23 September 2021 · OSCE Permanent Council, 1336th meeting, Vienna
The delegation of the Russian Federation names Unkremlin e. V. in a statement.
Document PC.DEL/1483/21, recorded in the meeting journal PC.JOUR/1336.
7 April 2022 · OSCE Permanent Council, 1367th meeting, Vienna
The delegation of the Russian Federation names Unkremlin e. V. again — in connection with alleged “Russophobia” and Russian journalists in Berlin.
Document PC.DEL/526/22. Meeting on 07.04.2022 (PC.JOUR/1367); circulated by the OSCE Conference Services on 08.04.2022.
1 September 2023 · Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation, Moscow
Unkremlin e. V. is designated an “undesirable organisation”.
Participation in the association is thereby subject to criminal penalties for people in Russia.
For context: what these documents are
Statements in the PC.DEL series are not a delegation's internal papers. They are documents of a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council, circulated to participating States by the organisation's Conference Services and publicly accessible. The Federal Republic of Germany is a participating State and was represented by its own delegation at both meetings.
An expert report dated 2 July 2026 lists both statements as evidence.
Now my three points about this
First. According to the information available to me, media editors are being told that I am acting on behalf of an entity in Russia. I cannot trace this account to any document and therefore do not name anyone alleged to have circulated it. I counter it with the three episodes above. A state does not name its own man's organisation twice before an international organisation and make participation in it a criminal offence.
Second. Both accounts cannot be sustained at once. If Russian entities play a role in these proceedings — why was that never investigated? If they play no role — why are journalists being told the opposite? An assessment that does not lead to an investigation is not an established finding.
Third. The judgment explains my motive by stating that the protest had not brought “the attention not previously received”. The second statement is dated sixteen days before the point at which, according to the findings of the judgment, the device was allegedly deposited. The premise of this finding is contradicted not by me, but by the state against whose policies my protest was directed.
What does not follow from this
These documents do not prove the involvement of Russian entities in the device. I do not claim that, and I will not claim it. They prove two things: that the attention whose absence the judgment treats as a motive did in fact exist — and that it came from the side that was never the subject of an investigation in these proceedings.
If an authority did in fact assess me in this way
I ask for this to be communicated to me in writing. I can then respond. Until that happens, the question in the second paragraph remains.