How the West tries to justify Russian society

Again? Yes, again! Yet another effort to justify russian society and persuade the world that “things aren’t so clear-cut.”
The prestigious American magazine The New Yorker recently published an article titled “Do russians Really Support the War in Ukraine?” . In it, the author examines a study conducted by the russian Public Sociology Laboratory (PS Lab), which claims that most russians are not “strong supporters of the war” and that their opinions are “more complex” than they may appear.
What is the article about?
Western audiences have long shown interest in decoding the so-called “mysterious russian soul,” and this article represents yet another attempt to explore the nuances of russian society. The piece draws on three studies by PS Lab that reportedly contradict official statistics on attitudes toward the war. For example, a survey by the russian analytical group Levada Center suggests that 77% of russians support the war. However, The New Yorker questions the reliability of such data, arguing that many russians may withhold their true views out of fear of harassment or imprisonment.
PS Lab reached its conclusions through a series of surveys conducted in the aftermath of russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The initial survey consisted of 30 interviews, during which a sociologist involved in transcribing the interviews, notes that although russian television portrayed widespread support for the war, interview participants “were shocked by the war and expressed disbelief and sadness.” The sociologist remarked that such responses made her “feel better” because they reflected “the image of russians she recognized: individuals deeply concerned with morality and ethics but largely disengaged from politics.”
The second wave of interviews took place after the mobilization in russia, and the third was conducted during the summer and fall of 2023. The New Yorker focuses in detail on the final phase. To gather data, three sociologists from PS Lab traveled to different regions of russia, including a town in the Urals, Buryatia, and Krasnodar Kray. Over the course of a month, they spoke with locals without revealing that they were conducting sociological research.
The article creates an atmosphere of danger, emphasizing that the women researchers worked “undercover.” It also emphasizes the risks that they faced, such as in Krasnodar, where a respondent, reacting to the interviewer’s comment that “Putin started a war,” threatened to call individuals who would “tear you apart for Putin.”
The inclusion of Buryatia as a study region is particularly significant. The region is often associated with high casualties among soldiers killed in the war, and in Ukraine, the term “Buryat” has become synonymous with war criminals. One of the sociologist researchers volunteered at a centre in Buryatia where camouflage nets were being woven. During a conversation about the choice of colours for the nets, the sociologist suddenly concludes that she is actually looking at “the civil society that many russians have hoped for.” However, she has enough brains to note that this “society” is producing camouflage nets for russian snipers to more effectively kill Ukrainians.
The PS Lab report claims that only 10-15% of russians strongly support the war, while an equal percentage strongly oppose it. The majority remain undecided or take a “neutral” position. The report attributes this stance to fear, helplessness, and a lack of faith in democratic change, etc., effectively shifting the focus from the actual crimes of the russian state and its citizens to a narrative of sympathy, portraying these individuals as “victims” themselves.
In fact, the article concludes by exploring the theme of russians as “victims of the regime.” It recounts how the research affected the sociologists’ own perceptions of russian society. For one researcher, two years of interviews significantly worsened her attitude. Another found her work in Buryatia “emotionally difficult,” particularly because her own parents support the war. Conversations with “friendly women” weaving nets for russian snipers led her to reflect on the “nature of evil.” The third sociologist described encountering people “full of confusion, fear, and anger.”
When asked about war crimes, many respondents initially recoiled and became defensive. However, the sociologist reportedly reframed the discussion, portraying them as “victims” not of Ukraine, but of their own government, “which sent their sons and husbands to their deaths.” The author of the article concludes that these conversations with the researchers prompted some russians to question the meaning of the war. However, these doubts have not translated into any active opposition, as, according to the study, they are “not ready for it yet.”
The audience for this study is not difficult to identify. All three reports were translated into English, with the first even published as a book in 2022, clearly targeting Western readership.
Who is the author?
The author of The New Yorker article, Keith Gessen, is a journalist and writer who has long resided in the United States but was born in Moscow, where he was originally named Konstantin. He is the brother of journalist Masha Gessen, who uses the pronoun “they” and is also known for writing for The New Yorker, often criticizing Putin. Both position themselves as supporters of democracy and human rights. However, this is not the first time Keith Gessen has been in the spotlight for his ambiguous stance on Ukraine.
You may remember that in May 2023, we wrote about the controversy during the World Voices festival organized by PEN America in New York. Ukrainian writers Artem Chekh, Artem Chapai, and filmmaker Iryna Tsilyk had been invited to a panel discussing their experiences as writers turned soldiers. Upon their arrival in New York, they discovered that the organizers had added a session featuring russian writers to the program, which was to be moderated by Masha Gessen.
The Ukrainian participants refused to attend the festival if russian representatives were included in the program. In response, the organizers proposed moving the russian panel outside the official program. However, Masha Gessen refused this compromise, leading to the cancellation of the event. The Ukrainian panel proceeded as planned. After the festival, The Atlantic reported that the Hessens had resigned from PEN America in protest, accusing the “cruel” Ukrainian writers of “blackmail.”
In February 2024, Masha Gessen authored an article for The New Yorker titled “Ukrainian Democracy in Darkness,” where they described stalled reforms, the suspension of democratic institutions, and persistent corruption in Ukraine. Did this instructive text find a place to discuss the cause of these challenges? Of course not. The article made no mention of the impact of russian aggression on these challenges. This omission sparked outrage among Ukrainians, as it implied that Ukraine was solely to blame for its difficulties. Critics found it ironic that representatives of a country that has failed to establish democratic institutions at home were attempting to lecture Ukraine on democracy during wartime.
The Hessens’ articles, along with similar publications in influential Western outlets, are increasingly viewed as tools for advancing narratives that portray russian society as a victim rather than as complicit in the crimes of the regime. This framing minimizes russian responsibility for the war and fosters the false impression that russians are passive sufferers.
Yale historian Timothy Snyder has explained their behaviour characteristic of an imperial mindset, where those with power dehumanize actual victims while claiming victimhood for themselves
Prepared by Aliona Malichenko.