Pseudomorphosis Strikes Back

How Russian liberals convey a deceptive image of Russia to Europeans.

A few months ago, several high-profile Russian "liberal" and "anti-Putin" activists were released from Russian prisons as part of a prisoner exchange with the West. Among these figures were Vladimir Kara-Murza and Ilya Yashin. While I won’t delve into whether the exchange was justified or strategic — its absurdity and the humiliating implications for the West have already been widely criticized — the focus of this essay lies elsewhere. Specifically, I will examine the roles these "anti-Putin" Russians now play in the West, and how their activities distort Western perceptions of Russia, ultimately causing harm.

After their release, Ilya Yashin and Vladimir Kara-Murza embarked on a media tour, holding press conferences, visiting European capitals, and meeting with politicians. Their message? Russia is fundamentally part of the West, and Europe’s future must include Russia. They consistently promoted the narrative that it is not the Russian people but Putin alone who bears responsibility for the invasion of Ukraine and its associated atrocities. Russians, they argued, should not be blamed for the actions of the regime.

Joining them in this effort is the widow of Alexey Navalny — Yuliya Navalnaya, who has also been vocal in European circles. Like Yashin and Kara-Murza, she urges Europeans not to generalize the crimes of Putin’s government to the entire Russian population, emphasizing that this is "Putin’s war," not Russia’s. Furthermore, she opposes the increasingly popular idea of Russia’s disintegration and decolonization, a topic gaining traction thanks to the efforts of groups like the Free Nations of Post-Russia Forum. She argued that it is illogical to suggest that a vast realm with shared history and common cultural background should be fragmented into smaller entities. Yashin echoed these sentiments in one of his speeches, declaring that Russia’s potential disintegration would be a catastrophe for the Russian people and must be avoided at all costs.

Before moving forward, it’s important to address the claim that a shared cultural space cannot be divided into multiple independent states. This idea doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Latin America, for example, is a contiguous region with a shared cultural background, where Spanish is the dominant language, yet it consists of numerous independent states with distinct identities and political structures. This model could easily apply to the Russian realm: a region where multiple states might coexist, each with its own unique identity, ethnic composition, and geographic reality, while Russian serves as a unifying language much like Spanish does in Latin America. Another example of this phenomenon is the Arab world — a culturally and geographically connected region divided into many sovereign nations. Even the Anglo-Saxon world fits this pattern, albeit without geographical proximity. Thus, there is no inherent reason why a single cultural space must remain a single political entity.

However, beneath the surface of the views expressed by Russian "anti-Putin" opposition figures lies a more profound issue: their belonging to what can be described as a world of Pseudomorphosis. This concept, initially coined by Oswald Spengler, refers to the artificial imposition of European culture onto the Russian realm— a realm that, at its core, resents and fundamentally opposes this imposition. The ideas, thought processes, and perspectives of these opposition figures are products of their attachment to this unnatural phenomenon. Some critics have gone as far as to claim, even at times bordering on conspiracy, that these Russian “liberals” are actually agents of the Putin regime or the FSB, covertly furthering the government's agenda. However, to definitively prove such malicious intent requires stronger evidence. Personally, I advocate for simpler explanations. I believe that these Russian "liberals" genuinely mean well and have good intentions. The problem is not in their intentions but in their delusions — they are profoundly mistaken. And in their misguided efforts to do good, they ultimately cause harm to Europe — harm driven by good intentions, in that they convey a deceptive image of Russia to Europeans.

The core issue with these "Europeanized" Russians is that they truly believe in the false narratives they promote, precisely because they exist within their own bubble of Pseudomorphosis. Their entire worldview is shaped by this illusion. The Russians they interact with are much like themselves — similarly "Europeanized". They live and think within the confines of urban enclaves of Moscow and St. Petersburg, which are far from representative of the broader Russian population. These cities are despised by much of the rest of Russia for their perceived detachment from the realities of ordinary Russians, and on a deeper level for representing something that is completely alien to an ordinary Russian. Yet, for people like Vladimir Kara-Murza, Ilya Yashin, and Yulia Navalnaya, their cultural and intellectual world is anchored in these “Europeanized” urban centers, disconnected from the majority of their countrymen.

While it’s quite likely that people like Kara-Murza, Yashin, and Navalnaya are deeply attached to European civilization, their critical error lies in their assumption that being European — or rather, loving Europe — can seamlessly coexist with being Russian and loving Russia. They believe that embracing European values and culture is compatible with identifying as Russian and working for the well-being of the Russian people. But this assumption is flawed. What they fail to recognize is that European civilization and Russian identity have always been in tension, if not outright conflict. In their attempt to harmonize these two worlds, they overlook the profound differences between them, thus making their vision for Russia unrealistic. Moreover, by promoting their vision of Russia in Europe they ultimately do more damage than good, as they delude Europeans, thereby weakening their psychological defense mechanisms against the Russian menace.

The story of Navalny, Kara-Murza, Yashin, and their small band of European-leaning supporters serves as a striking illustration of the vast gap between their ideals and the reality that surrounds them in Russia. These individuals, imbued with European culture, find themselves drifting in an ocean of indifference, if not outright hostility, seemingly isolated in their mission to transform Russia. They believed, perhaps naively, that the power of reason and peaceful persuasion could close this divide —that Russian society could be changed by adhering to civilized European norms and by presenting sound arguments to their fellow citizens. However, this optimism was tragically based on a fundamental misunderstanding.

These Russian liberals, despite their good intentions, are in fact trying to realize a vision built on the shaky foundations of Pseudomorphosis — a false cultural veneer imposed on a society that is fundamentally different from the European ethos they hold dear. What they have failed to grasp is that the resistance they face from majority of Russians is not just political disagreement but represents a deeper societal estrangement. Their belief that they could sway Russian hearts and minds through rational discourse reveals a profound misjudgment, both of their own identity and that of their fellow Russians with whom they still empathize. In their quest to create a Europeanized Russia, they overlook the fact that though they themselves may embody European sensibilities in their outlook and way of life, they belong to a society that is not European at its core, and they are trying to appeal to a populace that remains deeply resistant, even hostile, to the European civilization they so passionately advocate for.

This misalignment between the aspirations of these “Europeanized” Russians and the broader reality points to a far more complex struggle than simple political disagreement. It reveals a deeper rift — one that touches on the very core of cultural and historical identities. Their attempt to transplant a European model onto Russian society was not just a collision of differing values, but an inadvertent clash with the essence of their own heritage — a heritage that is fundamentally distinct from and, in many ways, inimical to European civilization. When they appeal to their fellow Russians, they are, in effect, speaking to cultural — and even in some sense racial —strangers, whose indifference or hostility makes their words fall flat. Their struggle is not solely against a political figure or regime but represents a profound and perhaps intractable divergence of civilizational paths.

These "Europeanized" Russian liberals wield no real influence within their own country. They are powerless to effect change in Russian society and are widely despised by the majority of the population. The only audience they have is within their own small, insulated bubble. Yet, despite their lack of relevance at home, they are doing real damage in Europe by presenting a distorted, unrealistic version of Russia to the European public.

The reality is that most Russians strongly support Putin and his invasion of Ukraine. Any dissent that exists is not driven by moral opposition to the war but by disappointment over its execution. Russians who criticize Putin don’t do so because they believe the invasion is morally wrong or because they oppose the abuse of Ukraine. Rather, they are frustrated because sanctions and economic hardships have made their lives more difficult. Others criticize Putin, not for his aggression, but because they believe he hasn’t been harsh or aggressive enough.

Putin embodies the true essence of Russia and reflects the deepest desires of the Russian people. His regime, dominated by secret service (FSB) operatives, perfectly mirrors the psychological characteristics that define the Russian psyche — deceit, spite, and a thirst for revenge out of inferiority complex. The true face of Russia is not its ballet or the architectural splendor of St. Petersburg. Nor is it the liberal enclaves of Moscow and St. Petersburg, from which these Russian liberals emerge. The real Russia is seen in the horrors of Bucha, Irpin, Izyum, the leveling of Mariupol and other Ukrainian cities, atrocities against Ukrainians like rape, torture, beheadings, and castrations. If we look back in history, this same pattern of brutality persists: the savage atrocities of the Red Army during World War II, the ruthless tortures and murders carried out by Stalin's NKVD, the Red Terror that followed the Bolshevik Revolution, Ivan the Terrible's Oprichnina, the destruction of Novgorod under Ivan III, and more. These are the true characteristics of Russia — this is what Europeans should consider when forming opinions about Russians, not the so-called “Russian culture,” which, like these Russian liberals, is an artificial creation — a product of Pseudomorphosis, and never truly belonged to the Russian people. If anything, Putin is in fact doing a great service to the West with his hateful intransigence, rhetoric and actions, a far greater service than rendered by these Russian liberals, by revealing the true nature of the Russian people, which serves to consolidate the West in the face of the Russian menace, make it steadfast and finally recognize Russia as the ruthless enemy that it is, instead of a reliable partner, or worse — member of European family.

Just as someone who believes they are seeing ghosts or someone experiencing hallucinations isn’t deliberately trying to deceive others but genuinely believes in their own illusions, the same is true of these Russian liberals. You wouldn’t seriously engage with someone who claims to see ghosts; such individuals are either treated clinically or ignored outright. Similarly, figures like Kara-Murza, Yashin, and Navalnaya should be viewed the same way. We should recognize that their perspective is detached from reality and disregard their opinions entirely. Anyone who claims that Russia can transform into a peaceful, prosperous, civilized European country simply by educating the public is, quite frankly, delusional. We should treat statements like "Russians are against the war", "Russians oppose Putin and bear no responsibility for the crimes of his regime", or "Russia is a European country" as nothing more than hallucinations — as baseless claims no more credible than ghost sightings.

Europeans therefore would do well to ignore these Russian liberals altogether. Their views are so far removed from reality that they only serve to confuse and mislead Western audiences about the true nature of Russia. In fact, Westerners don’t need Russians at all to understand what Russia is really like. They also don’t need so-called "Russia experts" who, more often than not, come from the same artificially Europeanized environments in Moscow and St. Petersburg or, if they are European, rely on information from those same Russian liberals. The real experts on Russia are the Ukrainians. If the West genuinely wants to understand Russia or figure out how to deal with it, they should turn to Ukrainians for insight. An ordinary Ukrainian knows more about Russia’s true nature than all the so-called Russia "experts" in Western universities and think tanks combined.

Figures like Kara-Murza, Yashin, and Navalnaya claim that Russia’s future will be determined by Russians. This is a fundamentally flawed assumption. The future of Russia should not be left to the Russians alone — it should be shaped by external forces, especially by its neighbors, who have a much clearer understanding of Russia's true character and the darker depths of its soul. It is the Ukrainians, along with other Eastern Europeans such as the Balts and Poles, who truly understand Russia and should be guiding the West on how to approach it and how to handle the Russians. The West would do far better to heed their voices rather than those of Russian liberals.

It must be clear by now to any person with some historical memory that, as long as Russia stays in its current form, a potential "liberal" government will soon enough again be replaced by a spiteful and aggressively anti-western one. Russia was already given the chance to atone and correct itself during the Yeltsin era. But in 10 years Putin came to power. And this has been a recurrent pattern throughout Russian history.

I am old enough to remember the Yeltsin era. The Russian "anti-Putin opposition" of today is no different than the liberals who were in power back then — with the same slogans, the same attitudes, the same worldview, and the same personality types. It might seem surprising to Europeans and may sound as a revelation to many, but soon after Putin came to power most of those liberals of the 90s — the equivalents of Kara-Murza, Yashin, Navalny/Navalnaya of today — switched sides and became loyal servants of his regime. Phenomena like “call of blood” or “cultural imprint” are very real after all. In fact, it was the liberal clique that brought Putin to power in the first place. Putin's main propagandist Vladimir Solovyov, for example, was a liberal journalist in the 90s. Various prominent rock musicians, film producers that were regarded as dissidents and rebels in the late Soviet Union joined the Putinist bandwagon soon after he came to power, and what is important, had no moral qualms about it. Post-Soviet Russia is replete with such examples.

It's also crucial to remember that regardless of its regime and political system, Russia never abandons its expansionist and genocidal tendencies. Russia staged an armed coup in Georgia in 1991, invaded Moldova in 1992 and committed genocide in Chechnya during the First Chechen War in 1994-1996, where the atrocities committed by the Russian army could match the ones being committed now in Ukraine. And all that took place under the "liberal", "democratic", "pro-western" Yeltsin, the darling of the West at the time. Thus, Russia in its current form will always be a threat to its neighbors and Western Civilization at large.

The only way forward, therefore, is not to reform Russia — to make it "liberal" and "democratic", but to deconstruct this monstrosity, this "prison of nations" entirely. The West has been desperately looking for some “good” Russians, even searching for them with a magnifying glass. But up until now the search was being done in the wrong place. The only real good Russians (without the usual quotation marks) that could be worthy of our sympathies and support are the ones who aim for the disintegration of Russia and/or willing to engage in armed conflict to topple Putin’s regime, in other words, the ones that aim to bring war on the Russian soil — e.g., The Freedom of Russia Legion, Russian Volunteer Corps and various irredentist movements within its various constituent regions.

The only permanent solution to the Russian problem is Russia’s destruction — its disintegration and decolonization, with the ensuing denuclearization and demilitarization of the various units that will emerge within this large Eurasian expanse. Ideally this should be achieved by outside intervention, with something akin to the War of The Holy League against Russia that was fought by Europeans against Ottoman expansion in the 17th century. But if Western countries are too pathetic, still too afraid of a direct confrontation with Russia they should, firstly do everything to help Ukraine achieve a crushing victory, which will unleash destabilizing forces within Russia and will lead to chaos and desintegration, and secondly feed those forces of chaos and desintegration by supporting various irredentist movements and/or separatist tendencies which will inevitably gain traction as the situation within the country deteriorates.

Russian liberals, in turn, will have to make a definitive choice. If they wish to remain connected to Europe and its civilization, they must renounce — and indeed condemn— their Russian identity and any attachment to Russia, as the two are fundamentally incompatible. They cannot be both Russian and European. It is impossible to harbor a deep love for Europe while still maintaining empathy for Russia and its people. Needless to say, the same principle should apply not just to Russians but to all non-Western immigrants in Europe. These Europeanized Russian liberals can be embraced by European society, but only if they see themselves as Russian-speaking Europeans, fully adopting a European identity that is detached from Russia. They could be welcomed into European life only under these conditions. However, they must stop perpetuating myths and misleading Europeans into believing that the Russian people, as a whole, are European or civilized.

As for the independent states that may emerge from the disintegration of the Russian Federation, some could potentially gravitate toward Europe and eventually integrate into the European family. This is especially true for regions like the northwestern territories, such as those once part of the Novgorod Republic or the former Smolensk Principality. Independent entities like Ingria, Karelia, the Novgorod Republic, Pskov Republic, and Smolensk Republic, much like Ukraine and Belarus, could over time become full members of Europe. In contrast, other predominantly “ethnic Russian” regions, such as the Urals, Siberia, and the Russian Far East, may chart their own unique paths. These regions might develop a complicated relationship with the West, reminiscent of the relationship between the Germanic world and the Byzantine Empire in medieval times — somewhat connected, yet at the same time estranged. Meanwhile, ethnically non-Russian regions — like Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, Yakutia, and others — will likely gravitate toward the Turkic or broader Islamic world, based on their distinct ethno-cultural identities.

It is important to note that the breakup of Russia into various independent states won’t suddenly change the behavior, attitudes, or worldview of their populations — if they ever change at all. However, what it will do is render the inhabitants of this vast Eurasian territory harmless to the rest of the world, and that is what truly matters. Furthermore, it must be made clear that the inhabitants of what is today the Russian Federation will never again be welcomed into the family of nations as "Russians". But they will be gladly accepted as Ingrians, Novgorodians, Karelians, Uralians, Siberians, Yakuts, Chechens, Tatars, Bashkirs, and others. Offering them this alternative identity will further encourage the forces driving Russia's disintegration, ultimately making this vast region no longer a threat to the civilized world.