Recently, as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine entered its fourth week, Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the West of seeking “to provoke civil unrest in Russia and use its fifth column in an attempt to achieve this goal.” He railed against “people [who] are mentally there [in the West] and not here with our people, with Russia.” Since then, a growing number of Russian citizens accused of being traitors have been arrested or harassed.
Why claims about fifth columns resonate
As we document in our new book, Putin’s harsh words fit within a broader tradition of political leaders who identify and vilify “fifth columns,” or domestic individual or groups who work in cooperation with external rivals to undermine the national interest.
The phenomenon is arguably as old as accusations of treason, but the first known reference to a “fifth column” in English comes from the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s. Use of the term in English peaked during World War II.
Many people are familiar with the idea of fifth columns as sleeper cells or spies hiding out in enemy territory during wartime, ready to strike when activated. Yet politicians have historically invoked fifth columns in a wide variety of situations, even times of relative calm.
The idea of “enemies within” plays on our conscious or unconscious belief that those who are different from us may also be threatening. Politicians exploit these prejudices while invoking geopolitical or national security fears; in doing so, they deepen social divides and trigger group solidarity among those the regime casts as “insiders.”
Using the rhetoric of fifth columns — especially when also enacting policies targeting the accused groups — can have serious consequences for governance and trust. Sustained campaigns to find and persecute suspected fifth columns are historically associated with human rights abuses, political repression and violence against civilians.
Fifth-column claims resonate with the public when they already distrust the targeted ethnic or ideological group. For example, in the United States during World War II, the claim that Japanese Americans were a fifth column grew out of a preexisting anti-Asian movement that had tried to curb Chinese and later Japanese immigration.
After the attack on Pearl Harbor, anti-Japanese organizations lobbied politicians and agitated in the media. The Roosevelt administration undertook the mass internment of Japanese Americans — despite the fact that intelligence reports at the time found no credible evidence of large-scale espionage or sabotage.
The lineage of fifth-column claims in Russia
Few countries, though, can match Russia’s obsession with fifth columns. In the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, unmasking and persecuting capitalist “wreckers” was a way for ambitious cadres to signal their loyalty to the Communist system. During World War II, Stalin had entire ethnic groups forcibly transferred to the Soviet hinterlands on suspicion of complicity with external enemies. In the so-called Doctors’ Plot, Jewish doctors were arrested and tortured in response to an imagined Zionist conspiracy to assassinate the Soviet leadership.
Putin has invoked fifth columns at various points in his presidency. Most memorably, after holding fraudulent elections in 2011, he accused protesters in the streets of Moscow of serving American interests and responding to a signal from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Putin sought to discredit the demonstrators by accusing them of taking part in protests incited by the United States, Russia’s main international adversary, and by suggesting that they did not reflect popular attitudes. Putin concluded at the time that “we are obligated to protect our sovereignty and we will have to think about strengthening the law and holding more responsible those who carry out the tasks of a foreign government to influence internal political processes.” That rhetoric has returned with the invasion of Ukraine.
Is this time different?
This time, Putin has gone further, implying that the fifth column poses an existential threat to Russia and must be met with drastic measures. The Kremlin has widened its crackdown on antiwar protesters, more severely censored the press and watched as many Western businesses exited the country.
In that context, Putin’s words imply that it is no longer enough to refrain from open opposition. Now, any Russian who aspires to a Western lifestyle is automatically suspect. Putin does not say what this entails, but presumably it means giving up on the middle-class consumerism that many Russians have come to enjoy and jettisoning aspirations to live in a tolerant, democratic country.
In the most menacing line of his speech, Putin asserted that a “natural and necessary self-cleansing” is needed to “strengthen our country, our solidarity, cohesion, and readiness to respond to any challenge.” Russians whose grandparents endured or perished in Stalin’s purges understand that this warning is not to be taken lightly.
We do not yet know whether everyday Russians will rally behind these accusations about fifth columns in their midst. Putin has been stoking resentment against liberal-minded Russians for years, appealing to older, less-educated, less-urban citizens who get their news from state television — and this group may take some pleasure in seeing those higher on the social ladder get taken down.
Not coincidentally, the cohort that Putin focuses on for contempt had already soured on his leadership. If his goal is to intimidate his detractors, spurring them to flee rather than face repression, he may succeed.
Middle-class Russians have suffered disproportionately from international economic sanctions. And those whose livelihoods were most entwined with the global economy saw few prospects in an isolated Russia even before Putin accused them of hastening Russia’s destruction.
Putin’s future may rest with the remaining population of Russians who are not seduced by the West and who, in his view, embody the right kind of patriotic values. Putin is resorting to an old playbook. Invoking fifth columns allows leaders to divide their opposition, control public discourse, and redefine loyalty in self-serving ways.
We do not yet know whether this strategy will succeed this time. This rhetoric may not resonate even with Putin’s most loyal supporters if they must endure Russia’s economic collapse and grieve ever-increasing numbers of Russian soldiers dying on the battlefield.
Scott Radnitz (@SRadnitz) is the Herbert J. Ellison Associate Professor of Russian and Eurasian Studies in the Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington and author of “Revealing Schemes: The Politics of Conspiracy in Russia and the Post-Soviet Region” (Oxford University Press, 2021).
Harris Mylonas (@hmylonas) is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs and author of “The Politics of Nation-Building: Making Co-Nationals, Refugees, and Minorities” (Cambridge University Press, 2013).
Together, they are co-editors of “Enemies Within: The Global Politics of Fifth Columns” (Oxford University Press, June 2022).
