Everyone has their own Russia... How will the dispute between those who left and those who remain end?

Ivan Kurilla, history profeesor

The conversation about the attitude of those who left and those who remained dragged on and on, and therefore I decided to speak on this subject once again in a thesis.

1. The dispute is among not so small, but still a small stratum of Russian society, which had such a choice (the majority of people - who never even had foreign passports - did not have such a choice).
2. For those who faced such a choice in 2022, it was very serious, life-breaking no less than the special operation itself. Moreover, “staying” was also a serious choice - given the mass exodus in this layer, anyone who remained had to think about whether his / her choice was correct (and yes, for those who remained, life was not at all the same as before).
3. Since the choice is so serious, its correctness must be constantly confirmed, this is psychologically understandable. Some of those who left and some of those who remained do this, proving the wrongness of those who made a different choice.
4. This is a small part - but it is very active, and most importantly, for the "opponents" it is especially visible and, as it were, represents all others: for those who remained - all those who left, for those who left - all those who remained. As a result, there is an effect that I often encounter: those who have left complain that they are “attacked” by those who remain, and those who remain complain that they are “treated” by those who have left. Each such text provokes a sharp response, as a result, a split and mutual misunderstanding grow.
5. Of course, there are splits in society, but they do not proceed along these lines. The main ones I would call the attitude towards the future of Russia and the attitude towards the people (some oppose themselves to them, others think "from the inside").
6. Those who left are heterogeneous in many respects - I am interested in the difference between those who seek to change their identity and rather become part of the host society and those who, on the contrary, are trying to preserve their identity as Russians (here we can recall the post-revolutionary emigration, which for a very long time did not integrate into society, in which she ended up, trying to preserve her “own Russia”, in contrast to the emigrations of a later time).
7. Those who have left are freer in their statements and in organization. The penetration of free journalism into Russia is incomparably higher than the influence of the "voices" of the Cold War. True, there is a feeling that some consider it their task to demoralize the anti-war part of the Russians - this, from my point of view, is an erroneous goal-setting.
8. Those who remain retain more ties to Russian society, including ties with those now loyal to the regime. These are important for the future of communication. They better understand the moods in the country, because they feel these moods through thousands of small everyday contacts. And the country is changing rapidly.
9. Neither those who left nor those who remained have a recipe to stop what is happening. This does not mean that they should not exist. It is sometimes written that individuals are "busy with survival", implying their focus on providing the minimum necessities for life. Society in Russia is also busy with survival, but for society (and not for the totality of millions of atomized people) survival means the preservation of ties and structures, on the one hand, and dissent, on the other. Therefore, it is important not to break ties for artificial reasons (for example, (not) crossing the border), but to maintain professional, personal, religious, and any other horizontal structures and ties; therefore, teaching, writing and publishing texts, holding performances, exhibitions and other intellectual events (obviously, I am not writing about propaganda) must continue. Of course, the less self-censorship there is, the better - but here everyone decides for himself.
10. The speech in the theses above is about a small, but very important part of society. However, the mobilization shook the society to the very bottom - and it is not yet clear whether this politicized part of Russian society will be able to use the energy of this wave - those who are fleeing from mobilization, remaining, but balancing on the brink. It seems to me that it would be better if the energy of disputes went here.