“The grain of evil ripens in the granaries of state policy”. Politician Lev Shlosberg sentenced to 11 years following a defiant stand in Pskov court

The proceedings were marked by severe procedural anomalies and a rush to conviction—against the backdrop of Sholsberg’s party, Yabloko, getting kicked off the ballot in September parliamentary elections.

On August 14, Judge Malyamova abruptly concluded the judicial investigation phase, despite the absence of Shlosberg’s legal team and the explicit unreadiness of a state-appointed defence lawyer to deliver closing arguments.

Shlosberg was also never interrogated in court. During a hearing on July 28, the judge ordered his pre-trial testimony to be read aloud, overriding the politician’s objections. Shlosberg had stated he was only prepared to testify in court after the defence had presented all its other evidence. The judge interpreted this as a refusal to testify. This approach carried over into Shlosberg’s final statement, which the judge interrupted relentlessly.

The criminal case against Shlosberg rested on two crucial parts of Russia’s wartime censorship legislation, both of which the politician attacked in his defence. The “fake news” charge was initiated over a Telegram post made on February 25, 2022—the next day after the invasion of Ukraine started. Shlosberg shared a post by Echo of Moscow radio station featuring the front page of the British newspaper, the Daily Mirror. The cover depicted a bloodied Ukrainian woman and Vladimir Putin alongside the headline: “Her blood… His hands.” Shlosberg repeatedly pointed out that he published this post before the law criminalising “fake news” had even come into existence.

The “discrediting the army” charge stemmed from a video posted on the social network Odnoklassniki. The video featured a debate on Zhivoi Gvozd, a YouTube channel, titled “An obscene peace or a just war”, in which Shlosberg debated historian Yuri Pivovarov. While Shlosberg used the platform to advocate for an “immediate ceasefire in Ukraine”, the prosecution attributed statements to him that were actually made by his opponent—the very positions Shlosberg was arguing against.

Denied a proper closing argument due to the absence of his lawyers, Shlosberg was forced to use his final statement to both dismantle the prosecution’s case and deliver an indictment of the modern Russian state.

On the nature of his trial

Shlosberg opened bycharacterising the proceedings against him as a purely political, not legal, exercise.

“The accused is not obliged to prove his innocence. Both the prosecution and the court are well aware that I am innocent... Why does the prosecution persist with an unjust charge, and why does the court, in rejecting practically all the defence’s motions, do everything possible to prevent new evidence of my innocence from emerging? Because this is a political criminal case. What is the essence and purpose of a political criminal case? In a political trial, establishing the truth is not the objective. The sole objective is to punish a person for their political, social, and civic stance, often simply for the fact that they disagree with the authorities. A political criminal case lacks any genuine legal substance. It is an imitation of investigation and justice designed to achieve a patently unlawful objective.”

On the devastating impact of war

Addressing his calls for a ceasefire—the very actions that led to his “discrediting” charge—Shlosberg spoke about the human cost of the conflict and the state’s disregard for life.

"No state reorganisation, no political reshaping of the world is worth the deaths of so many people. For them, everything is over. They have no future. They are dead. [...] My position is that it is now necessary to reach two agreements simultaneously. The first is a ceasefire agreement. [...] The only pressing task today is stopping the killing of people and moving to political dialogue. We cannot say right now how long this political dialogue will last or how it will end. But every day of this dialogue saves thousands upon thousands of lives. Politicians must think about this. Historians, in my view, must also think about this. Because the victims of past wars are dead forever, and no one will return. But the people alive today can remain alive if this agreement is signed”.

“Who will defend a military man’s right to life in our country today? Who will defend a mother and father’s right to see their son alive? Who will defend a wife’s right to a family with a living husband?... The legislation of the Russian Federation is being applied today in such a way that a person demanding the preservation of human life, demanding compassion and political accountability, is accused of discrediting the armed forces. Meanwhile, people demanding the continuation of bloodshed are paraded by the prosecution and the court as disinterested witnesses for the state. This is how evil tries to force good out of the country’s life.”

On the collapse of the justice system

Shlosberg also attacked the very court he was standing in, warning of the historical consequences of weaponising the law.

“Since 2021, security structures in our country have been granted de facto political powers, leading to a sharp rise in disenfranchisement, lawlessness, and tyranny. Granting security forces political power... has stripped Russian courts of their independence.

Laws that directly diminish and abolish the constitutional rights and freedoms of man and citizen have, in strict accordance with their design, become tools for the extrajudicial persecution of citizens by the state. Law and justice have drifted further apart than at any point in the post-Soviet era. Anti-legal law destroys a state faster than rust destroys metal.

The destruction of judicial power is tantamount to the destruction of the state itself. The absence of justice is a diagnosis: the state has abandoned the judicial protection of human and civil rights and freedoms.”

A closing note on hope

Shlosberg closed his address with a historical certainty that the current era of repression will eventually end.

“Over three and a half decades, Russia has journeyed from elation to despair, from hope to disillusionment. From the euphoria of sudden freedom to the fear of freedom. It is out of these despairs, disillusionments, and fears that our present time has grown...

Russia has paid more than enough for its lack of freedom. But, evidently, more must be paid.

Ahead of us lies a new window of historical opportunity. We do not know when it will open, when the light will become strong enough to push back and dispel the gloom. But it will undoubtedly happen, because the laws of history, like the laws of nature, are stronger than the voluntarism of temporary rulers. No one in history has ever managed to cheat time. Unlike good, evil has no access to immortality.”

As he delivered his final sentences, the judge interjected one last time, demanding he speak only for himself. Shlosberg finished his thought:

“I will suggest to my current prosecutors that they learn just one song. A lullaby. In which a mother promises her little one a happy life.”