Russian court bars only anti-war party from standing in parliamentary elections
A Moscow court has ruled that Yabloko, Russia's only registered liberal party opposed to the war in Ukraine, cannot take part in next month's parliamentary elections. The case was brought by the pro-Kremlin nationalist party Rodina, and the ruling effectively removes the last remaining anti-war option from the ballot, extending the Kremlin's suppression of dissent since the 2022 invasion.
Rodina's lawsuit accused Yabloko of supporting an "extremist" LGBT movement, copyright infringement over a quoted Soviet-era song, and receiving foreign funding from countries including Germany and the US. Several Yabloko figures had already been barred from standing, including deputy leader Maxim Kruglov, jailed for seven years over social media posts about civilian casualties in Ukraine, and the party suffered a cyberattack last week after launching a campaign donations appeal. Hundreds of mostly young supporters gathered outside the courthouse during the eight-hour hearing, chanting "Shame!" when the verdict was announced; Yabloko, which last won Duma seats in 2003, had been seeing rising support amid falling ratings for the ruling United Russia party.
- Moscow court bars anti-war Yabloko party from parliamentary elections
- Pro-Kremlin Rodina party brought the case against Yabloko
- Hundreds of young supporters protested outside the courthouse
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the ruling point to specific procedural grounds cited by the court, such as alleged irregularities in registration documents or signature requirements, and argue that electoral law must be applied consistently to every party regardless of its political stance. They contend that courts, not politicians, are adjudicating compliance, and that Russia retains the sovereign right to set and enforce its own rules for candidacy. Some also argue that in wartime, the state has a legitimate interest in preserving public unity and that parties are free to contest decisions through the same legal channels available to any applicant.
The case against
Critics argue that barring the only anti-war, liberal party just weeks before the vote effectively removes the sole outlet for millions of Russians who oppose the conflict, leaving voters without a meaningful alternative on the defining issue of the day. They see the timing and selectivity of the ruling as evidence that legal technicalities are being used as a pretext to eliminate a political threat rather than to enforce neutral rules, consistent with a broader pattern of sidelining opposition figures and parties. For them, genuine democratic legitimacy requires that voters be able to choose between competing visions, including dissenting ones, and that excluding such a party hollows out the elections regardless of the formal justification given.