We have previously discussed precedents in which perfectly legitimate criticism of officials led to criminal prosecution. But this case shows that the regime has gone even further: it treats the existing political order as an inseparable part of Russia itself, and even thinking about alternative futures for the country is now considered punishable. And, of course, people in wheelchairs — those who are practically at the end of their lives — are no exception. Naturally, appeals to higher courts produce no result whatsoever.
What is especially revealing here is something else: the modern authorities are remarkably skilled at using words, but not meaning. In their logic, killing is “acceptable” and even “necessary,” while actively resisting killing is “bad” and “criminal.” Language is turned into a blunt instrument: meanings are inverted, moral coordinates are rearranged, so that any form of dissent sounds like guilt. It is precisely within this logic that labels such as “militant pacifist” are born — loud, convenient, and empty of real content. They explain nothing; they simply brand.
Details are provided in the news below.
The Appellate Military Court in Vlasikha, near Moscow, has upheld the sentence handed down by the 1st Eastern District Military Court in the case of human rights defender Mark Kuperman.
Kuperman was found guilty of “justifying terrorism” under Part 2 of Article 205.2 of the Russian Criminal Code. According to the prosecution, the charges stemmed from the fact that on January 15, 2023, he distributed a document titled “The West’s Plan to Change the Regime in Russia. Humanitarian Occupation,” and allegedly initiated a discussion of it on January 16. The 86-year-old pensioner, who uses a wheelchair, was fined 500,000 rubles and banned from making any publications for two years.
In his final statement, Kuperman described the prosecution’s arguments as untenable and analyzed them in detail. He also pointed out that the trial court had unjustifiably restricted his right to deliver a full final statement — something that, in his view, alone constitutes sufficient grounds for overturning the verdict.
Kuperman also demanded the return of documents belonging to a public organization that were seized during a search of his home. According to him, none of these materials were used by the security services, the investigation, or the court.
The human rights defender stated that the totality of circumstances in his case clearly indicates persecution for so-called “thought crimes,” in direct contradiction with Articles 29, 13, 2, and 15 of the Russian Constitution.
“I believe that overzealous local law enforcement officers probably decided to label me a militant pacifist,” Kuperman said. “And since free discussion of the ‘special military operation’ is considered harmful to its goals, any criticism of the authorities must be suppressed. But I am not a pacifist. I have always been ready to defend my country from an attack with weapons in my hands.”
According to Kuperman, his continued civic activity has long displeased certain people. Attempts to stop his work — including efforts to protect vulnerable groups and to expose systemic flaws in government institutions — have repeatedly involved threats of personal punishment. Nevertheless, he said, his conscience and civic duty would not allow him to retreat from the ideals of justice, legality, human dignity, democracy, and the rule of law.
In his final words, Kuperman once again expressed hope for an end to the war and listed its consequences — from the loss of human life and family breakdowns to restrictions on freedom of assembly, pressure on independent media, inflation hitting pensioners especially hard, and the erosion of basic moral distinctions. He said he considers it his responsibility, as long as his strength allows, to continue defending people’s rights, dignity, and well-being, and to help restore the humanitarian foundations of public life.