Investigation reveals continued support for Kremlin-aligned activities
A new cross-border investigation has found that the Russian Red Cross (RRC) continues to receive substantial international funding while expanding cooperation with pro-Kremlin structures and operating on occupied territories in Ukraine. The findings were presented in a multinational inquiry led by Follow the Money, Paper Trail Media, Der Standard, Delfi and Meduza, which documented how the organisation has integrated itself into state-aligned projects, including those in occupied regions. The allegations were detailed in reporting examining the RRC’s work on occupied territories and its ties to Kremlin initiatives, as outlined in this review of Russian Red Cross operations.
Journalists estimate that in 2024 the RRC received the equivalent of €6.5 million from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and €7 million from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), doubling its 2022 income and making up more than a quarter of its budget. The precise share of European funding remains unclear, with the European Commission and several EU member states — Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Slovenia and the Czech Republic — stating their contributions to ICRC and IFRC were not directed to the Russian branch.
Activities on occupied territories raise humanitarian and legal concerns
The investigation confirms that since at least 2023 the RRC has worked on Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory with financial support from Moscow. A prior leak of Kremlin documents revealed that individuals presenting themselves as RRC staff had mistreated prisoners of war in a penal colony in Donetsk region. The organisation, while formally declaring neutrality, has repeatedly taken part in militarised “patriotic” programmes and maintained cooperation with state-aligned youth structures.
The RRC has partnered with the “Movement of the First” and contributed to events such as the “Zarnitsa 2.0” nationwide competition organised jointly with Youth Army (Yunarmiya). Children as young as eight reportedly learned to assemble weapons and operate drones — activities fundamentally at odds with the humanitarian mandate of the global Red Cross Movement.
On occupied territories, new entities such as the Donetsk, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia “Red Cross” organisations have appeared under the RRC brand. Social media posts from these groups show interactions with ICRC staff, creating the impression of formal humanitarian engagement in areas under Russian control. Analysts warn that such structures help legitimise the occupation by presenting a façade of normalised administration and international presence.
Erosion of humanitarian neutrality and institutional credibility
The Red Cross Movement is rooted in strict neutrality. The RRC’s integration into Kremlin-linked initiatives — including youth militarisation and propaganda projects — undermines those principles and risks damaging the credibility of the ICRC and IFRC globally. Maintaining the RRC within the international system, critics argue, may inadvertently legitimise propaganda efforts on occupied territories.
Experts say the growth of the RRC’s budget, combined with its alignment with Russian state structures, illustrates how humanitarian branding is being used to support administrative functions of the occupation. International funds, even when indirectly channelled, may contribute to projects that serve political rather than humanitarian aims, turning the RRC into an instrument of hybrid warfare.
Calling for stronger oversight, analysts argue that RRC funding should be frozen pending an international audit. Suspension or removal of the organisation from international humanitarian bodies would signal that violations of neutrality have consequences and help protect the integrity of global humanitarian norms.
Wider implications for global humanitarian institutions
Cooperation between the RRC and militarised youth organisations raises serious concerns about the involvement of minors in activities linked to conflict preparation. Such practices contradict the mission of the Red Cross, which seeks to shield civilians — especially children — from the impact of war.
The scandal poses broader risks to the reputation of international humanitarian institutions. Perceived inaction or leniency toward the RRC could fuel public distrust, especially among donor governments whose taxpayers expect transparency and adherence to humanitarian principles. Failure to address these violations may complicate future funding and weaken confidence in the global system.
