Vladimir, the good Russian

When Kara-Murza spoke at the French Assembly, Russian colonialism and racism were on full display

Vladimir Kara-Murza in 2024 (Photo: A.Savin, Wikipedia)

Vladimir Kara-Murza is what those who are critical of present-day Russian society ironically call a „good Russian“. This term designates Russians who are against the war and against Putin and who often have suffered because of their position. They are loved and admired in the West. They receive prizes and scholarships and travel the world; we find their faces in Western newspapers and magazines and see them shaking hands with high-profile politicians, intellectuals, and business people. They are seen as embodying the „other Russia“ that must still exist somewhere.

There is only one problem: the „good Russian“ is also self-centred, more interested in „saving“ Russia than in supporting Ukraine, and refuses to accept Russian society’s agency and responsibility for what is happening. For them, evil begins and ends with Putin’s reign, and once he is out of power, the „wonderful Russia of the future“ can begin. According to the „good Russian“, this is not Russia’s war but Putin’s war—even though hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers are waging a war of aggression and are committing genocide in the occupied territories, and the majority of Russians seem either to accept or support this.

The problem is not only that the „good Russian“ refuses to recognise Russia’s fundamental problem in the past and present, i.e. its failure to reckon with Russian colonialism, but that s/he themselves cultivate a colonial mindset. I have already written about this issue more generally, so let’s look at one particularly telling and recent example when Kara-Murza spoke in the French senate last Thursday. He was invited there to talk about Russia’s war against Ukraine and was asked about the recruitment of non-Russian minorities. In his answer, Kara-Murza said that the reasons why they are being recruited at such high rates are primarily economic, since „of course“ the regions where non-Russians live are poorer, people lack perspectives for a better life and are thus more willing to serve in the army in exchange for money. But then, he dwelt on a second explanation which he had just heard from an unnamed „colleague“ who had allegedly worked with Russian prisoners of war in Ukraine: Since Russians and Ukrainians are „as it is widely known“, practically „one people“ who shared „nearly the same language, the same religion and shared a century-long common history“, it is „psychologically difficult“ for Russians to kill Ukrainians. Kara-Murza, the applauded hero for his stance against the war, shared in the French Assembly its very ideological premise: „We are one people“. After three years of the full-scale invasion and in the middle of an ongoing genocide, he was pondering that it was difficult for Russians to kill Ukrainians.

There is simply no way that Kara-Murza does not know how utterly disrespectful the „one people“ ideology is towards Ukrainians or the implication that killing Ukrainians is difficult for Russians. Russians are committing the most horrific crimes in the name of this colonial myth. But Kara-Murza chose to repeat it publicly — why? The obvious answer is that he shares this ideology with Putin and millions of other Russians, but I suspect that there is also something further at play here. First, Kara-Murza has repeatedly come out against sanctions against „ordinary Russians“. To achieve this goal, he must restore Russian innocence; this is precisely what he was trying to do in this conversation with French lawmakers. Second, he sees himself as a leader of the Russian „opposition“. Within this milieu, the idea that Russians are not really to blame for this war is highly attractive. It is so much more comfortable to imagine Russians as innocent victims who are being forced to kill their alleged Ukrainian „brothers“ than to face the ugly truth of Russians’ responsibility. He was signalling to his Russian audience that he was with them, he was on their side, he would not challenge them, and he would stroke their soul and make them feel good about themselves. Kara-Murza quite obviously did this on the backs of Ukrainians and the colonised peoples of Russia. Russian colonialism and racism were on full display at the French Assembly on that day.

In the following days, not only Ukrainians criticised Kara-Murza for his words. Others, „good Russians“ and their Western allies, came to his defence on social media: obviously, Kara-Murza was only citing a „colleague“. Perhaps the people criticising him did not understand the nuances of the French language? If it were not so depressing, it would be comical. Why would you bring up an absurd „theory“ about Russians not wanting to kill Ukrainians because they are „one people“ if you do not think it is plausible? By putting it into the mouth of an ominous „colleague“, Kara-Murza simply kept a back door open for those in the West willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. They are left with the ambiguity that perhaps, just perhaps, he was misunderstood. I disagree; Kara-Murza knew exactly what he was doing. He placed his central messages to his audience, and they heard the dog whistle. It may have been a clever ploy, but to anyone paying a little attention to the milieu of the „good Russians“ in the last three years, the whole thing was pretty transparent.