When Public Activity Becomes “Extremism”

Sevr Nuu

The image was created using AI.

Not long ago, the words “community leader” and “activist” sounded calm and familiar among Indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia, and the Far East. They described people who took responsibility for their language, culture, land, and the well-being of their communities. It was work often invisible and sometimes even misunderstood.

Today, these words are increasingly placed next to another — heavy and frightening — word: “extremism.”

For many, this causes confusion. We have long understood extremism to mean violence, destruction, and threats to human life. Yet more and more often, this label is now applied to people who acted openly and peacefully, who spoke about problems and sought dialogue.

Lawyer’s commentary

In Russia, so-called “anti-extremism” and “anti-terrorism” laws have long been used not primarily against real extremists who promote violence, but against activists, opposition politicians, journalists, and human rights defenders — anyone whose views contradict official narratives or whose voices are inconvenient for authorities.

How many people are affected?

There is no exact answer. Official lists constantly expand. They include not only individuals but entire organizations — and with them, everyone who ever cooperated, corresponded, or attended meetings with them.

Sometimes a single fact of cooperation is enough to raise suspicion. Sometimes a public speech. Sometimes participation in an international discussion that was considered normal practice just a short time ago.

Thus, the number of “extremists” grows — even though the people themselves have not changed. They still speak about the same things: language, culture, traditions, land, and future generations.

Lawyer’s commentary

The official register of “terrorists and extremists” is maintained by Rosfinmonitoring. As of early February 2026, it included 824 organizations and more than 19,900 individuals.

A person can be added simply because a criminal case is opened under “extremism” or “terrorism” articles. One commonly used provision, for example, punishes “justifying terrorism,” often applied to critical social media comments.

Why this is especially alarming for Indigenous peoples

Indigenous peoples have always had to explain and defend their right to be heard — whether during historical processes such as collectivization and industrial expansion, or through legal changes affecting fishing, hunting, and land use.

To do so, they learned to speak many “languages,” both literally and figuratively: participating in conferences, writing petitions, engaging authorities, and addressing international institutions. This was an effort to preserve balance between past and future.

When such actions begin to be treated as threats, uncertainty arises: where is the line?

Lawyer’s commentary

Since mid-2024, authorities have moved toward increasingly broad restrictions. The Supreme Court of Russia banned a supposed “anti-Russian separatist movement,” after which dozens of Indigenous organizations and initiatives were labeled extremist. Later, a large group of entities — many of them informal or non-existent — were collectively designated as terrorist structures.

In such cases, investigators often do not need to prove calls for violence. Statements about Indigenous rights, environmental impacts of industrial projects, traditional land use, or cultural self-determination can be interpreted as threats to state unity. Evidence frequently relies on correspondence, conference participation, publications, or reposts.

For Indigenous peoples, this means ordinary advocacy — including UN engagement, public reporting, or cultural work — can lead to severe criminal charges carrying long prison sentences.

In effect, this creates a system that leaves space only for state-controlled organizations while silencing independent Indigenous voices.

Behind the terminology are human lives

Every case, every entry in official lists, represents a person — with family, responsibilities, and a life.

Lawyer’s commentary

Being charged under extremism laws and placed on Rosfinmonitoring’s list brings immediate consequences even before trial. Bank accounts are frozen, financial transactions restricted, employment becomes impossible, and families bear heavy costs supporting detained relatives. These measures occur automatically and are extremely difficult to challenge.

What this means for all of us

It may seem these stories concern only activists. In reality, they affect far more people. When speaking itself becomes suspicious, silence gradually turns into the norm.

But silence has never been a tradition of northern communities. Survival has always depended on mutual support, dialogue, and the oral transmission of knowledge — preserving language, memory, and continuity between generations.

Words carry weight — especially those that can change human lives. They must be used carefully and responsibly.

Public activity is not a threat. It is an attempt to preserve what is precious. And as long as we remember this, there remains hope that we will not lose one another amid the noise of loud and frightening labels.