From the recent arrest of Fergie Chambers to the FBI’s investigation into Haz Al-Din, the Chairman of the American Communist Party, there is no question the United States is experiencing a troubling resurgence of mid-20th-century Red Scare and McCarthyist rhetoric and policies. Various powerful American leaders like Senator Marco Rubio and the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, have openly stated that communism represents the greatest threat to America, which brings back Cold War anxieties during a time that ostensibly supports “democratic diversity” and freedom of speech. The FBI has been applying the label of domestic terrorist to leftists of all kinds, including members of DSA and other moderate democratic socialist movements. This classification prompts serious alarm regarding civil liberties and the political manipulation of national security institutions. These are McCarthyist policies combined with post 9/11 national security laws that have been broadly applied since the day they were introduced. The assertions against leftists frequently depend on fragile proof and sweeping statements that seek to obscure the difference between lawful protest and criminal behavior. We are seeing the implementation of travel restrictions on people who hold leftist political beliefs and fear mongering against individuals like Zohran Mamdani who are barely left of the official Democratic Party. The activation of NSPM-7 (National Security Presidential Memorandum 7) is a perfect example of how executive directives are used to justify government oppression of leftists by labeling us as domestic terrorists. This is similar to what we saw happen to the Muslim community in the aftermath of 9/11, and sometimes still today. This new Red Scare begs the question of whether it’s intended to function as a deliberate political move to exploit hidden fears for partisan advantage or if it represents a deeper deterioration of America, being masked with illegitimate national security concerns. The United States must closely examine how its political language merges with government policies to support this new Red Scare that threatens both civil liberties and reasonable free speech.

Rhetoric is where this all begins. Right-wing media has been sounding the alarm on communism forever, but now it has jumped to the White House and US government structures themselves. The current political conversation in America shows a disturbing paranoia justified by the need to fight a supposedly reemerging communist threat. The label of communism as “America’s biggest threat” is an exaggerated claim that misrepresents international dynamics and provides an excellent domestic fear outlet for the Trump administration. The rhetoric in question operates predominantly as a strategic mechanism developed to delegitimize leftist ideologies of all kinds. The claims made by the Trump administration are a political tactic that attempts to sow fear by portraying an existential threat to the country that most Americans recognize only through this fabricated storyline about communism. Along with this escalation of rhetoric, there is a concerning pattern among federal law enforcement, especially the FBI, which has shown an increasing tendency to label left-wing activists and groups as domestic terrorists even lacking concrete evidence. This tactic looks exactly like past abuses during McCarthyism, where dissent was conflated with hatred of the country and its people. The labels are broadly applied, and there is no general set of rules. This means liberals in the DSA can be targeted as well as “antifa members,” which makes no sense, as there is no organized antifa movement that Americans can join or sign up for. Furthermore, every American should be anti fascist, so the classification is meaningless.

We are now at the point where authorities are trying to implement travel restrictions against individuals, such as myself, who are linked to leftist organizations under the invocation of NSPM-7, which presents itself as a national security measure yet functions as a tool to restrict movement according to political association or perceived ideological threat. These acts of governmental intrusion require legal examination as they are obvious intrusions into basic civil liberties, but the Trump administration openly does not care about the legality. Generally speaking, the US has historically only used the law as a way to excuse unconstitutional techniques, but in the Trump administration’s case, they aren’t even waiting for the excuse of legality.

The initiatives launched by the US government reach beyond mere surveillance and rhetorical measures and include the mentioned limitations on freedom of movement. The use of this tactic mirrors numerous historical examples in which the government weaponized mobility restrictions against supposed subversives. This opens the important question of due process and constitutional safeguards within contemporary American society. At this point, do they even exist at all? For people associated with leftist organizations, the answer appears to be no. Harassment by government agents appears to now be the minimum, while at maximum people are being charged with serious crimes and accused of domestic terrorism.

It must be mentioned that leftists are being targeted while at the same time far-right extremism remains largely unchecked and on the rise, leading to questions about intentional bias. Doesn’t this specific targeting serve as evidence of government biases that aim to suppress opposition against the entrenched power systems? Government officials sustain repressive cycles by resurrecting communist fears and using state mechanisms to monitor thought and association. Marx famously claimed that a spectre was haunting Europe; it seems now it is haunting America. While claims of domestic terrorism are completely unfounded, the elite are correct to fear leftist movements removing them from power. Socialist and communist groups of all forms are rapidly growing in America. American capitalism is at risk, but not from domestic terrorist threats or antifa protesters. It’s at risk because it has denied people the decency of a stable life, and people are rightfully angry. For now, confidence in groups like the DSA, I find to be totally misplaced. That being said, it is a possible starting point for some on education about socialism. Through real communist parties, such as the American Communist Party, people will continue to seek knowledge and ditch the fake leftism of DSA and similar groups.

While conservatives and many others in America mourn the loss of Lindsey Graham, I thought it was important to remember the man for who he truly was, a staunch supporter of American imperialism, American superiority, and genocide. Lindsey Graham’s political career was an embodiment of modern American imperialism through his votes in Congress and outspoken voice, which sustained aggressive policies under the pretense of national security and the “support of democracy” worldwide. A quick look at his voting record shows an uncompromising support for punitive actions directed at Cuba, Palestine, Iran, and many other countries that have consistently opposed the US imperial project over the years. His votes in favor of US hegemony and promotion of the US framework of policies used to manipulate foreign countries are repugnant and made the world a worse place.

Every single policy he voted on and supported represents an aggressive interventionist stance, which reflects the most sinister aspects of American imperialism. His continued backing of sanctions against Cuba, despite abundant proof showing these actions only hurt Cuban people, shows his reckless disregard for human life disguised in the promotion of democracy. What reasons can a person present to support their repeated votes for sustaining an embargo that almost every member state at the United Nations has denounced as contrary to international law? Graham’s voting record represents more than simple political tactics; his actions deliberately extend economic suffocation and humanitarian emergencies disguised as plans to not only strengthen America but to liberate oppressed peoples.

Graham’s extreme and aggressive approach to Iran, especially in recent months, shows a similarly dangerous mindset. He has openly supported Donald Trump’s bombing campaigns and backed Israeli land grabs in the region, again claiming to be concerned with the people’s “freedom”. Track his entire political career, and it is easy to see how he has repeatedly voted for measures that heighten diplomatic strain by advocating for military intervention in Iran and sanctions intended to create economic instability rather than pursuing fruitful multipolar dialogue. These strong pro-Israel and imperialist stances have acted as a direct catalyst for regional destabilization, especially under Donald Trump’s regime. At the same time, it has increased the threat of disastrous military engagements, yet this fact remains unacknowledged by individuals who assert moral superiority even as they support preemptive warfare against Iran under Donald Trump. During the recent negotiations with Iran, which ended in complete failure, Graham dismissed diplomatic breakthroughs as “appeasement” while endorsing American policies that look much closer to Cold War-era interventionism notorious for their devastating consequences. Often being even harder-line than Trump himself on Iran.

His voting record on Palestinian-related issues is even more unsettling. It remains intrinsically connected to his overt support for Israel’s military oppression and expansion throughout the region. Via his support for legislative acts that direct billions in aid to Israel (without checks or limitations) while resisting attempts to examine or limit Israeli actions on the ground, Graham positioned himself as a facilitator of Israeli crimes that numerous human rights groups label as apartheid and ethnic cleansing. Voting numerous times to support these policies shows not concern for the people, but instead deliberate involvement in systemic injustice and genocide. Lindsey Graham’s lifetime support of Israeli measures in occupied Palestine during blatant human rights abuses showing his support of internationally condemned policies that are rightfully labeled as genocidal.

Days before his death, Graham was in Ukraine, once again supporting the cause of Western imperialism. He is openly in support of Biden-era policies that ask for all land, including Crimea, to be returned to Kiev’s control in order to make a deal. The policies seem to have found a new place in Trump’s White House despite promises to assist in a deal. Zelenskyy was noticeably thrilled by Lindsey Graham’s visit, likely because he knew Graham supports both full-scale Western aggression against Russia and had the ear of President Trump. Again, his voting record has reflected unwavering support of Western imperialism in Eastern Europe and a staunch pro-war perspective hard to match.

Lindsey Graham will likely be remembered positively in most American media, including liberal media, because the US system generally venerates leadership of any kind in death. The act of dying often washes away the years of genocidal policies and economic strangling of foreign countries that refuse to bend to the will of the US. When Robert Byrd, a famed US Senator who started his political career in the KKK, died in 2010, he was remembered positively at his funeral by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, and many more establishment figures. This will no doubt be similar. His funeral will be attended by members of both parties who will talk positively about him but conveniently leave out what he actually stood for when he was alive. History, though, will remember him in a different light.

From a country that apparently values free speech and freedom of association, the US government’s continued mistreatment of political dissidents seems like a surprise to many. For those of us who have experienced it for years, unfortunately, it isn’t a surprise at all. Many people often ask me how a country that advocates freedom can systematically suppress dissent internationally. Nowadays, more young Americans are aware of it than ever, yet it’s still relatively underreported. The US government uses systems of coercion designed to destabilize and intimidate those who challenge mainstream political beliefs. This ranges from right-wing activists to left-wing communists like myself. The systems often used are the arbitrary closure of bank accounts, detention and rigorous interrogation of American citizens at border crossings, deliberately delaying the issuance of vital personal documents and apostilles required for immigration or legal residence abroad, and the placing of dissidents on no-fly lists. There is no doubt that these are punitive measures that restrict the right to freedom of movement that American citizens are supposed to have.

Financial and travel restrictions are the cornerstone of the US’s techniques to stifle dissent. People who have committed no crimes, let alone been charged with any, can easily lose access to basic necessities like the money in their own bank account. This happened to me starting around 2021 when banks would close my accounts and give no reason other than “security concerns”. When I pressed them on it, they refused to give me any more details. This often led to a 90-day wait for the bank to mail you a check for your balance, at which point I had to open another account at another bank, deposit the check, wait for it to clear, then hope it wouldn’t happen again. When I first moved abroad, I was still back and forth between Mexico and the US, maintaining residence in both. Eventually, it got too difficult to maintain anything in the US because I couldn’t even pay bills without a US bank account. The intentional shutdown of Americans’ bank accounts who publicly or privately challenge the government through “radical” politics represents this approach, which acts as a coercive instrument intended to undermine people’s financial independence, especially while abroad. Deliberate denial of banking services by corporate and state mechanisms results in an economic removal that exceeds mere inconvenience for the targeted person. This also prompts questions about due process and legal standards within the US. FINRA and many other agencies can add anyone to a list that essentially forces banks to deny new account openings for targeted individuals.

When it comes to travel restrictions, the tactics used are varied. They can range from a low-level extra screen at TSA to denying the issuance of a US passport. In my case, I am routinely detained at the border and questioned, sometimes for hours, by plain-clothed agents. I have also had my electronics searched on numerous occasions and even been asked if I am able to identify flags from various Ukranian neo-nazi organizations in an attempt to claim I was somehow affiliated. For others, it can be much worse. A friend and fellow communist, Christopher Helali, from DD Geopolitics and the American Communist Party, recently had his boarding pass denied on his way to Mexico because he was added to the no-fly list and the flight would cross American airspace. He is an American citizen just like me. This is a significant increase from the usual TSA “SSSS” harassment or detention when trying to enter the US. The extended questioning of American citizens at border checkpoints under unclear justifications shows a troubling pattern. These tactics have always been used but have only increased in recent years. The justification for these actions is always a vague notion of national security. I have been told this at numerous airports, including LAX and Chicago O’Hare, when returning to the US. The agents themselves typically operate without clear standards and, certainly, little to no judicial review, turning secondary border checkpoints into political questioning zones rather than genuine security or immigration checkpoints.

On top of all of this, there is a notable absence of straightforward mechanisms for redress and the removal from such watchlists. As Edward Snowden warned, these are essentially permanent records. Under the border search exception, those on lists essentially lose their constitutional rights when crossing back into the US from abroad. Both types of restrictions are undoubtedly tools of harassment that reach beyond traditional legal boundaries. The broader pattern they represent shows how US state power operates through means beyond direct repression by using bureaucratic barriers that subtly limit political action while appearing as standard administrative control.

The last but certainly not least notable method the US government employs is document delays. The intentional delay in processing personal documents serves as a destructive tool used by the US. The United States government maintains its authority over political dissidents living overseas by implementing measures that restrict their freedom of movement and their ability to migrate to other countries. For example, many countries, like Russia, where American dissidents sometimes end up, require documents like FBI background checks, which then need to be apostilled for international use. Through the malicious use of bureaucracy, these documents can be delayed for extended periods. I recently needed my birth certificate apostilled, and a friend agreed to do it with me at the same time, through the same company, and in the same State, to test which took longer. His took around 2 weeks while mine took about 3 months. This shows

that reasons like “first come, first served” or simple bureaucracy are not valid excuses. The US government deliberately slows the release of important documents, including passports, personal documents (birth certificates, marriage records, criminal background checks, etc), and apostilles. This obstructs certain people’s ability to establish legal status abroad while simultaneously using bureaucratic delays as a tool for oppression.

All in all, the country of free speech and freedom of association is a fake under the current government. This won’t change simply by electing another Republican or Democrat; it requires systemic change to restructure the American government from its core. I have countless more stories from my own experiences and from my friends. Maybe I will write more about it later, but for now I believe the point has been conveyed. Don’t be surprised when this escalates and even more people, including more journalists, are caught up in this dragnet. Make no doubt about it, fascistic tendencies lie at the heart of the US imperialist machine. Respect to my comrades at the American Communist Party and many others who are fighting against it.

The path Russia is on aligns more broadly with international trends, as demonstrated by the European Union’s recent rejection of Silicon Valley’s hegemonic control over tech and is instead looking inward. This can be seen in European phone brands and European software companies that are growing in popularity due to mistrust of the Silicon Valley elite. Seeing both Russia and the EU looking in the same direction illustrates that achieving technological independence is directly linked to attaining political freedom from neo-imperialist dependence. Alongside the recent creation of Russia’s version of Starlink, Russia demonstrates its desire for digital independence by building robust infrastructure that reduces foreign control while strengthening its national sovereignty in communications. Domestic tech programs like these are absolutely necessary to reduce potential threats from foreign-controlled satellite internet networks like Starlink, which have been used to launch drone attacks on Russia and can be shut off at any time by a single American billionaire. Russia’s control over its own networks also reinforces the state’s capacity to manage information dissemination and to develop autonomous cyber defense systems that are needed to fend off Western aggression. On both the national security and daily tech fronts, this is very similar to what we have seen built in China since the 2000s. Nowadays, China is completely tech-independent and does not rely on Western companies to meet its people’s needs.

The goal of boosting national security through digital sovereignty is more than just basic infrastructure; it constitutes a dialectical struggle against technocolonial domination emanating from Western powers, mostly the US. Without dismantling Silicon Valley’s total control, Russia remains vulnerable to foreign manipulation that destabilizes its political sovereignty and socioeconomic conditions in the context of the expanding digital world order. When all of your citizens freely give personal data to American companies, of course, that data can be used against your country. Apps as seemingly harmless as Facebook or Whatsapp harbor deep security issues within, violating Russian law about the data processing of its citizens. A worse example is Instagram, where Meta recently decided to remove all message encryption, making privacy concerns all the more worrisome.

Russia’s ability to develop domestic tech is a critical measure of resistance against the US and its elite class. Silicon Valley maintains nearly total control through modern capitalist and technoimperialist mechanisms that extract users’ data and impose Western ideological frameworks through algorithms to maintain cultural hegemony. These actions are falsely presented as part of globalization and free-market liberalism, while in reality, they are used to manipulate populations. When Russia (or any country) grants foreign entities control of digital platforms, it threatens its socio-political autonomy by becoming subordinate to foreign corporate interests that are often manipulated to garner support for Western geopolitical strategies.

The European Union’s strategic move to distance itself from Silicon Valley by fostering local tech ecosystems represents a significant paradigm shift. Frustratingly enough, this is seen as a good thing coming from the EU, but a negative thing coming from Russia. Brussels’ regulatory approach marks a widespread continental rejection of direct American digital dominance. Why should Brussels be encouraged down this path while Russia is criticized for it? A growing consensus among nations now highlights the dangers of allowing foreign monopolies to control essential tech ecosystems. The Google ecosystem is so global that it is causing serious concerns and even problems for many nations. The Rustore, a Russian app store, is an excellent start because it does not require a Google account. That being said, many of the apps you download still require Google’s integrity API and don’t work properly on degoogled Android phones. There is work being done here by many independent developers and projects, such as GrapheneOS, but Russia needs to address this across both the Apple and Android ecosystems. Chinese company Huawei has had success in this department, but still struggles with certain apps not working without Google. For Russia and any other country to be free of technocolonialism, they must invest in domestic companies. China is ahead, but Russia is no longer far behind. More domestic apps and solutions to avoid US products are created every day, spurred on by sanctions.

For the sake of an internet free from Silicon Valley elites’ control, everyone, especially communists, must support Russia and other countries in creating non-US-based alternatives.

The fact that the Communist Party (PCC) remains in control of Cuba and in control of these reforms shows it remains committed to Marxist-Leninist doctrines. These reforms require an understanding that recognizes the deliberate use of market mechanisms as instruments that remain under the control and direction of a stable political superstructure. The current political system openly rejects any ideas of radical systemic capitalist disruption, as seen in the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the dissolution of the ruling Communist party directly led to the unrestricted implementation of neoliberal capitalism. Communist party continuity in Cuba acts as a protective barrier against the return of bourgeois power structures seen in the pre-revolution era. Back then, the interests of American elites directed the economy, allowing the US to play an imperial role in Cuba’s political system. Cuba’s current political system is much more akin to Antonio Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony, in which political power is maintained through consistent ideological leadership rather than destructive, coercive forces. In fact, the systems of American imperialism that have made these reforms necessary are those that operate through coercion and lack ideological consistency. Through this form of political control, the PCC ensures that socialist goals will be protected from potential erosion or subversion. Cuba’s reforms are more in line with Vietnam’s GGM policy as Cuba maintains its Leninist vanguard position while selectively introducing market elements.

Communist economies like China and Vietnam have faced widespread misrepresentation of their market mechanisms by Westerners and Western governments alike. People frequently mistake reforms for capitalist liberalization, or for what the Western left often sees as a threat to socialist values. The strategic deployment of market relations should be used to enhance productive forces while maintaining the dictatorship of the proletariat and state control over essential industries. There is nothing anti-communist about it. Cuba’s recent policy adjustments incorporate market agents as tools for economic efficiency, while very notably maintaining centralized planning and social ownership of the means of production, much like Vietnam’s Đổi Mới reforms in 1986. Hybridized markets do not fundamentally oppose socialist values as many Western leftists claim. The fact is that they represent mechanisms that socialist states must use to address material contradictions in the face of global capitalist forces.

Given the threat Cuba faces from American capitalism and imperialism, it is no wonder that these reforms were necessary. In my opinion, these reforms can be extremely positive for Cuba and its people. In many ways, I wish these reforms had been undertaken sooner because the recent economic trouble in Cuba has been effectively used as anti-communist propaganda across the capitalist world. Cuba is not suddenly a capitalist state, and as I mentioned previously, this is far from the situation that existed during the fall of the USSR. For now, it is up to all of us Communists around the globe to continue to support Cuba and the Cuban Revolution by whichever means we are able and to stand up against Western leftists who never seem to consider material conditions.

“We have a theoretical concept of the Revolution which is a dictatorship of the exploited against the exploiters.” - Fidel Castro

¡Viva Fidel y viva la Revolución!

Ottoman rule in Palestine was notably different from modern day Palestine, without a strict ethnonational division; But once British imperial powers took control after the First World War, during the mandate period, colonial authorities promoted Zionist settlements using illegitimate legal tools, such as the Balfour Declaration, and subsequent agrarian policy, which favored European Jewish immigrants, while excluding Palestinian Arab inhabitants. The colonization process destroyed local productive systems in order to achieve the broader capitalist goals of creating new markets and gaining control of regional resources. This is similar to what we see happening today under Donald Trump, with pieces of Gaza being advertised as future vacation and business destinations. The privation of property happened as a deliberate structural process. There is no legitimacy in Israels territorial claims since they are based on colonial violence, backed by foreign powers, and not on any liberation or anti-capitalist struggle.

Opinions from Marxist scholars generally highlight that Zionism acted as a bourgeois nationalist movement that shifted the efforts of the Jewish proletariat toward ethnonational separatism. The result of this being the breaking down international class unity. In my opinion, when researching colonial implantation in Palestine, you must understand its dual nature as a instrument of imperial domination over the Palestinian people and as a major source of ideological division between Jewish communities. The Israeli States existence remains inextricably connected to its role as a colonizer and settler capitalist entity. It denies Palestinian self-determination, while perpetuating exploitative class structures and maintaining racial isolation. Historical conditions allowed the emergence of Israel as a State to be clearly defined not as a movement of authentic national liberation, but as a continuous form of colonial control forced on the working people of Palestine.

The guiding principles of capitalist growth demand constant territorial expansion, which means that the actions of the Israeli state, from the creation of the first Zionist settlements to the expansion of current settlements, falsely claim to be motivated by “development” or “security considerations.” Resorting to security considerations also allows Israel to present itself as a victim on the international stage, although today global patience is wearing thin. Expropriation laws, military decrees, and discriminatory zoning rules are applied with the specific goal of committing genocide. These methods demonstrate that the right to existence claimed by Israel is inextricably linked to its role as a global agent of capital accumulation through settler colonialism.

This dynamic is inseparable from the class relations that exist within Israeli society today as well as the Western world. The bourgeois class guarantees economic advantages by maintaining tight financial control over the Palestinian territories through real estate speculation in settlements and the exploitation of natural resources. Israel’s territorial claims are problematic tools that capitalist structures throughout the West use to maintain property inequality, rather than being direct claims based on historical rights.

Is it possible to legitimately defend a “right” that arises from forced expropriation that puts capital accumulation before human rights? When analyzed from a Marxist perspective, focusing on systems of production and class exploitation, ALL Israeli claims must be rejected completely. The continued transformation of the Palestinian territories into market assets, coupled with their transfer to Israeli control, effectively nullifies any declared ethical, historical, or legal basis supporting their statehood. The process of dismantling the complex colonial-capitalist framework is absolutely essential to achieve the full emancipation of all oppressed peoples throughout the region. Inshallah, the Palestinian people will be liberated. With global leaders like Iran taking a strong moral opposition to not only the treatment of Palestinians but also to the state of Israel itself, combined with growing anger from working people around the world, the wind is blowing in the right direction.

That brings me to my argument about the criminal Case against Khodorkovsky. The West’s perception of the Case is that it is entirely politically motivated. Khodorkovsky remains in the United States as a “democracy for Russia” advocate and portrayed as a political dissident, but the crimes were real, and he was correctly prosecuted under Russian criminal law. Any failure of the Russian legal system does not lie in his prosecution but rather in the lack of prosecution over the many years of decommunization, during which he was in charge of Yukos Oil. Khodorkovsky was charged with tax evasion, fraud, embezzlement, and money laundering. These crimes were extremely common amongst Russia’s post-communist capitalist elites. Khodorkovsky’s actions, as well as his business practices, point overwhelmingly to these charges being true. Furthermore, this would mean he was eligible for prosecution under Russian law. As for what the criminal code prescribes for these crimes, he was properly tried and sentenced. The facts I will lay out in this post are often shocking or even unbelievable to a Western reader. Generally, this is due to strong anti-Putin sentiment in the West. Still, the fact is that, rather than being a moral opponent of Putin, Khodorkovsky is merely a criminal amongst criminals.

Khodorkovsky was the CEO of Yukos Oil and the primary shareholder of the Menatep Group, the company that owned Yukos Oil. His holding company acquired Yukos (firstly, several Siberian oil fields) in the 90s during the “loans-for-shares” program, in which the government accepted small loans from private companies in exchange for shares in recently privatized state companies. According to the UN Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, most of these transactions were done fraudulently. They said, “The loans-for-shares programme of 1995 has been widely criticized for its lack of transparency and for its fraudulent arrangements”. It’s important to remember that Khodorkovsky was one of the major capitalists who participated in these deals. At one point, he was considered the richest man in Russia, having amassed a $15 billion fortune. Before the 90s, he had made a name for himself by creating numerous businesses in the late Soviet Union. This is part of what gave him the connections needed to take advantage of the loans-for-shares program and to acquire large stakes in Russian state assets. During the crash of the Russian economy in 1998, Khodorkovsky ended up in debt. Instead of making an arrangement with his creditors or filing for bankruptcy, he offshored the ownership of his stock so that domestic creditors couldn’t seize it through a judgment. Soon after this, Khodorkovsky established various philanthropic organizations in Russia and abroad, including political organizations aimed at influencing Russian politics, but headquartered in the United Kingdom. He was arrested in 2003 and went on trial in 2004, which is where the drama began internationally. His trial was widely criticized, mainly because people wrongfully thought the prosecutor was a friend of Putin’s. This couldn’t have been further from the truth. The prosecutor general was a Boris Yeltsin appointee named Vladimir Ustinov. Ustinov and Putin had many public disagreements and did not see eye to eye on a range of issues facing Russia at the time. This can hardly be described as two friends colluding for political gain, as it is portrayed in the West.

When it comes to the crimes for which Khodorkovsky was convicted (tax evasion, fraud, embezzlement, and money laundering), the Russian criminal code is straightforward and easy to understand. First, I’d like to discuss what the law says before we discuss his guilt. Article 199 covers tax evasion, and the crime, if committed alone, carries a maximum penalty of 2 years in jail. The key there is “acted alone”. Khodorkovsky was charged along with numerous other people who conspired with him to commit these crimes. The law on this is clear, and the punishment is significantly harsher. It says “2. The same deed committed: a) by a group of persons by previous concert; b) on an especially large scale - shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of 200 thousand to 500 thousand roubles or in the amount of the wage or salary, or any other income of the convicted person for a period of one to three years, or with compulsory labour for a term of up to five years accompanied by deprivation of the right to hold specified posts or engage in specified activities for a term of up to three years or without such, or by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to six years, with or without deprivation of the right to hold specified offices or to engage in specified activities for a term of up to three years.” It is commonly thought that the prosecutor, in this Case, sought unreasonable jail time but as you can see, with only one of the crimes covered so far, he is eligible for up to 5 years jail time along with various other possible additions. In total, Khodorkovsky was sentenced to 9 years, then a few additional years from a case that took place while he was in prison. Due to political pressure, he was released early and allowed to leave Russia.

Article 159 of the criminal code covers fraud, or as it is phrased in the code, “swindling”. This was another charge brought against Khodorkovsky, although admittedly one of the weaker cases for the prosecution. Section 4 of article 159 states “Swindling committed by an organized group or on an especially large scale - Shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to ten years with or without a fine in an amount of up to one million roubles….” Khodorkovsky and numerous of his associates were charged with fraud both as an organized group and on a large scale. The charges involved fraud that occurred internationally and tied in with the money laundering charges I will discuss shortly.

Directly after this, embezzlement is covered in Article 160. Khodorkovsky and his associates were accused of misappropriating and embezzling funds through shell companies worldwide. These charges are complex because the allegations don’t relate directly to Yukos’s financial books. By all accounts, Yukos and its finances were well managed and transparent, in an attempt to gain the trust of investors in Western oil conglomerates. Instead of Yukos, it was various holding companies, one of which owned Yukos, another of which was based in the Caribbean, that Khodorkovsky and his associates used to move misappropriated funds internationally and out of the purview of the Russian government. This ties into tax evasion as well, because the same shell companies were frequently used to hide funds from Russian tax authorities, and the transactions were always unreported.

The most obvious and egregious of these crimes was when Khodorkovsky became the director of an “internet bank” called the European Union Bank of Antigua, registered in Antigua for roughly one week. Not surprisingly, the bank went out of business soon after it was used to launder money. Banking industry regulators from around the world were quick to call this bank a complete scam and dismiss the idea that there would be any legitimate reason for him to serve as director for 1 week, then close its doors. The paper trail presented at trial showed large transactions from banks in Moscow to this bank during the one week Khodorkovsky was in charge of it. Regardless of the partial paper trail the prosecution was able to dig up, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why a Russian oil capitalist would want to be the temporary director of a Caribbean bank. I understand that using that assumption is no basis for legal prosecution. Still, you’d think it would be worth investigating by Western courts, who were, unfortunately, mostly attempting to vindicate him to use him as a martyr for Western liberal ideology.

The final charge against Khodorkovsky is that of money laundering. This is likely the strongest Case against him. As I mentioned previously, he used various shell companies to move embezzled funds out of the country and into other businesses to legitimize them. Yukos Oil itself even set up offices in Houston, Texas, along with Khodorkovsky’s holding companies. Funds often ended up here after everything, likely because the US would not work with Russia on a criminal investigation and would not seize assets of someone convicted of a crime or under suspicion in Russia. Money laundering is covered under article 174 of the criminal code where it states in section 1 that “The accomplishment of financial transactions and other transactions in monetary funds or other property knowingly acquired by other persons illegally (except for the offenses stipulated by Articles 193, 194, 198, 199, 199.1 and 199.2 of this Code), for the purpose of bringing the appearance of legality to the possession, use and disposal of said monetary funds or other property”. This is very straightforward and exactly what Khodorkovsky did with the European Union Bank of Antigua, with his shell companies in Texas, and with his various Russian holding companies. The part about this that I find most surprising is that both Khodorkovsky and his associates frequently talk about the shell companies they used to move money abroad. Of course, they don’t openly admit to any crime, but again, you’d think a Western court that was looking for the truth would at least explore this. It seems like the same situation as the European Union Bank of Antigua. It was rightfully questioned by the prosecutor in the Russian Case but mostly ignored in the Western Case. Granted, there have been thousands of cases relating to Yukos lasting many years, so it would be nearly impossible to cover every detail of all of them for one post. With that being said, I looked extensively using keyword search, and the most mention I could find was a footnote from a British civil case stating his likely guilt on charges of tax evasion and money laundering.

This Case involves numerous trials from around the world, but first, the original cases against Khodorkovsky in Russia. He was found guilty after 10 months and sentenced to 9 years of prison labor. The Case was heard by the Hague and in civil courts across Europe. Each Case had a slightly different format and different end goals. The civil Case that stood out to me the most took place in the UK. The Case was to determine if Khodorkovsky would be awarded financial compensation for his treatment while detained in Russia. The court ruled in favor of Khodorkovsky, but the judge very specifically did not say he was innocent of the crimes for which he was accused. The judge said, “From the evidence I’ve seen, he very well may be guilty of these crimes, but that is not what this trial was about”. They awarded Khodorkovsky absurd financial compensation and ordered the Russian government to pay him, which they rightfully did not. A European Commission on Human Rights determined as well that Khodorkovsky had been the victim of police misconduct while detained and that the Case brought against him was politically motivated. Again, he notably did not say he was not guilty of the crimes. What international courts routinely say is that his human rights were violated, but there is no evidence of this. Even still, there is no mention of Russian law or whether it was followed. It simply talks about his treatment throughout his detention and the wait from his first arrest to his trial.

The trial at the Hague courts took a different approach. They weren’t discussing Khodorkovsky’s guilt directly, nor were they discussing in detail the way he was treated while in custody. The Hague took a large view and included thousands of Yukos employees. They set out to determine if, in their opinion, the Russian government had illegally seized Yukos’ assets. At the end of this trial, they determined that the Russian government owed 50 billion dollars to shareholders and former Yukos employees in the form of pensions. The Hague decided that the Russian government had deliberately bankrupted the company, even though Khodorkovsky’s criminal behavior led to the collapse and was properly prosecuted in Russian courts. Attempting to reconcile their first move, The Hague later overturned its decision, arguing that it wasn’t enforceable, wasn’t grounded in Russian law, and was beyond its jurisdiction. Regardless of the outcome of this Case and any reversal, Khodorkovsky’s crimes remain unaddressed. Many articles I have found, from the BBC to the New York Times, report that these courts “ruled in Khodorkovsky’s favor”. While this is technically true, it is extremely deceiving because while they did rule in his favor, it wasn’t regarding his guilt or innocence. This reporting on the cases is a textbook example of Western media propaganda wielded against Russia and Vladimir Putin’s presidency.

Given his 9-year punishment, it is perfectly in line with the charges for which he was found guilty, though slightly on the low side. Some speculated that during sentencing, Khodorkovsky’s connections in the government helped him avoid the maximum, or that he simply had an excellent legal team. It is likely the latter, but the point remains. The criminal code prescribes up to 5 years of prison labor just for one of the charges he was found guilty of. He was charged and found guilty on numerous counts of various crimes. If you do the math, he could have easily faced 20 or more years in prison based on the criminal code’s prescription.

The criminal code makes a clear difference between solo actors and people who committed crimes as an organized group. For example, in Article 160 of the criminal code, which covers embezzlement, it says in section 1 “Misappropriation or embezzlement, that is, the stealing of other people’s property entrusted to the convicted person, shall be punishable with a fine in the amount of up to 120 thousand roubles, or in the amount of a wage/salary, or any other income of the convicted person for a period of up to one year, or with obligatory labour for a term of up to two hundred and forty hours, or with corrective labour for a term of up to six months, or with restriction of liberty for a term of up to two years, or with compulsory labour for a term of up to two years, or with deprivation of liberty for the same term”. A seemingly reasonable punishment, no doubt, but take a look at section 2 of Article 160 and it says “The same deeds committed by a group of persons by previous concert, as well as with the infliction of considerable damage to an individual, - shall be punishable with a fine in the amount of up to 300 thousand roubles, or in the amount of a wage or salary, or any other income of the convicted person for a period of up to two year, or with obligatory labour for a term of up to three hundred and sixty hours, or with corrective labour for a term of up to one year, or with compulsory labour for a term of up to five years with restriction of liberty for a term of up to one year or without such, or with deprivation of liberty for a term of up to five years with restriction of liberty for a term of up to one year or without such”. The punishment increases heavily when it is committed “by a group of persons by previous concert”.

It’s important to remember that all the charges levied against Khodorkovsky, except those stemming from inconsistencies in his personal tax filings, fall under the category of a crime committed by a group. That means that, for each of these charges, the punishment to be given if proven guilty was longer and more severe simply because of the organization and premeditation among multiple people. When you start adding up the numbers, considering this, 9 years of prison begins to feel like a very reasonable punishment. My point is that it is prescribed in Russian law for the crimes Khodorkovsky committed, so it’s not as if he was randomly rushed off to prison one night and not heard from again until his release, as the Western media makes it appear in their reporting.

The international court system, specifically those in Western Europe, was a massive failure and clearly set up in an attempt to delegitimize Russia. Most never actually looked into whether Khodorkovsky was guilty, or, if they did, the results were inconclusive. The reason the international system got it wrong, in my opinion, is twofold. Firstly, they had political motives and a strong bias against actions taken by the Russian government. Their legitimization of Khodorkovsky’s actions allowed him to be used as a political tool of Western liberalism. The second reason I believe they got it wrong is that they mostly ignored Russian law. The big exception here is The Hague, but it took them many years to reverse their decision and acknowledge Russian law. The reversal by The Hague illustrates how quickly Western courts were to judge the situation starting in 2004.

Khodorkovsky is now living freely. He served his time in prison and was pardoned, mostly due to political pressure and hopes of productive discussions with the United States and the West more broadly. He now lives in the West and continues his fake political activism. I think it’s highly suspect that a former corrupt capitalist is advocating for an “open democratic system” within Russia. When you look at the charges and the Russian criminal code, it is plain to see that Khodorkovsky is not a martyr for Western capitalist values but merely a criminal amongst criminals in the tragic fall of the Soviet Union.

Works Cited:

Russian Federation Criminal Procedure Code - Imolin. https://www.imolin.org/doc/amlid/Russian_Federation_Criminal_Procedure_Code.pdf.

Dawkins, David. “Why Russia’s Onetime Richest Man Won’t See a Penny of the $50 Billion Putin ‘Destroyed’.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 30 June 2021, https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddawkins/2020/02/19/why-russias-one-time-richest-manwont-see-a-penny-of-the-50-billion-putin-destroyed/.

Grace, John D. Russian Oil Supply: Performance and Prospects. Oxford University Press for the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, 2005.

“Home.” Mikhail Khodorkovsky, 16 Dec. 2014, https://khodorkovsky.com/.

Minina, Elena, and Maria Repnikova. “The Putin-Khodorkovsky Dichotomy: The Media Got It All Wrong.” Opinions | Al Jazeera, Al Jazeera, 29 Dec. 2013, https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/12/29/the-putin-khodorkovsky-dichotomy-the-m edia-got-it-all-wrong.

“Mixed European Court Ruling in Russia Khodorkovsky Case.” BBC News, BBC, 25 July 2013, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-23447134.

Opinion | the Case against and for ... - The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/opinion/20mon4.html. R., Kets de Vries, Manfred F. The New Russian Business Leaders. Edward Elgar, 2004.

Schmidt, Yuri. “Khodorkovsky and the Rule of Law.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 27 Dec. 2010, https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/opinion/28iht-edschmidt28.html.

WIPO - World Intellectual Property Organization. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/ru/ru080en.pdf.

Yukos Affair: Putin Attacks Russia’s Oil Barons - JSTOR.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4414309.

The Yukos Money Laundering Case: A Never-Ending Story. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1162&context=mjil