Propaganda and pseudo-humanism: What is wrong with the film “Russians at War”

Navigation and useful materials

The screening of the documentary tape “Russians at War” at the international film festivals in Venice and Toronto caused justifiable indignation not only among Ukrainian filmmakers. Citizens of various countries joined X/Twitter storms with demands to cancel the sessions and held protest actions in Canada. The Ukrainian state (represented by the structures of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Culture and Strategic Communications) protested against the public screenings and promotion of this film on international platforms, in particular the planned screening at the Zurich Film Festival. The Ministry of Culture included Anastasia Trofimova, the film director of the “Russians at War”, in the List of persons who pose a threat to national security.

The Russian state formally has no relation to the creation of the film, which is a Canadian and French co-production. Trofimova, film producers, and other public advocates call the film “neutral” and even “anti-war”, insisting that it will supposedly help the viewer better understand what is really happening and dispel the “fog of war”. Trofimova calls herself a Russian-Canadian film director because she has passports from both countries and diplomas from the Universities of Toronto and Amsterdam.

The Centre for Strategic Communications and Information Security explains how the film “Russians at War” helps the Putin regime promote its propaganda narratives and exert informational influence abroad.

Why “Russians at War” cannot be considered a neutral film

Russia is waging a war of aggression against Ukraine. Terror against the civilian population, torture, and execution of prisoners of war and civilian hostages, rocket-bomb attacks on critical infrastructure and residential buildings, and other war crimes are common practices for the Russian military and are systemic in nature. Russian aggression is unprovoked, therefore Kremlin propaganda “explains” the attack on Ukraine with the need to fight against the fictitious “Nazism”, protect the “people of Donbas”, protect Russia from the “aggressive NATO alliance”, etc.

Furthermore, one part of these narratives is rebroadcast as the position of the film authors, and the other part is an uncritical citation of the actors—the Russian occupiers who are participating in hostilities on the territory of Ukraine:

  • One actor, a native from the Donetsk region, explains his motivation to fight on Russia’s side by the fact that Ukraine has “bombed Donbas for eight years” since the start of the “civil war” in 2014. The author of the film not only doesn’t deconstruct this narrative, but also doesn’t even question it;
  • The actors of the film talk about their struggle against “Ukrainian Nazism”. The film director does not even mention that Nazi ideology is prohibited in Ukraine and that its propaganda is punishable by criminal liability;
  • The actors in the film deny their involvement in war crimes. Trofimova, personally, assures that she did not personally witness the crimes of the Russian military;
  • The authors of the film do not hide their desire to “humanise” the Russian military, to remove any responsibility for complicity in aggression from them, as well as depict them as the victims and hostages of the “actions of politicians,” and to evoke sympathy from the audience for the occupiers and their families. Despite the fact that a significant part of them have admitted that they were participating in the war voluntarily to earn money.

The authors of the film consistently ignore facts that are important for understanding the context and essence of the Russian-Ukrainian war. They do not mention the occupation or announcement of the annexation of Crimea. They do not mention the Russian occupation of parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions since 2014, as was established by the ECtHR verdict of January 25, 2023. Also, they do not mention that the downing of the Malaysian Boeing over the Donetsk region was a result of this occupation.

READ ALSO: The Crime Scene of Russian Fascism: Why and How Russia Destroyed Mariupol

At the time the film was made, the mass killings of civilians in Bucha, Izyum, Irpen as well as the bombing of the maternity hospital and the Drama Theatre in Mariupol were already well documented and covered in the international media. In 2023, the premiere and international distribution of the Oscar-winning documentary “20 Days in Mariupol” began. But according to Trofimova, she did not watch this film.

Why Anastasia Trofimova cannot be considered an impartial film director

Anastasia Trofimova worked for a long time with RT Documentary, a structural unit of the RT (Russia Today) TV channel, which is a key channel for spreading Russian propaganda to foreign audiences. Since 2022, the broadcast of RT has been blocked in the EU and the US, and sanctions have been imposed on the TV channel, its branches and its employees. Trofimova has collaborated with RT since at least 2014 and has shot 11 films for the Russian company.

In September 2024, the United States released evidence of RT’s cooperation and coordination with Russian special services, as well as the television company’s involvement in financing the Russian army. Given this, work at RT or other sanctioned structures of the Russian Federation should be a “red flag” for grant organisations because it cannot be guaranteed that ex-employees of RT have stopped working further in the interests of Russian special services.

Especially since in 2023, Trofimova posted on her page the obituary of the Russian “military correspondent” Kirill Romanovsky, who was provided with informational support for the activities of the PMC Wagner and Yevgeny Prigozhin personally. The text attests to the film director’s warm and friendly relations with the information criminal. Trofimova shot her films for RT, notably in Syria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where PMC Wagner was in attendance.

READ ALSO: Traces of Prigozhin Maniacs: “Wagner” as an Instrument of Russian Expansion in the World

However, this did not preclude Trofimova from receiving a sum of $340,000 from Canadian taxpayers, which was partially funded by the Canadian Media Fund for the production of “Russians at War”. The Toronto Film Festival didn’t mention Trofimova’s long-term cooperation with RT in a press release on their official website.

The authors of “Russians at War” claim that Trofimova got into the occupied part of the Donetsk region together with one of the Russian soldiers, whom she met on the train. The film director allegedly stayed with a unit of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation near Bakhmut for seven months (!) without agreement (!) with the command and filmed nature and interviews with the military without authorisation. And thereafter, she was able to leave the territory of the Russian Federation without hindrance.

This version is not only unconvincing, but also downright fantastic. Trofimova would not be able to do anything without coordination with the Russian military command and Russian counterintelligence. Given the centralisation of the decision-making process in the Russian Federation, she hardly received this permission on the spot from the commander, whose subordinates became the actors of the tape. Although the Russian state has no formal relationship with the creation of the film, it could not have appeared without its assistance.

It should also not be forgotten that Anastasia Trofimova illegally crossed the border of Ukraine and illegally stayed on Ukrainian territory. And that is why Ukraine has every reason to bring her to justice.

How the film “Russians at War” is helping the Putin regime

Russian influence operations are not limited to undisguised propaganda in the Solovyov or Skabeeva style. Diverse narratives and messages are adapted for different audiences in different countries. They are advancing not only to convince people of the correctness of the Russian actions or to make them fall in love with Putin. And to influence the audience and push it to certain actions or inaction, which also helps the Kremlin achieve its goals:

  • Removing responsibility from “ordinary Russians” and turning them into “victims of war” coincides with calls to lift sanctions from the Russian Federation to reduce their “suffering”. Although, the purpose of the sanctions is not the suffering of the Russian population but the reduction of the Russian Federation’s ability to wage war and kill Ukrainians;
  • forming of empathy in the Western audience for the Russian military and their families should influence public opinion and reduce the level of support for military aid to Ukraine: after all, these weapons will kill “ordinary Russian boys”;
  • Messages about an “unintelligible” and “unnecessary” war that should simply be “stopped” agree with the Kremlin’s demands to come to terms with “territorial realities”, that is with occupation of Ukrainian territories. And leave millions of Ukrainians under occupation as hostages of Putin’s regime;
  • Equalising the moral and ethical positions of the aggressor and the victim of aggression, the invader and the defender of the native country, is just as beneficial to the Kremlin. After all, this minimises its crimes and de-actualises the issue of punishment for them.

The screening of this film at international venues — in Italy, Canada, and Switzerland—generates additional conflicts, undermines mutual trust between Ukrainians and citizens of these countries, and provokes negative emotional reactions. It also plays into the hands of the Kremlin, which has a direct interest in creating chaos and weakening the Free World.

If you have found a spelling error, please, notify us by selecting that text and pressing Ctrl+Enter.

Navigation and useful materials

Spelling error report

The following text will be sent to our editors: