Does the recent deviation of Russian ETF price from Net Asset Value prove that ETFs are more risky than Index Funds?

I read an interesting article: Russia ETF prices veer sharply from underlying value, I would suggest everyone here read it.

The idea is that the price of these russian ETFs are heavily deviating from the underlying net asset value.

This normally should not happen, as the mechanism to keep the price of the ETF inline with the net asset value is that market makers have a financial incentive to arbitrage the price back to the net asset value.

However, the market makers from what I understand simply do not want to participate because they are essentially boycotting these ETFs.

The end result is that some of these ETFs are worth a lot less than the underlying index, when in a normal market they would not be. (To be fair, some of the ETFs are also worth MORE than the underlying index).

I find it a bit concerning. I was always under the impression that ETFs were essentially identical to a index fund, and had the same exact level of risk. However, this experience seems to prove that this is not necessarily true, as market makers can simply refuse to arbitrage the price back inline with NAV.

Now you might say that such an event would never happen to an ETF indexed to the S&P 500. I don' know. What if the owner of the ETF did something very socially unacceptable, and lead people into a boycott?

Does this show that it is safer to invest in index funds instead of ETFs? If not, please explain why, as I generally prefer ETFs and would like to keep using them.

I am assuming that with an index fund, it will not be able to suffer the same deviation from the index due to a boycott. I'm not sure if that assumption is correct.