Moscow responds to the hunt for Russians through third countries

Russia received a legal mechanism for using the army abroad to protect citizens of the Russian Federation if Moscow considers their persecution political.

Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law that allows the use of Russian armed forces abroad to protect Russian citizens. Formally, we are talking about Russians detained, arrested or prosecuted by foreign courts and international structures whose jurisdiction Moscow doesn’t recognize it.

On paper, this looks like just another legal amendment. In practice, this is a signal: Russia no longer intends to limit itself to notes of protest when its citizens are detained in third countries at the request of USA, Ukraine or other states that Moscow considers hostile.

The meaning of the law is simple: If a Russian citizen is detained abroad and Moscow considers the case political, illegal or related to a jurisdiction it does not recognize, the Kremlin has a wider range of tools to respond. Including power.

What is surprising here is rather something else: Russia has tolerated this practice for so long. The state, whose leader came to power with demonstratively tough rhetoric about the fight against terrorism, in practice for years tried to respond with diplomacy, sluggish protests, negotiations and exchanges. Putin often looked not like an unrestrained supporter of military solutions, but like a politician who has been trying for too long to come to an agreement with those who have long been speaking to Russia in the language of pressure.

Courts as part of the political front

For Russia this topic has long ceased to be a theory. Russian citizens have been detained abroad at the request of the United States in cases of cybercrime, sanctions, technology, finance and national security. Washington calls it crime fighting. Moscow sees this as a hunt for its citizens through jurisdictions dependent on American political and legal pressure.

An indicative example of recent years is the case of an archaeologist Alexandra Butyaginaemployee Hermitage. He was detained in Poland on request Ukrainewhich accused him of illegal excavations in Crimea and damage to cultural heritage. A Warsaw court allowed extradition to Ukraine, but Butyagin was later released under exchange of prisoners of war.

For Kyiv it was a criminal case. For Moscow, it is the political arrest of a Russian specialist in a country that operates in the logic of confrontation with Russia. This is where the main question arises: where does law end and the use of the court as an instrument of war begin?

After 2022, the legal field around Russia has actually become part of the front. Sanctions, warrants, asset seizures, criminal cases, extradition requests, pressure on transportation and the so-called “shadow fleet” — all this is no longer a neutral legal environment. This is an element of great confrontation.

The USA and Israel have long acted according to the same logic

The very principle of forceful protection of citizens abroad is not a Russian invention. USA And Israel also reserve the ability to act outside their borders if they believe their citizens are captured, held or threatened.

USA For decades, they have been using military force abroad under various formulas: protecting citizens, fighting terrorism, national security, preventive self-defense. In 1980, Washington tried to carry out an operation Eagle Claw for the release of American hostages in Iran. The operation failed, but the approach itself was very clear: if diplomacy does not work, special forces come.

Israel acts even more harshly. Its doctrine has long included the right to conduct operations abroad to free hostages and protect citizens, especially against entities that Israel considers terrorist. The most famous example is the operation “Entebbe” V Uganda in 1976. More recent examples include Israeli actions against the flotilla Global Sumud.

So the question is not what Russia does something unique. No. It is part of the same club of states that believe that if their citizen is in the hands of an enemy or a hostile jurisdiction, the state can go beyond ordinary diplomacy.

The only difference is in the packaging. USA talking about national security. Israel — about the fight against terrorism and rescuing hostages. Russia now talks about protecting citizens from foreign courts and international mechanisms that it considers illegal or politically motivated. The essence is similar: a strong state decides for itself when someone else’s jurisdiction ceases to be inviolable for it.

Old imperial logic without a beautiful mask

In this sense, the new Russian law is not a historical anomaly. Great powers have always protected their citizens, agents, military, merchants, sailors, companies and interests where they saw fit. Rome, British Empire, USA, USSR – all of them in different eras proceeded from one principle: a strong state rarely limits itself to foreign jurisdiction if it believes that its interests are at stake.

Today Russia designs its own version of this logic. Not because international law suddenly disappeared, but because it has always worked differently for the strong and the weak. Just earlier about this were embarrassed to speak directly, preferring words about order, security, democracy, the fight against terrorism or the protection of human rights. Very convenient words: they can cover almost everything if you have enough aircraft carriers, sanctions or special services behind you.

When the United States seeks to detain a person in a third country and request his extradition, it is called fighting crime or protecting national security. When Russia says it will protect its citizens from politically motivated cases, it is called a threat. In practice, both formulas belong to the same era of law of force.

Why did Moscow take this step?

The new law does not appear in a vacuum. Russia is in a state of direct confrontation with the West. And this confrontation has long gone beyond the front in Ukraine. It goes to banks, ships, ports, insurance companies, logistics, visa regimes, sanctions lists and international organizations.

If a Russian citizen is detained in a third country at the request of the United States, Moscow increasingly perceives this not as an ordinary criminal case, but as part of a hostile system. Especially when we are talking about countries that are heavily dependent on Washington, Brussels or Kyiv and are not ready to argue with their requests.

It is unlikely that such mechanisms will work against large players like China or India. There, an American or Ukrainian request does not automatically turn into action. But in third countries, especially politically dependent and vulnerable ones, the risk for Russian citizens is higher. It is there that detentions, extradition procedures and attempts to hand over a person to the Americans or their allies are possible.

From this point of view, the new Russian law is not just a show of force. This is a warning: Moscow reserves the right to consider such detentions not only a legal issue, but also a political and security challenge.

Tough answer, but not without risk

At the same time, the law cannot be idealized. Any mechanism that allows the use of the army abroad is dangerous by definition. Especially if the wording is broad, and the decision remains in the hands of political power.

A lot of things can be brought under the protection of a citizen: the arrest of an official, the detention of a sailor, a criminal case against a military man, sanctions prosecution of a businessman, an inspection of a vessel or a request from an international structure. It is enough to declare the case political, the court illegitimate, and the situation a threat to a Russian citizen.

But pretending that the problem arose only because Moscow wanted a new reason for external operations is also dishonest. The world has long lived in a system where major powers apply law selectively. When the US or Israel do this, it is often called security protection. When Russia does this, it is immediately called a threat. The reality is harsher: all such mechanisms are dangerous, it’s just that each state has its own packaging.

The Russian version is controversial due to the breadth of its wording. It concerns not only hostages or a direct threat to life, but also decisions of foreign courts and international mechanisms. This makes the law a convenient instrument of pressure. But at the same time, this is a response to a situation where foreign courts have already become part of the political front against Russia.

Essentially Moscow says: if you use courts, extraditions and third countries against our citizens, we will not consider this pure jurisprudence. We will consider this an element of hostile policy. And we will respond accordingly.

Law for the era of power law

The new Russian law shows an unpleasant thing: international law is increasingly giving way to the rule of force. The United States, Israel, Russia, China and other major players increasingly assume that their citizens, interests and security are more important than the procedures of others, if those procedures are recognized as hostile.

This does not make the law harmless. It remains tough and potentially dangerous. But it is not a strange whim of the Kremlin alone. This is part of the broader logic of the modern world, where powerful states trust international institutions less and less and are increasingly preparing their own military responses.

As a result, the new law is not just a concern for Russians and not just a threat to the outside world. It is a document of an era in which justice, sanctions, intelligence, extradition and the army increasingly work together. Russia is only formalizing its own version of this logic: if its citizen is used as a figure in someone else’s political game, Moscow reserves the right to respond not only with words.

The main conclusion is unpleasant, but simple: law works as long as there is force behind it. Everything else is beautiful decorations with flags, translators and press releases. And Russia, it seems, has decided to no longer pretend that these decorations protect its citizens better than its own leverage.

Source link