Key facts
- Russian opposition party Peaceful Russia held its congress in Berlin on June 12-13.
Russian opposition figures gathered in Berlin to form a new party, electing Ilya Yashin as chairman. However, internal divisions emerged, with one delegate fearing Yashin might replicate authoritarian tendencies.

The formation of a new Russian opposition party in exile marks an attempt to unify fragmented political forces. However, internal disagreements over leadership style and potential authoritarian tendencies within the new party highlight the ongoing challenges facing the Russian opposition.
The Russian opposition party, now named Peaceful Russia, convened in Berlin for a congress where Ilya Yashin was elected chairman. The congress, held on June 12-13, saw 126 invited delegates adopt the party program and rename the organization from Peaceful Forces of Russia to Peaceful Russia, a change made to distance itself from associations with repression and the war in Ukraine.
Yashin secured approximately 60 percent of the vote to become the party's leader. Party delegate Alexander Archagov expressed optimism about Yashin's leadership, highlighting his experience and ability to inspire, which he deemed crucial for uniting supporters both within Russia and abroad. Yashin himself acknowledged the challenges of operating from exile but stated the party's primary focus is on appealing to Russian society and serving as a voice for those without one inside the country.
However, internal dissent emerged during the congress. Maxim Reznik, a liberal opposition politician and long-time associate of Yashin, voiced significant concerns. Reznik fears that Yashin might replicate authoritarian tendencies, becoming a "self-centered Moscow political boss" rather than a unifying figure. He suggested Yashin's approach mirrors the structure of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, an example he believes the opposition should avoid repeating.
Russia expert Andreas Heinemann-Grüder of the University of Bonn noted that the Russian opposition has historically struggled with fragmentation and leadership issues, with personal ambitions often hindering unity. He emphasized the need for decentralized structures and representation of the diaspora to succeed, while acknowledging the limited ability of exiled movements to influence events within Russia.