一位俄罗斯记者向他以前的同学询问乌克兰战争的情况。答案是令人不安的。
一位俄罗斯记者向他以前的同学询问乌克兰战争的情况。答案是令人不安的。
斯坦尼斯拉夫-库切尔(Stanislav Kucher)在移民美国之前是俄罗斯的一名记者和电视节目主持人。乌克兰的战争让他与家乡的老朋友们打了起来。
我对1987年7月的那一天有着清晰的记忆。我和我的朋友们在公共汽车上，一群来自莫斯科东南约220英里的奥廖尔的14岁少年，在练完柔道后回家时，交通突然停止了。
道路被一支送葬队伍堵住了。
穿着水手背心和蓝色贝雷帽的年轻人肩上扛着的棺材是打开的。
我们可以看到尸体，可能是一个20岁的人，穿着伞兵的制服。
苏联在1980年入侵了阿富汗；在奥廖尔和其他俄罗斯城市，这样的游行队伍并不罕见。
在电视和报纸上，他们谈到了苏联士兵在阿富汗种花和帮助建学校的情况。
我和我的朋友们知道在那片遥远的土地上有一场战争，人们正在死去。
我们大多数人都崇拜伞兵，有些人甚至怀有在阿富汗服役的梦想。
最近，我一直在想那一天--和那场战争--因为目前在乌克兰的战争。也因为现在我们这群童年朋友之间的争论。
我特别记得那一天，因为我们在观看送葬者时发生的事情，那些跟随灵柩的黑衣妇女。
"我不会去阿富汗打仗，"
我的朋友埃戈尔说。
"我的邻居，从那里回来，告诉我他们是如何烧毁整个村庄的，就像这样。首先，我们的士兵杀死了平民，然后他们的母亲因为儿子被杀而哭着死去。"
"别再撒谎了！"
这是另一个朋友，维克多。
"没有人碰过那里的平民。而且总的来说，我们不是与阿富汗交战，而是与美国交战，如果我们在那里撤退，他们会对我们发动核战争。你，萨沙，只是一个胡说八道的人，一个懦夫！"
他们几乎打了起来。
当他们冷静下来时，科斯塔亚，我们小组中比较安静的男孩之一，说。
"好了，伙计们，别吵了。我们永远不会知道全部真相，而我们应该怎么做？反正他们总会为我们做决定。
如果有必要，他们会把我们送到阿富汗。
不要对着风撒尿
--反正什么都不取决于我们。"
这么多年过去了，我和我的朋友们又开始争论起来。
这场争论可能有助于其他人理解俄罗斯对弗拉基米尔-普京总统的态度，他在乌克兰的 "特别行动"，以及对美国的态度。
我的焦点小组
俄罗斯最近的民意调查显示，自战争开始以来，普京的支持率有所上升；
有人说，10个俄罗斯人中有8个支持他。
但是，专制社会的社会学家不能被完全信任--这在战时尤其如此--而且无论如何，民意调查并没有深入挖掘表面。
我用自己的温度计测量一个叫做 "俄罗斯 "的有机体的温度，对我来说，最好的社会学是我童年时在奥廖尔（人口30万）的朋友和熟人的意见的横断面。
这些人和我一起在高中学习，去上柔道课，在先锋宫学习摄影。
在我们大多数人即将年满50岁的这一年，我仍然与他们中的许多人保持联系。
我们在一个名为 "来自我们后院的男孩 "的在线聊天中交流，这些 "男孩 "是隐藏在 "俄罗斯人 "这一干巴巴的概括背后的一个例子。
我们中的四个人现在住在其他国家（我住在纽约的布鲁克林），但大多数人仍然在奥廖尔，他们的父母住在那里，之前还有他们的祖父母。
当俄罗斯在2月24日入侵乌克兰时，在我们的聊天中爆发了类似内战的事情。
我们中在俄罗斯以外的四个人立即反对战争；
其余的人以不同的方式急于解释和证明侵略的合理性。
两个工作涉及政府的成员突然离开了小组。
留下来的人决定停止 "讨论政治"。
基本上，我们的聊天结束了。
三个月后，我决定是时候来看看了--如果不是为了恢复聊天，至少也要看看我儿时的朋友在想什么。
既然第一次冲击已经过去，
随着俄罗斯伤亡的消息传播，
以及俄罗斯在布卡和马里乌波尔的暴行，
随着严厉的制裁开始影响俄罗斯本身，人们的想法是否已经改变，意见是否已经转变？
把握脉搏--在我们的聊天和其他方面
在今天的俄罗斯，对战争的看法可以大致分为四类。
一些人公开支持入侵和克里姆林宫每天都在进行的宣传。
另一些人在支持时比较低调，说 "战争是坏事，但事情并不那么简单"。
还有一些人反对战争，但由于担心受到迫害而保持沉默。
第四类人--极少数人--公开反对战争。这些人冒着被捕和坐牢的危险这样做。
那些反对战争的人值得单独写一篇文章。
我决定首先更好地了解我童年伙伴们的世界观背后是什么。
那些我非常熟悉的人，他们坚定地站在前两类人的立场上。
给 "男孩 "的一些问题
我汇编了一份14个问题的清单
--从 "当你发现俄罗斯越过乌克兰边境时，你有什么感觉？"
到
"普京的国内政治一切都适合你吗？"
到
"它将如何结束？"
"最好分别给每个人写问题，这些人在公开的聊天中会害怕回答，"
铁木尔-盖勒建议我。
铁木尔是离开俄罗斯的 "男孩 "之一；
1990年，他和他的家人移民到以色列。
自2000年代中期以来，他们一直住在德国科隆。
他称普京的入侵是 "一场罪恶的可耻战争"。
铁木尔对我们在奥廖尔的朋友说得很对。
他们更愿意单独分享答复，并在完全或部分匿名的条件下发言，要求我不要使用他们的全名。
"这对我来说比较容易，我生活在一个自由的国家，"
铁木尔说。
"这里没有人会因为我与来自美国的记者交流而谴责我。"
所以我把我的问题发给了 "男孩"
--并等待他们的答复。
"肿瘤必须被切除"
罗曼有三重职业--通讯业、农业和现在的钱币收藏家。
他说自己在互联网上很活跃，但只使用俄罗斯的社交网络--"各种Telegram频道，包括俄语的乌克兰频道，另外我还与在那里有亲戚的人交流，以及与霍霍尔钱币收藏家朋友交流。"(Khokhol是对乌克兰人的贬义词，在俄罗斯经常使用）。
"2月24日，我有什么感觉？"
他写道。
"疑惑和惊讶。我没有想到会派部队进去，用 "口径 "和 "伊斯坎德尔 "导弹给[乌克兰人]洗澡更容易。
普京能以不同方式解决问题吗？
肿瘤必须被切除，这里的'化疗'已经无济于事。
这很痛苦，但没有其他办法。"
这样的语言反映了俄罗斯媒体--"肿瘤 "意味着乌克兰的 "纳粹"；"必须切除 "意味着这是一场不得已而为之的战争。
"我个人认识三个在那里死去的士兵，"
罗曼说。
"这很可惜，但我们能做什么？我认为，我们的部队......行动非常柔和--特别是在乌克兰人对我们被俘士兵的做法的背景下"。
乌克兰人 "正在做什么 "是指战争初期的一个视频，其中看到乌克兰士兵正在射杀受伤的俄罗斯人。
这段视频在俄罗斯媒体上被广泛传播，并成为他们所谓的 "纳粹的残忍 "的主打。
虽然有几十个关于俄罗斯对乌克兰平民的暴行的视频和文字描述，但这是唯一的此类视频，这一事实并没有困扰我来自奥廖尔的朋友。
或者说他们不知道这些事情。
"我没有看到任何关于俄罗斯军队在布卡射杀几十个人的视频记录，"
亚历克斯说。
"我认为这些都是假的，是在乌克兰、欧洲或你们美国进行的挑衅。"
这里又是克里姆林宫的路线。布卡的大屠杀是由西方国家策划的。
我记得亚历克斯是在奥廖尔先锋宫的课后班学习的。
他是一种 "兄弟会的男孩"，他的父亲是共产党地区委员会的大老板。
亚历克斯毕业于奥廖尔教育学院，但在苏联解体后放弃了教书，当时你突然可以在全新的私营部门赚更多的钱。
今天，他是奥廖尔的一名IT专家。
亚历克斯说，他有多个关于战争的信息来源。
"80%是社交网络，主要是YouTube，大部分是独立博客，大部分是乌克兰和军事记者，"
他说。
"百分之五是俄罗斯电视台，百分之五是乌克兰电视台--以了解各方官方宣传的观点。10%的其他来源，西方电视和与世界各地熟人的个人交流"。
了解亚历克斯，我持怀疑态度。谁会这样衡量自己的新闻摄入量？但这不如他得出的结论重要。
"至于所有这些关于杀害平民和我们士兵的暴行的报道--你确定这些是经证实的事实，而不是宣传？"
亚历克斯问道。
"你真的相信俄罗斯士兵强奸儿童和偷马桶吗？"
当我发送来自布加的照片和视频时，他又问。
"这些人是谁？谁杀了他们？为什么他们的尸体被整齐地摆放在路边？"
然后，反击了。
他说：
"只是很有意思，"
美国媒体不会写 "
乌克兰Grads对顿涅茨克中心的疯狂炮击。50枚导弹!还有关于死亡的平民"。
他怒斥
"乌克兰和世界媒体对克拉马托尔斯克火车站遭到炮击的歇斯底里"，
该事件造成59名乌克兰平民死亡。
在亚历克斯看来，杀人者 "是乌克兰人自己"。
他说，一旦这一点被人所知，西方媒体就 "沉默了"。
我告诉他，有很多证据表明俄罗斯人应对此负责--而且 "没有人保持沉默"。
但他并不信服。
所以我问了一个不同的问题。
"即使我们假设是乌克兰人错误地开枪，如果俄罗斯没有越过边界，还会发生这种情况吗？"
在这一点上，亚历克斯和奥廖尔的其他人是一致的。
"这是不可避免的，也是必要的，"
他说。
"这是西方对俄罗斯的战争，破坏的目的是为了随后的掠夺，任务是保存垂死的资本主义的力量，延长其存在50至100年。"
埃戈尔想在莫斯科学习，成为一名电视摄影师，和我一起环游世界并拍摄电影，但在八年级时，他的父母说服他，这些都是愚蠢的梦想，他需要找一份 "真正的、可靠的工作"。
于是他进入当地的会计信贷学校，到一家银行工作。他成为会计部门的负责人，现在他正准备在奥廖尔郊区提前退休。
"对我来说，就像一个正常人一样，战争，任何形式的暴力表现，都是非常糟糕的，"
Egor说。
"但不幸的是，在人类历史上，人们总是在战斗。......在最近的历史上，大多数冲突从来都是在没有帮助或在美利坚合众国的倡议下发动的。这一次也不例外"。
又是一个克里姆林宫的谈话要点。美国开始了它。
与亚历克斯不同，
埃戈尔似乎以最大的诚意来回答问题。
至于他的信息来源，他引用了 "Tsargrad-TV"，这是一个俄罗斯电视频道和网站，几年前连克里姆林宫专家都认为它是边缘化的，因为它的法西斯意识形态。
他还说，他听取了 "独立经济学家哈津和德利亚金 "的意见，他们是俄罗斯宣传性电视节目的常客。
"不入侵有可能吗？"
埃戈尔问。
"不知道。我没有足够的可靠信息，我所拥有的是非常矛盾的，大量的宣传，假的，而且来自冲突双方。可能有必要在2014年克里米亚[吞并]之后立即阻止乌克兰人"。
但对克里米亚的吞并是非法的，我提醒他。
"而在现代世界，谁会依法行事？克里米亚是俄罗斯的土地，它一直是这样的，我们只是恢复了历史的公正。也许可以避免一场恶化。但同样，有消息称，乌克兰正在准备一次攻击，"
他说。
亚历克斯也提出了同样的论点。
"他们做了一切来挑衅我们。他们开始谈论国际法，完全无视我们关于历史正义的论点"。
瓦伦蒂娜眼中的世界
我联系了一位来自奥廖尔的老朋友，他既不是我们聊天的老手，也不是 "男孩 "中的一员。
瓦伦蒂娜是一位成功的经济学家，是莫斯科一家大公司的财务总监，是三个成年孩子的母亲。
我把调查问卷单独发给她；她回复了一整篇文章，她说这是为 "有思想的西方读者 "准备的。
瓦伦蒂娜的文章充满了矛盾、宣传神话、阴谋论和冷战时期的刻板印象，但真正打动我的是她不断强调
"俄罗斯人民独特的美好品质"，
而不是
"没有灵魂的西方"。
"她写道：
"俄罗斯人的关键特征是对正义的追求......正义意味着按照上帝的法则行事、认识和生活。追求正义和生活在正义中是俄罗斯人灵魂的最高目标和目的"。
她接着谈到了俄罗斯媒体的另一个主要内容。
"俄罗斯有事实表明，北约计划在克里米亚建立军事基地。这是不可能想象的。俄罗斯在这里已经有200多年的历史，这片土地被祖先的鲜血反复浇灌着。想象一下佛罗里达州，它变得与美国其他地区敌对，导弹从那里射向华盛顿和纽约！"
再次，和其他人一样，我试图做出回应。不仅说这是无稽之谈，而且还说有国际法，有俄罗斯领导人签署的协议，俄罗斯在吞并克里米亚时违反了这些法律。
瓦伦蒂娜有了答案。
"更高的正义比国际法更重要，而国际法也被所有的人，首先是美国违反了。"
而且无论如何，
"我们的情报部门确实有情报说西方想利用[克里米亚]作为跳板来攻击俄罗斯"。
在这一点上，我变得更加挑衅。
我问道，这些人是否就是那些向普京承诺俄罗斯军队将在基辅受到鲜花欢迎的英勇侦察兵？
瓦伦蒂娜说，她不想继续与我通信，
"在局势如此严重的情况下，以这种讽刺的方式"。
制裁？没问题。
情况确实很严重。特别是当你考虑到对俄罗斯前所未有的制裁时，它已经开始惩罚普通公民了。
但我的受访者认为，制裁对西方国家的打击是最严重的。
或者至少他们是这么说的。
"我没想到他们会走得那么远--拒绝天然气，关闭公司的代表处，"
罗曼说。但他说，痛苦将是最小的：
"有些人抱怨说，时尚品牌已经离开了，现在每个人，就像在苏联时代一样，将穿着Bolshevichka工厂的产品。但大多数人并不绝望"。
亚历克斯回应说，他和他的家人都没有受到影响。
"我们与这些制裁所涉及的部门没有任何联系，"
他说，
"这是一种有用的预防措施。现在，所有那些在商业、暑假、购物方面面向'外部'的人都将面向'内部'。"
翻译一下。俄罗斯将变得更加自给自足。他认为这是件好事。
再一次，我不太相信他。埃戈尔的回答似乎更有诚意。
"当然，制裁的打击很大，"
他说。
"物价上涨，通货膨胀率高，收入下降，生活水平降低，商业方面出现问题。
但我认为，这里的问题不仅在于制裁，在更大程度上在于俄罗斯联邦失败的经济政策。
多年来有可能建立一个真正强大的经济，在这种情况下，它不会害怕任何制裁。"
这是奥廖尔的一个 "男孩 "对克里姆林宫的罕见批判。
读到瓦伦蒂娜对制裁的想法，我不禁想起她年轻时是一个怎样的国际主义者，并惊叹于今天她在我所有童年朋友中采取了最强硬、最民族主义的立场。
"西方不了解俄罗斯人民的独特特点。
反俄制裁不能吓人。
西方希望吓唬人民，让他们反对自己的政府，结果是站不住脚的，引起了反击。
她说：
"......希望政府最终能承担起自己的产业，开始投资于科学和科学发展，以及现代技术的生产。
我问，在普京统治的22年里，是什么阻止了政府做这一切？
瓦伦蒂娜总是有答案。
"政府里有很多民族叛徒。只是现在他们中的一些人已经逃到了西方。其他人很快就会被揭露并受到惩罚"。
俄罗斯之外
打开并阅读所有这些文件是令人沮丧的。
我向我的聊天朋友铁木尔，也就是在德国的那个，询问他的意见。
不仅仅是关于战争，还有关于我们的老朋友的看法。
"我经历了这一切，"
他说，意思是接受俄罗斯（当时的苏联）的宣传。
"只有当我的家人离开苏联，最后来到以色列时，我才意识到，所有关于以色列军队咄咄逼人的故事，以前对我来说似乎很有说服力，但却是一个神话。
只有当我在德国时，我才意识到，苏联宣传者关于新纳粹分子和'希特勒的继承人'在德国城市的街道上游行并支配政治议程的故事是谎言。
你和我都走过很多地方，见过很多世界，懂外语，早就明白苏联宣传的价值。
而我们的童年朋友仍然生活在它的神话中。
"知道玩弄人性的哪根弦的宣传是一种强大的武器。
事实上，宣传比原子弹更危险。
因为它的宣传，迟早会证明它的使用是合理的"。
最后一个问题
我们来到了我的最后一个问题。
"接下来是什么？战争将如何结束？"
这并不顺利。
埃戈尔说，"在这个时候通过谈判的方式结束战争，恐怕是不行的。我们只是要结束它。此外，即使我不喜欢这个想法，也必须彻底打败敌人"。
"我以前对普京的政策有什么看法并不重要，"
亚历克斯说。
"在战争期间，你的国家的任何政府，无论它是什么，都必须通过一切手段来支持取得胜利。这是一条公理。否则，你就是一个叛徒和合作者。如你所知，历史是由胜利者书写的。胜利之后，我们将处理所有的错误。"
然后是罗曼。
"如果西方停止运送武器，战争早就结束了。而现在......只能是投降，屈服，"他说。他的意思是乌克兰的投降。以及 "西方 "的投降。
能否与西方达成和解？
不，罗曼说。"这需要相互尊重。这有可能吗？在西方国家，[脏话]掌权的时候不可能。我并不宽容，也永远不会宽容。你怎么能和支持同性恋游行的国家做朋友？核战争有可能吗？不太可能，西方国家太害怕了。但如果有必要，就会发生核战争。最后总比按他们的规则生活好。
"会有一场大的战争，但我们会赢。"
亚历克斯也是这样说的。再说一遍，这些答案听起来都像是克里姆林宫的口号。
"如果有必要，我们会做出任何牺牲，但我们不会成为西方资本主义的炮灰。不幸的是，核冲突并非不可能发生。我希望会有足够的头脑，不要把我们带到这条线上。但毫无疑问，在某一时刻，我们可以'砰'的一声，"他说。
寻找希望
我一直记得我的朋友们在14岁时是什么样子。
我知道，在很多方面他们都没有变化；
从人性的角度来看，他们并不比我现在的朋友--美国人、加拿大人或来自俄罗斯的移民--更差也更好。
如果出了问题，我向他们求助，他们会立即伸出援手，我毫不怀疑。
但我也毫不怀疑，如果，上帝保佑，普京出现在俄罗斯电视上，宣布对纽约进行核打击，他们所有人都会说。"嗯，一定是这样。"
而且他们会写一些像罗曼在我问他对普京和他的政策有何看法时写的东西。
"我没有掌握全局，无法充分评估，"
罗曼说。
"我们甚至不是棋子......我们只是棋盘上的灰尘。
令人遗憾的是，所有能管理国家的人都在做出租车司机和理发师。
但在一天结束时，你会意识到，大多数[普京]的决定是正确的，无论它们在当下看起来多么可怕"。
我想以积极的语气结束关于我童年伙伴的故事。奇怪的是在某种程度上--鉴于她所写的其他一切--为了这个，我求助于瓦伦蒂娜。
"我相信，我们所有人迟早都会洞察和理解这些血腥事件的真正原因，"
她说。
"而且，即使是那些现在站在'街垒'两边的人，也会开始相互倾听，理解这些事件的本质。"
而当我问瓦伦蒂娜我应该如何识别她时，她要求我改变她的名字，因为 "下个月，我将在一个欧洲国家的美国大使馆进行一次面试。我不喜欢复杂的情况。反正获得签证的概率很低"。
这就是了。
我的老朋友瓦伦蒂娜，
把战争和其他被认为的罪恶归咎于西方，
ˊ但仍然计划在美国度假。我希望她能拿到签证。
感谢Lillian Barkley对这篇文章的编辑。
斯坦尼斯拉夫-库切
斯坦尼斯拉夫-库切尔特别撰稿人
斯坦尼斯拉夫-库切尔是一名记者、电影制片人和前俄罗斯电视台主持人。
A Russian journalist asked his former classmates about the Ukraine war. The answers were disturbing.
Stanislav Kucher was a journalist and TV host in Russia before immigrating to the U.S. The war in Ukraine has him fighting with his old friends back home.
I have a clear memory of that July day in 1987. My friends and I were on the bus, a group of 14-year-olds from Orel, some 220 miles southeast of Moscow, returning home after judo practice, when the traffic suddenly stopped. The road was blocked by a funeral procession. The casket, carried on the shoulders of young guys in sailors’ vests and blue berets, was open. We could see the body, a 20-year-old perhaps, in a paratrooper’s uniform. The Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan in 1980; such processions in Orel and other Russian cities were not uncommon.
On TV and in the newspapers, they talked about Soviet soldiers planting flowers and helping to build schools in Afghanistan. My friends and I knew there was a war in that faraway land and that people were dying. Most of us worshipped the paratroopers, and some even cherished the dream of serving in Afghanistan.
Lately, I have been thinking of that day — and that war — because of the current war in Ukraine. And because of the arguments that are raging now among our group of childhood friends.
I remember that day in particular because of what happened while we watched the mourners, the women in black who followed the casket.
"I won’t go to fight in Afghanistan,” my friend Egor said. “My neighbor, who returned from there, told how they burned a whole village just like that. First, our soldiers kill civilians, and then their mothers die crying because their sons are killed.”
“Stop lying!” This was another friend, Victor. “No one touches the civilians there. And in general, we are not at war with Afghanistan, but with America, and if we retreat there, they will start a nuclear war against us. You, Sasha, are just a bullshitter and a coward!”
They nearly got into a fight. When they cooled down, Kostya, one of the quieter boys in our group, said: “OK, guys, stop quarreling. We will never know the whole truth, and what we should do? They will always decide for us anyway. If it will be necessary, they will send us to Afghanistan. Do not piss against the wind — nothing depends on us anyway.”
All these years later, my friends and I are arguing again. It’s an argument that may help others understand Russian attitudes toward President Vladimir Putin, his “special operation” in Ukraine, and toward the United States.
My focus group
Recent polls in Russia have suggested that Putin’s approval ratings have risen since the war began; some say that 8 in 10 Russians support him. But sociologists in authoritarian societies cannot be fully trusted — this is especially true in wartime — and in any case, the polls don’t dig far below the surface.
I measure the temperature of an organism called “Russia” with my own thermometer, and the best sociology for me is a cross-section of the opinions of friends and acquaintances from my childhood in Orel, population 300,000. These are the guys with whom I studied in high school, went to judo class and learned photography at the Palace of Pioneers.
I am still in touch with many of them, in the year when most of us are turning 50. We communicate in an online chat called “Boys from our backyard,” and these “Boys” are an example of what is hidden behind the dry generalization “Russian people.” Four of us now live in other countries (I live in Brooklyn, New York), but most are still in Orel, where their parents lived, and their grandparents before that.
When Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, something like a civil war broke out in our chat. The four of us outside of Russia immediately opposed the war; the rest rushed in different ways to explain and justify the aggression. Two members whose work involved the government abruptly left the group. Those who stayed decided to stop “discussing politics.” Basically, our chat died.
Three months later, I decided it was time to check in — if not to revive the chat, then at least to find out what my childhood friends were thinking. Had minds changed and opinions shifted, now that the first shock had passed, and as news spread of Russian casualties, and of Russian atrocities in Bucha and Mariupol, and as heavy sanctions began to affect Russia itself?
Taking the pulse — in our chat and beyond
In today’s Russia, opinions of the war can be divided roughly into four buckets. Some publicly support the invasion and the Kremlin propaganda that is disseminated daily. Others are more muted in their support and say things like “War is bad, but things are not so simple.” Still others are against the war but keep silent for fear of persecution. The fourth group — a tiny minority — openly opposes the war. These people risk arrest and jail time for doing so.
Those who are against the war are worth a separate essay. I decided first to better understand what is behind the worldview of my childhood buddies. The ones I know so well, and who stand firmly in those first two categories.
Some questions for the “Boys”
I compiled a list of 14 questions — from “What did you feel when you found out that Russia crossed the border of Ukraine?” to “Does everything suit you in Putin’s domestic politics?” to “How will it end?”
“It’s better to write questions to each separately, the guys will be afraid to answer in the public chat,” Timur Geler advised me. Timur is one of the “Boys” who left Russia; in 1990, he immigrated to Israel with his family. Since the mid-2000s, they have lived in Cologne, Germany. He calls Putin’s invasion “a criminal disgraceful war.”
Timur was right about our friends in Orel. They preferred to share responses individually and spoke under the condition of full or partial anonymity, asking that I not use their full names. “It’s easier for me, I live in a free country,” Timur said. “No one here will condemn me for the fact that I communicate with a journalist from America.”
So I sent my questions to the “Boys” — and waited for their replies.
The news is complicated.
Get clarity delivered to your inbox.
Sign up for Grid's daily newsletter and get the context you need on the most important stories of the day.
“The tumor must be cut”
Roman has had a trio of careers — in communications, farming and now as a coin collector.
He describes himself as active on the internet but using only Russian social networks — “various Telegram channels, including Russian-language Ukrainian ones, plus I communicate with people who have relatives there, plus with Khokhol coin-collector friends.” (Khokhol is a derisive term for Ukrainians, used often in Russia).
“What did I feel on February 24?” he wrote. “Confusion and surprise. I didn’t think that troops would be sent in, it was easier to shower [Ukrainians] with Caliber and Iskander missiles. Could Putin solve the problem differently? The tumor must be cut out, here ‘chemotherapy’ will no longer help. It hurts, but there’s no other way.”
Such language mirrors Russian media — the “tumor” meaning the “Nazis” of Ukraine; “it must be cut” meaning this was a war of necessity.
“I personally knew three soldiers who have died there,” Roman said. “It’s a pity, but what can we do? I think that our troops … act very softly — especially against the background of what the Ukrainians are doing with our captured soldiers.”
What the Ukrainians “are doing” refers to a single video from the early days of the war, in which Ukrainian soldiers were seen shooting wounded Russians. The video was distributed widely across Russian media and became a staple of what they call “Nazi cruelty.” The fact that this is the only such video, while there have been dozens of videos and written accounts of Russian atrocities against Ukrainian civilians, does not bother my friends from Orel. Or perhaps they do not know about them.
“I have not seen any video recordings of the Russian army shooting dozens of people in Bucha,” said Alex. “I think these are fakes and provocations that are mounted in Ukraine, in Europe or in your United States.” Here again is the Kremlin line: The massacres in Bucha were staged by the West.
I remember Alex from after-school classes at Orel’s Palace of Pioneers. He was a kind of “frat boy,” his dad a big boss in the Regional Committee of the Communist Party. Alex graduated from the Orel Pedagogical Institute but gave up teaching after the Soviet Union fell, when suddenly you could make much more money in the brand-new private sector. Today, he’s an IT specialist in Orel.
Alex said he has multiple sources of information about the war.
“Eighty percent is the social network, mainly YouTube, mostly independent bloggers, mostly Ukrainian and military correspondents,” he said. “Five percent Russian TV, 5 percent Ukrainian TV — to understand the point of view of the official propaganda of the parties. Ten percent other sources, Western TV and personal communication with acquaintances around the world.”
Knowing Alex, I’m skeptical. Who measures their news intake like this? But that’s less important than the conclusions he has drawn.
“As for all these reports about the killing of civilians and the atrocities of our soldiers — are you sure that these are confirmed facts, and not propaganda?” Alex asked. “Do you seriously believe that Russian soldiers rape children and steal toilet bowls?”
When I sent photos and videos from Bucha, he asked again: “Who are these people? Who killed them? Why are their bodies so neatly laid out along the road?”
And then, the counterattack.
“It’s just interesting,” he said, that U.S. media won’t write about “the wild shelling of the center of Donetsk by Ukrainian Grads. Fifty missiles! And about the dead civilians.”
He raged about “the hysteria of the Ukrainian and world media” over the shelling of the railway station in Kramatorsk, which killed 59 Ukrainian civilians. In Alex’s view, the killers “were the Ukrainians themselves.” Once that became known, he said, the Western media “fell silent.”
I told him there’s plenty of evidence that the Russians were responsible — and that “no one was silent.” But he was unconvinced. So I asked a different question: “Even if we assume that it was the Ukrainians who fired by mistake, would this have happened if Russia had not crossed the border?”
On this Alex and the others in Orel are united. “It was inevitable and necessary,” he said. “This is a war of the West against Russia, destruction with the aim of subsequent plunder with the task of preserving the power of dying capitalism, prolonging its existence for 50 to 100 years.”
I turned next to the file sent to me by Egor, who I have known since I was 9. Egor wanted to study in Moscow, become a TV cameraman, travel the world with me and make films, but in the eighth grade, his parents convinced him that these were stupid dreams and he needed to get a “real, reliable job.” So he entered the local accounting-credit school and went to work in a bank. He became head of the accounting department, and now he’s preparing for an early retirement on the outskirts of Orel.
“For me, as for a normal person, war, the manifestation of any form of violence, is very bad,” Egor said. “But unfortunately, throughout the history of mankind, people have always fought. … In recent history, most of the conflicts were never unleashed without help or at the initiative of the United States of America. This one is no exception.”
Again, a Kremlin talking point. The U.S. started it.
Unlike Alex, Egor seemed to answer questions with the utmost sincerity. As for his sources of information, he cited “Tsargrad-TV,” a Russian television channel and website that a few years ago even Kremlin experts considered marginal because of its fascist ideology. He also said he listens to “independent economists Khazin and Delyagin,” a pair of regulars on Russian propaganda TV shows.
“Was it possible to do without an invasion?” Egor asked. “Don’t know. I do not have enough reliable information, and what I have is very contradictory, a lot of propaganda, fakes, and from both sides of the conflict. Probably it would have been necessary to stop the Ukrainians in 2014 right after the Crimea [annexation].”
But the annexation of Crimea was illegal, I reminded him.
“And who in the modern world acts according to the law? Crimea is Russian land, it has always been like this, we just restored historical justice. Perhaps an aggravation could have been avoided. But again, there is information that an attack was being prepared by Ukraine,” he said.
Alex made the same argument: “They did everything to provoke us. They started talking about international law and completely ignored our arguments about historical justice.”
The world according to Valentina
I reached out to one old friend from Orel who is neither a veteran of our chat, nor one of the “Boys.” Valentina is a successful economist, financial director of a large company in Moscow and mother of three adult children. I sent her the questionnaire separately; she replied with an entire article, which she said was intended “for the thoughtful Western reader.”
Valentina’s article is a stew of contradictions, propaganda myths, conspiracy theories and Cold War-era stereotypes, but what really struck me was her constant emphasis on the “unique wonderful qualities of the Russian people” as opposed to the “soulless West.”
“The key feature of a Russian person,” she wrote, “is the search for justice … justice means to act and know and live according to the Laws of God. The search for justice and living in justice is the highest goal and purpose of the soul of a Russian person.”
She then turned to another staple of Russian media: “Russia had facts that NATO planned to build a military base in Crimea. It was impossible to imagine. Russia has been here for more than 200 years, the land has been repeatedly watered with the blood of ancestors. Imagine Florida, which becomes hostile to the rest of the United States, and from which missiles are directed toward Washington and New York!”
Again, as with the others, I tried to respond. Not only that this is nonsense, but also that there is international law, agreements signed by Russian leaders, that Russia violated when it annexed Crimea.
Valentina had answers: “Higher justice is more important than international law, which is also violated by all and sundry, and above all by the United States.” And anyhow, “our intelligence did have information that the West wants to use [Crimea] as a springboard to attack Russia.”
At this point, I became more provocative. Are these the same valiant scouts, I asked, who promised Putin that Russian troops would be greeted with flowers in Kyiv?
Valentina said she didn’t want to continue to correspond with me “in such a sarcastic manner, when the situation is so serious.”
Sanctions? No problem.
The situation is indeed serious. Especially when you consider the unprecedented sanctions against Russia, which have begun to punish ordinary citizens. But my respondents believe sanctions will hit the West hardest of all. Or at least this is what they say.
“I didn’t think they’d go that far — refusal of gas, closing of representative offices of firms,” Roman said. But he said the pain will be minimal: “Some moan that fashion brands have left, and now everyone, like in the Soviet era, will wear the products of the Bolshevichka factory. But most do not despair.”
Alex responded by saying he and his family are unscathed.
“We were not connected in any way with the sectors in which these sanctions fell,” he said, adding that “it’s a useful inoculation. Now all those who were oriented ‘outside’ in business, summer holidays, shopping, will be oriented ‘inside.’” Translation: Russia will become more self-sufficient. And he thinks that’s a good thing.
Once again, I don’t really believe him. Egor’s answer seems more sincere.
“Of course, the sanctions hit hard,” he said. “Rising prices, high inflation, falling incomes, lower living standards, problems in business. But I think that the problems here are not only in sanctions, but to a greater extent in the failed economic policy of the Russian Federation. It was possible to build a really powerful economy over the years, which in such a situation would not be afraid of any sanctions.”
It’s a rare critique of the Kremlin from one of the “Boys” in Orel.
Reading Valentina’s thoughts about sanctions, I cannot help but remember what an internationalist she was in her youth and marvel at how today she takes the toughest, most nationalistic position of all my childhood friends.
“The West does not understand the unique features of the Russian people. Anti-Russian sanctions cannot scare. The hopes of the West to frighten the people and turn them against their own government turned out to be untenable and caused a backlash. … There is hope that the government will finally take up its own industry, start investing in science and scientific developments, and the production of modern technology,” she said.
And what, I asked, prevented the government from doing all this for 22 years of Putin’s rule?
Valentina always has an answer: “There were many national traitors in the government. Only now some of them have fled to the West. Others will soon be exposed and punished.”
Outside Russia
It’s depressing to open and read all these files. I ask my chat friend Timur, the one in Germany, for his opinions. Not just about the war, but about the views of our old friends.
“I went through it all,” he said, meaning coming to terms with Russian (then Soviet) propaganda. “Only when my family left the USSR and ended up in Israel did I realize that all the stories about the aggressive Israeli military that seemed convincing to me before were a myth. Only when I was in Germany did I realize that the stories of Soviet propagandists about neo-Nazis and ‘Hitler’s heirs’ marching through the streets of German cities and dictating the political agenda were lies. You and I have traveled a lot, seen the world, know foreign languages and have long understood the value of Soviet propaganda. And our childhood friends still live in its myths.
“Propaganda that knows what strings of human nature to play is a powerful weapon. In fact, propaganda is more dangerous than the atomic bomb. Because it is propaganda that sooner or later will justify its use.”
Final question
We came to my last question: “What’s next? How will the war end?”
This didn’t go well.
Egor said that “to end the war by means of negotiations at this point, I’m afraid, will not work. We just have to finish it. Moreover, even if I don’t like this idea, it will have to be a complete defeat of the enemy.”
“It doesn’t matter what I thought of Putin’s policy before,” said Alex. “During war, any government in your country, whatever it is, must be supported by all means to achieve victory. This is an axiom. Otherwise, you are a traitor and collaborator. History, as you know, is written by the winners. After the victory, we will deal with all the mistakes.”
Then there is Roman.
“If the West had stopped sending weapons, the war would have ended long ago. And now … there can be only surrender, capitulation,” he said. By which he means the surrender of Ukraine. And surrender of “the West.”
Can there ever be a rapprochement with the West? No, said Roman: “This requires mutual respect. Is this possible? Not while in the West, [expletives] are in power. I am not tolerant and will never be. How can you be friends with countries that support gay parades? Is nuclear war possible? It is unlikely, the West is too afraid of it. But if necessary, there will be a nuclear war. Better in the end than living by their rules.
“There will be a big war, but we will win.”
Alex is on the same page. And again, the answers all sound like Kremlin slogans.
“If necessary, we will make any sacrifices, but we will not become fodder for the capitalist West. Nuclear conflict is not out of the question, unfortunately. I hope that there will be enough brains not to bring us to this line. But there is no doubt that at a certain moment we can ‘bang,’” he said.
In search of hope
I keep remembering what my friends were like at age 14. I know that in many ways they have remained the same; in human terms, they are no worse nor better than my current friends — Americans, Canadians or emigrants from Russia. If something goes wrong and I turn to them for help, they will lend a hand immediately, I have no doubt. But I also have no doubt that if, God forbid, Putin appears on Russian television and announces a nuclear strike on New York, all of them will say: “Well, it must be so.”
And they will write something like what Roman wrote when I asked what he thinks about Putin and his policies.
“I do not have the full picture to adequately assess,” Roman said. “We are not even pawns … we are nothing but dust on the chessboard. It is a pity that everyone who can run the state works as taxi drivers and hairdressers. But at the end of the day, you realize that most of [Putin’s] decisions are correct, no matter how terrible they may seem in the moment.”
I want to end the story about my childhood buddies on a positive note. Strangely in a way — given everything else she has written — for this, I turned to Valentina.
“I believe that sooner or later all of us will come to an insight and understanding of the true causes of these bloody events,” she said. “And even those who are now on opposite sides of the ‘barricades’ will begin to hear each other and understand the essence of these events.”
And when I asked Valentina how I should identify her, she requested that I change her name because “next month, I’m having an interview at the American embassy in a European country. I would not like complications. The probability of obtaining a visa is low anyway.”
There it is. My old friend Valentina, blaming the West for the war and other perceived sins, but still planning a vacation in America. I hope she gets her visa.
Thanks to Lillian Barkley for copy editing this article.
Stanislav Kucher
Stanislav KucherSpecial Contributor
Stanislav Kucher is a journalist, filmmaker and former Russian TV presenter.
留言
張貼留言