Blogger Alexander Shtefanov gained recognition in 2023 after producing an anti-war documentary titled “Ordinary Denazification,” filmed in the besieged city of Mariupol. Shortly after, he was labeled a “foreign agent” and expelled from university.

Despite the threats of legal action, he chose to remain in Russia, regularly engaging in debates with war proponents. It wasn’t until 2024, following intimidation from pro-war activists, that he felt compelled to relocate abroad.

He has since become a prominent voice among politically active young Russians, boasting over 500,000 subscribers on YouTube and attracting millions of views for his documentaries on the ongoing war in eastern Ukraine, the Maidan Revolution, and various political and historical issues.

In contrast to many other exiled anti-war figures, Shtefanov maintains that Crimea should stay part of Russia, asserting that the 2014 annexation reflected the wishes of local inhabitants, despite the referendum occurring during Russian occupation and lacking international recognition.

He also expresses understanding for Russia-aligned separatists in eastern Ukraine, suggesting that Kyiv could consider ceding the Donbas region to achieve peace, even though public opinion in Ukraine regarding such a compromise is divided.

Shtefanov recently shared his thoughts with The Moscow Times on achieving a just resolution to the war in Ukraine and the current sentiments among young Russians towards the leadership of the opposition.

MT: You are listed as a foreign agent in Russia and also on the Myrotvorets list, an unofficial registry of individuals viewed as adversaries of Ukraine. What do both sides find objectionable about you?

AS: My designation as a foreign agent in Russia stems from my opposition to the war, as I consistently criticize President Putin and the system he represents. I detest the war, believing it negatively impacts Russia.

On the Myrotvorets list, my stance is seen as problematic because I do not take a pro-Ukrainian position. Although I condemn the war and the Russian government, I do not automatically endorse the Ukrainian authorities. I have also critiqued the Ukrainian government and do not regard the 1991 borders as a viable solution.

What’s wrong with the 1991 borders?

Restoring the 1991 borders implies handing over territories to Ukraine without consulting local residents, submitting them to Ukrainian governance. Moreover, I question whether the people of Crimea truly support Ukraine or its reabsorption.

What criticism do you have for the Ukrainian government?

In 2022, President Zelensky took an inflexible stance, believing he could achieve victory on the battlefield with the support of his Western allies and their promised military aid. I view this approach as a significant miscalculation. Zelensky should have pursued diplomatic solutions while Russia was still apprehensive about its battlefield prospects.

Another point of critique involves the recent corruption scandal that unveiled troubling details about the Ukrainian leadership.

What was your perspective during the Crimean annexation in 2014?

I was 15 at the time and had a positive view of the annexation, seeing it as the expression of the will of the Crimean people. However, my perspective has evolved over time, becoming much more nuanced.

Was the annexation of Crimea justified?

If I were to decide today, I would oppose it. Seizing another nation’s territory is incredibly risky, posing threats to the local populace and both nations involved. It heightens the potential for conflict.

It seems to me that Crimea remaining part of Ukraine had a stabilizing effect, compelling Ukrainian leaders to adopt moderation due to the presence of 2.5 million pro-Russian voters in the region. If Russia aimed to influence Ukraine more broadly, maintaining Crimea within Ukraine would have been advantageous.

You entered Mariupol via the Russian side to create an anti-war film. How did you manage this?

I accompanied some volunteers delivering humanitarian aid, which allowed me to go there.

Interestingly, it’s easier to access the city now than it was during my visit. Currently, there’s no need to navigate the same bureaucratic hurdles; one can drive in from the Russian side with relative ease.

Did the volunteers know about your anti-war views?

I did not overtly express my stance. However, it’s possible some were aware of my position from my YouTube content. Nevertheless, they needed assistance, so I joined them as a helper.

Weren’t you concerned about remaining in Russia after your documentary was released? The authorities could have pursued charges against you for alleged ‘disinformation’ regarding the military or for ‘discrediting’ it.

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

What were your impressions of Mariupol?

I visited twice, at the end of 2022 and in the summer of 2023. It was largely in ruins, with tens of thousands of lost souls wandering aimlessly among the debris.

Conditions in Mariupol have improved since then. Some homes have been repaired, and new construction is taking place. Russia is clearly investing substantial resources there to showcase progress. I spoke with numerous residents in Mariupol and other cities within the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic.

You advocate for an immediate end to the war through a conflict freeze. In light of the latest reports on the Trump administration’s peace initiative, do you think Ukraine should concede the Donbas to Putin to attain peace?

Of course, Ukraine has no inclination to surrender any part of itself. Its leadership will inherently resist demands for territorial concessions.

But the crux of the matter is whether average Ukrainians would be amenable to such an option. It appears that for many, the idea of ceding parts of the Donbas to Putin in exchange for peace is becoming acceptable.

However, they don’t believe that this would guarantee lasting peace. Should Ukrainians be assured that the war would not restart following a transfer of the Donbas to Russia, they might agree, as it would then seem worthwhile.

Nonetheless, without such guarantees, it’s understandable that the demands to cede the Donbas to Putin would appear unreasonable and are unlikely to find favor with Ukrainian authorities.

I suspect this peace initiative will end in failure.

What do you envision for the regions currently under Russian control or in dispute?

Ideally, I think fair referendums should be conducted to allow residents to decide whether to join Russia or Ukraine. However, this is impractical in today’s environment.

I’m uncertain about what should happen. Halting the conflict along existing lines may seem like the most viable course. In a more ideal situation, we could contemplate conducting referendums under international supervision, which would allow civilians who fled the war to safely return.

However, this scenario is complicated by the fact that tens of thousands of people have lost their homes. Cities in the Donbas have been reduced to rubble. How do we gather all former residents of Avdiivka to participate in the vote? How many would even wish to return?

It’s all uncharted territory.

Many of your critics in the anti-war movement contend that Putin must be defeated urgently; otherwise, new wars will arise in the coming years. You hold a different perspective. Why?

The notion of what defeating Putin actually entails remains ambiguous. How attainable is it? What would that future look like? Does it involve reverting to the 1991 borders or those prior to February 24, 2022? Would it necessitate a change in the ruling regime in Russia?

Conversely, it’s equally unclear what preventing Putin from succeeding would mean. At what juncture could we claim that he has lost?

The definitions of both victory over Putin and the possibility of war recurring are uncertain.

In light of this, it seems ethically sound to advocate for the swiftest resolution to the conflict.

You also reject the idea of paying reparations to Ukraine. Why is that?

The concept of reparations is simply impractical. It is unattainable to compel Russia to pay them. Appeals from the anti-war opposition for reparations are counterproductive, ultimately undermining those in the opposition and tarnishing the anti-war movement within Russian society. For most Russians, the idea is perceived as a scare tactic propagated by the state. Calls for reparations from opposition figures merely mirror Russian propaganda.

Perhaps in a few decades, we could engage in a serious dialogue regarding reparations. But for now, it is utterly pointless.

Your views diverge from what could be considered the ‘mainstream’ of the exiled anti-war opposition. Nevertheless, you seem to resonate with the younger generation, particularly Gen Z. Does this indicate that young Russians are disillusioned with the traditional figures in the Russian opposition?

Certainly, there is significant disappointment with the established leaders of the Russian opposition, which is entirely understandable. Many have been forced out of the country, resulting in opposition politics largely migrating to platforms like YouTube and social media.

This shift explains why figures like Maxim Katz have emerged as influential opposition leaders, despite previous reluctance from older opposition members to engage with him.

Katz gained prominence simply by producing content on his YouTube channel, and the same applies to me.

This visibility has helped me gain traction. In an environment where public political discourse in Russia is restricted outside of YouTube, Telegram, and social media, content creators are stepping into the spotlight.