Host (Dmitry Bykov): The State Duma approved a law targeting opposition figures in exile, "foreign agents," and politically persecuted dissidents. They are stripping them of basic civil rights—and the roll-out has already begun, starting with participants of the SlovoNovo forum. We will discuss this with its organizer, gallerist Marat Guelman.
Ukrainian drone strikes have hit Wildberries logistics hubs for two weeks straight—first in Tambov Oblast and Elektrostal, and now in Krasnodar and Nevinnomyssk. This represents one of the most effective strike campaigns following attacks on Russian oil refineries that sparked regional fuel shortages. Thick plumes of smoke are rising into the sky. Yet a key distinction emerges: these strikes have resulted in casualties and dozens of injured workers, mostly Wildberries staff.
The economic fallout impacts small entrepreneurs whose inventory burned on those warehouse floors:
Sellers:
"All of my clients' inventory was destroyed."
"First my husband was killed, then I poured myself into work. I lost 2 million rubles on Wildberries last year and had to take an operating loan."
"At 4:00 AM my heart sank. Everything I built piece by piece over two years simply burned down. I wanted to stay away from politics, but today it's impossible. They torched two more warehouses. My wife is an active seller, and we are devastated. The war is entering a stage where it directly touches everyone. It's time to figure out how to settle this."
Gallerist Marat Guelman wrote online that he "cannot bring himself to sympathize with entrepreneurs whose fur coats or kitchen pots burned on market platforms."
Journalist Alexander Shmurnov quoted Ukrainian blogger Tanya Adams, who recommended that an upset marketplace seller "just jump out a window."
Politician Garry Kasparov advised any Russians criticizing the strikes to "keep their mouth shut, as usual."
Novaya Gazeta Europe Editor-in-Chief Kirill Martynov argued that these warehouses are legitimate military targets because Wildberries actively sells military gear—including body armor and drone components—to the front lines. Conversely, Meduza published an investigation finding no conclusive evidence that marketplace warehouses meet the criteria for legitimate military targets.
While the legal status remains debated, the moral dimension is pressing. We turn first to historian Tamara Eidelman.
Host: Tamara, welcome. We have two wars to discuss today: one from antiquity and one unfolding right now. Let's begin with the current conflict. You've seen the fires at the Wildberries warehouses following Ukrainian drone strikes. There are casualties, billions in damages, and small business owners ruined. Yet a common response is: "What did you expect? It's war, you started it. Maybe now Russians will finally understand something." How do you view that stance?
Tamara Eidelman: Listening to those quotes, I find it hard to agree with those sentiments. I understand why people in Ukraine feel that way—it's deeply tragic, but completely understandable when Russian missiles strike playgrounds and residential buildings. Naturally, it evokes anger when they see people mourning burned fur coats.
Yet I feel empathy for both sides. Fur coats and human lives are incomparable, but I sympathize with those who lost their livelihoods. They are victims of war—and victims of state propaganda. The responsibility for their misfortune lies not with those launching missiles at Wildberries warehouses, but with those who unleashed this war and invaded Ukraine.
Host: Marat Guelman noted he couldn't feel sympathy for those who lost commercial inventory, while Fyodor Krasheninnikov called the idea that these strikes will make average Russians "understand" something "an absolute rock-bottom take." Now Wildberries announced it will compensate sellers for destroyed stock. Does compensation lessen the empathy owed, or erase any chance of a shift in public perception?
Tamara Eidelman: Measuring sympathy by monetary compensation misses the point entirely. I recall early in the war when people mocked parents of killed Russian soldiers who received state payouts and bought cars. It's not a transactional calculation. They remain victims of war regardless of their views or compensation.
As for whether people will "understand" something now, history provides clear precedents. During World War II, the British subjected German cities to devastating carpet bombing campaigns—such as Operation Gomorrah in Hamburg in 1943, where firestorms incinerated whole districts. Air Marshal Arthur Harris argued that flattening German cities would shorten the war by at least a year.
Did German public opinion shift radically against Hitler in 1943? No. Gestapo reports noted citizens saying "this is punishment for what we did to the Jews," but it did not trigger a widespread political awakening. That shift didn't occur until long after the war ended.
I don't believe warehouse strikes will spark sudden political epiphanies. People experience grief and trauma, but whether they blame Ukrainians, Wildberries management, or Putin remains a complex question. War inflicts suffering on civilians across all sides.
That is precisely why Christopher Nolan's new film, The Odyssey, resonates so strongly—it depicts war as an unmitigated disaster and horror for everyone involved.
Host: Let's discuss Nolan's The Odyssey. You watched it twice and wrote that you were thrilled "to the point of losing your mind." Do you view it primarily as a film critic, a historian, or an admirer of classical literature?
Tamara Eidelman: Primarily as a filmgoer. It is masterfully shot and exceptionally acted.
As a historian, it's clear the narrative alters classical details—but Homer's Odyssey is an epic mythological poem, not a historical document. There were no Laestrygonians, Cyclopes, or Sirens in reality. We don't even know if a singular Trojan War occurred historical facts align with, or if it represents a composite memory of multiple Achaean raids on Asia Minor during the Bronze Age collapse.
What makes Nolan's adaptation brilliant is how consistently he strips away romanticized elements:
Host: Elon Musk promised to release an "historically accurate film adaptation of The Odyssey" generated by his Grok AI model later this year. How do you interpret "historical accuracy" in this context?
Tamara Eidelman: If the Trojan War took place, it occurred around the 12th–11th centuries BCE during the Late Bronze Age collapse. Homer—if he existed as a single historical figure—wrote around the 8th century BCE.
I would ask Elon Musk: is his AI model adapting 8th-century BCE Homeric realities or 12th-century BCE Mycenaean realities? Can Grok prove Homer existed or resolve centuries of academic debate regarding the authorship of the epics? I doubt AI can settle questions that historians have debated for millennia.
Host: Turning now to the State Duma's new legislation targeting emigrants and opposition figures. Vyacheslav Volodin stated: "This is a vital decision that allows us to protect the state from scoundrels who left the country and continue to do harm from abroad. You cannot betray the Motherland." Marat, how do you evaluate these laws?
Marat Guelman: The key insight is that this law is not the endpoint of a process that began with "foreign agent" designations; it is an intermediate step. The regime's objective is to categorize any citizen who opposes the war as a criminal, regardless of whether they reside inside Russia or abroad. Volodin articulated that intent directly.
Even if an individual falls outside the scope of current restrictions today, new measures will inevitably cover them tomorrow. Russia is transitioning into a total police state where anyone not actively supporting the regime is designated an enemy.
These repressions will not ease if active military operations cease; they will likely intensify. The regime is escalating domestic persecution precisely because its military campaign in Ukraine has stalled. Unable to achieve its objectives on the battlefield, it retaliates against its own citizens.
┌───────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ EVOLUTION OF STATE REPRESSIVE LAWS │
└─────────────────────┬─────────────────────┘
│
EARLY STAGE (2022–2024) CURRENT STAGE (2026)
┌──────────────────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────────────────┐
│ • "Foreign Agent" Labels │ │ • Freezing domestic bank A/Cs│
│ • Fines for Non-Compliance │ ───► │ • Invalidating Power of Atty │
│ • Targeted Criminal Cases │ │ • Blocking Consular Services │
│ • Selective Property Seizure │ │ • Denying Citizenship Exit │
└──────────────────────────────┘ └──────────────────────────────┘
Host: Some analysts suggest these measures aim to deter a potential new wave of emigration ahead of rumored mobilization drives. Is that a plausible factor?
Guelman: Putin observed the Venezuelan model closely: if a regime allows dissatisfied citizens to leave—while ensuring they cannot return or exercise domestic influence—it can maintain power indefinitely. The Kremlin actively wants dissenting citizens to leave. They do not value intellectual capital or entrepreneurial talent; they believe state resources and capital are sufficient. They want anyone who remains silent or harbors doubts to exit the country.
Formerly, the state's posture was: "If you don't actively oppose us, you can remain." The current stance is: "If you aren't explicitly for us, leave."
While mobilization carries political risks for the regime, they rely on a passive demographic that won't consider leaving. These laws target those in transitional situations—those who emigrated while leaving behind elderly parents, real estate, or domestic assets—forcing them to choose.
This has nothing to do with legal standards. People spent lifetimes accumulating property and savings. I am 65 years old; I moved abroad in 2021 at age 59 after decades of professional work. Depriving people of their assets is an act of state expropriation.
We must accept the reality that the country we left no longer exists—neither for those who emigrated nor for those who remained. It is a fundamental transformation. We are facing long-term exile, and we must build our lives around that reality.
Host: Writer Dmitry L. Bykov commented on your post regarding this law: "Political charges against all emigrants are merely a matter of time, but Putin's Russia may run out of time first." Do you agree with that assessment?
Marat Guelman: During recent discussions with European Parliament members in Brussels, an official made a statement that stuck with me: "Hope is not a strategy."
While we hope the regime collapses sooner rather than later, we cannot build long-term strategies on hope alone. As an analytical baseline, the regime possesses sufficient resources and time to cause immense internal damage to society. Rebuilding governance will require constructing new state institutions from scratch rather than restoring former ones.
I don't see viable internal mechanisms to dismantle the regime from within right now. While the Kremlin accelerates its own degradation through its actions, Russian society retains significant inertia and patience.
Our core tasks in exile are clear:
Host: The Russian government recently applied account freezes and asset restrictions against nearly 100 individuals associated with your free culture forum, SlovoNovo. What was the impact of these financial blockades?
Marat Guelman: They systematically targeted participants of SlovoNovo. When these account freezes occurred, we notified all upcoming participants for our next forum in Cyprus so they could factor the risks into their decisions.
About 20% of invited participants who still reside in Moscow withdrew from the event due to property and account risks. The remaining 80% chose to participate regardless. So while the regime's repressive measures exert an impact, their effectiveness in silencing creators stands at roughly 20%.
SLOVONOVO PARTICIPATION IMPACT
┌──────────────────────────────┐
│ 80% Continue Participation │
│ (Defying Pressures) │
├──────────────────────────────┤
│ 20% Withdrew Participation │
│ (Residing inside Russia) │
└──────────────────────────────┘
Within Russia, the authorities exercise absolute physical control: they can imprison people, seize assets, and strip livelihoods. Yet in an historical perspective, they lost the moment their initial military objectives failed in 2022.
A deep fracture has occurred between the state-bureaucratic elite and the cultural and scientific community. We can exist and produce outside Russian territory. In the 1960s, a significant volume of independent Russian literature was published exclusively abroad before eventually returning to public life during Perestroika.
Our current position is complex: we face hostility from the Russian state apparatus while navigating a cool reception in Europe, where public sympathy aligns primarily with Ukraine. We are caught in a difficult position, yet our situation remains far better than that of independent voices trapped inside Russia who are forced into silence.
.jpg)
Host: You work with PACE and the Anti-War Committee on securing "alien passports" (certificate documents for stateless or persecuted individuals) for Russian dissidents. Given these new laws, what is the status of that initiative?
Marat Guelman: The Anti-War Committee works actively with PACE and the European Parliament. Representatives like Dmitry Gudkov, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and Garry Kasparov manage direct parliamentary advocacy.
PACE issued a key recommendation encouraging member states to issue travel and identity documents to anti-war Russian citizens stripped of consular services, moving away from handling cases purely as rare exceptions to establishing broader institutional mechanisms.
Russia's new legislation accelerates this process by providing European delegations with clear evidence that Russian citizens abroad are systematically denied standard consular services. While European-level recommendations have passed, implementation rests with individual national governments. Dmitry Gudkov noted recently that Russia's new restrictions are helping expedite legislative reviews across several European capitals.
Host: Do you personally require an alien passport?
Marat Guelman: No, I hold Moldovan citizenship by birth, in addition to donating collections to Moldovan national museums and representing Moldovan art at Art Basel.
However, many members of our delegation and thousands of exiled Russians urgently require these documents because they cannot access Russian consular services without facing immediate detention or political retaliation.
The Anti-War Committee operates a consular support network spanning various countries. Over two years, our consular service in Montenegro alone assisted 250 individuals in acute legal crises—preventing deportations to Russia where imprisonment awaited them.
Host: What practical advice would you offer a Russian citizen living abroad whose passport expires in a year and who still owns real estate in Russia, but faces no active criminal charges yet?
Marat Guelman: My consistent advice is to liquidate domestic assets and sever financial ties to Russia if possible.
Even if an individual does not fall under current statutory criteria, legal frameworks will likely expand. The old Soviet criteria of "losing ties with the Motherland" will become sufficient grounds for asset expropriation.
If an individual faces no active political charges, they should renew their Russian international passport for the maximum ten-year duration immediately at a local consulate to buy time while European frameworks for alternative travel documents are finalized.
Host: The next SlovoNovo forum takes place this autumn in Cyprus. What is the central theme for this year's gathering?
Marat Guelman: Each iteration of SlovoNovo addresses a specific cultural dimension. Past forums focused on Russian diaspora communities in Berlin, Prague, and London, examining how minority cultures function within European societies, or challenging narratives regarding an isolated "Russian World."
This year, the core theme is Cultural Memory.
We have lost key cultural figures who were foundational participants of our forum from its inception—poets like Lev Rubinstein, Bakhyt Kenzheev, Alexey Tsvetkov, and Dmitry Prigov. The forum will focus on bridging past heritage with current realities.
Additionally, we are integrating digital technology: using AI models, we are creating interactive avatars of historical literary figures—such as Anton Chekhov, Leo Tolstoy, and Fyodor Dostoevsky. These avatars will join contemporary panel discussions via video link to offer perspectives on current existential and cultural questions.
This year's forum centers on the concept of Cultural Memory.
Host: Thank you, Marat. We began with Volodin's legislative threats and concluded on a thoughtful cultural note. Thank you for joining us.
Guelman: Thank you.
Host: That concludes this broadcast of Voices. Join us next week. I'm Dmitry Bykov. Goodbye!
