Ruslan Sidiki Sentenced to 29 Years: Military Sabotage or Terrorism, and the Debate over Prisoner-of-War Status

Rouslan Sidiki

On May 23, 2025, a military court in Ryazan, Russia, sentenced Ruslan Sidiki, a 37-year-old Russian-Italian anarchist, to 29 years in prison for organizing and carrying out attacks on Russian military infrastructure “at the behest” of Ukrainian intelligence services. While Russian authorities label his actions as terrorism, Sidiki considers himself a legitimate combatant and claims prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions.

In November 2023, Russian officials reported that a freight train derailed after a homemade explosive device detonated on the tracks—an action intended to disrupt the transport of military equipment and fuel bound for the Ukrainian front. Earlier that year, drones targeted the Dyagilevo airbase in the Ryazan region in an attempt to damage parked military aircraft. The Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) alleges that Sidiki was recruited by Ukrainian military intelligence in Istanbul in 2023, trained in sabotage techniques in Latvia, and then returned to Russia to carry out these operations.

The Trial and Sentencing 

On May 23, the Ryazan military court handed down a 29-year sentence: nine years in a standard prison facility followed by twenty years in a maximum-security penal colony. Prosecutors had requested a 30-year term. According to RIA Novosti, “the court followed the public prosecutor’s request, finding Sidiki guilty on multiple terrorism-related charges.”

Prosecution’s Case 

Prosecutors described Sidiki as the mastermind behind a November 2023 explosion that derailed 19 freight cars and coordinated a drone strike on the Dyagilevo base earlier that year. According to the FSB, evidence indicates he was recruited by Ukrainian intelligence in Istanbul and received sabotage training in Latvia before returning to Russia. “Sidiki confessed during interrogation to acting on behalf of Ukrainian services,” Russian authorities claim.

Defense and Sidiki’s Final Statement 

Sidiki’s defense rejects the terrorism label, insisting his actions were military sabotage targeting strictly military assets. In his final courtroom statement, as reported by Mediazona, he said:

“I regret that my actions put [Alexander] Bogatyrev, [Sergei] Tarabukin, and [Dmitry] Unshakov in danger. They were not the intended targets, and I am relieved that their health was not seriously harmed.” “My targets were Russian military equipment and the logistical chains transporting hardware and fuel. That way, I wanted to hamper Russian military operations against Ukraine.”

He added that he took precautions to avoid civilian casualties:

“I monitored train traffic on the line I sabotaged and made sure no passenger trains were running at the time. For extra assurance, I kept visual contact. If I had been indifferent to people’s lives, I could have derailed the train without being physically present.”

Sidiki also denied any intention to terrorize civilians:

“I bear no ill will toward the Russian people; although I disagree with certain events since 2014, that is no reason to hate anyone.”

He denounced the torture he says he endured to force confessions:

“No matter the severity of the act, using torture during interrogation is unacceptable if we live in a state governed by the rule of law. To torture someone with electric shocks and beat them while they are bound is utterly despicable. Responsibility lies not only with those who used these methods but also with those who know about it and do nothing, as well as those who help cover it up.”

To close, he quoted a poem by Ukrainian anarchist Nestor Makhno:

“Let them bury us now, But our essence will not sink into oblivion, It will rise up at the necessary hour And will triumph, I believe in this.”

Two representatives from the Italian Consulate attended the sentencing, as reported by ANSA, underscoring the case’s international dimension given Sidiki’s dual nationality. Human rights organizations have not yet issued an official statement, but several NGOs previously condemned Russia’s use of torture to extract confessions.

The distinction between “terrorism” and “military sabotage” is crucial:

Terrorism implies actions meant to instill fear among the civilian population, carrying harsher legal penalties and stigmatizing the perpetrator as an enemy of society.

Military sabotage (in wartime) refers to targeting only military infrastructure, which, under international humanitarian law, could grant the actor prisoner-of-war status if they belong to an organized resistance movement and comply with the laws of armed conflict.

Sidiki and his attorneys argue that he should be recognized as a prisoner of war, a status afforded by the Geneva Conventions to members of resistance movements operating in occupied territory. The Russian court, however, rejects this interpretation, branding his actions as terrorism and emphasizing his alleged cooperation with a foreign state—Ukraine.

On a geopolitical level, this case highlights Russia’s uncompromising stance toward any armed internal opposition linked to Ukraine. It also fuels competing narratives: Russian authorities portray Sidiki as a “Ukrainian agent” and “terrorist,” while certain anarchist circles and pro-Ukraine activists depict him as a combatant seeking to “derail the Russian war effort.”

With a 29-year sentence, Sidiki is likely to be transferred soon to a maximum-security colony to serve the bulk of his term. His defenders plan to appeal on grounds of inhumane treatment. Beyond Sidiki’s personal fate, the trial raises broader questions about the application of international humanitarian law in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict and Russia’s use of torture in criminal proceedings. It also illustrates how, in wartime, the line between “combat” and “terrorism” becomes a critical legal and political battleground.