3 October 2025
by Sergei Davidis
Source: Facebook
This week, I happened to be in Strasbourg, where I witnessed the debates on the draft resolution titled ‘Russian Democratic Forces’ and its adoption by a vote of PACE [Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe] delegates.
This resolution establishes a ‘Platform for Dialogue with Russian Democratic Forces,’ which is being referred to as the ‘delegation’ of Russian democratic forces to PACE.
PACE is one of the most influential international institutions. As far as I understand its purpose, it primarily serves as a platform for dialogue and cooperation concerning the adherence of member states to human rights, democratic standards, and other obligations arising from European conventions. For example, it was PACE that in 2012 officially defined the concept of a ‘political prisoner’ for the first time.
It seems obvious to me that even the formal inclusion in this dialogue of Russians, who oppose the war and the dictatorship, is both important and valuable.
On the one hand, it demonstrates to Russian supporters of democracy and human rights, to opponents of the war and the authoritarian regime, that Europe is not turning its back on Russians, and does not view them all as enemies or second-class citizens. This decision simultaneously rejects the sometimes borderline racist rhetoric of radicals and disproves the Kremlin’s propaganda narratives that portray Europe as hostile to all Russians.
On the other hand, this PACE decision effectively establishes a new, alternative agency for Russia, at least on a symbolic level, breaking the monopoly of Putin and his henchmen on representing the citizens of our country. It shatters the propaganda myth that equates the Kremlin regime with the entire Russian population.
This alone is reason enough to express gratitude both to the PACE delegates and to everyone who, over the past three-plus years, has engaged with them and advocated for the necessity and importance of Russian representation.
But of course, beyond its symbolic value, the adopted resolution also has practical significance. The creation of a ‘platform for dialogue’ with Russian democratic forces within PACE establishes an official channel of communication – both from Russians to European countries and vice versa.
However, if the symbolic importance of the decision derives from the very fact of its adoption, then its practical value will depend on how it is implemented going forward. Leaks published on the eve of the resolution’s adoption suggest plans for a very one-sided configuration of the delegation – consisting almost exclusively of individuals identifying themselves as ‘politicians,’ primarily those affiliated in some way with the Anti-War Committee. Moreover, human rights activists who were initially involved in discussions about the planned structure were, as far as is known, later excluded from such communication. With all due respect to the members of the Anti-War Committee and other ‘politicians’, such a structure seems highly questionable.
In order for the dialogue between PACE and Russian civil society to be meaningful and effective, it is critically important that the composition of the delegation representing Russian democratic forces be as diverse and representative as possible. This applies both to the inclusion of various – and at times mutually antagonistic – so-called ‘political’ groups (I use quotation marks because, in the absence of elections or any effective mechanisms in the competition for power, a ‘politician’ is primarily just a form of self-presentation and self-identification by a certain segment of civil society), and to the inclusion of other parts of this civil society – independent media, human rights defenders, civic initiatives, and movements that do not identify themselves as political. Holding elections for a body without any real authority, conducted by an undefined electorate, and under the threat of large-scale hostile interference, seems both futile and impractical. This makes it all the more important for the process of forming the delegation to be as transparent and inclusive as possible.
The resolution itself, which establishes the representation of Russian democratic forces, stipulates rather a significant number of requirements for potential members of the delegation, and outlines certain approaches for its formation.
In particular, these members must share the values of the Council of Europe, recognize the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, as well as Georgia, Moldova, and Belarus, have experience in publicly opposing the totalitarian Russian regime and fighting for its transition to democracy, must not deny international crimes committed by Russian entities, and must explicitly condemn them, as well as support international accountability mechanisms for such crimes. They must also not hold positions in Russian state institutions or receive funding from the Russian state.
A third of the seats in the delegation will be reserved for representatives of indigenous peoples and national minorities.
Unfortunately, among these requirements is a peculiar one: to be a signatory of the Berlin Declaration. Moreover, for some reason, this requirement does not extend only to those who take up arms to defend Ukraine, but also to representatives of indigenous peoples and national minorities.
Importantly, this declaration adds little to what is already stated in the PACE resolution regarding candidate requirements, and linking the opportunity to represent Russian democratic forces to the signing of a manifesto issued by one of the many groups within those forces is difficult to justify. My criticisms of the Berlin Declaration are mostly stylistic – its key substantive points are fairly obvious and uncontroversial. But equating support for Ukraine, condemnation of aggression and dictatorship, etc., with the endorsement of a specific statement made by one particular group within the Russian opposition is entirely unfounded.
Moreover, such a requirement is divisive rather than unifying. This is partly due to how, and under what circumstances – entirely at odds with the importance now being ascribed to it – the declaration was adopted. Important documents, especially those aspiring to be manifestos representing the views of an indefinite number of people, are not prepared or adopted in such a way. Even more divisive is the perception that signing the declaration amounts to pledging allegiance to the Anti-War Committee and thus delegating to it some kind of representative authority on behalf of the signatories.
I personally signed the declaration, albeit with reservations, because I considered its substantive points more important. But I fully understand those who choose not to sign it, seeing this kind of self-appointed certification of their civic position as degrading or insulting.
Another strange aspect of the resolution is a clearly unworkable requirement – if taken literally – that the list of potential candidates be submitted to the President of PACE by a joint decision of Russian democratic organizations whose members meet the criteria outlined in the resolution. One can only hope that this requirement will not be interpreted literally, because if it is, the very idea of forming a delegation would have to be abandoned right from the start.
In any case, PACE now has approximately two months to develop concrete mechanisms for establishing the delegation and to approve the number of delegates, the composition of which should ideally be finalized by January. As far as one can tell, this composition is expected to remain in place for a year. However, after a year, PACE bodies will review the implementation of the decision and the functioning of its mechanisms, and revise them if necessary.
Much about the structure of the representation of Russian democratic forces in PACE remains unclear; many aspects will likely remain vague and be left to the discretion of PACE bodies – but this is inevitable. The structure being created is, in a sense, an adjunct – an afterthought not envisioned in the original, detailed plan set out in international treaties.
In any case, for the dialogue platform established on 1 October in Strasbourg to become a truly effective mechanism, one that genuinely ensures the representation of democratic, anti-war Russians, as many groups and organizations as possible that make up the Russian democratic forces need to engage in communication with PACE.
Translated by Annabel Pedgley
