Guilt. Responsibility. Many talk today about the guilt of Russian people in the Russian-war.

Who started first? Zero-sum results.

We have to destroy them because they hate us!

It is a very understandable and natural reaction. And no one would blame a Ukrainian for
passionately hating all Russians and seeing them as a violent nation that should be
destroyed by the international community, etc.

And it is hard to talk and to explain the reconciliation concept to people who are being
attacked. But we can use another example to show why it is so important. Imagine the day
when the war is over. And generations have changed. And there will be people with
polarised opinions. People, who were not even part of all these actions, this war. And there
is simply no way to persuade one another on who was right and who was wrong. But we
need to continue living, communicating. This is where the reconciliation process starts.

But what about the time when the conflict isn't over yet. It is too early to even think about
smth like The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).

For me Peace Journalism is about that. It's about something that prepares future
reconciliation, preemptive work, starting a dialogue between parties (maybe in a virtual
space, in your reports and articles).

Elena Kostyuchenko.

But first let's talk about guilt. War journalism likes to take a huuuge brush and just paint.

Why is constantly talking about guilt irrelevant?

Karl Jaspers.

Guilt is a thing that needs someone to judge. Thus, it seems relevant to talk about actual
crimes. Yes. Political guilt. Maybe. But moral and moreover metaphysical guilt narratives
cannot be imposed from outside, they have too come from inside. One has to process it
himself.

The question here is HOW can it happen if Russians are stupid animals unable to think?

Elena, she does not focus on the narrative that evil Russians are violent animals; they eat
babies and each of them has moral and metaphysical guilt for all the regime’s atrocities.

On the contrary, she focuses on the irrelevance of violence, on the fact that war is a horrible
thing for both. That stopping war is beneficial for both.
Ofc when reporting she has to show real words of real people and very often these people
who are being shelled every day are filled with hatred and they tend to generalise things,
simplify them etc.
Lets see some examples from one of her latest reports:

Graphic details, but no evaluation. She is a reporter.

And the discussions that she offers Russians by reporting on atrocities in this form is

saying ok you might believe that Ukrainians are guilty too, I don't discuss it with you! I let you
believe in what you believe. I am not challenging your picture of the world. But look here!
Look what these people feel! Look at their emotions and what they experience! This is what
is happening now!

And this becomes their common ground because both sides would agree that this is horrible.

She doesnt leave room for ‘BUT’.

She always tries to find different perspectives in her reports

What she tries to do is not trying to justify violence. Not at all. She tries to show that the war
is a tragedy for both sides. Not focusing on who started first and blaming each one who
possesses a Russian passport for that. It's obvious that everyone has an answer to this
question but it's not what is important for a peace journalist. On the contrary she talks about
them like humans who are able to understand that war is bad and should be stopped. She
talks to them!

I think it is not only because she is Russian and she genuinely loves her country (read the
people) and she wants to see the so-called future ‘free Russia’. If we compare her works
with many other Russian opposition media we can see how they compared to her use of
framing, how they dehumanise Russians and find whatever they say or think or believe
irrelevant because they are simply evil, stupid and unable to understand. They are depicted
as a homogeneous outer group if you like. Cause for most reporters (even russian ones)
these stupid simple people who stayed in Russia are ‘THEY’. So again talking about guilt if
they are not part of it, how can they talk about moral guilt? Jaspers writes

That's also something she does very often in her works: she sees herself as a part of
Russian society. Even that stupid mass, those horrible horrible small people. For Elena they
are ‘US’. She wants to cure them, not to destroy them.

She shows her emotions sometimes, but she does not give any judgement or
recommendation of a solution.
I want to also show another article. Its her interview to the Guardian. I took it because its in
English.

Here she talks about Russian people.

When she talks about Russia she again does not give judgement or evaluation. But she
shows they are humans and they are very different. She does not deny their guilt but leaves
it to someone else to decide. It is not her job.

Listen what she says about her family and friends:

My mother keeps the TV on; she is afraid of silence. The TV is all about the Russian army’s
victories in Ukraine, about the un-patriots who get in the way of these victories, about how
the Ukrainian army is shelling its own cities, and about the west, where life keeps getting
worse…

In Russia, you speak about the war only with those closest to you, the ones you love the most.
New laws forbid the dissemination of any information that contradicts the official line…
Certain words are essentially forbidden: “war” (you should say “special military operation”,
“occupation”, “aggression”, “peace”.

When Mama and I talk about the war, we are soon shouting. It’s easier with my sister. We
both used to work for Novaya Gazeta, Russia’s foremost independent newspaper. Then
Russia attacked Ukraine, Novaya had its licence revoked and I quit, but Sveta stayed and is
still working as a journalist, without any accreditation or pay, still living in Moscow.

My mother says, “I was thinking of going to the monastery to make camouflage nets.”
“You’re taking part in war,” I tell her. “Do you remember your teacher, Vera Grigorievna?”
she says. “Her son was called up. I don’t want Valera to get killed.” Mama believes that nets
knotted by careful fingers will hide them from death.

Many have turned to volunteering. Working for hospices, charities, hospitals and refugees –
a collective outpouring of voluntary labour. Everyone describes their motivation in the same
words: “To keep from losing my mind.”

My friend Denis’s son was kidnapped. The boy went to pick up his passport and disappeared.
The police had been waiting for him, and they spirited him away into the army. “What if we
kidnap him back?” I say. “I’m scared of ending up behind bars,” Denis says. “I’ve got a
daughter too to look after.”

She shows her emotions, yes. Tells how hard it is for her to talk to her mom. But she feels
sorry. She focuses on horrors that the war brings to Russian society.
I like that she does not do it in a vulgar manner, she does not put both positions in one
space. She talks about Ukrainians, she does not mention the Russian side.

But as I mentioned before she shows things that serve as a common ground. Any Ukrainian
reading this article would agree that what's happening in Russia is horrible. They are not
expected to see it as a justification of war. NO. It's a common ground to see each other as
humans.

And it is very interesting that last year she published a book where she gathered her old
reports on Russian society (before the war and during). Those reports describe really
horrible things. Including human trafficking, police corruption etc. And its always from the
inside. She stays with those people. She lived with sex workers in a small wagon.

The book was called I Love My Country.

In general she says always that Love is stronger that Fear

She herself said that it was hard to listen to her mother’s arguments. It took her time to be
ok, to reconcile, to start talking and listening to each other. And I think it's very important that
she uses this metaphor with her mom. That regardless of all violence and fear, love will win
and stop atrocities. What is love here? Its ability to talk, understand, and listen.
Same in the conflict between states, she doesn’t really say it, but she means it. That
reconciliation and communication is an alternative to violent reaction.

And when I met her here in Malmo. She was presenting her book in the library. I told her that
she helped me to stop hating my own parents and start searching for solutions. You see it
worked!

Main thing that she does is she gives an alternative to violence, to blaming each other. And
this alternative is called love.