Hello, this is Timofey Martynenko, an activist of “Vesna”, and I represented our movement at the Free Russia Congress. I returned yesterday and brought back many impressions and thoughts, part of which I would like to share with our supporters.
As you know, “Vesna” is a youth movement, and the average age of its members is about 24 years old. In Russia, my generation has been fighting for years to gain a voice and the ability to share our thoughts and visions for the future, to be heard and understood. After all, the future belongs to us, and we are the ones who will live in the country that will remain after Putin. When I went to the Congress, I thought that this chance would finally come to us.
Unfortunately, the conference turned out to be not a place for dialogue, exchange of experiences, ideas, and resources, and the breaking down of walls between generations, ideologies, and different political actors, but a space with a strict hierarchy, organized in a top-down broadcasting principle, centered on the “golden elite”. Listeners and speakers who were not part of the “elite” played more of a background role than equal participants. It all reminded me more of real Russia, not the alternative Russia the Congress was supposed to represent.
Before the panel for grassroots activist initiatives from Russia (“Feminist Anti-War Resistance”, “Vesna”, “Media Partisans”, “Nitka”, “Black February”, and “Conscious Objectors Movement”), where I spoke, no break was organized, so many listeners missed the first part of the presentation. However, there was time for a break — the day ended with an hour and a half of chess with Kasparov. These were the priorities!
The entire “golden elite” of speakers, except for Konstantin Sonin, left our panel. Alfred Kokh said that he “doesn’t live in Russia” and therefore didn’t see the need to listen to us, though during the previous panel he was asked what to do for people who remained in the country, and he couldn’t come up with an answer. Yevgeny Chichvarkin apologized because he was busy giving interviews (yes, the journalists also left our panel) and advised us to work on marketing to make ourselves better known and to make people want to attend our speeches.
Subsequent talks about the importance of youth and the need to include them in the dialogue only added a layer of cynicism. However, it wasn’t only the voices of young Russian activists that were sidelined in the main agenda of the Congress. Foreign anti-war initiatives were also placed on the second day at 8:30 a.m. in a parallel hall, where there weren’t enough chairs for everyone. On other panels, there were no activists at all, and they were not diverse — gender, age, and ideological composition of speakers was often very limited, the topics were well-worn, and the ideas trivial.
Grassroots initiatives brought with them enormous hands-on experience of “working in the field” with real people who remain in the country and continue to fight despite everything — these people are actually the Russia we must fight for. This experience was gained at the cost of enormous effort, if not suffering, by activists without significant financial, media, and organizational resources. And this experience is essential to understanding the country in all its diversity and changing it. That is why dialogue between generations and political actors is so important, and why our frustration at its absence is so great.
All real communication, exchange of experiences and ideas took place in smoking areas, cafeterias, and private rooms — not at round tables or with the “golden elite”. Between “us” and “them” there seemed to be a wall of indifference, and the space for dialogue simply didn’t exist. And this is a great loss, first and foremost, for the Congress, its organizers, and the main speakers. I am confident that the projects and thoughts of activists from grassroots Russian initiatives would have enriched their rather limited understanding of the country and what is happening in it right now.
Undoubtedly, the panels allocated for grassroots Russian and foreign anti-war initiatives were already a big step forward. However, elitism and disregard were evident even in the smallest organizational details of the Congress, and these are the issues that need to be discussed and resolved if we truly want to create a platform based on equality and mutual respect for building bridges, tearing down walls, and preparing for truly democratic changes in Russia — from the people and for the people.
It’s worth noting, however, that the activists from grassroots initiatives performed brilliantly. A huge thank you to Natasha Baranova from the “Social Technology Greenhouse” who moderated the panel. A huge thank you to the grateful audience. Thanks to the speakers who were with me on the panel. I know how much effort our work takes, how often it seems hopeless, and how lonely we can sometimes feel in it, and therefore I have enormous gratitude, respect, and admiration for you.
Thanks also to those projects, movements, and initiatives that were not represented (at least as speakers) at the congress but who support us with words and deeds and fight alongside us for a better Russia: “Eighth Initiative Group”, “Conscription School”, “Call to Conscience”, “First Department”, “OVD-Info”, “Ark”, “Wake Up”, “Soft Power”, and many others. The future belongs to us!
It will be great if the organizers take constructive criticism into account and work to improve the Congress, develop new formats for its work, including making it more inclusive and horizontal, and expand the opportunities and space for dialogue. We will all win from this, as will the future free and democratic Russia!
