PONARS Eurasia
  • About
    • Contact
    • Membership
      • All Members
      • Core Members
      • Collegium Members
      • Associate Members
      • About Membership
    • Ukraine Experts
    • Executive Committee
  • Policy Memos
    • List of Policy Memos
    • Submissions
  • Podcasts
  • Online Academy
  • Events
    • Past Events
  • Recommended
  • Task Forces
    • Ukraine
  • Ukraine Experts
Contacts

Address
1957 E St NW,
Washington, DC 20052

adminponars@gwu.edu
202.994.5915

NEWSLETTER
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Podcast
PONARS Eurasia
PONARS Eurasia
  • About
    • Contact
    • Membership
      • All Members
      • Core Members
      • Collegium Members
      • Associate Members
      • About Membership
    • Ukraine Experts
    • Executive Committee
  • Policy Memos
    • List of Policy Memos
    • Submissions
  • Podcasts
  • Online Academy
  • Events
    • Past Events
  • Recommended
  • Task Forces
    • Ukraine
  • Ukraine Experts
DIGITAL RESOURCES
digital resources

Bookstore 📚

Knowledge Hub

Course Syllabi

Point & Counterpoint

Policy Perspectives

RECOMMENDED
  • Ukraine Task Force: Getting Ukraine Right: From Negotiations Trap to Victory

    View
  • Ensuring Genuine Results? A New Electoral Design in Uzbekistan

    View
  • Ukraine, Taiwan, and Macron’s “Strategic Autonomy”

    View
  • After Violence: Russia’s Beslan School Massacre and the Peace that Followed

    View
  • Ukraine’s Unnamed War: Before the Russian Invasion of 2022

    View
RSS PONARS Eurasia Podcast
  • The Putin-Xi Summit: What's New In Their Joint Communique ? February 23, 2022
    In this week’s PONARS Eurasia Podcast, Maria Lipman speaks with Russian China experts Vita Spivak and Alexander Gabuev about the February meeting between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, and what it may tell us about where the Russian-Chinese relationship is headed.
  • Exploring the Russian Courts' Ruling to Liquidate the Memorial Society January 28, 2022
    In this week’s PONARS Eurasia Podcast, Maria Lipman chats with scholars Kelly Smith and Benjamin Nathans about the history, achievements, and impending shutdown of the Memorial Society, Russia's oldest and most venerable civic organization, and what its imminent liquidation portends for the Russian civil society.
  • Russia's 2021 census and the Kremlin's nationalities policy [Lipman Series 2021] December 9, 2021
    In this week’s PONARS Eurasia Podcast, Maria Lipman chats with social scientist Andrey Shcherbak about the quality of the data collected in the recent population census and the goals of Vladimir Putin's government's nationalities policy
  • Active citizens of any kind are under threat [Lipman Series 2021] November 5, 2021
    In this week’s PONARS Eurasia Podcast, Maria Lipman chats with Alexander Verkhovsky about the Kremlin's ever expanding toolkit against political and civic activists, journalists, and other dissidents.
  • Russia's Legislative Elections followup [Lipman Series 2021] October 4, 2021
    In this week’s PONARS Eurasia Podcast, Maria Lipman chats with Tanya Lokot and Nikolay Petrov about the results of Russia’s legislative elections and about what comes next.
  • Why Is the Kremlin Nervous? [Lipman Series 2021] September 14, 2021
    In this week’s PONARS Eurasia Podcast, Maria Lipman chats with Ben Noble and Nikolay Petrov about Russia’s September 17-19 legislative elections, repressive measures against electoral challengers, and whether to expect anything other than preordained results.
  • Vaccine Hesitancy in Russia, France, and the United States [Lipman Series 2021] August 31, 2021
    In this week's PONARS Eurasia Podcast episode, Maria Lipman chats with Denis Volkov, Naira Davlashyan, and Peter Slevin about why COVID-19 vaccination rates are still so low across the globe, comparing vaccine hesitant constituencies across Russia, France, and the United States.  
  • Is Russia Becoming More Soviet? [Lipman Series 2021] July 26, 2021
      In a new PONARS Eurasia Podcast episode, Maria Lipman chats with Maxim Trudolyubov about the current tightening of the Russian political sphere, asking whether or not it’s helpful to draw comparisons to the late Soviet period.
  • The Evolution of Russia's Political Regime [Lipman Series 2021] June 21, 2021
    In this week's episode of the PONARS Eurasia Podcast, Maria Lipman chats with Grigory Golosov and Henry Hale about the evolution of Russia's political regime, and what to expect in the lead-up to September's Duma elections.
  • Volodymyr Zelensky: Year Two [Lipman Series 2021] May 24, 2021
    In this week's episode of the PONARS Eurasia Podcast, Maria Lipman chats with Sergiy Kudelia and Georgiy Kasianov about Ukrainian President Zelensky's second year in office, and how he has handled the political turbulence of the past year.
  • Policy Memos | Аналитика

Exodus: Russian Repression and Social “Movement”

  • March 24, 2023
  • Laura Henry, Valerie Sperling and Lisa Sundstrom
PONARS Eurasia Policy Memo No. 838 (PDF)

What does it mean when a social movement that opposes government policies or the regime itself must physically relocate to continue its advocacy? What happens when movement participants flee their homes to another country due to repression or the threat of repression? This “movement” of movements has been underway—in a partial, fragmented, and disorganized fashion—since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Even as attention rightly focuses on assisting displaced Ukrainians at home and abroad, the unprecedented exodus of activists from Russia raises a host of issues for Russian social movements and those who support their diverse aims.

In past research, we identified several broad trends in Russian civil society prior to the war, which we labeled enduring, evaporating, and adapting forms of activism. These terms captured, respectively, organizational types that had persisted since the 1990s, those unable to survive and those that adapted to Russia’s increasingly repressive environment. Here we examine a new trend in Russian civil society: escaping. Specifically, we consider how the departure of so many social movement activists from Russia over the past year affects projects that may require cooperation with citizens at home. We focus on examples from feminist and environmental activism, and efforts opposing Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Russian Movements on the Move: Fleeing Repression

Russia’s assault on Ukraine in February 2022 was accompanied by the further shrinkage of public space for political activism. New laws increased the penalties for anti-war protest, and between February and December 2022, more than 20,000 people were arrested for political reasons. The Russian government also stepped up its identification of so-called “foreign agents.” In July 2022, one of the original criteria—receiving foreign funding—was reduced to a vague implication of being under foreign “influence.”

The escalation in repression and the danger of mobilization pushed hundreds of thousands of Russians to depart for other countries. A year after the war began, estimates of the number of Russians who had left ranged from 500,000 to almost four million, many taking up residence in nearby Georgia, Armenia, Latvia, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan. Some of those who left soon after the invasion were civic activists, although many activists also remained in Russia for reasons ranging from family obligations and economic constraints to moral conviction.

In theory, activists abroad should enjoy a host of new opportunities like freedom of speech and assembly in a more democratic political context. While the Russian regime perhaps considers the exit of activists to be a “safety valve” (releasing oppositionists to a location where they will cause the regime less harm), it may instead constitute a new opportunity for Russians to exercise “voice” and influence both in their new location and, indirectly, back at home in Russia. However, the exodus also means that activist networks have been disrupted, many experience personal and professional dislocation, and conflicts may arise between activists who left and their counterparts in Russia. Moreover, leaving is not a guarantee that activists will successfully avoid repression. But thus far, the Kremlin’s violent repression of dissidents abroad has been limited.

Dilemmas of Activism Abroad

The departure of so many active and engaged citizens creates challenges for networks of activists who want to promote change inside Russia. The war has not dampened concerns about pressing social issues. For example, a Levada Center poll in September 2022 showed that vast majorities of the population continue to regard environmental issues and domestic violence as serious problems. Whether the change activists seek is issue-based or explicitly anti-war, the challenges of communicating and coordinating movement efforts transnationally are immense.

Our goal in analyzing these challenges is to help policymakers and those who support activists see them more clearly and respond to them more directly. Research on social movements has demonstrated that there are several factors that shape (but do not determine) activists’ ability to sustain themselves and achieve their goals. These include:

  • solving leadership challenges in a more fragmented movement;
  • articulating a narrative about the cause that attracts support from multiple audiences;
  • working transnationally to increase leverage on the target of activism—in this case, the Russian government;
  • coordinating digital and non-digital tactics; and
  • acquiring a resource base to support activism.

The current situation is dynamic, and the context for escapees constantly changes. Activists—especially those who have persisted in their work despite the hostile context of Russia’s political system since 2012—are often dedicated, persistent, creative, and adaptive. They are experimenting with strategies to address these challenges in real-time. We review some of these challenges and activists’ efforts to address them in the sections below.

Who Leads? Who Speaks? Dilemmas of Legitimacy, Narrative, and Audience

When some activists are in exile, who leads, and who speaks for “the movement”? How can people abroad speak with legitimacy and influence society? If it’s not safe for people inside Russia to speak, does it protect them when activists speak from abroad, or are those in Russia still implicated?

One way to address this dilemma is to avoid hierarchical organization and use a networked approach to activism. The Feminist Antiwar Resistance (FAR), for instance, is a network of cells across regional and international lines. Anyone can speak as FAR, and cells can even take somewhat divergent policy positions, but they moderate their Telegram channel and remove traceable metadata of protest art and other activist actions. But an organization’s nonhierarchical network does not entirely protect activists who remain in Russia. When FAR was labeled as a foreign agent in December 2022, three of its activists were singled out for inclusion on the registry, yet that does not mean that the networks’ other activists are not at risk.

For movements that have activists both in Russia and abroad, how does the movement explain itself and its goals to multiple audiences? Who is the primary audience for activism organized from abroad? Generally, the audience for social movement activism is both domestic and international. In the typical transnational social movement model, activists in a repressive context can call upon allies in other, more democratic contexts to pressure their governments to, in turn, press the target state to cease its human rights violations or other violent behavior. Keck and Sikkink referred to this as the “boomerang” model and noted that such international advocacy was most effective when there was also a strong movement within the target country. In the Russian case, however, the degree of repression is such that domestic activist movements (especially those that overtly oppose regime policy or that are regarded as ideological threats by the regime) are not strong—and the allies outside of Russia who are trying to amplify Russian activists’ messages may themselves be Russian exiles.

As movement actors disperse beyond Russia, activists need to rebuild networks and create new coalitions. It may be harder to build social capital when some movement participants are in Russia, and others are not. Activists who have remained are under intense pressure. Although people who have left may be physically safer, they are often in precarious financial and professional positions. Can such grounds for potential rifts between “escapers” and “remainers” be overcome by building new transnational networks? New coalitions are emerging. The Ukraine War Environmental Consequences Work Group (UWEC), for instance, is a transnational collaboration (Ukrainian, Russian, Belarusian, and American) developed to monitor the environmental effects of Russia’s war. It brings together scientists, journalists, and activists with a wide range of expertise on topics ranging from greenhouse gas emissions to biodiversity loss. Such transnational collaborative experiments may be fruitful, but activists may find they need to manage new dilemmas of leadership and legitimacy that they had not anticipated.

Who Acts? The Dilemma of Tactics that Bridge the Digital Divide

Long-distance activism (such as networked activism that includes people inside and outside Russia) is often digital—which has many advantages, as it enables cooperation and lowers risks. But what are the challenges of connecting digital and non-digital activism? Activists in Russia are at risk if they undertake in-person, public actions in a way that those abroad are not, and may be at risk even if they engage in digital activism in a way that is not anonymous.

Some activist organizations straddle the digital/non-digital divide. FAR, for instance, publishes a print-it-yourself newspaper called Women’s Truth (Zhenskaia pravda), which people can distribute anonymously in physical spaces in Russia (or share on social media or by email). This tactic aims to break through Russian state propaganda and help spread accurate information about the war beyond the “activism bubble.” Likewise, the Russian Socioecological Union, a network of environmental activists with members inside Russia and abroad, monitors pressure on environmentalists in Russia, publicizing their plight to a broader audience. Some environmentalists also created the Ecological Crisis Group to provide legal support to activists who remain under pressure in Russia and to offer practical advice on their Telegram channel for activists under threat.

Who Funds? Resource Dilemmas

Since 2012, the Russian government has used both carrots and sticks to shape resource flows to Russian activists to encourage certain forms of mobilization and discourage others. The “sticks” include the various iterations of Russia’s foreign agent laws and the law on “undesirable” organizations, while presidential grants and other state funding for socially oriented NGOs constitute the “carrots.”

Donor-recipient relations in Russia have been profoundly disrupted since the initial foreign agent laws were put in place. Because several of the major foundations that had funded Russian civil society in the 1990s turned their attention elsewhere once the 21st century began, many activists grew accustomed to working without significant foreign financing, giving up the idea of having dedicated office space, and relying on volunteer labor rather than grant-funded positions. Although some activist groups continued to have ties to international donor-partners, by the time the war began in 2022, the trend away from “NGO-ization” in Russia was in full swing.

Activism, however, still requires resources. Ironically, some activists accused of being “foreign agents” while in Russia now may find themselves based in countries viewed with suspicion by the Russian government. Given that the fear of the pejorative label “foreign agent” is no longer relevant, could activists’ displacement be used to their advantage? Perhaps the outflow of activists will create a new opportunity to build connections between foreign donors and Russian recipients. If so, might that funding inadvertently recreate some of the same challenges for Russian civil society (e.g., competition for scarce resources preventing possible collaboration) that Russian activists faced in the 1990s?

In the interim, Russian activist networks like FAR are collaborating with other groups to raise funds to help support activists who lose their jobs in Russia due to their opposition to the war. Some organizations help Russian activists escape the country or help Ukrainians forcibly displaced to Russia to leave for other states. Such networks include activists in Russia as well as outside of it. Solidarus, a Berlin-based organization staffed in part by Russian activists who emigrated prior to the war, offers support to those who left more recently and monitors the legal situation for activists in Russia and for those seeking asylum in the EU. These collaborative activities are likely building the grassroots connections that serve as a foundation for civil society and that were not built in the 1990s.

Conclusion: The Civil Society of the Future?

Hypothetically, participating in activism (whether abroad, at home, or mixed) could help build “social capital”—a crucial element of civil society and democracy in the long run. State repression like that imposed by Russia over the past decade makes it more challenging to support activists from abroad—hence the “adapting” activists had essentially stopped looking for foreign funding even well before the invasion. “Escaping” activists, however, could perhaps be more easily funded, as international supporters who endorse the goals of these activists no longer need worry as much about activists being harmed by “foreign agent” labels or ”undesirable organization” laws. Is it possible to seize this opportunity to build transnational connections and keep the pro-democracy, human rights, and anti-colonial sectors of Russian civil society active?

Yet the strategy of funding Russian activists in exile would not be risk-free. It is crucial to support Ukrainian civil society and not to see activists of the region as competitors for the same “pie.” One important issue for funders of civil society is to recognize that Russia has for too long been the center of attention and that helping Russian activists must not be seen as part of a zero-sum strategy.

Funding Russian activists may also carry risks for the very civil society-building that funders hope to foster. Rifts between those in exile and those who have remained in Russia could become a significant fracture, similar to divisions that arose among foreign-funded Russian civil society groups in the 1990s (and between those groups and activists and the ones who did not get foreign funds).

To attenuate the risk, could donor support be directed toward activists-in-exile who are able to demonstrate continued participation in networks that extend into Russia and who have projects that support Russian activists at home? The latter, in effect, would become intermediaries—an indirect way to fund what remains of domestic Russian civil society.


Laura A. Henry is Professor of Government and Acting Chair of the Russian Department at Bowdoin College. 

Valerie Sperling is Professor of Political Science at Clark University

Lisa McIntosh Sundstrom is Professor of Political Science at the University of British Columbia.

PONARS Eurasia Policy Memo No. 838 (PDF)

Image credit/license

Related Topics
  • Henry
  • Russia
  • Russia-Ukraine War
  • Sperling
  • Sundstrom
Previous Article
  • Policy Memos | Аналитика

The Ukrainian Resistance Movement in the Occupied Territories

  • March 20, 2023
  • Yuriy Matsiyevsky
View
Next Article
  • Recommended | Рекомендуем

Opinion | Why Do Russians Still Want to Fight?

  • March 31, 2023
  • Marlene Laruelle and Ivan Grek
View
You May Also Like
View
  • Policy Memos | Аналитика

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Russia

  • Janko Šćepanović
  • May 15, 2023
View
  • Policy Memos | Аналитика

Tbilisi’s Transactional Foreign Policy Leads Georgians Astray

  • Kornely Kakachia and Bidzina Lebanidze
  • May 5, 2023
View
  • Policy Memos | Аналитика

Russia’s Administrators: The Weakest Link in a Crisis

  • Guzel Garifullina
  • April 25, 2023
View
  • Policy Memos | Аналитика

Ukrainians and Russians Are Not One People—But Perhaps Not for the Reasons You Think

  • Pål Kolstø
  • April 21, 2023
View
  • Policy Memos | Аналитика

Russian Protests Following the Invasion of Ukraine

  • Katerina Tertytchnaya
  • April 17, 2023
View
  • Policy Memos | Аналитика

Consolidating Values to Consolidate Power in Russia

  • Katie Stewart
  • April 10, 2023
View
  • Policy Memos | Аналитика

Russia’s Paramilitarization and its Consequences

  • Marlene Laruelle and Richard Arnold
  • April 3, 2023
View
  • Policy Memos | Аналитика

The Ukrainian Resistance Movement in the Occupied Territories

  • Yuriy Matsiyevsky
  • March 20, 2023
PONARS Eurasia
  • About
  • Membership
  • Policy Memos
  • Recommended
  • Events
Powered by narva.io

Permissions & Citation Guidelines

Input your search keywords and press Enter.