On March 17, Ilya Remeslo — a blogger, lawyer and former member of Russia’s Public Chamber — posted a Telegram manifesto titled “Five reasons why I stopped supporting Vladimir Putin.” In the message he called the war in Ukraine “failing,” criticized online censorship and the lack of free speech, and argued that Putin had been in power far too long and seemed determined to remain. Remeslo described presidential press conferences as a “circus,” declared Putin illegitimate and said the president should resign and face trial as a “war criminal and a thief.”
The day after publishing the manifesto, Remeslo shared videos meant to prove he was still in Russia and said he was prepared to go to prison now so that, after any future political change, he could be seen as a hero. His posts triggered a strong public reaction, and according to reports he was soon taken to St. Petersburg’s Psychiatric Hospital No. 3. The circumstances of the hospitalization remain unclear; his contacts have reportedly been cut off and observers are left questioning what happened.
Remeslo had been a prominent “Z-blogger,” a patriotic online commentator who supported the war in Ukraine and campaigned against dissent. He rose to prominence through his efforts against the late opposition leader Alexei Navalny, participating in campaigns that helped secure Navalny’s arrest and testifying in courts across Russia. Navalny died in prison in early 2024 while serving a long sentence on extremism-related charges.
In an interview conducted before his reported admission to the psychiatric clinic, Remeslo said his change of heart was voluntary and the result of a personal transformation. He acknowledged the abruptness of his turnaround and said his views began to shift after the 2023 uprising led by mercenary leader Yevgeny Prigozhin. He also said he understood the risks of speaking out but insisted he would not flee abroad and expressed hope for political change.
Reactions from his former allies were mixed and often incredulous. Apti Alaudinov, head of a Chechen special forces unit who had worked with Remeslo, said he was “deeply shocked” and suggested Remeslo might have been coerced. Television host Vladimir Solovyov proposed the possibility of a “nervous breakdown,” linking the reversal to the stresses of war. Pro-government media variously dismissed the criticism as destabilizing, speculated it was a staged provocation, or suggested the move served the interests of unknown parties.
Analysts were divided as well. Ivan Filippov, who studies Russian propaganda, called Remeslo an “accomplice in the murder of Alexei Navalny” and warned that branding Putin a “war criminal” and a “thief” is unprecedented for a former pro-Kremlin figure and could lead to arrest. Political scientist Abbas Gallyamov read Remeslo’s turn as symptomatic of a wider erosion of support inside Russia driven by war fatigue, economic strain and declining trust in the authorities.
Others suspect the psychiatric hospitalization was imposed. Dmitry Oreshkin argued that the authorities had an interest in preventing Remeslo from becoming a martyr and might instead seek to humiliate or break him; isolating a critic in a psychiatric facility would serve that purpose. Oreshkin also pointed to St. Petersburg’s Psychiatric Clinic No. 3, which carries a grim reputation dating back to the Soviet era for forensic psychiatry. He warned that the intense and varied reactions to Remeslo’s posts — from hysteria to aggression to despair — reveal how politically numbed much of Russian society has become.
This article was originally written in German.