Alexander Skobov: From Soviet Psychiatric Hospitals to a 16-Year Prison Sentence

Alexander Skobov was arrested in St. Petersburg on April 2, 2024. Almost half a century earlier, the KGB had pursued him for participating in an underground left-wing movement and producing samizdat publications. Two arrests in the Soviet Union led to his confinement in psychiatric institutions. In present-day Russia, the historian and political writer has been convicted over statements about the war against Ukraine and his involvement with the Free Russia Forum.

Skobov is now 68. He is serving the first three years of a 16-year sentence at Prison No. 2 in Yelets, in Russia's Lipetsk region. The human rights project Political Prisoners. Memorial regards him as a political prisoner and has called for his release.

Underground opposition in Leningrad

Skobov was born in Leningrad on November 4, 1957. He attended School No. 121, known for its emphasis on mathematics and physics, before enrolling in the history faculty at Leningrad State University. In the mid-1970s, he became acquainted with members of a small underground Marxist circle. They debated how the Soviet Communist Party bureaucracy had effectively appropriated the power that official ideology claimed belonged to working people.

In an interview recorded shortly before his 2024 arrest, Skobov recalled that the circle had fewer than ten members. He named Andrei Reznikov and Arkady Tsurkov among them. Skobov disagreed with his comrades about tactics: he believed it was too early to move into public agitation. In 1976, former associates distributed leaflets, prompting arrests and KGB investigations that also affected him.

A group known as the Left Opposition later produced a typewritten journal, Perspektivy (Perspectives), discussing socialism, democracy and the Soviet political system. In autumn 1978, as young opposition activists sought contacts in other cities, searches and arrests began. Skobov was charged under Article 70 of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic's Criminal Code, which criminalized “anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda.”

Two arrests and compulsory psychiatric treatment

Skobov's first encounter with Soviet psychiatry came while he was still at school. According to his recollections, after he made political statements publicly in the eighth grade, pressure from the school led his family to arrange a psychiatric evaluation. He emphasized that this was an examination, not the prolonged compulsory treatment that followed his later arrests.

After his arrest in 1978, he underwent forensic psychiatric assessment, including at the Serbsky Institute. He was declared legally insane and ordered by a court to be confined in a psychiatric facility. Skobov recalled doctors suggesting during periodic reviews that he renounce his political beliefs if he wanted the compulsory treatment to end. He refused. He was first released in 1981.

After leaving the hospital, Skobov joined the Free Interprofessional Association of Workers, or SMOT, an independent trade-union initiative. His associates included the dissident Lev Volokhonsky. In December 1982, Skobov helped paint slogans on Leningrad walls demanding the release of political prisoners and expressing support for SMOT. He was arrested again on December 20 and once more subjected to compulsory psychiatric treatment.

Open sources disagree about when his second confinement ended. Biographical accounts, including those published by Radio Liberty and Novaya Gazeta Europe, give 1985. The BBC Russian Service and Skobov's support group place his release in summer 1987. Without further documentary evidence, a single definitive date cannot be established. What is not in dispute is that Skobov spent several years deprived of liberty in the two cases and returned to public political activity before the Soviet Union collapsed.

Perestroika, Democratic Union and teaching history

In 1988, Skobov took part in Democratic Union, one of the first openly opposition organizations of the perestroika years. His name appeared in the so-called Case No. 64, brought under the older version of Article 70 of the RSFSR Criminal Code. The case was discontinued in 1989 after legislative changes. Accounts of the Soviet dissident movement describe it as among the last criminal cases under that article.

In the 1990s, Skobov taught history in St. Petersburg, including at Classical Gymnasium No. 610. By his own estimate, he spent almost twenty years teaching in schools. He also wrote historical and political essays and prepared educational materials. His interests included the 1917 Revolution, Soviet statehood and the origins of authoritarian political systems.

During Russia's constitutional crisis in 1993, he criticized the use of force. After the First Chechen War began, he participated in antiwar demonstrations. In 2002–2003, he published an Antivoenny Vestnik (Antiwar Bulletin). He was later associated with the Yabloko party and the Solidarity movement and contributed to independent publications.

The 2014 assault: no established political motive

Following Russia's annexation of Crimea and the outbreak of war in eastern Ukraine, Skobov publicly supported Ukraine. On the night of July 28, 2014, he was attacked in St. Petersburg: he was beaten and stabbed, suffering serious injuries. He subsequently experienced significant problems with his eyesight.

Some of his associates suspected a political motive, but investigators treated the assault as a robbery. In August, police reported detaining suspects allegedly connected to a series of similar attacks. According to Fontanka, Skobov himself said at the time that he considered the incident an ordinary criminal assault. There is insufficient reliable evidence to state that the attack was organized because of his political views.

After the full-scale invasion of Ukraine

After February 24, 2022, Skobov's statements became more uncompromising. He called for an end to Russian aggression, supported Ukraine's armed resistance and endorsed strikes against Russian military targets. He also published statements approving particular acts of violence, including the killing of military blogger Vladlen Tatarsky in St. Petersburg. Those statements later formed part of the criminal accusations against him. The distinction between support for military action during an armed conflict and approval of an attack on an individual became one of the case's legally significant questions.

Skobov participated in the Free Russia Forum, an opposition platform that developed in exile. He had no intention of emigrating, although shortly before his arrest he traveled abroad to see his children. In April 2024, Meduza reported, citing human rights activist Yuly Rybakov, that the meeting took place in Armenia; Novaya Gazeta Europe, citing people close to Skobov, described a trip to Istanbul. Both accounts agree on the central point: his children urged him to stay abroad, but he returned to St. Petersburg. The conflicting accounts do not establish which country he visited.

On March 22, 2024, Russia's Justice Ministry added Skobov to its “foreign agents” register. On April 2, law enforcement officers detained him at the apartment of human rights activist Yuly Rybakov. According to Rybakov, Skobov declined to take medication and the glasses he needed because of his poor vision. On April 4, St. Petersburg's Kalininsky District Court ordered him held in pretrial detention. His defense sought house arrest, citing his health and the situation of his elderly mother.

The subsequent investigation was conducted in Syktyvkar, far from St. Petersburg and his relatives. According to Memorial, Skobov faced charges under Part 2 of Article 205.2 of Russia's Criminal Code — public calls for terrorist activity or public justification of terrorism using the internet — and Part 2 of Article 205.4, participation in a terrorist community.

Which statements led to the prosecution?

Materials examined by Political Prisoners. Memorial describe several incidents. In February 2023, Skobov welcomed an act of sabotage against a Russian A-50 airborne early-warning aircraft in Belarus. In April of that year, he expressed approval of the explosion at a St. Petersburg café that killed Vladlen Tatarsky and wrote about Darya Trepova. Prosecutors also cited statements concerning attacks on the Crimean Bridge and armed resistance inside Russia.

The prosecution characterized several publications as calls for terrorism or its justification. A separate allegation concerned the Free Russia Forum: investigators claimed that the forum constituted a terrorist community and that Skobov participated in its activities.

An important distinction must be made. This was not a prosecution based solely on neutral criticism of the government or on a single antiwar remark. The evidence cited included writings in which Skobov explicitly approved violent acts. Those statements should not be glossed over. At the same time, provocative or disturbing speech does not relieve a court of the obligation to establish every legal element of each alleged offense.

Trial, appeal and Supreme Court review

On March 21, 2025, the First Western District Military Court in St. Petersburg, presided over by Judge Alexander Khludnyov, sentenced Skobov to 16 years in prison. Prosecutors had requested 18 years. The court imposed separate sentences for three counts: five years and six months under Part 2 of Article 205.2 for public calls; six years under the same provision for justification of terrorism; and 11 years under Part 2 of Article 205.4 for participation in a terrorist community. The final 16-year term was calculated by partially combining the sentences.

The court ordered him to serve the first three years in a prison institution and the remainder in a strict-regime penal colony. It also imposed a fine of 300,000 rubles and a four-year prohibition on administering online resources. These details were reported by human rights defenders and set out in the case dossier.

Skobov pleaded not guilty. He used his statements in court to denounce the Russian authorities and the war. He opened his closing statement with the words, “I am the one bringing the charges here,” directing his accusations at the representatives of the state conducting the proceedings.

On June 23, 2025, the Military Court of Appeal upheld the verdict. On April 1, 2026, the Russian Supreme Court's Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel rejected the defense's cassation appeal. The Supreme Court confirmed the 16-year sentence in an official statement. The conviction therefore remained in force.

Prison discipline and a new case over “Glory to Ukraine”

In August 2025, after an extended transfer between detention facilities, Skobov arrived at Prison No. 2 in Yelets, Lipetsk region. His support group reported that from November onward he was repeatedly placed in a punishment cell. Some sanctions were imposed because, when identifying himself to prison staff, he called himself a political prisoner.

On January 13, 2026, he received 14 days in a punishment cell because his beard exceeded the length permitted by prison regulations. His wife, Olga Shcheglova, acknowledged that the restriction existed but questioned the severity of the consequences for an older prisoner with serious medical conditions. Skobov has diabetes, glaucoma and other chronic illnesses. Relatives have reported further deterioration of his vision and difficulties obtaining necessary medication.

At a prison disciplinary hearing on August 13, 2026, Skobov said, “Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the heroes!” On August 28, the Yelets City Court fined him 2,000 rubles under Part 1 of Article 20.3 of Russia's Code of Administrative Offenses for the public display of extremist symbols. According to an account of the ruling shared by the legal commentary channel Prison Lawyer, the court linked the spoken slogan to the symbols of Ukrainian organizations that Russia's Supreme Court had designated extremist in 2014.

According to the defense and Skobov's support group, neither he nor his lawyer received notice that would have allowed them to participate effectively in the proceedings. The ruling was appealed. A hearing before the Lipetsk Regional Court was scheduled for October 15, 2026. At the time this article was prepared, no reliable report of its outcome was available, so the result of that appeal remains unconfirmed.

Skobov continues to write letters and political essays from prison. Some are published by his support group. They address the war, Russian history, authoritarianism and the role of democratic movements.

Why human rights groups challenge the case

Russian law provides criminal penalties for calls to commit terrorist offenses. Part 2 of Article 205.2 covers public calls for terrorist activity, public justification of terrorism and propaganda of terrorism through mass media or the internet. Part 2 of Article 205.4 penalizes participation in a terrorist community. Applying these provisions, however, requires more than identifying a publication or membership in an opposition organization. The prosecution must establish the legal elements of the respective offenses, including the character of the call and the purpose of the alleged community.

The Free Russia Forum is a central issue. As Memorial notes, the defense disputed whether the evidence established that the forum had been created to prepare or carry out terrorist activities. The forum was added to Russia's official list of terrorist organizations on October 23, 2025, after Skobov had already been sentenced. That later listing does not, by itself, prove either that the earlier judgment was lawful or that it was unlawful. Under Article 205.4, the court was required to assess the alleged community's defining characteristics on the evidence relevant to the case.

The publications call for equally specific legal scrutiny. Approval of an attack on a military target during an international armed conflict cannot automatically be equated with justification of a terrorist attack on civilians. Conversely, approval of the killing of a particular individual does not automatically become protected political expression because the speaker opposes a war. Each count therefore requires its own legal assessment, rather than a general judgment about the defendant's political convictions.

Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects freedom of expression while permitting restrictions established by law that are necessary to protect the rights of others or public safety. Human rights objections to Skobov's prosecution concern whether the prohibited conduct was sufficiently defined, whether the state presented adequate evidence, and whether a 16-year term was proportionate to the behavior described.

Political Prisoners. Memorial designated Skobov a political prisoner on May 10, 2024. The organization argues that his prosecution is connected to his criticism of the authorities and opposition to the war, and that the proceedings implicate freedom of expression, freedom of association and fair-trial rights. That is a human rights assessment, not a judicial finding of innocence or an endorsement of every statement Skobov has published.

The separate administrative case also warrants scrutiny. A court treated a phrase spoken by a prisoner during an internal disciplinary hearing as the public display of extremist symbols. The defense appealed the fine, including on grounds of inadequate notice and lack of meaningful participation. Without the final appellate ruling, it would be premature to say that the higher court either upheld or overturned the decision.

Other cases and Skobov's present status

In FACTUM's database, Skobov is included among people prosecuted under terrorism-related provisions, in antiwar persecution cases, and in cases involving the “foreign agents” system. He also appears in the directory of journalists and political writers. Comparable questions about the application of Article 205.2 to published statements have arisen in other cases, including that of writer Boris Stomakhin; his case is separate and is not part of the proceedings against Skobov.

Following the unsuccessful appeals, Skobov continues to serve his sentence. Fresh disciplinary sanctions, reported obstacles to medical care and the separate administrative proceedings require examination on their own merits, regardless of the original criminal conviction.

His life spans two systems of political persecution: compulsory psychiatric treatment in the Soviet Union and modern criminal prosecution under terrorism-related laws. For legal analysis, however, the historical parallel is less important than the state's specific actions: the grounds for detention, the substance of the allegations, the evidence, the length of the sentence and the conditions in which he is held.

This article is based on publicly available sources as of October 15, 2026.