A resident of Novosibirsk shared a troubling tale of persistent stalking by an ex-partner and the perceived inaction of local police. The interview aired on NGS, where the woman detailed the sequence of events and the difficulties she faced seeking protection.
She explained that she ended the relationship after recognizing alarming behavior she described as signs of instability. Following the breakup, the man began to monitor her movements, initiating a pattern that stretched over nine months. The woman sought help from law enforcement repeatedly, but her complaints did not translate into preventive actions against the stalker. She reported that officers spoke with him and ultimately released him, with the absence of a prosecutable persecution article cited as a barrier to formal charges. She voiced frustration, describing a system that seemed to require tangible harm before any legal response could be pursued.
According to her account, the ex-partner escalated his harassment beyond mere surveillance. He allegedly attempted to engage her through continuous following, made attempts to block her vehicle, and issued threats that included arson and the nonviolent act of leaving flowers at her doorstep. On one occasion, he allegedly assaulted her in an underground parking facility, an incident that prompted the victim to summon security personnel who intervened momentarily before the situation resumed. Despite this intervention, the stalker did not stop his conduct.
She recalled moments when the man would stand outside for extended periods, observing her through windows from the opposite entrance, sometimes using binoculars. Neighbors corroborated seeing him around the property, either in a car or on foot. She described repeated failed attempts to communicate with him in ordinary terms, noting that the person appeared to be convinced of his own normalcy and unwilling to acknowledge the end of the relationship. She also remarked that without direct violence or a visible threat to life, authorities did not pursue a stronger protective measure, a stance she found disheartening and insufficient for her safety concerns.
Friends of the ex-partner had previously indicated to the victim that the same pursuit had continued for several years, leading her to change her residence for her safety. The regional Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs confirmed receipt of several applications from residents but indicated that after conducting checks, authorities declined to initiate criminal proceedings. This response highlighted the ongoing tension between personal safety concerns and the legal thresholds required to act in stalking cases within the jurisdiction.
Earlier reports noted a Krasnoyarsk resident who traveled to Tver to follow a stranger, underscoring that stalking and related intimidation have drawn attention across multiple regions. The broader public discourse emphasizes how victims navigate police resources, the legal definitions of harassment, and the protective measures that can be pursued when criminal statutes may not neatly capture every form of persistent, unwanted pursuit. In this case, the narrative remains a stark reminder that victims often face procedural hurdles even as they seek to preserve their safety and autonomy.