If you grab a copy of the daily newspaper from the newspaper stand or open your news app every day, chances are that at least one article will be written about the ongoing conflict in Eastern Europe. The never-ending missile showers, the ever-increasing bars on casualty charts, the calls for help and for war to end — the list goes on. The Russo-Ukrainian war is, after all, an event with consequences that, whichever turn it may take, will potentially leave a significant impact worldwide. But the dissemination of another piece of news has left the world in even greater shock than it has been before: the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants against Russian president Vladimir Putin on March 17, allowing every other nation to arrest him on sight should he step foot into their country.

Controversy has erupted since the start of the war on whether Russia has made humanitarian efforts to spare non-combatants from conflict zones. With civilian casualty counts climbing every day, it seems clear it has been failing to do so. Nevertheless, there have been reports that Russia has allegedly moved Ukrainian children into its land, claiming that it would provide a better living environment for orphaned children — Russia has stated that over 400 have been adopted and are under the care of Russian households, while 1,000 more are on the waitlist for fosterage. Despite Russia appearing debatably altruistic, such actions do not excuse them from their aggressive attacks and relentless rows against Ukraine. In fact, Ukrainians see this seemingly compassionate act as a “genocide” and a “war crime”. Many transferred and adopted children have relatives who are alive and actively searching for them, which means that they are still under the custody of legal guardians and should not have been abducted. This led to the ICC issuing arrest warrants against Russian leaders for spearheading the illegal transportation of Ukrainian children beyond Ukrainian borders.

Putin has been re-elected three times after his first inauguration in 2000. Since then, he has been involved in one of the greatest controversies during his presidential term — ordering his military troops into Ukrainian territory in February last year, making what might be the “biggest mistake during his political career”. The recent indictment for the war crime of illegally deporting children from Ukraine to Russia has dealt him a more severe blow. Even if it is argued that he did not directly participate in those unlawful actions, Putin has not only condoned them, but has actively encouraged them. This situation has stirred up a deeper controversy with regard to his dignity as a president, as well as his morality as a human being.

However, Putin has not been accused of the war crime alone. A warrant for the arrest of the Russian Children Rights' Commissioner, Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, had also been issued. This leads us to question the morality of not just the president, but the integrity of the entire Russian government and how far this network stretches. If the person in charge of protecting children's rights has been an accomplice of the offender-war-criminal, and if neither the president nor a government official can acknowledge the basic human rights citizens are entitled to, then who’s to say that the rest of the nation’s government can be trusted with all the lives of its population? Russia has remained as nonchalant as it has been with previous accusations on other issues, but its disinterest in addressing this particular issue speaks volumes. Maria Zakharova, the spokeswoman for the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, posted on Telegram that “the decisions of the International Criminal Court have no meaning for our country, including from a legal point of view.” If anything, this response paints Russia with guilt, though given that it has been cornered by the arrest warrants, the country could not have said otherwise.

The arrest warrants issued to Putin and Lvova-Belova have sent sparks of emotions across the globe. Some pitied the children forcefully separated from their families, while others were disgusted upon discovering the atrocious acts the president and the children’s rights commissioner committed. Nevertheless, most felt relieved and content with the fact that the two will face the consequences of committing horrendous war crimes. Despite this, the status quo demands an answer to the question of whether the lives of the people of a country can lie in the hands of a government that has failed to abide by the foundation of international laws governing human rights, for no party is fit to lead a people if it cannot protect them.