In much of the Western imagination, Russia’s war against Ukraine remains the work of one man: Vladimir Putin.
Kyiv Post
75
6 min read
0 views
Remove the dictator, the thinking goes, and the problem disappears.
More than two years into the largest war in Europe since World War II, this belief remains remarkably persistent. Across Western media, political discourse, and popular culture, Russia is often still portrayed as a society tragically held hostage by a single authoritarian ruler.
The Oscars’ decision to award Best Documentary Feature to the Russian-made documentary “Mr. Nobody Against Putin” – a film about propaganda inside Russia’s education system – only serves to cement that perception.
And that’s precisely the problem.
For years, Ukraine and its advocates have tried to explain to Western audiences that Russia’s war against Ukraine is not an aberration in Russian imperialistic history, nor a campaign carried out against the will of the majority of Russian society.
Yet the results of these efforts have been mixed. While much of the Western political class has come to recognize that this is not simply “Putin’s war” – a point emphasized by analysts such as Keir Giles of Chatham House in interviews I conducted – many others have not.
Sadly, this includes Hollywood.
Since 2023, the Academy has awarded Oscars to several films that reinforce the image of Russia as a country defined primarily by internal resistance to authoritarianism.
More than 50% of Russians believe that the worst times for their country still lie ahead, while 39% believe their children will live better lives than they did.
One example is “Navalny” (2023), a documentary about Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny that chronicles the investigation into his 2020 poisoning and his political struggle against Russian President Vladimir Putin.
More recently came “Mr. Nobody Against Putin,” which follows a Russian schoolteacher secretly documenting how wartime propaganda has been introduced into classrooms following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
Then there is “Anora” (2025), directed by Sean Baker, which features Russian actors Mark Eydelshtein and Yuriy Borisov and centers on the chaotic world of Russian oligarchic wealth and crime.
Eydelshtein has largely avoided discussing the war publicly, while Borisov – who previously visited Russian-annexed Crimea and appeared in Russian state-aligned productions – was nominated for Best Supporting Actor.
Meanwhile, only one Oscar has gone to a film directly documenting Russia’s destruction of Ukraine: “20 Days in Mariupol,” by Ukrainian journalist and filmmaker Mstyslav Chernov.
The film, which won Best Documentary Feature in 2024, chronicles Russia’s siege of Mariupol in March 2022, when the city – the second-largest in Donetsk region – was systematically destroyed before falling under Russian occupation.
This year, Chernov’s new documentary “2000 Meters to Andriivka,” which follows Ukrainian soldiers during the 2023 counteroffensive as they fight through heavily fortified positions to retake the village of Andriivka in eastern Ukraine, did not even make the final shortlist.
The issue, however, is not simply the number of awards. It is the broader message the film industry sends to the public. The Oscars maintains a global audience of nearly 20 million viewers, and the ceremony carries far greater cultural legitimacy for many people than speeches by politicians or human rights advocates.
And the story that viewers repeatedly receive is this: Russia’s war is not really Russia’s war. It is the product of one evil leader. Ukraine simply happens to be the victim. Unfortunate of course but little more than that.
This narrative is reinforced elsewhere in the film industry.
Consider Anastasia Trofimova, a former employee of the Kremlin’s international propaganda network RT and the creator of the controversial documentary “Russians at War” (2024).
In the film, Trofimova travels to Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine and portrays Russian soldiers sympathetically while largely ignoring the destruction and war crimes committed by Russian forces. The documentary was screened at both the Venice Film Festival and the Toronto International Film Festival. Ukraine’s State Security Service has since opened a criminal investigation into Trofimova.
Worse still, the Venice Biennale is open to Russian participation in 2026 – a prospect that may deprive it of EU funding.
None of this means that Russian cultural production should be rejected outright.
Navalny was a genuine opponent of Putin and represented a far better – even if still imperfect – political alternative for Russia and its neighbors. Likewise, “Mr. Nobody Against Putin” offers an important glimpse into how the Russian state indoctrinates its children. It is also certain that at least some Russians are not supportive of the regime or the war though the exact percentage is difficult to gauge.
But the broader narrative – that Russia’s war against Ukraine is some historical anomaly imposed by a tyrant – must be abandoned.
Russia’s war against Ukraine is not an exception.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia has used military force in the post-Soviet region at least six times:
1992 – War in Transnistria: Russian forces intervened in Moldova, helping establish the separatist region of Transnistria.
1994–1996 – First Chechen War: Russia attempted to crush Chechnya’s independence.
1999–2009 – Second Chechen War: Moscow reconquered Chechnya after a renewed invasion.
2008 – War with Georgia: Russia invaded Georgia following clashes in South Ossetia and later recognized the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
2014 – Crimea and Donbas: Russian forces seized Crimea and fueled war in eastern Ukraine.
2022–present – Full-scale invasion of Ukraine: Russia launched the largest war in Europe since World War II.
In addition, Russia helped the Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad during the Syrian Civil War.
Even Navalny’s confidant Alexei Yakovlev told me last year that it is naive to claim that “Putin is a despicable tyrant who simply took our country hostage.”
Quite the opposite.
Putin is not an alien force imposed on Russia.
He is, as Yakovlev acknowledged, Russian flesh and blood.
The views expressed are the author’s and not necessarily of Kyiv Post.
Lesia Dubenko is a Ukrainian political scientist and analyst. A graduate of Lund University (MSc in European Affairs), she covers issues relating to international affairs, migration, and disinformation.
