Human rights lawyer Oleksandra Matviichuk, head of the Center for Civil Liberties, warns that the weaponization of artificial intelligence and unmanned drone systems is transforming modern warfare into a systematic “human safari” targeting civilians in Ukraine. According to Matviichuk, whose organization has documented over one hundred thousand episodes of Russian crimes, shifting tactical realities on the battlefield demand a fundamental re-evaluation of international law and civilian protection mechanisms.
The Evolution of Warfare and Drone Attacks on Civilians
Battlefield dynamics have shifted dramatically since the initial full-scale invasion, according to Matviichuk. Modern engagements rely heavily on unmanned systems, mass drone attacks, and artificial intelligence, rendering much of prior military experience obsolete. In documented databases tracking conflict violations, the proportion of drone strikes directed against civilian populations continues to rise.
Matviichuk characterizes these tactics as a “human safari,” noting that Russian drone operators have purposefully targeted non-combatants, including individuals on bicycles and families inside civilian vehicles. Citing specific documentation compiled by her team, she points to incidents where drone operators visually identified children before executing strikes, raising urgent questions regarding future risks when artificial intelligence assumes full control over autonomous weapons systems.
Total Defense and the Limits of International Law
The international system of peace and security, founded upon the UN Charter to prevent mass violence following World War II, faces unprecedented strain. According to Matviichuk, the mechanisms designed to guarantee global security are broken and have never undergone comprehensive reform, mirroring pre-World War II institutional vulnerabilities.
When the full-scale invasion disrupted international guarantees, protection in Ukraine stemmed primarily from societal self-organization rather than external enforcement. Despite severe infrastructure destruction that left millions without heating, electricity, or water during sub-zero temperatures, Ukrainian civil society maintained institutional continuity. Banks operated, parliament held sessions, schools conducted classes, and hospitals performed surgeries, illustrating what Matviichuk defines as total defense—where ordinary civic duties become acts of resistance.
The Genocidal Character of Russian Aggression
Western societies frequently misinterpret the existential stakes of the conflict, viewing it through conventional geopolitical lenses rather than recognizing its genocidal character, according to Matviichuk. Documented practices in Russian-occupied territories include the physical elimination of active community members, mayors, journalists, teachers, and religious figures, alongside the systematic suppression of the Ukrainian language and culture.
Furthermore, the forced transfer of Ukrainian children to re-settlement and re-education camps aims to systematically erase national identity. Matviichuk emphasizes that destroying a national group does not require eliminating every individual member; erasing cultural markers and forcibly re-identifying children achieves the same destructive outcome, making ongoing resistance an absolute necessity for survival.
Accountability and the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression
Addressing impunity requires prosecuting the crime of aggression, which Matviichuk describes as the foundational “mother crime” that enables subsequent violations. Institutional progress toward accountability advanced significantly when Ukraine and the Council of Europe signed an agreement on June 25, 2025, to establish a Special Tribunal. This momentum expanded further in May 2026, when thirty-six states—including thirty-four Council of Europe members, Australia, and Costa Rica—alongside the European Union, adopted an Enlarged Partial Agreement.
This initiative represents a departure from the Nuremberg precedent, where war criminals were tried exclusively after a regime fell. By establishing this tribunal while conflict continues, the international community aims to decouple justice from the ultimate timing and terms of a war’s conclusion.
Negotiated Solutions and the Rejection of Territorial Bargaining
Proposals favoring negotiated settlements based on exchanging territory for security guarantees carry profound risks for long-term stability, according to Matviichuk. Drawing on the precedent of the two peace agreements signed after the initial occupation of Crimea and eastern regions in 2014, she notes that Russia utilized frozen conflict periods to build military infrastructure, mobilize its economy for sanctions, and prepare for subsequent escalation.
Matviichuk cautions against transactional approaches that treat Ukraine as an object of exchange between major global powers rather than an active party to negotiations. True security, she argues, relies on institutional commitments and domestic defensive capacity rather than unverified diplomatic promises.