In October 2024, the anti-war psychological assistance project Without Prejudice began its study with the goal of understanding what people living in Russia feel and think after more than 2.5 years of the war.

What is the essence of the study and why can it be trusted?

The study consisted of in-depth interviews with each respondent. Each respondent answered three blocks of questions:

At the same time, the respondent could avoid the given topics and share any experiences. This allowed us to draw up the most complete picture. Those who found it difficult to answer some of the interview questions were asked to return with answers at a time convenient for them. Corrections were made to their questionnaires within two weeks.

The project began its work from the first days of the war and was the first to openly state that it was necessary to provide psychological assistance to Russian citizens, and not just Ukrainians.

Throughout the war, the project has been providing free crisis assistance, avoiding condemning Russians in the most unbearable and emotionally difficult periods (such as Navalny’s death, mobilization, and others). Thus, we earned the trust of the respondents, which let them speak openly, with no fear of expressing their true feelings and emotions during the interview.

The project has always existed autonomously and is not financially dependent on grantors or opposition forces. This gives us the opportunity to explore topics that are of interest to the project team and that bring real help to the society.

105 respondents participated in the study:

📌 95 people from the Russian Federation and 10 outside it;

📌 17 men and 88 women.

Participants' ages range from 18 to 67 years. The approximate average age of the respondents was 40 years.

These are the most ordinary citizens of the Russian Federation, often without significant political activity before the war. They all have different economic status and different spheres of activity (teachers, managers, translators, designers, freelancers, doctors, unemployed and housewives). Many of the respondents work for government agencies.

Most participants expressed fatigue and disengagement from politics, and some mentioned that they had not previously supported the protests or were not at all interested in the opposition.

88 out of 105 respondents (approximately 84%) described their current state as severe, depressed or depressive.

It is important to note that for 33% (34 out of 105 respondents) emotional exhaustion reached such a level that the desire to end the war at any cost came to the fore.

At the same time, 28 respondents mentioned that their condition had improved over the past 2.5 years due to adaptation, therapy or a change in circumstances (emigration). This is approximately 27% of the total number of participants.

Many respondents, even those who have not yet emigrated, are considering the possibility of leaving, linking their future with "red lines"—events or conditions that will force them to leave the country.

The main reasons for thinking about emigration:
— Fear for the future;
— Deterioration of the socio-political situation;
— Caring for children.

War changes the internal world, transforms the perception of life, values and attitudes of respondents. Although people adapt to new realities, it is emotionally difficult for them to re-evaluate their beliefs.

Here are a few key points that highlight the changes:

At the beginning of the study of the mental state of respondents, our team did not fully understand the scale of the psychological crisis, which affects even those who were previously apolitical.

During the war, 2 aspects turned out to be the most destructive to the people’s psyche:

The majority of respondents are extremely pessimistic and focused on short-term prospects and survival. Only a small part of respondents hope for positive changes in Russia.

Yes, I followed the opposition as a phenomenon, but without reference to specific leaders — 63 respondents (60%)

Did not follow the opposition — 42 respondents (40%)

Positive attitude, but without faith in success — 32%

Positive attitude and faith in change – 12%

Skeptical attitude – 16%

Yes, they do follow the opposition — 47%.

No, they do not follow the opposition — 53%.

Disappointment in the opposition as a phenomenon (47%)

Fatigue and emotional burnout (30%)

Lack of influence and practical results (18%)

Aggressive rhetoric and conflicts (5%)

— Many respondents noted that the opposition is too disunited, and a new leader could become a unifying figure;

— The need for a leader who represents the interests of "ordinary people" and understands the real needs of society;

— Disappointment in current leaders and their ability to unite the people.

A significant part of the opposition is located outside of Russia, which creates a feeling of their isolation from the everyday realities of people living inside the country.

Respondents often emphasize that opposition figures abroad cannot understand and effectively respond to the current problems of Russians.

The opposition is perceived as focused on ideological debates and abstract ideas rather than practical actions.

Many respondents note that the opposition is not familiar enough with the real needs of "ordinary people".

Some respondents are disappointed in the opposition due to internal conflicts and the lack of a unified agenda.

Mistrust is exacerbated by the fact that many opposition leaders do not demonstrate closeness to the people and do not offer solutions that would be perceived as real and achievable.

Some respondents note that the current opposition is more appealing to liberal-minded citizens, ignoring the interests of the more conservative or neutral part of the population.

Some respondents point out that the opposition uses rhetoric that places collective responsibility on all Russian citizens, which causes rejection. Respondents feel unfairly accused, even though they do not support the war or the government.

Respondents who want to see a female leader most often mention the following qualities:


— Less prone to violence
— Rational approach
— Understanding of family and social values

Populism (32%)

Opposition leaders who use loud but empty statements cause mistrust. Populism is perceived as manipulation without real action.

* The silent majority are people who do not participate in active political processes and avoid openly expressing their opinions, but experience internal doubts and disappointment.

Elitism and detachment from the people (24%)

Opposition leaders who seem to be far from the real life of "ordinary people"

Aggressiveness and authoritarian methods (18%)

Lies and lack of sincerity (16%)

Lack of a clear strategy and action plan (10%)

Clear language and ease of communication (25%)

Honesty, moral stability and trust (20%)

The leader’s honesty, the absence of "skeletons in the closet" and openness are the most important qualities. Respondents note that after many years of deception, trust will be difficult to gain.

Empathy and respect for people (15%)

The leader must understand the problems of ordinary people, empathize with them and respect their choice.

Hope and vision of the future (10%)