Vladimir Putin recently claimed victory as Russia’s president despite extensive evidence that the “election” was illegitimate in a number of ways. His repression, including evidence of State-ordered assassinations and assassination attempts, and his manipulation of Russia’s legal systems and institutions seems to assure him power – and impunity.
Putin’s efforts to consolidate that power have included eliminating most political opposition and civil society organizations and forcing independent media to shut down or move their operations into exile. The recent death of opposition leader Alexei Navalny in a remote prison camp exemplified the threats to anyone deemed critical of the Kremlin.
The long arm of the Kremlin also extends far beyond its borders. In addition to the now decade-long war on Ukraine, which escalated into a full-scale invasion in February 2022, and military interventions in the Middle East and Africa, Russian exiles are also not immune from Putin’s wrath.
Just Security's Washington Senior Editor Viola Gienger recently interviewed Gleb Bogush, a Russian lawyer and expert on international criminal law who fled Russia in 2022.
Gleb is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Center of Excellence for International Courts of the University of Copenhagen. He is also a member of the Cologne-Bonn Academy in Exile (CBA). Before 20222, he was an Associate Professor of International Law at the Moscow State University and HSE University in Russia, also known as the Higher School of Economics.
This conversation took place a day before the March 22 terrorist attack on a Moscow concert hall that killed more than 130 people.
Show Notes:
Vladimir Putin recently claimed victory as Russia’s president despite extensive evidence that the “election” was illegitimate in a number of ways. His repression, including evidence of State-ordered assassinations and assassination attempts, and his manipulation of Russia’s legal systems and institutions seems to assure him power – and impunity.
Putin’s efforts to consolidate that power have included eliminating most political opposition and civil society organizations and forcing independent media to shut down or move their operations into exile. The recent death of opposition leader Alexei Navalny in a remote prison camp exemplified the threats to anyone deemed critical of the Kremlin.
The long arm of the Kremlin also extends far beyond its borders. In addition to the now decade-long war on Ukraine, which escalated into a full-scale invasion in February 2022, and military interventions in the Middle East and Africa, Russian exiles are also not immune from Putin’s wrath.
Just Security's Washington Senior Editor Viola Gienger recently interviewed Gleb Bogush, a Russian lawyer and expert on international criminal law who fled Russia in 2022.
Gleb is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Center of Excellence for International Courts of the University of Copenhagen. He is also a member of the Cologne-Bonn Academy in Exile (CBA). Before 20222, he was an Associate Professor of International Law at the Moscow State University and HSE University in Russia, also known as the Higher School of Economics.
This conversation took place a day before the March 22 terrorist attack on a Moscow concert hall that killed more than 130 people.
Show Notes:
Paras Shah: Vladimir Putin recently claimed victory as Russia’s president despite extensive evidence that the “election” was illegitimate in a number of ways. His repression, including evidence of State-ordered assassinations and assassination attempts, and his manipulation of Russia’s legal systems and institutions seems to assure him power – and impunity.
Putin’s efforts to consolidate that power have included eliminating most political opposition and civil society organizations and forcing independent media to shut down or move their operations into exile. The recent death of opposition leader Alexei Navalny in a remote prison camp exemplified the threats to anyone deemed critical of the Kremlin.
The long arm of the Kremlin also extends far beyond its borders. In addition to the now decade-long war on Ukraine, which escalated into a full-scale invasion in February 2022, and military interventions in the Middle East and Africa, Russian exiles are also not immune from Putin’s wrath.
This is the Just Security podcast. I’m your host, Paras Shah.
Co-hosting with me this episode is Just Security’s Washington Senior Editor, Viola Gienger. Viola recently interviewed Gleb Bogush, a Russian lawyer and expert on international criminal law, who fled Russia in 2022. This conversation took place a day before the March 22 terrorist attack on a Moscow concert hall that killed more than 130 people.
Viola Gienger: Gleb Bogush is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Center of Excellence for International Courts of the University of Copenhagen. He is also a member of the Cologne-Bonn Academy in Exile in Germany (CBA). Before 2022, he was an Associate Professor of International Law at the Moscow State University and HSE University in Russia, also known as the Higher School of Economics.
Gleb, thank you for joining us.
Gleb Bogush: Thank you for having me.
Viola: Tell us a little bit about your story, your life in Russia before you fled briefly, and how and when you decided to leave and your life since then.
Gleb: Yeah, I had a very boring life of an academic. I graduated from Moscow State University. I made my PhD studies there. And then I worked for more than 15 years as Associate Professor in two Moscow universities. I also used to teach across Russia, and even abroad, and my specialization was international criminal law.
I never thought that it would be so close to my real life. I think I did a lot of good things in educating students. Quite recently in Washington, DC and not far from the Russian embassy, I met a couple of students who asked me, “Have you by chance taught anything in Moscow State University?” and I was very impressed to meet former students. And I think we did many, many good things during this time. In particular, we popularized international criminal law. We had moot court competition in Russian on the ICC. I was one of the members of the group which prepared the draft law on international crimes to implement ICC statute. It never happened, unfortunately, in Russia, and there was a lot of hopes that, one day, Russia would continue the good tradition, actually, to promote international law and including international criminal law.
Russia was one of the pioneers of international humanitarian law at the dawn of the 20th century. And it was also played — Soviet Union played a major role in post-war justice in the Nuremberg trials. And recently, there was the whole series of publications about the role of the Soviets. And my own scientific granddad, so the supervisor of my supervisor, was — , who played the critical role in preparation of the Nuremberg trials and in the judgment, and his contribution was on the crime of aggression, actually. That time they have been called crimes against peace. And one of my recent publications before the full war started was about his scholarship.
So, it was an interesting time, the time of hopes, but there was increasingly difficult to work, to be honest. The country turned to dictatorship little by little, step by step. We had more and more problems in our academic expression and certain topics have become dangerous just to mention the historical memory, the study of the crimes of the past. We had so many cases, unfortunately, when the independent historians, independent researchers have been targeted for their status. But of course, it was possible to work. It was possible to keep hope. And this all this, this, you know, clouds that are coming around our country, we continue to believe in the peaceful future and we continue our work, but unfortunately, the events of 2022 turned to a very different direction and it was the end of my career. It was a very, very, very sad moment.
Viola: And that was the full-scale invasion, Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022?
Gleb: Yes, yes. And this was, this was not the first, you know, warning sign, to be honest. It was, before was, of course, poisoning of Alexei Navalny, his arrest, the increasing repression, but it was the full-scale invasion that changed everything. And, again, it was a very, very serious blow to all hope of life. And the most important for me was an ability to work, because it's not possible for academics, for professors to work in such situation, you know? You either have freedom, or you cannot, cannot continue your mission. It's not possible.
Viola: Was there one particular sort of make-break moment when you realized you have to leave.?
Gleb: That was very clear from the very beginning because there was, there was a situation of large-scale military aggression against a sovereign country and against the country I actually had multiple connections with. So, for me, aggression against Ukraine, it's not just a violation of international law or military exercise — its attack of the country.
But the immediate trigger, I think, was the suspension of the shutting down of all media. It happened in one day. So, for example, Novaya Gazeta, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, 2021, radio station Echo Moskvy, there was one of the most popular radio stations in the country — they have been closed, shut down in one day, by then only. And even more importantly, the Russian authorities adopted laws, adopted criminal laws. They criminalized, actually, all public expression about the war. They not just banned certain sorts of statements, but even then, suddenly, certain words, de facto. People started to be tried and punished for calling, for example, the invasion of Ukraine a war. And we had just recalled here the fate of Alexei Gorinov, who was a member of the Moscow local council. And like Putin, he was elected. He's a lawyer, and Gorinov was punished just for words of sympathy towards Ukrainians and Ukraine, just for making very, very accurate statements about the sad events that are taking place in the war. And all these things started to happen during the days after the full-scale invasion.
What was next was obvious, you know? We saw that the country's turning to desolation and the rhetoric of authorities was quite aggressive. For those who are very dependent of the international exchange — imagine all states, all countries that you have connections, when you have your network — are declared to be unfriendly, and you can have consequences for cooperation. So almost all NGOs, a lot of American organizations, all the German organizations, have been declared so-called “undesirable” organizations. So that means that every contact, every participation in the events can be potentially criminalized. So that's not the fear of being imprisoned, although it also plays the role.
But most importantly, for me, the trigger was the escalation of censorship. So, for me, it was a signal that you cannot, you cannot just stay in such situation, although it's rather dramatic, if not tragic, you know? I'm very rooted in my country. I believe that the best, like, I could do much better in my country. I love the language I speak. I love so many people in this country, and I believe in its future, and it should be free. And to agree that that Russia is Putin and Russia is Putin's regime — I cannot believe in that. It's not. I know that it's not true.
So, for me, it was a personal defeat, but at the same time, I think it was, it was the right move, because if you can continue doing your work, you should do it. You should use all the opportunities, even if it would be in exile. It was actually interruption of my career. You know, for every academic, it's very difficult to be downgraded from the well-established academic posts to certain uncertainty, but it can happen. It's another reminder that there is no stability. There is no, no permanency in our lives, you know? Everything can happen, and this is, this has happened to me, but also with a lot of my colleagues, a lot of my compatriots. So, I'm not considering myself to be, you know, the larger victim of this event. Yes, I experienced — It's been a difficult experience for me, but it's not, it's not comparable with many other people in Russia, in Ukraine and other affected countries.
Viola: Thank you. Thank you. What are you hearing from contacts back in Russia about the conditions of everyday life there, and the mood after Putin’s so-called reelection in that clearly illegitimate vote?
Gleb: Yes, I have contacts every day. I talk to people, talking to friends, relatives, lots of other people, not only in Moscow, but mostly there. I think the people are really, really frustrated by the situation. They don't, they're not able to change the situation on the ground. And this feeling of weakness is very visible, unfortunately. So, people hope for, for certain support from outside.
At least what I heard, that a lot of people have been very disappointed by the weak language used from outside. It's not only governments of the free world, which have been very, very, I would say, moderate in the assessment. Some of the language was really weak and even appeasing, but also, media, how media reports. So, my last discussion, my last conversation, for example, with a friend in Russia was that, well, they report about elections like it's normal elections. So, that's so disappointing. And that's something that we could see.
There is a continuing disengagement of people from, you know, social activity. People are afraid to express you know, views, strong views. When the war which — war is, of course, an elephant in the room, everybody understands that — but the regime makes everything possible to isolate people from the war, to make the war very remote. It's especially true in the bigger cities, such as Moscow and St. Petersburg, and some other big cities. You don't have a lot of signs, many, many signs of war, just some propaganda, but not real “touch” with the war reality.
And the people try to distance themselves from the war, and election was a clear demonstration that you cannot influence anything. So, this is not, this is not a relationship of the government and citizens. It's something very, very different. It's an open war against part of the population who doesn't support Putin, especially actively. There is no chance of fair trial for them. There is no chance of the equal application of the law, even Putin’s? It's no mercy to this people. And this threatening, constant, constant threatening and propaganda — the propaganda, it's something that doesn't stop. The investment of the regime in propaganda is enormous, is enormous. It's no shortage of money, and all other things, that propaganda works, unfortunately.
Yes, there are a lot of brave people who are still there. And we could see this even on the so-called elections that a lot of people, despite everything, took part in this action against Putin. We have already, we have, again, people who have been arrested for just appearing before the polling station. This resistance in Russia exists. But yes, it's a bleeding wound. It's more than 1 million people — it's a modest estimation, estimate, left Russia after 2022. And this continues to happen, you know.
Viola: In light of all of those developments in that situation, and the death of the leading opposition figure, Alexei Navalny, where does the Russian opposition go from here, internally and externally? What do you think are the one or two priorities that the Russian opposition should pursue at this point?
Gleb: It's a huge loss. First of all, Alexei Navalny was a towering figure. It’s of course difficult to survive this, this loss and to turn it to further action. I'm not here to speak for all the full opposition, which is very diverse, actually, but I would kindly suggest three, maybe three priorities.
So first, it should be certain, you know, representation of Russian society, democratically. Now, leadership of this opposition, it's very difficult, but it's, it's something that lies on the surface. We hear now, for example, a lot of calls to call to declare Putin illegitimate and I support these calls, to be clear. But of course, we need people who will be speaking not just to foreign countries, but they will be speaking to a broader audience, also in Russia and outside Russia.
For example, we have, again, already millions of Russians who live outside. This is a significant audience. It's meaningful, because they have this privilege of living in the free countries who have a voice, and many of them have means to talk to this audience. And I think that this is the first priority, to have structures, to have unity and to work on creating certain structures that would have voice, would speak a unified voice. It doesn't mean, you know, creation of one dictator who will be, you know, like Putin, say what what we should do and what would be our purpose, but it's important to have certain democratic elements in this movement. And I'm sure that it's possible, you know. Yes, we have some disagreements, but we have much more reasons to be united.
Second, we need to fight for our people, to help political prisoners, to engage in dialogue with all possible states in all possible organizations to help these people, and also to be more, you know, assertive in also defending our rights. We have a situation, unfortunately, when a lot of people who are in exile are subjected to double victimization. They are persecuted by Russian authorities, but at the same time, they experienced also discriminatory measures in the countries where they are. So, this is something that undermine our efforts, it is weakening this society. And this is also something that we should discuss openly. It's not only about travel restrictions, although it also plays a role, you know. A lot of people have now, in the countries where Russian security services, for example, are quite active, and they have many cases in Central Asia, in Thailand, in Georgia, multiple cases — why all these people are there, just because the European Union member states closed the borders, you know? And they restrict — in violation of European law, by the way — restrict the very ability for Russian citizens to get visas and they restrict their entrance on a valid basis. So, it's just one example.
But Russian immigrants experienced, are experiencing a lot of difficulties with every routine thing, like bank accounts, like social security. And I'm just speaking, can speak for the lawyers, for example. Imagine how lawyers can work with clients, everything, without access to bank accounts, without any social, any perspective of social security, it's quite difficult.
Viola: Just to clarify, they’re confronting those situations in the West, or in the countries where there are more exiles, such as in Georgia, Romania?
Gleb: Yes, they of course have this problem everywhere. And the difference is that these countries in the West, they are they are subject to very, you know, progressive and very serious rules on nondiscrimination. But at the same time, we see that this is happening. I'm not saying that we are subject to certain, you know, Russophobia or something like that. It's more the effect of the war, of course. So, this is understandable why all these measures, and why all the sentiment is spreading across the world.
But what is very important — and we should work on that, you know. Russians should work on that. We should distinguish between the Putin regime and individual Russians. It also depends on us, how we, by our actions, you know, demonstrate that this is, these two groups are very different, you know? And it's in our interest. We are fighting for the same values, you know? Values of nondiscrimination, values of freedom, values of democracy. And when Russians are excluded from this world, when we see that there are even calls for that, you know, Russians are not able, incapable to have democracy and rights, you know, they should not be allowed to use the privilege of democracy — this is what some, unfortunately, some officials from your country say.
That is, of course, highly, highly dangerous, and they are demotivating us, but also, it brought this region generally to the very dark turn, the whole region to a very dark place. Because if Russia will not disappear from the map of Europe, it will remain there, and I think the only way to change the situation for the better, for the whole region, and for the whole world is to change Russia, and it cannot be done without Russians — without acknowledging that this is a country and the people in this country are not the current regime, you know? This is not what we, what we have. There are two different groups.
I'm not saying that the Russian society is perfect. I'm not saying that we should not do a lot of work in our own perception of Russia and our history, that we should not have a serious work with neighbors and how we treat the neighbors. All these things are existing, unfortunately, and we have a lot of very dark chapters in our history, first of all, to deal with. But if we want to have a real base of freedom, we need to have Russian people on board.
Viola: So, considering those conditions that you describe, and on the topic of Russian exiles, tell us just briefly a little bit about the issues that exiles are facing with Russia's transnational repression. What form, concretely, are you seeing that take? What are some of the most severe instances of that, that you see?
Gleb: It depends on the country where Russian exiles are now, because the relationship of Russia and the presence of the Russian state is very different when they talk about, for example, some EU countries or United States or, for example, when we talk about Armenia or Kyrgyzstan. And we have a lot of situations in which Russian citizens are vulnerable. They have to contact the state, they have to depend on the documents first. A lot of them have relatives and property in Russia. It's a constant threat of retaliation from the Russian authorities. And it's, of course, not something that can be fixed by the foreign states. It's just important to understand.
And we had several cases already, unfortunately, when the people have been arrested and subject to extradition. So, the fact that, even now, after all these events — after escalation of repression, after the killing of Navalny, after all these terrible things, and most importantly, after the war of aggression against Ukraine — we still have a lot of states which continue to cooperate with Russia, provide Russia legal assistance. We have proud reports of Ministry of Justice — the same ministry which actually designates foreign agents, so-called foreign agents, and which is responsible for the death of Navalny, because actually, the penal institutions are under the Ministry of Justice. And they proudly report about extraditions from Greece, from Cyprus. There are other cases, I’m just mentioning EU member states, but we have unfortunately a lot of other cases when even political activists — so the person who is obviously targeted because of their political views and opposition to regime — can be subject to this proceeding, so deportations, extradition. And very often, we see a quiet collaboration between authorities of Russia and some other states where there is a massive number of Russian exiles.
It's very dangerous. We currently have a case in Thailand, when the whole band was arrested, B-Dva, so called Bi-2 band. And just by the very active intervention of Israel and the support of the United States, as far as I remember, it was possible to protect them and to they finally left Thailand prison to Israel. But this case actually demonstrated the role of diplomatic mission of Russia that was even was closely worked with the police, and just by chance, by the intervention and public exposure, that it didn't happen.
So, Russian authorities create a constant threat to the well-being of Russian immigrants, and especially because those who are working on sensitive matters — those who are covering the core media, lawyers who are investigating and defending human rights violations, victims of human rights violations, and of course, those who work defending and who are supporting Ukraine — you know, we have a lot of help, which is not always public, you know? But we have a lot of people who are supporting Ukraine, the Ukrainians, for example, who live in Russia. It's a very large group of potential, you know, targets. And it's not just the prominent politicians, it's a much, much bigger, much bigger group.
And we now have a lot of activities. So, it's a recent case of arrest of a professor, for example, in Estonia, it was Viacheslav Morozov, who was arrested for espionage charge. But the very fact I'm not discussing the case, because we don't know and he's presumed innocent, but the very case, you know, shows that Russian intelligence is targeting also academic institutions, so it's not a safe place anymore.
Viola: Do you mean academia is not a safe place necessarily anymore?
Gleb: No, no, because they target people who also have access to the broader exile community. So that's unfortunately what is happening. So yes, there is no safety. It's an illusion, I think, to think that when you physically leave the country, you're safe. There is no such thing, unfortunately. But at the same time, I can say for myself, you know, I'm very grateful for the country I live now, so that I can work. I can speak freely without fear that I will be, you know, immediately subject to prosecution, and any form, actually. It's not always criminal prosecution. It can be other ways to influence people and to, to silence them.
Viola: Well, and there was the case recently, of course, of the defector who was killed in Spain. And there have been cases of poisonings, correct? Those are some of the most egregious cases. In that vein, what do you see right now that the United States and the West can particularly do to help both what is left of the opposition in Russia, without endangering it, and to those in exile? You mentioned weak language from the West in some situations. Concretely, just what do you think of one or two steps that you think would be particularly helpful for the opposition inside Russia and opposition in exile?
Gleb: Well, it's very few things that can be done to help people in Russia, unfortunately. But what I think is important is to use, yes, indeed, to use stronger, stronger language to try to not just to expose these horrific events, but also to take legal action. This is what, as a lawyer, I recommend, you know? We have still the possibilities to first, to use interstate mechanisms, like the International Court of Justice — the court that Russia is bound to respect. I cannot ignore that. I particularly have in mind the Convention Against Torture. This is the jurisdictional possibility to bring the Russian state to the International Court of Justice. This is the step that was made by Netherlands and Canada in case of the Assad regime in Syria. There are other options, but I think it's the most realistic avenue.
Criminal responsibility — I think it's also something that states can do. Despite all these multiple cases of commission of crimes against international law by Russian state agents, we have not had any case so far against Russian officials or military. So, these states, especially those who have a framework, legal framework, appropriate legal framework, to initiate the cases on the universal jurisdiction basis, should create such precedents. That would be enormously important and would be really a step in the right direction, and I'm convinced that there are such people in the countries, in the Western countries who can be, at least, you know, against them, there are at least credible allegations of commission of crimes, in, particularly, the war against Ukraine or in the Russian domestic context.
That's something that states can do to send a strong signal, not just words, but action — at least legal action. And it's important to remember that it's not just the rights of the States, but also, to some extent, the obligations, at least moral obligations, sometimes legal obligations. It also, of course, should be measured to protect especially vulnerable persons, such as political activists, such as members of the LGBTQ+ community, which are now subject to horrific treatment. And there are really grounds to believe that it could be worse. The situation’s worsening.
So, of course, the persons who are objectors — persons who refuse to fight in this illegal war of aggression — and this is important to make a point that, you know, certain international law provides for such protection. It's not just the individual choice of the States. And this is, I think it's important, because if people in Russia would feel absolutely, you know, helpless. If they decided to break with this the regime, they will not have any chance to get support. I think it's a very bad message. It's a very bad message. And, of course, I'm not saying that it's also immoral and illegal, in many cases. But this is something that should be done. It should be clear what is an appropriate message — that people who really should be protected, you know, the groups which are targeted by the regime should receive international protection and support.
It's not about millions of potential, you know, refugees in flux, it’s quite, I think, realistic to do this. The price of sacrificing of these people would be much higher. It would be not just losing, you know, potential hope, the agents of change, but it would be also a moral defeat, because, if those values are just for the privileged people, if these values are just words and not actions, that would create very, very, very little incentive to fight for these values.
We need to be prepared and that means we need to work on scenarios. We need to understand what they want from each other, what is, kind of, conditions for the reintroduction of Russia to the international community, and what would be, you know, a positive incentive. We need more understanding of what can be the future of this country, and for that reason, of course, Russians should do the job as well, you know? They need to not just to have you know, this talk about, you know, problems and current difficulties is not enough. We need to present also the agenda for the future.
And I hope it would be the right way and the job would be done in this direction. So, at least I see some positive changes. I need that the people start to talk about that, even in the current horrible conditions of war. We are talking about the future, about, for example, how the constitution of Russia should be changed or replaced by workable document, what to do with the judicial system — this thing is a key thing given the current backlash and the degradation of judiciary — what should be foreign relations? What should be the position of Russia in the world? That all should be discussed before, you know, before we will have this window of opportunities, and we should not miss this chance again.
Viola: Gleb Bogush, thank you very much. Really appreciate the thoughtful reflections and wish you luck going forward. Thank you.
Gleb: Thank you.
Paras: This episode was co-hosted and produced by me, Paras Shah, and Viola Gienger with help from Clara Apt. Our theme song is “The Parade” by Hey Pluto.
Special thanks to Gleb Bogush and to Natalia Arno and Anna Veduta of the Free Russia Foundation for their help in arranging this interview. You can read all of Just Security’s coverage of Russia, and analysis of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, on our website. If you enjoyed this episode, please give us a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen.