The Mask of Dissent: Colonial Legacies in Russia’s Opposition

The Mask of Dissent: Colonial Legacies in Russia’s Opposition

While presenting a front of democratic resistance, prominent Russian opposition figures reveal deeply rooted biases that mirror the very imperialism they claim to oppose.

Adel Bashqawi

May 1, 2025

https://pixabay.com/illustrations/deciding-division-psyche-psychology-1364439/

• Observers of the Russian political scene are often puzzled by the apparent contradictions displayed by those described as the regime’s opposition—an entity that can only be characterized as totalitarian, authoritarian, and colonial. This assessment is not based on hearsay or false accusations, but rather on experience with public opposition figures. These observers also note the striking contrast between the emotional rigidity of most of these opposition parties, activists, and dissidents, and their similarity to the very practices and ideologies of the existing regime.

• When their true nature is revealed—particularly regarding the subjugated peoples and nations that were illegally annexed to the colonial entity in the past—their claims of opposing dictatorship and tyranny are shown to be shallow. Observers highlight this contradiction: when these opposition figures rise to power, they tend to reproduce the same imperialist policies they once claimed to reject, or at least disagree with.

• The fall of the existing regime is unlikely to bring about fundamental change. Instead, it may simply usher in new individuals and slightly altered societal behaviors. The underlying imperialist, colonial mentality—saturated with racial discrimination—is likely to remain. This exposes the absence of a unifying vision or moral compass that can chart a direction inclusive of all peoples. What is needed are structural foundations that protect and restore the legitimate rights of oppressed and colonized peoples—those who also oppose the regime and demand justice and equality for all citizens.

Shifting from Communist Policy to Diverse Ideologies

• It is obvious that many prominent public figures who were formerly members and high officials of the Soviet Communist Party—thus senior officials of the Soviet Union—played a significant role in shaping post-Soviet politics. The facts have demonstrated that the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the collapse of Communism opened a Pandora’s box.

• Since “the era of Communist rule began in Russia in 1917, religion was seen as a hindrance to a thriving socialist society. As Karl Marx, coauthor of the The Communist Manifesto, declared, {Communism begins where atheism begins}.” [1]

• What was surprising in post-Soviet Russia was that former Communist Party members and Soviet government officials renounced communist principles and joined non-communist parties. Some even formed alliances with members of the Orthodox Church for various reasons.

https://pixabay.com/photos/russian-doll-russian-toy-doll-toy-1090713/

Opposition Public Figures

This article seeks to illuminate the complexities and contradictions within Russia’s opposition movements, especially as they relate to colonialism and indigenous rights. It challenges the reader to think critically about who is given a voice on the international stage—and whose struggles are overlooked or dismissed.
Several prominent figures in the Russian opposition illustrate how opposition is often more about optics and rhetoric than substantive policy change. These individuals frequently participate in campaigns of appeasement, masking their intentions behind reformist language.
They may label themselves or their programs as “opposition” or “reformers,” terms often used as emotional tools that later prove to be misleading or even false.
Ultimately, many of their goals boil down to opposing the head of the regime rather than dismantling the system itself. These efforts often resemble a power struggle between political factions—despite ideological differences or personal rivalries—rather than a genuine push for justice or systemic reform.
Both the government and the so-called opposition routinely ignore the legitimate rights of those whose lands were occupied and annexed by the Russian Empire since the 18th century. Whether in St. Petersburg or Moscow, political elites—regardless of affiliation—continue to dominate dozens of captive indigenous peoples in a state of quasi-slavery.
The absence of genuine collaboration between Russian opposition figures and representatives of Russia’s colonized nations is telling. When given the opportunity to speak on their behalf, the opposition figures must support the right to self-determination for these peoples. Instead, they deferred, suggesting such discussions could wait until a more “appropriate time.”
Indigenous and minority communities across the Russian Federation continue to resist ethnic cleansing, demographic engineering, and cultural erasure. Their struggle is not secondary to the Russian opposition’s goals—it is central to any authentic vision of democracy.
The world must recognize that fighting authoritarianism in Russia means confronting not only its present rulers, but also the imperial ideologies that still permeate its political landscape—even among its dissidents.

Prominent Opposition Figures Over the Years

Vladimir Lenin

Following the 1917 Bolshevik (October) Revolution, Lenin—the founder of the Russian Communist Party—asserted that the new regime supported the right to self-determination for peoples and nations annexed by the Russian Empire. However, once the Soviet Union consolidated power, these promises were largely abandoned.
Lenin consistently expressed support for the right of nations to self-determination and wrote extensively on the subject, including in his work The Right of Nations to Self-Determination. He believed that “the key was for the Great Russian working class and the revolutionary party to make clear their unequivocal opposition to every manifestation of Great Russian oppression, privilege, and racism.” [2]
Advocating for the legitimate rights of oppressed nations was essential in gaining the attention and support of representatives from subjugated nations seeking freedom. In notes dictated in December 1922, Lenin acknowledged: “[W]e nationals of a big nation have nearly always been guilty, in historic practice, of an infinite number of cases of violence; furthermore, we commit violence and insult an infinite number of times without noticing it.” [3]

Mikhail Khodorkovsky

Once considered Russia’s richest man after the fall of the Soviet Union, Khodorkovsky was imprisoned from 2003 to 2013 on charges of fraud, embezzlement, and money laundering tied to privatization deals.
Now living in Germany, he is a well-known opposition figure. In a 2013 interview with Germany’s ZDF, he rejected the label “opposition,” saying:
“I don’t really like the term ‘opposition,’ because it doesn’t quite correspond with what we do. I prefer to describe us as the resistance against Putin.” [4]
Source: Khodorkovsky.com

Garry Kasparov

Russian dissident and former chess champion Garry Kasparov has openly criticized Russian actions in Ukraine and the silence of his fellow citizens:
“What are you up to? We’re all in this shit—this shit is on all of us. Stop acting like you have nothing to do with it. The longer you pretend, the more you become complicit in Putin’s crimes.” [5]
Source: Facebook post
In 2014, Kasparov condemned the Sochi Winter Olympics, claiming they served to promote dictatorship. [6]
Source: Rappler
However, his criticism largely focused on the authoritarian regime—not the fact that Sochi sits on the land of the Circassian Genocide. Unlike with Crimea, which he urged Ukraine to reclaim, Kasparov did not advocate for Circassian recognition or justice. [7]
As a leading figure in political movements like “The Other Russia,” Kasparov was arrested and beaten during protests—despite them being legally sanctioned. In 2013, sensing increased danger, he fled Russia for his safety. [8]
Source: The Other Russia

Alexei Navalny

On February 17, 2024, prominent Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny died at age 47 in an Arctic Circle prison. He had been serving a 19-year sentence on politically motivated extremism charges. [9]
Source: RNZ
In 2020, after surviving a poisoning attempt, Navalny was evacuated to Germany for treatment. While recovering, he recorded the now-famous video “Putin’s Palace: History of the World’s Largest Bribe.” [10] [11]
Upon returning to Russia, Navalny released the investigation, exposing the extravagant and allegedly corrupt construction of Putin’s Black Sea palace. [12]
Watch the full documentary
The video struck a nerve among Circassians and their allies. The palace was built near the site of the 2014 Sochi Olympics—on land that holds tragic historical significance as the site of the Circassian Genocide.
Circassian organizations responded with an open letter [13] to Navalny, noting:
“The Putin palace… is located on Cape Idokubas on the shore of the Black Sea, not far from Gelendzhik, on the motherland of the Circassians. Just like the Olympic sites in Sochi, it was erected on the territory of the Caucasus Reserve.” [14] [15]
Navalny’s investigation highlighted the excessive costs and corruption surrounding the palace, but failed to acknowledge the ethnic or historical context of its location. His silence on the 2014 Olympics being held on the land of the Circassian Genocide disappointed many who hoped he would extend his criticism to include colonial injustice.

Vladimir Kara-Murza

Vladimir Kara-Murza is another prominent opposition figure whose views have come under increasing scrutiny. Arrested in 2022, he was sentenced to 25 years in prison in April 2023 for criticizing the war in Ukraine. [16]
Despite his democratic advocacy, Kara-Murza has also been accused of aligning with nationalist ideologies. Most controversially, during a hearing before the French Senate in 2025, he claimed that it was psychologically easier for non-Russian soldiers to kill Ukrainians due to cultural and linguistic differences. His statement was widely criticized as racist and colonial.
The Indigenous of Russia Foundation issued a formal open letter condemning his remarks, calling them a perpetuation of myths that further dehumanize non-Russian peoples, many of whom have already been subjected to systemic discrimination and disproportionately conscripted into the war. [17]
Kara-Murza’s statements reflect the very colonial mindset many opposition figures claim to reject. They exemplify a duality of identity—appearing to advocate for democratic values abroad while sustaining prejudices at home. This dissonance reveals a deeper political hypocrisy and insincerity. [18]

Russian Violations in Ukraine: The Opposition’s Response

If Russia truly “loved” Ukraine, it would not wage a war that has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths and massive destruction. The rhetoric of “brotherhood” contrasts violently with the brutality of its military actions.
Ukrainian towns such as Bucha, Mariupol, and Luhansk have suffered immensely. The UN has confirmed that Russian forces executed civilians in more than 30 settlements, and reports of torture, rape, and forced deportation continue to emerge. [19]
The annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia in 2022 followed the same pattern as Crimea in 2014: military occupation followed by sham referendums to justify illegitimate control. [20]

Conclusion

A Russian dissident once attended a forum with academics and representatives of subjugated nations. When asked about these peoples’ aspirations for freedom and self-determination, he deferred the matter, suggesting it could be addressed “at an appropriate time.” This evasiveness is emblematic of the broader opposition stance toward captive nations—they are, at best, an afterthought.

This reflects a persistent pattern of neglect and indifference toward non-Russian identities. The captive nations continue to resist erasure and displacement, striving to preserve their languages, cultures, and fundamental human rights. Their struggle for the right to self-determination remains a critical issue—one that the so-called opposition has yet to seriously engage with.

********************************

References:

[1] https://www.history.com/articles/joseph-stalin-religion-atheism-ussr

[2] https://www.liberationschool.org/lenin-and-the-right-of-nations-to-self-determination/

[3] https://www.liberationschool.org/lenin-and-the-right-of-nations-to-self-determination/

[4] https://khodorkovsky.com/mikhail-khodorkovsky-what-he-thinks-about-todays-russia/

[5] https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AgvhuYWQA/

[6] https://www.rappler.com/sports/49478-olympics-sochi-promote-dictatorship-kasparov/

[7] https://www.rappler.com/sports/49478-olympics-sochi-promote-dictatorship-kasparov/

[8] https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/509405/russian-dissident-putin-critic-alexei-navalny-dead-at-47

[9] https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/509405/russian-dissident-putin-critic-alexei-navalny-dead-at-47

[10] https://youtu.be/ipAnwilMncI?si=4Y8ur-3p1yTrKjqp