Support us
Our investigation examined witness accounts, open-source imagery, local records and reports from areas affected by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The evidence points to a recurring pattern: Russian forces positioned military personnel, weapons and equipment near civilian homes, schools and public buildings, then restricted residents’ ability to leave.
This conduct placed families in immediate danger and complicated efforts to distinguish military targets from protected civilian sites. In several locations, people described being trapped in occupied communities while soldiers used houses, basements and public facilities for shelter, storage or firing positions.
For Australians familiar with bushfire evacuation warnings, the central issue is clear: civilians need a safe route out and timely information. When an occupying force blocks evacuation, cuts communications or threatens residents who resist, the danger becomes deliberate rather than accidental.
Investigators compared independent testimony with satellite imagery, video footage, photographs, municipal documents and statements from Ukrainian officials. This process helps identify whether a reported military presence was isolated or part of a broader operational pattern.
The inquiry also considered the timing of attacks and troop movements. A damaged civilian building does not automatically prove unlawful conduct; investigators must establish what was nearby, who controlled the site, whether civilians remained inside and whether feasible precautions were taken.
The analysis was informed by wider reporting on authoritarian government traits, particularly the suppression of independent information and the use of coercion to control occupied populations.
The evidence identified several recurring practices:
These practices create a human shield effect even when soldiers do not formally announce that civilians are being used as cover. A family may remain in a building because escape is impossible, while troops exploit the presence of civilians to discourage Ukrainian fire.
Witnesses also described soldiers taking over schools, medical sites and administrative offices. In towns near the front, people sometimes had to choose between staying in a dangerous neighbourhood and travelling through roads controlled by armed personnel. That is not a meaningful choice.
The findings can be grouped by conduct, civilian impact and the evidence needed for accountability:
| Conduct reported by witnesses | Risk to civilians | Evidence that can verify it |
|---|---|---|
| Troops stationed in homes | Families exposed to attack or detention | Geolocated photographs and testimony |
| Weapons placed near civilian sites | Increased risk of strikes and explosions | Satellite imagery and video |
| Evacuation routes blocked | Residents trapped in combat zones | Checkpoint records and survivor accounts |
| Public buildings converted to military use | Essential services disrupted | Local documents and before-and-after imagery |
| Threats against witnesses | Evidence suppressed | Interviews, messages and detention records |
International humanitarian law requires parties to a conflict to protect civilians and take precautions to reduce harm. Military necessity does not provide a blanket excuse for placing residents in danger. Investigators must examine each incident, including the military advantage claimed and the alternatives available.
For Australians, the distinction matters in practical terms. A family in Melbourne or Perth may understand “collateral damage” as a tragic consequence of war, but deliberately making civilians stay beside military positions is a different allegation. It concerns the method of warfare itself.
Occupied communities often lose access to journalists, courts and reliable internet. That makes first-hand accounts vulnerable to intimidation and memory loss. It also means images shared through Telegram or social media need to be preserved, authenticated and placed in a verified timeline.
Our reporting on preserving war-crimes evidence explains why original files, metadata, witness details and chain-of-custody records matter. A single video may be powerful, but a case becomes stronger when it can be connected to maps, satellite data and multiple independent witnesses.
The Australian public has seen similar concerns after major disasters: records can disappear when systems are damaged or communities are displaced. In Ukraine, the stakes are higher because evidence may support future domestic prosecutions, international cases or reparations claims.
Civilians living under occupation do more than endure physical danger. They may lose access to medicine, food, electricity, schooling and family members. In some villages, residents reported hiding children, avoiding windows and refusing to use phones because they feared surveillance.
Long-form reporting gives these experiences room that a short breaking-news item cannot. Our work on life in de-occupied villages follows the human consequences after Russian forces withdraw, when residents return to mined streets and damaged homes.
This perspective matters to Ukrainian communities in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, as well as to Australians who support humanitarian appeals through local churches, councils and community groups. Many people use the phrase “a fair go”; civilians under occupation are asking for the basic protections that international law already promises.
The investigation’s findings do not depend on one dramatic image. They emerge from consistent testimony, corroborating records and repeated conduct across affected areas. Preserving that evidence helps ensure that using civilians as cover is treated as an accountable act, rather than another vague tragedy of war.
