Your Honor, the factual circumstances of my actions, which the investigation qualified as crimes, are accurately stated in the indictment and have been fully examined in the court session.
In my speech, I want to focus on the reasons for such actions, on my goals, to go through the articles in relation to the accusation in detail, that is, to explain the motive for not admitting guilt. And in the end, to express a request to the court regarding what to do with me next.
I lived quietly and didn't bother anyone at the dacha with cats. My life changed on February 24, 2022. The cause of both the first criminal case and the current criminal case was Russia's attack on Ukraine. I will further explain why I qualified this event as such.
I am still in prison for words. There were no actions in either the first case or the second. But this is my way of participating in events because I had no physical opportunity to leave the country. And I didn't want to remain silent in this situation. Well, my life.
Why am I doing this? I must answer your remark yesterday about how my speeches, including in court, might harm my own interests. Your Honor, my interests are not in reducing the term. I am already sitting.
And what is the goal of what I am doing? Well, globally speaking, it is self-preservation. I understand the instinct of self-preservation not as the preservation of just the body, its physical health. Because I am not only my body. I want to preserve in this difficult situation conscience, the ability to distinguish black from white, and lies from truth, and, very importantly, the ability to say aloud what I consider to be true.
This didn't start for me in 2022. I have always tried to live this way. Just the desire to preserve this ability in such situations — it generally causes such actions. So, the ability to speak the truth, the preservation of conscience.
What actions, prompting me to this, do we observe? We observe the compositions of those articles that are not imputed to me. The composition of Article 278 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation — violent seizure or retention of power. I mean Vladimir Putin, who has held the highest state post in the Russian Federation for exactly a quarter of a century. All this time, the Constitution of the Russian Federation contains the principle of power turnover, stated in the form of the two-term rule. We observe a direct violation of this, and this is violent retention of power. This is a criminal article, but I did not do this.
In what happened after February 24, we observe the composition of Article 353 of the Criminal Code — planning, preparation, unleashing, and waging an aggressive war.
What do I do in this situation? I publicly — in the mode of a solitary picket, just a long one — demonstrate the madness of the Russian state. Look, the prosecution is asking for 15 years in total — a term given for murder. Even for murder, they often give less. At the same time, there are no victims in my cases, no damage.
And not only during these criminal cases but throughout my life, I haven't touched anyone with a finger, haven't stolen a penny. Nevertheless, 15 years. I consider this a demonstration of the state's madness. The state happily demonstrates this quality on me.
What do I do in response? I demonstrate resilience. And this is very important because I hope that what I am doing is seen by Ukrainians. Look. Arrested. Convicted, a decade of «strict». Judge me on the second case. Did you convince me strongly? That is, did I stop my actions? Or did I become less heard? No.
The same thing we observe on the war fronts.
For the fourth year, the Russian state has been shedding blood on the land of a neighboring country. Ukraine has not surrendered and will not surrender.
Among what is not exactly presented to me, but has been repeatedly mentioned in the indictments and in the presented evidence — is the insult of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin with the obscene word «khuylo».
What do I do? This is called desacralization.
Because the sacredness of supreme power is one of the foundations of the Horde method of governance. When I publicly, repeatedly, in the first court, in the second, in the pre-trial detention center every day do this — this is my act of desacralizing Vladimir Putin. This is important because this power will end anyway. And I very much want to bring this closer. I hate this person. And what the prosecution says about the motive of political hatred — this is the holy truth. I confirm this.
The audience I am addressing with these actions is not in Russia. Because Russian society is dead and it is useless to talk to it. My audience is Ukraine.
I move on to the attitude towards the accusation by article. I do not admit guilt under Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code on both parts — it is about the same text, just posted on the internet and spoken in the pre-trial detention center. Because I do not consider the episodes I chose to insert into my final word as terrorist acts. I chose them deliberately.
So, it's about two attacks on the Crimean bridge. The Crimean bridge is a very important transport artery through which the grouping of the armed forces of the Russian Federation in Crimea is supplied. This is a military object, as in any war, bridges always fall first. An attack on a military object — this is an episode of hostilities. The attack was carried out by the armed forces of Ukraine, this is their job.
The qualification of this as a terrorist act. Why was this done? I know perfectly well about this. This is done in order to, firstly, use it in Russian propaganda to dehumanize the enemy. That is, the Russian Federation is not fighting with the armed forces of Ukraine, provided for by Ukrainian legislation and fulfilling their constitutional duty, but with some terrorist band formations of «Banderites» and «Ukronazis». To support this agenda, decisions are made to initiate criminal cases under the article on terrorism for episodes of hostilities.
And to the second episode I mentioned, that is, the attack on the Kremlin on May 3, 2023. What do we have regarding the Kremlin? In the message of the Investigative Committee, which the state prosecutor quoted yesterday, it is directly stated that the attack was carried out on the residence of the President of the Russian Federation, who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the Russian Federation. Moreover, the Ukrainians also hit the Senate building, which is located in the closed-to-tourists territory of the Kremlin and where one of Putin's offices is indeed located. Excuse me, an attack on a command post — this is not a terrorist act, this is an episode of hostilities — albeit unsuccessful — from Ukraine.
I must say loudly that I do not justify any terrorism, do not support it, have never justified it, and do not intend to. I categorically have a negative attitude towards the ideology and practice of terrorism.
Moving on to Article 280.3 of the Criminal Code. The article is newly made, appeared after the start of what you call «special military operation».
And it is a pure example of persecution for truth. Because a situation arose where it was necessary to silence opponents of the war, but it was impossible to present, say, my favorite Article 207.3 of the Criminal Code. How to present «fakes» if a person simply expressed an attitude towards what is happening? So Article 280.3 and the concept of «discreditation» appeared, which is very poorly formulated legally.
They tell me that my phrases «Ukraine is a victim of aggression by the country of Russia» — this is discreditation of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. What do we have? We have resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly from 2014. That the annexation of Crimea to Russia is an annexation. I didn't say this. This is a resolution of the General Assembly, there is no veto right, so it was adopted with a good majority of votes. This is the position of international law.
Similarly, we have a resolution of the UN General Assembly from March 2022, in which the events of February 24 are called aggression. And we have a resolution of the UN General Assembly regarding the inclusion of the Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions of Ukraine into Russia, in which these actions are called annexation.
I draw attention to the fact that the speeches of, say, the Foreign Ministry speaker Masha Zakharova are not a source of international law. Statements by the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov are not a source of international law. The resolution of the UN General Assembly is a source of international law. And therefore my assessments are firmly based on international law documents.
But I am undoubtedly charged with the phrase about Putin's scum as discreditation. Firstly, «Putin's», from your point of view, cannot be discreditation because, from your point of view, Putin is good. And regarding the second word — yes, this is my personal evaluative opinion, it applies not only to the military personnel of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation who carry out criminal orders. Yes, there are people in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation who do not carry out criminal orders, but not only they are fighting there.
People who kill the military of a neighboring country for money… Well, excuse me, this is how I characterize it. My personal evaluative judgment. It is based on actions.
Summing up this part of the speech. The Constitution of the Russian Federation has Article 29 — the right to free speech, including the right to gather and disseminate information. This is exclusively what I am actually engaged in. That is, I have not stepped over Article 29 of the Constitution by a millimeter. And at the same time, I have undoubtedly violated these two current articles of the Criminal Code.
How can this be? Well, it can be because the articles imputed to me are unconstitutional. And if there were a real Constitutional Court in Russia, these articles would have long been gone.
I cannot pass by the episode with my report to Prosecutor Zhuk, which was not imputed to me, but nevertheless we listened to witnesses about it yesterday. Why is it even here? After all, there is no text of the final word in it. There are no mentions of terrorism or any violent actions at all. I also did not say a word about the armed forces.
The fact is that this second case of mine is the result of this speech of mine before the prosecutor's commission. Because in the case — it was not announced, but there are — two decisions by the FSB investigator Lieutenant Colonel Yefimov Sergey Vyacheslavovich to terminate this case. That is, my investigator, with whom we have a very good level of mutual understanding, who perfectly understands what I am doing and what I am striving for, tried to terminate this case twice.
I move on to the concluding part of my speech regarding the correct qualification of my actions. This is my participation in the war on the side of Ukraine. It's just happening without weapons. Because war is such a very multifaceted event. And besides the battles in the steppes of Donbas, in the Black Sea, in the sky over Ukraine, it is fiercely going on in the information space. State bodies, Russian bodies participate in it… On the side of Ukraine, such interesting structures also participate.
I fight in the information space. How is this expressed? On October 9, 2022, I wrote and sent through electronic mail services — and it went through — a statement to the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelensky with a request for Ukrainian citizenship. I have the right to it by territorial origin. All my grandmothers and grandfathers are from Ukraine. Ukrainian legislation says that I have the right to citizenship.
So, I managed to attach to the criminal case and examine in court a screenshot from «Kasparov.ru». What does it confirm? That besides publishing my final word, I published and continue to publish on «Kasparov.ru» regularly. What does this confirm? That what I am being judged for now is actually just an episode of my activity, which I do not stop.
I will also mention, of course, «Novaya Gazeta», on the website of which my letters also appeared. And my fresh achievement in this activity — the official recognition of me as a political prisoner, because I call myself that in the pre-trial detention center, I sign this way in petitions to the honorable court. But until now, it was kind of a self-designation.
On April 14 of this year, the decision of the Council on Political Prisoners of the International Human Rights Center «Memorial»* was published. In the framework of this activity of mine, the criminal cases — both the first and the second — I use as an informational occasion.
The war in the information space takes place. I participate in it, I am trying to argue this now. I support Ukraine and the armed forces of Ukraine informationally. In fact, this is a transition to the side of the enemy in an armed conflict involving the Russian Federation — this is the composition of Article 275 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, that is, treason.
I ask the court to return my criminal case to the prosecutor, as the factual circumstances indicate the presence of grounds for qualifying actions as a more serious crime. Judge me for treason. I have betrayed your insane state.
* Recognized in Russia as a «foreign agent».
Photo: SOTAvision