As the third year of Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine unfolds, a new wave of media attempts emerges to make Russia look better than it really is. It is a curious intersection of human nature and political misjudgment.
The tendency was given a new life with the death of Alexei Navalny, who is now depicted in Western media as a “martyr and a saint,” a courageous warrior for democracy and against Putin’s regime – that same Navalny, who didn’t oppose the invasion of Georgia or the annexation of Crimea, yet exhorted for the extermination of the non-white population in Russia, calling them “flies and cockroaches.” After his death, Navalny’s fellow anti-Putin activist Bozhena Rynska posted on her Facebook profile about Mr. and Mrs. Navalny: “Alexei and Yulia were such ideal Russians. Tall, with nice bodies, blond hair and light-colored eyes. The proper ones. They could be an ideal representation of Russia abroad.”
JOIN US ON TELEGRAM
Follow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.
Meanwhile, Yulia Navalnaya is on the Time 100 list of the most influential people of 2024. The nature and direction of her influence, however, remain unclear. Now that Navalny is dead and excused for his populist, ultra-nationalistic views, she becomes a subject of political speculation, used by some Western authorities to spark resistance against Putin – a naive, ineffective move that only proves the enormous extent to which Russia is misunderstood.
Exiles From Occupied Bakhmut Find Hope in Christmas Celebrations
The interview of Navalny’s widow in Time didn’t come as a shock to anyone remotely familiar with the two-faced nature of the Russian opposition, whose imperialistic ambitions closely mirror those of the ruling party. While Ukrainian mothers live through the genocide, spending too much of their time in the bomb shelters simply trying to survive and protect their children, Yulia Navalnaya didn’t lack an astonishing audacity to call it a “shame” for one of those mothers not wanting to sit next to her.
Who are the “good Russians”?
I wouldn’t be addressing this had I not repeatedly encountered representatives of Western democratic societies who persistently prioritize sympathizing with the “good” Russians, overlooking the threat posed by the “bad” ones. The “victimhood” of the “ordinary” Russians has become yet another tool for manipulations, furthering Russia’s bloody agenda. But who exactly are these people? Good, bad, ordinary or otherwise?
In January 2024, Ukrainian Defense Intelligence estimated 462,000 Russian troops deployed in Ukraine, and roughly the same amount could be dead or injured by now. The arms industry of Russia is one of the nation’s largest employers, securing the service of approximately 3.5 million people nationwide as of 2024. Over two million people in Russia work as government officials – the extension of Putin himself. This indicates that at least 6 million Russians have been involved in the war effort so far. However, these numbers don’t even include those operating the propaganda machine, the workers of culture and education – pillars of Putin’s regime, or the volunteers who raise funds for the Russian Army, and the donors.
If we consider that these individuals are not complete loners and that many of them are likely to have friends and family who share their ideological leanings, the total number of those actively or indirectly supporting Russia’s genocidal campaign to exterminate the entire Ukrainian population, alongside its flora and fauna, and expand further into Europe, multiplies to a horrifying degree. It is therefore unwise to believe that the recent Russian presidential elections were entirely fabricated – we simply can’t afford to dismiss the foundation on which these fabrications might have been made.
The Russian state has made a collective decision to start a war, and those capable of critical analysis understand that this war is not only against Ukraine. To launch something of this scale requires a strong leader, and making a strong leader is impossible without an overwhelming support. According to polls, the majority of Russians continue to express support for the actions of their country’s military forces in Ukraine. In total, 77 percent of respondents supported them in January 2024. At the same time, 86 percent of Russian citizens approve of Putin’s activities. To put this into perspective, 86 percent is roughly 120 million people – the population of 20 Denmarks, 3 Canadas, or 2 Italies.
Despite the government’s control and numerous restrictions, Russians nevertheless are not entirely isolated, being able to do their own research and get information from the same sources as the rest of the world. While elderly citizens prefer television for gleaning the news, social media are the second most popular channel, as over 40 percent of population get news from there. These facts showcase the gruesome reality that many sensitive people refuse to see: for 120 million Russians, supporting the aggression could indeed be a deliberate decision made not solely under the influence of propaganda but despite the open sources of information to which they have access. Why then do we choose to look on the bright side – however bleak it might be?
These numbers alone should sober up anyone attempting to excuse “ordinary” Russians for their inadequate response to the genocide being committed on their behalf. Yet, we rarely even mention the millions of Russian immigrants worldwide, especially those in democratic countries. Though there’s a lack of comprehensive polls on their political views, such polls are scarcely needed – after all, the silence of the Russian diaspora speaks volumes. Not a single major demonstration against Putin’s regime has been initiated by Russians abroad during the decade since the invasion began. If anything, they only speak out when faced with the war’s annoying social and economic consequences, often blaming Ukraine for pursuing justice.
Despite minor inconveniences, if any, the Russian diaspora continues to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle, sending their children to the world’s most prestigious institutions, participating in all kinds of international competitions, granting interviews to the most renowned media outlets, receiving prizes and medals for various achievements, and performing on the biggest stages of the world. One might wonder why there is such a significant absence of accountability among the Russians regarding Russia’s war of aggression, especially considering their widespread endorsement of it.
How the perception evil gets diluted
In addition to political schemings, both obvious and more subtle, I believe a human factor might be at play. With the rise of popular psychology, people have received tools for analyzing human behavior. Today it is common knowledge that one’s upbringing profoundly shapes their development and behavior in adulthood. We strive to be more understanding, with compassion and kindness becoming a new trend. It is also true that the line between good and bad is becoming increasingly blurred. With numerous documentaries and true story films about famous dictators, serial killers and terrorists depicting their troubled childhoods and the way they do “normal stuff” such as love their families, spend time with friends, play with animals, there comes a cognitive struggle to see them as pure evil.
We are now too aware that, excluding cases of serious mental deviations, no one is born evil – people make their decisions based on the experiences they’ve encountered, especially those in childhood. Therefore, we entertain the idea that ordinary Russians’ passive stance toward the war of aggression comes not out of genuine support, but due to the trauma and oppression inflicted by Putin’s regime.
According to the Institute for the Study of War, Russia is preparing for a large-scale conventional conflict with NATO, which is likely to happen sooner than some Western analysts expect. Moreover, beyond the routine nuclear threats issued by Russian government officials, data suggests a surprisingly low threshold for Russia’s use of nuclear weapons. Thus, the situation unfolds as follows: “ordinary” Russians support a government oriented towards World War III while simultaneously exploiting the sympathy of their prospective victims.
This is not just about justice or common sense fairness: by sympathizing with Russians instead of holding them all responsible, we encourage the “good” ones to continue to pity themselves and do nothing, the “ordinary” ones to provide for the war effort, and we effectively hand the “bad” ones the detonator to blow us all up.
There is a correlation between our capacity to forgive strangers who commit acts of violence against other strangers and our own sense of self-satisfaction: we derive a certain gratification from this non-judgmental approach as it portrays us as unbiased, inclusive, and compassionate beings. Unaware of the strong patronizing element underlying this attitude, we pardon the “fallen ones” from the heights of our presumed spiritual evolution. It is a bold question to ask, but what would pro-Russian Westerners, or those sympathizing with Russians, think of them if a Russian bomb were dropped on a kindergarten in one of the Western capitals? If Russia’s victims were no longer strangers but their own children? Would they still look for the “good,” Russians or would they respond immediately in a decisive, unapologetic manner? And if the latter, why wait for such an event?
International society still recalls the devastation brought by World War II, where the delay in an adequate and immediate response only fueled its dreadful outcomes. While Ukraine, with its own blood, buys us crucial time to brace ourselves up, we must acknowledge that the next conflict of potentially comparable or greater scale is already in Europe, again.
The numbers or even mere existence of genuinely democratic-minded Russians is essentially irrelevant; it is far too late to dwell on this topic. The continuous quest for them, however, and grasping at the last straw of hope that Russian people might understand the scale of destruction brought by their nation, and do something about it, exposes our weakness. Russia, like any other aggressor, feeds on this weakness and uses it to its own advantage.
Seeing evil for what it is makes no easy task for an average human. Nonetheless, it is doubtful whether the tolerant and sympathetic approach is justifiable given the foreseeable risks, if it enhances our comprehension of the inescapable reality, or if it offers any assistance beyond merely reducing the distress caused by confronting – and being horribly stunned by – the enormous potential of the evil.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.
You can also highlight the text and press Ctrl + Enter
