Russian collective guilt

Russian collective guilt refers to a concept created during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which represents the idea that Russians bear collective guilt for the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, the alleged genocide of Ukrainians, the occupation and annexation of the territories of Ukraine, and Russian war crimes and human rights violations.^[1] The concept of Russian collective guilt centers itself on the idea that Russian society in general did not protest against the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, but instead supported and enabled the actions of the Russian government through its inaction or active support.^[2]

Since the Russian Federation used the territory of the Republic of Belarus for a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, a separate discussion also arose about the collective guilt and responsibility of Belarusians for the actions of the illegally elected authorities of their state.^[3]

At the beginning of the 20th century, the concept of collective responsibility was used mainly by totalitarian states.  For example, in the USSR, individual cases of collaboration with the Nazis were used as justification for the deportation of the citizens of entire nations.^[4]

After World War II (WWII), the principle of collective responsibility arose regarding discussion around "the guilt of the German people for the crimes of the Nazis."^[4] As part of the program of denazification of Germany, allies from the Anti-Hitler coalition hung posters in many German cities, such as ones with the inscription "You are guilty" that featured a finger pointing at the viewer coupled with a photograph of Buchenwald concentration camp. Such posters caused ire throughout much German society, in which the question arose of how others could "accuse ordinary Germans of the terrible crimes of the Nazi regime, when they knew nothing and even if they knew, they could not do anything about it."^[5]

In 2022, Ukrainian philosopher Oksana Dovgopolova noted that following WWII, the topics of collective guilt and responsibility arose rapidly due to the unprecedented nature of the crimes committed at that time. She noted that at first, the Germans tried to position themselves as victims: "We are hostages, we suffered, we did not want to kill anyone, we did not know what was happening." However, this position was objected to by Allied powers: "You turned your eyes away from the fact that a yellow star was hung on your neighbor, when you went to shops with a sign saying that Jews are not served here, you supported this system. You didn't protest, you didn't do anything, you tried to pretend that nothing was happening." Dovgopolova noted that "at one time, Hitler came to power as a result of democratic elections and had huge public support."^[6][7]

German philosopher Karl Jaspers addressed the topic of Germany's guilt for Nazi crimes, writing: "People cannot be turned into individuals," and that "a people can neither die heroically, nor be a criminal, nor act morally or immorally, only individual representatives of it can always do that." He believed that legal, moral and "metaphysical" guilt could only be individual, but in his opinion, there could be collective political responsibility for the actions of public figures, in which all citizens indirectly participate in. He believed that the purification of Germany from Nazism was possible only with the recognition of collective political responsibility: "only from the consciousness of guilt arises the consciousness of solidarity and personal responsibility, without which freedom is impossible."^[4]

According to the German philosopher of Jewish origin Hannah Arendt: "when everyone is guilty, no one is guilty."^[5] In her opinion, if you call a group guilty, it then removes the members of this group from being responsible for their personal actions. However, according to Arendt, unlike guilt, responsibility can extend to a community of people. She believed that in the case of belonging to a political community, which involves passive complicity in crimes committed on its behalf, it may be about collective responsibility. In her opinion, the Nazis' crimes against humanity became possible because of the willingness of the average German, a "good family man," to surrender his convictions for the material benefits guaranteed by the regime. At the same time, such people justified their actions by simply following orders.^[8]

Russian politician Maxim Katz claimed that while Russians bore collective responsibility for the Russian invasion of Ukraine because the Russian army and government act on behalf of Russians, he denied the existence of Russian collective guilt.^[9]

According to observers from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in Russian society, "the shock of February 24 was embarrassing," despite the fact that the situation around Ukraine had been consistently and publicly escalating in the months leading up to the start of the invasion. However, as the analysts noted, "subsequently, this frustration manifested itself not in the denial of the war, not in anti-war sentiments, but, on the contrary, in the active or passive support of the "special operation" and the acceptance of its ideological and moral justifications." In their opinion, after the invasion of Ukraine, the restoration of "Putin's majority" began in Russia, which fell apart after the end of the Crimean consensus. However, observers noted that the mass of Russians who support the invasion of Ukraine and Putin were heterogeneous. According to observers, by August 2022, about 20% of Russians had declared their disagreement with what was happening. Analysts noted that the official information about the war in Ukraine was formed in the context of long-established ideas held by the majority of Russian citizens about their country and its geopolitical situation in the former Soviet Union, in Europe, and in the world. Therefore, the official discourse of the Russian authorities was easily integrated into the world views of Russians, and what contradicted this picture of the world was rejected as "lies, Russophobia and hostile propaganda."^[10]

According to commentators at the Carnegie Endowment, the war had only slightly altered the ratio between supporters and opponents of the Putin regime: mostly those who preferred to watch the news on Russian state television and supported the government as early as mid-February continued to support Putin's actions after the start of the war, while those who were in opposition to the current Russian government prior to the war did not support the invasion.^[10]

In March 2022, the Levada Center conducted a poll, according to which 89% of surveyed Russians approved of the war against Ukraine.^[11] In March 2022, Radio Liberty claimed that "according to independent sociologists, three quarters of Russians support the war against Ukraine."^[7]

Support for the war in Russian society decreased at the end of 2022, according to the results of a closed opinion poll published by the Meduza newspaper conducted by the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation. According to the survey, about 55% of Russians were in favor of peace negotiations with Ukraine in November, and only 25% were in favor of continuing the war, which stood in contrast to surveyed results in July, with 57% in favor of continuation of the war, and 32% in favor of negotiations.^[12]

High levels of support for the actions of the Russian authorities caused a lot of controversy about whether polls in Russia can be trusted during the invasion of Ukraine. However, the researchers pointed out that the general public attitude towards events in Ukraine were accurately predicted in the results of opinion polls conducted at the turn of 2021-2022. According to their data, at the beginning of February 2022, two-thirds of Russian society supported Putin, and as the war against Ukraine escalated, this support grew, with the majority of Russians placing responsibility on the Western world for beginning the conflict.^[10]

After the beginning of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, a complex discussion arose about the moral responsibility of all Russians for the war, the justness of boycotts on Russian culture, and the legality of Western sanctions directed against Russian civilians.^[13][14] Many Russians, although they felt ashamed of their country's actions, nevertheless complained about the "injustice" of the sanctions affecting "ordinary" Russians.^[4]

Dr. Martin Schulze Wessel, a German historian and professor at the Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich, believed that the the concept of Russian collective responsibility is supported on the basis of Vladimir Putin not acting "in an empty space," but in a cultural context, of which he himself is a product. According to Professor Wessel, in this cultural context, the idea of ​​Russophobia, the idea of ​​"blocking" Russia by the Western world, and the idea of ​​"Russian resentment" against the Western world are very strong: "It is clear that Putin is a dictator who personally decided to start this war," but "there is also the responsibility of Russia and the Russians." He emphasized: "back in July of last year, he made it clear that he does not want Ukraine to exist as an independent nation. He started a war against the Ukrainian nation, and any war against the nation has the dimensions of genocide."^[14]

Eastern European expert Robert Austin believed that the West should not go too far in "slaying the Russians," but the long-standing support of Vladimir Putin by the Russian people laid the groundwork for Russia's armed aggression against Ukraine.^[15] During the Russian-Ukrainian war, Western media outlets frequently used the term "Putin's War," which outraged Ukrainians due to its implicit de-emphasizing of the Russian public's role towards supporting or enabling the aggression.^[16][17]

A few hours before the full-scale Russian invasion on February 24, 2022, President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy recorded a video address to the Russians in the Russian language, where he stated that "almost 200,000 Russian soldiers are stationed on the border with Ukraine, who may launch an attack on the neighboring country in the near future," which will be the beginning of the "great war on the European continent." Zelensky called on Russian citizens to oppose the war, saying that "if the Russian leadership does not want to sit down with us for the sake of peace, maybe it will sit down with you." At the end of the speech, he asked: “Do the Russians want war? I would really like to answer this question. But the answer depends only on you."^[18]

During the first month of the full-scale war with Russia, Zelensky recorded several more appeals to the Russian public. At his morning briefing on February 24 held shortly after the start of the Russian invasion, he stated: “Much depends on the Russian people. Citizens of Russia will choose which path they will take personally. For all those who have not yet lost their conscience in Russia, it is time to come out and protest against the war with Ukraine."^[19] On February 25, Zelensky said in his address: "I want to say to all [Russian] citizens who are protesting: we see you. It means you heard us. This means that you start to believe us. Fight for us, fight against war."^[20]

On March 15, he said: "I am grateful to those Russians who do not stop trying to convey the truth, and personally so to the girl who entered the studio of the First Channel with a poster against the war."^[21] On March 23, in an address to the Russians, he declared: "If you can leave Russia, do it" so as not to pay taxes that would further support the invasion.^[22] On March 27, 2022, Zelensky gave his first interview to Russian journalists after the beginning of the invasion. In the course of this interview, he said that the attitude towards Russia and the Russian people had deteriorated in the Ukrainian public and to himself personally, admitting that although there are people in Russia who support Ukraine, he emphasized his deep disappointment that a high percentage Russians supported the war for various reasons.^[23]

In March 2022, in response to the call of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz "not to offend people who come from Russia, this is Putin's war, only he is responsible for it" Ukrainian Ambassador to Germany Andriy Melnyk said: "The most silent Russian society supports the de facto war. Putin is only the tip of the iceberg." Melnyk emphasized: "This is Russia's war to destroy Ukraine. Period. These Russians are not aliens. They are pilots who bomb Ukrainian cities, kill women and children."^[24][25]

On August 24, 2022, on the anniversary of the restoration of Ukraine's independence, the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Dmytro Kuleba, called on Western countries to stop issuing visas to Russians: "Russians mostly support the war against Ukraine, they should be deprived of the right to cross borders until they learn to respect them... Tourists, businessmen and students should be deprived of the right to travel to the countries of the European Union and G7."^[26][27]

Russian opposition politicians and public figures are ambiguous about the issue of collective guilt of Russians due to the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine. For example, Russian politician Maxim Katz claimed that while Russians bore collective responsibility for the Russian invasion of Ukraine because the Russian army and government act on behalf of Russians, he denied the existence of Russian collective guilt.^[9]

Russian publicist Viktor Shenderovych noted that those who "live in Russia have Stockholm syndrome." In his opinion, during the long years of propaganda during the reign of Vladimir Putin, the Russians found themselves in a "parallel reality," and in the world picture of Putin's supporters, "Russia is opposing either Ukrainian Nazism or the invasion of transgender people - in general, something bad from the West." Shenderovych believed that "all Russians will pay for Putin's policy - as a nation, as a civilization," but he spoke against the "single moral guilt" of Russians, declaring that it is immoral to "put Ramzan Kadyrov and Volodymyr Kara-Murza, Navalny, and Yashin together" as well as the "millions of people who never voted for Putin who came out to protest rallies."^[28]

Russian culturologist Andriy Arkhangelskyi wrote: "Despite the resistance of thousands of lonely people, the protest against the war in Russia cannot be called mass [protest], even six months after the beginning of the aggression."^[29]

Russian writer Volodymyr Sorokin noted: "We are all guilty. Not only Putin and his team." He asked: "What specifically did I not do to prevent this war? And so with every reasonable person, it seems to me. This guilt will grow, in fact, even after the end of the war, we will carry it in ourselves. We, Russians, will all drink a bitter cup."^[30]

The question of the collective guilt and responsibility of the Belarusians in the war against Ukraine is a separate topic of discussion from the question of the collective guilt of the Russians. In February 2022, the Russian Federation used the territory of the Republic of Belarus as a springboard for its invasion of Ukraine.^[3] Polish political scientist Kamil Klysynski noted that the authorities of Belarus not only voluntarily presented their territory to the Russian army, but also shared Belarusian infrastructure in the invasion of Ukraine, including railways and medical facilities. As a result, Klysynsky noted, Belarus violated a number of its obligations to Ukraine, including the Treaty on Friendship, Good Neighborliness and Cooperation.^[31]

In this context, a large discussion arose regarding the responsibility of Belarusians for the war in Ukraine.^[3] Belarus was called a "co-aggressor" by Western countries, resulting in harsh Western sanctions being imposed against Belarus, while citizens of Belarus were accused of "helping the dictator."^[32]

In the context of Belarusian complicity in the invasion, the question of responsibility for war crimes committed by the Russian Federation on Ukrainian territory arose, especially hose in northern Ukraine which included the Bucha massacre. Belarusian lawyer Kateryna Deikalo stated that "in general, the state cannot be held responsible for war crimes if it is not a participant in the military conflict," but she did not exclude the responsibility of the top leadership of Belarus, if their guilt for these crimes is proven. Polish political scientist Kamil Klysinski believed that Belarus is responsible for war crimes on the territory of Ukraine if not legally, then politically and ethically. According to him, "if Belarus had not provided its territory, the Russians would not have been able to reach the outskirts of Kyiv so quickly and occupy them."^[31]

According to a May 2022 Chatham House survey, more than 50% of Belarusians believed that they did not deserve the same negative treatment Russians received from the West, and only 15% of respondents said they felt guilty about the war in Ukraine. At the same time, about 40% said that they did not support the actions of the Russian army in Ukraine, compared to 32% of Belarusians who said that they supported the Russian invasion.^[33]

In June 2022, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said: "Missiles were launched from the territory of Belarus. There are many, of different calibers, that brought different [kinds of] suffering to Ukraine. Nevertheless, we understand that this is not the decision of the Belarusian people, and we believe that the Belarusian people should do everything in order not to get involved in this war."^[34] At the same time, he noted that it is important for Belarusians to feel their responsibility for what is happening: "We cannot simply remain silent and say: it is not us, it is the Russian Federation firing these shots from our territory. I think it's unfair."^[35]

At the same time, Current Time TV journalists noted that until August 2022, about 500 fighters in the Kalinovsky regiment fought for Ukraine, local partisans staged a rail war on the territory of Belarus, and the Belarusian diaspora provided humanitarian aid to Ukrainians.^[36]

Belarusian philosopher Tetyana Shchytsova stressed that: "Many Belarusians, both those who remain in the country and those who emigrated, who participated in the protests of 2020 and have an active civic position, are now writing about their sense of guilt." According to her: "The feeling of guilt shows that, as a citizen of Belarus, I deeply regret that I cannot change anything, I cannot stop the fact that Russia is now waging a war against Ukraine from the territory of my country. This feeling of powerlessness presses on me, and we call this pressure guilt. That is, the very phenomenon of feeling guilty in these circumstances indicates an acute feeling of involvement in what is happening on our land."^[3]

According to Shchytsova, Belarusian civil society in 2020 showed its readiness to take responsibility for the future of its country. However, according to Shytsova, since that time Belarus found itself in a situation of "double occupation": internal — by the repressive regime of Alexander Lukashenko, and external — by Russian troops.^[3]

In February 2022, the Belarusian writer Andriy Zhvalevskyi wrote that he was "very hurt and sorry" when not only "Lukashenka and his subordinates" were called "helpers of aggression," but all Belarusians in general. In his opinion, Belarus had become a country "in which there is no law at all" and where more than a thousand political prisoners were held until February 2022. Zhvalevskyi believed that Belarusians do not go "with bare hands to riot police," but rather that the vast majority of Belarusians from the mid-1990s watched indifferently as Lukashenko "destroyed all democratic institutions."^[37]

In August 2022, Svitlana Tykhanouska's adviser, Oleksandr Dobrovolskyi, stated: "If Belarus brought this shame upon itself with complicity, then Belarus is doing everything to stop this complicity." He added: "We understand Ukrainians who never understand who is who among Belarusians, they protect their country. And they have pain, they have death. And there shouldn't be any condemnation that they are short-sighted there, that they haven't figured something out, from our side."^[36]