Weaponized Justice: Patterns of Repression in Russia

The Kremlin’s manipulation of Russia’s criminal justice system stands as a cornerstone of its strategy to suppress dissent, consolidate power, and maintain authoritarian control. Over time, this system has evolved into a finely tuned instrument of repression, employing a variety of methods to eliminate opposition, silence independent voices, and enforce state narratives. Three distinct patterns—selective prosecution, legal ambiguity, and performative repression—underline this weaponization of justice. Together, these methods institutionalize authoritarianism, ensuring dissent is not only punished but systematically deterred.

Selective Prosecution

          Selective prosecution forms the backbone of the Kremlin’s strategy to neutralize dissent across all strata of society. This approach targets both high-profile figures whose influence poses a direct threat to the regime and ordinary citizens, creating a pervasive climate of fear that affects all levels of society.

By prosecuting prominent opposition leaders, the Kremlin sends an unmistakable message: no one, regardless of their stature, is beyond the reach of state retaliation.

• Alexei Navalny: Navalny’s story exemplifies the Kremlin’s use of extreme measures to silence its most visible adversaries. After surviving a Novichok poisoning in 2020—an act widely attributed to operatives of the Federal Security Service (FSB)—Navalny returned to Russia in 2021, fully aware of the risks. He was immediately arrested and later imprisoned on fabricated charges. His death in custody in 2024, following years of physical and psychological abuse, underscores the regime’s willingness to go to any lengths to suppress its critics.
• Vladimir Kara-Murza: Kara-Murza’s sentencing to 25 years in prison for “treason” highlights the Kremlin’s intolerance for peaceful advocacy of democratic reforms. His efforts to promote international accountability and expose corruption were met with severe penalties, signaling that even nonviolent dissent is treated as a grave threat to state power.
• Ilya Yashin: Yashin’s imprisonment for criticizing the war in Ukraine exemplifies the Kremlin’s focus on silencing those who amplify opposition narratives. His case underscores the regime’s determination to suppress voices that challenge its military actions and broader policies.

            These cases illustrate a deliberate strategy to eliminate dissenting figures with varied spheres of influence, ensuring that no form of opposition—whether grassroots mobilization, international advocacy, or political critique—gains traction.

          While high-profile figures attract international attention, the Kremlin also targets ordinary citizens to ensure fear permeates all levels of society.

• A schoolteacher in a provincial Russian city received a suspended sentence for expressing anti-war sentiments during a classroom discussion.
• A retiree in Moscow was arrested for holding a placard that read “No to War,” with prosecutors arguing her actions “discredited” the military.
• Social media users, including young students, have faced criminal charges for sharing posts critical of government policies.

          These cases demonstrate the regime’s intent to make no one feel safe from prosecution, regardless of public profile. By applying punitive measures across society, the Kremlin extinguishes dissent at every level.

Legal Ambiguity

Legal ambiguity lies at the heart of the Kremlin’s strategy to criminalize dissent. The regime has crafted vaguely worded laws that allow for broad interpretation and selective enforcement, fostering an unpredictable legal environment that compels self-censorship.

The introduction of Articles 207.3 and 280.3 of the Criminal Code in 2022 illustrates this approach. These provisions criminalize the dissemination of “false information” about the Russian armed forces and the “discreditation” of military actions, providing the state with wide latitude to suppress dissent.

• Maria Ponomarenko, a journalist, was sentenced to six years in prison for a social media post criticizing Russia’s military campaign in Ukraine. Her conviction under Article 207.3 highlights how these laws suppress independent journalism.
• Sergei Mikhailov, a journalist and editor of the Listok publication, received an eight-year sentence for allegedly spreading “fake news” about the Russian military. His case demonstrates how the state uses vague legal standards to silence dissenting voices.

The lack of clear definitions for terms like “false information” or “discreditation” gives authorities unchecked discretion to target individuals for any perceived criticism of the state.

This legal uncertainty compels widespread self-censorship. Citizens, journalists, and activists are left guessing what might trigger prosecution, discouraging them from expressing dissent altogether.

• Artists and writers have canceled projects critical of the government, fearing legal repercussions.
• Social media users have scrubbed their profiles of politically sensitive content to avoid potential scrutiny.

          By fostering an environment of unpredictability, the Kremlin ensures that dissenting voices are silenced not just through punishment but through preemptive compliance.

Performative Repression

            Performative repression leverages public trials and dramatic arrests as spectacles to intimidate the population and legitimize state actions. These displays serve to punish the individuals involved while reinforcing the narrative that resistance is futile.

          Trials of opposition figures like Navalny, Kara-Murza, and Yashin are orchestrated to maximize their impact.

• Navalny’s trial was heavily publicized, with state-controlled media portraying him as a criminal and traitor. The proceedings sought not only to punish Navalny but to delegitimize him in the eyes of the public.
• Kara-Murza’s sentencing was accompanied by a media campaign emphasizing his alleged betrayal of the nation, reinforcing the narrative that dissent equates to treason.

These trials are not mere legal processes; they are performances designed to justify the regime’s actions and dissuade others from following in the accused’s footsteps.

         Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, thousands of demonstrators across Russia have been detained during anti-war protests. Footage of violent crackdowns and mass arrests has been widely circulated, serving as a stark warning to others contemplating participation in future demonstrations.  Punitive measures are often symbolic warnings. Lengthy sentences handed down for minor acts of dissent—such as holding anti-war signs—reinforce the message that resistance, no matter how insignificant, will not be tolerated.

Institutionalizing Authoritarianism

           The Kremlin’s reliance on selective prosecution, legal ambiguity, and performative repression reflects a calculated effort to institutionalize authoritarianism. By systematically targeting both prominent figures and ordinary citizens, crafting vague laws to criminalize dissent, and staging public displays of state power, the regime ensures that dissent is both punished and preemptively deterred.

          These patterns have transformed Russia’s criminal justice system into a mechanism of fear and control, subordinating the judiciary to the Kremlin’s political agenda. The erosion of legal norms and civil liberties has left Russian society fragmented, with limited opportunities for accountability or resistance.

         In its current form, the Russian criminal justice system serves not the rule of law but the consolidation of state power. By deliberately and systematically deploying these repressive tactics, the Kremlin has created an environment where dissent is perilous, compliance is coerced, and its dominance remains unchallenged.