Can We Trust the Russian Opposition to Bring Meaningful Change?

Unless the Russian opposition is willing to denounce, loudly and unequivocally, the imperialist dream of a “great Russia” – including its claims over Ukraine, its belief in Russian superiority, and its self-serving narratives of victimhood – they cannot be trusted. It is not enough to be “against” the war or “against” Putin; true change requires rejecting Russian hegemony and dismantling the nationalistic delusions that sustain its aggression. However, this necessary ideological shift is nowhere to be found in their rhetoric. 

Instead, this so-called opposition is making a persistent effort to whitewash Russia’s image. Opposition figures often portray “ordinary Russians” as passive victims of propaganda, framing Putin as the sole architect of the country’s aggression. This narrative conveniently absolves tens of millions who actively support, enable, or tolerate the war. 

Nevertheless, this evasion of responsibility is not new. Russian political discourse has long resisted accountability, opting instead for blame-shifting and self-pity. Even some of the most prominent opposition figures, like Yulia Navalnaya, reflect this trend. In her speech at the Bled Strategic Forum in September 2024, Navalnaya addressed the topic of Russia’s decolonization. She criticized those advocating for it, arguing that breaking Russia into smaller states is misguided as its people “share the same background and culture” (although about 130 peoples living in Russia have in common only the fact that Russia occupies them and tries to erase their identity). Such views demonstrate a continued attachment to imperialist fantasies, making it clear that prominent opposition leaders are not genuine reformers but rather aspiring rulers of a slightly modified empire.

History shows why this failure to take responsibility is so dangerous. For example, after World War II, Germany’s reckoning was far from straightforward. While intellectuals like Thomas Mann insisted that the German people bore collective responsibility for Hitler’s rise, most who had lived through 1939-1945 never acknowledged their complicity. Many sought to distance themselves from the atrocities of the Nazi regime, claiming that they were either deceived or powerless, while justifying their actions through narratives of victimhood. It wasn’t until the next generation that some began to confront the past, but even then, the process remained incomplete. The continued influence of groups like Alternative for Germany (AfD) shows that this reckoning was neither swift nor absolute, since the past still shapes today’s politics. It is important to note that the most support AfD has in the lands of the former East Germany, which had no equivalent of Chancellor Willy Brandt who kneeled before WW2 victims memorial. 

Russia’s case is much worse because it has never undergone such a process of self-examination. From the fall of the Soviet Union to today, it has clung to its imperialist identity, glorifying past conquests while dismissing its crimes. The opposition, rather than pushing for this long-overdue confrontation, continues to evade responsibility by repeatedly reducing the problem to Putin himself, as if his removal would be enough to undo decades, even centuries, of expansionist ambitions. 

As a matter of fact, this pattern of whitewashing is not just a failure of the present opposition — it is a long-standing feature of Russian political culture, where accountability is viewed as a threat rather than a necessity for progress. For generations, Russia has consistently sought to rewrite or obscure historical injustices, ensuring that the cycle of denial continues. 

Most regrettably, this pattern of evasion is not sustained by Russia alone – Western nations have also enabled it by holding Russia to a different standard than they would a European country. From turning a blind eye to past transgressions to discussions of “face-saving for Putin” in early 2022, the West has prioritized so-called “stability” over accountability. As a result, Russia’s refusal to confront its past is a product of not just internal denial but also of external permissiveness. 

Even those who acknowledge that Russia’s mindset must change often stop short of addressing the broader societal complicity, conveniently shifting responsibility away from the millions who actively support or passively enable these policies. It is clear that without an honest reckoning with the roots of Russian aggression, any post-Putin regime will become merely a continuation of the same imperialist project under a different name.

Therefore, for the Russian opposition to be credible, it must meet these key criteria for meaningful change:

1. Support Ukraine’s defense – Advocate for full military assistance to Ukraine, including advanced weapons, without conditions.
2. Demand stronger sanctions on Russia – Ensure that economic pressure substantially weakens its ability to wage war.
3. Recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty – Publicly affirm that Crimea, Donbas, and all occupied territories belong to Ukraine.
4. Reject Russian exceptionalism – Challenge the belief that Russia is destined for greatness at the expense of its neighbors.
5. Promote national accountability – Encourage Russians to accept their collective role in the war and to dismantle the cultural foundations of imperialism.
6. Redefine national identity – Encourage Russians to unite around principles of justice, freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence. 
7. Argue for military defeat and denuclearization of Russia – Educate the public about the dangers of military and nuclear power in a country that is ill-equipped to responsibly wield such force.

Those people who do not meet these criteria should be considered just another tentacle of the Kremlin rather than genuine opposition to it, and thus should not be trusted and supported.

Time and again, the so-called Russian opposition refuses to acknowledge that Russia’s problems are systemic, deeply embedded in its identity, and cannot be solved simply by removing one dictator. By sidestepping these fundamental issues, they reveal themselves as unfit to lead any meaningful transformation.

 Thus, trusting Russian opposition to bring meaningful change is not just naïve — it is a costly mistake. These figures have no realistic path to power, as there is little indication that Russia will undergo political change anytime soon. Even if they did rise to power, it would not lead to reforms that both Russia and the West need. Unless the Russian opposition boldly, loudly, and repeatedly rejects their imperial delusions, they cannot be trusted. Any shift in power that does not address these deeper issues will be superficial at best, ensuring that the cycle of aggression continues. 

Politicians and citizens of democratic countries must abandon the illusion that Russia’s current opposition represents a real chance for change, because assuming that any alternative to Putin is already a win is dangerously misguided. Instead, they should demand a genuine break from imperialistic thinking and hold the opposition accountable for failing to confront Russia’s past and present. Supporting the status quo – whether through diplomatic engagement, sanction relief, or other means – will only perpetuate instability and aggression. Democracies must take a firm stand by supporting reforms that challenge Russia’s imperial mindset, paving the way for lasting and meaningful change. It is advisable to remember that real reforms in Germany and Japan became possible only after their military defeat in 1945.