Here is a fictional courtroom speech delivered by Putin’s lead defense lawyer at the International Criminal Court (ICC)

 Here is a fictional courtroom speech delivered by Putin’s lead defense lawyer at the International Criminal Court (ICC), combining legal, political, and emotional arguments — structured as if it's unfolding in a real trial scenario

Defence Counsel Representing Vladimir Putin]

Honourable Judges of the International Criminal Court,

I stand before you today not merely as a defense lawyer, but as a guardian of legal truth — of international principles that must be above politics, prejudice, and propaganda. My client, President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, has been brought before this court under charges that are not just deeply flawed — they are politically contaminated, legally unsound, and historically selective.

Let me begin with the most glaring contradiction — this Court dares to assert jurisdiction over a man whose nation is not party to the Rome Statute. Russia has neither ratified nor accepted the authority of this court. What we see here is not justice, but a legal intrusion into the sovereign affairs of a nation that never gave this Court its mandate. This is not law. This is neo-legal imperialism.

The prosecution would have you believe that President Putin personally ordered war crimes — that he drew the maps, fired the rockets, and trampled human rights. But where is the proof? Where are the signed orders, the verifiable communications, the irrefutable links between command and consequence? The prosecution builds a case on presumption, emotion, and circumstantial interpretations, not evidence beyond reasonable doubt. This is not justice. This is judicial theater.

And we must ask: why now? Why Putin? Why this war and not others? The world has witnessed unprovoked invasions, civilian bombings, and decades-long occupations — many by states that are never brought before this Court. Has any American president stood trial here for Iraq? Has any NATO commander been indicted for Libya or Serbia? No. The sword of this court cuts in one direction only — and that direction always seems to serve the powerful West.

Let us be clear: President Putin acted in the interests of Russian security, in the protection of ethnic Russian communities, and in response to the unchecked militarization of Ukraine — a nation turning into a forward military base for NATO, in violation of promises made to Moscow. Are these not national security concerns? Are these not legitimate geopolitical anxieties? Can we criminalize self-preservation?

Moreover, this Court ignores the internal war waged by Kyiv against Donetsk and Luhansk since 2014. Thousands of ethnic Russians killed, shelled, starved — while the West turned a blind eye. Was the world silent then, but loud now, only because a superpower stood up?

We also reject the portrayal of President Putin as a tyrant above the law. In fact, Russia has its own laws, its own judiciary, its own democratic process. By what authority does this Court believe it can override the Russian Constitution, which forbids the extradition and trial of its citizens by foreign tribunals?

I submit to you, Honourable Judges, that this is not just a trial of one man. This is a trial of the balance of global power, of the West's attempt to monopolize moral authority. And if you proceed with these charges, you will not only divide the world further — you will turn this court into a tool of political warfare rather than a beacon of impartial justice.

My client is not above the law, but he is entitled to the same fairness, the same rules, and the same standards applied to others. If this court wants to prove its neutrality, then let us see equal justice — for all sides, in all conflicts, by all powers.

Until then, we call for a full dismissal of the charges based on lack of jurisdiction, insufficient evidence, and the dangerous precedent this prosecution would set.

Thank you.