Who benefits?
On the narrative of instructions from Russia

According to my information, newsrooms are being told that I conduct my dispute with the German justice system on instructions from a body in Russia. I cannot substantiate this narrative with a document — I know it from feedback. I therefore treat it here not as fact but as a claim against which I set documents.

I do not defend myself against this. Instead, I ask a question that can be answered.

The question

Both statements cannot be sustained at once. One of them must fall.

If Russian services play a role in these proceedings —

why was this possibility never investigated? In the matters known to me, there is not a single investigative lead on this point. I repeatedly pointed out that the device lay unnoticed for thirteen days and that my DNA was secured in that connection. I know of no instruction to investigate in this direction.

If Russian services play no role —

why are journalists being told that I act on instructions from Russia? A claim that triggers no investigation is not a finding. It is a classification of me that replaces substantive engagement with my submissions.

Both cannot hold at once. I ask that one of the two possibilities be chosen — and then examined to the end.

What is documented

These points come not from me but from statements and decisions by others — including Moscow.

On 1 September 2023, the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office classified Unkremlin e.V. as an ‘undesirable organisation’. This makes participation in my association punishable for people in Russia. The decision comes from the Russian state itself. It cannot sensibly be reconciled with the assumption that I work for that state.
The Russian delegation to the OSCE twice named Unkremlin e.V. in official statements — on 24 September 2021 in connection with the Duma election and on 8 April 2022 (OSCE document PC.DEL/526/22). These too are Russian sources.
On 17 September 2021, senior public prosecutor Raupach, according to my account, personally ordered the immediate seizure of my ‘Putin is a Killer’ banner — at a registered protest opposite the Russian embassy, on the Duma election weekend. The subsequent proceedings against me were discontinued under § 170 StPO. At that point, the allegation later made against me still lay more than half a year in the future.
My political work has been publicly and photographically documented since 2020 — democracy camp, vigils, protests opposite the embassy, press coverage in September 2021.
The device lay unnoticed for thirteen days and did not go off. The judgment itself records that it did not go off. An independent expert opinion of 2 July 2026 concludes that it could not function in that form.

My assessmentI regard the provocation involving the can as an event whose principal result was the collection of my DNA and interruption of my lawful political work. This is expressly my hypothesis, not a substantiated fact. Only this is established: since December 2022, I have no longer publicly demonstrated against the Russian President.

Annex 120_F2 — political exposure → Dossier on senior public prosecutor Raupach (OStA) → Independent expert report of 02.07.2026 →

Why this narrative works

It works because it is embedded in a legitimate concern. The Russian state’s hybrid influence in Germany is real, and authorities are right to investigate it. That is precisely why it is so effective to associate an inconvenient complainant with it: once someone falls under this suspicion, they no longer need to be refuted. It is enough not to hear them.

The price of this convenience is high. If the suspicion is true, no investigation takes place and an actual event remains unexplained. If it is not, it replaces the examination of facts to which I am entitled. In both cases, it serves not clarification but its avoidance.

I do not claim that a particular person put this narrative into circulation. I know it from feedback and cannot link it to a document. If an authority has actually conveyed such an assessment to the media, I ask that it be communicated to me in writing — then I can comment on it. Until then, the question in section one remains.

What I request

That it be examined and answered on the record whether any investigative lead concerning possible involvement by foreign services was ever pursued in proceedings 522 Ks 5/23 — and if not, why.
That I be granted access to the file so I can verify this myself rather than having to assert it.
That any assessment of me communicated to third parties be made in writing and made available to me so that I can challenge it.

The case in five minutes → Access to the file denied → To the archive →