How Former "Good Russian" Latynina Came to Support the "Amputation" of Ukrainian Territories

Author: Natalia Steblyna

Українською читайте тут.

Among the public figures in Russia who denounce Putin are many who once helped him construct the country as it is now but later "saw the light" after the full-scale invasion and began saying "No to War" — whatever that may mean.

However, there is another example: a person who ostensibly supported Ukraine before the full-scale war and at its onset but later began leaning toward the Kremlin. In recent publications in "liberal Russian media," blogs, and social media posts, she has started accusing Ukrainians of planning "ethnic cleansing" in Crimea, portraying Zelenskyy as wanting to prolong the war to stay in power and blaming the West for "hooking" Ukraine on the "drug" of weapons supplies. Moreover, she argues that these arms deliveries lead to deaths on both sides, which she claims benefits Washington.

This person is Russian columnist Yulia Latynina. At the beginning of the full-scale invasion, Latynina hosted broadcasts with Oleksiy Arestovych and other speakers who unequivocally supported Ukraine and condemned the invasion. At that time, she spoke about Russian war crimes and supported Ukraine’s efforts to liberate its territories. Up until 2022, she even published blogs in Ukrainian outlets. On her YouTube channel, she predicted Putin's defeat and ridiculed the Russian army. Soon after, a dramatic change happened.

The first signs of her changing stance (or, perhaps, the unveiling of her true beliefs) were evident during a debate with Ukrainian journalist Vitaly Portnikov. At that time, Latynina still portrayed herself as a Russian liberal. In my opinion, this label no longer applies. Her rhetoric today is scarcely distinguishable from Kremlin propaganda. Would Latynina want Ukraine to win and restore its 1991 borders? Based on her recent writings, the answer is likely "no."

Russians Mark Feygin and Yulia Latynina with Ukrainian journalist Vitaliy Portnikov. Screenshot courtesy of TSN

To analyze how Latynina pivoted toward the Kremlin and to document specific instances of her promoting aggressive Russian narratives against Ukraine, I reviewed all her columns published in the opposition outlet Novaya Gazeta Europe from January 1, 2023, to October 31, 2024. This period covers two phases of her public commentary: pro-Ukrainian and anti-Ukrainian.

One study of Russian “Putin critics” from November 2022 states that Yulia Latynina recognizes Crimea as an integral part of Ukraine. And at that time, it was undoubtedly a correct assessment. The same was true in early 2023, when she wrote that Crimea's status should not be frozen, as it would be “a disaster for the entire free world.”

"It would turn out that you can invade another country, commit [atrocities like] Bucha and Mariupol, kill tens of thousands of civilians, and then stay in power, declare victory to the ochlos, get exactly what you insisted on before the invasion, and in addition successfully turn your own country into a North Korea. This would open the green light for Xi in Taiwan and Erdogan in Syria and the Caucasus," Latynina wrote in January 2023.

Screenshot of Latynina's column in Novaya Gazeta

However, by September 2023, her stance had shifted dramatically. In a column reacting to the so-called Third Karabakh War — where Azerbaijan reclaimed control over Nagorno-Karabakh — her views on Crimea took a sharp turn. Expressing disdain for "Ukrainian turbo-patriots," she wrote:

“In 2014, this threat, under the pretext of which Putin annexed Crimea and torn Donetsk and Luhansk away from Ukraine, was completely fake. But those Ukrainian turbopatriots who rejoice in the catastrophe of the Karabakh Armenians make this threat quite real. No matter how terrible Putin is, the massive flight of the Crimean population during the Ukrainian army's offensive could also be a test for Western politicians.”

Effectively, this is a return to the Kremlin's decade-old lies, when propagandists told everyone about “trains with Nazis” coming to Crimea to deal with Russian speakers. For Yulia Latynina, these are not trains but the arrival of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, which she only recently welcomed.

From this point onward, unlike at the start of the year, her writings began to exhibit a typical imperialistic worldview — one in which former colonies cannot be granted freedom, as it allegedly leads to bloodshed.

In her view, the Soviet Union was "engaged in the organization of national republics and even nurtured (!) regional differences." The question of why, then, the USSR imprisoned people for "nationalism" throughout its existence is left rhetorical, as an empire enthusiast would likely interpret even this as a benefit.

According to another of Latynina's articles in Novaya Gazeta, Russia must not allow Tatarstan to become a national state because Russians there “would face a fate akin to that of the Baltic Germans [who were allowed to relocate to Germany after the USSR annexed the Baltic states in 1939] in the best-case scenario, or that of the Sumgait Armenians [victims of pogroms in the Azerbaijani city of Sumgait in 1988] in the worst-case.”

According to her, the scenario goes like this: first, Russia seizes a territory, populates it with Russians, and that’s it, the territory is Russian now. It cannot be given away because the people whose land was taken away from them may offend the Russians. Meanwhile, the fact that Russians, in enforcing their imperial policies, harshly punish the local population for any dissent is, apparently, irrelevant. From the imperial perspective, the suffering of the colonized at the hands of the colonizer is neither visible nor significant.

The same logic applies to Crimea. Starting in the fall of 2023, Latynina began regularly hinting at the danger posed to Russians living in Crimea by Ukraine's eventual return. Not once, however, did she mention what Russian invaders have done and continue to do to civilians on the peninsula, regardless of their ethnic background. Let me remind you that Freedom House rates the state of political rights and civil liberties in Crimea at 2 out of 100. Even North Korea scores 3.

In November 2023, Latynina saw social media comments as a threat to Russians in Crimea. Some users referred to Russians as "biowaste," prompting her to write: “If Russians are “biowaste” and make up the majority in Crimea, how can we explain to our allies that Ukraine needs weapons to cleanse Crimea of “biowaste”?

Screenshot of Latynina's column in Novaya Gazeta

In June 2024, she objected to a statement by Mykhailo Podolyak, an advisor to the Office of the President, who said that in Crimea, Russians were hiding behind "civilian invaders." Latynina wrote at the time: “If random residents of Crimea, including children, are ‘civilian invaders,’ it is unclear how the Office of President Zelenskyy is intending to liberate them with this attitude.”

In the first case, she simply took quotes from unknown commentators on social media. In the second, she pulled Podolyak's statement out of context — it did not refer to "random residents of Crimea or children." Thus, her conclusions suggest that all Russians in Crimea are under threat. Judging by Latynina's commentary from 2023–2024, this supposed threat emerged only after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Finally, let’s examine one of Latynina's recent columns in the same Novaya Gazeta to confirm that, regarding Crimea, she now fully aligns with the Kremlin’s narrative.

Screenshot of Latynina's column in Novaya Gazeta

She writes that life for Russians in Crimea before 2014 was "not cloudless" because they were "forced" to learn Ukrainian. And if Ukraine regains Crimea now, she claims that "ethnic cleansing of Crimea’s residents who had the misfortune of 'applauding' Russia, should Russian troops leave the peninsula, is more than likely."

And there it is. Russian troops in Crimea, it turns out, are the guarantee of peace and (North Korean-style) stability. Let’s just leave it at that. The main thing is that no one dares to encourage them to speak Ukrainian.

When it comes to peace negotiations in Latynina's work, the shift is as dramatic as her stance on Crimea. Initially, she argued, “No, don’t agree.” Later, it became, “How could you not agree?!”

In early 2023, in her piece “Tanks with Spiders,” the columnist wrote:

“…Experience has shown that Putin negotiates for one purpose only: either to avoid reaching an agreement or to gain a strategic pause and use concessions as a springboard for a new attack. Anyone who negotiates with him, in Putin’s view, is a fool, and it’s a sin not to take advantage of a fool.”

The topic of negotiations arose at that time due to purported “consultations” between the U.S. and Russia regarding a ceasefire. The terms allegedly proposed by Putin (Russians would withdraw from Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions but retain Donetsk and Luhansk regions) were described by Latynina as “absurd.”

However, just a year later, in January 2024, in her column “The Ukrainian Deadlock: Why the West No Longer Awaits Zelenskyy’s Victory,” Latynina began blaming the Ukrainian president for rejecting Putin’s terms back in April 2022:

“Such a peace would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides and allowed Ukraine to develop like South Korea. But it would have been a political death sentence for President Zelenskyy, who would have at least lost the election.”

In subsequent writings, Latynina continued to insist that Zelenskyy should have agreed to those negotiations. In April 2024, in her piece “In Search of a Bad Peace,” she reiterated how favorable those terms were and accused Zelenskyy of rejecting them out of fear of “political consequences.” By September 2024, Latynina went further, openly calling for “amputation”:

“The only winning strategy for Ukraine is amputation, freezing the war. Amputation — and as quickly as possible. In Istanbul [in April 2022], only the foot could have been amputated. Now, it’s necessary to amputate up to the knee. Tomorrow, it will have to be up to the thigh, and eventually, even amputation won’t save the patient. Let the gangrene take the leg it has gnawed away and leave.”

Latynina accuses Zelenskyy of refusing these terms because he is trying to “heal a patient with gangrene.”

Screenshot of Latynina's column in Novaya Gazeta

But we know perfectly well that even after such “freezing” and “amputation,” Russia — the gangrene — would gnaw at Ukraine again and again. Latynina herself used to understand this once. Yet now, it seems, she believes that negotiating with Putin is worthwhile…

As you can see, the radical shift in Latynina's attitudes extends far beyond Crimea and negotiations. Her views on various facets of Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine have also undergone significant transformation.

Screenshot of Latynina's column in Novaya Gazeta

In March 2023, Latynina commented on the Russian Volunteer Corps’ (RVC) raids into the Bryansk region. By May of the same year, she described the actions of the Freedom of Russia Legion and RVC as "simple, clear, and appropriate."

However, by March 2024, Latynina was comparing Russians willing to liberate their country from Putin by armed means to “Kadyrov's TikTok troops." According to her, their actions, like shelling Belgorod, were tantamount to "pulling a tiger by its tail." She claimed such acts provoked Russia’s renewed offensive in the Kharkiv region and suggested Zelenskyy should consider the potential consequences.

By August 2024, Latynina maintained that RVC’s raids now constituted "escalation." She argued that Russians — those opposed to Putin — should be staunchly against such actions. Clearly, she also disapproved of any operation of the Armed Forces of Ukraine extending into the Kursk region.

In early 2023, the AFU appeared very strong to Latynina. She appreciated how the Ukrainian military "smacked Putin on the nose" by successfully retreating from Bakhmut. In the same piece, she noted that the AFU was "visibly transforming into a 21st-century network-centric army." Latynina admired Ukrainian troops for their ability to "play thimblerig with Gerasimov." By May 2023, she predicted that "Ukrainian tanks would be able to achieve a breakthrough." In April of that year, she wrote that "a tsunami crest is clearly rising on the horizon. This tsunami is the AFU’s offensive."

However, by the end of the year, her focus shifted to different topics. She alleged that Ukrainians were preoccupied with finding ways to buy their way out of military service, leaving volunteers fighting on the frontlines "demoralized." Corruption became a recurring theme in her commentary: "It's one thing to die for your homeland in an existential war, and another to die because someone stole funds meant for fortifications." She described the defense held by the AFU as "meat-based," implicitly likening Ukrainian defenders to Russian invaders and their "meat assaults." In the same article, she portrayed Russian invasion forces as "well-coordinated units" while their adversaries were "poorly trained [forcibly mobilized] in hastily dug trenches." In another text, she repeated the claim about the "[forcibly mobilized] who often refuse to fight."

Yes, it is evident that Ukraine faces challenges with mobilization and corruption. However, there are also those who voluntarily join the AFU. There are heroes who continue to defend their land. There are those fighting against corruption. Yet, the constant reiteration of only one side of the narrative contributes to the formation of narratives beneficial to the Kremlin.

Screenshot of Latynina's column in Novaya Gazeta

It is entirely consistent that Russia, once depicted by Latynina as "an indifferent, embittered swamp with Putin's golden toilet bearing the state eagle," has, in her texts, become a nation whose economy grows thanks to the war and which has developed a successful strategy in the war with Ukraine. Early on, Latynina criticized Russian invaders for the massacres in Bucha and Mariupol, calling them "cannon fodder." In her October 2024 piece, however, she wrote that “the notion that ‘all Russian soldiers are criminals’ was imposed by the propaganda of Ukrainian nationalist decolonizers."

She also mentioned Zelenskyy in her publications. At the start of 2023, Latynina scarcely gave any mention to him. But later, she argued that it was he who was prolonging the war, as it was his means of "indefinitely staying in power and avoiding questions from political opponents." She has repeated this claim numerous times since then. According to her, Zelenskyy created the Peace Formula to boost his "prestige." He demands weapons from the West while remaining silent about "unfinished fortifications." She alleged that he conceived the Kursk operation to "draw the West deeper into the war." Furthermore, in her view, the Ukrainian President fails to negotiate effectively with the West, "He made excessive, crazy, and unrealistic demands of all potential allies, driving them off and turning them into enemies." She also accused him of persecuting Russian figures opposed to Putin. Latynina frequently cited his remarks in the Washington Post about closing borders to Russians. Consequently, she argued, Ukraine had lost potential allies among anti-war Russians.

Screenshot of Zelenskyy's interview with the Washington Post

There is an old 1961 theory of social judgment suggesting that people are generally resistant to radical changes in their beliefs. When we encounter new information, we compare it to our existing convictions. If it supports those convictions, we accept it; if not, we reject it. A similar framework is provided by the more widely known theory of cognitive dissonance.

However, Yulia Latynina's case contradicts these ideas. In her situation, it seems entirely possible to champion one position at first and later write the exact opposite. 

If her views have shifted so drastically, it implies that:

And so, she eventually "saw the light" and realized how deeply mistaken she had been. Should this Russian publicist, guided by ethical principles, apologize and explain what happened? It seems so... Yet in none of the analyzed texts is there any such acknowledgment. Starting around the summer of 2023, her writings appear to come from an entirely different person, whose positions on Ukraine become increasingly harsh and more and more resemble Kremlin rhetoric.

So what happened? How did this reprogrammed "Latynina 2.0" come into being? In my view, there are several primary reasons that made her vulnerable.

The first is the omnivorousness in terms of the subject matter. This is a typical phenomenon among Russian opposition bloggers. Latynina, who describes herself as a "shy philologist thousands of kilometers from the frontline," seems to specialize in everything: war, politics, economics, the Middle East, and even the production of dietary supplements (she once wrote an entire article on their manufacturing in blockaded [during World War II] Leningrad). She also dabbles in climatology. Novaya Gazeta Europe once introduced her as a "prominent critic of the concept of global warming." Questions about what specific scientific works she has contributed to the field should probably be directed to the editors.

Of course, it’s possible that there are geniuses capable of mastering all these areas at an expert level. But it might just be plain amateurism. And, as it happens, it is easy to manipulate a “shy” overconfident amateur. Just think about her YouTube discussions with Oleksiy Arestovych, where he flattered Latynina, saying she understood military matters better than many generals. How could she resist such praise and not succumb to its influence?

The second is the overreliance on “leaks,” “insider information,” and anonymous sources. Why are anonymous sources so convenient? They allow authors to cherry-pick the ones that best fit their desired narrative. For instance, in her article “Ukrainian Deadlock,” Latynina claimed to have derived "principles guiding U.S. policy in this war" from several "insider" books and articles.

She asserted, for example, that the U.S. does not insist on a full withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine. After this claim, Novaya Gazeta Europe editors even appended a note clarifying, "At the same time, U.S. officials emphasize the inviolability of Ukraine's 1991 borders..." Apparently, they hadn’t read the necessary “insider books" to be aware of modern global realities.

The third is susceptibility to suggestion and conspiracy theories. The first red flag emerged in June 2023, when Latynina, in her piece The Burden of the Offensive, criticized Ukraine's Western partners for not providing F-16s:

"They gave the kids water pistols and watched them wrestle in the sandbox. The war could drag on for decades, with both sides bleeding each other dry, and the southern Ukrainian territories becoming a desert ruled by warlords from both sides."

Incidentally, this narrative strongly echoes comments Oleksiy Arestovych once made on Latynina's YouTube channel:

"Now we’ll be killing each other by the hundreds, tens of thousands… Why? What’s in it for us — both Russia and Ukraine? We’re just pleasing the guys from Washington and Brussels who stand around us clapping, watching as two monkeys with knives jump at each other."

Screenshot of Latynina's column in Novaya Gazeta

Then, the recurring theme of the “hand of the West,” supposedly interested in prolonging the war between Russia and Ukraine to weaken both, constantly resurfaces in Latynina’s writings. She speaks of “hordes of international bureaucrats thriving on conflict resolution (and if you put an international bureaucrat in charge of resolving a conflict, it will become eternal).” Without citing sources, she develops a theory that “allies” might warn Russia about Ukraine’s plans, again with the aim of “preventing” Ukraine from achieving victory. She repeatedly claims that “the West is putting Ukraine on a weapons welfare system: giving just enough to avoid surrender but ensuring the bleeding continues.” In one text, she even likens supplying weapons to Ukraine to supplying drugs, suggesting that as soon as one side starts gaining the upper hand, its weapons are taken away, and when it begins to lose, it is given painkillers to keep fighting. This conspiracy theory allows Latynina, like many Russian opposition figures, to blame the West for the war against Ukraine rather than Russia.

The fourth is the “collective West and overuse of generalizations. Latynina discusses “the West” as if it were a single entity with a unified will. Early in 2023, when she still supported Ukraine, she wrote, “The West has decided to give Ukraine a chance to win.” A year later, her tone shifted: “The West no longer expects Zelenskyy to win.” Yes, there are Western countries, but they may all have different ideas about Ukraine's victory. Nevertheless, talking about a general West that wants or does not want something is easy and convenient.

Putin, too, perceives the West as an organized hierarchy led by the White House. Evidently, Latynina shares this view. Besides, it is possible to interpret the “actions of the West” in any way you want to emphasize a particular conspiracy theory.

The fifth is the “decolonizers.” Latynina has a particular aversion to those. She criticizes their rhetoric, going so far as to label decolonization as propaganda. Allegedly, Russia has its Z-propaganda, while Ukraine has Y-propaganda. According to Latynina, they are essentially the same. The summary of her argument: If a Ukrainian admires Navalny, they are a “living” Ukrainian; if not, they are a bot or someone brainwashed by propaganda, part of an “information monster serving not the interests of Ukrainian voters but those of propagandists and the government.” By this logic, it is the Ukrainian propaganda that is also behind the “cancellation” of the “great Russian culture.” In another piece, “The March of the Decolonizers”, Latynina claims the idea of the “collective responsibility of Russians” is Nazism.

If one were to explain what happened to Latynina during this time in simple terms, it would be this: Latynina supported Ukraine as long as there was hope that a successful counteroffensive in 2023 would lead to the quick collapse of Putin and his regime. When that didn’t happen, the journalist shifted to another camp. From her perspective, the "world's backstreets" — dictatorships that are stronger than democracies — are now ascendant. In her recent publications, she keeps reiterating that the strong must always win, but those pesky democracies are always helping the weak.

"There are two approaches in world politics," she writes. "What is called realpolitik and what is called globalism… If realpolitik had prevailed, there would be no Ukraine by now. Ukraine, for all the heroism of its resistance, would long ago have exhausted its resources and been divided, for example, between Russia, Hungary, and Poland… On the contrary, globalism and the party of all that is good against all that is evil believe that in a war, there are orcs and elves, aggressors and victims, those who are entirely wrong, and those who are entirely right. There are no shades of gray. There is a good side, and there is a bad side."

You say Russia attacked Ukraine? Russia is the aggressor, and Ukraine is the victim? No, it’s not that simple.

Why are shades of gray so important to Yulia Latynina? Because they allow her to feel comfortable in the quagmire of the Russian opposition.

Modern Russia has proven that it cannot be considered a civilized country. Russian invaders, caught in the lens of modern internet warfare, have revealed themselves as utter savages. Russian society and its intelligentsia have failed to oppose this. Yes, that cannot be denied; some have tried. But they were defeated. Moreover, the world is reminded almost daily that it is the savages who have triumphed in Russia. Almost every day, Russian forces fire missiles and drones at residential buildings in Ukraine, killing civilians.

Facing defeat day after day is an extraordinary burden. No matter how hard one tries to convince a Western audience that a different Russia exists, the "real" Russia always provides a stronger and more devastating counterargument. And now, there is the looming specter of decolonization — growing ever more prominent.

Thus, it’s better to remain in the current swamp of the Russian opposition, concocting alternative explanations for everything that is happening. The war, in her view, is everyone against everyone. In reality, everyone is just like Russia. If Hungary and Poland had the chance, they, too, would capture Ukraine. And the imagined "collective West," according to Latynina, is actually dividing and conquering. It seeks to destroy both Ukraine and Russia. It’s to blame for everything. As for Ukraine, its fate has long been clear: Nazis, Little Russians, and that’s it.

Ukraine did not break when it failed to achieve a swift victory over Russia in 2023. But Yulia Latynina did. After every Russian strike, Ukraine rises again, while the Russian opposition continues to crawl across the realm of "shades of gray" and "half-truths." Will it ever rise? Who knows. Perhaps some of them will. Latynina, however, likely never will.

Main page screenshot courtesy of Yulia Latynina/YouTube