Majority of non-resistance

“I can’t understand why people in Russia are silent!” - this scream could be read in hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian posts in the first weeks of the war. “Do they really support this? They don’t care?”

And while I could understand why people didn’t speak out and protest openly, I couldn’t understand how most Russians could support the war. It seemed to me that now everyone would be thinking about it.

From opinion polls, data analysis, interviews, and personal observations, I discovered groups of people whose attitudes, or lack thereof, interested me the most.

This is basically the “majority of non-resistance” which includes: people who find it difficult to form an opinion on the war, those who claim to support it but subscribe to a “normative” discourse that mostly does not suit their preferences, those who claim to support it but are not inwardly sympathetic to it, and people who only speak in shorthand phrases imposed by the state propaganda.

Apart from that, I am interested in people who have chosen a position of complete obedience to the decisions of the state, and who often say “they know better at the top”, “we are small people” and other similar phrases. It is as if this group doesn’t feel they have the right to have their own opinion on such, as they say, “big issues”. Where dthis attitude comes from?

As can be seen in the timeline, both modern Russia and the Soviet Union cannot boast of frequent changes of power. And yet The constant turnover of power is important in any democratic society because it helps to prevent the consolidation of power in the hands of a few individuals or political parties. This turnover ensures that different perspectives and ideas are represented in government and that no one group becomes too powerful and entrenched.

When there is no turnover of power, it can lead to issues when leaders who remain in power for extended periods of time may become increasingly authoritarian and corrupt, seeking to maintain their power at all costs. Also, it can be difficult for new ideas and approaches to emerge. The same individuals or parties remain

Turnover of the government, The Soviet Union and The Russian Federation in power, and there may be little incentive to innovate or make changes. This can lead to a lack of progress and development in society.

For the longest time, the Soviet Union was ruled by two men, Stalin and Brezhnev. Joseph Stalin established a totalitarian regime that suppressed all political opposition and dissent. Under Stalin’s rule, millions of people were killed, imprisoned, or sent to labor camps in the infamous Gulag system. The Soviet government also imposed strict censorship, control over media, and indoctrination through propaganda. The legacy of Stalin’s repressive regime had a lasting impact on the mentality of Soviet citizens, making them afraid to express their opinions openly and distrustful of the government.

Living under communism had a profound impact on the mentality of Soviet citizens. The lack of political freedom, censorship, and propaganda meant that people were unable to express their opinions openly or think critically about the government’s policies. The experience of living under Stalin’s repressive regime had a lasting impact on the mentality of Soviet citizens, making them fearful and distrustful of the government. Leonid Brezhnev, who succeeded Nikita Khrushchev as the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was not a great politician, and he could hardly be called a leader at all. Brezhnev’s rule was characterized by stagnation and a lack of political and economic reforms, which led to a sense of apathy and resignation among Soviet citizens.

At the same time, Mikhail Gorbachev, who was in power from 1985 to 1991, attempted to reform the Soviet system through his policies of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring). Gorbachev’s reforms led Timeline 4

The prevailing mood in the country, the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation to an increase in political freedom and a relaxation of censorship. However, they also led to social and economic instability, which contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Vladimir Putin, who came to power in 2000, has been criticized for his repressive policies and crackdowns on political opposition. Putin has also been accused of human rights abuses, including the persecution of journalists, activists, and members of the LGBTQ+ community. Putin’s leadership has led to a sense of disillusionment among many Russians and a lack of trust in the government.Living under communism had a profound impact on the mentality of Soviet citizens. The lack of political freedom, censorship, and propaganda meant that people were unable to express their opinions openly or think critically about the government’s policies. The experience of living under Stalin’s repressive regime had a lasting impact on the mentality of Soviet citizens, making them fearful and distrustful of the government.

During the Soviet era, the government exerted tight control over the media, allowing only official news and propaganda to be broadcast to the public. The lack of access to alternative sources of information meant that many Soviet citizens were unable to challenge the government’s narrative. Any material critical of the Soviet system or its leaders was heavily censored.

International exchange was also limited, both in terms of travel and information, contributing to a sense of mistrust and suspicion among Soviet citizens towards the outside world.

In the 1980s, the Soviet government began to loosen its controls on the media, leading to a period of cultural and intellectual growth known as the “Thaw.” This period was marked by the emergence of new cultural figures and a greater openness to outside influences.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia experienced a period of greater openness, both in terms of access to information and international exchange. Borders were opened, and the media became more diverse, with new independent newspapers and television channels emerging. The internet also became more widely available, providing access to a wealth of information and alternative viewpoints.

However, the crisis in the 1990s, marked by hyperinflation and rapid changes in living standards, had a profound impact on the mentality of Russians. Many struggled to make ends meet and became disillusioned with the government’s ability to manage the economy. Corruption was rampant, and many people felt that the government was not working in their best interests.

The economic growth of the 2000s brought some relief to Russians, but it also led to increased corruption and inequality. Putin’s government has been accused of enriching a group of oligarchs at the expense of the rest of the population. The lack of political freedom and the government’s repression of political opposition have led to a sense of resignation and cynicism among many Russians.

Data 6

Press Freedom Index, 2021

Since the late 2000s, the Russian government has tightened its control over the media and limited access to information. Putin’s government has been accused of using censorship and propaganda to control the narrative and suppress dissent. The government has also restricted access to the internet and cracked down on social media platforms. Additionally, the government has limited international exchange, particularly in terms of political and cultural exchange, contributing to a sense of isolationism among many Russians.

Good Situation

Satisfactory situation

Noticeable problems

Difficult situation

Very serious situation

Not classified