By The European Times | Created at 2026-08-18 09:49:45 | Updated at 2026-08-18 12:33:30
3 hours ago
Twin court rulings remove Russia’s only registered anti-war party from September’s ballot and imprison one of its leading voices
A Russian court has sentenced opposition politician Lev Shlosberg to more than 11 years in prison, while the country’s Supreme Court has upheld the exclusion of his Yabloko party from September’s parliamentary election. Together, the rulings sharply reduce the remaining space for organised, peaceful opposition to the war in Ukraine and leave Russian voters without a registered party openly campaigning for a ceasefire.
An anti-war politician sent to a penal colony
The court in Pskov sentenced Shlosberg, 63, to 11 years and one month in a penal colony after convicting him of repeatedly “discrediting” the Russian armed forces and spreading what authorities classified as false information about the military.
The charges concerned his public opposition to the invasion of Ukraine. They included a debate in which he called for the war to end and a social media post featuring a foreign newspaper front page that attributed responsibility for Ukrainian civilian suffering to President Vladimir Putin.
Shlosberg, a deputy chairman of Yabloko and former member of the Pskov regional legislature, rejected the accusations. His lawyers argued that the conduct described by prosecutors did not constitute a recognisable crime and challenged the chronology, evidence and handling of the proceedings.
The defence also maintained that one disputed publication predated the criminal provision used against it. During the trial, Shlosberg and his lawyers raised objections concerning witnesses, expert evidence and procedural fairness, according to Yabloko’s account of the hearings.
Shlosberg had been in custody since December 2025. In his final statement, he said Russia had travelled from hopes for freedom towards the near destruction of civil and political rights. Yabloko said it would appeal the sentence.
Yabloko removed from the ballot
The prison term was handed down on the same day that Russia’s Supreme Court rejected Yabloko’s appeal against its exclusion from the State Duma election scheduled for 18-20 September.
The case seeking the party’s removal was brought by Rodina, a nationalist party supportive of the Kremlin. The allegations included campaign spending violations and copyright infringement. Yabloko denied the claims and argued that comparable questions over donations to other parties had not resulted in their removal.
The Supreme Court’s ruling means that Yabloko’s name and party list are to be removed from ballot papers. The party said it would seek a further review by the Supreme Court’s presidium and could also approach the Constitutional Court.
The two cases are legally separate. One concerns criminal accusations against an individual politician; the other concerns electoral rules applied to a political party. Their combined political effect, however, is difficult to separate: a senior anti-war voice has been imprisoned and the organisation through which that position could reach voters has been excluded from the national contest.
Criminal law and peaceful expression
Russia introduced broad restrictions on reporting and public statements about its armed forces shortly after launching its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The legislation provides for lengthy prison sentences when authorities determine that information about military conduct is false or that a statement has discredited the armed forces.
Russian officials present these measures as protection against misinformation during an armed conflict. Human rights organisations argue that vague definitions and severe penalties allow the state to treat peaceful criticism, independent reporting and calls for peace as criminal activity.
That concern extends beyond Shlosberg’s case. United Nations human rights experts previously warned that the “discrediting” provisions were designed to silence critical expression about the war and were further shrinking Russia’s civic space.
Amnesty International described Shlosberg’s prosecution and sentence as reprisals for exercising freedom of expression. The organisation called for his release, the cancellation of his conviction and the repeal of laws criminalising peaceful anti-war speech.
An election without an organised peace platform
Yabloko has not been a dominant force in recent Russian elections. It has nevertheless retained significance as the only officially registered party openly advocating an end to the invasion. Its exclusion therefore removes a distinct policy position from the ballot rather than merely reducing competition between parties offering similar programmes.
Supporters gathered outside the Supreme Court while the appeal was considered, and Russian media reported that several dozen people were detained. Yabloko chairman Nikolai Rybakov said the party would continue pursuing legal remedies and campaigning for peace and political freedom.
The rulings come one month before an election already taking place in an environment where independent media, civil society organisations and opposition figures face extensive legal and administrative pressure. Several prominent critics of the Kremlin are imprisoned, in exile or prohibited from standing.
As the sentence and ballot decision draw international scrutiny, the central question is not whether Yabloko could have won substantial parliamentary power. It is whether Russian citizens are being allowed a meaningful opportunity to support an alternative to the war through lawful political participation.
Imprisoning a politician for advocating peace and excluding his party from an election send a wider message to candidates, activists and ordinary voters. The immediate consequences fall on Shlosberg and Yabloko. The longer-term cost is borne by a political system in which the boundaries of permissible debate continue to narrow.
