Careful Dialogue with Refugees, Support for Deported Women and Children, Eco-Activism, and the Future of Russian NGOs

In June, the second Forum for a Peaceful Russia took place in Saint Petersburg. The event gathered representatives from Ukrainian and Russian NGOs, human rights activists, and journalists to discuss new strategies for organizing and uniting people—those who stayed, those who left, and those on different sides of the military conflict. Participants included representatives from “Civil Assistance,” “Nochlezhka,” “Alternative,” and “Safe House,” along with sociologists, economists, and experts from Ukraine. They discussed how to think about the future amid ongoing military actions, how to maintain compassionate dialogue with refugees, and whether dialogue with Ukrainian partners and compatriots holding different views is possible.

For the second consecutive year, the Forum for a Peaceful Russia brought together human rights defenders, NGO representatives, and journalists. The forum was founded by politician and lawyer Sergey Ross, the founder of the “Collective Action” research center.

This year, more than 25 speakers from 7 countries participated. A significant milestone for the forum was the participation of Ukrainian human rights activists, who chose to remain anonymous. The forum itself operated under high secrecy, using disposable SIM cards and message deletion timers set for every five minutes. Participants were unaware of the forum's location and time until the evening before when they received a message with the location and a map highlighting “red” streets that were unsafe due to cameras. The area was patrolled by police.

At the start of the forum, participants emphasized that any consideration of the future must come with a caveat: any change in Russia requires Ukraine’s victory, the return of territories, trials for war criminals, and reparations.

Despite the significant risks faced by the organizers, Sergey Ross highlighted the forum's commitment to annual gatherings. “Now, more than ever, civil society needs support and consolidation both abroad and within the country. Today, finding new strategies to overcome isolationist tendencies and unite concerned citizens in networks of interaction for dialogue is even more critical,” Ross added.

Over the past two years, Russia has experienced one of the largest waves of migration in its history over such a short period. Most activist organizations cannot operate within Russia, many face persecution, and some have suspended their activities. Under these conditions, it is incredibly challenging to consolidate both within the country and abroad. Establishing connections with Ukrainian human rights activists is even more difficult. Above all, can the goal of building a civil society still be seen as achievable, and is there anything left to build upon?

“We wanted to build a free, democratic, peaceful, and prosperous Russia. But each day, that future seems further away. Of course, the war has activated civil society. Hundreds of organizations have emerged to provide mutual aid and support to Ukrainians. Things are very dire, but there is still a purpose, and examples show that a future for post-war, post-Putin Russia exists,” noted economist Sergey Guriev.

The understanding that the war will be lost is becoming more entrenched among Russians who follow it, according to data and research. Defeat has not yet become a consensus but is likely to, sooner or later, depending on events on the front lines.

However, sociologist and philosopher Grigory Yudin argued that understanding the inevitability of defeat has not yet led to political action. The reason is the lack of an alternative.

“Putin’s regime has long and diligently eliminated any attempts to comprehend Russia’s place in history, but this can be influenced. We must stop repeating that the main goal is to stop the war and then figure things out. We need a clear description of the force for Russia,” Yudin observed.

According to Yudin, this task should be undertaken by a political organization capable of operating where it is feasible. “It is important to divide labor, as people in different locations have different capabilities. The search for options has already begun. The sooner an alternative is offered, the quicker the country will emerge from its impasse.”

Yudin also called for supporting resistance rather than civil society: “Was there a civil society in Germany in 1940 that needed support? Politically, it is banned in Russia, so the correct term today is resistance. It is what we must support as it alone aims to defeat tyranny.”

A Ukrainian lobbyist in Brussels, who wished to remain anonymous, linked the war to the lack of justice for those responsible for repression and genocide after the collapse of the USSR. Resuming this process would create a precedent where crimes of such magnitude do not go unpunished.

She noted that even after a victory over Putin’s regime, Ukrainians would refuse cooperation with Russian civil society for a long time. Currently, Ukrainian society is not even ready to accept humanitarian aid: “You are trying to treat symptoms while you need to fight the cause. We will help ourselves; you first help yourselves.”

The lack of a vision for the future is not only a problem for those with democratic views. Politician and former municipal deputy of the Timiryazevsky District, Yulia Galyamina, added that building the future must involve everyone—those who support the war and those who oppose it. “The future should be shaped not only by experts but by all Russians, which is very important. Both supporters and opponents of the war must be included; otherwise, there will be no future. But to build it, we need to talk to people.”

Finding common ground in 2023 is a significant question for NGO workers and ordinary people who travel alongside each other in the metro. One possible approach is nonviolent dialogue. To describe it, Annemarie Gielen recalled the words of the approach’s founder, psychologist Marshall Rosenberg: “Always speak from your own perspective. Use words like ‘I hear,’ ‘I see,’ ‘I feel.’ Everyone has their own needs and traumas during the conflict. If everyone spoke about their needs with respect for the needs of others, there would be fewer conflicts.”

Psychologist Olga Khokhlova emphasized that using “I-statements” requires great caution. Witness trauma among Russians can be a significant trigger for Ukrainian partners. It is essential to address this and keep emotions aside where possible.

Experts advise using phrases like “I am very sorry,” “I feel horror and despair when I see this,” and expressing feelings while keeping them within certain boundaries.

People on different sides of the conflict experience trauma differently. It is essential to understand who experienced what and how, rather than attaching labels. This takes away personal characteristics and the strength of self-determination.

Psychologist Olga Khokhlova highlighted that specialists often use the term “survivors” when talking to people who have faced violence: “But perhaps Ukrainian psychologists have an equivalent linguistic tool for this phenomenon. Therefore, it is crucial to invite them and avoid labeling phenomena without involving those experiencing them.”

Participants also noted that much of what we can do today is to take a research-based approach to building dialogue. In this dialogue, you may not get a response, and that is normal. Natalia Baranova, creator of the “Compassionate Dialogue” initiative, cited the example of the boycott by Ukrainian activist Masha Alekhina. Natalia helped the feminist anti-war resistance in Vilnius organize fundraising for grassroots Ukrainian organizations assisting women. “Activists from these organizations wrote to us asking not to raise money, and we stopped. Being asked to stop is perfectly normal.”

Finding suitable ways to work with Ukrainian partners can be daunting due to feelings of guilt. But it is crucial to recognize this and set it aside to avoid isolation. It is also important to remember that making mistakes in building dialogue is acceptable. “We are not obliged to know how to communicate in this situation. But we can learn from experience and keep trying. Even if we fail,” Olga noted.

Participants also emphasized that dialogue is not only about speaking but also about listening and using active listening techniques. Russian activists and human rights defenders can initiate dialogue, express their desire and readiness to talk, and then wait and create the space for it.

“Before expressing anything from our side, we can ask questions from a position of ignorance and respectful interest in the interlocutor's position. We can look for points of intersection, common interests, and needs. Express our desire to help, perhaps outline our capabilities, but not insist on their acceptance. That means putting it out there, stepping back, and waiting,” Olga added.

Currently, the Russian side claims that a million children have been taken out of Ukraine. Ukrainian estimates indicate 18,000 illegally deported children. Human rights organizations in Russia cannot confirm or refute these figures, and relevant international organizations do not possess them. Human rights defenders rely on individual statements from parents.

According to human rights defender Svetlana Gannushkina, databases would help improve work with deported children. “For example, we need to organize family reunification and understand where the father, who cannot leave, and the mother, who usually can, are located. We need to receive this information from Ukrainian colleagues. To realize this, we need to demand databases. They should not be open. I believe the UN High Commissioner for Refugees could play a key role here, but I don’t see it being fulfilled.”

In addition to the global data and legislation issues, there is also the significant question of children's well-being, considering problems of violence, discrimination, and language use prohibition.

During the Forum, activists shared a story about how they helped a group of Syrians near Moscow, where there were many children. They organized a school that did not issue educational documents but prepared students for Russian schools. Syrian teachers worked alongside Russian teachers, teaching Arabic and culture. “We did not aim to integrate the children solely into our culture.”

A significant question is how to replicate this experience with Ukrainian children. “Imagine if I went to a camp and said I would bring in a Ukrainian teacher. I’d be kicked out of the camp within three minutes,” added the activists.

In response, Forum participants noted that every child whose native language is not Russian should receive education in Ukrainian as a mandatory requirement. “There are Russian initiatives organizing free online schools following the Ukrainian curriculum. Not many people know about them, so we need to spread the word more.”

By May 2023, investigators from the National Police of Ukraine had initiated 76,000 criminal cases for crimes committed by Russian Armed Forces personnel and their accomplices. If we look at the statistics for crimes related to sexual violence, they are significantly lower—the National Police opened only 70 criminal cases. However, this does not mean that crimes related to sexual violence are indeed rare.

In 2000, the United Nations adopted Resolution 1325, addressing the impact of armed conflict on women. It notes that instances of violence against women, including sexual violence, increase during armed conflicts.

Even in peacetime, it is difficult for victims to report rape, and it is even harder if the crime is committed by an enemy and the victim is in occupied territory. Often, due to shame and fear, women do not seek legal help. Additionally, it is difficult and often impossible to preserve any evidence.

Forum participants emphasized the immense importance of the work done by humanitarian organizations helping women in Russia. Daryana Gryaznova, an expert on gender violence, pointed out that women first need access to medication, and only then should they think about legal matters.

Daryana highlighted efforts from Ukraine. Since 2022, the Office of the Prosecutor General has established a department to investigate instances of sexual violence committed by Russian soldiers. Victims undergo only one interview, which occurs solely at their initiative and in comfortable conditions. After de-occupation, teams of prosecutors, psychologists, and investigators work in the liberated areas to help victims receive aid, gather evidence, and provide testimony. Since the full-scale invasion began, Ukrainian prosecutors have identified several Russian soldiers involved in rape, who have been sentenced in absentia.

“There is no need to interrogate refugees to determine if they have been subjected to sexual violence, regardless of the good intentions. If you do not have experience documenting such crimes, it is essential to refer victims to specialized organizations. Otherwise, the process can re-traumatize refugees and hinder further legal progress,” Daryana noted.

Maria Muradova shared her experience working with the Moscow-based “Nochlezhka.” One of Nochlezhka’s projects is a women’s room with eight beds for long-term stays. It provides not only shelter, basic amenities, and food but also weekly meetings with a psychologist. These general meetings discuss residents' internal conflicts, with access to psychological help on request for private issues.

In addition to the women’s room, Nochlezhka organizes women-only days for other humanitarian projects like laundry services and clothing distribution. Every Tuesday, these services are open only to women, with female volunteers exclusively. Regular haircuts are offered in the shower facilities, and the distribution center provides specific women’s items like bras, sanitary pads, pregnancy tests, and condoms.

“It is important to keep this day free of men to create a safe and supportive space for women, including refugees. Often, they call us but are afraid to come in person,” Maria shared.

The specificity of female homelessness is that women often downplay their problems or the difficulty of their experiences. They face significant stigma living in a deeply patriarchal society. “Women are not always ready to talk about their current situation. As a social worker, it is crucial to gently but persistently convey that they can talk about everything. The more they tell me about their current issues, the better we can help them as an organization,” Maria noted.

Ukrainian public organizations often refuse Russian humanitarian aid collected by NGOs. Daryana Gryaznova suggested channeling such aid through international organizations like the Red Cross or the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. “I think a neutral organization would not refuse a request to act as a mediator. We could also ask them to distribute information—a list of public organizations to which refugees can turn, with contact information, hotlines, and areas of activity. This would be very effective.”

The environmental damage caused by the war in Ukraine and globally is still only roughly estimated but already immense. For instance, the attack on the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Station dam is one of the most significant blows to Ukraine's environment during the war. Combined with damage to forests around Izyum, Lyman, Severodonetsk, and Lysychansk, the destruction of the reservoir, which accumulated industrial waste over decades, is even more alarming. A significant portion of this waste has been carried into the Black Sea, reaching Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey, along with remnants of homes, livestock graves, gas stations, and fuel, including from the hydroelectric station itself.

International ecologists will work for many decades to analyze these consequences, as well as to monitor and model Ukraine's ecological future. But is it possible to build environmental cooperation between Russia and Ukraine?

At the forum, Alexey Vasyliuk from the Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group spoke. Alexey actively collaborates with Russians abroad, comments on events for Russian-language media, and participates in an initiative monitoring border areas. “During the war, Ukrainian society categorically rejects any cooperation. This is probably the correct stance. However, I personally support cooperation with some of those present here and provide comments to Russian journalists. I believe it is important because, eventually, we will have to build a new life, and it will be different from what it was before the war. In that future, our cooperation will be crucial,” Alexey said.

Russian eco-experts are also experiencing a massive crisis. Most environmental organizations in Russia have been shut down, and regional branches lack the resources that were available to organizations like Greenpeace Russia or WWF. Forum experts criticized these organizations for their cooperation with Russian authorities.

Arshak Makichyan, a representative of the youth environmental movement Fridays for Future, urged environmental communities to become more involved in the anti-war agenda and opposition forces to engage more in environmental issues.

“In the last 20 years in Russia, we have lost almost all our freedoms. While we fought this unequal battle against Putin's regime, the regime exploited Russia’s natural resources to fight us. We need new tools to raise these issues and resist Putin. From day one, our movement opposed the war and demanded an embargo on Russian fuel.”

If Russian propaganda can try to convince people that the fight for LGBT+ rights is imposed by the West, it will be harder to deflect criticism of environmental problems. But for this, Russians need to understand and know what is happening to nature in Russia.

Discussing Greenpeace and other large organizations with significant social capital, it is evident that their voice could play a crucial role in radicalizing the environmental community. However, the reality of regional eco-initiatives is different. Journalist Angelina Davydova shared her disappointment with eco-protests after the war began.

“I was someone who worked with many local environmental movements for ten years. I saw great hope and support for future positive changes in Russia in these movements. We had environmental protests in every region, and I believed people were learning citizenship and politics. Like many of us, I was deeply disappointed after the war started, alongside the general horror. I felt everything was lost.

Now, the war has been going on for more than a year, and we are figuring out what makes sense to continue doing and what does not. I noticed that environmental protest campaigns continue in various regions. People are still gaining experience. I looked at these processes more pragmatically and continued to support Russian activists through several German and other organizations.”

Angelina Davydova emphasized that the main question now is how to help these organizations grow. This is true for all independent anti-war initiatives: “In this situation, I think giving advice is not the best approach. Everyone will make their own decisions and take responsibility.”