Today’s Russia is not merely violating international law — it is openly dismantling its very architecture. Nearly 10,000 individuals have brought cases against the Kremlin and Europe’s top human rights court recently ruled that Russia violated international law in Ukraine.

These rulings have the power to be more than symbolic. Yes, the Kremlin has withdrawn from many international legal institutions and is blatantly ignoring the treaties to which it still belongs. But there is still a lever that can be pulled to impose real consequences for Moscow.

There is evidence that Russia fully understands that it cannot completely ignore international legal norms without consequences. That is why the Kremlin officially demands the cancellation of reparations and war-related payments for Ukraine, as well as the lifting of all sanctions imposed on the country in connection with its war against Ukraine.

But still, Moscow continues its legal nihilism. This poses the challenge of how the international community should respond to a nuclear power that rejects any legal obligation that does not serve its interests. This question extends far beyond Ukraine or internal repression. It threatens the very foundations of the international order — a system based on obligations, accountability and universally accepted human rights principles.

The strategic goal of holding Russia to account should be eventual regime change and the democratization of the country.

Coercion works slowly. The tactical goal today must be the implementation of gradual measures that, even against the will of the current regime, could partially or fully contribute to restoring the status of human rights, especially where independent institutions have proved such violations or are plainly evident.

I personally know dozens of Russians — former political prisoners, activists and victims of police violence — whose cases were ruled on in Strasbourg, with Russia found guilty. These individuals have not had their names cleared, received compensation for their suffering, nor received official recognition of the injustice they endured. Russia has not only refused to implement these decisions but has also blocked any domestic path to legal rehabilitation.

A path to achieving justice would be to funnel frozen Russian assets held abroad into a compensation fund from which victims can receive the restitution the ECHR says they are owed. Kremlin officials have already threatened a “severe” response if these assets are seized, which shows that the Kremlin views them as sufficiently important that they could be used to put pressure on the leadership.

Compelling Russia to implement ECHR rulings is not about vengeance. It is about restoring justice, protecting the international legal order, and sending a clear message: authoritarian states cannot violate human rights with impunity.

Russia remains a formal party to many international treaties, from the UN Charter to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. However, in recent years, it has deliberately stopped complying with these norms.