Anti-Putin Opposition Increasingly Deeply Divided between Those Wanting Russia to Remain in One Piece and Those Backing Decolonization, Free Udmurtia Leader Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Dec. 16 – The anti-Putin opposition is divided over many things, but it is perhaps most profoundly split on whether Russia should remain a single country after Putin departs the scene or whether the country should disintegrate into a number of new independent states, Sergey Antonov says.

            The former is certainly has received more attention in the West, the leader of the Free Udmurtia Movement says; but Putin’s war in Ukraine is changing the balance as ever more people are recognizing that preserving Russia as a single state poses a greater threat to the world than having it come apart (region.expert/regions-vs-center/).

            Those favoring the preservation of a single Russia after Putin leaves rely on the following arguments, Antonov continues. First of all, those taking this position say that “democratization is possible within the framework of the preservation of the federation as long as there is a restoration of constitutional norms and the redistribution of authority to the regions.”

            Second, they argue that “the disintegration of the state will lead to chaos, inter-ethnic conflicts, the threat of civil war and the expansion of influence of third countries” on the region. Third, the centralists say that “the international community is not prepared to support the idea of the disintegration of a nuclear power with unpredictable consequences for security.”

            And fifth, they claim that “Russia must be preserves as a single subject of international law for participating in the global architecture of security, control over nuclear weapons and the fulfillment of international obligations” that Moscow has already undertaken to do, Antonov concludes.

            Those positions, which echo the views of many in the West before the USSR came apart, “are actively promoted by a large part of the liberal emigration, individual groups of experts, many media outlets, and also part of Western analytic centers which are focused on the preservation of the geopolitical status quo.”

            Those who favor the decolonization of Russia, of whom Antonov is one, have a “diametrically opposed” logic. They argue that the Russian Federation “from the outset” was never a federation and cannot become a democracy, that it has been and will remain repressive at home and aggressive abroad.

            Further, they suggest, “democratization is impossible without the destruction of the very architecture of the imperial state and the recognition of the right to self-determination for peoples and regions. Only if these are able to achieve independence is there a chance for this region to be democratic at home and peaceful abroad.

            Since Putin launched his expanded invasion of Russia in 2022, those favoring decolonization have gained in influence at home and abroad, but they to this day remain “underrated” by Western politicians, even though “ignoring these movements means to copy the imperial optic” the Kremlin uses.

            It is long past time that Western governments and analysts as well as members of the Russian opposition recognize that independence movements in what is now the Russian Federation “are not a threat to stability but represent a chance for the restoration of justice after centuries of colonial oppression” and for international peace as well.