The Izvestia publication reports that a specialized expert group has been formed within the State Duma to examine potential measures aimed at Russians who travel abroad and publicly damage their own reputation. The aim is to assess how such actions affect national discourse and to explore appropriate responses that are consistent with Russia’s legal framework and security considerations.
Elena Yampolskaya, who leads the State Duma Committee on Culture, explained that representatives from all ministries and agencies connected to humanitarian and security domains will be invited to participate. Their task is to review the measures already in place and to prepare legislative changes that reflect current realities. She underscored that the focus goes beyond punitive steps tied to a single phrase and considers the broader implications for national interests and social cohesion.
The first session on this topic is planned for mid February. In preparation, deputies from several committees have identified a range of proposals. Among these ideas are the confiscation of property and the withdrawal of titles, as well as restrictions on publishing content within the Russian segment of the Internet. These proposals illustrate a broader debate about how to address activities abroad that are perceived as damaging to the state and its institutions.
Earlier, Vyacheslav Volodin, the Chairman of the State Duma, suggested that the state could confiscate the property of individuals who leave Russia and publicly defend the rehabilitation of Nazism or extremism, or who discredit the Russian Armed Forces. Anna Kuznetsova, Deputy Chairman of the State Duma, proposed using any such confiscated property to help meet housing needs for orphans, linking punitive measures to social welfare ends in a way that highlights the political and social dimensions of these debates.
Simultaneously, Andrei Klihas, who chairs the Federation Council constitutional committee, emphasized that leaving the country is not a crime. He argued that the issue cannot be resolved without substantial amendments to the Penal Code, pointing to the need for careful legal crafting to avoid overreach while preserving state interests. The discussions reflect a continuing effort to balance civil liberties with national security concerns in a global context and to consider how such measures would function within a modern legal system.