This is a deeply compelling and much-needed piece, Franziska!
Your analysis cuts through the myths that still dominate too much of Western discourse around the so-called “russian opposition.” Blame putin for everything and restore russian innocence — this self-serving, spurious storytelling helps no one: not Europeans, not Ukrainians, not even russians.
How can russia ever build a culture that celebrates something other than violence, strive for genuine freedom, or foster any real appreciation for citizenship — with its rights and responsibilities — if even the most "progressive" russians are unwilling to confront their country’s blood-soaked history, ongoing hunger for colonization?
The mental acrobatics among these oppositionists are truly mind-boggling.
Very disappointing to learn that he prattled the same old lie of “one people.”
As Christopher Browning points out in _Ordinary Men_, which is about the Actual Nazis, it is psychologically difficult for any person to kill any other person. That’s Nature’s way to assure the continuation of the species, but what basic training in the military does is teaches newbies how to kill the enemy.
It’s easier to psychologically rationalize when the enemy is armed and attacking you, but that point is not applicable irt the country that started and perpetrates an illegal and unprovoked genocidal war for the last three years+, and shows zero remorse about doing so.
And let it be said by someone who has been there, the “great Russian soul” does not exist. They are the most envious and treacherous people fully deserving of their status as a pariah state. Emphatically.
No. Russians have had this same barbarity, covetousness, envy, jealousy from the time when Elizabeth I refused the marriage proposal of Ivan I.
That Russia is a dying empire only makes it more desperate to take by theft and force what it is too lazy and drunk to produce themselves. They have an unsolvable, demographic crisis, and rather than being satisfied to fix at home, the problems in the domestic economy and infrastructure and make use of their own resources, it’s easier and perhaps seeing is more fun to go take that which belongs to others.
Remember, The glory of Russia that they speak about culturally occurred during the Russian Imperial era, not during the hell of the Soviets or since. Tolstoy died in the early 20th century before WWI and the Revolution changed everything and decidedly not for the better. Tens of millions of Soviets killed in addition to wartime numbers.
Compare that body count to that of the Glorious Revolution, and the fact that the monarchy in Britain retains only some Parliament-granted powers. Influential, yes, but not at all the divine right of kings they once held.
All big imperialist civilisations create people who are arrogant towards others and self-absorbed towards themselves. But Russia is a dying empire, which makes it self-pitying as well. You could have said the same about the British in the dying years of our Empire.
It was a catastrophic mistake to get this guy exchanged for Putin's friend the Tiergarten killer. Best option would have been no exchange at all, second best an exchange against Ukrainian POWs.
Here's the truth, Franziska: France is also a colonialist country that hasn't entirely dealt with its colonialist past or continuing mindset. As is Britain. Even the "good" French and British (and I count myself among both), struggle with the colonial mindset, because it's one of those things you don't see in yourself until someone else points it out to you. In my case, it was living and working in Africa and the Middle East for several years that allowed me to see it, when some of my more honest hosts and colleagues pointed it out. I still find myself thinking that way, and must root it out.
Unlike Germany after Nazism (denazification was imperfect, but there was a genuine attempt to root out the rot), no country in Western Europe - Britain, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Italy - went through a decolonisation of minds. The decolonisation of history and policy took decades and isn't yet finished.
One problem, perhaps the chief problem given the current situation with Russia, is that during the Cold War, Western European colonialism was seized upon by Soviet Communism as a very useful tool in its propaganda war. The USSR managed to persuade large numbers of Europeans that only Western Europeans and the USA could be considered imperialists. This led to the successful replacement by Soviet imperialism of one type of intellectual imperialism by another (e.g. intellectual imperialism in France by the Soviet Union was especially strong). It also led to backlash by all non-Communists, including the non-communist leftwing, which further slowed down both policy and intellectual decolonisation.
We tend to forget it in 2025, but empire is almost the default system in Europe, and has been since the Roman Empire. Few regions of Europe escaped one empire or another over the past 2000 years. And it's ongoing. But so, too, has fight against empires and the imperialist mindset, including in ourselves.
There is a big difference between “hasn’t entirely dealt with” and “didn’t even begin the process”. There was no decolonization of history and policy in russia. There is continued glorification of the past, by both “good and bad” russians. And “good” russians are trying to appeal to that “imperfect ongoing fight against colonial mindset” in the mind of the European politicians, while they themselves has never even began the process, despite Ukrainians constantly pointing it out, including in non heated, structural academic way. They chose not to listen.
Oh, absolutely! I’m not trying to diminish that aspect at all. My point was that even when encouraged, decolonisation and opposing imperialism in oneself and one’s culture is hard…so when it isn’t encouraged, or even opposed on nationalistic grounds, it must be extremely rare. That’s the case in Russia, I understand. It’s also the case in China.
There are only two choices for the 'good Russian.' They can either find a safe perch in academia and critique Russia and the Russian people honestly without the possibility of further advancement or they can be public intellectuals, which requires them to blame Putin and not the Russian people for Russia's actions. If they want to be followed by Russians within Russia and have a hope for future political ambitions they must do the latter.
Such compromisers will never change Russia if they take power after Putin is gone. The only real hope for change would be a 'good Russian' who sees the Russian people as part of the problem, not the solution, but who conceals this belief until they are in charge.
It is always worth remembering that the French are very good at seeing through bullshit. They do it in a very different style, with a certain je-ne-sais-quoi, but the message is similar to what New Yorkers routinely express.
It is also worth remembering that France is literally our oldest ally here in the USA. Without the French there would be no USA today.
Russian propaganda almost always sounds exactly like the bullshit it is. So many Vladimirs, so little time…but like Sergeis or Mohammads…it’s always worth remembering in this xenophobic age that they can’t all be bad and didn’t name themselves…except adolfs, elons, and donalds... those names are now as toxic as lead.
With the possible exception of elon all were once good names. Unfortunately we can’t tar all Vladimirs with the same brush…too damn many of them to eliminate and many are good men.
With all due respect, I think Your quote and interpretation of what Kara-Murza said is incorrect, based on a wrong or purposefully altered translation that has been widely circulated online.
It is a delicate matter, which is why I am providing the full transcript of the section in the original language below. In many reports, the quote was reproduced incorrectly or deliberately manipulated to give the impression that Kara-Murza was spreading Russian imperialism.
In his statement, Kara-Murza did not speak about “one people” but about “similar peoples”. What is much more important, however, is how he introduces this whole section: In the complete original, it is clear that he is referring to the (xenophobic and disgusting) recruitment logic and thinking of the russian general staff quoted by the colleague from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. (...le fait que le Ministère de la Défense russe prend tellement de représentants de ces minorités nationales, parce que apparemment ils disent que... / ...the fact that the russian ministry of defense is taking so many representatives of these national minorities because apparently they say that...)
«C’est absolument vrai que beaucoup de militaires russes en Ukraine viennent de ces républiques-là, du Caucase, de l’Est, en Siberie et tout ça. Plutôt les raisons sont économiques. Quand on a parlé avec Madame la vice-présidente, ce sont les régions très pauvres. Beaucoup plus pauvres évidemment que Moscou et St. Petersbourg, mais aussi beaucoup plus pauvres que les régions de la Russie centrale. Et le Ministère de Défense russe offre pas mal d’argent aux gens pour aller sur cette guerre, et ces gens-là qui n’ont pas d’argent, qui n’ont pas de perspective, qui n’ont rien dans ces régions éloignées et pauvres, il y a beaucoup de gens qui acceptent cet argent et vont à la guerre. Il y avait aussi… J’ai parlé à Strasbourg hier dans le cadre de la session de l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe, j’ai parlé avec une collègue qui travaille beaucoup avec des prisonniers de guerre des deux côtés. Donc elle a parlé beaucoup avec des prisonniers de guerre ukrainiens qui ont été libérés de la Russie et des prisonniers de guerre russes qui sont actuellement en Ukraine encore. Et elle m’a dit qu’il y a une autre raison pour le fait que le Ministère de la Défense russe prend tellement de représentants de ces minorités nationales, parce que apparemment ils disent que c’est psychologiquement vraiment difficile pour les russes de tuer les ukrainiens parce que c’est… parce qu’on est le même… on est les mêmes, ce sont des peuples très proches, comme tout le monde le sait. On a presque la même langue, la même religion, des siècles et des siècles d’une histoire commune… Mais si c’est quelqu’un qui vient d’une autre culture, apparemment, c’est plus facile. C’est ça ce que cette collègue m’a dit hier. J’ai jamais pensé à ce point-là. Pour moi c’était surtout économique, les raisons, mais maintenant qu’elle me l’a dit hier, j’ai commencé à réfléchir de ça aussi».
Will KM, should he supplant Putin, return all Ukranians, including stolen children, to Ukraine immediately, return all Ukrainian lands, including Crimea, compensate Ukraine for all Russian damage, vow never to attack Ukraine again, and ensure that no other measures will be taken against any other country, or ethnic groups that are not Russian?
Kara-Murza's ultimate goal is, of course, not to take Putin's place, but to contribute to a system change in Russia and bring all war criminals (and not only them) to justice. He has repeated this many times, including in this discussion. Of course, this would imply that Russia recognizes international law with all the consequences that follow
Thank you for your reply. I do remain sceptical about the ability of Russians to make all necessary reparations to a free and whole Ukraine, supposing any Russian was ever able to wrest power from the monstrous regime now in place. However, I am just a reader and no kind of expert at all.
Thank You, too. And you have good reason to be sceptical! But you know, every authoritarian regime in Russia seemed to be there forever, until it was no more. Both the Tsarist Empire and the Soviet Union ultimately collapsed within a few days. This dictatorship will also fall sooner or later, of course. And the question is: what happens after that and who will be responsible?
You state: "Kara-Murza did not speak about “one people” but about “similar peoples”". Sorry, my French isnt perfect, but doesnt "on est les mêmes" mean, they are the same? He continued with "ce sont des peuples très proches" ("very closely related") and later quoted the insinuation that Russians and Ukrainians have the same culture ....
Lieber Herr Müller, erlauben Sie mir schnell auf Deutsch zu antworten.
Genau das ist hier der Punkt - ob der russ. Generalstab der Meinung ist, dass Russen und Ukrainer ein Volk seien, oder "nur" ähnliche Völker. Es bleibt - wie im zitierten Abschnitt, die Meinung des Generalstabs. Und nicht die von Kara-Murza, wie fälschlicherweise vielfach dargestellt wurde
It's interesting, that second point, Alexander. I'm sure that some Russians believe it. I am not, however, convinced by it. Civil wars - Syrian against Syrian, American against American, English against English, Greek against Greek - have existed since humans made war; as has the use of mercenaries to supplement troops, both in international and civil wars. The Kremlin is trying to pass this war against their neighbour as a kind of civil war, which is part of their imperialist propaganda ("there's no such country/nation as Ukraine, we are all one"). In reality, should Russia itself ever fall into civil war the way many other nations have at some point in their history, they would have no more trouble killing fellow Russians than recently, Syrians had in killing Syrians, or indeed, during the German Occupation of 1940-1944, Frenchmen in killing Frenchmen.
This is even more the case when a country is fighting another country it considers illegitimate or dependent, no matter how historically close with close cultures and literatures, etc.; and we need go no further than England and Ireland for a Western European example. Southern Ireland has been independent for a century, after nearly 800 years of Norman/English domination. The North of Ireland is still a UK member, and its population is split, though currently at peace (more or less) since 1997. But there are still many voices in England that sees Ireland as an upstart country, not a real country, and something of a British dependency (it has got much worse since Brexit); and should a fascist government ever be installed in Westminster, a "reclaim Ireland" movement could become policy.
In reality, the opposition of young Russians to fighting in Ukraine is their way - the only way they can think of - of opposing that war. Mustering troops amongst non-Russians is also a way of avoiding the anger and opposition of the Russian mothers. You must know that Putin's most loyal base is found amongst middle-aged women, who still thank him for putting an end to the chaos of the 1990s.
Putin did not put an end to the chaos of the 1990s, even if the Kremlin would like to portray it that way. In reality, he has plunged the country into a much greater state of lawlessness.
As for your point about civil war, I have absolutely no illusions about Russia in this regard, unfortunately. This experience was already made once in the 20th century, with devastating consequences. The respective opponents were fought with the utmost brutality on both sides. And civilian casualties on either side never played a role ever since, nor did the grief of those left behind. Putin, in any case, will certainly not be deterred by this.
This is a deeply compelling and much-needed piece, Franziska!
Your analysis cuts through the myths that still dominate too much of Western discourse around the so-called “russian opposition.” Blame putin for everything and restore russian innocence — this self-serving, spurious storytelling helps no one: not Europeans, not Ukrainians, not even russians.
How can russia ever build a culture that celebrates something other than violence, strive for genuine freedom, or foster any real appreciation for citizenship — with its rights and responsibilities — if even the most "progressive" russians are unwilling to confront their country’s blood-soaked history, ongoing hunger for colonization?
The mental acrobatics among these oppositionists are truly mind-boggling.
Thank you for articulating it with such clarity.
As a French citizen I'm very disppointed to find no reference to and criticism of these statements by Kara-Murza in French media.
Very thoughtful. Thank you.
Very disappointing to learn that he prattled the same old lie of “one people.”
As Christopher Browning points out in _Ordinary Men_, which is about the Actual Nazis, it is psychologically difficult for any person to kill any other person. That’s Nature’s way to assure the continuation of the species, but what basic training in the military does is teaches newbies how to kill the enemy.
It’s easier to psychologically rationalize when the enemy is armed and attacking you, but that point is not applicable irt the country that started and perpetrates an illegal and unprovoked genocidal war for the last three years+, and shows zero remorse about doing so.
And let it be said by someone who has been there, the “great Russian soul” does not exist. They are the most envious and treacherous people fully deserving of their status as a pariah state. Emphatically.
Slava Ukraini!
No. Russians have had this same barbarity, covetousness, envy, jealousy from the time when Elizabeth I refused the marriage proposal of Ivan I.
That Russia is a dying empire only makes it more desperate to take by theft and force what it is too lazy and drunk to produce themselves. They have an unsolvable, demographic crisis, and rather than being satisfied to fix at home, the problems in the domestic economy and infrastructure and make use of their own resources, it’s easier and perhaps seeing is more fun to go take that which belongs to others.
Remember, The glory of Russia that they speak about culturally occurred during the Russian Imperial era, not during the hell of the Soviets or since. Tolstoy died in the early 20th century before WWI and the Revolution changed everything and decidedly not for the better. Tens of millions of Soviets killed in addition to wartime numbers.
Compare that body count to that of the Glorious Revolution, and the fact that the monarchy in Britain retains only some Parliament-granted powers. Influential, yes, but not at all the divine right of kings they once held.
The "Russian Soul" is a useful fig leaf for Russian atrocities.
https://daryazorka.substack.com/p/russian-soul
All big imperialist civilisations create people who are arrogant towards others and self-absorbed towards themselves. But Russia is a dying empire, which makes it self-pitying as well. You could have said the same about the British in the dying years of our Empire.
It was a catastrophic mistake to get this guy exchanged for Putin's friend the Tiergarten killer. Best option would have been no exchange at all, second best an exchange against Ukrainian POWs.
Here's the truth, Franziska: France is also a colonialist country that hasn't entirely dealt with its colonialist past or continuing mindset. As is Britain. Even the "good" French and British (and I count myself among both), struggle with the colonial mindset, because it's one of those things you don't see in yourself until someone else points it out to you. In my case, it was living and working in Africa and the Middle East for several years that allowed me to see it, when some of my more honest hosts and colleagues pointed it out. I still find myself thinking that way, and must root it out.
Unlike Germany after Nazism (denazification was imperfect, but there was a genuine attempt to root out the rot), no country in Western Europe - Britain, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Italy - went through a decolonisation of minds. The decolonisation of history and policy took decades and isn't yet finished.
One problem, perhaps the chief problem given the current situation with Russia, is that during the Cold War, Western European colonialism was seized upon by Soviet Communism as a very useful tool in its propaganda war. The USSR managed to persuade large numbers of Europeans that only Western Europeans and the USA could be considered imperialists. This led to the successful replacement by Soviet imperialism of one type of intellectual imperialism by another (e.g. intellectual imperialism in France by the Soviet Union was especially strong). It also led to backlash by all non-Communists, including the non-communist leftwing, which further slowed down both policy and intellectual decolonisation.
We tend to forget it in 2025, but empire is almost the default system in Europe, and has been since the Roman Empire. Few regions of Europe escaped one empire or another over the past 2000 years. And it's ongoing. But so, too, has fight against empires and the imperialist mindset, including in ourselves.
There is a big difference between “hasn’t entirely dealt with” and “didn’t even begin the process”. There was no decolonization of history and policy in russia. There is continued glorification of the past, by both “good and bad” russians. And “good” russians are trying to appeal to that “imperfect ongoing fight against colonial mindset” in the mind of the European politicians, while they themselves has never even began the process, despite Ukrainians constantly pointing it out, including in non heated, structural academic way. They chose not to listen.
Oh, absolutely! I’m not trying to diminish that aspect at all. My point was that even when encouraged, decolonisation and opposing imperialism in oneself and one’s culture is hard…so when it isn’t encouraged, or even opposed on nationalistic grounds, it must be extremely rare. That’s the case in Russia, I understand. It’s also the case in China.
There are only two choices for the 'good Russian.' They can either find a safe perch in academia and critique Russia and the Russian people honestly without the possibility of further advancement or they can be public intellectuals, which requires them to blame Putin and not the Russian people for Russia's actions. If they want to be followed by Russians within Russia and have a hope for future political ambitions they must do the latter.
Such compromisers will never change Russia if they take power after Putin is gone. The only real hope for change would be a 'good Russian' who sees the Russian people as part of the problem, not the solution, but who conceals this belief until they are in charge.
It is always worth remembering that the French are very good at seeing through bullshit. They do it in a very different style, with a certain je-ne-sais-quoi, but the message is similar to what New Yorkers routinely express.
It is also worth remembering that France is literally our oldest ally here in the USA. Without the French there would be no USA today.
Russian propaganda almost always sounds exactly like the bullshit it is. So many Vladimirs, so little time…but like Sergeis or Mohammads…it’s always worth remembering in this xenophobic age that they can’t all be bad and didn’t name themselves…except adolfs, elons, and donalds... those names are now as toxic as lead.
With the possible exception of elon all were once good names. Unfortunately we can’t tar all Vladimirs with the same brush…too damn many of them to eliminate and many are good men.
With all due respect, I think Your quote and interpretation of what Kara-Murza said is incorrect, based on a wrong or purposefully altered translation that has been widely circulated online.
It is a delicate matter, which is why I am providing the full transcript of the section in the original language below. In many reports, the quote was reproduced incorrectly or deliberately manipulated to give the impression that Kara-Murza was spreading Russian imperialism.
In his statement, Kara-Murza did not speak about “one people” but about “similar peoples”. What is much more important, however, is how he introduces this whole section: In the complete original, it is clear that he is referring to the (xenophobic and disgusting) recruitment logic and thinking of the russian general staff quoted by the colleague from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. (...le fait que le Ministère de la Défense russe prend tellement de représentants de ces minorités nationales, parce que apparemment ils disent que... / ...the fact that the russian ministry of defense is taking so many representatives of these national minorities because apparently they say that...)
Please check for yourself:
full video recording of the hearings (time codes of the answer: 1:02:59–1:04:58). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=256EaqrBCcI&feature=youtu.be
«C’est absolument vrai que beaucoup de militaires russes en Ukraine viennent de ces républiques-là, du Caucase, de l’Est, en Siberie et tout ça. Plutôt les raisons sont économiques. Quand on a parlé avec Madame la vice-présidente, ce sont les régions très pauvres. Beaucoup plus pauvres évidemment que Moscou et St. Petersbourg, mais aussi beaucoup plus pauvres que les régions de la Russie centrale. Et le Ministère de Défense russe offre pas mal d’argent aux gens pour aller sur cette guerre, et ces gens-là qui n’ont pas d’argent, qui n’ont pas de perspective, qui n’ont rien dans ces régions éloignées et pauvres, il y a beaucoup de gens qui acceptent cet argent et vont à la guerre. Il y avait aussi… J’ai parlé à Strasbourg hier dans le cadre de la session de l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe, j’ai parlé avec une collègue qui travaille beaucoup avec des prisonniers de guerre des deux côtés. Donc elle a parlé beaucoup avec des prisonniers de guerre ukrainiens qui ont été libérés de la Russie et des prisonniers de guerre russes qui sont actuellement en Ukraine encore. Et elle m’a dit qu’il y a une autre raison pour le fait que le Ministère de la Défense russe prend tellement de représentants de ces minorités nationales, parce que apparemment ils disent que c’est psychologiquement vraiment difficile pour les russes de tuer les ukrainiens parce que c’est… parce qu’on est le même… on est les mêmes, ce sont des peuples très proches, comme tout le monde le sait. On a presque la même langue, la même religion, des siècles et des siècles d’une histoire commune… Mais si c’est quelqu’un qui vient d’une autre culture, apparemment, c’est plus facile. C’est ça ce que cette collègue m’a dit hier. J’ai jamais pensé à ce point-là. Pour moi c’était surtout économique, les raisons, mais maintenant qu’elle me l’a dit hier, j’ai commencé à réfléchir de ça aussi».
If case are interested in a personal statement by Kara Murza (in Russian): https://echofm.online/opinions/tochki-nad-i
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Alexander, Berlin
Will KM, should he supplant Putin, return all Ukranians, including stolen children, to Ukraine immediately, return all Ukrainian lands, including Crimea, compensate Ukraine for all Russian damage, vow never to attack Ukraine again, and ensure that no other measures will be taken against any other country, or ethnic groups that are not Russian?
Kara-Murza's ultimate goal is, of course, not to take Putin's place, but to contribute to a system change in Russia and bring all war criminals (and not only them) to justice. He has repeated this many times, including in this discussion. Of course, this would imply that Russia recognizes international law with all the consequences that follow
Thank you for your reply. I do remain sceptical about the ability of Russians to make all necessary reparations to a free and whole Ukraine, supposing any Russian was ever able to wrest power from the monstrous regime now in place. However, I am just a reader and no kind of expert at all.
Thank You, too. And you have good reason to be sceptical! But you know, every authoritarian regime in Russia seemed to be there forever, until it was no more. Both the Tsarist Empire and the Soviet Union ultimately collapsed within a few days. This dictatorship will also fall sooner or later, of course. And the question is: what happens after that and who will be responsible?
You state: "Kara-Murza did not speak about “one people” but about “similar peoples”". Sorry, my French isnt perfect, but doesnt "on est les mêmes" mean, they are the same? He continued with "ce sont des peuples très proches" ("very closely related") and later quoted the insinuation that Russians and Ukrainians have the same culture ....
Lieber Herr Müller, erlauben Sie mir schnell auf Deutsch zu antworten.
Genau das ist hier der Punkt - ob der russ. Generalstab der Meinung ist, dass Russen und Ukrainer ein Volk seien, oder "nur" ähnliche Völker. Es bleibt - wie im zitierten Abschnitt, die Meinung des Generalstabs. Und nicht die von Kara-Murza, wie fälschlicherweise vielfach dargestellt wurde
It's interesting, that second point, Alexander. I'm sure that some Russians believe it. I am not, however, convinced by it. Civil wars - Syrian against Syrian, American against American, English against English, Greek against Greek - have existed since humans made war; as has the use of mercenaries to supplement troops, both in international and civil wars. The Kremlin is trying to pass this war against their neighbour as a kind of civil war, which is part of their imperialist propaganda ("there's no such country/nation as Ukraine, we are all one"). In reality, should Russia itself ever fall into civil war the way many other nations have at some point in their history, they would have no more trouble killing fellow Russians than recently, Syrians had in killing Syrians, or indeed, during the German Occupation of 1940-1944, Frenchmen in killing Frenchmen.
This is even more the case when a country is fighting another country it considers illegitimate or dependent, no matter how historically close with close cultures and literatures, etc.; and we need go no further than England and Ireland for a Western European example. Southern Ireland has been independent for a century, after nearly 800 years of Norman/English domination. The North of Ireland is still a UK member, and its population is split, though currently at peace (more or less) since 1997. But there are still many voices in England that sees Ireland as an upstart country, not a real country, and something of a British dependency (it has got much worse since Brexit); and should a fascist government ever be installed in Westminster, a "reclaim Ireland" movement could become policy.
In reality, the opposition of young Russians to fighting in Ukraine is their way - the only way they can think of - of opposing that war. Mustering troops amongst non-Russians is also a way of avoiding the anger and opposition of the Russian mothers. You must know that Putin's most loyal base is found amongst middle-aged women, who still thank him for putting an end to the chaos of the 1990s.
Putin did not put an end to the chaos of the 1990s, even if the Kremlin would like to portray it that way. In reality, he has plunged the country into a much greater state of lawlessness.
As for your point about civil war, I have absolutely no illusions about Russia in this regard, unfortunately. This experience was already made once in the 20th century, with devastating consequences. The respective opponents were fought with the utmost brutality on both sides. And civilian casualties on either side never played a role ever since, nor did the grief of those left behind. Putin, in any case, will certainly not be deterred by this.