Vasyuk Maksim Eduardovich, born on July 19, 1991, a citizen of Moldova, residing in the Moscow Region. On October 29, 2024, he was sentenced under Part 3 of Article 30, subparagraphs ‘a’ and ‘v’ of Part 2 of Article 205 of the Russian Criminal Code (‘Attempted terrorist act by a group of persons by prior conspiracy causing significant property damage’) to 9 years of imprisonment, with the first 3 years to be served in prison and the remaining term in a high-security penal colony. He has been in custody since November 23, 2023.
According to SHOT, at five o’clock in the morning on November 23, 2023, Maxim Vasyuk, a citizen of Moldova from the city of Bălți, arrived at the military commissariat on Sovetskaya Street in Volokolamsk, Moscow Region. He took several bottles with incendiary mixture out of a bag and began throwing them at the building, but all of them bounced back and fell at his feet. A fire broke out on the pavement. Vasyuk picked up one of the “cocktails” from the fire and threw it again, but it ricocheted and fell in the same spot. The throws of the burning bottles were captured by city surveillance cameras. The military commissariat itself did not catch fire. The man was detained the same day.
According to 360.ru, citing its sources, Vasyuk did not throw all the bottles—he was scared off by passing cars. The arsonist fled into the forest and got lost, and when he reached the highway, he caught a ride—a police vehicle. The young man smelled strongly of gasoline and smoke, and was therefore detained by the police. A criminal case was opened for attempted terrorist act.
On May 5, 2025, a Moscow Region media outlet reported: “In November 2022, Vasyuk voluntarily contacted the administrator of a Telegram channel used by the Ukrainian side to collect intelligence and coordinate sabotage, expressing willingness to set fire to a military commissariat in the Moscow region for monetary reward.
After receiving instructions and acquiring components to make incendiary bottles, on the night of November 22, 2023, Vasyuk went to Volokolamsk, threw several bottles with incendiary mixture at the window of the local military commissariat, and fled the scene.”
The first hearing at the 2nd Western District Military Court took place on October 28, and on October 29, 2024, Judge Roman Viktorovich Vladimirov sentenced Maxim Vasyuk to 9 years of imprisonment, with the first 3 years to be served in prison and the remaining term in a high-security penal colony.
On May 5, 2025, the Military Court of Appeal upheld the sentence. The decision was made by Federal Judge Mikhail Mikhailovich Putilovsky.
Vasyuk was represented by lawyer Zhanna Arkadyevna Uspanova.
On December 4, 2024, Maxim Vasyuk was included in the Federal Financial Monitoring Service’s (Rosfinmonitoring) list of extremists and terrorists.
Grounds for Recognition as a Political Prisoner
Since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine, thousands of Russians who disagreed with military actions have been held accountable for participating in peaceful protests. Hundreds of cases have been brought under articles criminalizing so-called “discrediting the army” and “military fakes”—in practice, for spreading any information or opinions about the war that contradict state propaganda. After the start of the full-scale war, amid total suppression of peaceful protests in Russia, there was a wave of attacks on objects with the Z-symbol, attempted arsons of military commissariats, and other administrative buildings.
Initially, criminal cases for arson or attempted arson were mostly brought under Part 2 of Article 167 of the Criminal Code (“Intentional destruction or damage to someone else’s property committed out of hooligan motives by arson, explosion, or other public-dangerous means”) or various parts of Article 213 (“Hooliganism”). After the partial mobilization announcement on September 21, 2022, Vice Admiral Vladimir Tsymlyansky of the Russian General Staff declared that “arsonists” would be charged with terrorism, which carries much longer prison terms. However, this has not become an absolute rule, and in the regions, some cases continued to be brought under less severe articles of the Criminal Code.
The classification of a specific attack often depends on factors unrelated to the incident itself—for example, who investigated it. As Mediazona noted, the FSB classified some cases as terrorism, while the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Investigative Committee used less severe articles. In some regions, such as Krasnodar Krai and Rostov Oblast, arsons were more often qualified as terrorist acts.
Independent research (Mediazona, AvtozakLIVE) shows that punishments for attempted arsons of military commissariats and administrative buildings since the start of the war have ranged from fines to 19 years in a high-security penal colony. Some defendants received suspended sentences of 1.5–2 years; others were sentenced to forced labor. Most sentences ranged from 5 to 13 years. We consider the highly variable classification of arson cases as arbitrary application of the law, violating Article 19(1) of the Russian Constitution, which guarantees that “all are equal before the law and the court.”
The approach to classifying attacks on military commissariats has changed over time but was never uniform. Since the 2022 mobilization, arsons of military commissariats have been more often treated as terrorist acts. This clearly reflects a political motive aimed at intimidating war opponents, including those willing to engage in radical protest actions.
In our view, the classification of such attacks as terrorist acts in most cases appears unjustified. A terrorist act is a crime requiring direct intent. Its purpose is to intimidate the population and thereby influence government authorities. Arsons of military commissariats and other objects were committed for other motives. During investigations and court proceedings, the intent to commit terrorism and the objective element—population intimidation—were usually not proven. The state imposed disproportionately severe articles of the Criminal Code to intimidate war opponents. This classification appears politically motivated, intended, on the one hand, to intimidate society with excessively severe punishment, and on the other, to label protest actions in public consciousness with the negative “terrorism” label. Moreover, applying the terrorism article allowed for further repression and prosecution of those who expressed approval or understanding of such actions.
The wording of Part 1 of Article 205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is as follows: “The commission of an explosion, arson, or other actions that intimidate the population and create a danger of human death, significant property damage, or other serious consequences, with the purpose of destabilizing government activities or influencing their decisions, as well as the threat of committing such actions to influence the decisions of government authorities or international organizations.” Part 2 contains additional qualifying elements, but all elements of Part 1 must be present.
Thus, the mandatory elements for classifying a crime as a terrorist act are:
– intimidation of the population
– creation of a danger to human life, significant property damage, or other serious consequences
– intent to destabilize government activity or influence decision-making
All these elements complement each other; for an act to be classified as terrorism, each must be present. Terrorism requires direct intent, so all elements of the act must be covered by the perpetrator’s intent.
According to paragraph 2 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court Resolution No. 1 of February 9, 2012, “Actions may be recognized as intimidating the population if they are capable of causing fear for life, health, safety of relatives, or property. The danger to human life, significant property damage, or other serious consequences must be real, assessed in each case considering place, time, tools, means, method of the crime, and other circumstances (such as the number of people present, the power and effect of the device used, etc.).”
We believe that anti-war acts and arsons of various objects classified in this way should not be arbitrarily considered terrorist acts. Mechanical application of this article appears politically motivated, intended to intimidate society with disproportionately severe punishment and to label protest actions with the negative “terrorism” tag. We do not have access to the case materials and do not know the full motives or circumstances of the arson, but we doubt the correctness of the classification of Maxim Vasyuk’s actions and consider that the terrorism elements were attributed to him arbitrarily and for political purposes.
Since Vasyuk’s attempted arson occurred at night, it can be assumed that he did not aim to intimidate anyone who could witness it, and did not plan to cause deaths, as the military commissariat was likely empty. Since the crime was not completed, the potential consequences remain speculative. It is also unclear what evidence the investigation relied on to claim that the uncompleted act could have caused significant material damage.
It is unknown what evidence the court considered as proof of Vasyuk’s intent to commit a terrorist act—that is, to intimidate the population and thereby influence government authorities—but the presence of all these elements in his intent is doubtful.
Therefore, we consider Maxim Vasyuk’s actions misclassified under the article on committing a terrorist act. His actions could have been classified under Part 3 of Article 30 and Part 2 of Article 167 of the Criminal Code—as attempted intentional destruction or damage to property by arson. The maximum penalty under this article (even if the act had resulted in accidental death) is no more than 5 years; for an attempt, 3 years and 9 months, whereas the sentence imposed on Vasyuk is much longer. The court assigned Vasyuk the minimum sentence for an attempt under Part 2 of Article 205, while the maximum is 15 years, indicating the court considered the public danger of his actions relatively low. By December 2025, Vasyuk had served 2.5 years including pretrial detention, covering most of the possible sentence under the lesser classification.
According to ITAR-TASS citing the FSB, Vasyuk was motivated by personal gain—he sought payment for the arson. However, the investigation notes that he “voluntarily contacted the administrator of a Telegram channel used by the Ukrainian side to collect intelligence and coordinate sabotage,” suggesting possible sympathy for Ukraine and an anti-war motive. In any case, if Russia had not started the aggressive war against Ukraine, such an arson “at the instruction of Ukrainian curators” could not have occurred. These actions, regardless of motive, constitute a crime, but an anti-war motive, if present, reduces the public danger of the act, and the long sentence imposed on Vasyuk is disproportionate, intended to intimidate Russians opposed to Russian domestic and foreign policy.
The ‘Political Prisoners. Memorial’ human rights project, continuing the Political Prisoner Support Program of the Human Rights Center ‘Memorial’, following international guidelines for defining a political prisoner, finds that the criminal case against Maxim Vasyuk shows signs of political motivation, aimed at intimidating society and consolidating and maintaining power by authorities. His imprisonment is disproportionate to the act and violates his right to a fair trial and other rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The ‘Political Prisoners. Memorial’ human rights project recognizes Maxim Vasyuk as a political prisoner and calls for a review of his criminal case by a fair court, in accordance with applicable international legal standards.
The recognition of an individual as a political prisoner does not imply that the ‘Political Prisoners. Memorial’ human rights project agrees with, or approves, their views, statements or actions.
Information updated: December 12, 2025.
