These methods yield the results the authorities seek — the escalation of domestic hatred and the normalization of violence.
This enables the state to crack down on dissent using the hands of others, while openly encouraging such behavior through the inaction of law enforcement.
Here are just a few examples of such state-enabled assaults:

“I made the decision to evacuate Ksenia Larina, and she will leave the country for at least six months — until her safety can be guaranteed.
Because the next strike, after that Solovyov broadcast, might be to the throat... I have no other way to protect my journalists,”
said Alexei Venediktov, then Editor-in-Chief of Echo of Moscow.

Venediktov noted that Larina would continue to host her shows remotely.
TV Rain was unable to reach Larina directly for comment.

Venediktov also linked the attack on Echo of Moscow journalist Tatyana Felgengauer to a segment aired on Rossiya 24 on October 11, which focused on Echo’s alleged “cooperation with Western NGOs” in the lead-up to the 2018 presidential election.
He emphasized that:

“The journalists on Rossiya 24 lied 17 times in just seven minutes…”

Chronicle of Attacks on Activists, Journalists, and Deputies — and the Reactions of Law Enforcement Authorities

 

Attack on a Volunteer at the Boris Nemtsov Memorial

When: August 15, 2017
What happened: A volunteer standing vigil at the Boris Nemtsov memorial on the Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge was assaulted.
A couple — a man and a woman — approached Ivan Skripnichenko. The man asked:

“What are you doing here? Don’t you love Putin?”

He then punched Skripnichenko in the face, causing him to fall. The couple fled.
At Sklifosovsky Emergency Research Institute, doctors diagnosed a broken nose. A week later, the volunteer died.

Mikhail Selich, another volunteer who was on the bridge that night, told Novaya Gazeta that he filed a police report.
While giving his testimony, the investigator informed him that security cameras on the bridge were not functioning that night.
The Investigative Committee (IC) opened a criminal case, but reclassified the incident as a “fight” rather than an assault.
The preliminary cause of death was listed as cardiomyopathy. A criminal case was nevertheless initiated.

 

Attack on Municipal Candidate Georgy Malets

When: August 10, 2017
What happened:
In the Orekhovo-Borisovo district of Moscow, Georgy Malets, a candidate for municipal deputy, was beaten.
Late at night, while walking with a friend, he reprimanded the driver of a car driving illegally along the sidewalk.
At first, the car drove away — but returned minutes later.
The people inside exited the vehicle and assaulted Malets.

At the hospital, it was confirmed that he had a broken nose.

Malets' friend immediately called the police.
Malets told Novaya Gazeta that the police did not arrive promptly, and during questioning, officers asked whether he remembered the attackers' faces.
They later concluded that there was no point in opening a criminal case, suggesting that he may have “provoked” the incident himself.
No criminal case was opened.

 

Lyudmila Ulitskaya:

“Aggression today is a symptom of profound abandonment.”
Why has violence become the norm in Russian society?

Attack on Yabloko Activist with Pepper Spray

When: April 28, 2017
What happened:
A passerby sprayed an unknown chemical substance into the face of Yabloko activist Natalia Fedorova near her home.
Doctors diagnosed her with a chemical eye burn.

The police version stated that Fedorova had spoken to the attacker on her way home from the store, and during an argument, the man sprayed her in the face with a chemical solution.
Sergei Mitrokhin, head of the Moscow branch of Yabloko, wrote on Twitter that:

“The Cheremushki police station is falsifying the domestic version of the attack.”

Fedorova told Novaya Gazeta:

“What amazes me is that this isn’t the first time I’ve been ‘attacked’ — people have shot at my window and even delivered a funeral wreath.
I filed a report with police in February, and I still haven’t received a response.
Two weeks ago I was called to the Cheremushki precinct and gave a full statement.
I asked, ‘Will I be summoned again?’ — They replied, ‘Probably not.’”

The criminal case was suspended due to the inability to identify the perpetrator.

 

Zelyonka Attack on Alexei Navalny

When: April 27, 2017
What happened:
Opposition politician Alexei Navalny was attacked outside the Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK) office.
A man — later identified on social media as Alexander Petrunko, an activist of the SERB movement — threw a green antiseptic dye ("zelyonka") into Navalny’s face.
Another SERB member, Aleksei Kulakov, recorded the incident on video.

A criminal case was initiated two days later under Article 116 of the Criminal Code ("Battery").
SERB leader Gosha Tarasevich later stated, after being questioned, that the police had no complaints against the group.
In July, it was announced that the investigation had been suspended — once again due to inability to identify the attacker.

 

Attacks on Ilya Varlamov in Stavropol

When: April 26, 2017
What happened:
Photographer and blogger Ilya Varlamov was attacked twice in Stavropol.
At the airport, he was doused with zelyonka, iodine, and pelted with cakes, followed by multiple physical blows.
Later that day, Varlamov tweeted that he was again attacked with zelyonka and that his car was being rammed as he traveled around the city.

On April 28, police announced that they had identified four suspects in the attack.
On May 2, six individuals were charged with administrative offenses for “petty hooliganism.”

Varlamov demanded that a criminal investigation be launched under three articles of the Criminal Code:

• Hooliganism committed by a group (Part 2, Article 213);

• Intentional property damage (Part 2, Article 167);

• Obstruction of journalistic activity (Part 3, Article 144).

His lawyer, Andrei Sabinin, stated:

“The most recent update is this: in July, we were denied criminal prosecution under all three Criminal Code articles we cited.”

Attacks on Journalist Yulia Latynina

When: August 20, 2016 and July 19, 2017
What happened:
On August 20, 2016, two unidentified individuals approached Yulia Latynina on Arbat Street as she was heading to the Echo of Moscow studio and doused her with feces. The attackers fled the scene on a motorcycle.

Immediately after the attack, Anatoly Yakunin, then Chief of the Moscow City Police Department (and now Head of the Operations Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation), called the Editor-in-Chief of Novaya Gazeta and promised a prompt and thorough investigation.
More than six months passed — no suspects were identified.

On the night of July 19, 2017, attackers sprayed Latynina’s country house and car with a caustic chemical substance. As a result, eight people were affected, including two children.

Dmitry Muratov, Editor-in-Chief of Novaya Gazeta, formally appealed to A.G. Kucherena, Chairman of the Public Council at the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, requesting a review of the incident and updates on the prior investigation.
No response has been received.
No criminal case was opened.

 

Attack on Novaya Gazeta Correspondent

When: April 25, 2016
What happened:
On Manezhnaya Square in Moscow, Alexander Shprygin, an aide to LDPR deputy Igor Lebedev, attacked journalist Gleb Limansky, a correspondent for Novaya Gazeta.

During an event celebrating the birthday of Duma deputy Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Limansky began filming a crowd gathering at the entrance to the exhibition hall. He also filmed Shprygin arguing with one of the organizers.
Shprygin grabbed the journalist’s camera, smashed the lens, and destroyed the flash card inside.
While Shprygin was damaging the equipment, an accomplice (whose identity remains unknown) restrained Limansky from behind.

A police report was filed the same day.
According to Limansky’s attorney, Vasily Grischak, speaking to Novaya Gazeta:

“A month ago we received a letter from the head of the Investigative Department for the Tverskoy District, stating that the investigation material was forwarded to the Central Administrative District’s Investigative Committee.
They kept stalling the case, splitting it into two separate offenses: property damage and obstruction of journalistic activity.
The police would open a case, and then the Moscow Prosecutor’s Office would insist the cases be merged — and cancel everything.
This happened repeatedly.
Because the crime is categorized as low severity, deliberate delays eventually led to the statute of limitations expiring.”

As a result, no criminal case was initiated.

 

Activist from “Solidarity” Movement Beaten in St. Petersburg

What happened:
Vladimir Shipitsyn, a member of the Solidarity St. Petersburg movement, was attacked in the stairwell of his apartment building, as reported on the movement’s social media accounts.

“Vladimir was returning home from a long trip.
In the stairwell, a man aged approximately 35–40 was waiting for him.
Near the elevator, the attacker blinded him with a dark chemical spray, beat him with brass knuckles causing lacerations, knocked him to the ground, and kicked him repeatedly,”
the statement said.

During the attack, the assailant threatened Shipitsyn, saying:

“Next time will be worse if you don’t stop writing s**t about good people.”

The victim stated that no one knew the time of his return to the city, which leads him to believe that the attack was premeditated and “carried out through complex means.”
Shipitsyn is currently undergoing a medical examination and plans to file an official criminal complaint with law enforcement authorities.

According to the Solidarity movement, Shipitsyn had participated in protest actions in St. Petersburg against the aggression toward Ukraine, the repression of Crimean Tatars, and in defense of political prisoners.

 

It was also previously reported that another activist from the Solidarity movement had died.
(Source: Novaya Gazeta, October 25, 2017)

 

Mass Media and Television in Russia Incite Hatred Not Only Domestically, but Toward Other Nations

This is confirmed by a public opinion survey conducted by the Levada Center.

According to the poll, two-thirds of Russians believe that Russia has enemies. The countries most frequently named as such by respondents were the United States, Ukraine, and Europe.
Furthermore, 23% of those surveyed stated that “our country is surrounded by enemies on all sides.”

Here are the nations and groups Russians most commonly identified as enemies of the country:

• USA — 68%

• Ukraine — 29%

• European Union — 14%

• Former Soviet republics — 10%

• Poland — 8%

• Germany, NATO, and the United Kingdom — 6% each

• Supporters of fundamentalist Islam and the banned organization ISIS — 5%

• Middle Eastern countries and those currently in power in Russia (i.e., officials, government, and “friends of [President] Putin”) — 4%

 

3. Anti-People Laws and Their Consequences.

Over the past six years, Putin’s administration has passed a series of laws that grossly violate human rights and contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Below are some key examples.

On November 14, 2012, a new law came into force that expanded the definition of “state treason” under Russian criminal law.
The justification for amending Article 275 of the Criminal Code was that the existing definition of treason was “too difficult to prove.”
The amendment granted broad powers to the FSB, resulting in an explosion of treason cases, targeting everyone from mothers of large families to former directors of strategic enterprises, military personnel, scientists, and others.

A common thread in these cases is how easily accusations are brought.

Now, a person can be convicted of treason not only for disclosing state secrets, but also for providing consulting services to representatives of a foreign country.
This creates vast room for abuse — “mow down indiscriminately until your hands give out.”

Victims of This Law Include:

Former senior researcher at the Russian Federal Nuclear Center in Sarov Vladimir Golubev, scientist Igor Reshetin, physicist Valentin Danilov, and professors at the Baltic State Technical University “Voenmeh”, Yevgeny Afanasyev and Svyatoslav Bobyshev.

“...Vladimir Golubev has been charged with state treason,” reports Meduza, citing the scientist’s new attorney, Yevgeny Gubin.
From 1975 to 2013, Golubev worked as a senior research fellow at the Nuclear Center, specializing in explosive materials development.
In 2013, he published a report titled “Strength and Destruction of Materials Under Explosive Loads” in the proceedings of a scientific conference in the Czech Republic.

In July 2014, a criminal case was opened against Golubev for disclosure of state secrets.
The FSB concluded that his article contained classified information, although the scientist insisted that all data had previously been published in open scientific literature in the 1980s and 1990s.

On July 8, FSB agents searched Golubev’s home and seized his computers.
He was placed under a travel restriction and formally charged.

 

This is far from the first fabricated case against scientists accused of publishing allegedly classified materials.

• On June 18, 2012, scientist Igor Reshetin was released after serving nearly seven years on trumped-up espionage charges.

• On November 24, 2012, physicist Valentin Danilov was released from a prison in Krasnoyarsk after spending almost 12 years in custody.
  Both had been accused of spying for China.
  Their petitions for clemency were ignored.

 

In March 2010, professors Yevgeny Afanasyev and Svyatoslav Bobyshev from Voenmeh (Baltic State Technical University) were arrested.
They were charged with transmitting classified information to Chinese intelligence regarding the Bulava-30 naval missile system and the dynamics of missile flight.

On June 20, 2012, a St. Petersburg court found both men guilty of state treason:

• Afanasyev was sentenced to 12.5 years

• Bobyshev received 12 years in a strict-regime penal colony.
  The Supreme Court of Russia upheld the sentence without changes.
  (Source: Grani.ru, February 4, 2015)

 

In 2016, Russian courts convicted 14 individuals under Article 275 (State Treason) and 3 individuals under Article 276 (Espionage).

PETR PARPULOV was sentenced to 12 years by the Krasnodar Regional Court in January 2016.
Parpulov is a retired air traffic controller from Sochi Airport.
According to investigators, he committed state treason in 2010 during a trip to Georgia.
However, Parpulov’s attorney, Oleg Eliseev, stated that the charges were not clearly specified by the investigators.
His appeal to the Supreme Court was unsuccessful.
Parpulov has consistently denied his guilt.

 

VLADIMIR LITVINOV was sentenced to 14 years in a strict-regime colony for state treason by the Moscow Regional Court on January 27, 2016.
The Supreme Court upheld the verdict.
Litvinov, around 60 years old, is a former deputy director of the Moscow Region defense company Typhoon.
He was arrested at the airport carrying two flash drives, which, according to the prosecution, contained classified documents.
The court ruled that Litvinov intended to pass the information to foreigners.
He denies all charges.

 

OKSANA SEVASTIDI is one of six women convicted by the Krasnodar Regional Court for state treason via SMS.
She was sentenced to seven years in prison in March 2016 for sending a text message to an acquaintance about tanks in Sochi.
A year later, she was pardoned by the President, and attorneys Ivan Pavlov and Yevgeny Smirnov succeeded in having her sentence reduced from seven to three years.
The Team 29 legal defense group published an article titled “A Woman’s Case” about Sevastidi and other Sochi women convicted of treason.

 

VLADIMIR LAPYGIN, a scientist at the Central Research Institute of Machine Building, was convicted of state treason in September 2016 at the age of 76.
He received a seven-year sentence, which the Supreme Court upheld in December.
The prosecution accused him of cooperating with a foreign country in Asia.
His attorney stated that Lapygin did not admit guilt.
(Source: Team 29 website)

 

These cases represent only a small portion of treason prosecutions — some of which, according to attorneys, are fabricated.

The main difficulty in defending such cases, according to lawyer Anastasia Stavnitskaya, is that:

“Lawyers are usually required to sign a nondisclosure agreement about state secrets and non-disclosure of the investigation, which severely limits their ability to defend their clients.
Moreover, trials are held behind closed doors, and Article 275 (state treason) is now excluded from jury trials.
Currently, a single judge renders the verdict.”

 

The persecution and targeting of politically dissenting individuals in Russia has reached a new level.
In addition to arrests for participation in unauthorized protests, opposition-minded individuals may now face criminal charges for their posts, reposts, comments, images, or videos with political content on social media.

This has become possible after the adoption of the anti-popular “Yarovaya Law.”

The Yarovaya Law
(also known as the Yarovaya Package or the Yarovaya-Ozerov Package) refers to two legislative bills presented by their authors as anti-terrorism measures, which were adopted in Russia in July 2016.
In media and public discourse, the law became widely referred to by the name of one of its authors, Irina Yarovaya.

The package consists of two federal laws:

• Federal Law No. 374-FZ of July 6, 2016
  “On Amendments to the Federal Law ‘On Countering Terrorism’ and Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation Regarding the Establishment of Additional Measures to Counter Terrorism and Ensure Public Safety”

• Federal Law No. 375-FZ of July 6, 2016
  “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation Regarding the Establishment of Additional Measures to Counter Terrorism and Ensure Public Safety”

The amendments introduced by this legislative package can be conditionally divided into the following key areas:

• Expansion of law enforcement powers

• New obligations imposed on telecommunications providers and internet services

• New requirements for freight forwarders and postal service operators

• Stricter regulation of religious and missionary activity

 

Prominent human rights advocate Lev Ponomaryov wrote the following about this law:

“Exile or prison — this is the choice now offered to critics of the government in Russia.
Just two days ago, on May 10, the relevant State Duma committee approved the legislative package on ‘terrorism and extremism,’ prepared by Senator Viktor Ozerov and State Duma deputy Irina Yarovaya, and recommended it for first reading in the State Duma on May 18.

I have written about this bill before, and I believe it is important to remind everyone of its essence.

In one or two weeks, we may all wake up in a completely different reality.
In this new reality, any repost or ‘like’ of an image that displeases the Center “E” (a division responsible for combating extremism) may result in immediate imprisonment — no more “half-measures” like community service or criminal fines.

For example, in February of this year, a single mother from Yekaterinburg, Yekaterina Vologzheninova, was sentenced to mandatory labor and the destruction of her laptop for merely reposting a political cartoon.

Under the new law, the only penalty for so-called “extremist offenses”
(Articles 282, 282.1, 282.2, 282.3 of the Russian Criminal Code) will be imprisonment.”

The number of extremist-related prosecutions in Russia has been growing at an alarming rate.
Between 2011 and 2015, the number of individuals convicted under “extremist articles” tripled.

“In this new reality, any teenager aged 14 and up can face criminal liability for failing to report a friend or, say, an uncle.
The legislative package introduces a new article of the Criminal Code — 205.6 (“Failure to Report a Crime”), under which criminal responsibility begins at age 14.
So now, in addition to the fact that minors can already be imprisoned from age 14 for theft over 2,000 rubles,
they can now be jailed for not informing — a return to the ideals of Pavlik Morozov.”

(Source: Echo of Moscow, May 12, 2016)

 

The effects of this law were immediate.
Mass criminal prosecutions under extremism-related articles began across Russia.

Human rights defenders report an intensification of censorship following the conflict with Ukraine.
After the annexation of Crimea and the war in Donbas, Russian authorities increased persecution of citizens for statements criticizing these actions.

The government tightened legislation related to extremism, hate speech, and calls for separatism.
New articles introduced into the Criminal Code include:

• Article 280 – Stricter penalties for public calls to extremism

• Article 280.1 – Criminalizing calls for violations of Russia’s territorial integrity

• Article 282 – Punishing incitement of hatred or enmity

These became the primary tools for cracking down on critics of the Crimea occupation and the war in Donbas.
The adoption of these laws led to a surge in criminal cases and increased pressure on the media.

 

Examples:

• Rafis Kashapov, an activist from Tatarstan who stated that Russia’s actions in Crimea amounted to occupation, was sentenced to three years in a penal colony.

• Darya Polyudova, a resident of Krasnodar Krai, was sentenced to two years in prison for organizing the “March for the Federalization of Kuban.”

• Andrey Bubeev, an electrician from Tver, received two years in prison for reposting VKontakte content deemed separatist.

Overall, prosecutions for extremism have intensified, particularly regarding statements about Ukraine.
Since 2014, at least ten people have received real prison terms for such remarks.

 

Judicial statistics confirm the surge in convictions under articles related to inciting hatred:

• In 2013, 78 people were convicted.

• In 2014, that number rose to 301.

• In 2015, 444 people were sentenced for extremism.

• In 2016, the figure increased to 502.

While the most common penalty remains community service, recent years have seen a growing share of convictions involving actual imprisonment or suspended sentences.

The Tver Court sentenced mechanical engineer Andrey Bubeev to two years and three months in a penal colony
for reposting a text and an image on the social network “VKontakte.”
This was reported to RBC by Svetlana Sidorkina, a lawyer from the human rights group “Agora.”

The reposted text concerned the annexation of Crimea by Russia.
The image depicted a toothpaste tube with a slogan that the court deemed extremist.

Andrey Bubeev was found guilty of:

• Public calls for extremist activity, and

• Inciting violations of the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.

Bubeev maintains that he is being prosecuted for his beliefs.
He did not admit guilt during the court session.

 

Criminal cases for social media comments and “likes” on other users’ posts have become routine in Russia.
As a result, bloggers have become more cautious and less active, fearing criminal prosecution,
which has clearly led to a decline in political engagement among opposition-minded Russians.

 

“In this new reality, one can be imprisoned not even for extremist activity itself,
but for “inciting” or otherwise involving someone in it.
The bill introduces Article 282.4 of the Criminal Code: “Assisting extremist activity,”
with a minimum sentence of 5 years in prison.

You can imagine for yourself what “otherwise involving” means,
but the punishment starts at 5 years.

And finally, if out of fear you decide to leave the country — forget it.
You may be banned from leaving not by court decision,
but based solely on a “warning” regarding potential involvement in terrorist activities.

The bill introduces a new Paragraph 9 to Article 15 of the Law “On the Procedure for Exit from the Russian Federation and Entry into the Russian Federation”,
which allows a five-year ban on leaving the country.

This is effectively a new Iron Curtain, since any law enforcement body may issue such a warning.
Currently, such a warning is considered a preventive measure, not a punishment.
But under this bill, a constitutional right to freedom of movement would be restricted by a simple preventive notice —
for instance, a warning about the inadmissibility of assisting terrorist activity…

 

The bill received negative reviews from many human rights defenders and public figures,
and was also strongly criticized by the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights.
An official legal analysis of the bill was approved by the majority of the Council members and signed by Presidential Advisor Mikhail Fedotov.

“The bill should be rejected as unconstitutional, a violation of civil rights,
and failing to fulfill its stated purpose of counterterrorism.”

​

​