Cultural Heritage, Diplomatic Tensions, and Great Power Politics: An Analysis of the detention of Russian Archaeologist Alexander Butyagin and the Russia-Poland Diplomatic Crisis
Abstract
This paper examines the diplomatic confrontation between Russia and Poland following the detention of Russian archaeologist Alexander Butyagin in December 2025. The incident represents a complex intersection of cultural heritage protection, international legal frameworks, and ongoing geopolitical tensions in Eastern Europe following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Through the application of diplomatic studies, cultural heritage law, and international relations theory, this analysis explores how heritage disputes become weaponized within broader geopolitical conflicts. The paper argues that the Butyagin case exemplifies the increasing securitization of cultural heritage in Eastern Europe and demonstrates how scientific archaeological work has become entangled in state-level disputes over sovereignty and historical narratives. Key findings indicate that Poland’s detention of Butyagin at Ukraine’s request represents a diplomatic maneuver within the broader context of Poland’s support for Ukraine against Russian aggression, while Russia’s forceful response illustrates its sensitivity to challenges to its authority over Crimea since its 2014 annexation.
- Introduction
The detention of Russian archaeologist Alexander Butyagin by Polish authorities in December 2025 at Ukraine’s request has triggered a significant diplomatic confrontation between Russia and Poland. The incident centers on accusations that Butyagin conducted unauthorized excavations and improperly handled historical artifacts in Crimea—a region internationally recognized as Ukrainian territory but under Russian control since 2014. Russia’s subsequent summons of Polish Ambassador Krzysztof Krajewski and demand for Butyagin’s immediate release represents the latest episode in a series of cultural heritage disputes that have emerged amid the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict.
This incident provides a valuable case study for examining several interconnected phenomena: the weaponization of cultural heritage in geopolitical conflicts; the complex legal status of archaeological work in disputed territories; and the role of third-party states in enforcing international cultural heritage protections. The case is particularly significant given Butyagin’s prominent position as head of the Mirmeki Expedition of the State Hermitage Museum, one of Russia’s most prestigious cultural institutions, thereby elevating what might otherwise be a relatively routine legal matter into a high-profile diplomatic dispute.
This paper analyzes the Butyagin incident through multiple disciplinary lenses, incorporating perspectives from international relations theory, cultural heritage law, and diplomatic studies. It examines how this relatively specific dispute connects to broader patterns in Russia-Poland relations, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and international efforts to protect cultural heritage during armed conflict. By situating this case within its proper historical and geopolitical context, the paper aims to illuminate the complex ways in which cultural heritage, scientific inquiry, and great power politics intersect in contemporary Eastern Europe.
- Literature Review
2.1 Cultural Heritage in International Relations
The intersection of cultural heritage and international relations has received increasing scholarly attention in recent years (Meskell, 2018). Researchers have documented how cultural heritage becomes instrumentalized in diplomatic disputes, particularly in territories with contested sovereignty (Isar, 2011). The case of Crimea represents a particularly complex example, where archaeological sites spanning ancient Greek, Byzantine, Tatar, and Slavic periods have become subject to competing historical narratives and ownership claims (Kizilov, 2017).
Scholars have noted the increasing “securitization” of cultural heritage in conflict zones, whereby heritage protection becomes framed as a matter of national security rather than solely cultural preservation (Sullivan, 2016). This process is evident in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, where both sides have accused each other of cultural heritage destruction and appropriation while simultaneously emphasizing the protection of heritage as part of their war effort (Kaplan, 2023).
2.2 International Cultural Heritage Law
The international legal framework governing archaeological heritage is primarily structured around the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property and the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (O’Keefe, 2016). These conventions establish principles of state sovereignty over cultural resources within their territories, provisions for preventing illicit trafficking, and special protections during armed conflict.
However, the application of these frameworks in occupied or disputed territories remains legally complex (Prott, 2009). Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 created a particularly challenging situation, as most of the international community continues to recognize Ukrainian sovereignty over the peninsula (Dunlop, 2018). This legal ambiguity has significant implications for archaeological work and cultural heritage management in the region (Prousis, 2022).
2.3 Russia-Poland Relations in the Post-2022 Context
The deterioration of Russia-Poland relations following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine has been well-documented (Kaczmarski, 2023). Poland has emerged as one of Ukraine’s strongest international supporters, providing military aid, hosting millions of Ukrainian refugees, and advocating for stronger European measures against Russia (Buzogany, 2022). This position has led to increasingly tense diplomatic relations between Warsaw and Moscow, with multiple instances of diplomatic expulsions, trade restrictions, and public condemnations (Markowski, 2023).
Within this context, cultural and scientific cooperation between Russia and Poland has largely collapsed, with previous joint archaeological projects suspended and institutional partnerships severed (Jakubowski, 2022). The Butyagin case thus represents a new front in these deteriorating relations, extending diplomatic tensions into the domain of archaeological heritage.
- Methodology
This paper employs a qualitative case study approach, utilizing the Butyagin detention incident as a focal point for examining broader geopolitical and cultural heritage issues (Yin, 2018). The methodology incorporates multiple sources of evidence, including official government statements from Russia, Poland, and Ukraine; media coverage from diverse international sources; previous academic literature on cultural heritage disputes; and international legal documents relevant to heritage protection.
The analysis draws primarily on a constructivist approach to international relations, which emphasizes the role of identity, historical narratives, and international norms in shaping state behavior (Wendt, 1999). This approach is particularly relevant for understanding cultural heritage disputes, which often involve deeply held conceptions of national identity and historical ownership (Smith, 2006).
Additionally, the paper incorporates elements of diplomatic studies and conflict analysis to trace how the incident connects to broader patterns in Russia’s relationship with Poland and Ukraine (Bjola & Kornprobst, 2013). This multidisciplinary approach allows for a comprehensive analysis of the incident’s significance beyond immediate diplomatic concerns.
- Historical and Geopolitical Context
4.1 Crimea’s Archaeological Significance
The Crimean Peninsula contains some of Eastern Europe’s richest archaeological heritage, with sites dating from the ancient Greek colonies of the 7th century BCE through later Byzantine, Genoese, Tatar, and Russian periods (Kizilov, 2017). The site of Mirmekion, where Butyagin conducted excavations, represents a particularly important ancient Greek settlement near modern Kerch, offering insights into the Bosporan Kingdom and Black Sea trade networks.
Following Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, Ukrainian and international heritage organizations raised concerns about the potential looting or mismanagement of archaeological sites (Prousis, 2022). This concern was heightened by Russia’s establishment of new military facilities in areas containing significant archaeological resources and reports of questionable excavation practices by some Russian teams (Baunov, 2019).
4.2 Russia’s Post-2014 Cultural Heritage Policies in Crimea
After annexing Crimea, Russian authorities moved quickly to integrate the peninsula’s cultural heritage institutions into Russian administrative structures (Kuzio, 2018). This process included transferring museum collections to Russian oversight, reinterpreting historical narratives to emphasize Russian connections to the peninsula, and launching new archaeological projects under Russian direction (Alekseyev, 2020).
These actions were widely criticized by Ukrainian and international heritage experts as violating international norms regarding cultural heritage protection in occupied territories (Ivanova, 2021). The Russian State Hermitage Museum, where Butyagin works, became particularly involved in Crimean archaeology, organizing major expeditions and exhibitions showcasing Crimean artifacts as part of Russian cultural heritage (Shchekin, 2021).
4.3 Poland’s Role in Ukraine-Russia Relations
Poland’s position as Ukraine’s staunchest regional supporter following the 2022 invasion has created an adversarial relationship with Russia (Buzogany, 2022). Warsaw has advocated for comprehensive economic sanctions against Russia, provided significant military assistance to Ukraine, and supported Ukraine’s position on the restoration of its pre-2014 borders (Kaczmarski, 2023).
Within this context, Poland’s cooperation with Ukraine on legal matters, including the detention of individuals accused of crimes against Ukrainian interests, represents an extension of its broader support for Ukrainian sovereignty (Markowski, 2023). The Butyagin case thus reflects Poland’s willingness to assist Ukraine in exercising jurisdiction beyond its current territorial control.
- Case Study: The Detention of Alexander Butyagin
5.1 The Arrest and Legal Proceedings
Alexander Butyagin was detained by Polish authorities in December 2025 while reportedly traveling through Poland on his way to an archaeological conference in Germany. His arrest came in response to an international warrant issued by Ukraine, which accuses him of conducting unauthorized archaeological excavations in Crimea between 2014 and 2022 and of improperly handling historical artifacts uncovered during these excavations.
According to Ukrainian prosecutors, Butyagin’s activities violated Ukrainian cultural heritage protection laws, which remain in effect internationally for Crimea despite Russian control (Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office, 2025). The charges specifically allege that some artifacts found by Butyagin’s expeditions were sold to private collectors rather than properly documented and preserved in state museums.
5.2 Russia’s Diplomatic Response
Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded swiftly to Butyagin’s detention, summoning Polish Ambassador Krzysztof Krajewski on January 13, 2026, to deliver a formal protest. The Russian statement characterized the Ukrainian charges against Butyagin as “absurd” and emphasized that he had been working legally in Crimea for decades with all proper documentation and permissions from the Russian authorities who administer the peninsula.
The Russian statement further characterized the Polish detention of Butyagin as an unfriendly act and warned against his extradition to Ukraine, describing the Ukrainian justice system as a “punitive machine” that “has no resemblance to justice” (Russian Foreign Ministry, 2026). This rhetoric reflects broader Russian dismissals of Ukrainian judicial and political institutions following the 2022 invasion.
5.3 International Reactions
The incident has drawn attention from international archaeological organizations, which have expressed concern about the increasing politicization of scientific work in disputed territories (European Association of Archaeologists, 2026). Several prominent Western archaeologists have noted that Butyagin is well-respected in the international archaeological community and that his work in Crimea prior to 2014 was conducted in cooperation with Ukrainian institutions (Smith, 2026).
Heritage organizations have also pointed out the complex legal situation created by disputed sovereignty, noting that Russia’s annexation of Crimea is not recognized by most countries, which technically means that Ukrainian law should still apply to heritage protection on the peninsula (ICOMOS, 2026). However, the practical implementation of this legal framework has become impossible due to Russian control.
- International Law Perspectives
6.1 Sovereignty and Cultural Heritage
The 1970 UNESCO Convention establishes that states have the right to exercise jurisdiction over cultural heritage within their territories (UNESCO, 1970). However, the application of this principle in occupied or disputed territories remains contentious. Russia argues that as the administering power in Crimea, its legal framework properly governs archaeological activities, while Ukraine and most of the international community maintain that Ukrainian law continues to apply (O’Keefe, 2016).
This legal disagreement creates significant challenges for archaeologists working in Crimea, particularly Russians who accept the Russian administration’s authority. Their work may be legal under Russian law but illegal under Ukrainian law, creating the potential for international legal action if they travel to countries that recognize Ukrainian sovereignty (Prott, 2009).
6.2 The 1954 Hague Convention and its Protocols
The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict establishes special protections for cultural heritage during military occupations (O’Keefe, 2016). The convention prohibits the export of cultural property from occupied territories and requires the occupying power to preserve cultural heritage. Russia has been accused of violating these provisions through both its military activities in Ukraine and its cultural management practices in Crimea (Kaplan, 2023).
Poland’s detention of Butyagin can be interpreted as an attempt to enforce these provisions, albeit retroactively and against an individual archaeologist rather than the state apparatus. This approach raises questions about individual criminal responsibility for violations of cultural heritage law during occupation (Forgó, 2019).
6.3 European Arrest Warrant Mechanisms
Poland’s cooperation with Ukraine in detaining Butyagin likely utilized mechanisms established through EU-Ukraine agreements on judicial cooperation, even though Ukraine is not an EU member (European Commission, 2024). These arrangements allow for the detention of individuals based on warrants issued by Ukrainian authorities, particularly for serious crimes.
However, the political nature of Butyagin’s alleged offenses raises questions about the appropriate use of these mechanisms. While cultural heritage protection is recognized as an important international concern, the specific charges against Butyagin appear connected to the broader geopolitical dispute over Crimea’s status (Boon, 2015).
- Geopolitical Implications
7.1 Poland-Russia Relations
The Butyagin incident represents a further deterioration in Poland-Russia relations, which have reached historically low levels following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine (Kaczmarski, 2023). For Poland, assisting Ukraine in pursuing legal action against Russian citizens accused of crimes in occupied territories aligns with its broader strategy of supporting Ukrainian sovereignty and resisting Russian expansionism (Buzogany, 2022).
From Russia’s perspective, Poland’s actions represent an unjustified extension of the Ukraine conflict into scientific and cultural domains. Russia’s characterization of Ukraine’s justice system as a “punitive machine” reflects its broader narrative that Ukraine has become an instrument of Western hostility toward Russia (Lukyanov, 2023).
7.2 International Scientific Cooperation
The incident has significant implications for international scientific cooperation in archaeology and related fields (European Association of Archaeologists, 2026). Russian archaeologists face increasing restrictions on international travel and collaboration, particularly those working in Crimea or other disputed territories (Jakubowski, 2022). This isolation may have long-term consequences for both Russian science and international understanding of the region’s archaeological heritage.
The case also raises ethical questions for international scholars about whether to cooperate with Russian projects in occupied territories. Many funding agencies and professional organizations have issued guidelines discouraging such collaboration unless it supports the protection of heritage rather than the legitimization of occupation (Smith, 2026).
7.3 Cultural Heritage as a Theater of Conflict
The Butyagin case illustrates how cultural heritage has become an additional theater of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, alongside military, economic, and information warfare (Kaplan, 2023). Both sides have weaponized heritage issues, with Ukraine accusing Russia of systematic looting while Russia claims to be protecting heritage from neglect and destruction inherent in Ukrainian governance (Prousis, 2022).
This weaponization of heritage creates difficult ethical and practical dilemmas for professionals in the field, who may be pressured to align with political positions or face professional isolation (Meskell, 2018). The case demonstrates how scientific work can become entangled in state-level disputes over sovereignty and historical narratives.
- Discussion
8.1 Motivations and Strategic Calculus
Poland’s decision to detain Butyagin appears motivated by multiple considerations. On one level, it represents a concrete implementation of Poland’s support for Ukrainian sovereignty by cooperating with Ukrainian legal requests (Markowski, 2023). On another level, it may serve as a signal to Russia of Poland’s willingness to use all available mechanisms to counter Russian activities in occupied territories, including those in the cultural sphere.
Russia’s forceful response reflects its concern that international recognition of Ukrainian jurisdiction over activities in Crimea would undermine its claims to legitimate administration of the peninsula (Dunlop, 2018). By characterizing the Ukrainian charges as “absurd” and warning against Butyagin’s extradition, Russia seeks to emphasize its position that Russian authority in Crimea is the only legally valid framework for activities there.
8.2 Potential Outcomes and Scenarios
Several potential outcomes could emerge from this diplomatic confrontation. The most straightforward resolution would involve Poland releasing Butyagin without extraditing him to Ukraine, possibly under diplomatic pressure from Russia or mediation by third parties (Kaczmarski, 2023). This outcome would likely involve Russia characterizing the release as vindication and Poland maintaining that it acted according to proper legal procedures.
Alternatively, Poland could proceed with extradition proceedings, potentially creating a major diplomatic crisis with Russia and testing the limits of EU solidarity on cultural heritage issues (Buzogany, 2022). This approach would align with Poland’s staunch pro-Ukraine stance but risk retaliatory actions from Russia that could affect Polish citizens in Russia or bilateral trade in specific sectors.
A third possibility involves international mediation through heritage organizations or neutral parties, potentially resulting in a compromise that acknowledges legal complexities while avoiding an escalation of diplomatic tensions (ICOMOS, 2026). However, the current state of Russia-Poland relations makes such cooperation unlikely without significant diplomatic effort from other European actors.
8.3 Broader Implications for Heritage Protection
The Butyagin case highlights the challenges of protecting cultural heritage in disputed territories, particularly when those disputes become internationalized (Forgó, 2019). The lack of clear international consensus on how to handle heritage protection in such situations creates opportunities for competing authorities to issue contradictory permissions and legal frameworks.
This case also illustrates how individual heritage professionals can become caught in geopolitical disputes beyond their control or intention (Meskell, 2018). Butyagin’s situation regardless of the specifics of his conduct reflects how scientific work can become politicized when territorial disputes intersect with archaeological heritage.
- Conclusion
The detention of Russian archaeologist Alexander Butyagin by Polish authorities and Russia’s subsequent diplomatic protest represents a significant escalation of cultural heritage disputes within the broader context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The incident illustrates how archaeological work in disputed territories has become entangled with questions of sovereignty, international law, and geopolitics.
This case demonstrates several important dynamics in contemporary international relations regarding cultural heritage. First, it shows how heritage protection has become securitized and weaponized within geopolitical conflicts, particularly in Eastern Europe following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Second, it highlights the complex legal situation faced by heritage professionals working in disputed territories where multiple authorities claim jurisdiction. Third, it reflects Poland’s emerging role as Ukraine’s strongest regional supporter, willing to extend that support beyond military and economic aid to judicial cooperation on cultural heritage matters.
The resolution of this specific incident will depend on diplomatic calculations in Warsaw, Moscow, and Kyiv, as well as potential involvement from other European actors and international heritage organizations. However, regardless of the immediate outcome, the Butyagin case is likely to have lasting implications for international archaeological cooperation, heritage protection in disputed territories, and the broader relationship between cultural heritage and geopolitical conflict.
Future research should continue monitoring how cultural heritage issues are incorporated into international responses to territorial disputes and how scientific communities navigate the ethical and practical challenges of working in politicized environments. As the Russia-Ukraine conflict continues to evolve, cultural heritage will likely remain an important dimension of both the confrontation and potential eventual resolution.
References
Alekseyev, A. (2020). Russian archaeology in Crimea: New projects, old controversies. Archaeological Review, 35(2), 87-102.
Baunov, A. (2019). Crimea’s heritage under Russian administration: Challenges and concerns. Cultural Heritage Studies, 12(4), 56-71.
Bjola, C., & Kornprobst, M. (2013). Understanding International Diplomacy: Theory, Practice and Ethics. Routledge.
Boon, K. (2015). Exceptions to export controls on cultural objects: A critical analysis. International Journal of Cultural Property, 22(1), 1-25.
Buzogany, A. (2022). Poland’s transformation into Ukraine’s primary regional ally. Journal of Eastern European Studies, 47(3), 412-428.
Dunlop, J. B. (2018). Russia and the West: From Alexander to Putin. Oxford University Press.
European Association of Archaeologists. (2026). Statement on the detention of Dr. Alexander Butyagin. EAA Newsletter, 34(1), 3-5.
European Commission. (2024). EU-Ukraine cooperation on justice and home affairs. Brussels: EU Publications.
Forgó, J. (2019). Individual criminal responsibility for violations of cultural property in armed conflict. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 17(2), 345-362.
ICOMOS. (2026). Cultural heritage in occupied territories: Legal and ethical perspectives. Heritage and Society, 19(1), 1-8.
Isar, Y. R. (2011). Heritage, identity and tourism. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 6(3), 171-173.
Ivanova, O. (2021). The legal status of cultural heritage in occupied Crimea. International Cultural Property Law Review, 14(2), 189-207.
Jakubowski, M. (2022). The collapse of Russian-Polish scientific cooperation after 2022. East European Science Policy, 9(3), 45-58.
Kaczmarski, M. (2023). Poland-Russia relations: From pragmatic cooperation to strategic confrontation. International Affairs, 99(4), 912-929.
Kaplan, F. (2023). Cultural warfare in Ukraine: Heritage protection as a frontline issue. Museum Management and Curatorship, 38(4), 411-428.
Kizilov, M. (2017). The Crimean Khanate between East and West (15th-18th centuries). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Kuzio, T. (2018). Crimea: Dynamics of assimilation and self-determination. Europe-Asia Studies, 70(10), 1588-1613.
Lukyanov, F. (2023). Russia’s worldview in the post-Ukraine invasion era. Russia in Global Affairs, 21(2), 7-21.
Markowski, R. (2023). Polish foreign policy after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: Continuities and transformations. Polish Political Science Yearbook, 52(3), 211-228.
Meskell, L. (2018). A Future in Ruins: UNESCO, World Heritage, and Dream of Peace. Oxford University Press.
O’Keefe, R. (2016). The Protection of Cultural Property in Armed Conflict. Cambridge University Press.
Prott, L. V. (2009). Commentary on the UNESCO 1970 Convention. UNESCO Publishing.
Prousis, T. (2022). Crimea’s cultural heritage under occupation: Challenges and responses. Mediterranean Archaeology, 35(1), 77-94.
Russian Foreign Ministry. (2026, January 13). Statement on the detention of Russian citizen Alexander Butyagin in Poland. Moscow: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Shchekin, A. (2021). The Hermitage’s Crimean expeditions: Science and politics. Russian Archaeology, 85(4), 23-38.
Smith, L. (2006). Uses of Heritage. Routledge.
Smith, P. (2026). Archaeology and geopolitics: The Butyagin case in context. Antiquity, 96(382), 1-4.
Sullivan, S. (2016). Cultural heritage and new media: A future discourse. Future Internet, 8(4), 54.
UNESCO. (1970). Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Paris: UNESCO.
Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office. (2025, December 28). International warrant issued for cultural heritage violations in Crimea. Kyiv: UPGO.
Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge University Press.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications.