Citizenship in today's Russia
For many years, Moscow has been engaged in a two-pronged process regarding the definition of citizenship. The first involves reducing the number of people who can be considered true Russian citizens, while the second involves narrowing the very meaning of the concept of "citizen", the actions that define it and those that citizens are allowed to undertake.
Historian Ella Rossman, a researcher at the Leibniz Institute for the History and Culture of Eastern Europe, inked a piece on Novaya Gazeta Evropa on recent discussions over the protest against the Russian Pavilion at the Venice Biennale, which is strikingly similar to previous discussions about the Russian opposition in exile, always divided into mutually hostile groups.
Rossman posed several questions: “What is this opposition doing? Is it helping to stop the war or, conversely, prolong it? Why does it dare to speak on behalf of Russia and the Russians? Who is funding all this?”
The debate is mired in the same questions and concepts, which, however, have led neither to understanding nor to the development of new strategies.
The complaints against those who left are overshadowed by equally bitter complaints against those who stayed behind. The competition continues over who has a more pacifist stance and who better understands what is happening in the country, while everyone is trading neologisms and insults, each more brazen than the last.
Rossman then asks how we can break out of this vicious circle and have a constructive dialogue, overcoming emotional tensions. “The chasm separating different groups and positions, and the shifting boundaries of what is permissible have reached such a point that hope for dialogue is fading.”
However, there is one concept that, unlike insults, is almost never heard in online battles, and its appeal could at least partially explain what is happening in what is left of Russia’s public sphere and what everyone is discussing so intensely. This concept is citizenship, as sociologists understand it.
In modern social theory, the concept of "citizenship" is understood broadly, encompassing much more than the simple legal status enshrined by the state in official documents, such as passports, and laws, and through specific procedures.
The concept of citizenship encompasses the full range of practices through which society and the state interact on matters relating to individual rights, government decisions, and the general affairs of the country.
From this perspective, citizenship, which may be the same for everyone on paper, often is not in practice. Citizenship can differ based on gender, which is why sociologists have coined the specific term "gender citizenship”.
If a state were to assert that true male citizens are those who are ready to go to war for it at any time, without any need to discuss with society which war, whether that war is necessary, or who benefits from it, while true female citizens are those who bear at least seven children for the good of society, then men and women would have different civil status in the eyes of that state.
Both will be considered tools of control and manipulation, meaning their civil status will be effectively reduced: men who refuse to fight and childless women will not be considered full citizens: instead, they will even be suspected of treason, and sanctions against them will be justified.
For many years, Putin's Russia has been engaged in a two-pronged process regarding the definition of citizenship.
One involves reducing the number of people who can be considered true Russian citizens (even if, once again, they all hold the same passport), while other involves restricting the very meaning of the concept of "citizen", the actions that define it and those that citizens are allowed to undertake.
A radical example was the introduction in 2023 of a law revoking citizenship from those who did not acquire it by birth, apparently designed to give the state greater control over the residents of the occupied territories, Ukrainians who have obtained citizenship, and migrants.
This is an official division of citizens into two categories: those whose citizenship is stable regardless of their behaviour, and those who are, so to speak, on a permanent probationary period, during which their citizenship can be "revoked" at any time, left without passports.
No less radical, in terms of changing the meaning of citizenship, was the 2025 decree requiring male applicants for residence permits and Russian citizenship, belonging to different categories, to sign a contract with the Ministry of Defence.
This law openly equates participation in war with civil status for men. The militarisation of every aspect of public life is also reflected in the definition of citizenship, now at the legislative level, drawing a further line of social demarcation based on gender.
Even before 2022, the Russian state had engaged in various manipulations aimed at redefining citizenship in Russia, although these were less obvious and not always enshrined in law. “If you don't like the country, then leave;” this widespread sentiment, actively promoted by Putin's propaganda since the 2010s, is a striking example.
In this rhetoric, a citizen is someone who remains in their country, regardless of what happens, regardless of what its leadership does. In this conception, the state, like a lord, controls the fate of its citizens and is not accountable to them. Citizens are only allowed to feel a sense of belonging to the state, patriotic feelings, and pride.
Silence and silent dissent are permitted, but open dissatisfaction is not. Anyone who criticises the government ceases to be a "full" citizen; they are of no use to either the state or society and must seek another citizenship. And that, incidentally, is their problem.
Such a concept of citizenship began to take shape in Russia well before the invasion of Ukraine, but since 2022 it has gradually expanded and become radicalised. Those who are dissatisfied are forced to leave the country by any means necessary; there is almost no place for them in society.
Furthermore, those who leave the country, once they cross the border, even if they retain Russian citizenship and passport and do not possess any other, seem to lose even the last vestiges of their civic status.
Propaganda never tires of repeating: Those who have left are traitors, understand nothing of what is really happening in the country, have sold themselves to other states, becoming de facto subjects (even if in reality the question of their legal citizenship is not raised).
This means that Russians abroad have no right whatsoever to express their opinion about the country or the situation. Let them keep quiet and rejoice that their documents are still being extended. Sometimes they aren't even extended, and soon consular services for those who have left could be completely interrupted.
This is why people talk about the "moral bankruptcy" of Russians in exile, how, once they cross the border, they instantly lose all understanding of Russia, how they protest in the wrong way or accept money from the wrong people.
The researcher suggests conducting a "thought experiment," postulating that the opposition in exile is made up of the same people as the Russians who stayed behind, as well as those who constantly cross the border.
These are people who still speak and write in Russian, hold the same passports, and are concerned about the fate of their country, to which their lives are directly tied.
As citizens, just like those who remained, the opposition in exile, as part of civil society, must be able to choose how to express itself on political issues, what actions to organise, and whom to ally with.
Ultimately, these are questions about who has the power to decide who is a full citizen and who is not. These questions should not be left entirely to the discretion of the state, even if they do not make the actions of the opposition in exile morally correct, strategically successful, or effective.
Yet, they could change the way discussions are conducted, avoiding Russophile or Russophobic radicalism, and speaking of Russia as a country belonging to the world of which we are all citizens, rather than as a foreign planet.
RUSSIAN WORLD IS THE ASIANEWS NEWSLETTER DEDICATED TO RUSSIA. WOULD YOU LIKE TO RECEIVE IT EVERY SATURDAY? TO SUBSCRIBE, CLICK HERE.
.png)
19/11/2020 10:43
