The Supreme Court of Russia has barred the liberal party Yabloko from taking part in this year’s legislative election. The ruling followed a petition from Rodina, a rival party, and cited unregistered funding, a copyright infringement claim, and extremism.

Who Yabloko are

Yabloko is one of the oldest political parties in post-Soviet Russia, founded in the early 1990s. It is liberal in orientation and has spent most of its existence outside parliament, holding a handful of seats at regional level and running candidates who rarely win.

It is not, by any measure, a threat to the outcome of a national election. That is precisely what makes the ruling worth examining.

Barred, not banned

The distinction is worth drawing. A party can be prohibited outright, or it can be excluded from a particular election on administrative or legal grounds while continuing to exist on paper.

The second route is far more common, in many countries and not only in Russia, because it is harder to characterise as political suppression. Nobody has banned an opposition; a court has found paperwork irregularities.

The three grounds cited here are of quite different kinds — a financial-compliance allegation, an intellectual-property claim, and an extremism finding. Bundling them produces a ruling that is difficult to answer as a whole, because rebutting one leaves the others standing.

The word “extremism”

Russian law defines extremism broadly, and the designation has been applied over the years to organisations ranging from armed groups to political movements and religious communities.

A broad statutory definition is what allows the label to travel. It is worth noting because international coverage often reports the term without saying what it means in the relevant legal system — and a reader who assumes it means what it would mean in their own country will misunderstand the story.

Why a rival party brought the case

The petition came from Rodina, another registered party, rather than from a state prosecutor.

That structure has a presentational advantage. A case brought by one party against another can be described as an ordinary legal dispute between political competitors, rather than as the state removing an opponent.

Whether that is what happened here is not something we can establish. What can be said is that the mechanism exists, that it produces the same outcome as direct state action, and that it is harder to criticise in those terms.

Why exclude a party that cannot win

The obvious question is what is gained by removing a party polling in low single figures.

Several answers are plausible. Small parties provide a place for dissatisfied voters to go, and their presence on a ballot paper is a form of visible dissent. They give opposition figures a legal vehicle for campaigning, which is otherwise difficult to obtain. And an election contested by a genuine liberal party looks different from one contested only by parties acceptable to the government — including to observers abroad.

Removing such a party costs little in seats and changes what the election is.

What to watch

Whether Yabloko appeals and on what grounds; whether individual members are permitted to run as independents; and whether other parties face similar petitions before nominations close.

The pattern, if there is one, will be visible in the weeks before the ballot rather than in this single ruling.

---

Sources: The Guardian; The Moscow Times, 10 August 2026.