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

The research is based on in-depth interviews with each respondent. Each respondent answered three sets of questions:

At the same time, respondents could deviate from the given topics and share any experiences, which allowed for a more comprehensive understanding Those who had difficulty answering some of the interview questions were invited to return at a time that was more convenient for them. Changes to their answers were made over the course of two weeks.

The project began its work in the early days of the war and was the first to openly advocate for providing psychological assistance to Russian citizens, and not only Ukrainians.

Throughout the war, the project has been providing free crisis support, refraining from 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, enabling them to speak openly, with no fear of expressing their true feelings and emotions during interviews.

The project has always operated 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 bring genuine benefit to society.

A total of 105 respondents participated in the research:

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

📌 17 men and 88 women.

Participants' ages range from 18 to 67 years, with an approximate average age of 40.

These are the most ordinary citizens of the Russian Federation, often without significant political activity before the war. They come from diverse economic backgrounds and fields of activity (teachers, managers, translators, designers, freelancers, doctors, unemployed individuals, and housewives). Many of the respondents work for government agencies.

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

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 forefront.

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 accounts for approximately 27% of all participants.

Many respondents, even those who have not yet emigrated, are considering the possibility of leaving. They tie their future to "red lines" - specific events or conditions that will compel them to leave the country.

The main reasons for considering emigration:
— Fear for the future;
— Deteriorating socio-political situation;
— Concern for children.

War changes the respondents' inner worlds, transforms their perception of life, values, and attitudes. Although people adapt to new realities, emotionally it remains difficult to re-evaluate their beliefs.

Here are a few key points that highlight the changes:

At the beginning of our research into the mental state of respondents, our team did not fully grasp the scale of the psychological crisis, which affects even those who used to be apolitical.

During the war, two aspects proved most destructive to the people’s psyches:

The majority of respondents are highly pessimistic;concerned with short-term prospects and survival. Only a fraction of respondents holds out hope for positive changes in Russia.

Yes, I kept track of the opposition as a phenomenon, but withoutfocusing on 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 with 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 with current leaders and their inability to unite the people.

A significant part of the opposition is located outside of Russia and it makes a sense of their disconnection 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 with the opposition due to internal conflicts and the lack of a unified agenda.

The distrust is further 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 parts of the population.

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

The qualities they most often associate with a female leader include:

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

Populism (32%)

Opposition leaders who use loud yet empty rhetoric breed distrust. Populism is perceived as manipulation without real action.

* The silent majority refers to people who avoid active political involvement and are reluctant to express opinions but experience internal doubts and disappointment.

Elitism and detachment from the people (24%)

Opposition leaders are perceived as being disconnected 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 choices.

Hope and vision of the future (10%)