’s heritage, its use in reparations calculations and financing its restoration.

22. A Ukrainian platform to track art and artefacts stolen during the invasion already exists and needs support [15].The "War & Art Database" is a comprehensive initiative by the National Agency of Ukraine on Corruption Prevention (NACP) to track and combat violations of sanctions in the global art market. It identifies art, collectibles, and luxury goods owned by sanctioned individuals and alerts art market participants to prevent their circulation. The database aims to ensure that the international art market complies with sanctions, avoids trading in stolen property, and assists in the reconstruction and recovery needs of Ukraine. It focuses on three categories of property: previously owned by sanctioned individuals, currently owned by them, or believed to be stolen under Russian occupation. The NACP invites international art market participants to contribute and provide feedback to enhance this important initiative in safeguarding cultural property during the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

23. A common platform is needed to record war damage to Ukraine’s heritage. UK can spearhead the way in providing resources to train the further armed services of Ukraine personnel, especially considering that many heritage professional currently serve in the Ukrainian army, in additional skills required to record and comment loss, destruction and damage as a result of the war to all forms of heritage.

24. Intangible heritage valuation is an opportunity for the UK. Intangible heritage is currently ignored and its value for reparations remains untapped. International bodies, notably the European Parliament[16], are aware of the dangers to intangible heritage, there is currently no systematic approach to incorporating it in reparations or quantifying damage done to it.

25. The UK needs to work with the EU on establishing a means to quantify and value damage to intangible heritage. While no current mechanism exists to value intangible heritage or adequately calculate the impact of war on it[17], such a system needs to be created and utilised for the purposes of easing the burden on western states and Ukraine in the reconstruction phase, through its added claim to the compensation from Russia.

Received 8 November

8