The Russian opposition, long plagued by fragmentation and competing ideologies, now faces renewed scrutiny through the recent release of the three-part documentary series Traitors.
Produced by Maria Pevchikh, a close associate of the late Aleksey Navalny, who died in February this year in a Russian prison, the series presents a sharp critique of the political elite of the 1990s. Pevchikh’s documentary, released in April and May, builds upon themes found in Navalny’s 2023 manifesto, My Fear and Hatred, which he wrote while imprisoned. The manifesto lays responsibility for Russia’s current political state on those who, Navalny argues, squandered a historic chance for reform and democracy, eventually enabling the rise of Vladimir Putin.
In My Fear and Hatred, Navalny expressed deep-seated resentment towards the figures of the Yeltsin era, specifically criticising former President Boris Yeltsin and powerful oligarchs who he believes placed personal gain above Russia’s future. He argues that these elites facilitated Putin’s rise, selecting him as Yeltsin’s successor to secure their own interests and shield their assets. Traitors elaborates on this theme, suggesting that the origins of Putin’s power are deeply rooted in the actions and decisions of the 1990s, a period marked by widespread corruption and the consolidation of wealth by a select few.
The documentary has sparked significant debate among opposition figures. Some political analysts, such as Vladimir Pastukhov, have praised Traitors for its candid portrayal of Russia’s political past, viewing it as a necessary examination of uncomfortable truths. Others within the opposition, however, have criticised the series for what they perceive as a narrow and overly simplistic narrative that glosses over the complexities of the Yeltsin era. These critics argue that by focusing on the oligarchic corruption of the 1990s, the series risks alienating those in today’s opposition who were associated with that time, including figures like Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Alfred Koch. Navalny’s camp has made it clear that they see little distinction between the oligarchs of the 1990s who later opposed Putin and those who remained loyal, holding all responsible for the system that ultimately led to Putin’s consolidation of power.
Traitors also takes aim at specific members of the current opposition. The series openly criticises influential exiled figures, including former oligarchs Khodorkovsky and Koch, as “traitors” who have hindered the democratic cause. This stance has fuelled existing tensions within the opposition, with some members arguing that such criticisms only serve to deepen divisions. Supporters of Navalny, however, argue that these divisions are already entrenched. Pevchikh has pointed out that Navalny’s team did not sign the Berlin Declaration, a manifesto for unity drafted by opposition leaders last year, noting that the principles in the Declaration did not align with Navalny’s stance on holding past elites accountable.
The documentary’s focus on contentious events such as the “loans-for-shares” auctions has also raised concerns. Critics contend that this emphasis on the transfer of state assets to private hands in the 1990s presents a one-dimensional portrayal of the era, ignoring other key aspects of Russia’s transition from communism to a market-based economy. By homing in on the economic dealings of the oligarchs, they argue, Traitors risks overshadowing the broader context of post-Soviet reform, ultimately failing to capture the complex motivations and challenges of that period. Despite these critiques, Pevchikh maintains that Traitors aims to spotlight the moral and political compromises that, she argues, facilitated Putin’s rise to power.
Navalny’s death has left an indelible mark on the opposition, further complicating efforts to unite disparate groups under a common vision. He was serving a 19-year sentence on charges widely considered to be politically motivated when he passed away, dealing a heavy blow to Russia’s anti-Putin movement. The release of Traitors soon after his death has highlighted the challenges faced by the opposition, which now confronts not only the Kremlin but also enduring rifts within its own ranks.
At its core, Traitors aims to scrutinise the historical roots of Putin’s rise and to hold accountable those who played a part in that trajectory. By examining the legacies of Russia’s post-Soviet elite, the series underscores the lasting impact of the Yeltsin era on contemporary Russian politics. Yet, the varied reactions from opposition figures demonstrate the complexity of forging unity within a movement composed of individuals with divergent perspectives on Russia’s past and future.
