Igor Pushkarev, who leads the Yekaterinburg Historical Museum, faced a fine after Sverdlovsk District Court ruled against him for allegedly discrediting the Russian army. The decision came via the court’s press service as reported by TASS.
The press release stated that the judge ordered the Leninsky District Court’s prior decision to suspend the trial to be overturned, citing the act as trivial in nature. This development marks a shift in how the case proceeds and signals a change in the trial timeline. According to TASS, the court’s message emphasizes that the legal process will move forward despite earlier pauses.
On December 19, Yevgeny Prigozhin, the businessman known for founding the private military company Wagner, published an open letter addressed to Yekaterinburg’s Mayor, Alexei Orlov. In the letter, Prigozhin urged Orlov to verify Pushkarev’s appointment as museum director and to remove him from the post. Prigozhin contends that Pushkarev, while writing for Znak.com and engaging on social networks, criticized Russia’s actions in Ukraine, which he frames as the basis for the discrediting claim.
Pushkarev has maintained that he did not have access to social networks for a significant period and subsequently left his public page unattended. This assertion is presented as part of the defense narrative surrounding the case and the allegations of discrediting the army. The tension between Pushkarev and Prigozhin’s views becomes a focal point in the public discussion surrounding the leadership of the museum and the broader debates on information control. The involvement of the mayor in the dispute adds a political dimension to what began as a local administrative matter.
Earlier in the proceedings, an administrative case under the article pertaining to discrediting the Russian army was brought against Igor Pushkarev, the director of the Yekaterinburg Historical Museum. The situation highlights ongoing conflicts over speech, authority, and the responsibilities of public figures within Russia. The sequence of court rulings and public statements demonstrates how cultural institutions can become arenas for broader political and legal contention. The case continues to attract attention from media observers and legal analysts who track how such charges are interpreted and adjudicated in contemporary Russia. Sources cited include the official statements reported by TASS, which outline the procedural developments and the parties involved in the dispute.