Historical consequence

Cases about the rehabilitation of Nazism look grotesque even against the background of other “political” ones. Those who really justify the atrocities of the Nazis are not in a hurry to touch

In St. Petersburg there is another case on charges of rehabilitation of Nazism (Article 354.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), with very specific wording.

But despite all the absurdity of the charges, which is still impossible to laugh at - the accused have been in pre-trial detention for a year now, they make us remember and think about how this article of the Criminal Code is applied - and, including in recent years.

The press service of the St. Petersburg courts reported that the St. Petersburg City Court registered a criminal case against Alena Vasilyeva and Olga Bryntseva, accused of committing crimes under Part 4 of Art. 354.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, art. 329 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Then you need to quote.

“The investigation established that Bryntseva and Vasilyeva, no later than 22:47 minutes on May 27, 2025, entered into a preliminary criminal conspiracy aimed at desecrating the State Emblem of the Russian Federation, as well as at the public rehabilitation of Nazism, desecration of symbols of Russia’s military glory and insulting the memory of the defenders of the Fatherland.

Thus, Vasilyeva and Bryntseva, while intoxicated at the pavilion located near the Alexander Nevsky Square metro station, jointly produced and distributed to an unlimited circle of people in open sources on the Internet a video recording in which Vasilyeva relieved herself on her passport of a citizen of the Russian Federation, which depicts the State Emblem of the Russian Federation, and ran this passport along her groin area, while accompanying her actions with crude obscene language, and Bryntseva, being the administrator of a channel in a messenger on the Internet information and telecommunications network and having practical skills and experience in filming the “trash content” genre, videotaped Vasilyeva’s actions on her mobile phone and distributed this video to an unlimited circle of people on the Internet information and telecommunications network.

Vasilyeva also approached with her pants down to the poster placed on the above pavilion, which depicts the St. George Ribbon, the photograph “Combat” and the image of the monument “The Motherland is Calling!”, which are one of the key symbols of Victory in the Great Patriotic War, and also contains information “Remember 1945–2025”, “80 Victory” related to the memory of the defense Fatherland, and, leaning on the above-mentioned poster, demonstrated her bare buttocks to the camera of the above-mentioned cell phone, which was in Bryntseva’s possession, while accompanying her actions with coarse obscene language, and Bryntseva at the same time expressed herself in coarse obscene language, repeatedly cynically touching Vasilyeva’s bare buttocks. After the criminal acts were committed, this video was distributed to an unlimited number of people in the above channel located on the Internet information and telecommunications network.

There is no doubt that the two girls, being heavily drunk, behaved disgracefully. But qualifications raise questions.

Article 329 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on desecration of the state emblem or flag, although a stretch, can somehow be applied.

But what does Article 354.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation have to do with it?

Rehabilitation of Nazism while intoxicated in the form of showing your bare ass and “cynically touching” it?

The disposition of part 4 of this article, which the accused are charged with, speaks of “the dissemination of information expressing obvious disrespect for society ( emphasized hereinafter ) about the days of military glory and memorable dates of Russia related to the defense of the Fatherland, as well as the desecration of symbols of the military glory of Russia, insulting the memory of the defenders of the Fatherland or victims of the genocide of the Soviet people, or humiliating the honor and dignity of a veteran of the Great Patriotic War.”

Who at one time came up with the idea of ​​declaring all this one of the forms of “rehabilitation of Nazism” is a separate question. But even this in this case seems doubtful.

The accused did not disseminate any “information”. The honor and dignity of veterans were not humiliated.

Is it really possible to demonstrate your, as the judicial press service gracefully reports, “bare buttocks” against the backdrop of a poster depicting the St. George’s Ribbon and the “Motherland Calls” monument?

The prosecution, apparently, believes exactly this, but is the law being interpreted too loosely? In fact, we are talking about nothing more than petty hooliganism, which is given a completely different coloring - emphatically political. Using loud language about the “rehabilitation of Nazism”...

This case, as we know, is far from unique.

Nazism is disgusting - as is its rehabilitation. But why pass off as her something that has nothing to do with her? And what has, for example, the quoting of apologists of fascism by court philosophers, on the contrary, should not be given away?

A number of cases under the article on the “rehabilitation of Nazism” were initiated when people of different ages tried to fry something on the Eternal Flame. A normal person is unlikely to come up with such a thought - but to bring either blatant imbecility, or the lack of any ethical framework and ideas about decency under a criminal article? Again, the maximum that this can amount to is hooliganism.

In 2021, a 40-year-old homeless resident of Miass was accused of “rehabilitating Nazism,” who accidentally damaged plastic wreaths while drying socks and warming himself by the Eternal Flame. Moreover, at first the police opened a case under Article 214 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Vandalism”), but the head of the Investigative Committee, Alexander Bastrykin, became interested in the story - and the case was removed from the internal affairs bodies and transferred to the Investigative Committee, where it was reclassified as “rehabilitation of Nazism.”

In 2024, in Volgograd, a woman was accused of “rehabilitating Nazism” (and sentenced to 10 months of forced labor) for appearing on video to tickle the breasts of the “Motherland” monument (the video was filmed in this perspective). The prosecutor's office regarded this as “cynical actions that disregard the norms of morality and morality.” There may be complaints about the morality of an action - but where is the “rehabilitation of Nazism” here?

Among other situations where they saw the “rehabilitation of Nazism” is the story of student Matvey Yuferev, who drunkenly urinated on a portrait of a Great Patriotic War veteran. Moreover, the investigation was completed in a record three days, and five investigators worked on the case even on weekends, who directly told the student’s lawyer that this was a political case and that “these are times like these.” Again, an ugly act - but is there any “rehabilitation of Nazism” involved here?

The first case under the article on “rehabilitation of Nazism” was opened in Astrakhan in 2015 against a teenager who published on his social network page an archival photograph of German soldiers from the Second World War with a caption.

Which, according to the Investigative Committee, “gave a positive assessment of the events that occurred on September 1, 1939, namely the invasion of German troops into the territory of Poland, recognized as a crime by the International Military Tribunal.” As a result, taking into account the admission of guilt and repentance, the case ended with a fine of 30 thousand rubles.

In 2017, a criminal case under the article on “rehabilitation of Nazism” was opened against Kaluga resident Ivan Lyubshin, who posted footage of the famous parade in Brest in 1939 on his social network. The accused categorically denied that he was trying to incite hatred or rehabilitate Nazism, but still received a fine of 400 thousand rubles.

They are still arguing about what this parade was (pro-government historians claim that there was no parade at all, but only “an organized withdrawal of German troops under the supervision of Soviet representatives”), but photographs of the German general Heinz Guderian and the Soviet brigade commander Semyon Krivoshein on the podium cannot be erased from history.

The “case of Marina Zheleznyakova,” the deputy chairman of the Yabloko branch in Primorye, who was accused of “rehabilitating Nazism” for assessing the activities of the USSR during the Second World War, was also connected with the events of the same period.

The telegram post was posted in 2021, a criminal case was opened in 2024 and brought to trial in 2025. Seeing “rehabilitation” in the phrase “communist totalitarian regime.”

“Why am I being judged? For an opinion, for a moral, historical assessment of the regime that existed in our country in the past. I wrote this post with the sole intention of ensuring that something like this never happens again. And I am amazed at the ease with which the prosecution experts equate “between the communist totalitarian regime and the USSR - without any justification.” The purpose of such an examination is one - to bring the post under the wording of the article of the Criminal Code,” Zheleznyakova said at the trial.

And she recalled that in not a single phrase did she approve of the crimes established by the verdict of the International Military Tribunal, but only expressed her civic position in the form of an assessment of historical facts that until recently could be found in school textbooks.

But nevertheless she received a huge fine of 2 million rubles.

Another criminal case for similar reasons was initiated in 2024 against St. Petersburg local historian Dmitry Vitushkin, who “disseminated deliberately false information about the activities of the USSR during the Second World War.”

Vitushkin’s post on the Internet was dedicated, among other things, to the “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.” Which (no matter what pro-government historians and propagandists say on this topic today) was officially condemned by a resolution of the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR on December 24, 1989.

The resolution of the congress “On the political and legal assessment of the Soviet-German non-aggression treaty of 1939” states, in particular:

“Both at the conclusion of the treaty and during the process of its ratification, the fact was hidden that simultaneously with the treaty a “secret additional protocol” was signed, which demarcated the “spheres of interest” of the contracting parties from the Baltic to the Black Sea, from Finland to Bessarabia. The originals of the protocol have not been found either in Soviet or foreign archives. However, graphological, phototechnical and lexical examinations of copies, maps and other documents for compliance of subsequent events with the contents of the protocol confirm the fact of its signing and existence.”

“The Congress states that the protocol of August 23, 1939 and other secret protocols signed with Germany in 1939–1941, both in their method of drafting and in content, were a departure from the Leninist principles of Soviet foreign policy. The delimitation of the “spheres of interest” of the USSR and Germany and other actions taken in them were, from a legal point of view, in conflict with the sovereignty and independence of a number of third countries. The Congress notes that at that time the USSR's relations with Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were regulated by a system of treaties. According to the peace treaties of 1920 and the non-aggression treaties concluded in 1926-1933, their participants pledged to mutually respect in all circumstances the sovereignty and territorial integrity and inviolability of each other. The Soviet Union had similar obligations to Poland and Finland.”

“The Congress states that negotiations with Germany on secret protocols were conducted by Stalin and Molotov in secret from the Soviet people, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the entire party, the Supreme Council and the Government of the USSR; these protocols were removed from the ratification procedures. Thus, the decision to sign them was in essence and in form an act of personal power and in no way reflected the will of the Soviet people, who are not responsible for this conspiracy.”

“The Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR condemns the signing of the “secret additional protocol” of August 23, 1939 and other secret agreements with Germany. The Congress recognizes the secret protocols as legally untenable and invalid from the moment of their signing. The protocols did not create a new legal basis for the relations of the Soviet Union with third countries, but were used by Stalin and his entourage to present ultimatums and forceful pressure on other states in violation of the legal obligations undertaken to them.”...

Nevertheless, Vitushkin was found guilty and received a sentence - although, given the time he spent in a pre-trial detention center, he ended up spending only a day in the colony. But the fact remains: for what was recently freely written about in books and even in textbooks, now, if the “authorities” want it, you can get a fine, or even a prison sentence.

Why is everything described happening and, most likely, will continue?

Yes, because it seems that you can’t really earn awards and titles by exposing petty hooliganism, but you can quite easily get them for reporting on the punishment of those who “rehabilitated Nazism.” Showing that they tirelessly fight against Nazism on the internal “front” and understand the current situation. Even if none of what they were “brought for” had anything to do with the “rehabilitation of Nazism”, it received that name and was then legalized in court...

But in the case where the “rehabilitation of Nazism” was completely obvious, no punishment followed.

We are talking about a criminal case that was initiated in St. Petersburg in March 2021 against Professor Valery Matveev.

At an online seminar for teachers in the Leningrad region on conducting lessons in schools in memory of the victims of the Holocaust and soldiers of the Red Army, Matveev said that the mass extermination of Jews during World War II “did not happen” and called the Holocaust “a myth and an invention of the Zionists.” He also denied that the Germans had ovens for burning people and explained that gas chambers were allegedly used for “disinfection.”

Seeing such a 100% denial of “the facts established by the verdict of the International Military Tribunal for the trial and punishment of the main war criminals,” the prosecutor’s office opened a criminal case. And she did the right thing.

However, Matveev was not sent to a pre-trial detention center, and two years later the case was completely dropped “due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution.”

Mikhail Akhmatsky

Meanwhile, in Chelyabinsk at the end of May, local communists held the Solidarity Forum of the III International Anti-Fascist Forum, where they declared that they expected victory over world Jewry, which rules the world. That modern global conflicts, including the situation in Ukraine and Iran, are provoked by “Zionists, who are mostly capitalists” and “manage the capital of the planet.” And also, according to the forum participants, “in our country, in the Federation Council, the State Duma, and even the president’s assistants in the government, you name it, there are Jews... That is, Zionism rules in our country.”

Nothing is known about any reaction to these speeches, which would have sounded quite organically in Nazi Germany.