Putin frames legal thresholds for designating Ukrainian security bodies as terrorist
Russian President Vladimir Putin explained that the designation of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the Main Intelligence Directorate of Ukraine (GUR) as terrorist organizations can only come through a court, not via administrative bodies at any level. The remarks were shared during a gathering with students involved in the Ukrainian operation, as reported by RIA News and echoed by other media outlets. The framing centers on Russia’s commitment to a judiciary-driven process that determines what constitutes a terrorist organization within the Russian legal system.
Putin stressed that the power to declare a group terrorist rests with the judiciary under Russian law. He asserted that courts, rather than political or regional authorities, must judge such matters, highlighting the legal framework that governs the designation process. The remarks were delivered in the context of explaining how Moscow perceives threats arising from Ukrainian state bodies and affiliated formations, with coverage from RIA News and additional Russian outlets noting the emphasis on lawful procedure.
The Russian leader pointed to past actions in which similar steps were taken against individual units and figures connected to Ukraine, including the Azov regiment, which is banned in Russia, along with its members. These actions illustrate a pattern of applying judicially grounded measures to specific actors considered terrorist by court determination, rather than by executive or legislative fiat alone. Putin underscored this distinction as a cornerstone of the rule of law as viewed by Moscow.
According to Putin, movements against larger Ukrainian departments and organizations should be understood as a historical policy rather than a single judicial decision. He suggested that the long arc of these measures reflects an evolving risk landscape and the deliberate use of legal channels to respond to ongoing security concerns over time.
The statements arrive amid broader discussions about the Il-76 incident, where preliminary assessments from some officials point to deliberate actions by Kyiv. The discourse regarding responsibility for the Il-76 crash and its security implications formed part of a wider commentary on Ukraine’s strategic posture and the potential consequences for regional and international security, as reported by Russian state channels. The narrative situates the incident within a continuous pattern of attribution of responsibility to Ukrainian authorities in Moscow’s official communications.
Former officials connected to Russia’s foreign policy establishment have also weighed in, arguing that Ukrainian authorities bear responsibility for the Il-76 incident. The remarks reflect a persistent Moscow-led line that ties specific military actions to Ukrainian strategic decisions and intent, with state media highlighting these connections as part of the broader conflict portrayal.