In Moscow, a deputy from the Communist Party faction in the City Duma raised concerns about remarks made on a leading RT broadcast by Anton Krasovsky regarding Ukrainian children. He pressed for an official review, requesting the Investigative Committee to assess whether Krasovsky’s statements violated Russian law. The committee responded that the appeal did not present evidence of a crime committed or planned against minors. The reply, which the deputy published on his channel, stated that no information existed about a crime within the scope of the Main Investigative Committee for Moscow, and that the matter would be forwarded to the city’s Ministry of Internal Affairs for consideration.
The deputy argued that the sequence of handling the appeal showed a jurisdictional mismatch. He claimed the material was initially directed to the Moscow department, then sent to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which, according to him, did not have authority over cases that would fall under the Investigative Committee. He stressed that there was no incitement to enmity or discord through Krasovsky’s calls and suggested there was no attempt to inflame tension among the public.
He questioned the process further, noting his intention to seek prosecutors’ intervention. The deputy asked what kind of operational checks might be warranted in this case and who should be targeted by such inquiries. He proposed a straightforward line of inquiry—could Krasovsky be identified and investigated, or were the calls directed at children in a way that demanded a different response? He concluded that the prosecutor’s office should become involved to clarify the situation.
On October 24, Russia Today announced a pause in collaboration with Anton Krasovsky, who had been serving as the channel’s broadcasting director. The decision followed Krasovsky’s remarks during an interview with writer Sergei Lukyanenko. During the program, Krasovsky had described how Ukrainian children who believed their country was under occupation should be treated, stating that they should be beaten or strangled because they had faced hardship at a place described as a shelter during Soviet times. This description prompted a formal review by RT’s leadership and regulatory bodies alike.
The head of the Russian Federal Penitentiary Service instructed an RT employee to verify the statements issued on air. Simonyan described the situation as a moment of confusion and extended best wishes for a swift resolution of the conflict so that children in Ukraine and Donbass could study in the language they consider their mother tongue. Krasovsky later issued a separate apology to anyone who was taken aback by his remarks, and RT’s editor-in-chief also expressed remorse for the episode.
From a legal standpoint, Krasovsky’s comments were assessed under a provision of the Criminal Code that addresses extremist rhetoric disseminated through media channels. The relevant article targets public calls for extremist activity as well as expressions of hatred or violence on grounds such as race, nationality, or religion. Depending on the interpretation and the impact of the remarks, the situation could bring penalties ranging from restrictions on certain rights up to several years in prison or forced labor, along with possible disqualification from specific roles and activities for a defined period. The authorities emphasized the seriousness with which the state treats propaganda or advocacy that promotes violence or hatred, including through widely viewed media platforms, and they indicated a willingness to pursue appropriate legal remedies where warranted by the facts of the case and applicable statutes.