The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Russian Opposition Leader Vladimir Kara-Murza's Powerful Final Statement to the Court
He made it prior to being sentenced to 25 years in prison for speaking out against Vladimir Putin's war on Ukraine.

Earlier today, prominent Russian dissident and opposition leader Vladimir Kara-Murza was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment in a "strict regime penal colony" for speaking out against Vladimir Putin's war on Ukraine. Here is an excerpt from the English translation of his compelling final statement to the court:
At one point during my testimony, the presiding judge reminded me that one of the extenuating circumstances was "remorse for what [the accused] has done." And although there is little that's amusing about my present situation, I could not help smiling: Criminals must repent of their deeds. But I'm in prison for my political views. For speaking out against the war in Ukraine. For many years of struggle against Vladimir Putin's dictatorship. For facilitating the adoption of personal international sanctions under the Magnitsky Act against human rights violators.
Not only do I not repent of any of this, I am proud of it…. I subscribe to every word that I have spoken and every word of which I have been accused by this court. I blame myself for only one thing: that over the years of my political activity, I have not managed to convince enough of my compatriots and enough politicians in the democratic countries of the danger that the current regime in the Kremlin poses for Russia and for the world. Today this is obvious to everyone, but at a terrible price — the price of war.
I have made a couple small adjustments to the above text, so it will better reflect the Russian original (which is available here).
Later in the statement, Kara-Murza expresses his confidence that Russian views of the war and the Putin regime will shift over time:
I… know that the day will come when the darkness over our country will dissipate. When black will be called black and white will be called white; when at the official level it will be recognized that two times two is still four; when a war will be called a war, and a usurper a usurper; and when those who kindled and unleashed this war, rather than those who tried to stop it, will be recognized as criminals.
This day will come as inevitably as spring follows even the coldest winter. And then our society will open its eyes and be horrified by what terrible crimes were committed on its behalf. From this realization, from this reflection, the long, difficult but vital path toward the recovery and restoration of Russia, its return to the community of civilized countries, will begin.
I wish I could be as confident of this as Kara-Murza. But it's worth noting that similar transformations have happened in a variety of nations around the world. Today, most Germans, Italians, and Japanese recognize the evil nature of the regimes that ruled those countries in the 1930s and 40s. In the United States, most Americans have come to recognize the historic evils of slavery, segregation, and the oppression of Native Americans. It is entirely possible that a similar transition will occur in Russia in the future. Those who believe that Russians are inherently brutal authoritarians incapable of change should recall the long history of similar statements about Germans and Japanese, among others.
As I explained in a post on the one-year anniversary of the current war, such transformations are often facilitated by defeat in war. As the examples of the Nazis, the Confederates, and others show, defeat often helps discredit the ideology of the defeated regime. Putin's imperialist nationalism is more likely to be discredited in the eyes of Russians if it suffers a decisive defeat in Ukraine. That provides an additional reason to push for such an outcome.
Kara-Murza's bravery, like that of Ilya Yashin, sentenced to an 8.5 year term in December, also raises the issue of the proper Western attitude towards Russians at the present time. In my February post about Yashin [who is no relation of mine, the name "Ilya" is a common one], I explained why both moral and practical considerations should lead us to reject theories of collective guilt and to open our doors to Russian migrants fleeing Putin's regime:
As Yashin suggests [in a statement he wrote from prison], ascriptions of collective guilt are wrong in themselves—conflating the innocent with the guilty. In addition, they play into the hands of the regime's propaganda by lending credibility to its claims that the West is hostile to Russians, as such….
First, I wonder how many of those who fault Russians for not protesting enough, would themselves be willing to do so if they were in Russia right now, and speaking out meant risking a lengthy prison sentence, like the one Yashin got? We should be wary of imposing standards on others that we would not live up to ourselves, if we were in their place.
Second, as I have argued time and again from the beginning of the war, both moral and pragmatic considerations counsel in favor of opening our doors to Russians fleeing the regime, just as we—to a large extent—have done for Ukrainian refugees (I cannot easily be accused of neglecting the cause of the latter)…. Thus, more would be freed from oppression, and the "brain drain" and loss of manpower imposed on Putin's regime would be larger. To the extent that theories of collective guilt are used to justify barring Russian migrants, they are having a deeply pernicious effect.
Finally, projecting a less negative attitude towards the Russian people is in the long-term interest of both Ukraine and the West. Military action may enable Ukraine to expel Russian troops from its territory and end the immediate threat of conquest. But the long-term threat posed by Russia will only dissipate if Putin's authoritarian nationalist regime is replaced by a much more liberal one that abjures oppression and conquest….
None of this means Putin alone bears the sole blame for the war and its evils. Obviously, he has many collaborators, including some who are responsible for horrific atrocities. Those people deserve condemnation and—where possible—punishment. But we should distinguish between them and the population, at large. Indeed, punishment for war crimes is another goal that—most likely—can only be achieved through a liberalization of Russia.
I also addressed issues of collective guilt here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This just shows the superiority of our system. Rather than pass laws against legitimate political activity, prosecutors comb through decades of tax returns and business records of political targets to find anything, and come up with creative strategies to get around the statute of limitations to persecute their political foes.
Doesn't hating your country this much ever get tiring?
The regime is not “his country”, it’s yours.
I hate your country too.
Your betters no longer give a shit what you think. All we want is your continuing compliance, and we will have it. Until replacement.
You -- like this blog's operators, and other right-wing culture war casualties -- get to whine and whimper, mutter and sputter, rail and flail about all of this damned progress as much as you like, of course.
Look at the next thread about your COVID "vaccine" demands being ashcanned and tell me again about how you're winning . And, do you think Roe is coming back soon?
You figure the bigoted evangelicals and disaffected Opus Dei kooks are going to make a big comeback in modern America? Religion and racism will become more — rather than less — popular? Half-educated, rural incels are about to flex political muscle? Backwater communities will rebound, churches and religious schools will reopen, educated young people will register as Republicans, and QAnon will be vindicated?
I figure the kooky and incompetent (D)s are engaged in a major crash and burn and that will have consequences.
How does it feel knowing you'll be one of the 1st against the wall when it all finally comes to a boil?
I love my country, it's the asshats that are always getting elected that I hate.
Some day we will have an AI run government that is trained on the constitution as it's prime directive and it will "wash all this scum off the streets."
Kazinski : “I love my country, it’s the asshats that are always getting elected that I hate.”
Do you really believe that? I recently went on a 160mi hiking trip with someone as far-Left as you are Right and I’m sure he would claim “I love my country” too. But from what I could see, that affection was spread pretty thin. Because he hates politicians on his side, and hates politicians on the other side, and hates the business world, and hates the media, and hates popular entertainment, and hates the universities, and hates all the people so oblivious they don’t hate like him.
Of course he’s got his ideal pols, but doesn’t seem to handle non-ideal political outcomes well at all – they tend to bring out the tin-foil hat side of his personality. I’m betting you guys would get along swimmingly if you could rant together in the abstract without any mention of tribe.
Kind of funny, my brother is at least as far left as I am right, and we argue all the time.
I wish I could say I got all the brains but he’s pretty smart too, just a lot of blind spots. By our high school IQ we are both in the top 5%, but it certainly doesn’t mean we see things the same.
He thinks the oligarchy is screwing over the working class but the irony is he never graduated college, he and his wife worked blue collar jobs and own a million dollar house in the country in one of the richest most desirable counties in the country.
He doesn’t see his success as showing how wide open our country is to the working class.
But my entire family is pretty left wing and I’m quite close to them all, and yes we argue about politics frequently, and they are generally prepared to lose the argument.
I don't live in anything like an idealogical bubble.
Russia is a proud country too. Someday you and Putin and the rest of your kind will be gone.
What does Russia have to be proud of?
Pravda. 🙂
Da, eta pravda.
I don't hate the country, just the government. They are not synonymous, and it isn't just a single party that is the target of my ire.
Anti-government cranks from the depleted backwaters are among my favorite culture war casualties. Are you perceptive enough to recognize that losing all of the smart, ambitious, decent young people from your community has consequences?
Kazinski : "This just shows the superiority of our system. Rather than pass laws against legitimate political activity...."
Pretty ironic little speech for a right-type to make today! You wonder if Kazinski somehow missed DeSantis in full rant-mode, bragging about all his new laws to punish Disney for exercising its First Amendment rights.
Disney has no First Amendment right to retain the benefits of previous corrupt dealings.
Remember that point when you are begging the culture war’s winners to be gracious and lenient toward the losers.
Nah, I won’t beg on your behalf. I don't like you much and am anyway not soft-hearted.
Did they not teach Fletcher v. Peck in the law school you didn't go to?
I'm quite sure he didn't miss it.
Just like he's ranting against the people who enforce the law, and not those who broke it.
Boo boo for giant multi-national corporations losing a few of their special privileges
I noticed that people who sabotaged the Russian war effort were being threatened with up to five years in prison. Under U.S. law that would be terrorism with a guidelines sentence around 30 years.
What would compel you to comment this on a post about a guy who got 18 years for treason? Ivan Safronov was sentenced to 24, adjusted down to 22. A Siberian (the government has released almost no information about him or her, only that they had been convicted before) was sentenced to 12. Nobody knows their name or how many others are in the same obscured situation. The maximum time after conviction is 20 years for each, not five.
This post is about a guy who got a harsh sentence for speaking out. In America the guy who speaks out against a foreign war gets nothing, and the guy who uses force to resist it can be sentenced under the terrorism sentencing guidelines. In Russia the guy who speaks out against a war gets a harsher sentence than the guy who does something about it.
"Japanese recognize the evil nature of the regime"
I do not believe this is true beyond a basic "war is bad" stance. Japanese atrocities are barely taught, including forced labor, suicides, experimentation, inhumane treatment, forced prostitution, and massacres. The general idea in Japanese society is that it was a normal war and all war is bad, not that the Japanese government was incredibly evil.
Yeah, the Japanese see nothing to repent for regarding their conduct in the 30's and 40's. Or the thirty years preceding that to be honest.
And as for the Italians, as best I can tell, most Germans and Italians recognize the evil nature of the regime that ruled the former country in the 1930s and 40s.
I once sat in on a Japanese high school history class going over the Holocaust. It was certainly not to the level I was used to in the US. History is not a favored subject in Japan unless it’s cool feudal Japanese history. Germans and Italians did very well reconciling with their past, though I hear historical proficiency in the era is declining, due more to distance than anything else.
"open our doors to Russian migrants"
I'm sure as Mr. Kara-Murza shivers in a Siberian prison, he can take comfort that his situation can be used to, once again, argue for open borders.
When all you have is a hammer....
When all you have is bigotry, and backwardness, and a studied avoidance of most of the day's pressing issues . . . that's the Volokh Conspiracy and its fans!
Hey, Somin, learn to use "[Load More]".
I don't read your crap and it's unnecessary for you to require us to do so much scrolling to get to more desirable content.
Yet you feel the need to make the rest of us read your crap...
Learn to use the scroll wheel and stop whining. Or start your own blog.
I know how to use my scroll wheel, but there's no reason for me to have to put excessive wear on it. If Somin doesn't like my rebukes he can fix the error of his ways.
Yes; you don't read much of anything, which explains why all of your comments are so dumb.
He was pretty engaged last week, but has backslid.
Back to the mute for him for a bit.
“a much more liberal [Russian regime] that abjures oppression and conquest”
Oh, that’s all? I thought we were going to get some formula for endless war.
If the war continues until Russia gets such a liberal, non-oppressive, and non-expansionist regime, then I’m sure the boys will all be home by Christmas.
Meanwhile, we should all rejoice at the blossoming of liberal, non-oppressive governments throughout the Middle East after the American wars in the region.
The Margrave of Azilia : "...the boys will all be home by Christmas..."
The only "boys" fighting the Russians are Ukrainians. I notice when extremists of the far-Right or far-Left use the war for their anti-USA rants, they generally write the Ukrainians out of the picture altogether. You'd never guess we're only giving them the means to fight for their country. They're the ones dying in battle for a future as a normal European state - not the vassal of a mafia-style thug regime.
"The only 'boys' fighting the Russians are Ukrainians."
I guess you missed the revelations in the Jack Teixeira leaks abut US troops in Ukraine. WHO is operating those HIMARS, again? Ukrainians or "contractors"?
All 16 of them?
We have sent them only 16 HIMARS?
Who do you think is operating them?
The leak you referred to said there were only 14 US troops in the entire country (and did not mention they were fighting anyone).
You believe it, but then suggest that it is actually false...
“anti-USA rants”
The prowar Ukraine playbook is similar to the Iraq playbook – anyone who is against the war is called an anti-American.
As for the chest-thumping patriots who promote American involvement in this laterst war – what would you think of someone who professed love for his wife but beat her constantly? And what would you think of someone who professed his love for his country but got her involved in escalating wars with nuclear-armed opponents, spending money the country doesn’t have, and implanting “advisors” into the war zone?
Everyone who is anti-war is pro-Ukraine - Putin started the war. Putin is the hawk here.
Everyone who is anti-war is pro-Kuwait. Saddam started the war. Saddam is the hawk here.
Everyone who is anti-war is pro-South Vietnam. The Communists started the war. The Communists are the hawks here.
Well they’re not pro fucking Saddam, are they? On the other hand, the US didn’t just provide support, did they?
The Communists were the hawks. The US fucked up massively by getting involved. But they US hawks really, really wanted to.
So far, both those examples show why Biden’s approach in this case is the better, so far. But yeah all wars are exactly the same. A lot of things have to be exactly the same for you guys, don't they?
Can someone translate this from outraged sputtering into English?
By your reasoning (loosely so called), the “US hawks” in Vietnam were the *real* antiwar people.
Maybe there’s something fishy about a war in Ukraine which has to be defended with such verbal shifts of meaning.
That's not my reasoning, of course. By 'verbal shifts' I take it to mean the troubling and difficult concept that different wars are different? It isn't as if it's that difficult to work out what anti-war people thought during any given war. Anti-war people oppose the invasion of Ukraine by Putin. Is that really so difficult to grasp?
I know you don't believe the prowar side in Vietnam was *really* antiwar, but I don't know how you justify that position by your own logic.
That’s because you’re pretending to be too stupid to understand my logic. But I'll tell you what: if anything equivalent to the Gulf Of Tonkin incident occurs, I'll probably take a different stance.
Call it stupidity if you prefer, but I don't see how it's antiwar to support Ukraine but not South Vietnam or Kuwait.
“Call it stupidity if you prefer, but I don’t see how it’s antiwar to support Ukraine but not South Vietnam or Kuwait.”
First, it was antiwar to support Kuwait who was the victim of war. The Gulf War was a short successful war to expel an invader which is what happened quickly.
You seem to be confusing the Gulf War with the Iraq War, the latter of which was a preemptive war started by the U.S. and having essentially nothing to do with protecting Kuwait (rather it was ostensibly to protect the U.S. from Saddam’s supposedly inevitable use of weapons of mass destruction). Not understanding that is, frankly, stupid.
Second, I will call you stupid for not seeing how it’s antiwar to support Ukraine but not antiwar to “support South Vietnam.”
The Vietnam War started as an independence movement against French colonial rule. The independence movement defeated the French and two sides were created and meant to be temporary with later reunification of Vietnam, which the U.S. opposed and actively prevented. Lots more, but basically we contributed to starting a civil war and, regardless of that culpability, we then intervened in a civil war. We weren’t protecting one independent country from another independent country. A person may or may not think it is ever wise to get involved in picking sides in someone else’s civil war, but it is analytically, logically, and morally distinct from supporting an independent, sovereign country from invasion by another.
In addition, the Vietnam War involved direct contribution of U.S. troops rather than providing weapons to Ukraine to defend themselves from an invader.
Comparing Vietnam to Ukraine is a stupid analogy.
You seem to draw hard-and-fast distinctions between quasi-wars, or as I call them “just the tip” wars, and complete military engagement. This is stupid. War is war.
How can we tell that just-the-tip wars are still wars? Because if some other country engaged in siege warfare agains the U. S., or provided advisors and military assistance to forces fighting the U. S., we’d know it was an act of war.
Between “Gulf War I” and “Gulf War II” there was an interval of U. S. siege warfare against Iraq. Siege warfare is warfare, or what exactly would you call “sanctions enforced by military force”? This isn’t a case of a good war, followed by a peace, followed by a bad war – it was a continuum.
Your Vietnamese argument proves too much, because if South Vietnam wasn’t fully sovereign with the rights of a state, neither was North Vietnam, hence North Vietnam was all the more the aggressor in going into territory to which it had no right (except for the expectation that it would *totally* have won the free-and-fair elections in 1954 which the evil U. S. prevented). To be a civil war, there'd have to be a revolt against the established government of the whole country, but it was one supposedly provisional regime in the north invading a provisional regime in the south.
We’re talking about the linguistic games by which supporting one side in a war is the “antiwar” position. The point of the game is to avoid debate as to whether it's in that national intereste to intervene on one side. But if the game works in Ukraine, it should work with Iraq and Vietnam – and for that matter with Korea, and of course World War One (remember plucky little Belgium, victim of aggression).
You do understand the first Gulf War was in response to armed aggression and ended with the sovereignty of the invaded country intact, while the second Iraq War was initiated by the United States as a "preemptive" war which is a stupid doctrine?
Conflating the two is stupid.
In the Gulf War, the U.S. did effectively protect Kuwait from an invader. In the Iraq War, the U.S. unsuccessfully started a stupid war with the unrealistic goal of getting flowers thrown at them from members of a newly functioning democracy.
I don’t recall the supporters of “Gulf War I” calling themselves “antiwar,” that sort of stupidity seems to be the last resort of those who can’t support, on their own merits, U. S. acts of war in Ukraine.
Wait, I just noticed in your extensive remarks where you said
“First, it was antiwar to support Kuwait who [sic] was the victim of war.”
So maybe *today* the supporters of Gulf War I are calling themselves antiwar.
Which would make the *opponents* of Gulf War I…prowar.
Fun Orwellian rhetoric from the hawks.
[comment relocated]
What consistently amuses me the most; as bad as people say Russia is and it has definitely gotten very authoritarian in many ways very quickly it still is nowhere near as bad as China has been for quite awhile. If he was in China there would be no heroic speeches of defiance. (At least not any that get out to the public). He would just simply disappear…either permanently or for awhile and then pop back up out of nowhere chastened and completely repentant. That should scare people a lot more than a regime where people can still make defiant speeches in court. And yet people have simply accepted this for years. While some are waking up to China a bit now theres still a lot of shrugging in its direction from the same people all aboard the antiRussia train.
Putin could learn a thing or two from Xi.
Very true...
AmosArch : "...it still is nowhere near as bad as China has been for quite awhile..."
True for the Uyghurs alone. But I think people tend to look at the European world differently than Asia. I'm not saying that's right, but I believe the phenomena exists.
Anybody know what happened to the guy who sat in Nancy Pelosi's chair?
He was convicted for actual crimes he committed, particularly including obstruction of Congress for his participation in a violent attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after a free and fair election.
I see what you did there. You’re cleverly demonstrating how the U.S. doesn’t penalize free speech, but that doesn’t mean we have to coddle actual insurrectionists trying to violently overthrow a democratically elected government. Good point. We are much better and freer than either Russia or China.
"Those who believe that Russians are inherently brutal authoritarians incapable of change should recall the long history of similar statements about Germans and Japanese, among others."
As we approach the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, the Germans are still trying to dominate Europe. Some things never change.
Without cheap Russian gas they're tubed.
"Those who believe that Russians are inherently brutal authoritarians incapable of change should recall the long history of similar statements about Germans and Japanese"
Both the Germans and Japanese were subjected to some pretty heavy-handed American indoctrination. Initially, it essentially was "you will be shot unless you agree with the Americans" -- and even then, they might shoot you anyway,
I'm not saying it was wrong to do this, nor that it wasn't necessary, only that this is what happened. We imposed our values on those cultures at the point of a gun, and Clinton should have done that in Russia....
Two Points :
1. The "heavy-handed American indoctrination" was of little effect compared to the total destruction brought by the Nazi's ruinous war. Germany's cities were in rubble and a generation of their men were uselessly dead. Whatya bet that made more of an impression than any Yankee lecture, gun or not?
2. "Clinton should have done that in Russia" ?!? Done what? How? I think your drifting off into unhinged fantasy here. It would be entertaining to see you attempt to explain this...
There was a small window of opportunity right after the USSR collapsed. We should have done far more to stave off their collapse into oligarchy and corruption that drove the rise of Putin.
Currentsitguy : "We should have done far more to stave off their collapse into oligarchy and corruption that drove the rise of Putin"
Far enough, but what? Also: What did we do differently with Russia as opposed to any other country from the old Soviet sphere? Was there a mistake we made with them that wasn't made with the Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, or Latvians?
Let me preface this by saying my college background is Soviet and Eastern European Studies and that I was married to a Russian refugee and deeply integrated in the expat community for 19 years, so I speak with some level of experience. Not blowing my own horn, just saying where I come from.
It is difficult to understand Russians without understanding Russian history and culture. The difference between then and the other countries you mentioned is Eastern Orthodox Christianity, as opposed to Western Catholicism.
There is a very deep level of fatalism ingrained into the culture and religion that teaches the world is evil, it is your religious obligation to accept your rulers whom to some extent still are God’s representatives on Earth, acquiesce to authority, and don’t involve yourself in things that aren’t your business. You reward awaits you in Heaven.
What this results in is a population largely accepting of corruption, and desirous of a “Strong Leader”. It is also why the Russian people are conditioned from even before the USSR to conduct much of their economy on the underground black market.
I work at a store and carry home half the stock? Why not? Doesn’t everyone?
So long as there is someone in the Kremlin who is strong enough to stick it to those shifty Westerners who want to take us for all we’re worth it’s all good. That’s the way the world works.
The point is at the end of the Cold War we thought a market economy and mass consumerism would naturally lead to a peaceful rule of law government. That, however only is true for a nation with a historical legacy of Western thought, culture, and tradition behind them, or one that had it imposed on them like we did with Japan. Remember MacArthur was the de facto Emperor of Japan for almost a decade.
The other countries you mentioned are largely Catholic and were well integrated into Europe before WW2. They also only were under the Communist thumb for about 40 years. People still remembered how it was before.
Considering that we (supposedly) elected Joe "the big guy" Biden...
I know where you are headed and it disgusts me too, but trust me, it’s different.
I think you are overstating the role of Eastern Orthodoxism, after all there have been much better outcomes in Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Montenegro, and even Serbia (at least since 2000) than in Russia.
I think it's mainly just Russia's historical isolation from Europe and the rest of the world.
Plus the resentment of losing the cold war, which is much more like Germany's defeat in WWI where they weren't beaten on the field of battle, just their economy collapsed and they had to cry uncle.
And you know what happened in Germany after they regained their strength 20 years later.
Now we are 30 years on from the end of the cold war, and thank God Russia hasn't grown at the same rate as China or things would really be in the shitter.
Combine what I said above with a history of invasion going back to at least Napoleon and what you get is an almost pathological paranoia and a kneejerk need to build a defensive buffer zone of puppet states to hide behind.
Yes, we could have provided more structural an financial support; that is the neoliberal consensus and I agree with it.
But Ed is comparing that to the post-WW2 treatment of occupied Germany and Japan, which is just nonsense.
That's the exact point Perot was making at the time. One of the reasons I voted for the goofy bastard
On what basis could Clinton have put an occupation force into Russia?
And if there were such a basis - there was not - exactly how big do you think that force would have needed to be to set up a western style democracy in Russia?
The "Peace Dividend" aid that flooded in could have been contingent upon not all being funneled into the hands of the Oligarchs and organized crime.
Yeah well we did try putting a Western style democracy in both Iraq and Afghanistan with enough troops.
But it did work in Japan and Korea so it's not impossible.
"Imperial Life in the Emerald City" makes the case that we came close in Iraq.
Dunno if nation-building is a good idea or worth the risk as a war goal, but I'm not sure I buy the current wisdom that it's impossible absent a totally defeated foe.
Wonder if U.S. Opposition Leader Donald Trump will make a Powerful Final Statement to the Court before getting locked up?
I assume you’re referring to “Ricky Vaughn”— he hasn’t been sentenced yet