“Someone had to say it.” Thus began Ilya Remeslo’s taboo-busting excoriation of the Russian regime earlier this month. The once pro-war blogger denounced the Ukraine conflict as a “dead-end with enormous losses […] waged solely for Vladimir Putin’s complexes”. He then turned his fire on the country’s inequality, its lack of opposition, the economic damage wrought by war, and disruptions to communications. The Russian President should, he concluded, be tried “as a war criminal and thief”.

Reports indicate that Remeslo is in psychiatric care, though it remains unclear whether this is punitive or his own attempt to dodge prosecution. He is not the only one suffering a fit of anti-Putin hysteria. Pro-war blogger Anastasia Kasherova this month complained that “a wall of mistrust and misunderstanding is growing between the people and the government” and — less poetically — that “officials are acting like arseholes.” Even more flagrantly, model Victoria Bonya went viral after urging mutiny — a call which is, admittedly, safer to make from abroad. No wonder political scientist Ekaterina Schulmann says that “something is bubbling up.”

It is not hard to identify sources of discontent. Russia’s war against Ukraine has now lasted longer than the USSR’s involvement in the Second World War. Yet while Soviet forces advanced all the way to Berlin in that time, Moscow’s troops are struggling to make meaningful gains in Ukraine, with Kyiv holding back a fresh Russian offensive. The overall Russian death toll could be as high as 430,000; its Starlink blackout is damaging the battlefield position; and recession is expected this year, with Ukraine successfully striking Moscow’s oil exports and the Kremlin finding it too early to see any impact from higher oil prices.

Even the Governor of Belgorod has lashed out over recent internet restrictions, while Russians are seeking to demonstrate against them. Rare protests have erupted in Siberia over the culling of cattle, which has devastated farmers’ livelihoods. Officially, the measures are to combat bacterial infections, though US officials suspect a concealed outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. The culls have sparked considerable public outrage online.

Such war fatigue may seem disastrous for the Russian leadership. Yet mounting gripes may ultimately work to the Kremlin’s advantage. If, as seems likely, the Ukraine war ends in a frozen conflict, then Putin will have to justify to his population why so many Russian lives were expended for the sake of slightly more land. Officials have already expressed concerns about the risk of revolt from veterans resentful about the terms of any settlement.

Against this backdrop, it is notable that a state-controlled pollster has highlighted Russians’ desire to return to “normal life” after the war. This is likely to feature in the Kremlin’s strategy when that moment comes, recasting public dissatisfaction with the deal’s shortcomings into a narrative of relief that irritations “caused by the Ukrainians” are finally over. The public is less likely to prove susceptible to any “stab in the back” myths perpetrated by rebellious ex-soldiers or would-be challengers to Putin’s throne, claiming that Moscow could have gained more, if citizens are just glad the conflict is over.

Would such a framing work? Moscow promoted a return to stability and order following the Second Chechen War. For Ukraine, the scale will be larger, along with the international stakes and military losses. However, there are still various reasons for the Kremlin to adopt this approach, including Putin’s own likely desire to return to the past formula of trading “stability” and European living standards in return for mass public compliance with his rule. Russians are bound to be relieved at the end of meat-grinder assaults, sanctions, travel restrictions and economic strife. That, combined with political repression, is a powerful recipe for obedience, and throughout the war citizens have demonstrated their desire to get on with ordinary life at the expense of dissent.

As for the current rebellious moment online, the influencers’ grievances are rooted less in public sympathy and more in private financial distress. Remeslo himself previously harassed opposition activists, whose very absence he now laments. He admitted in a post-rant interview that he had been receiving government money but payments ceased. Meanwhile, Kremlin restrictions on platforms including YouTube, along with efforts to push users from Telegram to a state-sponsored alternative, are undermining bloggers’ fundraising streams and eroding fanbases. Unsurprisingly, Russia has just delayed a new advertising ban on YouTube and Telegram following online backlash.

Bloggers’ criticism is less a move toward democracy than a rebellion against platform constraints. The Kremlin can readily buy or imprison them into compliance anyway. Yet the frustrations they use for content will assist Putin’s eventual strategy for transitioning to peace – that however grim “normal life” may be, it is still something to long for.

---

Bethany Elliott is a writer specialising in Russia and Eastern Europe.

BethanyAElliott

---