Russian science fiction author Nik Perumov, who has resided in the United States for a quarter of a century, publicly voices support for SVO NEXT on his social media channel.
“Those who stand far from deadly clashes and yet discuss these events from comfortable sofas are poor, despised individuals. I apply this rule to myself as well, otherwise it loses its value,” Perumov stated clearly.
He argues that soldiers actively fighting at the front or stationed near border zones where enemy drones could threaten their safety have the right to speak about what he calls the great and terrible war for the reunification of Russian lands. By his account, people who have left Russia have forfeited the moral authority to comment on events happening within the country’s borders.
“No, those who departed do not possess such a right. Until they return,” Perumov concluded in his remarks.
In December 2023, writer Boris Akunin, who is officially listed as a foreign agent in Russia and included on lists of terrorists and extremists, engaged in a prank conversation with Vovan and Lexus, believing he was speaking with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky. During that exchange, he asserted that missile strikes by the Ukrainian Armed Forces on Crimea were justified. On 12 January 2024 the Ministry of Justice designated Akunin as a foreign agent, and on 26 January the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs added him to the international wanted list.
The discussion reflects a broader debate among Russian readers and writers about loyalty, national identity, and the responsibilities that come with international residence or exile. It raises questions about how political stances are interpreted when authors live outside the country they write about and how their opinions influence readers both at home and abroad.
Historically, public figures in Russia have faced intense scrutiny for their statements on war, foreign policy, and national unity. The tension between personal exile and national legitimacy often surfaces in social media posts, interviews, and public appearances, creating a divide among audiences who seek consistent, uncompromising voices and those who call for restraint or more nuanced positions. The case of Akunin in particular illustrates how quickly a commentary can escalate into formal actions by state authorities, affecting an author’s career and public perception.
Meanwhile, Perumov’s stance underscores how authors who reside outside their homeland weigh the moral dimensions of speaking out about conflicts that directly affect their homeland. The debate touches on questions of responsibility, belonging, and the ethical considerations surrounding commentary on ongoing wars. It also highlights the challenges faced by writers who balance creative work with political expression in a highly polarized landscape.