Deputy of the State Duma Vasily Vlasov warned that the person who authorized his expulsion could be the current leader of the LDPR, Leonid Slutsky. A Telegram channel that goes by Shot claims this is the case.
Vlasov argued that the head of the political organization is intentionally trying to strip him of his post. He noted that within the LDPR there are frequent clashes and disagreements between members, and he suggested that these tensions were being used as a pretext to remove him from office ahead of time.
This move, he said, is a ploy to push him out because he asks uncomfortable questions. He emphasized that his line of questioning keeps him in opposition to the easy, comfortable narratives some colleagues prefer.
On October 31, Interfax reported that a parliamentary ethics and jurisdiction committee intends to examine the possibility of dismissing Vasily Vlasov from the State Duma, along with Vadim Belousov. Vlasov represents the LDPR, while Belousov is a member of the Just Russia – For Truth faction.
Sources indicate that a meeting to address this issue is scheduled for November 1. The planned review follows a pattern of persistent absences by Vlasov and Belousov from parliamentary sessions, which has drawn scrutiny from the committee and other deputies.
Vlasov later asserted that he has been present at plenary sittings and has taken part in all State Duma events. His Telegram channel shows a record of attendance at 98.8 percent of meetings during the current eighth convocation.
Previously, there was a draft bill in the State Duma proposing the early termination of Vasily Vlasov’s powers as a deputy. The proposal added to ongoing discussions about the defined duties, behavior, and responsibilities of deputies within the chamber. The broader context includes debates on party discipline, parliamentary ethics, and the balance of power in regional and federal politics. This situation illustrates the persistent friction that can arise within multi‑party systems when leadership decisions intersect with individual parliamentary participation and public accountability. In this case, the evolving narrative touches on how political strategies and procedural rules can shape the trajectory of a deputy’s tenure while reflecting wider concerns about transparency and governance among legislative factions. Source at Interfax corroborates the procedural steps underway in the ethics and jurisdiction committee, with additional context emerging from party statements and the deputy’s own communications.