Under the UN Charter, respect for the right of peoples to self-determination is a fundamental principle of international relations. UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (1960) states: “All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status…”
However, not all nations have agency. If a people that in no way manifests its agency is burdened with responsibility for the state, it is likely to hand over the power to decide its fate to a dictator. Will the Russian people have the right to self-determination after their defeat in the war, or will their fate be decided by a coalition of the victors? To answer this question, it is necessary to clarify the concept of “agency,” to which Nikolai Karpitsky has devoted another article in the Dictionary of War on PostPravda.Info.
Agency
In the broadest sense, agency is the ability to act as an independent actor, to make one’s own decisions, and not to be subject to the will of others. In the social sense, it is the ability to be an independent agent of influence and to assert one’s interests in society or on the international stage.
The agency of an individual is determined by their free will, which is expressed in actions. Collective agency is possible only through free collective action, in which an individual fulfils themselves and receives recognition from others. However, collective actions can also be coerced, leading to the loss of collective agency and the rise of authoritarian or totalitarian social systems.
The bearer of individual agency is a free person conscious of their ability to act and make decisions independently. The bearers of collective agency are free individuals who, despite differences in beliefs and interests, voluntarily unite to express a common stance. They embody collective agency in particular social forms – a people, civil society, the state, a religious movement, and so on. If collective actions are carried out under duress, this leads to the collapse of collective agency. Collective agency does not require unanimity, for it is grounded in the common actions of free people who may hold different beliefs and frequently diverge in their views on many issues. Unanimity arises when a people renounces its agency in favour of dictatorship.
The Agency of a People
Recognition of another’s agency is expressed in the recognition of rights – in the case of a person or an association of individuals, and in the recognition of sovereignty – in the case of peoples and states. The principle enshrined in UN documents, respect for the right of peoples to self-determination, entails recognition of their ability to shape their own agency. The sovereign right of a people is enshrined in many constitutions, which declare that the source of authority lies with the people. However, if a people fails to exercise its agency in practice, a dictator will almost certainly usurp it.
Thus, the German people lost their agency when Hitler came to power. The Stalinist regime created a new “Soviet” agency that displaced the agencies of other peoples. The Palestinians did not succeed in forming their own agency, distinct from the pan-Arab one, and when the Gaza Strip effectively gained independence in 2005, the agency of the Palestinian population was usurped by the terrorist organization Hamas.
Read too: „Can Russia be civilized? ‘An entire generation is responsible for the terror in Ukraine’ [OPINION]”
The Agency of the Ukrainian People
A people’s agency is expressed in historical moments when society succeeds in breaking social inertia. Ukraine, like many other post-Soviet countries, remained for a long time caught in the inertia of the post-Soviet era. However, society asserted its agency by rising against the post-Soviet corrupt oligarchic system, which led to the Orange Revolution (2004–2005) and the Revolution of Dignity (2013–2014).
As a rule, in times of war, a rigid power vertical is established, and the agency of society diminishes. However, following Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine, the agency of Ukrainian civil society has grown; it has asserted itself as an independent force in the country’s defence alongside the state. This is evident in the growth of the volunteer movement, the large-scale improvised production of drones, and the supplying of servicemen at the front with everything they need. Moreover, when the public believed that the authorities had passed a flawed law, mass protests broke out in many Ukrainian cities on 23 July 2025, forcing the authorities to listen to the public and alter their stance.
How do Ukrainians perceive the agency of Russians?
At the beginning of the war, many Ukrainians believed that the Putin regime was waging war against them and turned to their friends, relatives, and fellow believers in Russia in an effort to achieve mutual understanding. Today, Ukrainians are largely convinced that all of Russia is waging war against them, and attempts to reach an understanding with Russians have all but ceased. In other words, Ukrainians no longer perceive the Russian people as possessing their own agency, distinct from that of the authorities. For the same reason, they do not regard the Russian opposition, which speaks on behalf of an imaginary “other Russia,” as having genuine agency. Respect is reserved only for individual Russians who openly oppose the Putin regime and support Ukraine, but they are seen not as representatives of Russia but as solitary heroes. They are treated in the same way as anti-fascist Germans during the Second World War. After all, at that time, despite their struggle, no one recognised the agency of the German people as distinct from that of Nazi Germany.
Who will decide Russia’s fate after the war?
The Russian Constitution enshrines the principle that the people are the source of power. But if the people have renounced their agency in favour of the regime, they have thereby also renounced their right to self-determination. This delegitimises Russia as a subject of international law, and it continues to be taken into account only because it poses a military threat. This raises the question: who will decide the fate of Russia in the event of its defeat in the war – the Russian people or a coalition of the victors? This issue is not yet under discussion, but history offers a precedent.
The German people, having relinquished their agency in favour of Hitler, lost the ability to determine their own post-war future, and the fate of Germany was decided by the victorious powers. Different models of agency took shape in the divided parts of Germany. However, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, East Germans expressed a desire to integrate into the agency of the German people of the Federal Republic of Germany. If, after Russia’s defeat in the war, the victorious countries also do not recognise the agency of the Russian people, this will create opportunities for developing new models of agency for the peoples of Russia. In some regions – Bashkortostan, Tatarstan, and the Caucasus republics – statements asserting their own agency are already being voiced. In other regions, such as Siberia and the Far East, new models of agency have not yet taken shape, but the preconditions are already in place.
Read too: Party of the Dead against Putin’s Russia
