Can Russias Exiled Opposition Find Voice and Legitimacy in PACE?

Strasbourg, FRANCE — Can some of the most notable exiled opposition leaders from Russia serve as political advocates for the millions of Russians who stand against President Vladimir Putin and his war on Ukraine?

The newly established Platform for Dialogue with Russian Democratic Forces at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) aims to fulfill this role by advocating for both Russian exiles during the war and those enduring oppression under the Kremlin, seeking to do so at an official European level.

While many view this as a long-overdue effort to elevate the status of the Russian opposition within Europe, critics contend that it lacks the necessary structure and authority to effect meaningful change, and they believe that the selection process for its members was fundamentally undemocratic.

PACE’s decision to formally engage with Russian opposition leaders arose «during a time when Russia’s aggressive war against Ukraine persists, domestic repression intensifies, and the hope for democracy seems remote,» stated President Petra Bayr.

She emphasized, «One day, a transformed Russia may once again belong to Europe—not merely through words, but through real change. It is our duty to be prepared to support that transformation when the opportunity arises.»

At the group’s inaugural meeting in Strasbourg, which was closed to the media, Bayr informed The Moscow Times that the discussions concentrated on supporting Ukraine, addressing the plight of political prisoners in Russia, considering the challenges faced by the Russian diaspora, and determining the platform’s future direction.

However, PACE had not established any formal internal guidelines or an agenda for the group prior to the meeting on January 29.

Bayr indicated that it would be «up to the Russian factions» to outline and arrange their subsequent actions.

«We will aim to prioritize issues that resonate with everyone, based on the insights we gather. We will continue to develop a concrete plan step by step while also addressing procedural matters, such as how and when they wish to hold elections,» she said.

Nadya Tolokonnikova, the founder of Pussy Riot, shared with The Moscow Times that her primary focuses within the Platform were «support for Ukraine and dismantling the Russian imperial framework—this encompasses feminism, rainbows, and unicorns.»

Opposition leader Garry Kasparov called for the establishment of mechanisms that would allow anti-Putin Russians to express their support and elect their representatives, while also emphasizing the group’s intention to provide tangible assistance for Russians abroad.

«We are uncertain whether we can enable people in Russia to vote discreetly… but fundamentally, we must discover a means to represent countless individuals who currently lack representation,» stated the former chess champion.

«They must choose us, and we must advocate for them,» he added.

Kasparov further pointed out the «double discrimination» experienced by anti-Kremlin Russians, who face sanctions and mistrust abroad, alongside legal persecution domestically.

While the Platform includes prominent figures such as former political prisoners Vladimir Kara-Murza and Oleg Orlov, along with exiled businessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky, it has faced backlash for only representing a limited segment of the Russian opposition, both among the diaspora and within the country.

Alexei Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK), arguably the strongest Russian opposition group, declined to participate in the Platform due to concerns about transparency and allegations that PACE was enforcing restrictive conditions while favoring specific political factions.

Shortly after the meeting concluded, former Navalny associate Lyubov Sobol authored—and later deleted—a post on X, outlining the purported priorities of the members present, most of which aligned with the discussions that occurred post-meeting.

She also asserted that Khodorkovsky had drafted a plan for the group’s work that she and some other attendees had not seen and noted the absence of three Indigenous representatives.

While some skeptics argue that the group could yield limited successes, others believe it is likely to fail.

The fragmented Russian opposition has suffered from internal conflicts since prior to Moscow’s full-scale assault on Ukraine in 2022, leading some to question whether the group can maintain cohesiveness.

Additionally, the Platform is limited by its lack of genuine legislative or policymaking authority.

“PACE is not a parliament, it’s an assembly. It lacks legislative power,” exiled political analyst Ekaterina Schulmann, who is not part of the Platform, told The Moscow Times. “Its significance lies in the fact that it comprises representatives from national parliaments, so if the assembly passes a resolution, it is regarded as a collective stance of the member states’ parliaments. Its importance is primarily moral or political.”

Schulmann suggested that the group could be perceived as successful if it completes its one-year term without significant scandals or disruptions and influences PACE resolutions that could be seen as favorable to expatriate Russians.

She also expressed doubt regarding their ability to organize elections from abroad, stating that she found it challenging to envision elections that were «both reliable and safe.»

«What you gain in terms of safety, by making the process anonymous, sacrifices legitimacy. Conversely, what you gain through openness compromises safety,» she explained.

Former Russian diplomat Boris Bondarev expressed even greater skepticism, arguing that the group had «put the cart before the horse» by appointing representatives who had not been elected by anyone.

He asserted that Russian opposition leaders need democratic legitimacy to achieve their objectives of obtaining power in Russia, but that this would not happen through the PACE Platform.

“Individuals and small factions cannot accomplish that. Only a broad political movement with extensive participation and membership can effect change,” he told The Moscow Times.

Bondarev criticized the Russian opposition for failing to articulate a comprehensive vision of a post-Putin Russia.

«[They need to present] an alternative Russia, not merely individuals, but a credible anti-Putin or no-Putin Russia,» he stated, likening it to Charles de Gaulle’s leadership of the Free French during World War II as an example of how an exiled movement can present itself as a legitimate national alternative.

“They struggle to come together due to numerous personal conflicts and a long history of rivalries,” he noted. “However, the existing system can only be defeated by an alternative system.”

Conversely, Dr. Ekaterina Zibrova, a research associate at the Wits Centre for Diversity Studies at the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa, perceives the situation differently.

One-third of the Platform’s seats have been allocated for representatives of Indigenous peoples and national minorities in response to critiques that the Russian opposition replicates Moscow-centric power hierarchies and overlooks Indigenous perspectives.

Zibrova mentioned that it remains «unclear how deeply PACE understands Indigenous people’s rights,» but their inclusion in the Platform allows them to express their specific needs.

While she described the quota for Indigenous representatives as a «symbolic gesture,» she acknowledged that «symbolic measures hold equal importance to tangible ones, especially when no material actions are anticipated in the near future.»

Zibrova affirmed to The Moscow Times that the «only positive outcome» from including Indigenous individuals in the Platform is «the visibility of Indigenous voices and their requirements.» She noted that it is «indicative» for Europe, which is «beginning to recognize Indigenous Peoples as a crucial component of Russia’s ethnic landscape.»

Despite the critiques surrounding the Platform’s structure and legitimacy, many delegates expressed that its very existence is a significant accomplishment.

This sentiment was encapsulated by Tolokonnikova, who remarked to The Moscow Times that it was «mind-blowing» that such an entity exists.

As Schulmann succinctly put it: «Something is better than nothing.»