
Putin has so far avoided a confrontation with the women who demand the return of servicemen from the front in Ukraine. History shows that Russian women are capable of causing trouble for authoritarian regimes.
From the revolutions of 1905 and 1917 to the wars in Afghanistan and Chechnya, women have always demonstrated noteworthy resistance against Russian authority
Russian dictatorships have always underestimated the potential of women's political activism. Deprived of civic and political rights during the tsarist autocracy, and used by the Bolshevik dictatorship as a propaganda tool to legitimize the regime which, until its demise, remained an exclusively male affair, and passing virtually unnoticed until a few years ago by Putin's bureaucratic authoritarianism, women in Russia have nevertheless been instrumental to opening up the country to great political changes.
On January 22, 1905, when women were at the front of the procession of demonstrators led by the controversial unionist priest Georgy Gapon, to petition the Tsar for protection against abuse and greed, few of those who defended the monarch from his own people thought that quelling this protest would eventually lead to the outbreak of a full-fledged revolution. The several hundred women, along with elderly and children, all shot on “Bloody Sunday”, were the spark that kindled a revolution which rose in scale and violence to an extent Russia had not witnessed since the time of Yemelyan Pugachev’s Uprising of 1773-1774. Surely, the structural prerequisites for such a revolution were there, for otherwise it could not have spread so rapidly. But the following days, as barricades were erected all over Saint Petersburg and all work was brought to a halt in factories city-wide, the memory of the women and children shot in front of the Winter Palace was what made the revolution radical from phase one.
The question of pretext and cause is traditionally complicated in historiography and always marked by doubt. Of course, the world was ready for war when, on June 28, 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo, but one can hardly say when and how the war would have broken out “anyway”, if the princely couple’s car had not been stopped in the very street where, by a complete twist of fate, Gavrilo Princip was so happening to nurse his frustration over the failure of the first assassination attempt in a nearby coffeeshop. Historical events typically extend over long durations, but the way in which their effects manifest themselves is dictated by all kinds of happenings, some of which are marked by obvious absurdity. That is not the case of “Bloody Sunday”, where the high number of dead (over 4000) among the demonstrators gathered to present the Tsar with the most legal of petitions, caused the revolution to quickly turn into an insurrection.
But speaking of women, it was women who took to the streets in February 1917 to demand bread and an end to the war. The indolence and corruption of those who supplied Petrograd with grain, although the city's granaries were full, caused bakeries to experience a severe shortage of black and cheap bread, which was commonly found in the majority of Russian households. Against the background of an already growing society-wide frustration, the endless waiting lines women had to queue up in in the middle of winter quickly escalated into genuine “bread riots”. The large number of soldiers quartered in Petrograd in defiance of the faintest instinct of preservation of a regime already faced with numerous challenges, and the state of agitation in city factories, populated with increasingly overworked and underpaid workers, turned street-level commotion stirred by women into a genuine revolutionary movement. Much like in 1905, although far from the scale of the massacre then, the Cossacks' attempts to disperse the ad-hoc gatherings in front of the bakeries, firing warning shots and swinging their whips in the air, further provoked the already outraged women.
Later on, in the final days of the Soviet Union, the plethora of committees of mothers of soldiers dispatched to fight in the “limited contingent” in Afghanistan, played an important role in forcing the Soviet authorities to take some sense of responsibility. These women’s persistence, in full compliance with the Soviet legislation of the time, forced Gorbachev, but not just him, to bring the social and economic effects of the war Russia was waging in Afghanistan into the public spotlight. The thousands of cases of abuse, corruption, mistreatment and criminal incompetence in the Soviet army were exposed through the lens of soldiers’ personal stories, effectively told by these women who defended their children and, by extension, the whole of society. If it hadn’t been for this debate, which attracted the attention and sympathy of all Soviets, or the Chernobyl nuclear accident, it is hard to believe that Gorbachev would have discovered the virtues of “transparency”. Even without Gorbachev's “humane socialism”, under pressure from various women's initiative groups across the Soviet Union, the authorities were forced to abandon the conscription of students, which is what they had done in 1983, when the Soviet army was suffering from a significant shortage of servicemen to send to Afghanistan. Unlike Nicholas II, who got over-intoxicated with the sanctity of his own persona to display any real political acumen, the party activist Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev made use of his superior skill, spearheading a school of thought whose effects he could no longer stop from being felt.
In the two wars in Chechnya, but especially during the first (1994-1996), the Committee of Soldiers' Mothers, formally established in 1989, played a key role in exerting pressure on the Russian authorities. Ordered by president Yeltsin at the insistent request of the then Minister of Defense, Pavel Grachev, the first Chechen war and in particular the superb resistance of Dzhokhar Dudayev’s Chechens, revealed to the world a Russian army whose contempt for the lives of its own soldiers was surpassed only by a predisposition to war crimes against the civilian population. In addition to Russian media, which was independent at the time, the Mothers' Committee played an important role in shaping national consensus regarding the need for an ceasefire. The August 1996 Khasavyurt Accords, signed on Russia’s behalf by an old acquaintance of Romania, General Alexander Lebed, back then Secretary of Russia’s Security Council, were to a large extent the fruit of the efforts of soldiers' mothers. The abuses, the illegal executions, the officers’ frequent habit of abandoning their troops, the countless instances when standard-issue weapons were sold to local arms dealers, the slave trade carried out with the tacit consent of the heads of various Chechen clans, as exposed by the women in the Committee and the press of the time, made the war in Chechnya unpopular, forcing Yeltsin to agree to “peace” terms that recognized Ichkeria's de facto independence. Even to this day, the website of the Committee of Russian Soldiers' Mothers does not use warlike “Z” symbols, whereas the Committee’s original motto, “For the defense of rights”, suggests that hope is not all lost.
“Real” Russian women, in the frontline of Putin’s inquisition
In spite of rumors circulated by people with poor knowledge about its inner workings, history does not repeat itself. Today, unlike 1905, there is no press or powerful illegal parties, such as the revolutionary Socialists or Social-Democrats, capable of rapidly expanding and radicalizing the revolt. Despite the sanctions and the huge expenses incurred by the war, there is no shortage of bread in Russian stores, and Putin's army, in addition to being much smaller in size, is quartered far from the capital and sufficiently susceptible to ideological control to avoid any political surprises. The regime does not seem to be plagued by too many dilemmas, as was the Russian autocracy, and is determined to fight back at any cost. The repression machine and the oppressive legislation are working flawlessly at present, and war-mongering patriotism still remains extremely appealing at society level. Those who remain immune to its pull, and their number is not negligible, are quite frightened by the prospect of being thrown in prison, where they usually end up as subjects to abominable abuses. Putin and the “new nobility” he surrounds himself with, whether it’s army generals or other elites, deal the occasional symbolic blow to society, just to prove they will stop at nothing to maintain their grip on power. No one is safe from the authorities’ appetite for concentration camps.
At the end of January, 72-year-old Yevgenia Maiboroda was sentenced to five years in prison for two anti-war posts on her VKontakte social network account, based on the famous article in the Russian Criminal Code that sanctions the circulation of “fake news” about the Russian military. It is well-known that everything that contradicts Putin's propaganda is deemed “false”, and over 250 people have been indicted based on this article, according to the data published by “OVD Info”. The list includes quite a few women. A more recent case has been favored by “patriotic” media and “war correspondents”, who in truth are but the mouthpiece of the Kremlin's propaganda in virtual space. Nadejda Buyanova, a Moscow-based pediatrician, had the bad idea of telling a war widow, who came with her child for a standard check-up, that her husband was a “legitimate target” for Ukrainian forces. Shortly after the discussion, the widow posted a video on her Telegram account, in which she recounted the incident, in-between long, overdramatized sobs. The post was picked up by a propaganda channel and thus “brought” to the attention of the authorities. Alexander Bastrykin, the head of the Russian Committee for Investigations (SKR), the agency that deals with the investigation of criminal acts in military institutions and administration, publicly requested an investigation into the incident. Shortly afterwards, Nadejda Buyanova’s house, an otherwise modest apartment, was devastated following a thorough SKR search, and Nadejda herself was informed she was now targeted by a criminal inquiry, standing accused of “discrediting” the Russian army. Most likely, given all the patriotic buzz generated around Buyanova’s story, in a few months she will be sentenced to prison.
At the same time, the regime is diligently cultivating the image of the “real” Russian woman, involved body and soul in supporting the war and maintaining “national solidarity” around Putin. Ekaterina Mizulina, the founder of the “Safe Internet League” - a sort of Internet inquisition that produces countless criminal charges against bloggers, artists and independent journalists - is promoted as the prototype of the civically militant woman in Russian democracy. The daughter of a senator who distinguished herself for elaborating a large series of legislative initiatives targeting sexual minorities, Ekaterina Mizulina is a bonafide Torquemada of the Russian Internet, where every critical statement against a person is promptly followed by a criminal case, usually accompanied by charges of “discrediting" and peddling “fake news”.
Olga Uskova, the owner of a company that produces autopilot systems for farming machinery, who claims to be the inventor of “Russian artificial intelligence” (whatever that means) is also one of the Kremlin's darlings. Despite the fact that she talks a lot about genius, especially Russian genius, Uskova is confident her country is the victim of the West’s war-mongering conspiracies, designed to rob Russia of its resources and territory. And that’s exactly what Putin himself claims as well. Apart from touting Russia’s supremacy in the field of AI, Uskova also considers herself a brilliant writer. Not long ago she published a book, which she claims to have written with the help of an artificial intelligence program called Ippolit, designed by her own company. In her book, a certain Dill Grates (we don't know if it’s a deliberate or coincidental rewording of Bill Gates’s name, but definitely an American), manages to assassinate the leaders of all the Great Powers except Russia, replacing them with replicas produced by artificial intelligence. Uskova's digital heroes, who unfortunately leave the audience no clue as to what happened to China's leader, merely hatch plans to get their hands on Russia’s riches, while the Kremlin leader, the only character who’s a real person, tries to take control of the replicas using a Russian version of artificial intelligence. Russian creativity in the realm of science fiction does not seem to have surpassed the Soviet one by much. Although hyperbolism has been replaced by artificial intelligence, at some point “party and state organs” still intervene, and “good” prevails in the end. With her newly found zeal as a patriotic sci-fi writer, Uskova has launched a furious attack on Vladimir Sorokin's latest novel, “The Inheritance”, which she accuses of promoting “anti-Russian and anti-human propaganda” and “non-traditional sexual relations” and pedophilia. The new screen adaptation of Bulgakov's book, “The Master and Margarita” (which connoisseurs say is the author’s most successful novel) also “enjoyed” an icy reception from Uskova. Criticizing the fact that, at the end of the film, Stalinist Moscow burns (it is in fact a fictional Moscow, emulating the architectural style of the 1920s) Uskova accused the film director of promoting an “anti-Russian” vision, stating that Stalinist Moscow, “the home of those who vanquished Hitler”, can't burn, not even in the movies.
From there to naming her as a possible member of the future Russian government was just one step. Although all she has to show for it so far is an oversized autopilot system that just keeps tractors in the furrow, Olga Uskova is being touted as the Russian equivalent of Steve Jobs and, above all, a businesswoman who is both a visionary and a loyal supporter of official policy. Russian government media is flooded by names of such women, adding to the endless line of widows and apparently grieving mothers, who are in fact “honored and proud” their husbands and sons “gave their lives for the defense of Russia”.
Women who demand the return of servicemen from Ukraine, a thorn in Putin’s side. Will the Kremlin leader avoid a direct confrontation with them?
For Putin, women are just a blurry mass providing his regime with political maneuverability. The real problems women face run counter to the values the regime claims to embody. Once emphasis was laid on conservatism, the regime's next logical step was to control private space, and this directly affects the female segment of society. The rejection of the rights and liberties related to gender self-identification, qualified as proof of the West’s moral degradation, opened up the discussion not only about the need to strengthen the “traditional family”, but also about increasing the birth rate. Despite “suggestions” from certain politicians close to the presidential administration, Putin ruled out the idea of banning abortion, at least for the moment, stating that it is a matter of personal freedom. In fact, besides being aware that Russia does not have a health and education infrastructure capable of accommodating a massive increase in population, Putin also fears a critical backlash from the female segment of Russian society, which he knows he cannot combat the conventional way. Aware of the negative public effect a possible crackdown on women in “The Way Home” group would have, the regime hesitates to fight back.
For their part, women too are reluctant to take the regime head on, at least not for the time being. The women behind “The Way Home” movement, who push for seeing their men sent to the frontline back home, are careful not to give the authorities any reason to accuse them of “discrediting” the army or spreading “fake news”. They only ask for the rotation of contingents and the demobilization of those who have spent six months on the front, as stipulated by current Russian military regulations. To that end, they file petitions, launch appeals and organize actions whereby they seek to observe Putin’s latest public rhetoric. For instance, they honor soldiers who fell in the “Great Patriotic War”, which they describe as being a defensive one, every time they get the chance. They are walking on thin ice, but, for the moment, their strategy seems to be paying off: all the regime did in response was briefly detain those journalists who came to report on the event that took place in Moscow recently, as well as the men who supported them as a sign of solidarity. After submitting a memorandum to the campaign office of “candidate” Putin, the women went to the police station, demanding the release of everyone who had been detained for no legal reason.
It is very possible that, once Putin is “re-elected”, women might again be subject to intimidation, including the fabrication of criminal investigations under various pretexts. As a result, women's movements, pursuing different goals but united in their opposition to official policies, might very well radicalize, which would incur an even harsher response from the Russian repression machine.
Whereas until recently, the hundreds of cases of men who received political sentences have been met with disillusionment by society, those cases involving women enjoyed more vocal critical reactions. When, in November 2023, painter Sasha Skochilenko, who replaced labels in a store with stickers displaying pacifist messages, was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, hundreds of doctors in Moscow signed a letter asking for her pardon. In the case of Yevgeniya Maiboroda, although government-linked media kept the story “under wraps”, many people publicly criticized the decision.
It remains to be seen what will happen when the women of “The Way Home” movement come under fire from Putin’s regime. A good number of them have already announced they don’t fear repercussions and have actually also shown it. Such moves will not lead to the sudden collapse of the regime, but they may very well erode its popular support and especially embolden everyone who’s afraid to speak out and protest against the regime. Every such gesture, initiative or statement comes at odds with the regime's propaganda and, above anything else, exposes its criminal cynicism. The truth survives owing to their courage and desperation, and as a result, so does the ability of the entire Russian society to break free from the shackles of a dictatorship built on lies and disinformation.