Evgeny Stupin, a former investigator and bailiff service officer, was elected as a deputy to the Moscow City Duma in 2019 with the support of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) from one of Moscow’s bedroom neighborhoods, where mostly poor people live. His term ended early: because of his anti-war stance, Stupin was first expelled from his CPRF faction, then from the party itself, and finally stripped of his deputy status. Due to his designation as a “foreign agent” and the threat of criminal prosecution, Stupin left Russia with his family and now lives abroad. 

— If one types your name into a search engine, it shows that you are a Russian YouTuber. How do you define yourself?

— I guess that’s the way it is now. I try to be a human rights activist, fighting against the violation of the rights of our citizens. Recently, I wrote about the drivers’ strike at Ozon, during which about 70 people did not go to work. The labor laws have become completely exploitative; it is very difficult to organize a strike. According to the Federal Statistics Service (Rosstat), there are only one to five official strikes a year! And there used to be thousands of strikes. Therefore, workers more and more often decide to simply not go to work, which can actually be considered a strike. And it seems to have succeeded, because negotiations have begun at Ozon. Even in my social media, Ozon wrote in the comments that they are now increasing the warehouse staff to make it easier for couriers to work.

If there is no organization, if there are no working trade unions to rely on, no new Lenin will help. Such actions in defense of labor rights create confidence that collectively and in solidarity it is possible to achieve results. Ozon is a large company, with a federal structure, largely oligarchic. It’s worth a lot to succeed in the fight against it. 

— And how do you keep in touch with your constituents? How can you help those who remain in Russia to defend their rights, including labor rights?

— Attracting publicity to the case does work, and I do that. Usually, I also give advice and recommend various lawyers and attorneys. After all, if you need a lawyer, you can run into fraudsters on the internet: there are a lot of advertisements, and it’s not clear who to turn to. Even a high price does not guarantee that you will not be cheated. When choosing a lawyer the most important thing is not even if they are professional. It is more important they’re a decent person who seeks to achieve the result. Unfortunately, reputations count for almost nothing now in the legal field.

— What can be done if some unscrupulous lawyer takes money, but does not fulfill his obligations and cheats people?

— Usually, a lawyer can be disciplined for failure to fulfill his/her duties, up to and including disbarment. Without the status of a lawyer, a lawyer cannot deal with criminal cases and a number of administrative cases. If a fraudster pretends to be a lawyer, they can be held criminally liable. And if the lawyer with a diploma formally did everything that was required under the contract — for example, made a complaint, filed a lawsuit, but in fact it was not enough or the work was done poorly — it is very difficult to punish such a person for fraud. Therefore, it is necessary to know in advance whom to address, so as not to fall for such unscrupulous lawyers. Now I have the idea of creating a website with such information.

— Can you tell us about an exemplary case in which you managed to defend people’s rights through legal mechanisms? 

— Once I managed to get an acquittal in a case, though not directly related to politics. It was a standard case: a kid decided to make money by selling drugs, and he admitted it. But the investigators decided to add smuggling to the list of charges. It happens in the Russian system: they try to pressure an accused person who has confessed to admit to something else (like smuggling) as a way to get more cases closed! I insisted that the case be tried by a jury, which eventually acquitted the guy on the smuggling charge. He was charged with smuggling because he ordered the drug from overseas. But when the postal notice came, he didn’t go to pick up the package. The notice was just lying at his house for a month, and during the search the police found this piece of paper. That is, the guy had the opportunity to take the parcel with the drugs, but he decided not to do it. From the point of view of the Supreme Court of Russia, the crime was already over by the time the parcel with the drugs crossed the border of the Russian Federation, so in a regular court the guy had no chance to be acquitted in this case. A jury trial is not like that. The jury acquitted the guy. Legally speaking, we managed to prove the guy’s voluntary refusal to commit a crime. In the future, we need to develop the institution of jury trial as much as possible.

Another case is related to political repression. As you remember, people were detained in Moscow at rallies against the military mobilization. At that time I came to Novokosino, a district of my constituency, not as a deputy, but as a lawyer. Several detainees were brought to the police station. When I arrived at the police station, I saw the following scene: the police officer was just yelling at the detainees, and they were standing there crying. I reprimanded the officer and explained the consequences of his behavior, and everything changed immediately.

As a result, the police drew up detention reports on the spot. Two of them decided to fight for their acquittal and asked me how to do it. Through a lawyer’s request I managed to demand a video recording of their detention and to attach it to the case. After watching the video and seeing that the defendants had not violated anything, the judge decided to terminate the administrative case. On the basis of the same video we managed to cancel the court decision in another administrative case.

Of course, such stories are exceptional. Today it is difficult to obtain acquittals in court. The main task of lawyers now has to be to ensure that there are no violations against their clients and that there is no torture against them. If the lawyers are near the detainees at the police station or even if they are not allowed in, but the police know that they have come, the attitude of the police to the detainees will be completely different. 

— The authorities have effectively made it impossible for you to take part in any elections by assigning you the status of “foreign agent” and forcing you to leave the country. In the forthcoming Moscow City Duma elections, your namesake will be nominated, probably just to confuse voters. How do you assess this situation?

— It looks like this time the authorities have decided to reassure themselves, bearing in mind the large-scale protests of 2019 after many self-nominated candidates were not allowed to participate in the elections. The authorities see that my videos criticizing them on YouTube are going viral and gaining views. In addition, the authorities have the results of social surveys organized by the Federal Security Service (FSB). When I ran for the City Duma in 2019, my team and I did not know what percent we would gain. We were facing a candidate with huge administrative resources, while our resources were limited: something was given by the party, something we managed to raise ourselves. But we leveled the playing field through our own effort and enthusiasm. And in the corridor of the election commission, which I regularly visited during the campaign because of the paperwork, I happened to meet a man who had information about the results of opinion polls. He said to me: “You are winning.” I didn’t believe him at the time, but in the end he was right. I guess he just blurted out that information out of stupidity.

And indeed, we saw in the election that I had 44 percent of the vote, while the pro-government Maxim Shingarkin had only 21 percent, i.e. the gap was more than twofold. The authorities knew this in advance, but we did not. Thanks to their polls, they understand where trouble can come from. But now, I think, they are afraid of absolutely everything and just want to play it safe. Their goal now is to diffuse and atomize the protest electorate, so that a candidate from United Russia — the ruling party — will be elected. Some people will vote for spoiler candidates, some will vote for candidates from other parties, but no coordination between them is admissible for the regime.

— What have you managed to accomplish as a deputy in the Moscow City Duma? After all, the mayor’s office decides almost everything, and the Moscow City Duma can only approve or disapprove the city budget.

— In fact, the City Duma has considerable powers. Of course, ideally, I would like to see the government answerable to the City Duma, so that the latter can dismiss them if need be. But the Moscow City Duma passes legislation, and that’s already quite significant. In addition, the Moscow City Duma accepts the mayor’s report. Indeed, now the deputies of the Moscow City Duma are in a subordinate position in relation to the mayor’s office, because the majority of deputies are from the United Russia party. They approve any legislation that comes down from the mayor’s office like its servants. As a result, the function of a Moscow City Duma deputy has been reduced to merely following orders. The chairman of Moscow City Duma Alexey Shaposhnikov receives these orders not even from the mayor, but from a mere head of the Department of Trade and Services Alexey Nemiryuk. That’s the degree of servility to which they have brought themselves! I have been telling them about it more than once, openly. United Russia deputies are only doing button-pushing, because government officials allocate money to them, not directly, of course, but through the government procurement contracts. For example, some company wins a government contract for 70 million rubles from the Department of Innovative Development, and then this contractor sponsors a United Russia candidate in the elections for the same amount. And all this happens in accordance with the law!

United Russia deputies receive unbelievable money already at the election stage. If I had one campaign advertising cube for the entire district during the election campaign, the United Russia deputy usually had five or six. Naturally, this way the candidate is better remembered, and the voter can choose them simply because it is a familiar face. Deputies elected with corrupt money continue the corruption with the laws they pass. For example, the law provides for the possibility to allocate land plots to citizens. The Moscow City Duma could have passed a law regulating which categories of citizens are entitled to this: teachers, doctors, participants in the “special military operation” — there were various proposals. But in the end, the decision about who gets the expensive Moscow land is quietly made by an official of the Department of City Property, not by the deputies. I am asked how I am going to defeat corruption. I answer: one can at least simply not adopt such laws, which generate corruption on the basis of Moscow land speculation.

— What kind of report does the Moscow Mayor present to the City Duma? What can the Duma do with this report?

— The Moscow City Duma can reject the mayor’s report, and then he will have to prepare the report again. Deputies can ask questions about the activities and policies of the Moscow government. When Mayor Sergei Sobyanin presented his report in 2019, he was confronted with questions about the destruction of health care in Moscow. Sobyanin replied: yes, we are decreasing the number of hospital beds, but Muscovites have nothing to fear. And after all, at that time we already knew about the Covid outbreak in China! So this was Sobyanin’s last speech in front of the Moscow City Duma — he hasn’t appeared there since. United Russia MPs were not present at the meeting. 

The Moscow City Duma has gradually simplified the procedure for the mayor to give his report. But what is the purpose of reporting? It is the separation of powers. The executive power is the strongest, so the legislative and judicial powers should control what the executive power does. But in the case of the Moscow City Duma there is no control. It does what the Moscow government tells it to do. United Russia and its deputies are lackeys of the executive branch. 

— Have you ever succeeded in preventing some crazy law from being passed, with the help of independent deputies? Or amended an already existing law that would improve the lives of citizens?

—  Some laws that we proposed did not reach the consideration stage at all. But sometimes similar initiatives were put forward after the rejection of our proposals and passed by United Russia deputies. In 2019, health care and education spending was increased by a record 25 percent. At that time, the United Russia party did not yet fully understand what to expect from us, the new independent deputies. They maximized social welfare spending in the budget in order to immediately declare: look how social our budget is. In any case, it was very good and useful for people, even if we realized at the time that some part of it would inevitably be plundered.

To continue with the topic of health care, in 2020 I made my amendments to the budget to allocate money for a new polyclinic in Nekrasovka. This is a new neighborhood in pure Sobyanin style: dense high-rise development, lots of migrants, so there was an objective need for another polyclinic, which I stated. Then I received an official refusal: allegedly, the project of the new polyclinic had to be organized through special programs. After that, I met with the Department of Health, where I expressed my proposals. In the end, they simply included the new polyclinic in the plan themselves! Now this polyclinic is already under construction.

As for the passage of laws, there are very few good examples. The success rate is much higher in targeted interaction with officials and on deputy requests. Renewal of kindergartens, improvement projects, medical surgeries for specific people: I was able to work on these issues. Two people thanked me for saving their lives: they themselves were unable to get vital free surgeries, and I was able to help them. 

The work of our team was primarily aimed at solving people’s specific problems. This was my daily mandatory work, which took up most of my time. Not on laws, not on criticizing Putin and Sobyanin. Seeing that we could help, rather than pretending to please someone, people started to reach out to us. People saw for themselves what we were working for, and they started to campaign for me as a result. 

— Do you still keep in touch with the CPRF, where you were a member? After all, the party’s key figures support Russian aggression in Ukraine, while you take an anti-war stance. 

— The rank and file do not support what the pro-war figures like Zyuganov, Afonin, or Novikov say. What these rank and file members do about it is a different question. You can oppose it and, like me, lose your mandate and end up abroad, or you can wait [to join the fight at a critical moment]. When the war is over, we will need people on the ground. I advised such people to stick to their anti-war beliefs and, of course, not to smear themselves with support for the war, but to preserve themselves.

—   You had to leave because of the threat of criminal prosecution. At the time, you called your departure a “business trip.” Do you know what the Russian state had prepared against you?

— I received a signal through unofficial channels that if I tried to return, I would be arrested. The case may not even be opened immediately: for example, Alsu Kurmasheva, a journalist of the Tatar-Bashkir service of Radio Liberty, was allowed to enter the country for family reasons and detained on her way out, having been accused of  spreading “fakes” about the army. [Alsu Kurmasheva was released on August 1 as part of a prisoner exchange between Russia and a number of Western countries.] I was made to realize that the status of “foreign agent” was just the beginning of my problems. Boris Kagarlitsky was placed in a pre-trial detention center almost immediately after he was recognized as a foreign agent. I am ready to risk — maybe even my life — but I must understand what I am risking it for. Right now, my arrest will do no one any good. 

— You worked for the Investigative Committee and the Federal Bailiff Service earlier. Now these organizations are firmly associated with state repression. How did you go from being a law enforcement officer to a lawyer and leftist politician?

— This happened in 2014. I was influenced by several events: first, the annexation of Crimea, and second, my work as the acting chief court bailiff of the Sakha Republic. During the year while I was in charge, I changed the very system of work. Initially, there was a completely non-transparent system of bonuses for bailiffs: everything was decided by the chief according to arbitrary criteria, people did not understand why they should work better. In my new position, the first thing I did was to ask the bailiffs themselves to send me their own suggestions on what they would like the bonus criteria to be. Only a few people out of 700 bailiffs sent their proposals. But on their basis, a new bonus system was created: bonuses began to be awarded openly and clearly, in accordance with the recommendations. 

As a result, the efficiency of work increased: people understood what they were being paid for and what they needed to do to earn more. People became motivated and the atmosphere in the team improved. There were also trivial everyday things that I was able to improve. For example, the former head of the service rented a windowless room with no air conditioning for the city’s bailiffs under a corrupt scheme. In the summer, people simply fainted from the heat. As you know, the Sakha Republic has extreme temperatures: -60⁰ in winter and +40⁰ in summer. In the end, I simply found another office for the same money, with windows and air conditioning. Although the move took some time, the bailiffs eventually began to come to work with pleasure. As you can see, the main problem is corruption: it eats up everything.

Then I was transferred to work in the bailiff service of the Moscow region. My official salary was 46,000 roubles (about 1,200 USD in 2014), and I had a wife and two children. How could the four of us live on that money? I was told that I should take bribes, but in response I left the service. In parallel, the Crimea affair happened. I was torn: before that, I worked for the authorities and believed that I could do good for people in my place. Law enforcement agencies in general, of course, are associated with repression, but 97 percent of bailiffs’ cases are about alimonies, debt collection, traffic fines, and so on. At that time, I did not feel that I was doing something bad, and I never had any political orders: maybe I was just lucky. After Crimea, I became more and more critical of the government’s policy when I saw how Putin simply took someone else’s property. Then I realized that I would not be able to change anything in the bailiff service of the Moscow Region and that I had to change everything from some other side.

— What are European activists and politicians interested in when they talk to you?

— They are interested in knowing what is happening in Russian society. And what is happening to it? I believe that if Russian society receives only accusations and demands for reparations from the West, the war will not end for a long time. In this case, the picture created by Russian propaganda will work: people will think that the entire West is really against them, and that there is no one to lean on but Putin. The liberal opposition supports this state of affairs, while the left, unfortunately, has not yet clearly formulated its proposal. It is sad when the left is associated with the corrupt Gennady Zyuganov, head of the CPRF. In fact, the majority of the left and the majority of Russians are against the war. 

I am trying to convey to European politicians how, in my opinion, sanctions should be handled. European countries should not only impose sanctions, but also set conditions for their removal. For example, the European Union could promise to lift 10 or 20 percent of sanctions on Russia if a ceasefire is reached. Another 20 if a full-fledged peace treaty is concluded. And another 40 if a fund is created to support the Ukrainian economy at the expense of Russian oligarchs who have stolen from the Russian people. The Russian economy will have to be developed at their expense: the oligarchs have plundered the people’s wealth, and they must pay back this debt. And another 20 percent can already be removed by solving humanitarian issues. This is a quite clear and precise plan. If it is adopted, it will be easier for politicians to appeal to Russians, people will not think that the whole world is against them. But right now there is nothing like that. 

— What have you learned from observing political life in Europe?

— The fact is that the standard of living of an ordinary working person in Western Europe is several times higher than that of a worker in Russia. The salary of a qualified European worker is several times higher. Of course, prices for products, services, and so on are higher in Europe than in Russia, but a worker in Germany is still twice as rich as a Russian worker. Why is this so? Many people think that European countries simply have good governance. This is a mistaken opinion from the liberal camp. It’s not about the government, but about the fact that Europe has strong trade unions.

Take the recent case in Germany, when railroad and airport workers went on strike. The demands of the strikers were simply unthinkable for Russia: inflation compensation for three thousand euros, a 555 euro increase in wages for all workers, and a reduction in the work week to 35 hours. In Russia, the working week is 40 hours. In the end they achieved almost everything, the concessions to the employers were minor. Thanks to their collectivism, the workers were able to achieve better working conditions. This is what we need to learn from them. 

We are already seeing this kind of thing in Russia: I have already mentioned the strike by the Ozon drivers. Of course, for objective reasons, such collective action is still in its infancy. The trade union movement in Russia has not yet become a major organizational force for solving labor issues. But we will start small. Our task is to constantly talk about it from any available platforms. When such structures are in place, life in Russia will be even better than in Germany.