The court’s decision to impose a fine of 50 thousand rubles on actor Dmitry Nazarov for discrediting the Russian Armed Forces has drawn an appeal from the defense side. This development was reported by DEA News with reference to the Moscow Tverskoy Court, underscoring the ongoing legal process surrounding Nazarov and related acts of public commentary. The defense has signaled that the appeal will be reviewed by a higher court as part of the established judicial channels in this case.
The latest statement from Nazarov’s camp confirms that an appeal has been lodged. While the public record explains the procedural step, it also hints at the broader tensions between creative expression and state messaging that have characterized several recent episodes involving outspoken artists and performers.
Earlier reports noted that Nazarov and his wife, Olga Vasilyeva, were dismissed from the Chekhov Moscow Art Theatre in January. Media outlets attributed the firing to the actor’s criticism of the special operation in Ukraine, a stance that has generated significant discussion across cultural and political circles. The sanction followed a disciplinary framework tied to the charge of discrediting the armed forces of the Russian Federation, as specified under Article 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. Public materials cited in the case included videos of poems posted on Nazarov’s YouTube channel, which the authorities asserted were used to convey messages at odds with official military policy.
In a separate legal sequence, a regional court in Yekaterinburg was preparing to review a criminal case involving the former mayor of that city, Yevgeny Roizman, who is characterized within the Russian system as a foreign agent. The proceedings, anticipated to begin on a defined date in late April, relate to accusations of defaming the Russian Armed Forces. Roizman has maintained that he was detained without justification and has expressed confusion about the exact charges, stating that the specifics of the case were not clearly communicated by the authorities. This matter reflects broader patterns in which public figures and officials face legal scrutiny over remarks or actions that are perceived as criticizing or challenging official narratives about national security and state institutions.