The question of how much influence the Russian opposition presently surviving abroad actually has or possibly can have on Russian society is worth asking since the opposition inside Russia has been completely suppressed.
The Russian opposition last came into the spotlight on June 5th this year, erstwhile Yulia Navalnaya, Ilya Yashin and Vladimir Kara-Murza took part in a joint session of the European Parliament’s Committee on abroad Affairs and its Subcommittee on Human Rights, focused on relations with Russia’s exiled opposition. They condemned Vladimir Putin’s government and its war, and emphasised the importance of support from western democracies for the Russian opposition.
In their addresses to MEPs, the opposition figures were fast to stress that the blame for Russia’s tragedies lies with 1 man alone – Putin, who has usurped power for the past 25 years. Predicting Russia’s future, Navalnaya drew a parallel with events in Central and east Europe 35 years ago, erstwhile previously silent and non-protesting citizens flooded the streets, paving the way for democratic change. Kara-Murza reminded the audience that Russia has, more than once, seen seemingly permanent regimes collapse abruptly and unexpectedly. That is how tsarist Russia and the russian Union fell, and the same, he argued, awaits Putin’s regime.
After the Russian opposition speakers concluded, the level was given to MEPs, who shared their thoughts and emotions and asked questions. At the end of the session, the opposition representatives were allowed to briefly respond.
All attending MEPs – with the exception of Polish associate Grzegorz Braun – welcomed the meeting, praised the activists who are fighting against the government and suffering for it, and expressed a strong belief that ties with the exiled Russian opposition must be deepened.
However, the event did not only evoke affirmative reactions. It reignited the long-standing debate over whether “good Russians” be – that is, Russians full liberated from imperial reasoning – and if they do, whether they are worth supporting, whether these opposition figures have any influence or base within Russia, and whether they can realistically play a function in Russia’s political future.
Some of the controversy stemmed from the fact that the gathering was possibly overly elevated in importance, while its format did not let for a full image of the opposition’s views to emerge. Given the sensitivity of the issue, even reporting by reputable outlets specified as DW appeared somewhat awkward – for example, stating that the opposition figures failed to answer crucial questions posed by MEPs, specified as who Crimea belongs to and how the Russian opposition intends to gain Kyiv’s trust.
This explanation was rapidly seized upon by many as a summary of both the gathering and the opposition’s views. In reality, the format of the session simply did not let each guest to respond to all question – nor was it intended as a test or an examination.
All 3 opposition figures unequivocally condemn Russian aggression; they organised 2 anti-war events in Berlin, and their stance on the war is well known. On the issue of Crimea, both Kara-Murza and Yashin have repeatedly and firmly stated that Crimea must belong to Ukraine. Navalnaya, however, did not mention Ukraine in her speech to the European Parliament, and it appears she has not publically clarified her stance on the position of Crimea.
perceive to the latest Talk east Europe podcast episode:
As is well known, Alexei Navalny himself made various statements about Crimea during his lifetime. Navalnaya, who sees herself as a leader of the opposition and dreams of a political career – including a possible run in future presidential elections – likely understands that saying the words “Crimea belongs to Ukraine” would mean giving up any hope of playing a crucial political function in Russia. This suggests that she may not truly believe that Russian society is ready for democratic change or prepared to choose a political way aligned with the West.
There is no uncertainty that the 3 Russian opposition leaders deserve respect and designation for their courage, unwavering stance against the Russian regime, genuine sacrifice, and the suffering they have endured. Still, the context of the European Parliament gathering is so dramatic that it is hard to imagine words from any opposition figure that would feel truly adequate.
Russia continues to launch relentless rocket and drone attacks on civilian targets in Ukraine. Thousands of Ukrainians have died in the war, millions have had their lives devastated and turned into a surviving hell. Around 20 per cent of Ukrainian territory remains occupied, cities lie in ruins, and critical infrastructure has been destroyed.
On the another hand, Ukraine reports that more than 1 million Russian soldiers have been killed or injured since the start of the war. Hundreds of thousands of troops are taking part in the conflict on Russia’s side, all of them doing so voluntarily, having signed contracts and receiving payment. These soldiers are considered heroes in Russia – not only by state-controlled media but by a much wider section of society.
In the early years of the war, Russian society appeared disoriented, experiencing cognitive dissonance. But eventually, it bowed loyally to the government and reconciled itself with the country’s supposedly inevitable fate, steeped in belligerent messianism, as proclaimed relentlessly by the state propaganda machine.
The full country is gripped by a wave of chauvinistic frenzy. all day brings fresh militaristic initiatives, fresh propaganda-laden educational programmes in schools and universities, and ongoing efforts to rewrite history. Myths are being forged about the “decadent” West and the boundless Russian soul, while the country’s economy is being shifted onto a war footing. Society has accepted the notion that Russia must wage war and accomplish triumph at any cost – even if the full planet perishes in a atomic confrontation.
President Putin’s latest initiative, Time of Heroes, aims to place individuals with blood on their hands from the war into key positions of power. There are about 100,000 journalists in Russia, yet only a fistful have refused to service the regime. What are the views of Russian academics and university lecturers? Where is the voice of the alleged creative intelligentsia – especially if it truly sees itself as the custodian of “great Russian culture”?
In truth, that voice is being heard—and it supports militarism, chauvinism and Putinism. There is small point in mentioning the Russian Orthodox Church, which has become a loyal servant of the government and 1 of the most vocal instigators of war and hatred. It is hard to disagree with French philosopher Michel Eltchaninoff, who describes the phenomenon of collective Putinism – not simply a one-man government but a finely tuned strategy that spans multiple layers of power.
One must besides consider another uncomfortable truth. Yes, Putin’s government has activated a powerful propaganda machine. Yes, it has employed force and coercion. But it must besides be acknowledged that, on the another hand, chauvinistic ideas have found genuine resonance within Russian society. The stench of Russian chauvinism lingered throughout the russian era – it was, in fact, the actual adhesive holding the russian empire together.
Paradoxically, this has become peculiarly evident in fresh years. While nostalgia for the russian Union is on the emergence in Russia, it is not the once-celebrated communist ideology that people callback – a strategy that supposedly rested on ideals of global fraternity and equality. No – the communist ideology has evaporated without a trace. The russian Union is now remembered purely as a symbol of Russian greatness.
Russian opposition figures talk of brave individuals within Russia who dare to challenge the regime. But the reality is that specified genuine heroes are fewer and far between, dwarfed by the sheer mass of people who embrace aggressive, imperialist thinking. This is plainly visible in the ratings of Russian propaganda channels and the toxic flood of hatred that average users freely post all day on social media.
It is besides worth noting that, unlike in russian times, Russians present – if they so choose – have access to comprehensive, nonsubjective information. Before the war, close ties between Russia and Ukraine meant that Russians were well acquainted with the situation in Ukraine. They knew full well that there were no Nazis there and that there was no justification for war, aggression, hatred or the atrocities now being inflicted on Ukraine by their own country.
Opposition leaders have urged the planet not to forget Russia’s political prisoners – those jailed for expressing opposition to the war. But how should this appeal be weighed against the vastly greater suffering and death experienced by Ukrainians? How should 1 interpret Vladimir Kara-Murza’s plea not to blame all Russian citizens for the war or to “discriminate” against them solely on the basis of their nationality?
Lifting sanctions on Russian citizens would amount to recognising this war as being purely the work of Putin and his interior circle, alternatively than Russia as a whole. But is that assessment correct? Should Russian citizens truly be allowed to live undisturbed, average lives while their country wages a brutal and unjustified war?
Most strikingly, not 1 opposition leader is calling for Russia to be defeated in the war it started. At best, they talk about restoring Ukrainian sovereignty within its 1992 borders. But is that truly enough? As Ilya Yashin puts it, Russian soldiers who are repelled in Ukraine and return home defeated will supposedly have learned a hard lesson that will curb militarism, overthrow the government and trigger democratic transformation. But can this truly be considered a adequate reckoning?
It must be admitted: there are far more questions than answers. Analysts and liable politicians typically effort to foretell the future and form political developments where possible. That logic can be applied to Russia as well – but the problem is that both forecasting and influencing the course of events are exceptionally hard in this case. There is no point in talking to the authoritative representatives of the Russian government, and it is nearly impossible to either scope Russian society or get reliable information about it.
In this situation, the only meaningful and reasonable course of action is to anticipate the worst, prepare for all scenarios, arm oneself and reenforce defences to the maximum. Still, the desire to keep Russia in view, to gather more information about it and to initiate constructive efforts is entirely understandable. Those afraid about the future of Europe and Russia’s destiny are turning to the only viable point of contact at present: the opposition in exile.
Yet, erstwhile 1 hears the enthusiastic assessments of European Parliament members and their pledges of cooperation and support during meetings with Russian opposition figures, 1 must ask: is the future being mistaken for the present?
A hard and painful question arises – can 1 realistically anticipate that a crucial critical mass of people will appear in Russian society who hold views that transcend its prevailing tendencies? Tendencies with roots going back not just decades, but possibly centuries?
The gathering at the European Parliament has one more time highlighted the many questions hanging in the air – questions for which no easy answers exist.
Whom do these opposition figures represent? Can opposition leaders surviving abroad truly influence Russia’s future course? Do they really know what the current reality is in Russia? Do they accurately measure the prevailing public attitudes? Ultimately, are they truly advocates of western values and democracy – or are they, too, infected with the same chauvinism that dominates much of Russian society?
This article was republished through the partnership between fresh east Europe and LRT English.
Saulius Spurga is an Associate prof. at Mykolas Romeris University located in Vilnius, Kaunas, Marijampolė, Lithuania.
New east Europe is simply a reader supported publication. delight support us and aid us scope our goal of $10,000! We are nearly there. Donate by clicking on the button below.
