Peace Magazine , page . Some rights reserved.
Search for other articles by kgsimons here
Victor Kogan-Yasny is a brave anomaly. A seasoned member of the Yabloko party—one of the last vestiges of liberal opposition in Russia—he joins the call from Moscow. His presence alone is a statement, though he downplays the danger. He suggests that because the forum does not host those considered “enemy organizations” (such as groups advocating for a coup d’état), he is relatively safe. Yet, the constraints are visible. When asked to arrange for an interview with his party leader, Grigory Yavlinsky, Victor demurs, noting that the situation is too “delicate” to involve him.
Victor paints a bleak picture of the mood in Moscow. The political atmosphere is suffocating, dependent entirely on the “hot phase” of the war. “It is very difficult to express any independent opinion,” he admits.
His analysis of the conflict is rooted in a weary historical realism. He views this not merely as a border dispute but as the largest “post-Soviet war,” a culmination of the nationalism that rushed in to fill the vacuum left by communism in the 1990s. From Central Asia to the Caucasus, he argues, these wars share a common trait: they are senseless.
Victor dismisses the possibility of a total victory for either side. Russia is a nuclear power with vast geography; Ukraine has the resource of morale and Western backing. The result is a bloody stalemate profitable only to “political adventurists” and corruption. He predicts that the current Russian leadership, and indeed some European bureaucrats, are content to let the grinder run for years, hoping the other side simply collapses. Victor does not share this hope.
Contrasting Victor’s endurance in Moscow is Alexey Prokhorenko. Alexey represents the exodus—the hundreds of thousands of Russians who voted with their feet. He joins from Warsaw, having emigrated to avoid being conscripted to kill Ukrainians. The connection between the men is palpable; they all know each other from past projects, a reminder of a civil society that once functioned across borders. Alexey’s presence is a quiet testament to the moral refusal to participate, but the conversation quickly pivots to the man in the most precarious position of all.
Andre Kamenshikov, living in Kyiv, is a Russian peace worker who moved to Ukraine a decade ago because Putin’s repressions were already making his work impossible from Moscow. He greets Victor with the warmth of an old colleague, recalling joint projects from a lifetime ago. But Andre is a realist living in a war zone.“the West should be in contact with independent Russians to show that “the responsibility of people is not equal to the responsibility of the leadership.”
“We are in this very difficult situation,” Andre says, outlining a brutal dilemma: the choice between an “unjust peace” or a war that continues indefinitely without a prospect of a just ending.
The core of the debate shifts when Andre critiques the strategy of both Ukraine and the West. He argues that a fatal mistake is being made by ignoring the “social dynamics of war.”
Andre’s thesis is that military pressure alone is insufficient. He observes that while sanctions and military defeats increase the cost of war for Russia, the West has failed to understand whether Russian society is willing to bear those costs. Without a concerted effort to engage with the Russian people—to drive a wedge between the population and the Kremlin—the leadership can simply spin the narrative.“He argues that a fatal mistake is being made by ignoring the “social dynamics of war.”
Andre illustrates this with a dark Russian joke: A drunkard comes home and tells his family, “Vodka has become more expensive.” His son asks hopefully, “Does that mean you will drink less?” The father replies, “No, that means you will eat less.”
This, Andre argues, is the reality of sanctions without social engagement. The Russian government will force the population to absorb the pain, using propaganda to frame the West as an existential threat. Andre pleads for a strategy that creates “fear in the minds of the government” that their own people might turn on them. Currently, with Russia spending only 9-10% of its GDP on the war (compared to 40-50% in WWII), he warns that total mobilization hasn’t even happened yet.
The conversation takes a sharp turn toward economics when the host raises the issue of Russian assets frozen in Europe –specifically in Belgium. With billions of euros at stake, a proposal will be decided at an EU leadership meeting on December 18 that would release these funds for the defence and rebuilding of Ukraine. If the European leaders adopt the plan, it will greatly reduce Russia’s prospects of defeating Ukraine. Andre still hopes that Ukraine can defend itself successfully with such measures and other sanctions – at least if the West will support them fully.
Victor is skeptical of these silver bullets. He acknowledges that new sanctions, including ones proposed by Donald Trump, are “serious,” but he warns about the timeline. “Russia is enormously big,” Victor reminds the group. The leadership will find ways to circumvent sanctions in the short term. He predicts that the current economic pressure might yield results in two or three years, but a true political transformation in Russia is a generational project, perhaps taking 10 to 15 years.
This timeline clashes violently with the urgent needs of Andre in Kyiv and the moral stance of Alexey in Warsaw. Two years is an eternity in a bombardment; fifteen years is a life sentence for a nation under siege.
Victor asserts that the European “the reality of sanctions without social engagement. The Russian government will force the population to absorb the pain, using propaganda to frame the West as an existential threat” authorities “are doing nothing. They do not want to negotiate with Putin…. Continuing in the way it has been is going for four years will lead only to more violence…”
The host senses that Victor is so eager to end the war that he, in contrast to most E.U. leaders, would accept almost any terms now, however unjust. She probes this, reminding him that:“Russia aggressed against Ukraine. The aggression of one country against another is an extremely horrible international violation, and to settle a dispute in …the West should be in contact with independent Russians to show that “the responsibility of people is not equal to the responsibility of the leadership.” …the reality of sanctions without social engagement. The Russian government will force the population to absorb the pain, using propaganda to frame the West as an existential threat. He argues that a fatal mistake is being made by ignoring the “social dynamics of war.” JAN/MAR 2026 12 PEACE MAGAZINE favor of the aggressor is a terrible thing to do. It may be necessary, and we certainly need to save lives, but everybody must know what’s being paid for this…. Capitulating to an aggressor is simply allowing people to go ahead and do it some more.”
Victor replies, “Please, no illusions. It will become worse. We cannot achieve justice and peace simultaneously. That is the reality.” Metta says, “So you prefer to sacrifice justice?”
Victor says, “No, no. Let us discuss step by step what can be done for justice, but it requires time… It cannot be done immediately It requires institutions. How many lives should be sacrificed for the idea of immediate justice? It will not come. People will not remember how it started. It will continue for generations.”
But Alexey expresses a different perspective. “It’s more complex than just versus stopping violence, because if justice is not served, it may mean more violence long term.”
The discussion concludes with a searing critique of Western leadership from Victor. He argues that leaders like Biden, Macron, and Merz have adopted the “simplest approach.” Rather than doing the difficult, nuanced work of engaging with independent Russians or distinguishing between the Kremlin and the populace, they have written Russia off entirely.
“Russia is [seen as] another civilization,” Victor laments. He believes European security policy is now designed to wall off Russia for the next 50 years. He views this as a tragedy—not a misunderstanding, but a deliberate simplification, with the West identifying Russia as a permanent enemy.
Victor argues that morally, the West should be in contact with independent Russians to show that “the responsibility of people is not equal to the responsibility of the leadership.” But practically, he thinks, Western leaders find it easier to treat the entire nation as a monolith.
The conversation ends without a solution, suspended in the digital space between Moscow, Warsaw, and Kyiv. Victor returns to the “tensive” silence of Moscow, where he waits for a ceasefire that seems distant. Alexey remains in Warsaw, having traded his home for his conscience. And Andre stays in Kyiv, watching the missiles fall, frustrated that the world is fighting a military war but ignoring the human minds that sustain it.