Aleksandr Shtefanov on the war

Stance on the war in Ukraine

Following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Aleksandr Shtefanov attempted to strike a balance between both camps, debunking both Russian and Ukrainian war fakes. Formally, Shtefanov opposed the war, but proposed a way to end it that involved Ukraine abandoning attempts to reclaim occupied territories and agreeing to terms favorable to Russia.

He broadcast arguments that Ukraine is weaker, incapable of fighting without partners' aid, and therefore must accept the Kremlin's terms to prevent bloodshed. Later, however, he himself "capitulated before Russia":

What Shtefanov proposes to end the war

• War is a senseless slaughter: Hostilities bring unimaginable suffering and tens of thousands of deaths. Continuing the war makes no sense, as it merely leads to "marking time" and immense new casualties without significant shifts in the frontline.
• Ukrainian society is critically exhausted: People are tired of the conflict, as evidenced by harsh forced mobilization and men drowning in the Tysa River while attempting to avoid the draft. He references polls indicating a steady rise in the number of Ukrainians who favor an immediate ceasefire.
• Danger of nuclear catastrophe: Striving for the "complete defeat" of Russia is reckless. Cornered leadership of a nuclear power could use nuclear weapons, turning territories into a "radioactive wasteland".
• Freezing the conflict as salvation: Historical precedents (e.g., Korea and Transnistria) prove that a "frozen" conflict is a viable solution. Even a few years or decades of peace hold immense independent value, allowing new generations to live without warfare.
• Rejection of reparations: He opposes classic state reparations to Ukraine. Drawing on the historical experience of Germany, he argues that such payments would become a national humiliation for Russians and provoke renewed revanchism.

Documentary «Ordinary Denazification»

In February 2023, Shtefanov released the documentary film «Ordinary Denazification» about life in the occupied areas of Donetsk Oblast in Ukraine. To shoot the film, Shtefanov traveled to Donetsk and Mariupol (illegally crossing the border) as a volunteer in a humanitarian mission organized by the Russian center "Society.Future".

Main conclusions of the film:

• Large-scale catastrophe: Mariupol was almost entirely destroyed in just a month and a half. Concurrently, brutal mobilization was taking place in the "DPR": the male population, including students, elderly men, and individuals with disabilities, was sent en masse "to the slaughter" without proper training or equipment.
• Antagonism between Donetsk and Mariupol: Mariupol residents do not relate to the propaganda narrative of "bombing Donbas for 8 years", since their city lived peacefully and developed dynamically until 2022. Against this backdrop, some mobilized men from Donetsk justified their looting in Mariupol by arguing that Mariupol residents "lived well" while Donetsk suffered.
• Pointlessness of the war's pretexts: Only around 20% of the population remained in Mariupol, and even those loyal to Russia did not understand why Russia launched the full-scale invasion. The status of the Russian language before 2022 was not a critical issue — minor restrictions were seen by locals merely as a slight inconvenience that certainly did not warrant war.
• Repressions and fear: Many pro-Ukrainian citizens remain in the occupied territories, but they are forced into hiding. People can be detained, subjected to torture in detention "basements", or face criminal prosecution over a simple denunciation or a TikTok video.

Following the film's release, the blogger received threats from Russian-installed "authorities" in the so-called "DPR" and from Aleksandr Ionov, author of numerous denunciations against independent Russian media.

What Shtefanov says about Crimea

Shtefanov asserts that the vast majority of Crimeans want to live as part of Russia and opposes returning Crimea to Ukraine:

The reconquest of Crimea by the Armed Forces of Ukraine would turn the beautiful city of Sevastopol into Stepanakert... But, at the same time, is it fair that all residents of that territory should have to leave it in order for international law to prevail? In my view: no... There are various political formulas. There is dual jurisdiction. The issue of Gibraltar was discussed. Independent state status, to draw a direct analogy with Kosovo. There are different options. But, one way or another, one cannot simply take and hand Crimea over to Ukraine.

In September 2024, Shtefanov was added to the database of the Myrotvorets website for participating in attempts to legitimize the annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and manipulating public consciousness.

In an interview with Yury Dud on the Crimean issue, Aleksandr stated that he does not consider internationally recognized borders an indisputable authority and is unsure that international law alone defines the legitimacy of territories. For him, a state is primarily about people, rather than "a piece of land drawn with a ruler on a map".

He emphasizes that Crimea was the only entity in Ukraine where the majority was a Russian population that sincerely identified with Russia. He also added that the annexation of Crimea was a terrible mistake due to the risks it posed for Russia. Despite local support, Shtefanov states that had he been asked in 2013 whether Crimea should be taken, he would have answered "unquestionably no".

Statements about the Russian language in Ukraine

During a debate with Maxim Katz regarding the language issue in Ukraine, Shtefanov claimed that «the Ukrainian national idea is largely anti-Russian» and asserted that systemic discrimination against Russian speakers exists in Ukraine. In doing so, he effectively shifted part of the blame for the war onto the victim: the blogger directly labeled the shutdown of pro-Russian TV channels and restrictions on the Russian language in schools prior to 2022 as «one of the invasion's triggers». Thus, Shtefanov shifts focus away from Putin's imperial ambitions toward Ukraine's internal policies, concluding that Ukrainians' defense of their own cultural and informational space provoked the aggressor.

Notably, this rhetoric directly contradicts his own conclusions from Mariupol, where he acknowledged that the language issue had never been a genuine pretext for launching hostilities.

On the YouTube channel "Kharoshi Raguli", one can find a detailed breakdown of Shtefanov's statements on language policy along with an analysis of his quotes, such as:

Discrimination on ethnic and linguistic grounds in the 21st century is barbarism, and Ukraine is showcasing this barbarism in all its glory.

The Russian language was always banned in Ukraine, and I have plenty of evidence... We see examples of militant discrimination.