“Only an idiot would engage in terrorism in Russia”. Russian business school lecturer jailed for 16 years over a Ukrainian drone attack on Kursk

“I am grateful to fate for sending me to prison. It was here I understood what it means to be mindful of the common good every minute. In a single ten-man cell in the fourth central detention center, I have seen more courage, honour, dignity, and consideration for one another than in many of the places I have had occasion to work and live.”

These were the words of Eldar Marchenko, a lecturer at the RMA business school and a former columnist for the publication Vot Tak, in his final statement to the court.

Marchenko has been in custody for more than a year. Officers from Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) detained him during a search of his home on August 1, 2024. Although released after questioning, he was arrested the next day on a charge of petty hooliganism: allegedly, he swore in public and refused to show his passport—a common pretext for detaining someone while preparing criminal charges. He was sentenced to 15 days’ detention, which he served at the notorious Sakharovo migration centre outside Moscow.

He was never released, as authorities repeatedly filed new hooliganism charges against him each time his sentence was due to end.

On September 11, he was detained again upon leaving the centre and taken for questioning to Russia’s Investigative Committee. The following day, Moscow’s Basmanny court ordered his arrest on a criminal charge of terrorism. The details of the accusation were kept secret, with the hearing held behind closed doors.

The Kursk trip. The prosecution’s case

The trial at the 2nd Western District Military Court began in May. The prosecution alleged that in August 2023, Marchenko joined an “organised group” on the orders of Ukrainian intelligence “with the aim of destabilising the authorities of the Russian Federation”.

They claimed he travelled from Moscow to Kursk on August 26 and, the next day, passed the coordinates of two airfields to his handlers. As a result, two drones attacked the region. The drones “failed to reach their target for reasons beyond the group’s control”. One was shot down, while the other struck a nine-storey apartment building.

During the closing arguments, prosecutor Nadezhda Tikhonova stated that the drones that day “damaged at least eight apartments, an administrative building of an educational institution, and two cars”.

Marchenko explained his trip to Kursk by his desire to “watch some racing”, as he organises competitions himself. The state prosecutor called this version of events unreliable, since Marchenko’s first and only visit to Kursk coincided exactly with the arrival of the Ukrainian drones.

Confession and electric shock torture. The evidence

The prosecution’s case rested heavily on a confession Marchenko allegedly made immediately after his arrest. Tikhonova, the prosecutor, insisted it was given voluntarily. “There were no grounds to use any kind of violence against him, and none was used,” she said.

Marchenko, however, said he was tortured with electric shocks in an official vehicle immediately after his arrest. He claimed the torture continued during his interrogation until he signed a confession admitting he had worked for Ukrainian intelligence.

His account was supported by Maria Botova, a member of a Public Monitoring Commission (ONK), a body tasked with overseeing prisoners’ rights. She testified that eight days after his arrest, she found “symmetrical, semi-circular abrasions” on Marchenko’s thumbs, which she had seen on other prisoners who had been tortured with electric shocks. A formal complaint filed by the defence with the Investigative Committee went unanswered.

The prosecutor argued that Marchenko had confessed before he was even put in a vehicle and that a linguistic analysis confirmed the statement was voluntary. She added that investigators had reconstructed Marchenko’s route and that an on-site reconstruction proved the airfield coordinates could only have been obtained from his location.

16 years. The verdict

The prosecution requested a 19-year sentence, finding no mitigating circumstances. Marchenko’s parental rights to his son were terminated after his arrest, a decision his defence argues was unlawful.

“One can have different attitudes towards the government, but a terrorist act is a terrorist act, no matter what philosophy you use to justify it,” Tikhonova concluded.

Marchenko’s lawyer, Alexander Aldaev, argued there was “no direct evidence whatsoever” of his client’s guilt. He stressed that Marchenko was not caught at the scene and that his initial release after being questioned about a major crime was “extremely strange”. The confession, he said, was obtained through “torture and constant pressure”.

In his final address to the court, Marchenko said he wanted to “fill the gap” left by the trial and state his view on terrorism.

“In the current historical situation, I find terrorism to be pointless,” he said. “Terror is directed against the civilian population, but its object of pressure is the government … For terror to work, civilians need to be genuinely concerned about how the government’s actions will affect their fellow countrymen. This logic doesn’t work here, which is why terrorism has no chance in Russia.”

He also recounted how FSB officers had “insistently” questioned him about a Marcus, an American student who had suggested to Marchenko, as a lecturer, that he organise a fundraising event for young people who had fled mobilisation in Russia.

“After I stopped laughing, I spent a long time explaining to Marcus that Russian students absolutely don’t care about some unknown peers of theirs who find themselves in a difficult financial situation. Just as they don’t care about the public good as such, or the fate of the country in general,” Marchenko commented on the conversation. He added that the event proposed by Marcus would be impossible to hold in Russia, just as it is impossible to achieve political goals through terrorism.

He concluded by addressing any young people who, inspired by groups like the 19th-century revolutionary Narodnaya Volya (“People’s Will”), might consider violence.

“Whatever you break or burn, you are only harming yourselves,” he warned. “This isn’t America or imperial Russia; we are protected by an armour of social apathy and indifference. Attacking unarmed people is simply dishonourable, but in this case, it is also useless … The only real goal that terror leads to is the strengthening of totalitarian rule. Only an idiot or an enemy of a free Russia could engage in terrorism in Russia.”

Stating he had no doubt he would receive the long sentence he was promised by the FSB, he finished: “I am grateful to the court for its conscientious approach … and I wish it to live to see better times, when it will have the opportunity to judge without looking over its shoulder at people in balaclavas, guided only by law and conscience.”

Editor: Maria Klimova