Vladimir Kara-Murza, the coordinator of the Open Russia movement, responded to a pointed question from French senator Claude Malhuret, saying, “We are the same — closely related peoples, as everyone knows.”
Malhuret had asked, “Today, the majority of Russian troops are drawn from ethnic minority groups. As a result, most of the bodies are returning in lead coffins to Dagestan, Ingushetia, Chechnya, and so on. What’s the situation in these republics? Is there a possibility of an uprising, given the army’s involvement in Ukraine — something akin to the Chechen rebellion of the 1990s? And more broadly, how would you define the situation in these regions? Is it colonial in nature, or something more complex — something we, as French citizens with a colonial past, might not fully recognise?”
Kara-Murza was quick to quote a “fellow human rights defender,” though he didn’t really name her: “She spoke at length with Ukrainian prisoners of war who had been released from Russia, and with Russian POWs still held in Ukraine. She told me there’s another reason the Russian Defence Ministry recruits so heavily from national minorities — because, as it turns out, Russians find it psychologically difficult to kill Ukrainians. Because we are one people. These are very closely related nations, as everyone knows. We speak almost the same language, share the same religion, and have centuries of common history. But if the soldier comes from a different culture, apparently it feels easier.”
Russian opposition politician then added that he hadn’t previously thought about ethnicity as a factor in recruitment, assuming instead that Russians joined the war “for economic reasons.”
Vladimir Kara-Murza is not just a classic politician but also a seasoned television journalist — and as such, he should know better. Sensitive information ought to be verified through multiple sources before being aired publicly, and only if it holds up. Yet when addressing the proportion of ethnic Russians versus so-called “national minorities” in the Russian army, he chose to set that journalistic standard aside. A misstep.
“As a detailed analysis by sociologist Alexey Bessudnov revealed, about 76% of those killed in Ukraine were of Slavic origin,” notes Caucasus Explorer journalist Vladimir Sevrinovskiy. “That’s in line with their share of the Russian population, which stands at 79%. The next largest group — those from the Caucasus — made up just 9% (7%) respectively.” In other words, the numbers speak for themselves, whatever one might claim about “centuries of shared history.”
As for the idea of a shared history, Basile Chrin, an activist from the Ukrainian community in France, responded with clear frustration: “I hold him in great respect, but I must remind everyone that Ukrainians and Russians are not ‘the same people,’ and our shared history does not ‘span centuries.’ First and foremost, Ukraine’s ancestor — Rus — predates Russia by several centuries. For the past 300 years, the Muscovites have treated Ukrainians with condescension, persecuted them, and even attempted to erase them.”
Activists from the anti-colonial movement “Indigenous of Russia” representing peoples from the former Russian Empire, were quick to respond. They issued a joint statement signed by Tuvan, Chuvash, Tatar, Buryat, Dagestani, and other activists.
“As representatives of Indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities, we are outraged that so-called ‘liberal’ voices in Russian politics continue to perpetuate racist narratives that dehumanise us,” the statement read. “In 2022, Maria Pevchikh expressed similar views on the Popular Politics channel.”
The protest movement condemned Kara-Murza for voicing racist ideas, claiming that non-Russian soldiers find it easier to kill Ukrainians due to linguistic and cultural differences. “In doing so, the opposition politician aligns himself with far-right nationalist movements, and we are appalled by such representation of anti-war Russia on the international stage.” Kara-Murza’s supporters argue that he was simply quoting a colleague, not expressing his own opinion. However, the activists counter that citing such views in response to an official question effectively lends them legitimacy.
Kara-Murza is far from the worst of Putin’s critics when it comes to Ukraine. On his X page, he frequently condemns Russian attacks on Ukraine. “Sumy… a brutal, vile, and deliberate attack on civilians in the city centre. On Palm Sunday. Eternal memory and the Kingdom of Heaven to all those killed. My deepest condolences to their loved ones. All those responsible for this crime, from Putin to the lowest-ranking corporal, deserve a fair trial and a just sentence,” he wrote on 13 April. Notably, he spells the Kremlin dictator’s name with a lowercase letter. And yet…
Can a Cambridge history graduate really be that ignorant of history? Why perpetuate the myth of “one people” who, somehow, speak different languages? Why promote the racist notion that “real Russians” are hesitant to fight Ukrainians, unlike the supposedly ‘more ruthless’ Asians or Caucasians?
Journalist Vladimir Sevrinovskiy writes, “Someone please tell Kara-Murza that at Russian recruitment centres, no one’s sitting around thinking, ‘Oh, this one’s ethnic Russian—better not take him, he might start crying while killing his ethnic brothers. Let’s go for the angry Asian instead.’ They take whoever turns up. And the ones who show up are the poorer ones. In depressed regions, the difference in the likelihood of dying in the war between ethnic Russians and the titular nationalities is minimal.”
Are these mental templates or imperial programming? Too often, even the most sincere, passionate, and courageous critics of the Kremlin reveal deep-seated fears about the empire’s potential disintegration when it comes to Ukraine—fears that ultimately mirror the very narratives pushed by the Kremlin itself. Alexei Navalny serves as a striking example of this geopolitical mindset. Perhaps only Valeria Novodvorskaya truly broke free from that pattern.
And yet, Western political circles continue to cling to the hope of the “liberal Russians” who will rise after Putin and restore order. It’s an easier narrative to accept, one that conveniently allows for inaction. But the time has come to face reality. Kara-Murza is gravely mistaken when he speaks of “one people.” It doesn’t take much to see how false that claim is—just compare the two nations’ views on freedom, power, property, and identity. If only there were the will to see it.
