Authors

Discussion

Putinism as an emergent ideology has a rather tense relationship to nationalism, which has been both a threat to regime stability (ethnic separatism, race riots, liberal nationalism) and a tool of legitimation (Russia’s rightful place in the world, the need to “protect” compatriots abroad or the annexation of Russia’s “historic lands” in Ukraine). Repression of anti-systemic nationalist and populist opposition over 2012-2022 and state promotion of a patriotic ideology led to important changes in Russia’s nationalist circles. The liquidation of Navalny’s organisation and liberal civil society prior to 2022, together with the increasingly slavish loyalty of the systemic opposition in wartime, means non-state “national-patriot” groups, outside of the Kremlin power networks and ruling party United Russia but usually loyal to Putin, are one of the few outlets left open for criticising government policy. While there has been much research on the ideas and eco-systems of these groups, and recent studies of the “military bloggers” in wartime, what is lacking is the broader picture of what unites and divides this diverse category of “national-patriots”. Their framing of contentious political issues is not only more radically illiberal and imperialist than mainstream Putinism but also contains more social populism and promises of an improved state-society relationship. This paper examines how Russia’s “national-patriots” articulate their attacks on the state, government or regime in terms of social movement framing. Based on a social media network analysis that revealed the “betweenness centrality” of the most viewed “national-patriot” telegram channels, three categories emerged: (1) Military Bloggers and Orthodox Conservatives (“voenkor kotenok, Igor Kholmogorov”); (2) Anti-regime nationalists (“siniya Z boroda”); (3) imperialists (“the Club of Angry Patriots”). Using topic modelling based on terms used to express dissent, discourse analysis of the telegram channels over 2022-2024 shows the main commonalities and divergences among “critical patriots” in challenging the morality of state policy or exposing official incompetence, corruption, and wrongheadedness. The findings demonstrate how illiberal ideology and nationalism are deployed on particular issues in contrast to mainstream state discourse, which often switches between harsher and softer rhetoric. This clarifies the ongoing reconfiguration of “national-patriots” in wartime and their potential to mobilise social groups and even challenge the regime in a future window of political opportunity.