A growing chorus is emerging that questions the designation of Vladimir Putin as the legitimate president of Russia ahead of the planned presidential elections next March. Various voices from civil society opposing the war in Ukraine, along with segments of the Russian political elite abroad, are signaling a shift in how the leadership is perceived. The sentiment is echoed by advocates of a more global approach to dialogue, aimed at isolating the Kremlin while seeking support from European and American allies to press for change in Moscow.
The initiative originates with a coalition called the Free Russians Association. This group gathers Russians who oppose the Putin regime from bases across Europe, including Spain, and it has been joined by several other organizations. The campaign is built around a detailed list of arguments against recognizing Putin as the legitimate president, drawing on a resolution linked to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and published last autumn. The document highlights a pattern of election irregularities, the imprisonment or harm of political opponents, and restrictions on independent media. It also points to elections held in territories taken from Ukraine as a result of the war, reports of voter intimidation, and methods such as pressure on voters, manipulation of rolls, and the closing of observer bodies. The campaign emphasizes international concerns about potential war crimes at the level of the International Criminal Court.
Interviews with Western observers describe Putin as a figure who is often portrayed in the West as a terrorist by some, yet still recognized as the legitimate president within the Russian system. Anastasia Shevchenko, a member of the Russian Anti-War Committee, notes the paradox: the state awards an appearance of legitimacy both inside the country and abroad, presenting a narrative that remains accepted by many voters. She emphasizes that the effort to deny Putin legitimacy is intended to illustrate that the prevailing reality is not universal truth, a point she considers essential to shift public perception.
“With a big ego”
Putin is described as a person with a significant ego, a dynamic that shapes his understanding of power. Shevchenko explains that projecting an image of being the legitimate, legal, and chosen leader is crucial for maintaining control, even as public opinion within Russia reveals substantial support for the president. The dissonance between stated legitimacy and everyday reality remains a focal point for critics, who argue that popular sentiment has not always aligned with official narratives.
According to circulating documents, Russian rivals advocate a strategy of breaking contact with Putin and insisting on stricter terms for any negotiations. They propose two warnings: a final chance for peace talks or a separate humanitarian dialogue. Shevchenko believes that such a stance could help demonstrate that Putin does not embody Russia as a whole, opening space for opposition voices within Russian society and among elites who oppose the war. The aim is to create openings for European and other international actors to influence factional dynamics and encourage dialogue away from regime-centered messaging.
More than 6,000 people have signed the declaration prepared with input from Russian lawyers and international law experts. The document has gained traction across languages and has earned expressions of support from leading opponents of Putin and notable figures in the arts world, including those from contemporary music and culture. The most powerful signatories, however, are residents of Russia itself, spanning cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg, who express hope for change from within the country.