I watched "Five Questions for Stephen Kotkin: Advice for the New Administration" (and the Rest of Us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8wTBy_tgKo) with great interest. At the 36-minute mark of the interview, Professor Stephen Kotkin expressed the idea that Russian nationalists may represent the best hope for the United States and its allies. His reasoning is that Russian patriots are genuinely concerned about the future of their country and recognize that the current course pursued by Putin’s elite is destroying both the nation’s prospects and its people. The professor is right to argue that engagement with Russian patriots is essential—not only to gain a better understanding of the processes unfolding within Russia, but also to consider what kind of deal might be offered to factions within the Russian elite that could be prepared to overthrow the current ruling group.
In my view, Stephen Kotkin is absolutely right to say that in the short term, the only hope for both the West and Russia lies in Russian nationalists/Russian patriots. However, I believe that a change of elites in the Kremlin is unlikely as long as the pro-Chinese faction of the establishment holds power firmly.
It is important to understand that people of the Soviet generations, even if they consider themselves Russian patriots, unfortunately perceive patriotism in a supranational and imperial way. Psychologically, they are passive loyalists rather than national revolutionaries ready to act in the interests of the people rather than the individual who leads the system. This was clearly demonstrated by the failure of Prigozhin’s mutiny.
What Western experts, unfortunately, fail to see is that a new generation of Russian nationalists and right-wing populists has emerged. These groups and movements rose up democratically from the grassroots, despite state repression or forced compliance with Putin’s policies. This young generation is Americanized (having grown up on American mass culture), secular, and liberal in terms of personal ethics. They support a market economy and individual freedom, including from libertarian positions. They understand national interests through the lens of the people’s interests, not those of the ruling class or any messianic ideology.
These individuals are friendly—or potentially friendly—toward the United States if a hand is extended to them. Most of them recognize that the imperial path is not suitable for Russia and believe that a healthy nation-state must be built. There is also a shared consensus among them that ethnic Russians in their own country are under threat and treated as second-class citizens—a resource base for the supranational ruling elite, influential ethnic clans, and cannon fodder for a fratricidal war against Ukrainians.
A significant portion of radical Russian ethno-nationalists opposed the war with Ukraine. As a result, their organizations were destroyed, and thousands were killed, imprisoned, or forced into exile. Many of them—numbering in the thousands—have fought with weapons in hand on Ukraine’s side against the Kremlin since 2014.
The younger generation of nationalists—those forced to be loyalists and to support the war against Ukraine just to stay in the public-political space—openly admit that the war is going badly and that Russians will ultimately be the main losers. These individuals are disillusioned, yet they are quite popular in society and possess combat experience. The core combat unit of the now-dismantled Wagner PMC—Prigozhin’s private army—consisted of people with openly neo-Nazi views. Yet these individuals, like many war correspondents and pro-war (“Z”) bloggers, became opponents of the Putin regime and were subjected to political repression.
I believe the United States should place its bets on such people and movements rather than on the liberal Russian opposition. Only a national and democratic revolution in Russia can lead to a desirable change of elites in Moscow, remove the pro-Beijing faction, and return Russia to the fold of European civilization.
I also believe that on the American side, especially within expert circles, it is important to work on this issue with pro-Western Russian realists. This is crucial to ensuring that decision-makers act appropriately. Unfortunately, I currently see an extremely low quality of expertise and analysis on Russia from leading Western think tanks and policymakers. As a result, many decisions are misguided, and large amounts of funding for supporting democracy in Russia have been wasted.
From my perspective, Russian society is deeply concerned about Islamization, the replacement of the European population with migrants, and the Kremlin’s pro-Chinese course that runs counter to national interests. These concerns fuel the growing popularity of ethno-nationalists. The Kremlin, however, cannot address this societal demand, as it is forced to adhere to an imperial, multicultural paradigm and build a “Russian nation” according to Soviet blueprints.
That is why I am convinced that if we work effectively with Russian nationalists both inside and outside the country, it is possible to shift Russian public opinion in a pro-American and pro-Western direction. The younger generation of Russians, when given a choice between Washington, Beijing, and Pyongyang, will choose the first.
In fact, I am optimistic about the possibility of regime change in Russia through a nationalist “Maidan”-style uprising, as this has become the general paradigm in Eastern Europe—virtually all such revolutions against post-Soviet regimes were primarily nationalist in nature. I attribute this to the fact that classical Western-style nation-states are still in the process of formation across the post-Soviet space, especially in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia.
Only a grassroots, network-based national-democratic movement—capable of mobilizing thousands of people across Russia, including, if necessary, armed supporters—can create the conditions for a real split within the Russian elite. Such groups already exist and enjoy significant popularity, as illustrated by the substantial following of the Russian Volunteer Corps. The decisive factor will be when the elites begin to fear representatives of the national resistance more than Putin’s secret police.
Without a broad nationalist and democratic movement capable of becoming a force in domestic politics, any hope of a split within Russia’s elites is nothing more than waiting for milk without a cow.
Anton Gromov is a political scientist and security analyst specialising in Russian foreign and domestic policy, defence, and information warfare, with expertise in post-Soviet conflicts, Russian nationalism, and nation-building. Founder of NGO Astraea and co-founder of Bewareofthem.org, he conducts investigations into human rights abuses, hybrid warfare, and sanctions evasion, drawing on extensive insider networks in Russia.