“Indigenous Leaders Unite in Berlin to Discuss Futures, Identity, and Solidarity Against Colonial Legacy”

**BERLIN — Prominent Indigenous leaders from Russia, Central Asia, and Ukraine convened in the German capital to articulate their distinct visions for their communities and future endeavors.**

The groundbreaking forum titled “Indigenous Vision: Centering Our Voices, Resilience and Knowledge” featured two days of discussions, networking, and collaborative learning.

During a press conference, Buryat activist and head of Indigenous of Russia, Viktoria Maladaeva, Buryat activist and co-founder of the Nomads Indigenous Collective, Seseg Jigjitova, and Sakha activist Viliuia Choinova outlined the objectives of the forum and highlighted what they believed was accomplished during the event.

Choinova emphasized her primary aim of “establishing a platform for Indigenous voices to initiate a dialogue on equal footing with the Russian opposition.”

The pursuit of equality and institutional acknowledgment alongside the Russian opposition was a recurring theme. The group expressed frustration over inquiries regarding the absence of invitees from organizations such as those led by Khodorkovsky or Navalny.

Maladaeva pointed out that the Russian opposition is experiencing a persistent identity crisis, while Indigenous communities in Russia possess a clearer sense of their identities.

“The Moscow opposition, along with the Russian intelligentsia, has faced an identity crisis for centuries. They remain confused about their identity: whether they are Europeans or Asians,” she stated. “In contrast, we are not struggling with our identities. We know who we are and what we want, yet we are constrained by those who are indecisive and uncertain.”

The statement “democracy is unattainable without decolonization” frequently arose during the press conference, reflecting the collective belief that Russia must confront its colonial past.

This shared perspective also influenced the composition of the event, as “Moscow experts” were notably absent to underscore that, despite the aim of fostering solidarity, each Indigenous group and republic faces unique challenges.

Jigjitova expressed her conviction that the highly centralized, Moscow-focused system stands in opposition to decolonization because it permits projects that invite Indigenous participation without genuinely centering them.

“Indigenous individuals are once again being regarded as objects within their own initiatives,” she remarked.

Even when pressed about the potential for a formal declaration or communiqué to emerge from the forum, the activists showed little enthusiasm for producing one merely for tradition’s sake.

“It’s just a piece of paper; it leads to no action,” Maladaeva stated. “I have witnessed this at various conferences. People sign, yet nothing materializes afterward.”

Instead, they emphasized their current focus on being in the “dialogue stage” and expressed intentions to publish a document reflecting “Indigenous knowledge.”

The group also opted not to delineate a unified vision for the future, acknowledging the diverse challenges faced by each region. Their priority was to discover means of fostering solidarity and amplifying their voices.

“The Caucasus and Siberia are entirely distinct, each possessing their own visions and unique futures. We cannot impose our vision on them and expect compliance,” Choinova noted.

Choinova further asserted that institutional representation is crucial for enacting change or engaging with the Russian opposition on equal terms.

“The root cause of the conflict [in Ukraine] lies in the xenophobia, racism, and imperialism prevalent in Russia. We must confront these issues, which cannot be accomplished solely through grassroots activism. I hope this forum leads to our representation within institutions like the United Nations and the Council of Europe,” she concluded.