The War at Home: Why Russians Aren’t Rising Up Against Putin

The Ukrainian campaign to disrupt Russia’s oil refineries and fuel supply has been touted as a clever strategy to bring the war home for ordinary Russians. Proponents hoped that frustrated citizens would finally demand an end to the conflict, applying pressure on President Vladimir Putin ahead of parliamentary elections in the fall. However, so far, there is little indication of mass unrest. In fact, many Russians seem remarkably unfazed by the fuel shortages and economic hardship.

Russia’s history under Soviet rule is one reason for this stoicism. During that era, citizens were accustomed to scarcity and long lines, where people would often spend hours waiting for basic necessities like bread or vegetables. The Soviet regime’s inability to deliver on its promises created a culture of resignation, where complaining was seen as futile. As one Russian put it, “We are humans. We’ll adapt.”

This attitude has been passed down through generations and is evident in the way Russians approach challenges like the war. Despite disruptions caused by Ukrainian drones, most Russians seem to be taking things in stride. Some have even found ways to circumvent the fuel shortage, using their connections or paying twice the normal price for gas delivered to their door.

The lack of mass protests is also a testament to the regime’s effective control over dissent. The authorities have been quick to suppress any anti-war activism, with police arresting nearly 19,000 protesters in 2022 alone. Since then, demonstrations have all but disappeared. The recent banning of the Yabloko party from parliamentary elections is another example of the government’s ability to silence opposition.

It’s worth noting that Russians are not entirely immune to the war’s effects. In rural areas, where access to fuel and other resources is more limited, the situation is likely much tougher. However, for those living in cities like Moscow, it seems that comfort with risk has become a defining characteristic of Russian society.

The resilience of Russian citizens in the face of hardship is often attributed to a unique blend of stoicism and fatalism. But this trait also has its roots in the country’s history under Soviet rule. The regime’s inability to deliver on its promises created a culture of resignation, where complaining was seen as futile. This mentality has been passed down through generations, influencing the way Russians approach challenges like the war.

The Russian government has a proven track record of suppressing dissent and opposition. From the Novocherkassk massacre in 1962 to the recent banning of Yabloko from parliamentary elections, the authorities have shown little tolerance for criticism or protest. This ability to silence opposition is crucial in maintaining the regime’s control over its citizens.

While some Russians may be struggling to cope with the war’s effects, others seem to be adapting with ease. For those who can afford it, circumventing the fuel shortage is simply a matter of paying twice the normal price for gas delivered to their door. This ability to adapt has become a hallmark of Russia’s middle class, which has developed a remarkable capacity for resilience in the face of hardship.

However, this trait also speaks to the regime’s success in maintaining control over its citizens. By providing alternatives for those who can afford them, the government ensures that dissent remains contained and opposition is neutralized. As the war continues, it’s clear that Russians will have to adapt to a new reality of scarcity and hardship. But what does this mean for the future of democracy in Russia? Will the population continue to accept the regime’s control over their lives, or will there come a point when enough is enough?

The war has brought home the reality of authoritarianism to Russians, but it remains to be seen whether they will choose to rise up against their government, or continue to adapt to the crisis with stoicism and fatalism.