Key Highlights from the International Online Conference “The Russian Model of Cultural Heritage Destruction During War: The Case of Mariupol”

On April 16, 2026, the Raphael Lemkin Society, in cooperation with the Mariupol Museum of Local Lore and the Ukrainian Heritage Monitoring Lab HeMo, held an online conference titled “The Russian Model of Cultural Heritage Destruction During War: The Case of Mariupol.”

The participants focused on Mariupol as one of the clearest examples of how Russia uses the destruction, appropriation, and distortion of cultural heritage as a tool of war against Ukrainian identity. The discussion addressed not only the scale of the losses, but also the tools for documenting, digitally preserving, and legally protecting cultural heritage.

The event was organized in partnership with the cultural institution Mizhvukhamy, the Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA NGO), the Antiquities Coalition, the Penn Cultural Heritage Center, the Smithsonian Cultural Rescue Initiative, and ICOM Ukraine.

Key Takeaways from the Conference

1. The destruction of Mariupol’s cultural heritage was not accidental, but systematic.

The destruction of Mariupol’s cultural heritage, and of Ukraine’s cultural heritage more broadly, is not an incidental consequence of military action, but part of the Russian Federation’s broader strategy to erase Ukrainian identity and historical memory.

Denys Kochubey, Deputy Mayor of Mariupol, spoke about how Russia has spent centuries trying to erase Ukrainian identity through Russification and the appropriation of others’ heritage, and how it continues that policy today. Brian I. Daniels, Director of Research and Programs at the Penn Cultural Heritage Center, emphasized that Mariupol’s experience reflects not “collateral damage,” but a deliberate attempt to destroy Ukrainian identity. He also noted that museums are not neutral institutions, because they preserve memory and history.

2. In addition to physical destruction, cultural heritage is also being appropriated and distorted.

Russia’s attack on cultural heritage operates on several levels at once. It involves not only the physical destruction of buildings and collections, but also the illegal removal of cultural property, the distortion of historical narratives, and the use of museums as platforms for propaganda.

Valentyna Yefimova, a cultural heritage documentation specialist at the Raphael Lemkin Society, described a consistent pattern: heavy shelling, destruction, the staged “evacuation” of collections, the incorporation of Ukrainian museum objects into the Russian cultural space, and their subsequent use for propaganda. She cited the fate of three Mariupol museums located on the same street: the Mariupol Local History Museum, the Kuindzhi Art Museum, and the Museum of Folk Life. All three were destroyed and looted, and their collections were taken to occupied Donetsk.

Lada Nakonechna, an artist and researcher, drew attention to the fact that not only heritage objects themselves are at risk, but also their context, interpretation, and place in cultural memory. Yuliia Vahanova, Vice President of ICOM Ukraine, emphasized that countering such practices requires facts, professional solidarity, and the systematic communication of information to the international museum community.

3. Documenting these losses is critically important today.

Systematic and proper documentation of losses is the foundation for future accountability, reparations, and the return of stolen objects. Because of the occupation, access to many sites remains impossible, making remote monitoring, satellite imagery, open sources, digital archives, and OSINT research essential tools for gathering evidence. Anastasiia Oleksii, Executive Director of the Raphael Lemkin Society, underscored this point.

Katharyn Hanson, Head of Research at the Smithsonian Cultural Rescue Initiative, presented the results of monitoring the destruction in Mariupol from March to May 2022 and highlighted some of the hardest-hit sites, including the Donetsk Academic Regional Drama Theater, the Museum of History and Archaeology at Mariupol State University, the Clock House, the Kuindzhi Art Museum, the Museum of Folk Life, and the Mariupol Museum of Local Lore.

4. Digital preservation has become one of the main forms of resistance.

Today, digital heritage preservation is not only a technical solution but also a form of resistance. It helps safeguard the memory of destroyed or lost collections, sustain institutional continuity, and reconnect communities with their history.

Vasyl Rozhko, Chair of the Board of the Ukrainian Heritage Monitoring Lab (HeMo), described the Lab’s ongoing collaboration with Ukraine’s Ministry of Culture to create a digital database of photocopies of inventory books. Through emergency inventory efforts, lists of objects from more than 640 Ukrainian museums, including those in temporarily occupied territories, have been documented. This work is essential both for the Register of Museum Fund of Ukraine and for restorative justice.

Representatives of Mariupol’s museums emphasized that, without physical access to collections, these tools help safeguard Mariupol’s heritage, support future research and recovery, contribute to the rebuilding of museum institutions, and maintain the community’s ties to its past.

Mariia Sliota, Director of the Mariupol Museum of Local Lore, presented the museum’s experience in preserving memory after the loss of its collections through digital archives, memorial projects, exhibitions, and a digital book featuring the stories of Mariupol’s fallen defenders. She also highlighted the “Ikanycha” project, an initiative to recreate Greek Mariupol pysanky, as an example of how digital preservation can help restore lost elements of cultural heritage.

Natalia Aruslanova, a staff member of the Mariupol Museum of Local Lore, presented the digital catalog of the museum's lost collection as an example of collaboration among different institutions to visualize losses, restore justice, and preserve Mariupol’s identity.

Olha Khronenko, Associate Professor in the Department of Cultural Studies at Mariupol State University and Junior Research Fellow at the Mariupol Museum ща Local Lore, spoke about the virtual reconstruction of the Museum of History and Archaeology at Mariupol State University following the loss of its collections and damage to the building.

5. Restoring justice will require sustained international and legal efforts.

The recovery of stolen cultural property, the documentation of damage, the prosecution of those responsible, and the securing of reparations are all long-term processes that require coordinated efforts by government institutions, international partners, and civil society.

Daryna Pidhorna, a lawyer and analyst at the Raphael Lemkin Society, outlined the main types of crimes against cultural heritage: the destruction and damage of heritage sites, the unlawful appropriation and transfer of cultural property, the seizure of institutional memory, and the use of museums as platforms for propaganda. She also stressed that, even when legal grounds exist, the return of stolen objects and the receipt of reparations may take years. Here you can find a detailed summary of Daryna’s talk, along with her presentation slides.

Ivan Verbytskyi, Deputy Minister of Culture of Ukraine, described the government’s practical steps, including the evacuation of museum valuables, the creation of secure spaces for their preservation, the development of a systematic inventory of museum holdings, and stronger coordination with law enforcement agencies.

Tess Davis, Executive Director of The Antiquities Coalition, presented the international dimension of the issue, emphasizing that Russia’s war against Ukraine is an attack not only on territory, but also on memory, history, and identity. She also highlighted the importance of international advocacy and responses to crimes against cultural heritage, noting in particular the inclusion of the Mariupol bull figurine on the list of the world’s 10 most wanted missing antiquities.

The conference thus demonstrated that preserving Mariupol’s cultural heritage is of strategic importance to the country’s security. Attacks on culture are also attacks on the nation itself and point to broader criminal practices, including those that bear signs of genocide.

In this context, the view of Raphael Lemkin, one of the founders of international law, is especially significant. He emphasized that genocide is not only the physical destruction of people, but also the deliberate destruction of the foundations of a national group’s existence, including its culture, memory, and historical continuity. That is why documenting crimes, digitally preserving heritage, advancing international advocacy, and pursuing legal accountability must remain among today’s key priorities, because preserving cultural heritage is inseparable from preserving the nation itself.