Meduza breaks down the debate over Europe’s new platform for dialogue with Russian anti-war, pro-democracy forces
On January 26, the Council of Europe announced that it had approved the list of participants in its new Platform for Dialogue with Russian Democratic Forces. European lawmakers describe the initiative, which was created to engage anti-war opposition figures, as a way to support democratic change in Russia and contribute to a just peace in Ukraine. But while supporters hope the platform could help defend the interests of anti-war Russians internationally, critics argue it will merely project an image of the Russian opposition convenient to the West without having any real impact. Meduza explains how the platform came about, who will be part of it, and what Russian opposition figures hope it can achieve.
Why PACE created the platform — and how it’s supposed to work
In October 2025, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) decided to create a new platform for engaging with Russians who oppose the war in Ukraine. European lawmakers said the initiative was meant to strengthen Russia’s democratic forces to “bring about sustainable democratic change in Russia and help achieve a lasting and just peace in Ukraine.”
PACE is a consultative body that brings together parliamentarians from E.U. member states and neighboring European countries, including Turkey, Serbia, and Armenia. Russia was represented there until February 24, 2022, when its participation was suspended following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. (Russia had previously been stripped of its PACE delegation after the annexation of Crimea in 2014, before being allowed to return in 2019.)
You’re currently reading Meduza, the world’s largest independent Russian news outlet. Every day, we bring you essential coverage from Russia and beyond. Explore our reporting here and follow us wherever you get your news.
The idea of a Russian anti-war platform emerged after lengthy talks that began in 2022. Four opposition groups took part in the discussions with PACE officials: the Anti-Corruption Foundation (founded by the late opposition leader Alexey Navalny), the Free Russia Foundation, the Russian Anti-War Committee, and the Free Russia Forum.
In December, however, the Anti-Corruption Foundation announced that it would no longer participate, arguing that the platform’s formation violated “basic democratic principles.” In a statement, the group criticized the closed selection process, which relies on applications submitted to a generic email address; ideological and symbolic requirements imposed from outside; and rules that, it argued, favor some opposition groups over others.
Under the PACE resolution, members of the Russian platform will not be elected. Instead, they will be appointed by senior PACE officials. The document lays out 15 eligibility criteria, requiring candidates to be public figures who oppose “the totalitarian and neo-imperialistic Russian regime,” who have not held government posts since 2014 or received state funding, and who recognize the territorial integrity of Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova. Candidates must also acknowledge war crimes committed by the Russian army in Ukraine and sign the “Declaration of Russia’s Democratic Forces.”
Applicants had until January 5, 2026, to submit a short statement, a biography, and a questionnaire via PACE’s secure email system. Endorsements from Europe-recognized anti-war organizations were optional but considered an advantage. Candidates could apply independently or be nominated by opposition groups. The platform’s membership will be renewed annually.
In practice, the closest precedent is PACE’s Belarusian platform, created in 2020 and led by opposition figure Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya. That group has no voting rights but serves as a civil society delegation, advocating for Belarusian political exiles in Europe. The key difference, however, is that PACE recognizes Tsikhanouskaya as the leader of Belarus’s democratic forces following the 2020 presidential election — a unifying figure Russia’s fragmented opposition lacks.
Which candidates were selected for the platform?
On January 26, PACE announced the members of the platform. The approved lineup consists of 10 representatives of Russian “democratic forces” and five representatives of Russia’s Indigenous peoples:
- Natalia Arno, the head of the Free Russia Foundation;
- Dmitry Gudkov, an opposition politician;
- Mark Feygin, a human rights lawyer and former State Duma deputy;
- Vladimir Kara-Murza, an opposition politician;
- Garry Kasparov, an opposition politician and former World Chess Champion;
- Mikhail Khodorkovsky, an exiled former oligarch turned opposition figure;
- Oleg Orlov, co-founder of the human rights organization Memorial;
- Andrey Volna, a trauma surgeon who left Russia over his anti-war stance;
- Lyubov Sobol, a former Anti-Corruption Foundation employee;
- Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, an activist and member of Pussy Riot;
- Ruslan Kutaev, a Chechen human rights activist;
- Ekaterina Kuznetsova, an artist and the director of House of Ingria;
- Vasily (Batlay) Matenov, founder of the Asians of Russia project;
- Lana Pylaeva, the head of the independent regional outlet Komi Daily;
- Pavel Sulyandziga, an Indigenous rights advocate.
According to Echo, the platform will be chaired by PACE President Theodoros Rousopoulos and will also include the chairs of the assembly’s political groups and several special rapporteurs.
What supporters hope the platform can do
Before PACE formally announced the members of the new platform, Meduza spoke with several Russian opposition figures who had applied to take part. Most agreed on one core point: even without voting rights or formal standing in PACE, the platform would help formalize ties between Russia’s anti-war opposition and European institutions.
However, Ekaterina Schulmann acknowledged the platform’s limitations. Its members, she said, cannot claim to represent Russians at large, because there is no legitimate way to elect such representatives in exile. “Of course it would be better if someone represented at least someone,” Schulmann said. “But we can’t hold elections — not in person, not online. So the question of whom platform members represent has a simple answer: themselves. These are people trusted, for one reason or another, by PACE’s leadership — people the assembly is willing to listen to. That’s the modest resource we have.”
Dmitry Gudkov agreed. An officially recognized European platform, he said, creates practical access. “It lets you speak directly with lawmakers and ministers,” Gudkov explained, pointing to Germany’s stalled humanitarian visa system for Russians. PACE cannot order national governments to act, he said, but it can convene meetings with interior ministers and parliamentary committees. “That’s what this platform is for — to sit down, talk, and figure out how problems can actually be solved.”
Laying out his own priorities for the platform, Vladimir Kara-Murza said he would first focus on Russian political prisoners — whom he called “the concentrated conscience of society” and “the best people in Russia.” Their names and cases, he argued, must be kept in the international spotlight.
His second priority is improving the European Union’s sanctions regime — both tightening enforcement against Russia’s war effort and addressing what he sees as discriminatory practices against ordinary Russians abroad. Kara-Murza criticized blanket travel bans and visa restrictions based solely on citizenship. “In the 21st century, that approach is unacceptable,” he said.
Beyond that, Kara-Murza hopes the platform can lay the groundwork for transitional justice in a post-Putin Russia, including support for the recently established “Tribunal for Putin,” which aims to document Russian war crimes in Ukraine. He also sees a role for what he calls “civic diplomacy”: representing Russians who don’t want Kremlin officials speaking for them on the world stage.
Finally, Kara-Murza said the platform could become a space to prepare for democratic transition. Authoritarian regimes, he noted, often collapse suddenly. “The responsibility of democratic forces is to be prepared for the window of opportunity,” he said.
Activist Darya Serenko, founder of the Feminist Anti-War Resistance, said participation would allow her to push for concrete protections for victims of domestic violence fleeing Russia — including asylum mechanisms, particularly for women from the North Caucasus. She also stressed the need to support Ukrainian and Russian human rights groups investigating war crimes against women and to advocate for the inclusion of women political prisoners in any future prisoner exchanges.
Applicants from Russia’s regions and national minorities emphasized representation. In a Facebook post, Chuvash politician and former regional Navalny organizer Semyon Kochkin wrote that he does not speak for Moscow — and never has. “For too long, Russia has been ‘represented’ by people from the center,” he said. “That’s why the regions are neither heard nor understood.”
Why some remain skeptical
The platform has drawn the least enthusiasm from opposition politicians who remain inside Russia. One former municipal deputy and Moscow opposition figure, who still lives and works in the country, told Meduza he sees the PACE initiative as “some kind of useless bullshit” and said he can’t understand how it would meaningfully help Russians.
Another well-known opposition politician, speaking on condition of anonymity, said he hadn’t been following the initiative at all. A third, who also requested anonymity, said that while the platform might be useful in some ways for Russians living abroad, it would have no real impact on events inside Russia.
“Europe lost all leverage over Putin a long time ago,” he argued. “It was Europe that expelled Russia’s representatives from PACE. If an official Russian delegation were still there, at least there could be some kind of dialogue. But dialogue between Europeans and the opposition — how is that supposed to change anything in Russia? Change will happen inside Russia, not abroad.”
A fourth opposition figure still working in Russia agreed, saying it was obvious that “to do something for Russia, you need to be in Russia.”
Some opposition figures abroad also doubt the platform will improve the lives of anti-war Russians. Political analyst Ivan Preobrazhensky, a member of the Free Russia Foundation who did not apply to PACE, suggested the platform risks becoming more about personal visibility for the figures involved than practical help.
Former St. Petersburg municipal deputy Vitaly Bovar, who also did not apply, questioned whether the platform could be effective at all. In Bovar’s view, it risks creating a false impression for European counterparts that its members have direct access to, or legitimacy within, Russian civil society. “Even the people involved understand that they don’t represent anyone,” he said. “I think creating that illusion of representation is harmful.”
The Kremlin, for its part, reacted sharply to the new platform before it was even finalized. Back in October, the Russian authorities opened criminal cases against opposition figure Mikhail Khodorkovsky and 22 members of the Russian Anti-War Committee, the group most actively involved in shaping the PACE initiative. Investigators accused them of forming a “terrorist community” and attempting a “violent seizure of power.”
Russian investigators claimed that Khodorkovsky, along with political scientist Ekaterina Schulmann, opposition politician Vladimir Kara-Murza, philanthropist Boris Zimin, and others, were engaged in “activities aimed at violently overthrowing [Russia’s] political system.” As “evidence,” they cited the creation of alternative opposition structures — including cooperation with PACE and other Western institutions.
