Russian court jails Navalny ally in absentia for 18 years as dissident crackdown continues
Courts in Russia on Friday convicted one opposition figure in absentia and placed another under house arrest as Moscow continues its crackdown on dissent.
Leonid Volkov, a close associate of the late Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, was sentenced in absentia to 18 years in prison after being found guilty on criminal charges.
Moscow's Second Western District Military convicted Volkov under 40 counts including justifying terrorism, organizing and financing an extremist group, rehabilitating Nazism, and creating a non-governmental organization that violated citizens' rights, Russian news agencies reported.
As well as the prison sentence, Volkov was also fined 2 million rubles (approx. $25,000) and banned from using the internet for 10 years.
'Oh no! They banned me from the internet for 10 years as prosecutors requested, but I've already been using it', Volkov wrote in a tongue-in-cheek social media post after the sentence was released. 'Damn. Whatever am I going to do?'
Volkov, who was in charge of Navalny's regional offices and election campaigns, left Russia several years ago under pressure from the authorities. He led Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation between 2021 and 2023, during which time he was placed on the Russian government's list of terrorists and extremists. The case against him is widely seen in Russia as political motivated.
Separately, Lev Shlosberg, a senior member of the Yabloko opposition party, was placed under house arrest Wednesday after being detained on charges of discrediting the Russian army.
A court in the city of Pskov, close to Russia's western border, ordered Shlosberg to be detained at home for two months pending investigation and trial, the court's press service said. His case has also been widely viewed as politically motivated.
Russian authorities have accused Shlosberg of discrediting the nation's military by calling for a ceasefire in Russia's war with Ukraine. Shlosberg has said that he did not share the social media video or administer the page on which it was posted. If found guilty, he faces up to five years imprisonment.
The politician, who has repeatedly criticized Moscow's war, was previously named as a 'foreign agent' by Russian authorities, a loaded term that carries connotations of Soviet-era treachery.
Since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Kremlin has clamped down on all forms of dissent, targeting rights groups, independent media and other members of civil-society organizations, LGBTQ+ activists and certain religious affiliations.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
How the AP decided to refer to the conflict between Israel and Iran as a war
The Associated Press is calling the current conflict between Israel and Iran a war, given the scope, intensity and duration of military activities on both sides. Other news organizations also have decided to refer to the conflict as a war, while some are still sticking with words such as 'conflict' or 'fighting.' When a conflict in the world spills into military action, it's important to use the correct terms to describe it. Sometimes a one-sided attack occurs without further action, or a conflict bubbles up and then ends quickly Using 'war' widely to describe these kinds of situations can diminish the word's importance. Then, when actual war breaks out, people might not understand its significance. The Merriam-Webster definition of war is quite broad: 'A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations,' or 'a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism.' The fight between Israel and Iran meets those criteria, though neither has officially declared war. Since Israel launched an air campaign targeting Iran's military and nuclear program, there has been a significant escalation in the conflict. Iran has launched hundreds of missiles and drones into Israel. Israel has assassinated high-level Iranian officials; targeted the country's infrastructure; called for hundreds of thousands of residents to evacuate Iran's capital, Tehran; and said it will continue its offensive. The AP provided guidance on the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Hamas war in the days and weeks after fighting began. In both cases, editors considered the number of casualties, the intensity of fighting, the involvement of each party, and what each country was calling the conflict. In both cases, the AP started using the word 'war' to describe the conflicts. AP capitalizes the word 'war' only as part of a formal name, which as of now does not exist. Decisions on how AP uses the term 'war' happen in real time. AP's news leaders and standards editors will continue to monitor developments to see whether changes are necessary. At this point, the level of fighting constitutes the countries being at war, no matter what happens next. If fighting were to end soon, AP would continue saying the countries had been at war. News leaders would consider whether the level of fighting at that time amounted to being at war. If other countries intervene in the war, AP would describe the intervention as military action in support of Israel or military support of Iran. AP would also consider whether the action constitutes those countries also being at war.
Bloomberg
3 hours ago
- Bloomberg
No Urgent Need for Key Producers to Aid Oil Market, Putin Says
The global oil market so far does not call for any additional steps from producers amid the conflict between Israel and Iran as the tensions have had only a limited effect on prices, according to Russia's President Vladimir Putin. Many OPEC+ members, including the Gulf states, are able to step in and increase their production if needed, yet 'as a rule, we do that in a coordinated manner,' Putin said Friday when asked if Russia is ready to hike output to support the market amid the Mideast conflict.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why peace may not be the solution in the Israel-Iran conflict
Britain, France, Germany and the European Union are all rushing their foreign ministers to Geneva for talks with Iran in a desperate attempt to give peace a chance. But it is not clear that peace now is the best option. A week into Israel's bombardment of Iran, and its assassination of the country's top nuclear scientists and securocrats, the Islamic state has tightened its grip – and the nuclear facility half a mile underground in Fordow remains intact. If Iran is brought back to the negotiating table at Geneva, whatever it says, the past week has shown that the only hope for the survival of the current rulers of Tehran is for them to build a nuclear weapon. From the Israeli and American perspective, the feeling may be that the only way to ensure this doesn't happen is to double down on the targeting of Iran and change the regime. On top of that, Russia, a close ally of Tehran and part of a Fearsome Foursome that also includes North Korea and China, will see diplomacy now as an opportunity to stop regime change and reinforce its waning influence in the Middle East. Before the planned Geneva meeting, David Lammy said: 'We are determined that Iran must never have a nuclear weapon.' Trying to slow the sense of global war being imminent, Donald Trump has said that he's pausing any decision on backing Israel for a couple of weeks because he wants to give diplomacy a chance. In terms of strikes, the US has the only weapon that could, conceivably, destroy the Fordow nuclear facility, which is located 18 miles north of the central Iranian city of Qom and half a mile underground: the GBU-57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a precision-guided 'bunker-busting' bomb. It weighs 13.6 tonnes, is 6.2 metres long but only 0.8m wide, and carries about 2.5 tonnes of explosive. It can penetrate 60 metres of rock before exploding, as it hits the ground like a needle travelling at around double the speed of sound. It would take several MOPs to clear up Fordow and wipe away Iran's nuclear programme – with no guarantee of a clean slate. If the Iranian government that took power after the 1979 revolution – and maintains control through a vast network of military and security services underpinned by the Basij citizens' militia – survived such an assault, it would be surprising if it did not secretly restart building nuclear weapons to ensure that Israel would think twice when it next considered bombing Iran's capital and killing the country's commanders. 'A window now exists within the next two weeks to achieve a diplomatic solution,' said Lammy. 'Now is the time to put a stop to the grave scenes in the Middle East and prevent a regional escalation that would benefit no one." But would it? Assuming that Trump's advisers have somehow got round the bizarre characters he has put in charge of defence (Pete Hegseth) and the intelligence services (Tulsi Gabbard), they will be helping him to wrestle with a conundrum. Should America go back into the business of regime change – which failed horribly in Iraq and Afghanistan, and left both nations ruined, riddled with extremism, and deeply anti-American? In theory, the US could join the Israeli effort at low physical risk to pilots; it could bomb Fordow, break the back of the regime, and stand back to watch Iranians themselves rise against their oppressors. That's what Benjamin Netanyahu would like. Or the US could stay back, give Israel every help in defending itself against Iranian counterattacks, and hope that Iran's ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who may be on an Israeli kill list, realises that the long-term survival of his regime may depend on it not returning to the pursuit of a nuclear weapon. The gamble for the US is that the Iranian government will still harbour the dream of annihilating Israel and, unless it agrees to a 100 per cent intrusive inspection programme by nuclear experts 24/7, it can never be trusted not to clamber back onto a horse of the apocalypse. Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, is expected to join the European talks in Geneva. They are an opportunity to shoulder the US out of talks, which the Trump administration hoped would persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear programme. But Araghchi has also signalled that while Israel continues to bombard his country, Iran won't get involved in diplomacy. This is a moment when Russia can get back in the game. Moscow and Tehran are military bedfellows, sharing intelligence and missile technology, and Russia is Iran's civilian nuclear power contractor. Vladimir Putin lost his most valuable military foothold in the West – the port at Tartus – when Bashar al-Assad, Syria's former dictator, fled to safety in Moscow. Assad was Iran's most important regional client, and the regime also controls Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iraq. Putin needs to get back in the game, and if he can bring the Iranians to the table, he can stymie US and Israeli hopes for regime change by making it impossible for America to join the bombing campaign while talks about peace are going on. A third option for all is to jaw-jaw while really giving Israel's war a chance.
