Kremlin’s Denouncement of Criticism: A Closer Look

If you think that the ongoing situation regarding injustice is something to be overly concerned about, well, you might be underestimating it. The Kremlin, yet again, has hit back at its critics, calling the dissent “Russophobia.”

Tom Kent, a senior fellow at the American Council of Foreign Policy, recently pointed out that Russia perceives a significant issue in the Western world—it’s not merely about Russia itself. The Kremlin’s narrative is shaped more by external perceptions than by the repercussions of its actions in Ukraine or its nuclear posture.

According to Russian state propaganda, “Russophobia” manifests as “hate speech.” The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs even provides a comprehensive list of alleged hate speech occurring in 2024 and 2025.

To illustrate, former President Joe Biden famously labeled Putin as a war criminal, stating, “He has killed thousands of people, and he’s made one thing clear.”

So, if criticizing the Kremlin is “Russophobia,” does that mean all rational individuals who acknowledge these facts fall into that category?

The officials in the Russian government come from awide variety of nations—Americans, Belgians, Bulgarians, Canadians, and more. Their criticisms, akin to Biden’s, center on Putin and his administration’s actions, especially the ongoing war against Ukraine. Interestingly, by framing criticism as “hate speech,” the Kremlin seems to acknowledge that its real issue isn’t with disdain for Russian people, but rather a resentment directed at corrupt leaders and their reckless policies. This is consistent with the Putin regime’s broader indifference toward the welfare of its citizens. It’s a stark contradiction, since the regime sends countless young men to their untimely deaths—often motivated by Putin’s vanity and a lack of historical understanding.

Reflecting back, I mentioned years ago, shortly after the invasion of Ukraine began, that Putin and hiscrimes are what truly fuel “Russophobia.” I wrote that “Putin is a dictator who shows no concern for danger, and the Russia he has built is a place devoid of safety.” It’s no wonder people with even a basic liberal perspective view him and his regime with unease, disgust, and fear. Over the years, “Putinphobia” has, understandably, intensified as more become aware of the oppressive authoritarian system he has put in place.

From a moral standpoint, it’s essential to condemn Putin’s regime and its war crimes in Ukraine. The atrocities are reminiscent of historical evils, and just as Hitler was reviled, so too is Putin viewed as a significant malevolence. However, this does not preclude global leaders from engaging with him on pressing issues, as noted by Walter Clemens, whose perspectives are truly compelling.

Yet, the challenge lies in separating our feelings toward a dictator from the everyday lives of his people who may support, resist, or merely coexist with the regime. How should we perceive Russians as a collective? Should we hold them all accountable, like Germans who did not oppose Nazism? Or should we sympathize with those Soviet citizens who lived in constant fear of Stalin’s secret police?

Ultimately, it’s up to Russians themselves to navigate this moral quandary. They must find the courage to acknowledge their circumstances and begin to stand against their regime’s actions. There are indeed ways to practice “daily resistance,” where individuals quietly challenge the mainstream narratives imposed by an oppressive state.

While it may be an uphill battle to overthrow Putin, taking a stand against moral decay is crucial. They can limit their identification with the regime and separate themselves from its crimes and wars.