In Chita, men were accused of “discrediting” the Russian army for a post about a dream about Zelensky

An administrative protocol was drawn up against a resident of Chita, Ivan Losev, under an article about “discrediting” the Russian army for a post describing a dream about the Armed Forces of Ukraine and Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky. This is reported by the ASTRA Telegram channel.

“Today I dreamed that I was mobilized, brought to some … camp, and at that moment the Armed Forces of Ukraine, led by Zelensky, burst in there. They all tied up, they are going to shoot, and at that moment Zelensky walks past me and says: “Oh, I saw your stories on Instagram, Glory to Ukraine!”, I answer him: “Glory to the heroes!”. Zelensky joyfully taps me on the shoulder and says: “So, let him go, shoot everyone else.” And at that moment I wake up without having time to take a picture with him, ”the moose describes his dream. A screen with a description of the dream and 5 more stories were attached to the case file.

According to ASTRA, the denunciation of Losev was written by senior lieutenant D.V. Volkov. This is stated in the case file.

“Some FSB officer from the Trans-Baikal Territory – it is almost 400 km from my city – discovered me. He has been following me on Instagram almost since May, and in all seriousness rewrote the way I describe my dream. In my opinion, they only further discredit the army with their actions,” Losev told the project.

In addition to describing the dream, the young man posted Instagram posts about mobilization and war. “My much harsher statements were ignored, but they applied the dream to the case,” says Losev.

In November, in Orel, a protocol was drawn up against a man about “discrediting” the Russian army for the word “chmobiki” on Facebook. “The post consisted of a single phrase that contained the word “chmobiki”, that is, abbreviated as “partially mobilized,” the man said.

In the summer, a Nizhny Novgorod activist was fined 30,000 rubles for "discrediting" the Russian army because he wrote the word "special operation" in quotation marks. The court considered that the quotation marks testify "to the ironic, opposite, disparaging meaning of the word."

Exit mobile version