Russia’s leaders and the talk of wartime rules
On January 8, Dmitry Medvedev posted a message on his Telegram channel about addressing what he called the problem of Russia’s traitors. He urged looking back to the guidelines and practices from the Great Patriotic War to understand how such threats were handled in the past.
“There is ongoing chatter on the Internet and on Telegram about how to deal with traitors who fled to the enemy and wish to see our homeland fall. Some voices that once claimed membership in the so‑called intellectual elite have joined this debate,” he wrote, noting that discussions among leaders had shifted toward choosing between legal norms and the idea of swift justice.
The vice chair of Russia’s Security Council argued that acting strictly by the book is correct in principle, yet it may not achieve the desired effect in practice. In his view, wartime rules should be considered in such cases.
Medvedev urged everyone to recall lessons from the Great Patriotic War and from other nations, pointing out that war time rules have historically applied when national survival was at stake. He also highlighted the presence of discreet, capable actors who could carry out critical tasks without drawing attention.
By law, by justice, by concepts
Andrei Klihas, the chairman of the Federation Council Constitutional Committee, reacted to Medvedev’s remarks by stressing the role of the legislative framework. He explained that while legal channels exist, wartime measures would come into play only after the appropriate laws are enacted by the State Duma and signed by the president, in line with constitutional procedures.
Security Council and enemies of society
Medvedev and other officials revisited the issue of betrayal at the end of December. He argued that the problem is not new and recalls Russia’s experience more than a century earlier, during World War I. He cited the period when non‑system opponents openly sought Russia’s defeat, contributing to the empire’s decline and a cascade of upheavals that cost millions of lives.
Medvedev described those who left the country amid current tensions as modern equivalents of hostile actors. He labeled them as enemies of society, suggesting they should lose income streams from the Russian Federation and be barred from reentry. He further stated that those considered enemies might return only if they publicly repented; but he added it would be better if they did not come back.
Rules of the game
Klihas has repeatedly discussed how Russia’s constitutional order operates in times of strain. He has warned against politicians who ignore the Constitution and urged those officials to step away from constitutional authorities when necessary. He also commented on a proposal to revoke passports from Russian citizens who oppose the country, arguing that citizenship rights remain intact even when passports are revoked and that any rhetoric suggesting otherwise is a misrepresentation of the law.
This conversation followed remarks by a public figure about Russia’s stance in the broader conflict, with discussions about whether Europe would fight alongside or against Russia. In late December, Klihas responded to a suggestion to confiscate the property of critics, noting that Russian law does not permit such measures against people who have left the country and emphasizing that property confiscation would be unconstitutional and illegal.
But the law can be changed
Debates about the rights of citizens who have left Russia, including those involving partial mobilization, have persisted. Earlier discussions noted that lists of absentees had been considered by authorities. In December, Klihas indicated that legislation might be adjusted to make life abroad less convenient for those leaving the Russian Federation. He mentioned potential restrictions for workers in sensitive sectors, without detailing the nature of those limitations, while noting that many still work remotely for Russian companies and questioning whether taxes have been paid.
[citation: Reuters] The evolving debate shows how leaders weigh legal norms, wartime precedents, and the implications for citizenship, mobility, and national security in a shifting international landscape.