How Many More Museums Before ICOM Expels Russia?

In its own words, the Paris-based International Council of Museums (ICOM) is “a membership association and a non-governmental organisation which establishes professional and ethical standards for museum activities”.

It says it is “committed to the research, conservation, continuation and communication to society of the world’s natural and cultural heritage, present and future, tangible and intangible”.

Russia is one of its 139 members, but Moscow’s understanding of ICOM’s ethical standards and cultural heritage conservation doesn’t appear to line up.

Since the start of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, UNESCO – which is headquartered in the same building as ICOM in Paris – recorded 536 cultural sites that have been damaged in the country. They include 154 religious sites, 280 buildings of historical and/or artistic interest, 41 museums, 33 monuments, 22 libraries, five archaeological sites and one archive.

Systematic erasure?

Only last month, Kyiv’s 11th-century Dormition Cathedral, part of the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra, a group of monastic buildings declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site, was hit by a drone. Kyiv’s Mystetskyi Arsenal National Art and Culture Museum was also hit in the same attack. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, described it as “one of the biggest Russian crimes against Christian culture today”.

UNESCO publicly condemned the assault. “Damage to such institutions deprives communities of access to culture, education and shared spaces that are essential for recovery and social cohesion,” it said in a press release on 15 June.

The Kremlin denies deliberately targeting Ukrainian culture, just as it denies aiming its missiles and drones at residential buildings, despite having razed scores of apartment blocks. But Ukraine and many international observers argue that Russia's policies and rhetoric amount to an attempt to erase or suppress Ukrainian national identity. 

The first expulsion in 80 years

As a result, ICOM Russia has been accused of violating the organisation’s code of ethics by a growing group of museum professionals, cultural heritage experts and lawyers, who are seeking its expulsion. If successful, the campaign would mark the first time in ICOM's nearly 80-year history that a national committee has been expelled.

In May 2025, a coalition led by Christian Castagna, advocacy manager for the French not-for-profit campaign group For Ukraine, Their Freedom, and Ours! and Vitaliy Tytych, head of legal affairs at ICOM Ukraine – co-authored an open letter in Le Monde threatening legal action against ICOM if it failed to expel the Russian committee. The signatories argue that ICOM Russia has failed to uphold its obligations to protect cultural heritage and that, as a France-based NGO, ICOM is legally required to enforce its own statutes and code of ethics.

“Expelling Russia from ICOM is the very least that can be expected of an institution governed by French law and dedicated to the protection of cultural heritage,” the letter demands. It claims Russia has “systematically [been] erasing Ukraine’s centuries-old cultural identity” since the start of the invasion in 2022.

Tytych is spearheading efforts to get ICOM to officially investigate ICOM Russia for breaching its code of ethics. Through his law firm Vitaliy Tytych & Partners, an institutional member of ICOM, he claims that Russian museum professionals have been involved in the unauthorised handling of cultural property, illegal archaeological work and the use of museums for state propaganda and ideological messaging.

ICOM’s code of ethics states: “Everyone who works in or with museums should not participate, directly or indirectly, in the plunder, damage or destruction of tangible, intangible or digital heritage.”

A Russian lobby?

The ongoing campaign is the latest chapter in a dispute that has simmered since Russia's full-scale invasion. In 2023, ICOM’s then president Emma Nardi requested a formal consultation with ICOM Russia over what she described as “worrying developments” in Ukraine relating to the organisation's code of ethics.

Vasily Pankratov, ICOM Russia’s head, responded by denying that any of its members had violated the code of ethics. Since then, ICOM has not publicly announced the results of that consultation. Tytych believes the main obstacles are the “unwillingness of the ICOM leadership to react” due to funding provided by Russia, the influence of a “Russian lobby” and “corruption”. Whether or not ICOM complies with his request to pursue the investigation remains to be seen, but a source close to the case says ICOM “isn’t expecting legal action”.

With the evidence of cultural destruction mounting, the obvious question is: how many more Ukrainian museums, churches, and cultural sites must its military blow up before ICOM sanctions it? Nardi left her post last year, when ICOM’s current president, Antonio Rodriguez, was elected by its general assembly.

Unequivocal condemnation

“ICOM unequivocally condemns looting, unlawful appropriation and the misuse of cultural heritage, wherever they occur,” an ICOM statement says. “At the same time, ICOM acts strictly within the framework established by its code of ethics for museums. Accordingly, its internal assessment processes concern alleged breaches of the ICOM code of ethics for museums. Any allegation of [a breach of ethics] shall be supported by reliable and credible evidence. In carrying out such assessments, ICOM relies on information or findings provided by competent, independent, and impartial authorities or institutions, including, where appropriate, long-standing partners such as UNESCO, INTERPOL or other competent public bodies.”

It continues: “These assessments do not determine whether crimes or violations of international law have been committed. ICOM does not exercise law-enforcement, regulatory, judicial or adjudicative authority. Responsibility for investigating alleged violations, determining liability, resolving disputes and imposing sanctions fall exclusively within the competence of the relevant competent authorities, courts, tribunals, regulators or other legally mandated authorities.”

In May last year, the European Union did sanction a Russian museum for the first time when it blacklisted the Tauric Chersonese State Museum Preserve on the outskirts of the Crimean city of Sevastopol. The EU accused it of “actively undermining Ukrainian cultural heritage by promoting pro-Russian narratives regarding the cultural significance of the artefacts and excavation sites it administers”.

When I asked Pankratov if he accepted UNESCO’s findings, he wrote: “If you weren’t a journalist and were sitting here over a cup of coffee, I would answer you. But in this instance, please ask about matters related to ICOM.”