At first glance, Ekaterina Shulman seems to be the poster child of the “beautiful Russia of the future” that Russian pseudo-oppositionists love to paint. She’s a young, successful political scientist who has an arsenal of scientific terms that she manages to use despite the frantic pace of her speech, and who quotes classics of Russian and world literature. 

This woman is known for criticizing Putin based on scientific sources, and for her fluency in discussing Russian legislation and political structure.

As a progressive scholar, not to mention a “foreign agent,” a victim of the regime, she is welcomed in the West, where she regularly gives lectures on Russian history and modernity. Her last “tour,” by the way, took place this fall (2024) in the United States.

During these meetings, Shulman behaves like an intellectual who is “above the fray.” You will not find in her words empathy for the Ukrainians or condemnation of the occupiers in her words. 

While the world is recovering from the shock of someone starting a major war in the twenty-first century and thinking about nuclear apocalypse, Ms. Shulman is observing this “fuss” from the height of scientific analysis.

“No war is an incredible event. People generally fight among themselves: unfortunately, that is their tendency,” Shulman states. 

When it comes to the confrontation between Russia and Ukraine, this woman does not see the militaristic and aggressive policy of the Russian Federation for centuries staring her in the face, reducing this current war to Putin’s arbitrary whim:

“In my opinion, the history of wars has rarely known a more senseless conflict. I mean, you know, one side is fighting for a more or less clear reason, and the other side is fighting for no reason at all.”  

Shulman’s role is (in her own words) “political commentator.” This status provides an excellent opportunity, on the one hand, to distance herself from all the dirty things that happen in politics. On the other hand, it allows her to dive into politics at the first attractive opportunity. 

However, we would not have cared about her plans if it were not for her malicious activities in the information space of the civilized world. 

Like any other representative of the Russian pseudo-opposition, Shulman, who has access to an international audience, does not call for decisive action against the criminal Russian government. Moreover, during her popular science “shows,” the viewer learns that Putin’s regime is … not the worst in the world. 

Crimea – a ‘gift’ and a ‘celebration’

To understand the type of person a certain Russian is, it is enough to ask one question: Whose is Crimea?

The blogger’s quotes suggest that the theft of the peninsula is not a crime:

“The territory of Crimea was de facto controlled by Russia. De jure, it was not recognized (by the world) as the territory of the Russian Federation, but de facto it was controlled, and no one actively resisted this by force… There was no armed resistance, so Crimea did not make us such an illegitimate state…”

In 2014, Ekaterina Shulman made it clear that there was no need to return the stolen peninsula:

“Crimea can stay in Russia, and the world will agree with that. It can return to Ukraine, and Russia will accept it. It can become an independent republic or a joint protectorate – or it can get the most special of all special statuses.” 

In 2019, the political scientist answered the question of how to deal with Crimea, saying that “there are many gray areas in the world and ‘whoever sits in a place is the owner.’”  In 2022, Shulman confirms that the Russian people perceived the occupation of Crimea as a “gift.” “People rejoiced in Crimea – it was perceived as a gift, as a celebration,” “We remember how everyone was happy with Crimea.”

According to Shulman, the same euphoria that followed the seizure of Crimea occurred at the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. 

“But not immediately. There was an immediate shock, it was very unexpected. If we look at the level of fear or the level of support, we see the late spring-summer of ‘22 before September, before the mobilization. This was the honeymoon period of society and the [full-scale] war, when it became clear that no catastrophe had occurred, shops were not closed, banks were open, money was not frozen… so everything was fine. Besides, we are fighting well, successfully!”

They rejoiced together, but only Putin is to blame: in 2024, Shulman declares that the retention or loss of Crimea is a problem exclusively for the Russian president. “The whole of Russia has not invested its heart and soul in Crimea or any other element of its (its?! – author) territory. Despite the support of Russians for the government’s actions, the political scientist categorically rejects statements about the collective responsibility of Russians, calling it a “fascist concept.” 

“There was no request for war before the war. There was no patriotic mobilization. Moreover, by the end of 2021, according to the polls, the attitude of citizens towards the United States, the European Union, and even Ukraine was improving… This is due to the paradoxical perception of it as a brotherly country which the evil Americans are using against Russia for bad purposes” 

Shulman avoids addressing the fact that “brotherly” attitude toward Ukrainians did not prevent Russians from invading Ukraine and committing massacres in Bucha and other Ukrainian cities. 

She also fails to mention that the war has been going on since 2014. During this time, almost 8,000 Ukrainians (4,150 military and at least 3,375 civilians) and 298 foreigners on board MH17 have died (and this does not include the 5,700 dead militants led by Russia’s special forces). Tens of thousands more were wounded. 

 Putin is not a tyrant, Russia is not a dictatorship

Ekaterina Shulman’s attitude toward Vladimir Putin deserves a separate consideration. Although she blames him and his entourage for the war, Shulman nevertheless does not consider him a dictator or a tyrant. In September 2024, on the program “Status,” which she co-hosts with the media personality Maxim Kurnikov, listeners asked the question:  “Is a cult of Putin forming in modern Russia, since he has the highest rate of citations in scientific works (although he is not a scientist), Russian children are lined up in a form of the letters of his surname, and the patriarch blesses him for eternal rule?”

“The short answer is no,” Shulman replies firmly, “the cult of personality is different. The personality cult has to be institutionalized. Are there monuments like the ones  to Nazarbayev? Were there any universities named after someone like him in his lifetime? No, they don’t. Where is Putin Avenue? In Grozny. It’s a special place. There are no monuments or names in other places. Do they show biopics on TV? No, they don’t!” 

So, according to Shulman, there is no Putin cult because… there are no monuments. In this context, it is impossible not to mention the article by Antonina Berezen, PhD in Philology, “The Cult of Vladimir Putin’s Personality in the Context of Postmodernism.” The author demonstrates a fundamental difference in the modern format of interaction between the dictator and the masses. Among the “traditional” tools of the cult’s creators, only the distribution of portraits of the leader and the inclusion of his biography in school textbooks remain. Instead, other forms of image reproduction are emerging: the distribution of the DVD “Learn Judo with Vladimir Putin,” the sale of T-shirts at auctions, and so on. 

“For example, the Russian president widely demonstrates his involvement in unofficial culture – his ties with rapper Timati (Timur Rodriguez), who was twice Putin’s proxy in the elections, and with the head of the Night Wolves biker club Sasha Khirurg (Alexander Zaldostanov), who, despite his known involvement in the criminal world, received five state awards from Putin, are being popularized.”

But Shulman’s audience exhales: no monuments means no personality cult. 

Even before the full-scale invasion, Shulman reassured Russians that they should not be particularly worried about the political system of modern Russia: We are only dealing with a hybrid regime  (democracy + autocracy).

“On the one hand, Russia has democratic institutions, even if they are imitations. We have an inadequate concentration of power in the same hands, an uneven distribution of powers among the branches of government, non-competitive and non-transparent elections. These are all signs that prevent the country from being called a full-fledged democracy.” But, according to the political scientist, the country is not close to a dictatorship either. So, let us exhale once again. Incidentally, even before the war, Ukrainian political scientist Ivan Homza wondered why Shulman calls Russia a “hybrid regime” and Ukraine an “anocracy.” “…an anocracy is a regime that, unlike stable democracies and classical authoritarianism, is characterized by weak political institutions and is therefore prone to political crises and political violence (including civil wars). The researcher has the right to use the terms that help him or her better comprehend and describe the observed reality. However, terminology often carries with it value judgments, and this is the case with the discussion surrounding Ms. Shulman’s interview. I am interested in why she keeps using the term “failed state” in relation to Ukraine, which implicitly carries negative characteristics and seems to outline Ukraine’s path to becoming a failed state, this brainchild of Russian (Kremlin?) propaganda,” Ivan Homza asked.

Mr. Ivan’s question can be answered in the words of the Italian-Russian artist Ekaterina Margolis, who has been following the work of Ekaterina Shulman for a long time. “This is exactly the same imperial disinformation that first worked de facto to prepare the effect of the suddenness of the invasion (interviews from that period), and now – I would add on my own – to distort the true picture, including the activities of the “opposition” and thus divert attention and aid from Ukraine,” Margolis says.

The neighbor’s house burned down, the dam broke…

Impersonal constructions are a hallmark of the “Russian opposition.” Like Shulman’s liberal colleagues from Meduza, Mediazona, and Novaya Gazeta, Shulman “goes around the bend” when it comes to the crimes of the Russian army. For example, she claims that the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP) could have collapsed on its own. On the program “Status,” the political scientist compared the disaster at the Kakhovka HPP with the Moscow fire in 1812. According to her, it was either Napoleon, or the Russians themselves, or the fact that Moscow was made of wood, and firefighters had no time for calls at that moment. “Therefore, without claiming that the dam itself could have been so damaged by negligence and lack of proper maintenance that it eventually burst, we draw attention to the not-zero probability of such an option.”

But the passage about the self-destruction of the dam is not the most interesting in a series of Shulman’s statements about Russian crimes. It turns out that a “house burned down” in Ukraine. And not a word about who exactly set it on fire. “Our neighbor’s house burned down, but our sewage system burst. Everyone, as they say, has their own grievances. Only the neighbor’s house will be rebuilt by the whole world, it’s clear, instead we are forbidden to even plan repairs, they say, you’ve always had it this way, and in general, you must first realize where it all came from, what’s floating on your floor.”

So maybe you should really realize, Ekaterina Shulman? 

 Is Putin a monster? 

But it is in her interview with Mumin Shakirov (Radio Liberty) that Ms. Shulman’s lockstep with the criminal regime becomes particularly clear.

“Do you see Putin as a monster?” asks Mumin Shakirov, a blunt question.

As we have already seen from her previous answers, Shulman is very good at saying yes or no. But this time, she professionally changes the subject by saying that Putin doesn’t seem like a bad guy: “Well, if you take their point of view, they are fighting some Nazis over there and liberating Russian people,” and dodges the question. 

Ekaterina Shulman is also not ready to call those who directly tortured people in Bucha, Kherson, Izium, Bakhmut, and Irpin, criminals. “Those who return to Russia will face a terrible problem. One of them is those who returned from the war. Those with post-traumatic stress disorder. People came and returned with orders on their chests. For you, are they heroes or victims of the political situation?” asks Mumin Shakirov. (It should also be noted that he “opposition” journalist’s question does not consider the possibility that occupiers came to kill). Instead of answering, Shulman says: “Of course this is a problem. It is one of our problems…”  She goes on to assure us that this obstacle will not prevent her from returning to her homeland. 

However, the audience did not get an answer to the question of who the occupiers are. It is symptomatic that in a subsequent conversation she calls them “veterans of the armed conflict.”

Incidentally, the tireless host returned to this question a few minutes later and failed again. 

Finally, Shakirov asked if Shulman had ever been to Ukraine. It turned out that she had. Before the war. She was just passing through. From observations: Lviv is a more “German” city, and Kharkiv is a “Slavic” city. We wonder what this lady means by “Slavic city”? Poland is also a “Slavic” country, but the Ukrainian Dnipro is nothing like, say, Polish Krakow, according to her. We suspect that in Shulman’s paradigm, “Slavic” means belonging to the notorious “Russian world.”

No future without Russia?

And what does Ekaterina Shulman think about the idea that the peoples of the “beautiful Russia of the future” will have the right to freedom? According to the political scientist, this is unlikely. After all, the Caucasus is not capable of jumping off the empire’s money, and this lady denies the Tatars and Bashkirs their self-identity: “Many people wonder whether Russia can be preserved within its present borders. I think it is wiser to put the question differently: what factors can encourage Russian regions to secede? Territorial disintegration begins when the elements of the whole believe that they will be better off alone than together. Who can think that way? Certainly not the recipients of budget subsidies. That is why the perennial separatists of the popular imagination, the North Caucasus republics, are the last ones to actually do it. The resource-rich oil and gas republics of the North or the wealthy Tatarstan and Bashkortostan may be more likely to do so, but they have little to gain from separation from the center and will have a hard time finding their own identity. A single language, educational, and cultural space is a powerful unifying factor,” says Shulman. So, is the decolonization of the empire unlikely because the enslaved peoples cannot live without Mother Russia?

And what about the post-Soviet countries that have managed to gain their independence? 

Let’s take a look at Ms. Shulman’s rhetoric in Kazakhstan, where she often travels because she is a professor at one of the local universities. In October 2022, Ekaterina Shulman praised President Tokayev for maintaining “neutrality on the continent.” According to Shulman, it is thanks to his talents (and, as it turns out, not because Putin is stuck in Ukraine on his way to revive his empire) that everything is calm in Kazakhstan. 

The journalist asks her what surprised her most about Kazakhstan. “This Soviet stamp ‘Peaceful sky above’ turns out to be no stamp at all. This is a wonderful reality,” the scientist replies.

That is, Ms. Shulman was surprised by the “peaceful sky” of Kazakhstan. Perhaps she returned from Kherson, which the Russian army is destroying every day? Or at least from Kyiv or Dnipro, which Russia has also been shelling since the beginning of the invasion? No, Ms. Shulman returned from Europe, where the sky is as peaceful from morning to night as it is in Kazakhstan. So we can’t rule out that she is being disingenuous. Both the message about the “peaceful sky” and the gratitude to Tokayev are a kind of message to the Kazakhs. Something similar to what happened recently in Georgia, when pro-Russian forces in that country put up billboards with bombed-out Ukraine. Like, if you value your “peaceful sky,” don’t go against Putin. 

Afterword: Shulman is also responsible

Unfortunately, in the eyes of the civilized world, Ms. Shulman is primarily a victim of the regime, not its undercover lawyer, which is more likely to be true. She is listened to and invited to give lectures at prestigious universities. At these events, she spreads Kremlin propaganda, talks about the suffering of the Russian intelligentsia, about the “autumn autocracy” in Russia, which, however, has a chance to be reborn as a “democracy.”

Unfortunately, this is the end of her “oppositional activity.” Using Shulman’s metaphors, we can state that she will neither change the “sewage system” that has been rotting for centuries (in order to contribute to the decolonization of the empire), nor help to extinguish the “neighbor’s house” that her country has set on fire. Once again, one cannot but agree with Ekaterina Margolis, who writes that “the cynicism of her (Shulman’s – author) consistent apologetic pro-Russian agenda and marginalization of the genocidal war in Ukraine is quite deliberately based on the centuries-old optics and mythology of Russocentrism formed by the empire.” Margolis emphasizes that Shulman should also be held responsible for what the regime in Russia is doing today: 

“…with announcements of Ms. Shulman’s tour of the United States on the subjects of Russian exile and the captain’s daughter (a reference to a character in a novel by Pushkin – author) for $105 a ticket, not a cent of which, as usual, will be transferred to stop the genocide, for which Ekaterina Mikhailovna (Shulman’s patronym – author) is certainly also responsible. [Because she] collaborated for many years with [Russian] state institutions and also worked to persuade other [Western democratic] – sleeping institutions, which are [only now] about to wake up, telling them about authoritarianism, which is not [the same as, according to Shulman] a dictatorship; [because] she is constantly practicing whataboutism in general, something the so-called [Russian] opposition are allowed to do. [She is also] responsible [for Ukrainian genocide], and perhaps it’s not only ‘also’, but [she’s responsible] on a particularly large scale, because with her huge audience she de facto misled it and masked [Russian] fascism.”

Iryna Avramenko,
media expert at the Pylyp Orlyk Institute for Democracy.