Russia sentences Ukrainian to 18 years for refusing to fight against Ukraine

Russia’s Southern District Military Court has sentenced Denys Narolsky to 18 years’ imprisonment, claiming that the refusal by the 31-year-old Ukrainian from occupied Crimea to fight against Ukraine constituted ‘state treason’.  The sentence, handed down on 22 October 2024 by presiding judge Gurgen Serzhikovich Dovlatbekyan and two other judges, was reported by the Memorial Support for Political Prisoners Project, citing the political prisoner’s mother.  Memorial had recently initiated an appeal to help Narolsky’s mother pay for an independent lawyer.  The latter would likely have been unable to prevent such a shocking verdict and sentence; but would have at least ensured more information and that the young Ukrainian knew that he is not forgotten.  The need for legal assistance remains since Narolsky is already in Russian captivity and this new sentence can and must be appealed.  

As reported, Narolsky was born on 5 May 1993 and lived in Ivanivka, a village in occupied Crimea.  He has a small child and worked as a car mechanic. Although he did his military service before Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea, he had, at the age of 21, briefly served (from October 2014 to July 2015) under contract in the Russian armed forces.  He told the first Russian court that the had tried to resign after a former colleague told him that he could be sent to fight in Donbas.  He explained that he had relatives and friends in mainland Ukraine who could be fighting in Ukraine’s Armed Forces, and he was unwilling to take part in the military conflict.

Russian leader Vladimir Putin announced his so-called ‘partial mobilization’ on 21 September 2022, with this illegally applied in occupied Crimea.  Narolsky was mobilized the following day, and appointed commander of a motorized rifle squad.  He left the military unit in occupied Sevastopol five days later, on 27 September, and, with help from his mother, moved from one place to another for several months. 

The young man was arrested on 25 January 2023 and has been in Russian captivity ever since.  The charges first initiated, ever before his arrest, were of having gone absent without leave during a period of mobilization (Article 337 § 3.1 of Russia’s criminal code).  This was, however, later changed to the more serious Article 318 § 3 (desertion during a period of mobilization).

The ‘trial’ was held at the occupation ‘Crimean garrison military court’ under presiding ‘judge’ Pavel Nikolaevich Kotov, with Narolsky sentenced on 30 March 2023 to nine years in a maximum-security prison colony.  That sentence was upheld on 9 June 2023 by the Southern District Military Court under presiding ‘judge’ Nikolai Sergeevich Gulko.

Narolsky had not denied the charges, explaining during interrogation that he had not wanted to take part in Russia’s ‘special military operation’ [i/e/ its full-scale invasion of Ukraine] because “its objective is not clear to me”. He had sought a legal way to revolve his dilemma, he said, but had found none, and had therefore simply left his military unit.  He stated that he had wanted to get to Dnipro, in mainland Ukraine, to a person he had done military service with, and had investigated ways of getting there via Lithuania, Latvia and Poland.  His communications with various departments, as well as with Ukraine’s Security Service [SBU], were via Telegram Messenger, and were, unfortunately, discovered when the Russians searched his mobile phone.

It became clear at the end of December 2023 that Narolsky was also facing charges of ‘state treason’ under Article 275.  Nothing more was known, but it seems likely that Russia used Narolsky’s attempt to get to mainland Ukraine as pretext, as well, perhaps, as his contact with Ukraine’s SBU.

The Memorial Support for Political Prisoners Project declared Narolsky a political prisoner back in January 2024.  It pointed out that the draconian ‘desertion’ charge used to sentence the Ukrainian to 9 years had been passed as part of a whole package of measures which seriously impinged upon people’s rights.  In this case, as in all Russia’s prosecutions of Ukrainians from occupied Crimea, Russia was in flagrant violation of international law which prohibits an occupying state both from applying its legislation on occupied territory, and from forcibly deporting people from such territory to their country.

The situation here was especially serious as Russia was demanding that Ukrainians take up arms against their own country and fellow citizens on behalf of an aggressor state.

Narolsky stated during interrogation and in ‘court’ that he was categorically against any participation in military action and had spoken of this also in correspondence regarding his wish to leave occupied Crimea.  He wrote, for example, “The situation is as follows.  I do not intend under any circumstances and conditions to fight Ukraine.  I did not leave Crimea when I had the chance and now I regret that. Yes, I have a Russian passport, and I was mobilized, but I fled from the military unit to which I was sent.”

Russia was able to accuse a Ukrainian of ‘state treason’ because he has Russian citizenship, but that hardly serves as justification since Russia has made it effectively impossible to live in occupied Crimea without a Russian passport.  Russia is illegally foisting such methods on all Ukrainian territory and Denys Narolsky is unlikely to be the last Ukrainian avenged through horrific sentences for supposed ‘treason’ because he refused to take part in Russia’s war against his country.