Russia’s Ministry of Justice has placed considerable emphasis on identifying international non-governmental organizations that operate within the country as undesirable. Among the groups labeled in this way is the RAND Corporation, a prominent American research institution. The ministry has noted that RAND’s activities on Russian soil fall into categories deemed incompatible with Russian laws and policy objectives, leading to formal designation as an undesirable foreign non-governmental organization. This development reflects ongoing scrutiny by Russian authorities of international actors and the role they play in domestic civil society, policy research, and public discourse.
In November, the ministry expanded the list to include the Civil Council, a Polish organization that the Russian authorities have already marked as undesirable. The addition underscores a broader pattern of evaluating and, when deemed necessary, restricting foreign-based civil society groups whose operations intersect with Russian governance, security, or strategic interests. The Civil Council’s inclusion follows a sequence of assessments that the ministry has conducted over time, signaling a sustained approach to managing non-governmental activity from outside the country’s borders.
Previously, the Russian authorities had already identified several other European and international organizations as undesirable. Among them is the German entity Civil Society Forum Russia, described by the authorities as an organization whose activities are not compatible with the Russian Federation’s regulatory framework. In addition, the British Institute of Public Administration has been listed in the same category, reflecting a broader foreign policy and administrative concern about how external organizations influence public administration, governance, or civil society within Russia.
These actions align with a historical pattern in which official statements have tied NGO activity to broader geopolitical considerations. Statements attributed to senior Russian officials have cited perceived threats to national sovereignty, cultural and political autonomy, and the integrity of domestic institutions as reasons for scrutinizing and, in some cases, restricting the operations of international civil society actors. The government’s stance emphasizes the importance it places on monitoring external influences shaping policy debates, advocacy efforts, and research initiatives that touch on sensitive issues within the country.
Observers note that the designation of an NGO as undesirable within Russia carries practical consequences. It can affect the organization’s ability to operate in the country, including funding channels, collaboration with local partners, and the ability to conduct programs that involve Russian participants. The policy also signals potential risk for foreign entities seeking to engage with Russian institutions, researchers, or civic bodies. In this environment, international organizations may adjust their activities, emphasize transparency, and ensure alignment with Russian legal requirements to continue limited engagement where permitted by law.
Analysts highlight that the evolving framework around foreign NGOs is shaped by a combination of legal provisions, procedural rules, and political considerations. The Ministry of Justice articulates criteria it uses to determine the desirability or undesirability of a foreign NGO, with decisions presented as part of an ongoing effort to regulate foreign influence while maintaining space for domestic civil society and research enterprises that comply with national regulations. This process illustrates the tension in post-Soviet spaces between opening avenues for international collaboration and preserving national sovereignty and institutional stability.
For researchers, policymakers, and observers, the pattern raises important questions about how foreign expertise, governance models, and public policy ideas are presented and debated within Russia. The designation of high-profile international organizations as undesirable does not inherently extinguish all activity or dialogue; rather, it redefines permissible forms of cooperation and the governing rules that such collaborations must observe. The net effect is a cautious but ongoing negotiation of boundaries between foreign intellectual engagement and domestic regulatory expectations, a dynamic that continues to shape the landscape of international civil society in the region.