Russian scientists as a part of Russian war propaganda
Russian scientists have provided a significant amount of support for Russia’s war in Ukraine. They develop military technologies, publish open letters in support of the war, and loot Ukrainian research institutions in the occupied territories. Yet, they seem to be largely exempt from any consequences: foreign researchers and publishers continue to cooperate with their Russian counterparts while at the sample time trying to silence Ukrainian researchers who talk about war. One likely reason for the reluctance to impose negative consequences on Russian academics is the false narrative that “science is separate from politics.” As the results of our outreach exercise to Russian academics illustrate, it is certainly not.
We encourage researchers and editors who still work with Russian academics to review our analysis and then ask your Russian collaborators for their opinion on Russia’s war on Ukraine. We hope that you will not continue cooperation with those who do not clearly condemn the war.
Data description
The outreach was organized as follows. During October-December 2024 we distributed versions of the following e-mail (in Russian) to several thousand Russian academics:
Dear colleagues,
As a member of the academic community, I am writing to you to get the perspective of scholars from Russia on the ongoing war in Ukraine. Given the profound impact of this war on the lives of many people, I would appreciate your views on its social, economic and political consequences. I'm particularly interested in your views on who you think is responsible for this conflict and how it could ideally be resolved.
To some of the letters, we added an explanation that the sender was born in Ukraine and has relatives there and would like to know whether the most educated Russian people care about the suffering of Ukrainians. Shortly before and after Trump was elected the president of the US, and after Russia used the so-called “Oreshnik” (a medium range ballistic missile) against Ukraine, we asked whether the person thought these events would impact the course of the war.
We received 85 replies, which we analyze below. The majority of them are structured along the questions in our query, i.e. people writing whether they consider Russia responsible for the war and how, in their opinion, the war should end. Some of them also express an opinion either on Trump or on “Oreshnik”. However, some of the respondents diverged from the line of inquiry in the original email by, for example, diving into historical myths or explaining how Russia is “helping” Ukraine.
The anonymized replies and English translations are provided in this table (with minor formatting adjustments for clarity and the removal of some personal information). We numbered them for ease of reference, and in the following text we highlight quotes from some of them.
We classify the responses into five categories: “supportive” (of Ukraine), “seemingly supportive”, “no answer/afraid to answer”, “aggressive” (which comprises almost half of the replies) and “passive aggressive”. We also provide explanations on what is wrong even with the replies that seem to express support for Ukraine.
Supportive replies
Responses numbered 1 to 9 (10% of the sample) can be described as completely supportive – their authors clearly state that Russia was responsible for the war and that the war should end with restoration Ukraine’s territorial integrity (1991 borders), although practically everyone expresses doubts that this would be the actual outcome of the war.
Two people who provided supportive responses mentioned that the West should provide much more support for Ukraine:
“Europe should not be preparing for war. Russia does not have resources for another war. It does not have resources for anything. [Europe] should not be buying weapons for itself, it should transfer them to Ukraine, and the war will end with a just victory.” [1]
It is worth mentioning that one person who provided a supportive reply said that they no longer associate themselves with Russia, while another one was from Kazakhstan.
Seemingly supportive replies
8 replies (replies 10-17 in the table, 9% of the sample) are examples of the so-called “Russian liberal” narrative. These authors place the responsibility for the war primarily on the Russian government rather than the Russian population, explain that “Russians are victims too” and complain that “Our rulers haven’t dragged us into such crap for a long time… It is not clear yet which of the two peoples [Ukrainians or Russians] they harmed more…” [12].
They also imply that some Ukrainian territories are irreversibly lost (e.g. “a separate controversial issue is the status of Crimea, which has been under official (!) Russian occupation for too long” [14]), and that it will be too costly for the Russian state to end the war now (implying that if the war ended in three days, as initially planned, everything would have been fine by now).
What is wrong with placing the blame for the war solely on the Russian government and claiming that Russian people are victims? There are at least three problems.
First of all, Putin is not a ruthless dictator, he is a Führer, in the sense that about 80% of the Russian population support him and support the war, and those who do not support it can freely leave Russia (this is a sharp contrast with the USSR which was extremely difficult to leave).
Second, implying that some occupied territories should be incorporated into Russia means support for the aggression because Russia’s attack on Ukraine and on the rules-based order started in 2014, with Russia’s occupation and illegal annexation of Crimea. Thus, international law is not restored until Ukrainian territorial integrity is restored. Any talk about other solutions (e.g., “fair referendums”) when Russia kills and deports the Ukrainian population from occupied territories and relocates Russian citizens there supports the aggression.
Third, in these replies one can see a covert regret that the war has lasted for so long and cost the Russian economy and people so much. In line with Navalnaya interviews, there is no compassion for Ukrainians nor condemnation of the war per se. Unfortunately, this idea is popular in other countries too – we can remember how right before the full-scale invasion everyone thought that Ukraine was doomed and was preparing to continue “business as usual” with Russia.
We must remember that if this scenario had occurred, not only would there be many more victims (perhaps millions) among Ukrainians, but also Russian troops, strengthened by Ukrainian resources, would have already invaded Europe. Russian propaganda, including Putin himself, clearly states that Russia is at war with the West. Moreover, Russia has and continues to carry out many acts of sabotage, information warfare, cyber operations etc. in many European countries. There is no “alternative” or “liberal” Russia, only a media construct that Putin uses to demobilize Western societies.
No answer / afraid to answer / whataboutism
8 people (replies 18-25 in the table) wrote that they were afraid to answer our questions, referring, for example, to Russia’s criminal code, which promises up to 7 years in jail for “discrediting the Russian army” (i.e. for condemning the war). Four more people (replies 26-29) provided responses that cannot be classified as meaningful, either stating that this is a global war for resources, citing some Polish general or advising to read the Book of Ecclesiastes.
Four more responses (83-86) can be characterized as “whataboutism,” blaming the US for unleashing wars in many countries and establishing military bases around the world:
“If the US stayed in the US and did not interfere where it was not invited to, there would have been no wars in the Ukraine, in Libya, in Syria, in Iraq, in Yemen, in Korea, in Vietnam, in Cambodia, in Ethiopia, in Georgia, etc, and there would have been no attempts of coup-d-états in Belorussia, Kirgizia, in Argentina” [84].
Note the use of Russian imperial language (i.e. the names of Soviet republics instead of current official country names): “the Ukraine” instead of “Ukraine”, “Belorussia” instead of “Belarus”, “Kirgizia” instead of “Kyrgyzstan”, as well as the use of Russian propaganda narratives of coup-d’etats to refer to popular uprisings of Ukrainians in 2004 and 2014, Belorussians in 2020 and Kyrgyzs in 2005, 2010, 2020. Unfortunately, in countries with weak institutions, popular uprisings are the only instrument to prevent the establishment of dictatorship and to hold governments accountable.
There is not much more to discuss regarding these responses except for noting that the majority of them were written in a typical for Russians slighting tone. The same tone was present in even more negative replies, which we discuss next.
Aggressive and passive aggressive responses
Responses 30-72 (49% of the sample) can be characterized as aggressive, and responses 73-82 (12%) as passive-aggressive. The (rather thin) difference between them is that passive-aggressive respondents talk less about Nazis and the need to erase Ukraine from Earth, and instead bring up “one people” or “brotherly nations” narratives. They also more often talk about “joint” responsibility of Russia and other states for the war, while aggressive responses blame the Russian government for not attacking Ukraine earlier.
Overall, these responses reflect the full spectrum of Russian propaganda: “bombing of Donbas”, “prohibition of Russian language”, the notion of Ukrainians and Russians as “one people” or “brotherly nations” (7 responses talk about this). Seven people stated that there is no war (only the so-called “special military operation”), while two mention “civil war”.
Expectedly, the majority of people who provided aggressive responses blamed everyone except Russia for starting the war. The largest number (22) blamed the US or some US entities (CIA, the “deep state”, Victoria Nuland). The second most popular culprit was NATO (ten responses); five people mentioned the collective West; three blamed the “Anglo-Saxons” (probably referring to the US and UK) and Germany; two mentioned Europe or the EU. Two people believe that all “sides” – Ukraine, Russia, EU, and the US – are responsible for the war, and one person blamed only Ukraine and Russia.
“The reason for military actions in Ukraine is the advance of the West over the last 30 years after the West convinced itself that it “defeated” Russia in the Cold war; this advance materialized in the extension of the NATO block to Russian borders as well as the planned inclusion of Ukraine into NATO along with a subsequent transfer of nuclear weapons to the Ukrainian puppet regime. Russia has to defend itself. Thus, the US, as the main initiator of these actions, is responsible for the war. The current Russian actions are beneficial first and foremore for the West, if the West doesn’t want an out-of-control “monkey with a nuclear grenade” in the form of the Nazi regime that it raised in its backyard. History repeats itself: in the thirties, the West nurtured Hitler’s Nazi regime in the exact same way, hoping to use it as a ram against Russia. You know the result of that.” [55]
Much blame is also levied on the Ukrainian government (9 responses) and Ukrainian “nationalists” (6 responses), whatever that means. 12 people informed us about “Nazis in Ukraine” that should be destroyed.
“How, in your view, should we deal with Nazi criminals intent on genocide of neighboring peoples and states? Mercilessly burn out the entire Bandera-Nazi infection with a hot iron; turn all of Western Ukraine, this source of Banderism, into a dead desert, so that nothing is alive there even in a hundred years. Is it cruel? Yes. But the appeasement of Nazism in the 20th century cost humanity too much; in just one war unleashed by it, over 100 million people died.” [51].
We completely agree about the dangers of appeasement, which has been the West’s policy toward modern Russia for decades. We should also remind the readers that both the USSR and Nazi Germany unleashed WWII, but the USSR was never condemned for this.
Note that Russians repeatedly promote the myth of Stepan Bandera as a Nazi collaborator, although for all his life he fought for independent Ukraine. For this, Germans placed him into a concentration camp in 1942. In 1944, when the Soviet army took over Sachsenhausen camp, he refused to cooperate with the Soviet regime. For the rest of his life he lived in Munich and wrote articles about the true nature of the Russian/Soviet empire and the West’s policy mistakes towards it. He was killed by a Soviet agent in 1959. Unfortunately, Russian myths about Bandera still dominate modern Western discourse.
Contrary to our expectations, only one person mentioned that Trump will help Russia win (and one person among the seemingly supportive had the opposite opinion). Other people who answered this question said that Trump would not have any impact on the war.
Six people believe that Russia is defending itself because, if it did not start the full-scale war, NATO would have attacked it. Two people stated that Russia is fighting for its freedom and sovereignty, and one – that Russia is liberating Ukraine (from life, obviously).
“[the war] should end with Russia's victory, which would mean the final restoration of its independence and sovereignty, and the recognition of this fact by the Global West.” [50]
“The war will end when Ukraine is completely liberated from the Nazis, just like in the Great Patriotic War!” [70] (note: The Great Patriotic war in the Russian paradigm is the war between the USSR and Nazi Germany in 1941-1945).
We also learned from our respondents that Western propaganda has cultivated hatred towards Russia (4 responses); that the US and the West want to destroy Russia (2 responses); that the US, Europe, the terrorist NATO block have already attacked Russia (3 responses); and that Russians now suffer as much as the Jews suffered during the Holocaust.
“over the past two and a half years, the ruling circles of Western countries have, unfortunately, convincingly demonstrated that everything Putin’s propaganda lied to us about turned out to be completely true: they really do hate us and wish us harm. For this reason, a fair end to the war should mean not only the conclusion of a compromise peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine but also compensation for the damage caused to Russian citizens through indiscriminate and unjust Western sanctions, official apologies, and the development of legislative measures to prevent and avoid such actions in the future (an analogy can be drawn with laws against anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial in European countries).” [47]
The above-quoted person, as well as three other people, believe that after Russia wins — preferably with a “parade of our troops in Kyiv, London, or Washington (depending on the persistence of the neoliberal community)” [65] — the US and other NATO countries should stand before another “Nurenberg tribunal”, pay reparations to Russia etc.
To the question of how the war should end, 12 respondents answered that Russia will win, 8 people think that Ukraine should cease to exist (of them three mentioned that Ukraine should be divided between several countries), and 10 people in one or another form mentioned that Ukraine will lose territories — either that “historically Russian” territories would return to Russia, or that the so-called “Istanbul treaties” would be implemented (note that there was no treaty in Istanbul, there were just demands of Ukraine’s capitulation). For example, a person who believes that there is a “civil war” in Ukraine also states that
“The war should end with the signing of a peace treaty, in which Ukraine agrees to maintain a non-aligned status, cease persecuting and discriminating against Russian-speaking residents, ensure freedom of religion, reduce its armed forces, conduct a review of its ideological basis, ridding itself of the most odious "heroes" in its pantheon. Moreover, it will have to accept territorial losses.” [78], while at the same time threatening a nuclear apocalypse:
“However, if foreign troops enter Ukraine under any pretext, the likelihood of [“Oreshnik”] use in a strike mode will sharply increase. This, in turn, could lead to further uncontrollable escalation with catastrophic consequences for the entire civilization.” [78]
Another explicit nuclear threat sounded as follows:
“If the US escalates and starts using long-range missiles to strike Russia with the hands of the Ukrainian army, IMHO, the right thing to do would be a nuclear strike on one of the US military bases outside of US territory. At least I would welcome such a response from our government to US aggression, even if it is under a foreign flag.” [50]
As we know, after Ukraine was allowed to strike Russia with American missiles, nothing happened, once again proving that Russia’s “red lines” are bluffs. Nevertheless, 8 respondents threatened us with “Oreshnik” (another Russian Wunderwaffe), and 7 stated that “Oreshnik” is a means of containing the West.
Another narrative that emerged (mostly in the passive-aggressive responses) is about the “spheres of influence”, “struggle for resources”, “historical determinism”, etc. Thus, four people mentioned that this is a war between the US or the collective West and Russia, albeit on Ukrainian territory.
“Currently, new superpowers are emerging, and wars are inevitable. China will certainly reclaim Taiwan. And this will lead to a new war.” [77]
“The forces that instigated the war actually don't care about losses of populations and armies or the damage to the economies of the opposing sides. For them, we all—both Russian and Ukrainian citizens—are second-class people, who, like the Native Americans in the United States in the past, are of no concern to any of the "white people." One tribe kills another, and that's fine. What matters is land and resources. That black soil that was taken to Germany out of ignorance, and everything else. And also ore, coal, gas, uranium.” [78]
Two people — [48] and [80] — wrote longreads describing how well Russians live, how much Ukrainians want to live in Russia and how Russia rebuilds cities in the occupied Ukrainian territories (they certainly forgot to mention who destroyed these cities in the first place).
“Even Americans relocate to Russia. First of all, ask in Kyiv how they live without electricity, and how people in Mariupol live.” [72] (this person does not mention that prior to Russia’s attacks on the Ukrainian energy system, there were no problems with electricity in Kyiv).
“Your “democratic” elections, like the ones we followed in recent weeks in the USA, have long ago turned into a laughing stock and vulgarity for the whole world. Your deceived voter puts into key positions those who are the loudest in swearing their hatred towards Russians - the result of your media’s brainwashing.” [55]
We noted other methods of Russian propaganda in the responses, such as “mirroring”, e.g., one person [63] talked extensively about how the Ukrainian army terrorizes Ukrainian people, and two people claimed that Ukraine was a dictatorship (both claims are true about Russia and the Russian army). We also saw centuries-old Russian propaganda messages that “democracy is terrible”, “Europe is doomed”, and “people don’t have independent thinking”.
“Unfortunately, the low level of general culture and education among the modern Western European elite prevented them from understanding Russia's inevitable reaction [to NATO’s expansion], as well as the inevitable response of all other countries of the Global South and East to their claims of hegemony. As a result, Western Europe risks nullifying the approximately 500-year period of its leadership in world development and once again, as in the Middle Ages, finding itself on the roadside of civilization progress.” [52]
“The fate of Europe, however, is more interesting. In Germany, the most important machine-building and other enterprises are closing down, Europe is flooded with hordes of aggressive immigrants unwilling to work. The situation in the USA is not much better (I saw this clearly when I visited a year ago), and in addition, the confrontation between the Democratic and Republican parties has reached a point where it has turned into an actual war, in which, for the first time in the history of the United States, a president with a criminal background, who has been shot at twice by Democrats, has won. A very interesting stronghold of world democracy!” [69]
Some homophobia and racism were present as well.
“I've already lost count of how many colored prime ministers have been in office in England over the past couple of years.” [55]
“Of course, all normal people wished for a Trump victory. Not because he is pro-Russian but because he is really pro-American, and all this democratic establishment is cosmopolitan in the worst sense of this word – they are aspiring for transformation of the entire world community into a pathetic LGBT animal crowd that cares only about the most primitive instincts.” [51]
“The people of the world have the right to live without being dictated to by Washington’s "obkom" (a party committee – ed.) about how they should live, what to trade, what to think, which money to use, what to believe in, whether to call themselves men and women, or "gender-undefined subjects." [71]
Seven respondents stressed that we should say “the Ukraine,” implying that Ukraine is not an independent country, while two stated that Ukraine can never be independent, suggesting that we read a Ukrainian historian Kostomarov. This reference is interesting because Kostomarov is not very popular outside of academic historian circles even in Ukraine, and it is highly unlikely that people in Russia read his works.
To provide some context, Kostomarov wrote a book about Ukraine’s history from the second half of 17th century to the end of 18th century called “Ruina”. This was the time when Ukraine gradually lost its statehood and was divided between Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires (infighting of Ukrainian elites was one of the factors behind this). Notably, the fact that this partitioning took more than a century suggests that Ukraine’s statehood was quite strong. Kostomarov was actually one of the people who, together with Taras Shevchenko and others, started to revive the idea of a Ukrainian nation state in the 19th century. This illustrates one more time how Russian propaganda appropriates history for its own purposes.
Interestingly, along with writing that Russia must win and Ukraine must be destroyed, some people complained that they cannot go on academic visits to the US because of sanctions or asked us to not disclose their identity because they publish in English-language journals.
Taking into account that Ukrainian scientists cannot leave Ukraine, that they are killed by Russians and deprived of the ability to work because Russia bombs Ukrainian universities, it would be only fair to stop cooperation with Russian scientists – at least until the war ends.
