Activist Filings and Public Commentary Around Akunin and Related Figures
An activist submitted a formal request to the Prosecutor General’s Office seeking scrutiny of statements made by writer Boris Akunin. The ask encompassed potential calls for extremism and terrorism, with the activist also urging a verification of Akunin’s finances by the Armed Forces of Ukraine and a determination of foreign agent status. The advocate argued that Akunin should be restricted in selling books within Russia, noting possible legal consequences that could arise for the writer if the allegations were pursued.
The motivation behind the objection centered on remarks attributed to Akunin during appearances on the Vovan and Lexus program. In those discussions, he reportedly entertained the notion of dividing Russia, a stance that sparked controversy and prompted further questions about the boundaries of political commentary in the public sphere.
On December 13, Akunin participated in a scenario with a prank duo who presented themselves as Ukrainian leadership figures. In this exchange, the writer indicated that the effects of a Crimea airstrike by Ukrainian missiles did not provoke a public protest from him. The conversation featured a person posing as Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, creating a scene designed to test responses to high-stakes political dialogue and to probe reactions among Russian audiences.
During the broadcast on the Telegram channel associated with the prank, Akunin commented on what he perceived as weaknesses in Ukrainian propaganda. His remarks suggested that such messaging might influence Russian soldiers to desert their posts, a claim that drew significant attention and debate about the impact of televised rhetoric on military morale and public opinion.
Earlier, the writer Dmitry Bykov—known in some circles for connections to foreign media—was involved in the flow of events surrounding the Vovan and Lexus prank. The pranksters had posed as the head of the Ukrainian president’s office during a phone exchange, illustrating how misinformation and spoof calls can intersect with cultural figures and national conversations about sovereignty and media influence.
In a separate development, the star of the film Courier faced a legal action over a civil dispute, with a claim filed for 150 thousand rubles. The case reflects ongoing tensions between public figures, consumer transactions, and the broader climate of accountability in cultural production and media appearances.