"War and Punishment: Putin, Zelensky, and the Path to Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine" Event, by Nicholas Vickery

April 8, 2024

On April 1, the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs, the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies, and the Program in Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies organized a book talk with Mikhail Zygar, a well-known journalist and founding editor-in-chief of the only independent Russian news channel: TV Rain. The conversation was led by Maria Genkin, a board member of Razom for Ukraine and a Ukrainian activist. The event centered around Zygar’s War and Punishment: Putin, Zelensky, and the Path to Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine, which reexamines the history between Russia and Ukraine from a Russian perspective. 

Zygar began the talk with a confession, admitting that he felt a sense of guilt for not thinking about the themes present in his book before the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. He noted that most historical works written after 1991 focus on the collapse of the Soviet Union rather than the legacy of Russian imperialism in surrounding countries. One such country is Ukraine, which Zygar views as a “new political and cultural phenomenon” with a completely different path than other post-Soviet countries. In fact, he noticed that “it got rid of its Soviet legacy” and wanted to write about why this path was possible. In a way, Ukraine also serves as a model for other post-Soviet countries pursuing a strong, authentic civic society. Zygar noted that Russia acknowledged this after the 2004 Orange Revolution, a series of anti-corruption and anti-oligarchy protests in Ukraine, and they even took steps to prevent an “orange plague” in Russia. For him, Russia’s ostensible fear of this initially instilled a sense of hope for him and his fellow journalists at TV Rain. Here, Genkin asked what the “point of no return” was for Zygar. To this, he responded that, up until the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, he was “100% sure that we were prevailing” and that Russian civil society was rising. The year 2014, however, was “very disturbing” and effectively dispelled these hopeful notions.

Genkin then transitioned, asking for whom the book was written. Zygar responded that he was writing for a mostly Russian audience but that, because the “Western audience is also not really informed,” he made it available in English as well. Even though it is available to Russians for free through the platform Meduza, Genkin argued that Russians were not going to simply read and “see the light.” She then posed the question: “what else can we be doing to change this historiography?” For Zygar, further steps include creating a history textbook that shows completely different narratives and broadly educating the public on these alternatives to the traditional narrative of Russian history. Ultimately, though, there are “a lot of different possibilities to draw different narratives,” according to Zygar. He also recognized that “we have a lot to discover in ourselves,” but there is hope for future generations. After this, he dispelled the notion of “predetermined history,” arguing instead that nothing in history is predetermined. Genkin then asked a clarifying question: “do you really believe that Russia is going to reform?” Zygar’s answer was immediate: “yes.”

The conversation then turned toward the reception of the book. Zygar noted that he was surprised. He was expecting people to start arguing with him over the book, but instead, many Russians in the diaspora acknowledged that his book was thought-provoking and presented a completely new historical narrative. From Zygar’s point of view, the reaction of Ukranians was mixed but mostly positive, with many applauding it and others claiming that people should not read it because of its Russian authorship. Genkin pushed back, arguing that almost everybody she spoke with found it emotionally challenging to read because Ukrainians were portrayed as lacking agency and there were pity-evoking, detailed descriptions of strangely selected moments in recent history. She summarized this point, saying, “It’s really the details that people find emotionally difficult when they’re coming from a Russian writer.” Genkin furthered this by drawing parallels to white, American authors writing about the struggles of African Americans. Zygar concurred, acknowledging that these concerns are legitimate and that he has no moral right to judge the reaction of Ukrainians to his book. However, he qualified his agreement, noting that his book is not a history of Ukraine and was written for Russians.

Genkin and Zygar then proceeded to a discussion of Russian liberalism. From Zygar’s point of view, there are now two Russias: outer and inner Russia. For outer Russia, it is important to reexamine their past, and the bias against Ukrainian culture among them has almost completely faded. Conversely, for inner Russia, the mass propaganda, which is markedly anti-Ukrainian, is still strongly present. 

One of Genkin’s final questions involved his interview process. She raised objections to the inclusion of an interview with Rinat Akhmetov, a very controversial Ukrainian businessman and politician. Genkin argued that Akhmetov’s portrayal in the book is overwhelmingly positive and lacks nuance as a result of the fact that Akhmetov is able to create an image of himself through the interview. She extrapolated this to the extensive inclusion of interviews. Zygar responded that his interview process involves intensive cross-checking with hundreds of other sources. He then concluded his rebuttal, saying that he has a tendency to research more than needed.

During the Q&A segment, an audience member inquired what Zygar viewed as the “first sin” of Russia. Zygar responded that it is incredibly difficult to say, but that the 1990s were certainly a great loss of opportunity for Russia. During this period, the failure to introduce authentic democratic principles and establish a strong civic society led to a significant loss of trust in the Russian government. Now, though, people in Russia have more to lose than they did during the Soviet Union, which explains the relative absence of widespread, strong opposition to the government.

In summary, the book talk between Mikhail Zygar and Maria Genkin featured a critical and honest analysis of the content and context of Zygar’s War and Punishment: Putin, Zelensky, and the Path to Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine. It was one that did not shy away from tough questions but rather addressed them head on. The conversation reinforced the necessity of reevaluating history and traditional narratives, especially as it pertains to Russia and Ukraine.

By Nicholas Vickery