Russian authorities are applying counter-terrorism and extremism legislation to target political dissent, prosecute minors, and penalize peaceful activism, according to human rights monitors and legal analysts. The crackdown, which has intensified following the invasion of Ukraine, utilizes sweeping legal categories that experts say blur the line between violent crimes and peaceful expression.
Minors and Sabotage Charges
On July 30, Viktor Kalinin, aged 14 years and three months, became the youngest person added to Russia’s official list of terrorists and extremists. Police charged the teenager with terrorism after he allegedly set fire to a railway signaling box, despite his statements that he acted under coercion. On the same day, Telegram founder Pavel Durov was accused of collaborating with terrorism amid an ongoing dispute with state security services.
Data compiled by activists at Pervi Otdel and Parubets Analytics indicate that more than 1.200 terrorism-related convictions were recorded in the first six months of 2026, marking a 58% increase compared to the same period in 2025. Researchers project that 2026 will register the highest number of terrorism convictions in the history of the modern Penal Code.
Expanding Scope of Antiterrorism Laws
Out of approximately 22.000 individuals currently labeled as terrorists and extremists in official databases, roughly 5.000 were added over the last year. The daily registration rate runs 44% higher than it did in August 2025. The registry includes 493 minors under the age of 18, with nearly 100 of those individuals under 16 years old. Analysts estimate that between 15% and 20% of these new cases carry political motivations.
Sergei Davidis, head of the political prisoner support project at Memorial—which itself has been designated as extremist—stated that authorities increasingly rely on articles concerning extremism and terrorism for actions that cause minimal physical harm. Addressing railway and infrastructure sabotage cases, Davidis noted that most incidents involve failed attempts to damage state property. He argued that prosecuting such acts as property destruction would be legally appropriate, whereas courts apply disproportionately heavy penalties under terrorism statutes.
Criminalizing Speech and Peaceful Activism
Violence is not a prerequisite for prosecution under Russia’s antiterrorism framework. Records show that 29% of convictions handed down since January 2026 stemmed from charges of justifying, propagating, or calling for terrorism.
“Any criticism of power can be qualified as extremism if there is a willingness to do so,” Davidis said, explaining that expressing disapproval toward state authorities increasingly equates to extremism and terrorism charges.
The state registry of extremist and terrorist organizations contains more than 850 entities, placing peaceful civil society groups alongside violent jihadist organizations such as Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. The Taliban was removed from this same list in 2025.
Impact on Dissent and Civil Society
Grouping peaceful organizations with violent groups aims to sever financial lifelines and impose what human rights defenders term civil death. Law enforcement agencies have detained and imprisoned numerous individuals for making financial contributions to Navalny’s foundation. Among them, a German resident of St. Petersburg was arrested for a donation of 900 rubles, roughly 9 euros.
Security services also target individuals who make positive statements about the Ukrainian military or fund units such as the Azov Battalion, whose members are classified as terrorists upon joining. Davidis criticized the application of terrorism laws against individuals serving in their country’s armed forces and defending it against aggression, noting that he was personally labeled a terrorist in 2024 and sentenced in absentia to six years in prison while residing in the European Union.
According to Davidis, the primary function of stretching counter-terrorism legislation in this manner is to generate public stigma and deterrence. While prosecuting citizens explicitly for criticizing the war, the military, or Putin clearly defines the offense, layering terrorism charges obscures the specific nature of the accusations and amplifies public fear regarding state punishment.
Keep reading
