“I wrote this book to show that there is nothing romantic about war.” Pavel Filatiyev
At 34, he joined the Russian army during the invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. After a brief two months on the frontline in the Kherson region, he evacuated due to an eye condition and made his return to Russia. While back home, he began compiling a war diary. The soldier’s son, whose great-grandfather fought in the First World War on the Ukrainian side, posted a candid, fragmented message on social networks as the events unfolded. The accounts reflected the harsh realities of supply shortages, corruption, and improvisation confronted by the troops at the front line.
Facing the threat of imprisonment for speaking out, he chose to seek refuge abroad, exiting Russia in August with help from a human rights NGO. He is currently in a dispute over his rights to publish his newspaper. The narrative of his denunciation grew into a book, translated into fifteen languages, and set to appear in Spanish bookstores under the title .zov. The Russian soldier who refused war in Ukraine, published by Galaxy Gutenberg. Almost a week before the publication, an interview opportunity arose with El Periódico de Catalunya on a hotel terrace in Paris.
Why did you decide to leave Russia?
Publishing his story aimed to awaken awareness within the military and Russian society at large about the war in Ukraine. Yet the reception was uneven, and the risk of imprisonment loomed large. Ultimately, the decision to leave the country was made on August 16 to protect his safety and conscience.
Do you feel safe in Paris, or are you concerned for your life as you condemn the invasion and the army’s shortcomings?
Safety is never guaranteed. Still, the choice felt morally sound, even if it came at a personal cost. The clarity of conscience matters more than comfort or wealth in this moment.
A year ago, you were part of the Russian paratroopers involved in Crimea, a region annexed by Russia in 2014. What are your thoughts on that time?
There were clear signs of a broader operation forming. More ammunition and medical supplies were distributed, but the objectives remained vague. Early propaganda framed the war as a confrontation with foreign actors, a narrative that misled many soldiers. If the true aim had been disclosed from the start, more troops might have refused to participate.
Has the official discourse about disarming Ukraine reached the Russian troops?
The truth was not clear to many until evacuation. A minority believed in preemptive tactics against Ukraine and NATO, but the majority followed orders and carried out their duties, often without fully understanding the strategic goals.
What were the living conditions like at the front?
Two months of hardship, sleeping in cars, trenches, or outside, with temperatures still biting. Food was inconsistent due to supply failures, and soldiers made do with whatever could be scavenged during chaotic fighting. Shelter and regular meals were rare, and morale shifted with each engagement.
Why did the Russian military struggle despite its larger size?
Controlling a country as vast as Ukraine is not feasible in a matter of days. Even the United States faced difficulties in similar campaigns. Cultural proximity between Russians and Ukrainians blurred enemy lines in the front lines, complicating loyalties. When combined with overstated intel and gaps in planning, expectations clashed with reality, revealing deeper systemic issues.
To what extent did Moscow’s corruption affect the troops?
Corruption was a structural flaw, rooted in military institutions and personal ties. This culture allowed inadequate equipment and management to persist, even enabling some to loot or sell gear. Such dynamics degraded efficiency and trust on the battlefield, where shortages amplified the chaos.
Were there relatively few Russian troops deployed compared to the target country?
Military theory suggests a larger invading force is often required, yet the campaign featured about 100,000 Russian troops against roughly 200,000 Ukrainian defenders. This mismatch highlighted strategic overextension and pressures from leadership rather than decisive strength.
Did improvisation play a role on the ground?
Yes, improvisation was widespread. Plans frequently failed, supplies ran short, and troops sometimes had to improvise under fire. One instance involved a makeshift bonfire to heat food that inadvertently revealed positions to the enemy.
Did any war crimes come to light during those two months in Ukraine?
Looting and indiscriminate firing were persistent violations, while other crimes were rarer in the observed period. Civilians hid indoors as the conflict raged, and interactions with residents were limited. Many hometowns in southern Ukraine saw opinions shift as houses and neighborhoods faced bombardment.
In the book you argue that when Russians fight, ordinary people suffer—do you foresee a future deal between Moscow and Kyiv?
A negotiated peace will be essential, but it hinges on leadership changes. From the outset, the author argued that Russia had no right to interfere in Ukraine or occupy its lands, arguing that the threat to Russian civilians was unfounded. If Putin remains in power, an immediate agreement with Zelensky seems unlikely, though Zelensky is viewed by many as a capable president on the Ukrainian side.