As Russia's all-out war against Ukraine enters its third year, we're seeing a new wave of media attempts to make Russia look better than it actually is — a strange intersection of human nature and political misjudgment.
This trend was given new life by the death of Alexei Navalny, who is now portrayed in the Western media as a “martyr and saint,” a brave fighter against democracy and Putin's regime. This Navalny did not oppose the invasion of Georgia or the annexation of Crimea, but instead preached the eradication of non-whites in Russia, calling them “flies and cockroaches.” After his death, fellow anti-Putin activist Bozhena Rinska posted on her Facebook profile about the couple: “Alexei and Yulia were the perfect Russians: tall, shapely, blonde, light-eyed. Just the perfect people. They may be the perfect representatives of Russia abroad.”
JOIN TELEGRAM!
Follow our war coverage at @Kyivpost_official.
Meanwhile, Yulia Navalnaya is on Time magazine's list of the 100 most influential people of 2024. But the nature and direction of her influence is unclear. Now that Navalny is dead and forgiven for his populist and ultranationalist views, she has become the subject of political speculation and is being used by some Western authorities to foment resistance against Putin, a naive and ineffective move that only shows how misunderstood Russia is.
Other topics of interest
Russia launches nighttime missile attack across Ukraine
The overnight airstrike came shortly after Russian forces bombed a shopping centre in downtown Kharkiv on May 25, killing at least 12 people and wounding 43.
Time's interview with Navalny's widow came as no shock to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the dual nature of Russia's opposition, whose imperial ambitions mirror those of the ruling party. While Ukrainian mothers survived genocide and spend much of their time in bomb shelters simply trying to survive and protect their children, Yulia Navalny had the surprising audacity to call it a “pity” that one of the mothers didn't want to sit next to her.
Who are the “good Russians”?
I would never have mentioned this issue if I had not repeatedly met with representatives of the Western democracies, who persistently prioritize sympathy for “good” Russians and ignore the threat posed by “bad” Russians. The “victim mentality” of “ordinary” Russians becomes yet another tool of manipulation to advance Russia's bloody agenda. But who are these people? Good people, bad people, ordinary people or something else?
In January 2024, the Ukrainian Defense Intelligence Service estimated that the number of Russian soldiers deployed in Ukraine was 462,000, and that roughly the same number of soldiers may have been killed or wounded by now. Russia's defense industry is one of the country's largest employers, providing jobs for about 3.5 million people nationwide as of 2024. More than 2 million people work in Russia as government employees, an extension of Putin's presidency. This means that at least 6 million Russians have been involved in the war so far. However, this figure does not include those who operate the propaganda apparatus, the cultural and educational workers who are pillars of Putin's regime, or even the volunteers and donors who fund the Russian military.
If we take into account that these people are not complete loners, and that many of them likely have like-minded friends and family, the total number of people who actively or indirectly support Russia's genocidal campaign to wipe out all of Ukraine and its flora and fauna, and then extend it into Europe, becomes frighteningly large. It would therefore be unwise to assume that the recent Russian presidential elections were completely faked, without denying the basis on which these fakes may have been carried out.
The Russian state made a collective decision to start a war, but anyone capable of critical analysis understands that this war is not just against Ukraine. To start a war of this magnitude requires a strong leader, and it is impossible to create a strong leader without overwhelming support. According to opinion polls, the majority of Russians continue to support the actions of their country's troops in Ukraine. In January 2024, 77% of respondents supported it. At the same time, 86% of Russians approve of Putin's activities. To put this in perspective, 86% corresponds to the population of about 120 million people, 20 people in Denmark, 3 people in Canada, and 2 people in Italy.
Despite government controls and numerous restrictions, Russians are not completely isolated, they can conduct their own research and get information from the same sources as the rest of the world. While older people prefer television for news gathering, social media is the second most popular channel, with over 40% of the population getting their news from there. These facts show a horrifying reality that many sensitive people are unwilling to see. For 120 million Russians, supporting the invasion could be a deliberate decision, not just due to the influence of propaganda, but despite the open sources of information they have access to. So why choose to look on the bright side, no matter how dark the situation?
These figures alone should be sobering to anyone who tries to excuse their inadequate response to the genocide being perpetrated on their behalf as “ordinary” Russians. But we barely even mention the millions of Russian emigres around the world, especially those in democracies. Comprehensive public opinion polls on their political views are lacking, but such polls are hardly needed. After all, the silence of the Russian diaspora speaks volumes. In the decade since the invasion began, Russians abroad have not staged a single major demonstration against Putin’s regime. Instead, they only speak out when confronted with the troubling social and economic consequences of the war, often blaming Ukraine for its pursuit of justice.
Russian emigres continue to enjoy a comfortable life, with minor inconveniences, if any, sending their children to the most prestigious institutions in the world, participating in all kinds of international competitions, giving interviews to the most prominent media outlets, receiving awards and medals for various achievements, and performing on the world's biggest stages.One may wonder why there is such a striking lack of sense of responsibility among Russians for Russia's war of aggression, especially given the widespread support of that war among Russians.
How perception of evil is diluted
In addition to political intrigue, from obvious to subtle, I suspect there are human factors at play. The rise of pop psychology has given people the tools to analyze human behavior. Today, it is common knowledge that a person's upbringing deeply influences their adult development and behavior. We strive to be more understanding, and compassion and kindness are the new trend. It is also true that the line between good and evil is becoming increasingly blurred. Numerous documentaries and true-life films about famous dictators, serial killers, and terrorists depict their troubled childhoods and how they did “normal things” like loving their families, spending time with friends, and playing with animals, making it cognitively difficult to see them as pure evil.
We now know very well that, except in cases of severe mental illness, no one is born evil. People make decisions based on experiences, especially in childhood. Therefore, we believe that the reluctance of ordinary Russians to engage in a war of aggression is due to the trauma and repression inflicted by the Putin regime, not genuine support for it.
According to the Institute for the Study of War, Russia is preparing for a major conventional war with NATO, which is likely to happen sooner than some Western analysts expect. Moreover, beyond the routine nuclear threats made by Russian government officials, the data suggests that Russia's threshold for using nuclear weapons is surprisingly low. Thus, the situation unfolds as follows: “ordinary” Russians support a World War III-minded government while simultaneously exploiting the sympathy of potential victims.
This isn't just a matter of justice or common sense fairness: by sympathizing with Russians rather than holding all of them responsible, we encourage the “good” people to continue feeling sorry for themselves and doing nothing, encourage the “normal” people to contribute to the war effort, and in effect give the “bad” people the detonators to blow us all up.
There is a correlation between our ability to forgive others who commit violence against others and our own sense of self-satisfaction. This non-judgmental approach portrays us as open-minded, inclusive, and compassionate, and gives us a certain sense of satisfaction. Without realizing the strong condescending element that underlies this attitude, we forgive those who have “fallen” from our supposed heights of spiritual evolution. A bold question: what would pro-Russian Westerners, or Westerners sympathetic to Russians, think of Russians if a Russian bomb were dropped on a kindergarten in a Western capital? What if the Russian victim was no longer a stranger, but their own child? Would they still look for a “good” Russian, or would they respond immediately, decisively, and without apology? If the latter, why wait for such an event?
The international community still remembers the horrors of World War II, when the delay in responding promptly and appropriately led to disastrous consequences. While Ukraine is shedding its own blood, buying us precious time to tighten our screws, we must acknowledge that the next, or even larger, conflict is already happening again in Europe.
The number and very existence of truly democratically minded Russians is essentially irrelevant. It is too late to dwell on this issue. But the continued search for Russians, and the last hope that the Russian people might understand the extent of the destruction they have caused and do something about it, exposes our weakness. Russia, like other aggressors, feeds on this weakness and uses it to its own advantage.
Seeing evil for what it is is not easy for the average human being, but given the foreseeable risks, it is questionable whether a tolerant and sympathetic approach is justified, whether it deepens our understanding of an unavoidable reality, or whether it helps more than simply alleviate the distress caused by being so startled in the face of the enormous possibility of evil.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Kyiv Post.
