A court in St. Petersburg delivered its verdict in the case involving Stepan Derkach, a protester known for opposing residential development and the removal of forested land. The proceedings, which were publicized through the Telegram channel of the city courts joint press service, concluded that Derkach acted to disrupt what he viewed as unlawful deforestation and the construction of housing on a forested plot. He aimed to draw media attention to the issue and to signal his stance to Greenpeace and other environmental advocates.
The incident in question occurred in September of two thousand twenty one when a private KamAZ truck, equipped with a drilling rig, was targeted. Investigators determined that Derkach had prepared multiple Molotov cocktails, shattered the vehicle’s glass with a hammer, and then set the truck ablaze. The flames spread, the driver’s vehicle was severely damaged, and Derkach left the scene. The drilling rig estimated to be worth around two million rubles suffered significant damage during the arson attack. These findings were supported by the court’s review of the evidence and witness testimony gathered during the investigation [City Courts Joint Press Service].
In its ruling, the court sentenced Stepan Derkach to one year and four months in a penal facility on the arson and destruction charges. The judgment also addressed the loss or damage to the equipment, ensuring that the financial impact of the misdeed would be recouped through the court’s order. The decision reflects a balance between public safety concerns and the actions taken by an individual asserting a political and environmental grievance under extreme means [City Courts Joint Press Service].
Additional information indicates that the case drew attention beyond the immediate locality, highlighting how environmental disputes can escalate when individuals resort to criminal acts in protest. The narrative surrounding the incident emphasizes a broader dialogue about land use, forest conservation, and the responsibilities of residents who oppose development plans. While the motive cited by Derkach centered on preventing deforestation and drawing media attention, authorities framed the act within the framework of illegal arson and vandalism, underscoring that ends do not justify violent methods [City Courts Joint Press Service].
Separately, reports earlier noted that a related incident involved a person stealing a car in Sochi after delays in returning to work were cited as context for the offense. This parallel case illustrates how urban tensions and personal circumstances can intersect with unlawful actions, though it is distinct from the St. Petersburg proceedings and not part of the same legal action [City Courts Joint Press Service].