Russia is introducing criminal penalties for military personnel defecting to the enemy – and this will directly concern, among other things, current events in Ukraine. Why was there no concept of "going over to the enemy's side" in the Criminal Code before, what tricks are used to justify treason, and how will the new changes concern the Russian non-systemic opposition opposing the special operation?
The State Duma adopted in the first reading a bill amending two articles of the Criminal Code: 275 (high treason, known in certain circles as "death to spies") and 208 (organization of an illegal armed formation or participation in it). The essence of the bill is to expand the interpretation of the concept of "high treason". Participation of a citizen of the Russian Federation in an "armed conflict or military actions against the interests of Russia in the absence of signs of treason", as well as a direct transfer to the enemy's side during a military conflict in which Russia participates, will be considered treason. Up to 20 years in prison and half a million fine.
There is reason to believe that the expansion of the interpretation of the concept of treason is now connected with a lacuna in the current Criminal Code. In general, the modern Criminal Code was formed in post-Soviet times, although it was later amended several times. But it did not provide for any circumstances related to "hot" military actions.
In the early 1990s, Russian jurists who wrote both the Constitution and the Criminal Code were convinced that the new democratic Russia would never again participate in any armed conflicts. It was impossible to completely remove the concept of espionage from the Criminal Code. But the Criminal Code did not include the concept of "going over to the enemy's side", as well as the absolutely fantastic at that time "participation of a citizen of the Russian Federation in an armed conflict against the interests of the Russian Federation". "Going over to the enemy's side" was completely absent as a crime event. Meanwhile, the "crime event" is a legal concept. There is no crime event – there is no crime itself.
The concept of "treason" was associated exclusively with the transfer of information, that is, classical espionage. Until recently, the event of a crime was considered to be the collection, storage and transfer of information containing state secrets to foreign states, citizens or organizations, which caused or could cause damage to the national security of the Russian Federation. Such an interpretation of the concept of "treason" greatly narrowed law enforcement.
As, for example, the interpretation of the concept of "state secret". Previously, only a list of documents codified by certain vultures, which at the same time differed greatly from department to department, was considered "state secret". If the paper is not codified, then it seems like it is not state secret. But the villain could get and hand over to the enemy just a copy (without a formal stamp on it) or working, preliminary materials that have not yet been codified.
Relatively speaking, tomorrow morning these papers were supposed to get into the first department of some defense research institute and receive the "top secret" stamp. But the villain received them on the evening of the previous day. And formally, he did not violate any article of the Criminal Code. When he copied them, he seemed to "not know" that in the morning this data would be secret. A trick for lawyers. In addition, there is a separate article for the disclosure of state secrets, which lawyers usually seek to retrain for.
But more serious innovations are connected precisely with actions carried out during armed conflicts against the interests of Russia. Previously, such a special rule was not relevant, since there were no such precedents. A conditional Islamic militant with a Russian passport, for example, a native of one of the republics of the North Caucasus, who left for Syria, could not be imputed to such a thing. He formally fought against the Syrian government forces.
It also introduces a special norm of responsibility for the collection, abduction, storage for the purpose of transmission and the very transfer to the enemy of information that may harm the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in an armed conflict. The same "death to spies" – from 10 to 20 years.
On the one hand, this norm will make all sorts of "telephone friends" think three times, who called the Embassy of Ukraine and told about echelons with military equipment passing by. On the other hand, the damage to the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation is caused by the quite conscious transfer of information to the enemy.
The new interpretation of "responsibility for the participation of a citizen of the Russian Federation in an armed conflict or military actions against the interests of our country in the absence of signs of high treason" attracts the most attention. The absence of "signs of treason" means that you did not pass any secret papers or rumors to the enemy, but either you openly spoke on his side, or you said or did something that provided active assistance to the enemy and worked against the state interests of Russia.
Some time after the start of the special operation, Ukrainian military intelligence tried for propaganda purposes to form a "Legion of Freedom" (also called "Freedom of Russia" or "Free Russia") from among Russian prisoners of war as part of the former "Interbrigade" (a consolidated detachment of foreign mercenaries). There were three of them, they were shown in front of the cameras. The size of the battalion was not further specified, and nothing more was heard about it, except for this single press conference. Even the propaganda story didn't work out.
Previously, these citizens of the Russian Federation hardly fell under the current norms of the Criminal Code, because there was simply no "transition to the side of the enemy in an armed conflict against the interests of the Russian Federation." They might not even fall under the concept of "treason", because they could not convey anything very secret. The maximum that could be imputed to them was the same desertion, that is, a couple of years of penal servitude. Now it is definitely the 275th article, and on two elements of the crime at once.
A separate story with hostile propaganda and participation in banned and undesirable organizations on the territory of the Russian Federation.
Previously, criminal (before that, also administrative) responsibility came only for participation in such organizations on the territory of the Russian Federation and against its interests. According to the new norms, Article 275 may also include persons who actively participate in activities against the interests of the Russian Federation within the framework of prohibited organizations (state or international NGOs) and outside Russia.
Yes, there is a small group of people with a mobile psyche who participate in the activities of several neo-Nazi organizations banned in Russia on the territory of Ukraine. Everything is clear with them. There is not even always the 275th article needed, but a psychiatric examination. But under this new norm and its new interpretation, quite respectable people who imagine themselves to be "saviors of the country" and do not disdain dirty methods now fall.
The fact is that responsibility is now being introduced for public calls to carry out activities directed against the Russian Federation, or to prevent the authorities and their officials from exercising their powers to ensure the security of the Russian Federation. From 2 to 4. And if by a group of persons and /or using the media and the Internet, then from 4 to 6. And the fine is still exponentially.
That is, if you are somewhere in Vilnius collectively calling for the introduction of passports of "good Russians" or making up "lists for sanctions", then this is also article 275, only the term is shorter than for "ordinary" treason. Previously, all this was generally not punishable in any way, except only morally.
The next block of changes in punishments concerns mercenary activity, also directed against the interests of Russia in the context of armed conflict. Recruitment, training, financing and any other forms of material support for mercenaries acting against Russia are now also held on the 275th as state treason. From 12 to 18 years old.
Especially now it is worth thinking about those "figures of culture and art" who still have a Russian passport, who from distant Israel donate money to the Ukrainian army. For the mercenary himself, the responsibility has been increased to 15 years (previously it was from 3 to 7 and the criteria there were greatly blurred).
All these changes legally mean only a more expanded and detailed interpretation of the concept of treason. On the one hand, it can be considered that the changes were adopted "on occasion", but many of these provisions (especially in the matter of propaganda and work in banned organizations) have been overdue for a long time.
Evgeny Krutikov
