Why Reclaiming The Russian Flag Is The First Step To Taking Down Putin

-OpEd-

The Nov. 17 rally in Berlin was a chance for the Russian opposition-in-exile to come together — and some brought with them the traditional Russian tricolor flag. The presence of the white-blue-red symbol angered some of the protesters, with part of the crowd chanting, “We are against the tricolor.”

I believe the opposition is making a serious mistake by rejecting the official Russian flag.

To begin, it is worth mentioning that the question of the flag is more than a discussion about a symbol. This is not a conversation about what how we decorate our protests, video clips and the lapels of our jackets with, but rather about what and to whom the opposition wants to broadcast, and by what means it wants to communicate its ideas, values and vision of the future. Its chances of success depend largely on what choice we make.

This conversation is already happening, and it cannot be avoided; it cannot be passed over to the “Constituent Assembly” and “Parliament of the future Russia,” as proposed by opposition politicians Vladimir Kara-Murza and Ilya Yashin, both recently freed from Russian incarceration in a prisoner swap. This is a challenge, and the solution is in our hands here and now.

Distance and isolation

I am convinced that the opposition made a serious mistake when they rejected the tricolor at the beginning of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The emotional impulse behind this decision is understandable. People were shocked, they were hurt, they were ashamed and scared.

However, it was the responsibility of politicians and opinion leaders to channel some of these emotions in constructive ways, and to help others work through them and overcome them, because they are ultimately self-destructive.

Unfortunately, these emotions – with the tricolor becoming one of their targets – were either embraced or left unaddressed. A simple example is how many opposition groups, without any reflection, began to replace the Russian flag with the “white-blue-white,” a flag that emerged as a symbol of anti-war opposition shortly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, in their public activities.

The rejection of the tricolor has distanced the opposition from wider Russian society. That also means the opposition has moved further away from designing the Russia of the future, because without the support of ordinary people, the idea of democracy is worthless; it cannot be imposed from above and by force.

Eternal repentance

Of course, it is not only about the flag. It is also about a complex agenda, which, in addition to the rejection of the tricolor, included the imposition of collective guilt, constant self-criticism takes on the opinions of others (whether abstract Ukrainians, or no-less-abstract Europeans) and unsuccessful attempts to hang one’s heads and repent.

Admittedly, not all members of the opposition movement did this, but even the largest and most competent forces often failed to give clear answers to pressing questions and did not risk addressing (or were simply too ashamed to do so) the topics of identity, dignity, patriotism and the interests of Russia and its citizens.

Wanting to distance itself from Putin’s aggression, the opposition distanced itself from the country.

For example, the simplest, clearest and most effective slogan “bring our soldiers home,” which lacked broad support among the opposition, turned into a vicious and harmful meme about “our boys.” The timid discussion about stopping the violence was eclipsed by a barrage of statements about the division of Russia, reparations (without any constructive discussion of the pros and cons) and the need to “wash the blood off” (which will, of course, never wash off).

So in the end, the phrase “Russia is not Putin, but us” began to sound false, as we handed Putin the tricolor, after thousands of Russians advocating for democracy had been beaten with clubs for years.

The rejection of the tricolor, along with this “full menu” of guilt and shame, drew a thick dividing line between the opposition and the wider society.

Wanting to distance itself as much as possible from Putin’s aggression, the opposition distanced itself from the country. They did this in part actively, in part passively, having abandoned attempts to find constructive, intelligible and positive ideas that could be communicated to a wide audience as an alternative to the discourse of humiliation and repentance.

Worldcrunch Extra!

Know more • The national flag of the Russian Federation traces its origins to Tsar Peter the Great. In 1705 it was adopted as the civil ensign of the Tsardom of Russia, and continued under the Russian Empire until 1858, when Emperor Alexander II declared the black-yellow-white tricolour as the national flag. But already by 1896 that was replaced by the white-blue-red tricolour by Nicholas II. In 1917, following the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks banned the tricolour, eventually replacing it with the red flag with a gold hammer and sickle of the USSR.

Shortly after the August Coup in 1991, the Russian SFSR adopted the imperial tricolour as the national flag of Russia, although with slightly different dimensions and colour shades than the current version. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of year, the newly independent Russian Federation inherited the redesigned flag, and its current proportions and shades were specified by President Boris Yeltsin in 1993.

The flag has been banned from recent sporting events, including the 2024 Summer Games in Paris, where only a handful of Russian athletes were allowed to compete, but only under the neutral flag. —Roy Greenburgh (read more about the Worldcrunch method here)

To restore faith in ourselves

Upon closer examination, the arguments I often hear about the need to abandon the flag seem far-fetched. “It’s a flag of invasion” – but the invasion has its own symbols (Z and V), and most Russian citizens, when asked about associations with the tricolor, are unlikely to call it a symbol of war.

We are told that our flag “symbolizes fascism for the entire world.” But the average Western citizen does not think about the tricolor on a regular basis; in all probability, he would not even be able to find Ukraine on a map.

A good example of this is the video of Russian political scientist Ekaterina Shulman at the opposition march in Berlin, discussing the fact that the tricolor cannot be used because “during war, the national flag becomes the banner of the fighting army” – against the backdrop of a column decorated with the tricolor. This is the best illustration of how only our own emotions and cognitive distortions prevent us from returning to our flag.

The best we can do for peace is to be true to ourselves.

It is also important to understand that some of the people calling for the elimination of the tricolor do so maliciously. This is not even about the Kremlin bots (although they are certainly involved), but about those who are trying to make the Russian opposition as passive, insignificant, unattractive and torn apart by internal tensions as possible. It is important for us not to give in to such manipulations. Our goal is to restore faith in ourselves and our fellow citizens.

And, in the end, what is most important for us? The opinion of some politically engaged Westerners, or an effective – including at the symbolic level – struggle for the hearts of Russian citizens and for a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Russia?

No one knows better than us how to wage this war, and thus the best we can do for peace is to be true to ourselves.

To overcome guilt and shame 

Of course, people might misunderstand the tricolor when it is taken out of context. Yet there’s a simple solution to this: add any anti-war symbol to the flag, from the white dove to the red poppy. In this way, we will show the connection between the country and our own tradition of resistance, we will demonstrate that “Russia is not Putin,” that the welfare of the country and its citizens is our top priority, that guilt and shame do not poison our agenda, and at the same time, we will speak out against the war and the current government.

At the same time, we need to find the strength to overcome guilt and shame and address frightening topics such as our soldiers’ return home; a victory (a real one, not Putin’s) for Russia, which means withdrawing troops from Ukraine, and thus saving the lives of fellow citizens, emerging from isolation and raising the standard of living; and a worthy place in the world, to which our country still has something to offer.

I am convinced that the emphasis should be placed not on self-flagellation, but on dignity, one’s own interests and a positive future. Only then will an alternative to the regime become truly attractive.

Analogy with U.S. anti-Vietnam war movement

An excellent example we can turn to is the U.S. movement against the Vietnam War, which actively used American flags, slogans about “our boys” and appeals to the interests of the country and its people. It was massive and persuasive, although it did not stop the war.

Of course, we will not stop the war. Anti-war movements almost never achieve this goal (though some American experts believe that the anti-war movement influenced the U.S. government’s decision to end the Vietnam War. – Holod editors). But this should not be our first goal, because war is just a symptom of dictatorship. We must strive for a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Russia.

Giving up the tricolor was part of a complex process of emotional development. Returning to it can become a symbolic reflection of healing – and a return to ourselves, to our strength and to our voice. To those who we are and who we will never cease to be: patriots of our country.

The editors may not hold the same opinions as those of the author.