Yulia Navalnaya to the EU Parliament: ‘Support Russians resisting the regime, Putin will fall’

Brussels – As repression in Russia escalates, three opposition figures appeal to the EU not to abandon those still resisting. Yulia Navalnaya, widow of Alexei Navalny, Vladimir Kara-Murza, and Ilya Yashin, spoke in the European Parliament, calling for a change of approach in supporting Russia’s democratic forces. These were not merely symbolic statements: the activists presented concrete indications of what they expected from the European institutions.

During the joint session of the European Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee and the Subcommittee on Human Rights this morning (June 5), Navalnaya called on the EU to move beyond the stage of declarations and start tangible support for Russian civil society. In particular, she raised questions about the EUR 5.5 million allocated for Radio Free Europe, an American broadcaster, and asked why there was no similar funding for Russian media in exile. “Russian newspapers that have been operating outside the country for years, speaking to the public in Russian, doing vital work, and barely surviving. Why are they not supported?” she asked, offering a list of newspapers, activists, and specific projects.

According to Navalnaya, there are millions of Russian citizens opposed to the war in Ukraine, but to play a role, they should receive support now. Proposals include keeping the issue of political prisoners visible, offering aid to human rights defenders, supporting technologies such as VPN and free digital spaces, and strengthening connections with those acting within the country. “Small concrete projects are needed, not just big proclamations,” she stressed.

Vladimir Kara-Murza, recently freed after two years in detention, confirmed that there are now over 3,000 political prisoners in Russia, most of them imprisoned for expressing dissent against the war. He called on the EU to put people at the center of the strategy: “When we talk about future negotiations, we mention resources, borders, sanctions. However, prisoners, civilian victims, and deported children must become a priority in the talks.” Kara-Murza also insisted on the need for a clear plan for the period after the current regime: “The mistake of the 1990s was not to fully address the Soviet past. We need a roadmap for the post-Putin period and a plan to support the construction of the rule of law. The democratic transition, if it comes, will be rapid. We must be ready.”

Ilya Yashin, imprisoned for his anti-war stances, reiterated that Europe will not be able to build a Russian democracy in place of the Russians, but it can strengthen their resilience. His primary demand was to directly link support for Ukraine with the backing of Russia’s internal opposition: “Every military success of Putin weakens those in Russia who work for a peaceful and democratic transition.” Yashin also pointed to a passage in a negotiating draft of the Istanbul negotiating summit, where a possible exchange of political prisoners between Russia and Ukraine is mentioned for the first time: “It is a signal that Putin recognizes the existence of political prisoners. It is on this front that the EU should insist.”

Many MEPs expressed emotion, respect, and support. Some, like Michael Gahler of the EPP, recalled that “Russia is not genetically authoritarian” and that another Russia is possible. Others, such as José Sánchez Amor of the Socialists and Democrats Group, warned against the post-war temptation to “leave out the Russian agenda.” The common thread was clear: It is not possible to build Russian democracy from the outside, but without European support, it risks dying. Finally, the proposal emerged to create a structured dialogue between the EU and the Russian democratic opposition in the framework of a future Joint Parliamentary Commission. The aim is to consolidate political and practical support and to prepare for a change that, as the activists mentioned, could come suddenly.