Party of Socialist Revolutionaries as a baby Tsakhes

18


In the famous fairy tale of the German writer Hoffmann “Little Tsakhes” her main character possessed an amazing ability: no one noticed the negative actions he committed and the responsibility for them was placed on others. In our revolution there was an equally amazing party — the party of socialist revolutionaries. The mass public consciousness still connects the sad consequences of the revolution exclusively with the actions of the Bolsheviks or the whites (depending on political views), and the party of the Social Revolutionaries, like the little Tsakhes, simply does not notice, or draws the blessed image of the party - the unfortunate victim stories, defeated, due to dishonest, self-serving behavior of the Bolsheviks.

Amazing party


In fact, the Social Revolutionaries were far from this image. The party did not include modest, intelligent people, but rebels who went through the crucible of revolutionary battles with autocracy. The terrorists who did not spare neither their enemies, nor themselves. The Social Revolutionaries, with no less reason than the Bolsheviks, claimed victory in the course of the revolution.

The ideology of the Socialist Revolutionary Party was originally built on the division of Russian society. Although the SRs claimed that only the ruling elite, which constitutes an insignificant part of society, expresses the interests of almost all the people, they made a serious split in the social and political life of Russia, firmly raising the question of the incompatibility of the interests of mass social classes (the peasantry, the proletariat and the intelligentsia), defenders of which the socialist revolutionaries were formally dressed with the parasitic classes of society to which they belonged to the social groups that dominated at the beginning of the 20th century - the nobility , the highest bureaucracy and the bourgeoisie.

The political program of the Social Revolutionaries was not just utopian, but also extremely dangerous for Russia. In fact, it was a semi-anarchic program, which assumed the almost complete destruction of the state. “Socialist society,” wrote the Social Revolutionaries, “is above all not the state, but a self-governing union of productive associations, agricultural communal communities and syndicates of industrial workers ...”, which are tied together on a voluntary basis in order to exchange their products.

The Social Revolutionaries did not realize the danger they put on the country and themselves, inflaming revolutionary sentiments among the people and setting them against the struggle with all the former elite. The most famous prime minister of pre-revolutionary Russia, P.A. Stolypin believed that the coming of the Social Revolutionaries to power could be prevented only through certain internal changes.

"While I am in power, I will do everything in human power to prevent Russia from going to war, until the program that gives it internal recovery is fully implemented. We cannot deal with the external enemy until Russia's worst internal enemies are destroyed - Socialist-Revolutionaries. Until ... the agrarian reform is fully implemented, they will be valid, as long as ... they exist, they will never miss a single opportunity to destroy the power of our Motherland, and with what can be created more favorable conditions for distemper than the war "xnumx.

1917 leaders of the year


The events of 1917 confirmed the primacy of the Social Revolutionaries in the political life of the country. If in the February events the role of the Social Revolutionaries was small, then, in the spring of 1917, the leading role in the moderate socialist bloc was transferred to them. The strategy of the SR-Menshevik bloc in the spring of 1917 of the year was to fight the Cadets at the provincial, provincial-district level. By the summer, almost all power in the provinces passed to the Social Revolutionaries.

In Central Russia, the struggle between the Social Revolutionaries and the Cadets in Vladimir has become dramatic. The conflict occurred at a congress of representatives of public security committees (COBs - the main authorities in 1917 at the regional level) and the Councils of workers, soldiers and peasants' deputies, held from 15 to 17 in April. Then the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks achieved the re-election of the provincial committee, which changed the balance of power in the governing bodies of the province. A month later, on May 30, the new provincial committee re-elected the head of the province. Instead of the cadet S.A. Petrov, the protege of the Socialist Revolutionaries, MA, became the provincial commissar. Brothers (Menshevik-internationalist), his deputy approved the Social Revolutionary N.F. Gorshkov. The Cadets were more smoothly ousted from the power structures of the Kostroma province. 27-28 April in Kostroma, the organizational meeting of the county COB was held. The vast majority of elective places went to the Social Revolutionaries.


The propaganda poster of the party of socialist revolutionaries. Photo: Motherland

The strengthening of the socialists in the provinces was not slow, and soon the socialists were included in the new government. An alliance with the socialists was concluded by a group of liberal ministers who are not members of the Cadet party and are ready to deepen the revolution beyond the limits of the Cadet program. Each of these forces received 6 portfolios; the cadets were left with only three minor ministerial posts. As a result, the SRs concentrated enormous political resources in May on 1917. In the political struggle, they relied on the most numerous class of Russian society - the peasantry, whose share reached 80% of the total population. According to some reports, in 1917 in the SR party in its best period there were up to 1 million members. Peasants were often recorded in the party by whole villages, and soldiers - by whole companies.

Fighting Ambition


Social Revolutionaries had to compete with the Bolsheviks in a difficult situation. If the Bolsheviks prepared in advance for the fact that they would have to rule while being in the minority (rigid discipline was maintained in the party), then the Social Revolutionaries, who had the opportunity to rely on the support of the majority of society, did not have any coordination. The party was dominated by people with a sense of petty ambition, who wanted only as much personal power as possible.

The entire period from February to October for the country was typical atmosphere of a sharp, irreconcilable, but petty and unprincipled struggle. It got to the point that certain authorities in which the Social Revolutionaries were represented repeatedly entered into a struggle among themselves. So, having seized in March-April the majority in COBs, the Social Revolutionaries began to expand their representation in the pre-revolutionary structures — zemstvos and city dumas. The Socialist-Revolutionary KOBs actively interfered in the work of the city dumas and zemstvos, as in Mologa (Yaroslavl Province), where the local BER expressed distrust in the city duma. Later, in the summer of 1917, after the elections to the city dumas and zemstvos, in which the Social Revolutionaries, in alliance with the Mensheviks, usually won, moderate socialists turned into them and began the reverse process there — the elimination of COBs.

This struggle shook the local government. Frequent conflicts gave rise to new contradictions already within the provinces. In the provinces, the provincial-district struggle and the struggle inside the counties flared up, conflicts penetrated to the lowest level - the volost. The Social Revolutionaries, strengthening their influence in the provinces and receiving more and more powers in it, kindled an atmosphere of hatred in society.

The consequence of this atmosphere was the increasing demands of the population for the early implementation of social reforms. And the SRs were the victim of their twofold position. Since almost all of the local government was under the influence of the Social Revolutionaries, the demands of the people are increasingly turning to the Social Revolutionary Party: it is the Social Revolutionaries who are now associated with the authorities.

And then a serious problem arose before the SRs: from the outside it seemed that the party was taking control of the Provisional Government since July — it was headed by party member A.F. Kerensky. In reality, everything was different. Kerensky, as the head of the government, was rather a factor that alienated the party from the central government. In his activities, he was guided by a group of liberal ministers who had previously worked in contact with Prince G.Ye. The lions.

The Socialist-Revolutionaries were one of the reasons for the defeat in 1917. They considered Kerensky’s non-predisposition to their party. The claims of the Socialist-Revolutionaries to Kerensky were long overdue. Until the autumn of 1917, they tolerated the self-will of this peculiar member of their party, except for a small episode when Kerensky was not allowed to go to the party Central Committee in the summer, after having nominated his candidacy for the elections held at the 3rd party congress.


The Third All-Russian Congress of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party. 1917 g. Photo: Homeland

The conflict erupted in September at the Democratic Conference convened by Kerensky to resolve the issue of power. Then the leaders of the Socialist Revolutionary Party headed by V.M. Chernovs attempted to form a government composed exclusively of moderate socialists. The presidium of the meeting, which consisted of supporters of the socialist parties, 20 September decided to create a homogeneous socialist power - the Social Revolutionary Menshevik, without liberals and Bolsheviks. The proposal was approved by 60 votes against 50. Upon learning of the decision, Kerensky declared that if the Socialist Revolutionary Government was created, he would resign. In response, the leaders of the meeting gave Kerensky the right to form the government himself, but they did not forgive the demarche and went over to the opposition.

The inevitable clash of the Bolsheviks


In the October days, the Social Revolutionaries did not consciously oppose the Bolsheviks' aspiration to take power from Kerensky. They were confident that the Bolsheviks, having dismissed Kerensky, would still have to turn to them when forming the new government, and the power would inevitably come under the control of the Social Revolutionaries. But you need to know the Bolsheviks! Not for the same they took power, then to give it away. The Social Revolutionaries and the Bolsheviks fought on the same field, relying not on a narrow agreement with the "top", but on broad sections of the population.

The Social Revolutionaries, claiming to express the interests of the most numerous class, the peasantry, would not tolerate alongside themselves another equally influential party. The Bolsheviks, who declared about the expression of interests of less mass layer - the workers, could have had more success only if they were at the top of power alone.


Moscow railway workers hold a protest demonstration against the terrorist attacks of the Social Revolutionaries. Photo: Motherland

A clash between the Social Revolutionaries and the Bolsheviks was inevitable. And because the attempts of the Social Revolutionaries to form a government in October with the participation of all the socialist parties, including the Bolsheviks, were only a postponement of this clash, gave the Bolsheviks time to strengthen their power and did not allow the Social Revolutionaries to use the significant resources they had saved against the Bolsheviks. Having dismissed the Constituent Assembly in January of 1918, the Bolsheviks massacred those institutions in which the Social Revolutionaries prevailed (city councils and zemstvos, the institute of provincial and district commissioners).

The dissolution of the Constituent Assembly had a negative impact on the popularity of the Social Revolutionaries, and the revival of the SR ambitions in the summer of 1918 was mainly due to the support of the West, the interest of the allies (the governments of Britain and France) in weakening the White movement, focused on the revival of a strong Russia.

Today, public opinion has established the point of view according to which the Bolsheviks were traitors to the Motherland, and the Social Revolutionaries were defencists, and therefore patriots. Such an idea of ​​the Social Revolutionaries is far from the truth - it is difficult to call the position of the Social Revolutionaries on the issue of war patriotic. February did not stop Russia's participation in the war, therefore, the Social Revolutionaries did not alleviate the suffering of the people. But these sufferings were now meaningless, since the Social Revolutionaries believed that at the end of the war, in case of victory, Russia should not receive from the enemy as compensation for the losses incurred, either of any territories, or of any monetary rewards. It was called a world without annexations and indemnities. Under the conditions of the Russian revolution, this meant nothing more than the one-sided refusal of Russia from remuneration for the losses suffered - the allies of Russia, Great Britain and France, were not going to refuse annexations.

Rise of the Czechoslovak Corps


A serious base for the beginning of the armed struggle against the Bolsheviks among the Social Revolutionaries appeared in connection with the uprising of the Czechoslovak corps. A participant in those events, Czech V. Shteindler, wrote: "Our victories became an impulse to local anti-Bolshevik upheavals under the leadership of the socialist revolutionaries ..." On June 8, a squad of Czechoslovakians and the Social Revolutionary squad occupied Samara. The authority of the Committee of the members of the All-Russian Constituent Assembly (Komucha) was declared in the city. His goal was to restore the Constituent Assembly dispersed by the Bolsheviks. In Samara, where deputies arrived around 100, the real power turned out to be with the organizational structures of the SR party.

At the same time, other anti-Bolshevik governments were formed in the Urals and Siberia. They relied on a wider party coalition, while the main force in them was on the side of the Cadets and more right-wing forces. As a result, strained relations were established between them. It was only in September that the Directory was formed in Ufa - the highest state authority on the territory free of Bolshevism.

Within the Directory there was a parity of forces between the SRs and the more right-wing circles. But the general situation of the socialist revolutionaries in the anti-Bolshevik camp was considerably complicated, therefore the November coup in Omsk (where the Directory was moved from Ufa), which brought Admiral A.V. to power. Kolchak and the arrest of members of the Directory who were members of the Social Revolutionary Party was a natural consequence of the internal evolution of the anti-Bolshevik forces.


Admiral A.V. Kolchak Photo: Motherland


Against Kolchak


Nevertheless, the Social Revolutionaries challenged Kolchak by issuing the “Appeal to the Population”, which qualified the Omsk events as counter-revolutionary, and in a telegram sent to Kolchak personally, it was argued that “usurping power” would never be recognized. It was an open challenge to the force that surpassed the SRs. What were they hoping for in that case? Exclusively on allies! Although World War I had just ended, the SRs believed that the Allies would not support the Kolchak coup, because, in their opinion, monarchists were behind Kolchak — and Western democracies could not have anything to do with reactionary monarchists (Kolchak’s program was actually liberal).

In an urgent telegram intended for the diplomatic missions of the United States, Britain, Italy, Belgium, Japan, the Social Revolutionary leaders gave an extremely tendentious assessment of what happened in Omsk: "The remnants of the monarchist forces, rallied gradually in Siberia, ... conspired and, overthrowing the All-Russian government and declaring the military dictatorship of Admiral Kolchak, they are trying to seize power over all of Russia in order to restore the monarchical system that has become obsolete and hateful to all democracy. "

In a telegram to the American President, W. Wilson was followed by the development of this thought. Monarchist Russia, the Socialist-Revolutionaries wrote, "will serve as the eternal threat of international intrigues and conquering temptations." They asked Wilson "to raise his voice in defense of the rights and legality violated by the Omsk monarchist adventure."


V.M. Chernov Photo: Motherland

It was an open call for intervention. On November 24, at the rally in Ufa, the Social Revolutionaries urged them to hold on "until support from Western democracy." Kolchak, of course, decided to liquidate the speeches of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, which was carried out in December 1918. And although the top Social Revolutionary Party headed by V.M. Chernov managed to escape, it was no longer of fundamental importance. The very fact of the fall of the Directory has drawn a line to all the hopes of the SRs to come to power in Russia.

By November 1918, it turned out that all attempts by the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks to restore their power were doomed to failure. For one and a half years, the Social Revolutionaries were the most influential party in the country. They had at their disposal sufficient resources to establish a firm authority in the country and to achieve the implementation of the decisions that they considered necessary. Instead, the result of their activities was a ruined country. There was a weakening of the central government, the split of the central and local authorities, the collapse of the army, the complete loss of Russia's prestige in the international arena. The Social Revolutionaries led the country to a national catastrophe and are responsible for it.

A paradoxical situation arose: the civil war was provoked by the inept actions of the Social Revolutionaries, a deeply non-state party, and it had to be driven mainly by other state forces. In the country, it was necessary to restore order and the parties of disorder — the Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks — suffered a crushing defeat.

Two forces claimed the role of order parties. On the one hand, the Bolsheviks, who gained power in October and began to restore the unity of the central and local authorities. On the other hand, this role was assumed by the whites.

The contradictions of the Social Revolutionaries on each of these sides turned out to be irreconcilable. It was obvious that February brought the country down and only restorers of order could become parties to the civil war. This dilemma was obvious to contemporaries. Then they formulated it as follows: either Kolchak or Lenin.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

18 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    12 March 2016 07: 06
    The country remembers its "heroes", the Socialist-Revolutionaries have done a lot of things like that, Mom don't grieve.
    1. -1
      12 March 2016 12: 09
      The political program of the Social Revolutionaries was not only utopian, but also extremely dangerous for Russia. In fact, it was a semi-anarchist program that assumed the almost complete destruction of the state. "Socialist society," wrote the Socialist-Revolutionaries, "is not primarily the state, but a self-governing union of productive associations, agricultural commune-communes and syndicates of industrial workers ...

      The Socialist-Revolutionaries, like other socialists, including the Bolsheviks, were utopians. I would even call them ideal socialists, obsessed with a pure idea. The Bolsheviks, in addition to, in fact, the socialist idea, had a second idea of ​​fixing and retaining power. Moreover, the second idea, entering into a natural contradiction with the first, has always been a priority. If the Bolsheviks needed to retain power, they were ready to sacrifice their own principles, starting with separate alliances with the Germans, nationalists, Makhno, and even with a bald devil, and ending with the rejection of the idea of ​​a world revolution and the transition to NEP, that is, in fact, the rejection of the main idea of ​​socialism is the prohibition of private ownership of the means of production. In this sense, the principles of the Bolsheviks were absolutely politically rational in the "best" traditions of Machiavelli, in contrast to the Socialist-Revolutionaries, which, in fact, allowed the Bolsheviks to seize power.
      If we draw analogies, then the Socialist Revolutionaries and the Bolsheviks were adaptations of one religion, socialism. But just as Paul created the institution of the church at one time, which, contrary to the spirit of the Christian idea itself, nevertheless became an instrument for disseminating this idea, so Lenin used methods that contradicted the ideas of freedom-equality-fraternity to maintain power, but nevertheless managed create a socialist state. Compared with him, the Social Revolutionaries are truly the most naive Utopians.
      1. 0
        April 20 2016 11: 20
        "The Bolsheviks, in addition to the socialist idea itself, had a second idea of ​​fixation and retention of power" - in practice, this was not at all a fix idea
  2. +5
    12 March 2016 07: 52
    Thanks to the author for the information.
  3. +4
    12 March 2016 08: 13
    Gentlemen, the Socialist Revolutionaries, the party of disorder ..
  4. +7
    12 March 2016 08: 30
    The Socialist-Revolutionaries led the country to a national catastrophe and are responsible for it.

    It was the chairman of the Petrograd Soviet of the eSER, Sokolov, who wrote "Decree No. 1", with the help of the Minister of the Provisional Government Kerensky, who managed to force the chairman of the Provisional Government, Prince Lvov, to sign this decree in the parliament of 1917, after which we can safely talk about the real defeat of the Russian Empire. Read this decree, any competent serviceman will understand what such decrees lead to. By the way, one of the organizers and founders of the ESER party in Ingushetia was the grandfather of the now popular TV presenter of the first television channel, Vladimir Povzner. "Nothing is new under the moon."
  5. +3
    12 March 2016 10: 06
    Kerensky held high positions in Masonic organizations, first of all, and therefore to speak about his membership in the Socialist Party, in my opinion, is not serious, as well as about the Socialist Revolutionary Party itself.
    If in 1825 Emperor Nicholas I managed to suppress the Decembrists' speech (an attempt by the Freemasons to seize power), then by 1917, when Freemasonry penetrated all spheres of the state’s activity, it was impossible to prevent the seizure of power.
    Both Kerensky and the Socialist-Revolutionary Party (and other parties and personalities) are just small fry.
    1. +2
      12 March 2016 11: 04
      "Kerensky held high positions in Masonic organizations, primarily. And therefore, talking about his membership in the party of socialists, in my opinion, is not serious"- Before being elected head of the Provisional Government, A. Kerensky held the post of head of the Masonic lodge of the Great East of Russia, while Prince Lvov, the previous chairman of the Provisional Government, was just a member of the Order of the Great East of France, the superior and supervising organization over the Great East of Russia. So, membership in Masonic lodges never hindered membership in any parties, and even vice versa, increased the prospects for promotion up the ladder. By the way, all members of the Provisional Government, with the exception of Prince Lvov, were members of the Order of the Great East of Russia, without membership in this Masonic lodge, they would never have been elected to the Provisional Government.Participation in Masonic organizations was then a prerequisite for entering the highest leadership positions in revolutionary governments.
    2. +2
      12 March 2016 11: 07
      Quote: bober1982
      Kerensky held high positions in Masonic organizations, primarily

      He died in 1970 in New York. In his two bedroom apartment. Who threw him some money on a two-room apartment?
  6. +4
    12 March 2016 10: 36
    This is like our current liberals, with their calls for intervention and admonition of the people.
    1. +1
      12 March 2016 11: 01
      Yes, that's right, I agree with you, such are lovers of freedom and fighters for the rights of workers of all times and peoples. In practice, this public is bloodthirsty, corrupt. What is now, that a hundred years ago, two hundred years ago.
  7. +1
    12 March 2016 11: 12
    The activity of any party rests on the issue of funding. The SRs were a "double bottom" party. Someone blew up and shot the "establishment", and someone printed leaflets. Who, then, "unfastened" them to terrorist activities?

    PS Is the anonymous minuser working again?
  8. Pig
    +1
    12 March 2016 12: 14
    it is strange that the author did not mention Azef, in my opinion this character most clearly shows what the "socialist-revolutionaries" were.
  9. +3
    12 March 2016 12: 40
    Quote: Pig
    it is strange that the author did not mention Azef, in my opinion this character most clearly shows what the "socialist-revolutionaries" were.

    Azef was a provocateur. and he worked for both.
    1. 0
      April 20 2016 11: 22
      Azef was taller than a provocateur. This is not an ordinary figure, but the head of the party. And here we are talking about - who used whom
  10. +1
    12 March 2016 13: 16
    The Socialist-Revolutionaries believed that at the end of the war, in the event of victory, Russia should not receive from the enemy, as compensation for the losses suffered, any territories or any monetary rewards. It was called a world without annexations and indemnities. In the conditions of the Russian revolution, this meant nothing more than Russia's unilateral refusal of remuneration for the losses suffered-- the allies of Russia, Great Britain and France, were not going to refuse annexations

    And what is wrong? Isn't this a fair-rejection of captures? The author does not indicate the MAIN nuance of the Socialist-Revolutionaries called for the international solidarity of the socialists in order to end the war and demanded that ALL governments abandonment of the conquest goals of the war, from the forced annexation of captured lands. Not only the refusal of Russia from the seizures, but of everyone else. However, they emphasized that before this is achieved, the participation of socialists in national defense is inevitable.
    The position was somewhat idealistic, but very true (IMHO), the enslaving Versailles Treaty in many respects provoked WWII. And the choice of Social Revolutionaries FOR the defense of the Fatherland led the country to participate in Russia as a winner in the Treaty of Versailles, which would lead to Russia's participation in the international security system within the framework of Versailles and the League of Nations. Russia, therefore, would never have allowed the armament of Germany again and WWII.
  11. +1
    12 March 2016 14: 23
    Quote: Aleksander
    The Socialist-Revolutionaries believed that at the end of the war, in the event of victory, Russia should not receive from the enemy, as compensation for the losses suffered, any territories or any monetary rewards. It was called a world without annexations and indemnities. In the conditions of the Russian revolution, this meant nothing more than Russia's unilateral refusal of remuneration for the losses suffered-- the allies of Russia, Great Britain and France, were not going to refuse annexations

    And what is wrong? Isn't this a fair-rejection of captures? The author does not indicate the MAIN nuance of the Socialist-Revolutionaries called for the international solidarity of the socialists in order to end the war and demanded that ALL governments abandonment of the conquest goals of the war, from the forced annexation of captured lands. Not only the refusal of Russia from the seizures, but of everyone else. However, they emphasized that before this is achieved, the participation of socialists in national defense is inevitable.
    The position was somewhat idealistic, but very true (IMHO), the enslaving Versailles Treaty in many respects provoked WWII. And the choice of Social Revolutionaries FOR the defense of the Fatherland led the country to participate in Russia as a winner in the Treaty of Versailles, which would lead to Russia's participation in the international security system within the framework of Versailles and the League of Nations. Russia, therefore, would never have allowed the armament of Germany again and WWII.

    yeah. and the money was taken from the cipher. famous humanist and Russophile.
    1. +1
      12 March 2016 14: 57
      Quote: LEVIAFAN
      money was taken from the cipher. famous humanist and Russophile.

      So I ask those in the know to tell about the financing of the SRs. There is a lot of rotten information about the Bolsheviks, but about the Socialist-Revolutionaries - the languages ​​†‹вЂ‹ in the "zh.pu" stuffed. request
  12. +1
    13 March 2016 15: 01
    What ... rotten information?
    They all ate from the same feeder.
    You cannot say better than Antonov-Ovseenko: "Ours have agreed with yours ...".
  13. 0
    17 March 2016 09: 51
    For the author !! There was no dispersal of the Constituent Assembly !! After the departure of the Bolsheviks, part of the Left Socialist Revolutionaries and Anarchists, there was no quorum and every meeting lost its legitimacy! And the Social Revolutionaries themselves are a party of the corrupt petty bourgeoisie, which immediately ran to sell the Entente to Russia! Like all white movement! So we can talk not about the Civil War, but about the intervention !! By writing, in principle, a good article, the whole impression can be ruined by debauchery accents!

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"