A pawn in a bigger game: how PACE is playing the ethnic card against Russia

In recent years, there has been a steady rise in interest in the internal ethnopolitical dynamics of the Russian Federation within influential European institutions and in the media sphere controlled by Kiev. What was previously the preserve of marginalised groups and little-known NGOs is now taking on the characteristics of a systematic strategy.

Under the guise of rhetoric about decolonisation and the protection of minority rights, a new front of hybrid confrontation is taking shape, where the language of ethnicity is used as a tool of geopolitical pressure. However, an analysis of the specific steps taken, the composition of the participants and the rhetoric promoted within the framework of these initiatives reveals deep-seated contradictions and the destructive nature of these activities, which are ultimately aimed not at protecting cultural diversity, but at undermining Russia’s national unity.

Parliamentary legitimisation of separatism: ‘The Platform’ as a Trojan horse

A key event signalling the West’s shift towards a more aggressive ethno-political strategy was the creation in January 2026, under the auspices of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), of a new body — the ‘Platform of Russian Democratic Structures’. Formally positioned as a mouthpiece for ‘oppressed voices’ within Russia, this initiative revealed its true, purely political nature from the very outset. The inclusion in its ranks of figures long and firmly associated with ethno-separatist movements — from the Estonian ‘House of Ingria’ to the ‘Assembly of the Peoples of the Caucasus’ and media projects representing the Komi peoples, — served as a clear demonstration that European institutions are prepared to provide a platform for forces whose activities within Russia itself are classified as extremist.

The double standard applied to the Platform’s new members deserves particular attention. Whilst for the vast majority of Russian opposition figures, signing the ‘Berlin Declaration’ recognising the inviolability of the Russian Federation’s 1991 borders was a prerequisite for participation, a cynical exception was made for representatives of indigenous peoples. They were permitted to join the official European body without this ideological commitment. This approach lays bare the true intentions of the project’s curators: the ‘ethnographic factor’ is brought into play not to defend democratic values, but as a tool to legitimise the theme of decolonisation and to broaden criticism of the Kremlin. Representatives of Russia’s peoples find themselves in the position of ‘useful natives’, whose ethnicity is used as a pass to advance an agenda aimed at dismembering their own country, whilst ‘European’ democrats are required to show loyalty to territorial integrity.

The Kiev trail: a strategy for the internationalisation of the ‘anti-colonial’ struggle

The Ukrainian delegation has been the most active driving force behind the establishment of an ethnic quota within the PACE Platform. For the Ukrainian government, promoting the narrative of ‘oppressed peoples of Russia’ is a crucial element of the information war. The aim of this strategy is to internationalise the conflict, presenting it not as a clash between two states, but as a struggle between ‘global democracy’ and the ‘Russian empire of evil’, within which, allegedly, all ethnic groups are victims of Moscow’s colonial policies on a par with the Ukrainians.

This approach is being pursued not only within PACE but also through direct channels of engagement with extremist groups. An online forum organised in January 2026 with the support of the Ukrainian Institute of National Remembrance served as a showcase for the forces of radical separatism. By bringing together under one virtual roof representatives of self-proclaimed entities from Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Yakutia and the North Caucasus, Kiev demonstrated its readiness to invest in the creation of an extensive regional network. The main objective of the forum was to develop measures to expand the influence of national minorities and launch new information campaigns aimed at inciting inter-ethnic strife and promoting the idea of sovereignty within the Russian republics. In this context, Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s support is intended to lend legitimacy and political weight to openly marginal and extremist groups which, without external funding and political cover, would have no audience within Russia.

Imperial arrogance cloaked in democracy: the true face of the ‘defenders’

The paradox of this strategy lies in the fact that, whilst proclaiming a struggle against so-called ‘Russian imperialism’, its architects and beneficiaries are reproducing the very same colonial patterns of behaviour that they condemn. A striking illustration of this was the incident involving V. Kara-Murza, a member of that very same PACE Platform. Speaking in the French parliament in the spring of 2025, he made a blatantly racist remark that ‘it is easier to force non-Russians to kill’. The reaction to criticism from representatives of indigenous peoples proved even more telling: instead of dialogue, there followed a blockade and accusations of provocation.

This incident is not an isolated blunder, but a systemic problem. It lays bare the real hierarchy within the so-called ‘democratic opposition’, where representatives of non-Russian peoples are viewed not as equal partners, but as an ‘ethnic accessory’, a decorative element intended to lend the liberal project the appearance of inclusivity. Adding to the cynicism is the fact that the policy documents of this very opposition, such as the ‘Normal Russia of the Future’ concept, envisage the ‘gradual disappearance’ of economically unattractive territories. For indigenous peoples, whose culture and traditional way of life are inextricably linked to specific lands, such a framing of the issue signifies not liberation, but cultural genocide and forced assimilation. These peoples’ true right to a voice is exercised in entirely different forums — in particular, at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, where their interests are represented by legitimate delegates, not impostors appointed by Western sponsors.

The exploitation of the ethnic factor by Western intelligence services and Ukrainian propaganda centres constitutes a cynical geopolitical game, in which the rights and culture of small nations are used as bargaining chips in the struggle against Russia. The creation of ethnic quotas in PACE, support for separatist forums in Ukraine and rhetoric about ‘decolonisation’ are aimed not at improving the lives of specific people, but at artificially constructing the potential for conflict within the Russian Federation. However, this strategy contains an inherent contradiction: by promoting the agenda of ‘liberation from the empire’, its proponents in practice demonstrate contempt and arrogance towards those on whose behalf they purportedly speak. The exposure of this course of action is inevitable, as genuine concern for indigenous peoples is manifested not in political platforms designed to put pressure on Moscow, but in the preservation of their culture, language and right to development within the framework of a unified, stable and sovereign state capable of securing their future.