Nikolai Karpitsky. Russia Cannot Renounce Further Military Expansion

Translation from Russian: Postimees 07.05.2026.
URL: https://rus.postimees.ee/8464998/nikolay-karpickiy-rossiya-ne-mozhet-otkazatsya-ot-dalneyshey-voennoy-ekspansii

 

Recent attempts to calculate the timing of a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic states often rely on conditional assumptions about Russia’s readiness for such a war. Philosopher Nikolai Karpitsky argues, however, that preparation for war is an endless process, and therefore wars begin not when armies are ready, but when political conditions have matured.

Is Russia ready to open a second front against the Baltic states? At first glance, this seems contrary to common sense, since the Russian army is bogged down in Ukraine. However, history offers examples of countries at war launching new military campaigns even in times of crisis. At the end of August 1941, when Adolf Hitler began the operation to encircle Kyiv and destroy the Soviet Southwestern Front, the Soviet Union invaded Iran and occupied its northern territories.

A more recent example came in August 2024, when Ukraine, unable to contain the Russian offensive in Donbas, launched a military operation in the Kursk region. From a military standpoint, it is illogical to open a new front and redirect forces there from critical sectors when the enemy enjoys superiority in manpower and materiel. However, in such cases, political considerations outweigh military ones.

Attempts to calculate the timing of a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic states often stem from conditional assumptions about Russia’s readiness for war. Yet preparation for war is an endless process, so wars begin not when armies are ready, but when political conditions have matured.

The Russian army was also unprepared for this new type of warfare when it invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022. If Vladimir Putin had waited until it was fully prepared, he would never have been able to start the war. Armies adapt during war itself, which is why the Russian and Ukrainian armed forces are now among the most experienced in the world in conducting modern warfare.

When we calculate the military or economic feasibility of aggression, we often project our own assumptions onto the adversary. That is why many people do not believe an attack on the Baltic states is possible. But Vladimir Putin has a different picture of the world in mind. He may decide to begin a new war regardless of the situation on the Ukrainian front or in the Russian economy.

That decision will be made at the moment when, based on his own internal perceptions, the Kremlin dictator believes that a window of opportunity for such an attack has opened.

A State Becomes Aggressive When It Assumes a Messianic Role

To assess the reality of the threat of Russian aggression, one must take into account that both people and states often act against their own interests. It may be advantageous to steal from a neighbor, but most people do not do so. Becoming a criminal means changing one’s destiny through a particular life choice. The same applies to states: most countries coexist peacefully with their neighbors, even when they have the opportunity to conquer them.

A state becomes aggressive when it assumes a “higher mission.” For example, the Shah’s Iran cooperated with Israel because doing so was beneficial. But the Islamic Republic of Iran seeks to destroy the Jewish state, sacrificing the well-being of its own country and the lives of its citizens for the sake of this “mission.” Political and economic conditions are secondary here: they determine the timing and form of aggression, but they are not its root cause.

Russia Is a Country That Has Lost the Meaning of Life

Every state has a purpose and a meaning underlying its existence and functioning. But if that purpose is false, then the meaning of existence itself is lost.

For example, the meaning of the Soviet Union’s existence lay in spreading the communist system, which is why it sacrificed the well-being of its citizens in order to expand its influence throughout the world. Abandoning this mission because of exhausted resources and the bankruptcy of the communist idea meant losing the very meaning of its existence, which led to the inevitable collapse of the USSR.

Modern Russia has returned to the mission of “gathering lands,” though now stripped of communist ideology. It was precisely this mission that transformed the Principality of Moscow into the Russia that, throughout its history, waged wars of conquest. This mission first took shape in the 15th century, when Moscow destroyed the people of Novgorod as an independent ethnic group with their own language, culture, and social traditions.

Paradoxically, most Russians believe they live in the most peaceful country in the world — one that has never attacked anyone, but has only repeatedly been the victim of external aggression while always emerging victorious in every war. This blindness is explained by the fact that many Russians perceive aggressive wars as the just restoration of world order.

For them, Russia is any territory on which a Russian person has ever set foot and which has at some point been under Moscow’s rule. And it does not matter whether this was 500 years ago or 30 years ago. In this worldview, countries that break away from Russian control violate the natural order of the world, while everyone who actively resists Russia’s expansion serves global evil.

After the victory of the revolution in Russia in August 1991, the democratic movement sought to build a new Russia as a peaceful and self-sufficient country. However, Russia is “stitched together” from different national territories that were incorporated into it by force. The rejection by Yeltsin’s liberals of the mission of “gathering lands” as state ideology led to the emergence of centrifugal forces within the country and to the separation of the national peripheries from Moscow.

During the First Chechen War of 1994–1996, most Russians supported peace and an end to hostilities in the Caucasus, because it is unnatural for people to support the suffering and death brought about by war. Russian reformer Yegor Gaidar then said: “Better 100 years of negotiations than one day of war.” However, those same Russians overwhelmingly supported the Second Chechen War in 1999. One reason for this shift in public sentiment was fear of the country’s collapse, which was associated with chaos and a threat to personal survival.

In the view of most Russians, the West seeks to dismantle and destroy Russia. Therefore, the war against Ukraine is perceived by them as a defensive and just war waged by Russia against Western aggression. Accordingly, an attack on the Baltic states would likewise be perceived merely as a necessary defensive operation within the broader war that the West is allegedly already waging against Russia.

Abandoning the doctrine of confrontation with the West and the policy of expanding the “Russian world” under the paradigm that “Russia’s borders never end” would threaten the collapse of Vladimir Putin’s regime, which would then simply lose the very meaning of its existence.

An Attack on the Baltic States Can Be Prevented

Vladimir Putin is confident of mass support from Russians in the event of an invasion of the Baltic states. The readiness of the Russian army, possible military and economic losses, and the situation on the Ukrainian front are of secondary importance to him — the mission matters more. However, the prospect of a collective military response from NATO could deter him from attacking the Baltic states. But does he believe such a response would actually occur?

Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty does not provide for an automatic military response; it merely states that member states will provide assistance to the victim of aggression in whatever form they deem necessary. But what kind of assistance would Donald Trump consider necessary? Since he has demonstrated grievances toward other alliance members and reluctance to come to their aid in the event of war, Putin may believe that such assistance would be limited to another round of sanctions and calls for negotiations.

At the same time, since there is currently no observable transfer of Russian troops to the borders of the Baltic states, there is still time to act. The strongest step NATO could take would be a political declaration stating that, in the event of Russian aggression, all alliance countries would automatically enter the war without requiring additional approval from their political leadership.

It is possible that secret protocols for automatic responses to certain scenarios of Russian aggression already exist. However, Putin, convinced of his own impunity, will continue testing the alliance through provocations until he encounters a decisive military response. Therefore, a political declaration from NATO regarding the immediate use of force in the event of Russian aggression against alliance member states must be clearly communicated to the Kremlin.

Until such a declaration exists, the Baltic states can adopt the Ukrainian experience of creating a “wall of drones” and establishing high-tech defensive lines on land and underground, on water and underwater, in the air, and in space. Putin’s regime is already experiencing economic and military decline and is therefore, like a wounded beast, mortally dangerous. There can never be too much defense; there can only be too little time to prepare for war.

"Propaganda". War Dictionary by Nikolai Karpitsky

Source: PostPravda.info 01.05.2026
URL: https://postpravda.info/en/stories/dictionary-of-war/propaganda-russian-ukrainian-war/

 

The photo shows the Ostankino TV Tower, which is used to broadcast Kremlin propaganda. Photo: Nikita Nikitenko on Unsplash

In another article for the Dictionary of War on PostPravda.Info, Nikolai Karpitsky explains what propaganda is and introduces key concepts – manipulation, falsehood, and indoctrination – that help explain how it operates during the Russian–Ukrainian war.

Propaganda

Propaganda is a system for shaping people’s emotional and ideological attitudes toward social phenomena, ideas, and worldviews. It may be directed either at mass audiences or at specific target groups. When its aim becomes the formation of a particular worldview, it turns into an instrument of indoctrination.

Shaping Attitudes Toward Phenomena and Ideas

Propaganda does not always rely on manipulation and falsehood. Some of its forms are based on the truthful presentation of facts and appeals to positive emotions (such as the pursuit of justice or patriotism) and are aimed at improving social conditions (for example, combating corruption or resisting external aggression). However, even in such cases, a necessary element remains emotional influence – suggestion or deliberate persuasion – aimed at shaping a particular attitude toward social phenomena and ideas.

The desire to impose one’s own perception on others is also characteristic of everyday communication, especially on social media. In its most aggressive form, this occurs when a person not only expresses an opinion but also seeks to provoke an emotional reaction in their interlocutor, using a propaganda technique – emotional pressure. However, we can speak of propaganda only when such practices are systematic and purposeful.

Moral or religious preaching, like propaganda, also seeks to persuade people by using vivid imagery, emotional arguments, and appeals to authority. However, propaganda more often pursues political goals, whereas preaching pursues moral or religious ones – although in practice the boundary between them may be blurred. The fundamental difference is that preaching encourages a person to make a conscious and free choice, whereas propaganda pushes them toward accepting a predetermined position, disregarding the possibility of such a choice.

Propagandistic Manipulation

Propaganda may employ manipulative techniques. The main ones include:

– the use of truthful but incomplete information;
– substitution of the context of the interpretation or evaluation of the event;
– the provocation of strong emotional reactions in which psychological defense mechanisms hinder adequate perception;
– appeals to false authority.

For example, the claim that corruption exists in Ukraine and that therefore the country is doomed to defeat in the war is a manipulation based on incomplete information. In reality, the effectiveness of anti-corruption efforts depends on the development of civil society, and in Ukraine this process is progressing with varying degrees of success, in line with general patterns observed in European countries.

The assertion that corruption levels in Ukraine and Russia are the same, and that therefore these countries are fundamentally no different, constitutes a substitution of context. Meanwhile, the claim that discussing corruption “plays into the enemy’s hands” appeals to a sensitive perception of social reality and triggers psychological defense mechanisms. Each of these manipulations may be reinforced by references to false authorities – bloggers, analysts, public opinion, or officials.

Propagandistic Falsehood

Its main types are:

– Factual falsehood – the assertion of false facts and the denial of verified ones.
– Contextual falsehood – the interpretation of accurate facts within a context that reverses their meaning. Such a context may consist of a worldview imposed by propaganda.
– Intentional falsehood – a biased presentation of accurate facts that creates a new context for their interpretation. If a person does not share the imposed worldview, the facts are presented in a way that encourages them to change their views.

An example of factual falsehood is the claim that it was not Russia but Ukraine that started the war.
An example of contextual falsehood is the claim that Russia was forced to attack Ukraine in order to defend itself from NATO – here, facts are placed within the context of a nonexistent threat.
An example of intentional falsehood is the claim that in any conflict there are no completely innocent parties and that each side bears some responsibility. In this case, facts are presented in a way that leads to a false conclusion. The propagandist does not insist directly on an interpretation within their worldview but instead suggests acknowledging real mistakes on the Ukrainian side in order to push toward the misleading conclusion that the responsibility of the perpetrator is comparable to that of the victim.

Indoctrination

Official Kremlin propaganda functions as a tool of indoctrination and leads to a rupture in the shared space of mutual understanding with those outside its sphere of influence. Indoctrination is the systematic influence on people’s consciousness aimed at shaping a particular ideology, worldview, or picture of reality, resulting in a transformation of values and perception. As a result, a person begins to perceive cause-and-effect relationships in society differently and assigns new – sometimes even opposite – meanings to social phenomena.

In the Soviet Union, total indoctrination was carried out on the basis of communist ideology, which could be rationally understood, making it possible to engage in debate with its adherents. Contemporary Kremlin propaganda, by contrast, imposes an irrational picture of the world in which ideology plays an instrumental role and can be replaced when necessary. This allows the Russian leadership to secure support from people with different ideological views, united by a shared worldview based on the demonization of the opponent.

Such a worldview distorts inner experience and the perception of reality to such an extent that any common ground for mutual understanding between its adherents and others disappears. As a result, meaningful discussion between them becomes practically impossible. Accordingly, propaganda that shapes public opinion within Russia often remains incomprehensible beyond its borders. For this reason, the Russian leadership constructs different propaganda systems for different audiences – separately for domestic and external consumption.

 

Nikolai Karpitsky

Dictionary of War

 

Nikolai Karpitsky. The Moment of Truth: A View of the Russian–Ukrainian War Through the Eyes of a Resident of Sloviansk

Source: PostPravda.info 22.04.2026.
URL: https://postpravda.info/en/stories/freedom-of-speech-en/the-moment-of-truth-the-war/

Are the Russians bombing civilians? – The moment of truth: Sloviansk after the bombing on April 15, 2026. Photo: Ukrainian National Police

People view the Russian–Ukrainian war through the lens of their own beliefs and expectations, often assuming that only their perspective is correct. Is there such a moment of truth that would allow us to see the war as it really is, regardless of worldview or the influence of propaganda? This is what Nikolai Karpitsky reflects on, having lived through all four years of the war in the frontline city of Sloviansk.

Why do millions of Russians support the war?

I remember my school years. For the most part, Soviet people did not need ideology to support the invasion of Afghanistan. They relied on an instinct to oppose outsiders, much like a gang of schoolchildren heading to another school to beat someone up. In some people, this instinct manifests in an aggressive form. Later, they actively supported the wars against Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine. In others, it takes the form of a desire to align with the majority; they mask their passive support for war with peaceful rhetoric and claims that “no one really knows the truth.”

There are also those who claim to value critical thinking, scientific objectivity, or a connection to a higher religious truth. Among them are people who not only support Ukraine but also feel a sense of shame – though these are rare cases. Far more numerous are those who support the aggressive war, and even more are those who try not to notice it.

A special category includes those who understand the criminal nature of the Kremlin regime and the war it has unleashed, yet declare themselves neutral. One highly educated Vaishnava teacher – a true intellectual who suffered under Russian authorities and was forced to emigrate – fully understands that Ukraine is the victim of the war, yet tried to convince me that it is unacceptable to assess the war from a religious perspective. On the one hand, such a warning is justified, as it helps prevent religion from turning into ideology. On the other hand, if we do not find a moment of truth, such neutrality can turn into tolerance for any political position that justifies crimes, including aggressive war.

In practice, it turns out that, while opposing moral relativism from a religious standpoint, this respected Vaishnava teacher inadvertently arrives at justifying moral relativism in politics. This is illustrated by his polemical statement about the Russian–Ukrainian war during a discussion with me: “Both sides claim they are right and are fighting for their survival, while the other side wants to destroy them. This only adds fuel to the fire of war and leads to new deaths and suffering. From this perspective, it follows that the other side is absolute evil, and the only thing left to do is to fight until either the supposedly ‘good’ side wins or is completely destroyed. This is a dead-end path.” I think most modern Western politicians and religious leaders who sympathize with Ukraine would agree with his words.

Is Death the Moment of Truth?

Over time, my own political views have changed, and I have often been mistaken in my assessments of events and politicians. That is why it is important for me to find a moment of truth – to overcome my own misconceptions. A moment of truth is an undeniable fact that allows one to reassess one’s understanding of what is happening, regardless of personal beliefs or expectations.

For example, I cannot determine who is at fault if a husband and wife in a neighboring apartment are constantly arguing. Each constructs a convincing narrative in which the other is to blame. But if the worst happens – if the husband kills the wife – that becomes a moment of truth for me, independent of whatever justifications the murderer may offer.

Death is an absolute reality, independent of opinions or interpretations. That is why I responded to the respected Vaishnava teacher as follows: “Many things can be obscured by arguments that no one knows the truth – but not death. A person is either alive or dead. I know that if I remain under occupation, I will not survive – and that is the truth of life. Why should I care about intellectual games based on moral relativism?”

Every Step Toward a Larger War Revealed Its Own Moment of Truth

In the autumn of 1999, a series of apartment bombings in various Russian cities became the pretext for a new war against Chechnya. While preparing another attack – the bombing of a residential building – a group of Moscow FSB officers was reportedly caught in the act. This fact is presented as a moment of truth that does not depend on political beliefs. Nevertheless, most Russians ignored it and, six months later, voted for Putin in the presidential election, thereby supporting a security-service takeover in Russia and an aggressive war.

In February 2014, Russia occupied Crimea and began sending organized armed groups into eastern Ukraine to ignite war there as well. This was done under the cover of a propaganda campaign about a “Kyiv junta,” alleged reprisals against Russians, and massive flows of refugees from Ukraine. One may hold different political views and be misled by propaganda, but one cannot ignore the moment of truth – the question of who first brought death to Donbas.

On March 13, 2014, in central Donetsk, pro-Russian militants, after a peaceful rally had ended, stabbed a young man, Dmytro Cherniavsky, to death. This is a moment of truth that does not depend on political beliefs or worldview.

On April 12, 2014, pro-Russian militants led by Igor Girkin seized Sloviansk, while Russian propaganda claimed that it was the residents of Donbas themselves who were rising up against Kyiv. Most people in Russia believed this. I tried to persuade them otherwise, but it was completely futile, because people relied on their beliefs and ignored the moment of truth revealed by a simple question: when did reprisals against peaceful residents of Sloviansk begin – before this event or after?

There are numerous testimonies of torture and killings of civilians by Girkin’s militants, and not a single testimony of comparable crimes from the Ukrainian side. I will cite an account I know from Natalia Bradarska, the wife of a deacon of the Pentecostal church “Transfiguration of the Lord,” who was shot.

On June 8, the feast of Trinity, pro-Russian militants abducted four Christians immediately after the service, right outside the church: two deacons – Viktor Bradarsky and Volodymyr Velychko – and the two sons of the pastor, Ruvym and Albert Pavenko. That same day, the abducted men were brutally tortured, and during the night, they were executed. The occupiers concealed the fact of the killings from the families, but after the liberation of Sloviansk, it became possible to reconstruct the crime in detail.

I told representatives of different religious denominations in Tomsk about this event – people with whom I had previously organized interfaith dialogue. I thought this would be the moment of truth that would force them to reassess the situation in Ukraine. But my former Russian friends ignored my message and did not change their attitude toward the war in any way.

A Distorted Picture of the World and the Reality of War

It would seem that the launch of an unprovoked war of conquest against a neighboring state should have become a moment of truth for the citizens of the aggressor country – but the opposite happened. Many Russians who declared political neutrality in 2014 ultimately locked themselves into their distorted worldview and began to justify the war against Ukraine.

A colleague of mine in Russia, also a Doctor of Philosophy, a scholar of religion, and a Vaishnava – an adherent of an Indian spiritual tradition – recently wrote a comment under my post: “The USSR imposed its ideology, and did so in vain, and lost. Now the United States imposes Pax Americana. They interfered in the peaceful neighborly relations between Ukraine and Russia.” Such a statement is only possible with a complete misunderstanding or disregard for lived experience in Ukraine, when instead of searching for a moment of truth, the assumptions of a distorted worldview are accepted by default. In other words, neither scientific critical thinking nor a sense of connection to a higher religious truth provides sufficient grounding for an adequate perception of reality.

We can all be mistaken, because we interpret events within the framework of our own worldview. In particular, despite the obvious Russian threat, it is difficult for residents of European countries to imagine that their cities could be destroyed by bombardment. It was also difficult for me to imagine that Russia would destroy Ukrainian cities, even though I already knew how Russian forces had destroyed Grozny and Aleppo.

At the beginning of the invasion, the horizon of expectations for Ukrainian residents was very limited – several weeks, or at most a few months. It was too frightening to imagine that the war would last for many years: the psyche’s defense mechanisms do not allow one to fully confront such a possibility. Therefore, it is necessary to rely on moment of truth that help restore an adequate perception of reality, even if doing so is very painful.

We arrive at a moment of truth during war when we discard subjective judgments and expectations and identify what is undeniable. During war, what is undeniable is the proximity of death. That is why I responded to my Russian colleague as follows: “If you were to kill or rape someone, could your actions be justified by claiming that American propaganda destroyed your good neighborly relations with the victim? For four years now, Russians have been trying to kill me, my friends, and my colleagues, and tens of millions support this intention. After that, hearing about good neighborly relations is insulting.”

Random and Inevitable Death

There is no safe place in Ukraine: any resident can be killed at any moment. Random death from a missile threatens even those deep in the rear. However, the more dangerous a place is, the faster you get used to it. It is impossible to constantly think about the threat to your life, and when the bombing stops, you simply forget about the danger.

The full-scale invasion shattered the habitual feeling of life. In the first days, the “fog of war” plunged us into a state of complete uncertainty – it was impossible to adequately assess the immediate threat to our lives. The explosion of a cruise missile right above my home dispelled this fog: random death can strike at any moment. That first time, it was so unfamiliar that I was a few minutes late for a class with my students, which I was conducting remotely. Later, I became so accustomed to such explosions that I stopped paying attention to them.

This became another moment of truth for me: an entire state is working to kill the residents of a neighboring country. Soon, among my friends and colleagues, there were casualties, and through this prism of death, I began to look at my former friends in Russia. The moment of truth revealed the falseness of those who expressed sympathy for Ukraine while claiming that “brotherly nations” had been set against each other by Americans, that all sides were to blame for the war, and that it was not Russia but only Putin who was waging the war against Ukraine.

As I began writing this article, a one-and-a-half-ton aerial bomb was dropped in the center of Sloviansk. Strikes on the city had occurred before, quite regularly, but usually 250-kilogram bombs were used. This one was six times more powerful: two buildings were destroyed, 39 apartment blocks were damaged, and I was left without electricity. When it was restored, I learned that on the night of April 15–16, Russia had carried out a large-scale combined attack across Ukraine. According to preliminary data, 16–17 people were killed and more than 120 were injured. The main strikes hit residential areas: people were killed in their apartments in Kyiv, Odesa, Dnipro, Kharkiv, and other cities.

Russia is a large country, and it is difficult to govern it through precise commands: there is no guarantee that orders will not be distorted as they pass down the hierarchy. Therefore, it is governed through guidelines. The leadership makes clear what it wants, and subordinates try to curry favor, sometimes contrary to expediency and common sense. Russia also wages war in accordance with such guidelines. For example, during the February frosts, there was a guideline to disable the energy system and freeze Ukraine. Now it is spring; the leadership’s interest in this goal has waned, and with it the zeal of those carrying out the orders.

While I was writing this, another heavy aerial bomb was dropped on the center of our city. The electricity went out briefly; when it came back, I continued writing – and then two powerful explosions sounded very close by. All of this suggests that the Russian leadership has issued a new guideline – to deliberately bomb residential neighborhoods. Of course, they were bombed before as well, but now the likelihood of being killed has increased many times over – at least until another guideline is issued.

The Approaching Kill Zone – a Moment of Truth for Those Living in Frontline Areas

Death from shelling is random – it is like “Russian roulette.” Another matter is the wave of occupiers who destroy everything in their path. Even if one manages to survive it, one may end up in an occupied zone – and then it is not just death that threatens, but death after torture.

This summer, Russian forces are again trying to capture Sloviansk; they first attempted this in the summer of 2022. Over the four years of war that I have spent in Sloviansk, an entire technological era of warfare has changed: you no longer see multiple rocket launch systems on the streets, and tanks are perceived like mammoths from a prehistoric age. Now it is a war of drones, robots, and electronic technologies.

In the spring of 2022, I could hear, week after week, the artillery cannonade drawing closer: first somewhere far away – forty kilometers from us – then thirty, then twenty… In the evenings, white flashes could be seen over the horizon – there was fighting there too, but so far away that the sounds did not reach us. The most frightening thing was the information isolation during prolonged power outages, when you do not know what is happening at the front: what if the enemy has already broken through, and it is too late to flee?

Russian forces advanced, creating in front of them a wall of artillery fire that ground everything into dust. It felt as if a wave of orcs was approaching, destroying everything in its path. Appealing to their humanity is pointless, and there is no hope for mercy. This approaching death became a moment of truth, demonstrating that Russia is waging this war for destruction, not for any political gain.

Now it is a different era of war – this is evident if you walk through the city. You no longer encounter armored vehicles crushing the asphalt as in 2022; now the roads look new and are covered with anti-drone nets. There are no warplanes roaring overhead; instead, you increasingly hear the buzzing, humming, and sometimes whistling of deadly drones. You never know whether that sound will be the last you hear in your life. These drones control the territory around the city, and fifteen kilometers to the east begins a continuous kill zone, where everything that moves is destroyed.

So far, it has not been possible to stop the advance of this zone; moreover, Russia is bringing in additional troops in our direction. How the summer battle for Donbas will end is unknown. I hope that Russian forces will not succeed in capturing our city, but the probability that it will end up within the kill zone remains high.

Once, I lived in Russia and communicated with people who seemed intelligent and decent. Back then, they appeared quite normal: some demonstrated critical thinking grounded in culture, while others preached goodness and moral values based on their religious experience. Now, however, they assess the war within their distorted worldview. I cannot draw their attention to the moment of truth – they will neither listen to nor read me. Nevertheless, I share with them a common collective responsibility for their attitude toward the war.

"Guilt". War Dictionary by Nikolai Karpitsky

Source: PostPravda.info 01.04.2026
URL: https://postpravda.info/en/stories/dictionary-of-war/guilt-and-the-feeling-of-collective-guilt/

 

Are all Russians guilty of the war? Can we speak of collective guilt, or can guilt only be personal? How does a sense of collective guilt arise?

Guilt

Guilt is always connected to an action. The subject of an action may be an individual, a state, or a social institution that possesses a unified decision-making mechanism. If such a mechanism does not exist, then guilt cannot exist either. A subject bears guilt for an action in two cases: either when it was originally based on malicious intent, or when – regardless of intent – the action led to injustice and caused harm to people. Unlike the state, a people cannot be the subject of an action and therefore cannot be guilty of committing it, since a people represent an imagined unity of individuals, each of whom acts in their own way, while decision-making mechanisms belong not to the people as such but to specific social institutions.

Guilt presupposes political, legal, or moral punishment. Guilt is borne by an individual subject, not a collective one: a person, not society; a state, not a people; a church organization, not Christians, and so on. Punishment must always be applied only to an individual subject, even if the consequences of this punishment affect others. For example, when an outstanding cultural figure is punished for a criminal offense, society suffers, but this is not grounds for exempting that person from responsibility. Similarly, when a state is punished for unleashing an aggressive war, the entire people suffer; however, this is not grounds for exempting the state from punishment – boycotts, sanctions, and other measures, up to and including its complete dismantling. At the same time, each citizen may bear their own personal guilt for inaction or, all the more so, for complicity in the crimes of the state; in every case, however, each person has their own specific guilt.

The Feeling of Collective Guilt

It is necessary to distinguish between actual guilt and the feeling of guilt. Although a people cannot bear collective guilt, a person may experience a feeling of guilt for their people, since a feeling of guilt can relate not only to one’s own actions but also to the actions of other people or groups with whom one identifies. For example, children are not guilty of their parents’ actions, but they may feel guilt for them. Thus, although collective guilt cannot exist, a feeling of collective guilt is formed on the basis of common identity. A person can experience it together with those with whom they identify: family, church, people, country, and so on.

In mythological and religious contexts, the feeling of collective guilt and guilt itself are practically indistinguishable; therefore, it is entirely justified to say that God, fate, history, or higher powers punish a people for guilt.

Types of Guilt

Criminal guilt is determined by the fact of committing a crime that is legally defined and punishable by law. It is always personal in nature. Even if a crime is committed by an organization, each of its members is legally responsible for their own personal guilt. In addition to criminal guilt, Karl Jaspers distinguishes political, moral, and metaphysical guilt.

If the residents of a country supported the regime, they bear moral guilt for this; ignorance, lack of understanding of the situation, or the absence of its legal qualification cannot serve as justification. Moral guilt is personal in nature, since it concerns specific subjects and their actions.

Political guilt is the guilt of all citizens for the regime they endure, even if they themselves are victims of that regime and did not directly participate in its crimes. This is where its collective character manifests itself. Since factual guilt cannot be collective, political guilt is expressed in the feeling of guilt and in a willingness to bear responsibility for the crimes of one’s own state and of one’s fellow citizens who supported the regime.

Metaphysical guilt is expressed in a feeling of responsibility for one’s own inaction when crimes are being committed nearby. Every Russian bears metaphysical guilt for Russia’s crimes, because there is always something they could have done but did not do. Since this remainder cannot be precisely determined, metaphysical guilt is given not as a universally valid fact, but as a feeling of personal responsibility for not having done everything one could. At the core of metaphysical guilt lies a feeling of shared human solidarity; the denial of metaphysical guilt is a sign of indifference toward other people and toward their right to life.

Metaphysical Guilt and Responsibility for Russia’s War Against Ukraine

Hannah Arendt draws a distinction between guilt and responsibility. While criminal and moral guilt are factual in nature – that is, they are determined by the actions of a specific subject – political and metaphysical guilt may be unrelated to one’s own actions and, in such cases, manifest only as an inner feeling. Accordingly, what Karl Jaspers called political and metaphysical guilt is understood by Hannah Arendt as a form of responsibility rather than factual guilt.

Guilt for Russia’s war against Ukraine is borne by the state as a social institution, as well as by all those who are complicit in this crime. At the same time, an individual citizen of Russia may experience a feeling of metaphysical guilt for not having done everything possible to stop the war, and a feeling of political guilt for their affiliation with the aggressor state. These experiences express both the personal and the collective responsibility of a citizen for the war unleashed by their state. Although this feeling is experienced individually, it can be shared by others, leading to the formation in public consciousness of a collective feeling of guilt for the war, on the basis of which an understanding of collective responsibility arises. If a person ignores this responsibility, they bear personal guilt for their own irresponsibility.

 

Nikolai Karpitsky

Dictionary of War

 

Nikolai Karpitsky. The Kremlin’s Quasi-Religion

Source: PostPravda.info 18.08.2025.
URL: https://postpravda.info/en/stories/freedom-of-speech-en/kremlins-quasi-religion/

 

A new quasi-religion for traditional faiths in Russia. Photo: duma.gov.ru

 

The Kremlin demands unconditional loyalty from all religious denominations, including those it systematically persecutes. In 2014, during Russia’s invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, the Kremlin was still satisfied with declarations of political neutrality from Russian religious organizations, provided they did not speak out in support of Ukraine or their Ukrainian co-believers. However, after the start of the full-scale war, the Kremlin demanded more – namely, religious justification for the war against Ukraine. On March 29, 2022, in the building of the State Duma, representatives of various confessions jointly formulated the foundations of a new doctrine – Manichaean necro-imperialism. Its essence lies in the idea that Russia must once again become a great empire in order to destroy the “evil” embodied by the West and Ukraine. This new quasi-religion is incompatible with genuine religiosity, regardless of denomination.

Discrimination and Repression Against Religious Organizations in Russia

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia experienced an unprecedented level of religious freedom in its history. However, after Vladimir Putin came to power, the concept of the “traditional religions of Russia” began to be imposed, within which all other confessions were regarded as inferior and subjected to discrimination – initially subtle, but increasingly severe with each passing year.

The war in Chechnya also provoked repression against Muslims, despite the fact that Islam is considered one of the “traditional” religions. For career and material gain – promotions and bonuses – FSB officers began searching for “extremists” in other regions as well. As a result, the list of extremist materials banned in Russia came to include works by Muslim theologians and philosophers studied around the world. Even one translation of the Qur’an was banned.

Moreover, adding any “non-traditional” denomination to the list of extremist organizations provided Russian security services with an easy way to improve their “performance” statistics. In 2011, the prosecutor’s office, at the initiative of the FSB, initiated a trial against a sacred Hindu text – the Bhagavad Gita with commentary by the founder of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), Srila Prabhupada. Had the court declared the book extremist, practicing Krishna devotion in Russia would have become a criminal offense punishable by a long prison sentence. Thanks to protests by civil society in Tomsk and support from India, these plans were thwarted, delaying – but not preventing – the escalation of religious repression.

In 2016, amendments to legislation (the so-called “Yarovaya package”) were adopted, restricting the public dissemination of religious beliefs, tightening penalties, and expanding the powers of security services. In 2017, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation recognized Jehovah’s Witnesses as an extremist organization, and their followers began to be sentenced to imprisonment. Harsh sentences (7–8.5 years) have become routine since 2021. A similar threat has loomed over other religious organizations labeled as “non-traditional.”

To Tell the Truth or Adapt?

While Ukrainian Pentecostals enjoy full religious freedom, their fellow believers in Russia have been forced to constantly look over their shoulders at the authorities’ attitude toward them. One might expect this to encourage a more critical view of Russian policy.

In 2014, church leaders of Ukrainian and Russian Pentecostal communities held a series of meetings to develop a common position regarding Russia’s invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Ukrainian Pentecostals proceeded from the belief that the Church should be a herald of truth and has a duty to speak openly about the suffering caused by Russian aggression. In response, Russian Pentecostals stated that they were “outside politics” and “love everyone,” and therefore saw no need to discuss the war or the actions of the Russian authorities – not only publicly, but even in private conversations. Soon, both sides became convinced of the futility of such meetings, and communication between Ukrainian and Russian Pentecostals ceased. A similar process took place among followers of other religions.

A New Quasi-Religion: Washington as the Lair of Satan, and “We Will Become a Great Empire!”

With the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Russian authorities were no longer satisfied with the “neutrality” of religious organizations and demanded not just support, but religious justification for the war against Ukraine. To this end, on March 29, 2022, representatives of various religions gathered in the State Duma of the Russian Federation for a roundtable titled “World Religions Against the Ideology of Nazism and Fascism in the 21st Century.” The participants were expected to formulate a common religious position justifying Russia’s war against Ukraine.

Among the participants in the roundtable were:

– Vakhtang Kipshidze, Deputy Chairman of the Synodal Department for Church Relations with Society and Media of the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church;
– Metropolitan Korniliy of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church;
– Albir Krganov, Head of the Spiritual Assembly of Muslims of Russia;
– Talgat Tadzhuddin, Supreme Mufti and Chairman of the Central Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Russia;
– Aaron Gurevich, Head of the Department of the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia for Cooperation with the Armed Forces, EMERCOM, and Law Enforcement Agencies;
– Did Khambo Lama Dashinima Sodnomdorzhiev, representative of the Buddhist Traditional Sangha of Russia;
– Archbishop Yezras, Head of the Russian and New Nakhichevan Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church;
– Sergey Ryakhovsky, Presiding Bishop of the Russian United Union of Christians of Evangelical Faith (Pentecostals);
– and other members of Russian religious organizations.

At the time, the media wrote extensively about this event but underestimated its historical significance. For the first time, representatives of different religions in Russia jointly engaged in shaping a unified religious stance on the war against Ukraine. Each participant contributed to formulating the core tenets of a new quasi-religion – Manichaean necro-imperialism.

Note. Manichaeism, like Gnosticism, is an ancient doctrine according to which the material world is evil. The difference between them lies in the fact that a follower of Gnosticism is passive and indifferent to what is happening around them, whereas a follower of Manichaeism is oriented toward active struggle against the external world. Gnosticism holds that the material world was created by an “evil god,” and therefore life and struggle are meaningless. Manichaeism, by contrast, asserts that the “evil god” invaded the realm of the “good god,” and therefore true adherents of the good must fight to cleanse the world of evil. Bolshevik ideology is, in essence, an atheistic transformation of Manichaeism, since it proceeds from the idea that the old world must be purged of evil through class struggle.

The head of the Spiritual Assembly of Muslims of Russia, Albir Krganov, stated that in the 21st century the ideology of Nazism and fascism has intensified in a number of countries, manifesting itself in violence against civilians.

Monk Kiprian declared that Washington is the lair of the devil, that God is on the side not of the West but of Russia, and that, therefore, victory will belong to Russia. He added that Russia is an instrument in God’s hands, destined to stop the spread across the Earth of abominations before the Lord – everything immoral emanating from the United States.

Deputy Chairman of the Synodal Department Vakhtang Kipshidze argued that, with the support of the Constantinople Patriarchate and the United States, the Orthodox Church of Ukraine was created – a “quasi-religious structure” that united schismatics sharing a commitment to extreme nationalism. In turn, the Russian Orthodox Church assists Russian military forces.

Metropolitan Korniliy of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church claimed that the authorities in Ukraine have allegedly renounced God; that the ideas of Nazism are widespread in Ukraine and in European countries and have received state-level support, which has led to genocide – the alleged extermination of Russians in Donbas and Luhansk; that Ukraine is waging war against civilians and using them as a shield; and that “Nazi authorities,” supported by the tolerant West, trample all norms of Christian morality. He urged people to pray for the soldiers, especially for Putin, and concluded his speech by stating: “We will be a great nation; we will be a great empire.”

It is worth noting that when the moderator of the roundtable pressed a priest of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate from Luhansk to confirm “Nazi atrocities,” she heard nothing beyond an account of the charitable activities of the Luhansk diocese.

Lama Dashinima Sodnomdorzhiev – the only participant whom the moderator asked to keep his remarks very brief – showed no offense and called for unity against fascism and Nazism, and for defeating and destroying this evil so that others would not dare to repeat it.

The representative of Jewish communities, Aaron Gurevich, spoke about Nazism in general terms, occasionally gesturing toward the West.

The Presiding Bishop of the Russian United Union of Christians of Evangelical Faith (Pentecostals), Sergey Ryakhovsky, stated that he is driven by love – but a kind of love that “destroys evil” – and emphasized how important it was that Putin had invoked words from the Bible to justify the military invasion of Ukraine, since there was no other way to defend the truth.

The Supreme Mufti and Chairman of the Central Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Russia, Talgat Tadzhuddin, called for fighting the devil without being deceived by slogans about democracy and civilization, as had happened in Syria and was now occurring in Ukraine. He expressed satisfaction that Russian troops were positioned around Kyiv and that Ukraine’s naval, air defense, and missile forces had been “destroyed.” He also stated that on the very first day – February 24 – the Council of the Central Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Russia adopted a declaration fully supporting the military actions against Ukraine. He further emphasized their significance from a religious perspective: Putin is a ruler, and the ruler is the shadow of God on earth; therefore, in the war against Ukraine, the Almighty grants Putin inexhaustible strength.
 

Russia’s Chief Mufti Talgat Tadzhuddin has called for a fight against the devil in Ukraine. duma.gov.ru

 

 Salah Mitaevich Mezhiev reported that the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of the Chechen Republic supported the military operation “against Nazism, fascism, and Satanism in Ukraine” on the second day and issued a fatwa according to which Muslims participating in the war against Ukraine are fighting for the Qur’an and for the Prophet Muhammad. He declared that the war with Ukraine is a jihad and that anyone who falls will be a shahid (martyr); that it is a war against the globalization of Satanism; and that Ukraine and European countries are dominated by Satanists, devils, Nazis, fascists, the LGBT community, Kharijites, and Wahhabis, toward whom he feels only hatred. He also reproached other participants in the roundtable for calling for love. “There is only one way to deal with them – they must be beheaded, and that’s all,” he concluded.

Archpriest Alexander Alexandrovich Pelin from St. Petersburg stated that Ukraine is not Christian but pagan. He supported this claim by asserting that the Ukrainian coat of arms – the trident of Prince Volodymyr – is a pagan symbol, namely the falcon of Rarog, a false god in Scandinavian mythology, which allegedly became established under the influence of Austria-Hungary in the 19th century. Therefore, he argued, Russian Christians are now fighting not Ukrainian Christians but pagans.

Ismail Berdiev, Chairman of the Coordination Center of Muslims of the North Caucasus, stated that no negotiations should be conducted with Ukrainians. Even if they agreed to capitulate, he said, this should not be accepted; instead, they should be destroyed completely. “There should be no Ukraine,” he declared.

Later, in June 2022, Sergey Ryakhovsky made it clear that neither he nor his church would take any action in response to the appeal of Ukrainian Protestant churches to repent for their statements at this roundtable and to condemn Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine. He stated that the appeal of his Ukrainian co-believers had been made in the spirit of “Russophobia,” allegedly spreading around the world.

Why Does the Kremlin Need the Support of Religious Communities?

At the time of the invasion, the Kremlin fully controlled public opinion and the situation within the country, yet it still demanded that religious denominations abandon their “neutrality,” which had previously sufficed. Putin and his inner circle appear to hold a dualistic worldview: the world is divided into “us” and “enemies,” who must be destroyed not for the sake of gain, but simply because they are enemies – even if this requires sacrifices and leads to crisis within their own country.

From a pragmatic point of view, this is meaningless; that is why Western politicians tried to reach agreements with Putin by appealing to his self-interest. However, the motivation of the Russian authorities is irrational, and in order to legitimize it, they have demanded that religious denominations provide a religious justification for the war against Ukraine.

Although the participants in the roundtable differed in the details, the general contours of their position can be identified:

– Ukraine has no right to exist independently of Russia;
– God is on Russia’s side in the war against Ukraine;
– religious communities must support this war;
– this is a war against Western civilization, which embodies evil – Nazism, Satanism, immorality, and the rejection of “traditional values.”

These theses reveal the outlines of a new doctrine deeply hostile not only to the West and Ukraine but also to the very religions on whose behalf the participants in the roundtable spoke. This doctrine is a revived form of Manichaeism based on Russian necro-imperialism – in other words, Manichaean necro-imperialism.

Manichaean Necro-Imperialism and Gnostic Fatalism

The Russian authorities need both those who justify the war and those who are ready to go and die. What is at stake here is not so much belief as an attitude toward life, and the authorities are interested in soldiers obediently going to certain death, believing that life has no meaning. This attitude toward life is embodied in Gnostic fatalism. But in order for ordinary people to support the killing of their friends and relatives in a neighboring country, they are persuaded that they are surrounded by enemies – and this attitude is embodied in Manichaean necro-imperialism.

Under the conditions of life in Russia, Gnostic fatalism forms spontaneously – no additional effort by the authorities is required. Of course, Russian soldiers who obediently accept dying senselessly are unlikely to believe in the existence of an “evil god,” as ancient Gnosticism teaches; however, they spontaneously reproduce the ancient Gnostic attitude toward life: if everything is meaningless, then there are no moral constraints, and no life – neither another’s nor one’s own – has value. Unlike Gnosticism, Manichaeism provides motivation to struggle against the surrounding world, onto which the image of the enemy is projected. Since such projection occurs spontaneously, the Russian authorities have needed the assistance of religious organizations to channel this process into hatred toward the West. This is precisely why the roundtable of March 29, 2022, was held.

But why would Russian adherents of different religions support this quasi-religion? The motivation here may be quite down-to-earth. Religious organizations seek to adapt to the conditions of life in Russia, to protect themselves by demonstrating their loyalty and usefulness to the authorities. At first glance, this seems paradoxical: in doing so, they place a social task above their spiritual mission. After all, if a religion abandons its higher purpose for the sake of survival, it loses the very meaning of its existence. There is, however, another possible reason – the Stockholm syndrome. But that is a topic for a separate discussion.

Nikolai Karpitsky. Studying in Ukraine During the War: “Sorry I didn’t reply during the class – it’s hard to get even a half-decent internet connection in the basement”

Source: PostPravda.info 03.03.2025.
URL: https://postpravda.info/en/stories/frontline-stories/studying-in-ukraine-during-the-war/

On February 22, 2022, Ukrainians woke up in a different world – one in which not everyone would manage to survive. Of course, there had been talk beforehand about a possible Russian invasion, but few people believed it – just as few people today believe in the possibility of a Russian invasion of other European countries. This is understandable: it is hard to imagine that, in a single moment, one’s entire familiar life could come to an end.

 

Studying in Ukraine: The First Days of the War

The morning of February 24, 2022. The wail of sirens filled the air over Kyiv, but no one yet knew what it really meant for cities to be bombed. It was still unclear what exactly to fear. How many of my acquaintances and friends would still be alive a year later? Kyiv residents were setting up camp in the metro, intending to spend the night there, naively believing they could wait out the war underground. One acquaintance of mine wanted to leave Kyiv with her friends and wait out the war in Bucha. No one could imagine that it was precisely there that the Russians would carry out a massacre. She was saved only by the fact that fighting had already begun there and she did not manage to get there.

I understood that the best thing to do was to continue carrying out one’s everyday duties and to find one’s mission. My mission is connected with my profession: to transform emotions into understanding, in order to help people overcome their fear of uncertainty. To do this, I returned home to Sloviansk, continued teaching, and began keeping a chronicle with philosophical reflections. By clarifying meanings, I could give people a point of support for understanding what was happening.

At that time, I was teaching my own online course – The Philosophy of Human Communication. Fighting was going on in Kyiv, and it was still unknown whether the city would hold, yet according to the schedule I had another lecture to give. Several female students from Sievierodonetsk joined the class. They had not yet recovered from the emotional shock. How was I supposed to lecture them? I tried to convey a sense of confidence, to demonstrate a rational attitude toward what was happening without excessive emotion. And they replied: “Russian planes are already above us. We’re in a bomb shelter.” The students were about twenty years old; when the war in Donbas began, they had been around twelve. The fragile balance between peace and war – that had been their entire life, and now that balance had collapsed into an abyss.

Later, one of the students found herself under occupation and said that time there seemed to have stopped in 2014 for the local youth. They were already over twenty, but their consciousness was like that of fourteen-year-olds. “If we,” she said, “are active in life – looking for jobs to support ourselves while studying, making decisions for ourselves – then the local youth are infantile. It wouldn’t even occur to them to decide anything on their own.”

 

The Mission of a Teacher and Philosopher During the War

After recalling the students, the Ukrainian government announced a break, so the next lecture took place only two weeks later. A relatively large number of students attended. My task was to conduct the classes in such a way that they would become an island of familiar life amid the chaos of war and serve as moral support for the students.

For this to happen, the students needed to trust me – to perceive me as someone who shared all the dangers with them here in Donbas, not far from the front line; someone who differed from them not in social status, but in life experience. In a situation where death is close, one persuades not with words but with one’s example. That is why I tried not only to speak, but also to demonstrate inner calm and a readiness to act, maintaining confidence in my decisions and actions no matter how terrifying the external circumstances might be.

In such circumstances, people need someone nearby who can demonstrate this confidence. Neither comforting talk nor formal teaching as if nothing had happened is acceptable here, for that would be a sign of inadequacy. As a teacher, I needed to show that I understood the students, that I accurately assessed the horror unfolding around us, and that in any situation I could offer a rational strategy for action and was prepared to take responsibility for my decisions.

 

Classes During Shelling

The next class began. We exchanged information about the situations each of us was facing. A student from Lyman said that things were quiet there, even though a powerful explosion had just sounded very close by. In response, I said that things were also quiet in Sloviansk, although the previous day the sirens had been blaring constantly; the day before that, there had been cannon fire and missile explosions all day long, and one of the missiles had struck very close to my home.

And so, having exchanged updates, we began the class. I needed to connect my lecture to the new reality, and this time I chose the topic of lies. The internet connection was unreliable, since electricity was often cut, but I had written to each student in advance via private chat that we could stay in constant contact there.

A student from Lysychansk, who lost her internet connection during the class, later sent the following message:

“It’s quite scary in Lysychansk. My home is near one of the main roads. When vehicles pass – anything from cars to tanks – you can hear them very, very clearly, especially because the road has been destroyed by tanks. Shelling happens very often and is extremely loud. There are neighborhoods that have been completely devastated. Many people have had no water, electricity, or gas for two weeks now. It will take a long time to restore all of this.

The primary school where I studied is half destroyed. Heavy equipment is constantly stationed near the gymnasium where I went to middle school. Because the house where I live now is relatively close, every shot from near the gymnasium is felt extremely sharply. Near the lyceum where I attended high school, a shell fell in the very first days. No one ever figured out whether it was part of a launch mechanism or an unexploded shell.

Going outside is extremely dangerous – even to the shop across the road. Heavy fighting is underway in Rubizhne right now. From our side, there is intense and constant fire directed toward it. Cities are burning. In areas where friends once lived, there are practically no houses left.

Most roads are mined; railway tracks have been blown up. Now the question concerns the bridges. As soon as the Armed Forces of Ukraine begin to withdraw, the bridges will be destroyed – they are of strategic importance. Trying to leave now can be compared to the agony of an animal driven into a corner. There is an enormous amount of false information, a flood of fakes concerning civilian evacuation. You don’t know where you might gain something and where you might lose everything.

Today, acquaintances left for Svatove in an evacuation convoy at 8:30 a.m. As of now, there has been no contact with them. It is unknown whether they arrived – or whether they are alive at all…

I apologize for not responding during the class. It’s hard to get even a more or less stable internet connection in the basement.”

It is the third month of classes. The Russians have captured Sievierodonetsk, Lysychansk, and Lyman and have approached Sloviansk, where I live. A student who evacuated from Lyman asks how Sloviansk is being shelled and compares it with how his city was shelled before it was captured:

“First they shelled the hospital and the House of Culture, and then regular artillery duels began, and all life-support systems in the city stopped. As a rule, the shelling went on continuously from four to ten in the morning. Then there was a lull during the day until six in the evening, after which it resumed again until one in the morning.”

 

An Attitude Toward Life That Gives Strength

I continued to choose lecture topics in response to the questions raised by the war: duty, responsibility, attitudes toward evil, and so on. However, the topic that aroused the greatest interest was love between a man and a woman. It was discussed passionately even by those attending classes while under shelling. Despite the war, the younger generation lives inwardly in the peaceful future of Ukraine.

I also shared personal reflections with the students. When I was teaching in Tomsk (Siberia), I was once offered a strategy for building an academic career: to write grant applications, travel to Moscow, cultivate connections with influential scholars, and thereby increase my authority and social status. Some of my colleagues followed this path. They gained recognition – and are now forced to adapt to the regime in Russia against their conscience. Had I done the same, I would have lost my philosophical talent.

There is a fundamental difference between a philosopher and a specialist in philosophy. A philosopher articulates lived experience. And when there is a war, a philosopher cannot avoid speaking about the experience of war – otherwise, they cease to be a philosopher. For philosophical self-realization, I need only free time to write and the opportunity to live through, together with everyone else, the experience I reflect upon. In frontline Sloviansk, I have all of this. My successful colleagues in Russia do not.

The war has revealed that the struggle for recognition, social status, academic careers, and authority is nothing more than an illusion – a mirage. The authenticity of life is revealed in its intrinsic value, when one acts in accordance with oneself. That is what I tried to convey to the students in my lectures.

 

Studying in Ukraine: Students’ Testimonies

Ukrainian youth is diverse. Some are politicized; others are not. They have very different interests, but there is something that unites them all: they are oriented toward the future, and at the same time they see no future whatsoever with Russia. They do not watch television and perceive the war not through the prism of politics or ideology, but realistically – as it manifests itself in everyday life.

I was once again convinced of this when I spoke with them during assessments and exams. Below are excerpts from these conversations, with minor stylistic editing that does not alter their meaning.

From an occupied district of Luhansk Oblast

– I managed to get in touch with difficulty. I have local registration, so they are not letting me leave the LPR – mobilization is under way.

Note

    LPR – so-called Luhansk People’s Republic.
    DPR – so-called Donetsk People’s Republic.
   These are the names used by Russian authorities and pro-Russian separatists for the puppet administrations in the occupied parts of the Luhansk and Donetsk regions.

From Ukraine, after evacuation from Mariupol

– We could have been killed many times. I can’t talk about it. I can’t promise that I’ll ever be able to tell it…

From Svitlodarsk (under occupation)

– I am in Svitlodarsk. Since May 24 we’ve had the DPR, and since May 29 there has been no communication at all. Only now have I managed to get in touch for the first time. There is nothing in the city – no water, no electricity, no gas, no internet. The fact that I somehow managed to catch a signal is a miracle.

From Ukraine, after evacuation from Lyman

– On April 22 there was the first heavy shelling. At about five in the morning, the Donetsk Regional Trauma Hospital – which had been relocated to Lyman in 2014 – was hit by an Uragan multiple-launch rocket system. There was a fire, and neighboring houses were damaged. It was especially intense on the night from April 30 to May 1: shelling began at 8 p.m. and continued until about 1 a.m., then resumed again at 4 a.m. You could hear the sound of metal fragments from shells scattering across the city. Closer to noon it quieted down somewhat, and it became clear that the pedestrian bridge between the southern and northern parts of the city had been destroyed, apartment buildings and garages were damaged, and the railway station was left without windows. In the following weeks, the situation in the city only worsened; food supplies were running out, and people were exhausted by the constant roar and ongoing destruction…

From Novopskov (under occupation)

– I’m at home in Novopskov. It seems quiet here, but aircraft fly over every day, military equipment moves around – it’s very frightening.

From Kurakhovo

– I see no logic at all in the shelling. People were training at the stadium, and after they left, a missile struck it.

From Ukraine, after evacuation from Mariupol

– On February 24, Russian troops entered Ukraine. I remember that morning – the horror that reigned everywhere. From early morning, the occupiers began bombing the outskirts of Mariupol. People tried en masse to leave the city, but even then it was already blocked. Everyone rushed to withdraw cash and buy food. There was terror in people’s eyes; everyone was afraid of what would come next. Everyone was afraid of war.

I lived in the private housing sector of the Illichivskyi District. When shelling began in the Eastern District, we hid in the basement. The ground was shaking, and with it our house. Time seemed to stop. That was the first time in my life I felt that my loved ones and I could die.

All the days that followed were the same: air-raid sirens, the basement, explosions. Fighting was taking place just a few kilometers away and soon spread to the Illichivskyi District. That was when we decided to leave the city.

It so happened that we were leaving during an air bombardment. Even then, the Illichivskyi District was already in ruins – destroyed houses, burned-out cars. But the worst was still ahead. When our car reached a checkpoint, we were advised to turn around and go back because it was too dangerous. I remember my mother saying that we had to leave immediately. We – and everyone behind us – were let through at our own risk. We prayed, asking God to give us a chance to live.

That day, under bombardment, we got out. What I saw can never be forgotten: burned and shot-up cars, trucks, and military equipment… and bodies – rather, what was left of them. There were so many that my sense of reality disappeared. It was as if I had fallen into a trance. It felt like a nightmare.

My family and I left Mariupol on March 10. On March 11, as if erasing our past, a shell destroyed our home.

From Okhtyrka

– On February 24, at around 1:30 p.m., a small Russian column entered the city; it was deliberately allowed to pass through and was later destroyed somewhere out in the fields. The main fighting began on the 25th: vacuum bombs, Grad multiple-launch rocket systems, artillery, aviation, and more.

The city’s key infrastructure was completely destroyed: the combined heat and power plant and the railway station. The city center was badly damaged – the city hall was destroyed, and the House of Services, the House of Culture, and the museum were damaged.

Most residents left en masse almost immediately. In April, it was relatively quiet, but around mid-May there was a missile strike on a military facility – and a kindergarten was hit as well. Someone had informed them that weapons were being stored there, but everything had been removed three days before the strike, so it was completely pointless.

Since then, it has been calm in the city, but the border villages are constantly terrorized. Shells mostly land in the fields, deliberately, so that nothing can be sown.

From Oleksiievo-Druzhkivka

– Today there was shelling of neighboring towns (about 10 km from my settlement), and all communication was completely cut off.

From Ukraine, after evacuation from Mariupol

– I simply have no strength left for studying. My life has been knocked out from under my feet and continues to slip away even now. Since February 24, there has not been a single bright day in my life. I spent a month in Mariupol – from the beginning of the war until March 24. There we lost everything: our apartments, cars, and business. We were deported to Russia. It took us 25 days to get out of that hell so as not to remain there… Two weeks ago, I was told that my brother, who was at Azovstal, had been killed. And I cannot even bury him.

From Kharkiv

– On the 5th – I don’t remember the month, I think it was May – it was coming in all day. I was twice under direct shelling. Shrapnel flew past my face; my sneakers were torn apart.

It’s hard again in Kharkiv. Yesterday there were explosions in Saltivka. But that’s Saltivka and Novi Domy. Those who live on the other end of the city, in the Lysa Hora area, say things are more or less okay there. But overall, shelling comes every night, mostly from Belgorod. That’s been going on for a long time now. There are air-raid alerts almost constantly. They start firing from Belgorod around 11:00 p.m. Tonight, they’re shelling again too.

Conclusion. Thus, over the years of war, a generation has grown up that does not remember a time when Russia was not an enemy.

Nikolai Karpitsky. Russian Occupation Means Repression Based on Identity: Testimony of a Resident of Kherson

Source: PostPravda.info 04.03.2026.
URL: https://postpravda.info/en/stories/frontline-stories/russian-occupation-repression/

Kherson. Rally against Russian occupiers on March 13, 2022. A frame from a video chronicle. YouTube

“I would rather live in Germany under Putin’s rule than live in wartime conditions,” a 19-year-old German said in the studio of the ARD television channel in early October 2025. In his opinion, Ukrainians should surrender because life during war is supposedly far worse than life even under Putin’s rule. Behind the statement of this young man lies a widespread misconception: that Russia is waging this war purely for political reasons – to change state borders and spheres of influence. The failure to understand that this is an existential war for the right to exist creates the illusion that Russia can be negotiated with through concessions.

Perhaps Germans like this young man believe that Russian occupation would resemble life in the GDR under Soviet control. Perhaps people in Ukraine once thought that rule from Moscow was not so terrible – after all, they lived under Brezhnev. However, life under occupation is not “like in the Soviet Union,” nor even “like in present-day Russia.” It is far worse.

The occupation regime can only be compared to a Russian prison colony, or a “zone,” as it is called. There are “red zones,” where absolute power belongs to the prison administration, and “black zones,” where criminal bosses rule. Now imagine several regions turned into one vast “zone,” where the administration, together with criminals, creates total lawlessness. That is what Russian occupation looks like.

I cannot speak for others, but I will speak for myself – as a resident of Sloviansk, a city that some Western politicians would be willing to “hand over” to Putin for the sake of an illusory peace with Russia. Quite recently, FAB-250 aerial bombs destroyed several buildings not far from my home. This has become so routine that it is no longer a reason to write about it on Facebook, where I usually share my thoughts, or to interrupt my household chores. Yet I understand that things will only get worse. But even if Russian aerial bombs were to destroy half of Sloviansk, I would still have a 50 percent chance of survival. If Sloviansk were occupied, however, there would be no chance at all. That is why, for me, occupation is worse than living under wartime conditions. But this is only my personal perception.

I discussed this issue with residents of Kherson who lived through the occupation. Among them is Oksana Pohomii, a civic activist and volunteer. She has lived her entire life in Kherson, including during the occupation, and in 2020 was elected as a deputy to the Kherson City Council. I will present excerpts from our conversation to show what occupation actually looks like.

Occupation Means Legal Arbitrariness and Total Control

“The worst thing that can happen in life is occupation, – says Oksana Pohomii. – Because your freedom is taken away, even if the security services have not come for you personally. Before, we had jobs. But then you either work for the occupiers, or you do not work and are left without any means of survival.

The Russians exerted constant psychological pressure, pushing people to collaborate. For example, they dragged a woman – the head of one of the art schools – straight out of her home. They held her all day and forced her to sign a consent to cooperate. As soon as she was released, she immediately left the occupied territory.

Until the end of April, we still had mobile communication, but then it was cut off. There was no connection at all. A signal could be caught only in one place in the city center – people gathered there just to send at least a text message to their relatives. Later, communication was briefly restored, but at the end of May it was shut down again. Only Russian SIM cards were sold. The internet helped a lot: some providers continued operating.

Searches always happen unexpectedly – and that is truly terrifying. Friends reported that an armored personnel carrier was on a neighboring street and that the rashists were combing through one block after another. Our block was next the following day. I tied a scarf and put on glasses so as not to stand out. Four soldiers came to conduct the search. Their attention was distracted by our grandson Mykyta – that saved us: they did not look where the supplies of our volunteer organization were stored. One of our girls was searched several times – she lived in a settlement, in a private house.”

How the Residents of Kherson Reacted to the Occupation

“When the invasion began, I still did not know that we would be surrendered so quickly, – Mrs. Oksana recalls. – I thought there would be some resistance. I wrote on Facebook that we were gathering for a rally – my husband, our volunteers, and I, people we had worked with since 2014. We had been with them in Avdiivka, Marinka, Krasnohorivka, and Shyrokyne. We also announced that we were collecting clothes, medicines, instant food, cigarettes, and toiletries for the wounded. At first, we collected items in the lobby of the city council, but already on the second day – February 25 – there was no more space, so we moved to the district council building and later packed the aid kits elsewhere.

The first rally took place on March 5. Our volunteer group was helping Ukrainian soldiers with target coordinates, and I did not want to put people at additional risk, so I asked them not to come to the rally. I myself was already on my way to pack food supplies when a friend called and said, ‘There are so many people here! You can’t even imagine!’ Then I turned around and rushed to the rally. Later I realized: it was our ‘herts’ – we went out unarmed against fully equipped soldiers with assault rifles and shouted at them, ‘You were not expected here! Get out!’”

 

‘Herts’: Kherson residents confront Russian soldiers. A frame from a video chronicle. YouTube

The word ‘herts’, which Mrs. Oksana used, has no direct equivalent in other languages. It refers to a kind a Cossack tradition in which, before battle, the bravest warriors would ride out before the enemy army, mocking it and challenging it to single combat.

“March 13 was the day marking the liberation of Kherson from the Hitlerite occupiers, – she continues. – That day there was a very large march. The soldiers fired over our heads, but people still walked from Freedom Square to the Embankment. There was a Ukrainian flag one hundred meters long there – someone had sewn it! There was such an emotional uplift, such euphoria, that at that moment we forgot about fear. They thought they had come to a pro-Russian region, but in reality, it was not so. When we came out – and not only Kherson, but also Hola Prystan, Kakhovka, Nova Kakhovka, Kalanchak, and Skadovsk – with flags, shouting, throwing ourselves at tanks, something must have clicked in their minds: we were not going to become Russia… I don’t know, but I hope it clicked.

We spent a lot of time walking in the evenings, visiting friends and like-minded people, talking – because otherwise it was impossible to survive. You walk down the street and see that someone has tied a yellow flower and a blue flower together and hung them on a tree – and you understand: we are not alone. There are other people. As you walk, you look for these blue-and-yellow signs and believe that Ukraine will return. And we were lucky – we were liberated.”

Occupation Means the Agonizing Expectation of Reprisal

Not only the repression itself is terrifying, but also the constant threat – the expectation of punishment. Mrs. Oksana recalls:

“It is frightening to live in such a state, when you don’t know what tomorrow will bring. I constantly carried a small backpack with a toothbrush, soap, and a change of underwear in case they suddenly took me away. Only later did I realize: what backpack? They put a bag over your head, take the backpack away – and you are left with nothing. If you tell Russians all this, they won’t understand; they’ll say, ‘You could have just kept living! People can adapt to anything!’ But here someone else decides everything for you – they might, for example, step into a minibus at a checkpoint and say, ‘I don’t like you – get out!’ They felt like masters of life. If you did not submit, they could do anything to you.

The first month everything was closed, and then the market opened. There is one image that will stay in my mind forever. It was before May 9. I was going to the market looking for Ukrainian food. An open truck was slowly driving nearby, and in it was a prisoner on his knees, bare-chested, with a bag over his head. That was when it became truly frightening.

During the March 5 rally, the occupiers photographed participants from the regional administration building. A young man, Artem, was identified from one of the photographs and taken away ten days later. He was on his way home when they seized him. They shot him in the leg, dumped him near a hospital, and said, ‘You’re lucky.’ And that was still relatively mild – later things were much worse. During the occupation, he was taken to the ‘basement’ twice more.

When you constantly hear that one person after another has been taken away, you begin to understand how different reality is from expectations. We did not think it would be so terrifying until we began hearing from friends who had been held in the ‘basement’ about the abuse and torture that took place there.

People were taken to torture chambers – these were not prisons in the usual sense, where food, water, and access to a toilet are provided. It was simply a room crammed with people. Whatever you were seized in – underwear and a T-shirt – was what you remained in the entire time. No parcels were allowed. Once a day, you were taken out to fill a bottle with water and use the toilet. And they tortured, tortured, tortured… You constantly heard the screams of other people. Relatives of those arrested could not find out where their loved ones were being held. You would come to the commandant’s office and be told: ‘We don’t know.’

 

Russian Occupation, Kherson. People were tortured in this room. Kherson, November 14, 2022 by Media Center Ukraine

In one case, parents were arrested after it became known that their son served in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. ‘We’ll release you when your son comes,’ they were told. The mother was eventually freed after a month, the father after two. He had been a sturdy, handsome man, but when he was released, he looked like an old grandfather. That was how much he had changed in just two months.

During the first week, FSB officers were not visible. Around March 10–12, they appeared and began systematically visiting addresses. From that moment, people started being seized. There were cases when Ukrainian soldiers and members of the territorial defense were captured, and later their bodies were found bearing signs of torture. The occupiers had lists – all the addresses. For example, a woman who had long ago worked in the prosecutor’s office or a court would be visited and pressured to collaborate, even though she was already 70 years old and suffering from dementia. This means the lists were outdated – which in turn suggests they had been prepared long in advance, even before 2014.”

How Putin’s Nazism Differs from Hitler’s

Not only Mrs. Oksana’s account, but also the testimonies of other people who lived through the occupation, confirm that behind the word “denazification” lies Russia’s own Nazi-like policy in the occupied territories.

In one form or another, discrimination on national grounds exists in many countries, including democratic ones. The difference is that democratic states possess legal mechanisms to combat discrimination. What the Russians carried out in the occupied territories was no longer discrimination but repression.

For example, banning the publication of a newspaper in one’s native language is discrimination, whereas arrest and torture for using one’s native language is repression. Restrictions in hiring based on nationality are discrimination, but treating the expression of one’s national identity as terrorist activity is repression. It is precisely this distinction that provides grounds for describing Russian policy in the occupied territories as Nazi in character.

However, there is a fundamental difference between Putin’s and Hitler’s Nazism. The Nazis under Hitler defined Jews according to a biological criterion. Putin’s rashists regard Ukrainians as enemies not by birth, but by self-identification. If a Ukrainian does not demonstrate a Ukrainian identity, the rashists by default consider that person “Russian.” This possibility of mimicry has given some people a chance to survive. Jews in Nazi Germany had no such chance. On the other hand, while Hitler’s repressions were systemic and orderly, rashist repression is chaotic and arbitrary, requiring no pretext. Therefore, anyone can become its victim, regardless of whether they consider themselves Russian or Ukrainian.

“Even if you submitted, they could still do anything to you – for example, because of the Ukrainian language, – Mrs. Oksana recounts. – Friends told us how a man was taken right off the street. He was going to feed a dog belonging to neighbors who had left. Soldiers asked him something, and he answered in Ukrainian. He was held for a week. What they did to him – he refused to say. He only said that now he and his wife speak exclusively Russian with each other. That was in September. Later they managed to leave through Vasylivka. They waited two weeks to be allowed through. To escape hell, they switched to the Russian language.”

Human rights and the right to identity

The struggle against Ukrainian identity inevitably turns into a struggle against human identity itself – against the desire to remain human. This is confirmed by the words of Oksana Pohomii: “Their goal is to kill the human being within a person. They took a group of people who had helped the Armed Forces of Ukraine and forced them to torture one another.”

Today, amid negotiations about peace in Ukraine, the parties discuss the political, economic, and military aspects of a hypothetical peace with Russia while remaining silent about the most painful issue – the human rights situation. In the occupied territories, fundamental rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are systematically violated: the right to life, liberty, and security of person (Art. 3); the prohibition of torture and degrading treatment (Art. 5); the right to recognition as a person before the law (Art. 6); protection from discrimination and equality before the law (Art. 7); the right to an effective remedy (Art. 8); freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention (Art. 9) and from arbitrary interference with privacy, home, and correspondence (Art. 12); freedom of opinion and expression (Art. 19); and freedom of peaceful assembly and association (Art. 20).

But there is one more fundamental right – not formulated in the Declaration, yet without which we cannot consider ourselves civilized people – the right to identity. No one should deny another person’s identity. Yet in the occupied territories, Russians do not merely deny Ukrainian identity; they repress everyone who recognizes it within themselves.