The Moscow region’s Royal Court has handed down a conviction against RusNews journalist Roman Ivanov, accusing him of discrediting the Russian Armed Forces. This information was reported by the telegram channel “Attention, news.”
Ivanov received a prison sentence of seven years. The charge stemmed from a range of materials authored by him, including an article addressing events in Bucha, which prosecutors deemed to contain discrediting elements related to the army. The case highlights the narrow interpretation of information considered as undermining official actions and illustrates how journalistic work is assessed under current legal provisions.
In a related development, shortly before this verdict, the Moscow Basmanny District Court, in absentia, placed political scientist Abbas Gallyamov on the docket in a fraud case. Gallyamov is known in Russia as a foreign agent and faced formal charges without his physical presence in the courtroom. The absence ruling underscores how the judiciary handles cases involving individuals living outside the country or unable to attend proceedings in person.
As a consequence, a political scientist faced an in absentia arrest for a two-month period on charges of spreading false information about the Russian army. The court clarified that the duration of this period would be calculated starting from either the moment of extradition to Russian territory or from the moment he is detained within Russia, depending on which event occurs first. The distinction between extradition and in-country detention is central to understanding how these timeframes are managed in such cases.
On February 27, the Khoroshevsky District Court in Moscow, again in absentia, moved to arrest former Russian State Duma deputy Dmitry Gudkov in connection with a case alleging the dissemination of disinformation about Russian troops. Gudkov’s status as a former member of the legislature adds a political dimension to the proceedings, lending weight to theories about how anti-war messaging and public discourse are treated in the current legal framework. The decision to proceed in absentia reflects the court’s approach to cases where the accused is not physically present but is nevertheless charged with spreading information that authorities consider harmful to state narratives.
Another notable item in the broader pattern involved an earlier attempt to arrest former Higher School of Economics professor Konstantin Sonin, who is likewise labeled a foreign agent. The unfolding actions around Sonin, like those surrounding Gallyamov and Gudkov, illustrate a sustained legal strategy focused on individuals who are positioned at the intersection of academia, media, and political critique. The ongoing sequence of in absentia prosecutions points to the judiciary’s ongoing effort to address what it regards as information that could undermine public confidence in national security and military operations.
These cases collectively map a climate in which information about military activities and government policy is subject to stringent oversight. The legal framework appears to treat certain kinds of reporting and commentary as potentially harmful to state interests, prompting swift action through arrest warrants, in absentia proceedings, and charges related to false information. Observers note that such measures have broad implications for press freedom, academic dissent, and the ability of public figures to participate in policy debates while outside national borders. Supporters of the alignments argue that these steps safeguard national unity and public order, while critics raise concerns about due process, the rights of the accused, and the chilling effect on independent analysis and criticism. The situation remains fluid, with each new development offering further insight into how the Russian legal system is applying its statutes in contemporary political and media landscapes. Attribution: information summarized from the Telegram channel Attention, news and related public statements.