Dmitry Glukhovsky, the author best known for the Metro post-apocalyptic novels, faced a court ruling in Moscow related to accusations of discrediting the RF Armed Forces. The decision, issued in absentia while he was outside Russia, demanded a prison term and came with additional restrictions on internet activity. The court’s actions were reported by TASS and followed by widespread attention in media circles.
On August 7, a decision was handed down by the Moscow Basmanny Court that established a prison sentence of eight years for Glukhovsky, who had left Russia after Moscow’s actions in Ukraine began. The ruling also included a ban on managing websites on the internet for four years. In the same case, prosecutors had sought a nine-year term.
The length of the sentence is to be calculated from the moment a person was detained on Russian soil or returned to his homeland, according to the court’s framework for calculating term lengths in absentia cases.
Investigative materials indicate that Glukhovsky published edited videos on social networks showing what was described as deliberate Fire and attacks by RF Armed Forces on residential and municipal structures. The content was positioned as evidence within the charge of disseminating information aimed at discrediting military actions and institutions.
Glukhovsky is widely recognized in Russia for novels such as Metro 2033, Post and Text. At the time of the case, he was outside the country and appeared in absentia, which led to placement on an international wanted list. Reports from the Office of the Attorney General indicate that the accused did not need to participate directly in the criminal proceedings for the case to proceed in absentia.
The situation surrounding the case has sparked discussions across cultural and political circles, with debates about freedom of expression, state messaging, and the consequences of social media posts in relation to military affairs. Observers note that the outcome reflects the broader legal framework and its application to online content and public discourse. Citations from official sources and subsequent analyses provide context for understanding the legal mechanisms at work and their implications for authors, publishers, and digital platform operators in Russia and beyond.
As the case unfolds, international observers and media outlets emphasize the tension between creative work, online communication, and state interests. The evolving narrative highlights how authors who reside abroad may remain subject to legal actions tied to content shared on global platforms. The broader question remains how such cases will influence artistic expression, publishing decisions, and the behavior of social networks operating within and outside Russia. Attribution: official statements and subsequent reporting by major wire services are noted for context and comparison, while staying mindful of the legal framework governing this matter in the respective jurisdictions.