civil society in 2024 Russia: the study
about the project
A strong civil society relies on non-governmental forms of solidarity, the capacity for collective action, and a commitment to humanistic values. These principles underpin modern democracies.
Since the 1990s, independent civil society organizations, volunteer initiatives, human rights groups, and other forms of civic activity have emerged in Russia. They have helped address social issues, supported vulnerable groups, and upheld public interests. Since the early 2000s, and in particular following the adoption of the «foreign agents» law in 2012, independent civil society organizations have faced increasing pressure from the authorities.
The full-scale invasion of Ukraine dramatically reshaped the work of independent civil society organizations in Russia. Many have faced repression, forced emigration, and financial difficulties; those who remain work under conditions of constant risk and atomization.
Even before the war, a «scorched earth» narrative was widespread in academic and public discourse: civil society had been destroyed, it was dead, and activism no longer existed.
To us it is obvious that civil society in Russia is far from dead.
the challenge is to understand its structures under autocracy, war, and political repression, without imposing preconceived notions of what civil society ought to look like.
The full text of our study will be published in the summer of 2025. Here we share the main findings. Please reach out if you wish to discuss our fundings, share your observations, or request data to advocate for funding Russian civil society.
keywords: civil society, solidarity, NGOs, third sector, grassroots initiatives, human rights advocacy, activism
research objectives
-
To study communities and initiatives spanning a broad geography, a variety of activity areas, and different levels of institutionalization, focusing on:
-
New challenges and risks under conditions of war and repression
-
Successful and unsuccessful practices
-
Adaptation and innovation strategies
-
Current demands and needs
-
Criteria for viability and resilience
-
-
To develop recommendations for supporting civil society as a whole and for the initiatives themselves.
-
To produce a forecast of possible scenarios for civil society development during 2025.
We aim to disseminate our findings about the Russian civil society internationally to support the development of effective policy and funding strategies.
key findings
We conceptualize civil society as a «rhizome» — a branching network of independent actors without a single center or rigid structure. Their connections are chaotic, with initiatives continuously emerging and dissolving.
Due to war, repression, and mass emigration, many initiatives have had to rebuild their teams, change their organizational forms, and restructure strategies and practices. Some projects ceased to exist.
At the same time, there has been a surge in grassroots initiatives, particularly in non-metropolitan regions. People with no prior activist experience are launching projects without legal entities, stable funding, or websites. They frequently operate «under the radar» to remain invisible to the repressive apparatus. Nevertheless, it is clear that there is strong public demand for solidarity-based action.
Initiatives are forced to expend significant effort to comply with constantly shifting legislation, which can distract from their core activities.
Thanks to innovative solutions in finance and digital security, activists continue exchanging knowledge and adapting to new risks. They develop anonymous chatbots, emergency evacuation protocols, distribute VPNs, explore cryptocurrency and ways of circumventing financial risks, learn secure data storage, develop guerrilla communication methods, release guides and manuals, and enable online peer-to-peer consulting.
Among the key achievements of civil society is its ability to adapt and remain active under pressure. In the face of repression, independent initiatives continue their work: either operating anonymously, underground, or relocating abroad. Many restructure into decentralized networks and anonymous cells to enhance security. We also see a democratization of knowledge: more and more free educational resources appear on topics ranging from the basics of human rights to environmental literacy, and these resources are in high demand.
Legal mechanisms are weakened, yet the active struggle to protect collective rights continues: initiatives help vulnerable groups, document violations, advocate at international organizations, and form coalitions.
At the same time, relations with the state are complex and extend beyond straightforward opposition: many organizations are compelled to cooperate with state structures, receive presidential grants, and adapt to new «survival rules».
Funding for the nonprofit sector is increasingly state-centric, and in response, crowdfunding, the commercialization of services, and private donations are on the rise.
Government bodies seek to divide society, destroy horizontal connections, and impose narratives of xenophobia and violence. Consequently, the success of activist organizations today can be measured by collaboration levels and the involvement of new participants. Overcoming atomization and maintaining solidarity become the central challenges for supporting and developing the sector.
theoretical framework and methods
The study is based on:
-
115 in-depth interviews
-
Analysis of 12 online communities using digital ethnography
-
Quantitative analysis of 6,500 online communities with the help of AI
-
Foresight analytics involving 23 experts
When selecting initiatives for interviews, we followed the principle of diversity:
-
Diversity in areas of activity
-
Regional diversity (and focus on non-metropolitan areas—only about 20% of the initiatives we examined are from Moscow or St. Petersburg)
-
Diversity in the form, scale, and age of organizations
These principles, as well as the applied goals and shared values of the donors and the research team, helped us locate, choose, and prioritize interviewees and communities for digital ethnography.
We used the same approach when choosing experts for the foresight analysis. On one hand, we were interested in individuals deeply immersed in Russian civil society—those who have practiced or studied it for many years. On the other hand, we sought specialists who had never specifically worked with the Russian context but could share experience working under authoritarian regimes, in polarized societies, or in the midst of military conflicts.
Many of our respondents are labeled «foreign agents» (14 out of 115) or belong to «undesirable organizations» (3 people, 2 of whom are themselves «foreign agents») under the Russian law. Conversely, we have almost none who actively cooperate with the Russian government or support its official political stance. This sampling choice reflects the applied nature of our research and limited resources.
All the organizations we spoke with operate in Russia and are primarily oriented toward working within the country, even if some of their team members are abroad. Our study excluded initiatives whose target audience consists solely of Russian emigrants. However, we did conduct participant observation at events both inside Russia and abroad, including events that touched on issues pertaining to Russians as well as the Russian-Ukrainian dialogue.
Our starting point for engaging with the concept of «civil society» lies in the monographs and articles of Jeffrey Alexander, a classic authority on conceptualizing the civil sphere (Alexander 1999). Following his approach, we identify signs of partial autonomy from the state, solidarity, and human rights values. These qualities enable people to unite for collective actions and civic engagement, which most often manifests itself in cooperation or joint efforts to improve conditions for civil society (Ekman et al. 2016).
Our foundational tools for investigating grassroots forms of solidarity and patriotism in the Russian context are found in the works of Karin Clément (Clément 2015). By analyzing frames, Clément studies how ordinary, typically non-activist people can change their habits and begin participating in collective actions and activism by laying claim to «third places» (not tied to home or work) and talking to each other about self-organizational experiences that foster solidarity.
Since our main objectives in this project are applied rather than theoretical, we find it especially important to continually refine and supplement our working definitions of concepts, heeding our respondents and aligning theoretical constructs with the specific practices currently prevalent in Russia.
