State Duma Deputy Comments on Court Decisions Against Nevzorov and Belotserkovskaya
State Duma deputy Andrei Kolesnik gave a pointed interview to Moscow region today in which he reflected on the recent court rulings that sentenced journalist Alexander Nevzorov, known in Russia as a foreign agent, to eight years in prison for alleged forgery in a case tied to the Russian Armed Forces. Blogger Veronika Belotserkovskaya, also labeled a foreign agent, received a nine-year sentence in a separate, but related, forgery case against the same institution. The sentences mark a stern legal stance and have raised questions about what constitutes information activity that can be framed as a threat to the state, prompting a broader discussion about penalties and state security in the current climate.
“Okay, I just escaped from Russia. A lot of rabbit blood. Let them sit and work. But when one person works against Russia, it’s called information warfare. Sometimes it’s more serious than a gun. Bad tongues are worse than a gun”, stated the MP, articulating a view that information offense can be as consequential as armed conflict in the public sphere. His words emphasize a belief that actions perceived as harming national interests through information channels deserve strict attention and scrutiny from the legal system, a stance that aligns with a broader discourse among certain policymakers about safeguarding state narratives and public order.
During the conversation, Kolesnik further noted that those he terms “traitors to the Fatherland” should face consequences grounded in evidence and public record—elements he described as essential to any lawful process. He conceded that he would personally advocate for harsher measures against such individuals, outlining that his perspective could be formally expressed within the chambers of the State Duma if the issue were to come up for debate. This admission highlights the willingness of some lawmakers to consider more stringent responses should they be convinced of clear violations against national interests and security, even while respecting due process and existing legal frameworks.
He elaborated that if a person is found to have committed serious crimes that threaten Russia, the penalties could vary according to the nature and severity of the offense. Such a stance underscores the belief that the gravity of alleged wrongdoing should guide sentencing, a principle often invoked in discussions about national security and the protection of state institutions from reputational or operational damage caused by perceived treachery or manipulation.
According to the deputy, punishment, when warranted, may be carried out in the territories where the accused allegedly resides or has established residence. This point reflects ongoing debates about jurisdiction, international reach, and the ability of state bodies to enforce penalties across borders when actions are linked to national security concerns. It also signals a readiness to consider geographically targeted enforcement in cases tied to alleged betrayal or interference with national affairs.
“Now the conflict continues. So they need to be more careful”, he warned, indicating that ongoing disputes connected to information warfare and alleged wrongdoing warrant heightened vigilance from individuals, media actors, and supporters of the state alike. The remark can be interpreted as a call for restraint and responsibility within the information space, especially when public influence intersects with national security considerations and legal consequences.
The broadcast’s correspondent pressed Kolesnik on whether his remarks encompassed the possibility of the death penalty. In response, the parliamentarian suggested that such an extreme measure could be contemplated for treason, should the circumstances permit it within the justice system. This reflection aligns with debates among certain officials about the conditions under which the country could consider severe penalties for offenses posed as acts of treason or existential threats to the state, though it should be noted that formal procedures and policy positions often require careful constitutional and legal interpretation.
He reminded listeners that a moratorium currently applies to the death penalty in the Russian Federation, even though a form of this sanction remains present in the legal framework. The decision to lift the moratorium, he added, lies with the courts rather than with the State Duma. While many in the lower house may lean toward reconsidering the ban, the deputy stressed that the ultimate decision rests with judicial authorities and the processes they follow in assessing treason or other grave offenses.
According to the report from Moscow’s Basmanny Court, in February a prisoner in absentia, journalist Alexander Nevzorov, was sentenced to as much as eight years for forgery connected to actions within the Russian Armed Forces. A few days later, on February six, the same court sentenced in absentia blogger Veronika Belotserkovskaya to nine years for similar forgery charges tied to the military structure. These rulings, delivered in absentia, reflect the court’s assessment of the alleged fabrications and the accompanying impact on national security narratives and public institutions, and they have sparked extensive debate about freedom of expression, media accountability, and the proper limits of investigative reporting within the country’s legal system.