A New Voice for Peace: Alexander Shtefanovs Controversial Stance on the War in Ukraine and Youth Disillusionment with Traditional Opposition

Blogger Alexander Shtefanov gained significant attention in 2023 with his anti-war documentary titled “Ordinary Denazification,” filmed in the occupied city of Mariupol. Shortly after its release, he was labeled a “foreign agent” and expelled from his university.

Even in the face of potential legal repercussions, Shtefanov chose to remain in Russia, frequently engaging in debates with those who support the war. However, after receiving threats from pro-war activists in 2024, he was compelled to relocate abroad.

Since then, he has emerged as a prominent voice among young Russians interested in political discourse, boasting over 500,000 subscribers on YouTube and garnering millions of views on his documentaries addressing various political and historical subjects, including the war in eastern Ukraine that began in 2014 and the Maidan Revolution.

In contrast to many other anti-war Russian figures in exile, Shtefanov maintains that Crimea should stay a part of Russia, arguing that the 2014 annexation represented the wishes of its inhabitants, despite the fact that the vote occurred under Russian occupation and is not recognized internationally.

He also expresses sympathy for Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine, suggesting that Kyiv could consider ceding the Donbas region to facilitate peace, even though public opinion in Ukraine regarding such a concession remains divided.

In an interview with The Moscow Times, Shtefanov discussed his perspective on achieving a just resolution to the Ukraine conflict and the possible fatigue of young Russians with the current opposition leadership.

MT: You are listed as a foreign agent in Russia as well as on the Myrotvorets list, a non-official record of individuals perceived as adversaries of Ukraine. What do both sides find objectionable about you?

AS: I am identified by Russia as a foreign agent because I oppose the war and critique the government, including Putin and his regime. I vehemently oppose the war, viewing it as harmful to Russia.

I am on the Myrotvorets list because I do not adopt a pro-Ukrainian stance. While I criticize the war and Russian authorities, my critiques do not imply support for the Ukrainian government. I have also pointed out flaws in the Ukrainian administration and do not believe the 1991 borders provide a viable resolution to this conflict.

What is your criticism of the Ukrainian government?

In 2022, Zelensky adopted a rigid stance, confident in his ability to win militarily. He believed in the assurances of his Western allies, expecting an unlimited supply of weapons to defeat the Russian forces. I consider this approach a complete mistake. Zelensky should have pursued a peaceful settlement while Russia still feared a defeat on the battlefield.

Another aspect I critique is the recent corruption scandal which has exposed troubling truths about the Ukrainian presidency.

How did you feel during Crimea’s annexation in 2014?

I was 15 at the time and had a generally positive view of the annexation, seeing it as a reflection of the desires of the people of Crimea. Over time, however, my perspective has evolved and become more nuanced.

Should Russia have annexed Crimea?

If given the choice now, I would oppose it. Claiming territory from another nation is a perilous action, harmful to both the local populace and both nations involved, raising the specter of war.

The incorporation of Crimea into Ukraine seemed to have a stabilizing effect on the country, compelling Ukrainian politicians to moderate their positions in consideration of the 2.5 million voters in Crimea who lean pro-Russian. I believe Russia’s interests would have been better served by allowing Crimea to remain part of Ukraine if they desired to influence the nation as a whole.

How did you manage to film an anti-war documentary in Mariupol?

I connected with some volunteers delivering humanitarian aid, and I accompanied them.

I believe the process is even simpler now than it was back then, preferring to bypass the bureaucratic obstacles that volunteers faced. Mariupol has become a backend city accessible without much complication; for instance, one can travel there directly from Russia.

Were the volunteers aware of your anti-war views?

I didn’t express my views explicitly. However, some might have learned about my stance through my YouTube content. Still, they needed help, so I served as an assistant.

Weren’t you concerned about staying in Russia after your documentary was released? The authorities could have initiated a criminal case against you for spreading “false information” about the military or for “discrediting” it.

That was a possibility, but fortunately, it didn’t happen. I was apprehensive for a time and received threats, but I had no desire to leave.

What stands out to you about Mariupol?

I visited Mariupol twice—at the end of 2022 and again in the summer of 2023. The city appeared as a vast ruin, with countless people wandering around in confusion.

Conditions in Mariupol are better now than before. Some buildings have been repaired and new ones constructed, and it’s apparent that Russia has invested significant resources into the area. They seem eager to present it positively. I spoke with many locals in Mariupol and other places within the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic.

You advocate for an immediate end to the war on any terms, likely through a frozen conflict. In light of the latest updates regarding the Trump administration’s peace plan, do you think Ukraine should surrender the Donbas to Putin for peace?

Ukraine certainly has no vested interest in relinquishing any of its territory. Its leadership will naturally resist such demands to cede land for a ceasefire.

But the real question is whether ordinary Ukrainians desire this. For many, the idea of handing over portions of the Donbas to Putin for peace seems increasingly acceptable.

Still, they do not believe this would result in enduring peace. If Ukrainians were assured that yielding the Donbas to Russia would guarantee an end to hostilities, they might agree, as it could be worthwhile.

However, such guarantees do not exist. Thus, it’s understandable that demands to surrender the Donbas are viewed as unacceptable and are unlikely to gain traction with Ukrainian leadership.

I predict this peace proposal will ultimately fail.

What do you think should happen to the territories currently under Russian occupation or claimed by it?

Ideally, there should be a series of fair referendums allowing residents to decide whether they wish to join Russia or Ukraine. However, this idea is simply unattainable under the present circumstances.

I don’t know what the resolution should be. It seems that freezing the conflict along current lines is the most feasible approach. In a more ideal scenario, we might consider holding international observer-monitored referendums, allowing those who fled the war to return.

Nevertheless, this remains unfeasible as tens of thousands have nowhere to return. Many cities in the Donbas region lie in ruins. How can we possibly gather the pre-war residents of Avdiivka and allow them to vote? How many would actually want to return?

Everything remains uncertain.

Your critics in another segment of the anti-war opposition claim that Putin must be defeated now, or we risk facing a new war in a few years. You hold a different view. Why?

It’s not clear what defeating Putin actually means. How attainable is that? What does that future involve? Does it lead back to the 1991 borders? To pre-February 24, 2022 borders? Does it entail regime change in Russia, or not?

Similarly, it’s ambiguous what it truly means to prevent Putin from succeeding. At what moment can we declare that Putin has lost?

The definition of victory over Putin is hazy, as is the probability of such an outcome and the prospect of renewed conflict in either scenario.

In this light, it seems ethically reasonable to advocate for the quickest possible resolution to the war.

You are also against the idea of reparations to Ukraine. Why is that?

The notion of reparations is unrealistic and irrelevant. It cannot be enforced, and calls from the anti-war opposition for reparations to Ukraine are counterproductive. Such demands harm the credibility of opposition figures and tarnish the anti-war movement within Russian society. For the average Russian, this issue is merely a scare tactic propagated by the state. When opposition leaders call for reparations, they unwittingly echo Russian propaganda.

In a few decades, the topic of reparations might be seriously revisited, but at present, it is fruitless.

Your views diverge from what one could consider the ‘mainstream’ of the exiled anti-war opposition. Nevertheless, you seem to have garnered popularity, particularly among Generation Z. Does this suggest that young Russians are disenchanted with the established figures of the opposition?

Certainly, there is significant disappointment regarding the veteran figures of the Russian opposition, which is entirely understandable. They have been forced out of the country. As a result, opposition politics has largely migrated to platforms like YouTube and social media.

This shift is one of the reasons why Maxim Katz has emerged as a key opposition figure, despite resistance from many older Russian opposition politicians who previously distanced themselves from him.

He gained influence by establishing a presence on his YouTube channel, a path that is similar to mine.

This visibility and popularity have been crucial. In an environment where public political discourse in Russia has shifted to YouTube, Telegram, and other social media outlets, content creators have taken center stage.