Shura Burtin’s Journalism on Russia’s War in Ukraine: Themes, Tone, and Bias

A comprehensive review of Shura Burtin’s body of journalistic work, focusing on recurring themes, political framing, and his portrayals of Ukraine and Russia.

Background on Shura Burtin and His Work Link to heading

Shura (Aleksandr) Burtin is a Russian journalist known for extensive, narrative-driven reportage. Born in 1972, Burtin has a background in biology but built a career in journalism at outlets like Moscow News, Russkiy Reporter, and Colta.ru¹. He has received multiple awards for investigative reporting – notably winning the 2019 True Story Award for a Meduza article profiling Chechen human rights activist Oyub Titiyev². Burtin’s work often appears in independent outlets. In recent years, he has been a contributor to Meduza (a Latvia-based Russian independent news site) and the Swiss magazine Reportagen³. Notably, Meduza is openly opposed to Vladimir Putin’s regime and has been labeled a “foreign agent” by Moscow. This context makes Burtin’s reporting particularly intriguing – his journalism is published by avowedly anti-Kremlin platforms, yet some critics allege it echoes Kremlin talking points.

Burtin’s body of work spans topics from human rights in Chechnya to the social psychology of Russians under Putin. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, he has focused heavily on the war’s human dimension. Key pieces (often published in Russian and later translated to English) include: a May 2022 investigation into why ordinary Russians support the war⁴; a February 2024 long-form report on Ukrainian soldiers’ despair (titled “You Sit on Corpses, You Eat on Corpses, and It’s All Very Hard on the Brain” in Russian)⁵; a March 2024 essay arguing that Russian hopes for a better future are futile in the current climate⁶; and a March 2025 report from Ukraine detailing widespread war-weariness and fear among Ukrainians³. Across these writings, certain recurring themes and a distinct tone emerge.

Recurring Themes in Burtin’s Reporting Link to heading

Ukraine at War: Fatigue, Fear, and “Two Ukraines” Link to heading

Burtin’s reports from Ukraine paint a bleak picture of a society strained to its limits by war. After spending months interviewing Ukrainian combatants and civilians, he describes a national psyche buckling under fatigue. In his recent dispatch (published by Meduza in March 2025), Burtin observes “war weariness among Ukrainians”: men go into hiding to avoid conscription patrols, frontline units are severely understaffed, rotations have stalled, and desertion has become commonplace³. His narrative emphasizes fear and hopelessness – portraying cities like Kyiv as outwardly calm but suffused with dread. In one striking assertion, Burtin wrote, “There are no signs of war in Kyiv. For Kyiv, the war has become a distant backdrop.”⁵. He suggests that the initial surge of patriotic resistance in 2022 has since given way to apathy and anxiety. “The heroic effort of the first few months is long gone… Most Ukrainians have shut themselves off from the war… Life is frozen… There is a schism between the Ukraine that is fighting in the east and the Ukraine that is anxious for the war to end, and the schism is getting wider and wider,” Burtin recounts from his interviews. In his telling, Ukrainian society seems split into “two Ukraines”: the weary soldiers at the front, and civilians who try to mentally distance themselves from the carnage.

This portrayal extends to harsh criticism of Ukraine’s wartime institutions and morale. Burtin relays angry testimonies from soldiers about incompetent commanders and indifferent civilians. For example, one of his interviewees, a demoralized infantryman, bitterly quips, “If they don’t give a f.. about us, then let them figure it out without us… We were just five of us left in the platoon, doing a whole f..ing company’s work… I’d rather do time than get killed because some idiot gave a bull.. order.”³. Such raw anecdotes highlight breakdowns in morale: troops feeling like “meat” in a grinder and vowing to desert rather than die pointlessly. Burtin also underscores societal fractures: civilians going about daily life seemingly oblivious to soldiers’ sacrifices. In one excerpt, he notes how the only soldiers Kyiv residents encounter are on recruiting posters, leading people to think “Well, you’re the military – so go and fight” ⁵. This insinuates a narrative of mutual resentment – with troops feeling abandoned and civilians assuming the war is solely the army’s burden.

Another theme is diminished hope for Ukraine’s future. Burtin’s Ukrainian sources speak in fatalistic terms, questioning the purpose of the war. His 2025 report’s title – “Please don’t use my name” – alludes to the fear pervading Ukrainian society, as people are afraid to even publicly acknowledge their despair. The cumulative effect of Burtin’s Ukraine reportage is a portrayal of a country on the brink of exhaustion, terrified of endless mobilization and unsure if victory is attainable. It is an image of Ukraine that is unremittingly grim: a “fear-ridden” nation where war has become “a distant backdrop” yet also an inescapable trauma⁵.

Russian Society Under War: Defeatism and Lost Hope Link to heading

Just as he chronicles Ukrainian fatigue, Burtin writes about Russians under Putin in equally bleak terms. In Meduza (March 2024), he published an essay provocatively subtitled “the case against unrealistic faith in the ‘beautiful Russia of the future’.” Here, Burtin argues that, after years of repression and the apparent death of opposition leader Alexey Navalny in prison, Russians have been stripped of hope. He bluntly states that in Russia’s current situation “having a hopeful vision of the future is actively harmful.”⁶. This piece – released in the emotional wake of Navalny’s reported murder – contends that the usual exhortations to “never give up” are naive. According to Burtin, Navalny’s fate proved that the long-hoped-for “normal future” for Russia was an illusion all along. “Now Putin has bluntly shown us that this future doesn’t exist,” he writes. Burtin’s tone is deeply pessimistic: he urges Russians to “feel our weakness” and recognize “we don’t have a future” under the current regime. In his view, false optimism only dulls the necessary realization of how “horrific” and entrenched the evil confronting Russia is.

This despairing outlook is consistent with themes Burtin raised earlier in the war. In spring 2022, as Putin’s invasion raged, Burtin spent weeks interviewing ordinary Russians to understand why so many supported the war. That investigation (originally published in Russian in April 2022) found that propaganda and fear shaped public opinion. Burtin wrote that Russians, inundated with Kremlin narratives, chose to “close their eyes” to the atrocities in Ukraine⁴. He concluded that “fear and a sense of humiliation defeated Russians’ humanity.” Many people he spoke with were in denial about the war’s reality, parroting official justifications. Yet, tellingly, in these candid conversations “within 15 minutes” even pro-war Russians would quietly admit the truth: “Yes, probably cities are being bombed, people are dying, and everyone in Ukraine hates us.” They do understand what is happening “on some level, but they don’t admit it”⁷. Burtin thereby exposed the cognitive dissonance of Russian society – a populace that knows of the crime but “refuses to know,” suppressing guilt with propaganda-fed rationalizations.

Across his Russian-focused writing, Burtin’s portrayal of his homeland is that of a morally compromised, frightened society. Ordinary Russians come off as simultaneously culpable (for supporting a brutal war) and psychologically victimized (trapped by fear and imperial delusions). In his narrative, hope for positive change in Russia has died alongside Navalny. The tone borders on nihilistic: Russians are “utterly powerless”, and any “faith in the future” is portrayed as delusion⁶. This is essentially the mirror image of his Ukraine reporting – where Ukrainians are physically exhausted and fearful of defeat, Russians are spiritually crushed and resigned to tyranny. In both cases, Burtin fixates on defeatism: Ukrainians who allegedly can’t see victory, and Russians who can’t imagine a free future.

Western Response and the World at Large Link to heading

While Burtin’s work centers on Russian and Ukrainian society, he does allude to the international dimension – often in a critical tone. The title of his March 2024 essay, “The world doesn’t know how to stand up to evil,” encapsulates his view of global impotence ⁶. He implies that Western countries and the international community have failed to effectively confront Putin’s aggression. In the context of Navalny’s death, Burtin suggests Putin was sending a message to the West: “Hey, you a..holes… you think there’s some other Russia, some Navalny? There isn’t.”. In other words, Putin feels emboldened and “everything is working out at the front” – a sign that Western measures have not stopped his war. Burtin’s commentary here aligns with a somber assessment of the Western response to the war: he sees Western leaders as unsure “how to stand up to” the evil of Putin’s regime. His writing does not praise Western support for Ukraine; if anything, it laments that Navalny’s martyrdom only elicited “cold comfort” and rallies where people chant “We’re not afraid!” – cries Burtin pointedly rebukes: “You should be afraid.” This underscores his view that neither Russians nor the outside world fully grasp the danger, and that fear is the correct and rational response in the face of Putin’s terror.

In his Ukraine reportage, Burtin occasionally references Western media and aid, but often to highlight contrasts or shortcomings. For instance, he notes that detailed truth about the frontline is scarce in Ukrainian outlets and that “most of the truth is told by Western media.”⁵ He also acknowledges Western military aid in passing – at one point a Ukrainian doctor mentions that “thanks to Western aid, hospitals have enough supplies” now. However, Burtin tends not to focus on Western policy or support explicitly. The “Western response” largely figures in his work as a subtext of disappointment: the war drags on despite Western involvement, and global audiences are “bombarded” with pessimistic accounts of Ukraine’s plight. In sum, Burtin’s references to the West reinforce the fatalistic atmosphere – suggesting that the international community’s efforts (whether sanctions, military aid, or moral outrage) have not altered the fundamental tragedy unfolding in Ukraine and Russia.

Tone, Framing, and Potential Biases Link to heading

Shura Burtin’s journalism has a distinct tone: relentlessly bleak, visceral, and focused on human anguish. His storytelling foregrounds individual voices – often the most traumatized or disillusioned – to build a larger thesis about society. The recurring framing is that of shattered hopes: Ukrainians straining under a war with no end in sight, Russians crushed by a repressive regime, and a world unable to halt the horror. Across his body of work, Burtin frequently highlights contradictions and dark realities that puncture any narratives of heroism or optimism. For example, even as Ukraine’s government and Western allies speak of eventual victory, Burtin’s articles dwell on failing morale, soldiers at the breaking point, and civilians trying to tune out the war. Even as Russian propagandists speak of unity and strength, Burtin emphasizes the populace’s fear, denial, and moral weakness.

This approach has led observers to ask if Burtin is painting an incomplete or biased picture. One noticeable pattern is his emphasis on the worst-case scenarios: he “focuses only on the bad and brings it to an absolute,” as one media watchdog put it¹. Indeed, his Ukraine reports seldom mention countervailing positives like battlefield successes, popular resilience, or the resolve of Ukrainian civil society. Civilians who volunteer, soldiers who remain committed despite injuries, or the widespread patriotic solidarity visible in Ukraine are largely absent in Burtin’s published narratives. Instead, he spotlights draft-dodgers, deserters, corrupt officials, and war-fatigued civilians. While these elements do exist in Ukraine, critics argue that Burtin’s framing magnifies them disproportionately, skewing the overall picture towards defeatism.

Similarly, in portraying Russian society, Burtin’s angle – that average people know the war is wrong but choose cowardice and comfort – is a rather sweeping indictment. It leaves little room for nuance such as the existence of any genuine regime supporters or acts of protest and bravery by Russians. Some have noted that this kind of extreme pessimism can inadvertently align with the Kremlin’s interests: if Russians believe resistance is futile and Ukrainians believe victory is out of reach, who benefits but Putin? Whether intentional or not, Burtin’s narratives often undercut the themes of perseverance and hope that Ukraine and its supporters emphasize.

It is important to note that Burtin’s style is that of a literary reporter, not an academic analyst. He builds his stories from anecdotal encounters and first-person observations. This lends emotional power to his writing but can introduce sampling bias. By his own admission, his interviews (with ~50 Russians for the 2022 piece, and dozens of Ukrainians for the later pieces) were not statistically representative⁴. The war is vast and varied, and focusing on wounded soldiers in a trauma ward or terrified draft-evaders in hiding will naturally produce a somber account. Burtin’s choices – to emphasize certain testimonies and omit or downplay others – reflect editorial judgment. There is a fine line between revealing harsh truths and constructing a narrative that might mislead by omission. Burtin clearly prioritizes the harrowing reality of war over any uplifting anecdotes, which raises the question of bias by emphasis: Is he giving readers a complete picture, or a selectively negative one? The pattern of his work – consistently highlighting fear, disillusionment, and disunity – suggests a consistent narrative agenda, even if one charitably calls it an artistic or intellectual stance rather than a political one.

Critiques and Counterpoints to Burtin’s Reporting Link to heading

Shura Burtin’s war reporting has prompted strong reactions from other journalists, experts, and readers – especially Ukrainians and those supportive of Ukraine. Prominent critiques have accused him of distorting reality and even of parroting Russian propaganda narratives. Two notable responses illustrate the pushback against Burtin’s portrayal: one by Dr. Andrey Volna, and another from Ukrainian media analysts (the Detector Media group).

Andrey Volna’s Rebuttal: “No Ukraine without victory” Link to heading

Perhaps the most detailed critique comes from Andrey Volna, a Russian trauma surgeon who moved to Kyiv in 2022 and works in a Ukrainian military hospital. In an op-ed for The Insider (an independent Russian investigative outlet) published March 14, 2024, Volna directly challenges Burtin’s conclusions about Ukrainian “defeatism”⁵. Volna’s piece, pointedly titled “No Ukraine without victory. Why any reports of defeatism among Ukrainians are off the mark,” methodically rebuts Burtin’s key claims one by one.

Volna argues that Burtin’s grim tableau of Ukraine is factually and contextually flawed, and he provides on-the-ground counter-evidence from his daily life in Kyiv and work with wounded soldiers:

• War is far from “invisible” in Kyiv: Responding to Burtin’s assertion that Kyiv carries on as though war were a distant backdrop ⁵, Volna describes how ubiquitous the signs of war actually are. Air-raid sirens routinely disrupt city life; theaters pause performances to send audiences to bomb shelters, where actors remind citizens that “we either serve in the Armed Forces or we exist for the Armed Forces.” This announcement received a standing ovation – hardly an apathetic society. Even cultural events carry wartime caveats (a theater in Kyiv warned patrons that explosions in a play’s sound effects would be preceded by an alert in case they needed to seek shelter). Volna asks pointedly, “How can you say there are no signs of war if you go to a theater and descend into a bomb shelter before the play?” From schoolchildren practicing shelter drills to daily conversations parsing the latest frontline news, “war is an inescapable everyday reality for all Ukrainian cities,” Volna insists. Far from oblivious, civilians are keenly aware – they simply try to live their lives in spite of the danger.

• No “split” between front and rear – one society endures: Burtin’s notion of a widening schism between fighting soldiers and indifferent civilians is, in Volna’s view, a misinterpretation. He gives an example of a scene in Lviv: a badly wounded veteran in a wheelchair, his wife and child by his side, enjoying a day out – “the epitome of today’s Ukraine,” where the military and civilian spheres are intertwined. “There are no ‘two Ukraines.’ There is only one,” Volna declares. The entire society yearns for peace and is invested in victory, which is precisely why life feels “stuck in limbo” – not because people don’t care about the war, but because everyone’s future depends on its outcome. What Burtin described as life “devoid of a vector” is actually a nation holding its breath until it can win and return to normalcy.

• Acknowledging problems without succumbing to defeat: Volna does not deny the challenges Burtin highlights – casualties, draft evasion, fatigue, and poor leadership – but he contextualizes them. Yes, Ukraine faces a shortage of manpower and many dread mobilization, but public discussion of these issues is open and healthy. “Ukrainians have a legitimate interest in the fair distribution of the burden of military service… Ukraine has mechanisms to address these issues,” Volna notes, such as democratic debate in parliament and new laws to rotate long-serving troops. What Burtin frames as demoralizing chaos, Volna frames as the mark of a pluralistic society grappling with wartime difficulties – something alien to Russians conditioned to silence. Yes, draft dodgers exist (Ukrainians are “not as obedient as Russians,” he wryly comments, but open acknowledgement of that fact “is openly discussed” in Ukraine, not swept under the rug.

• Fighting spirit remains strong: Perhaps Volna’s most important counterpoint is that, despite exhaustion, Ukrainians have not lost their will to fight or their faith in victory. He provides anecdotes of wounded soldiers eager to return to duty. One amputee patient, told he could no longer serve on the front lines, stubbornly replies, “I have to go back because they killed two friends of mine there.” Another veteran, an Azovstal defender still recovering from severe injuries, is already back to work at a military airfield, contributing however he can. Volna observes that he has “not seen a single person who has been relieved by the loss of a limb” as a way out of service. Even those physically unable to fight often find ways to help the war effort, rather than gratefully bowing out. Where Burtin interpreted certain soldiers’ fatalistic remarks (“at least I’ll never have to go to the front again”) as evidence that “no one wants to go to war anymore,” Volna calls that “an insinuating interpretation” – a twisting of context. Trauma can cause a momentary expression of relief, but it does not equate to widespread surrender. In Volna’s words, “No one – not a single person I have spoken to – can imagine a future without Ukraine’s victory.” For Ukrainians, defeat is literally unthinkable: “without victory, there will be nothing and no one… they will kill us all.” This existential understanding means that however routine or grinding the war has become, the resolve to fight on remains intact. Volna warns that it is a dangerous “misconception… to present the routinization of war as a drop-off in morale, as the loss of ‘faith in victory.’” On the contrary, faith in victory has transformed into a quiet, steely determination rather than loud idealism – “instead of faith, there is knowledge… an understanding that victory will come. It has to.”

In summary, Andrey Volna’s counter-analysis finds Burtin’s reportage misleadingly pessimistic – so much so that Volna suggests it “plays into the hands of Putin’s propaganda.” He notes that recently foreign audiences have been “bombarded with pessimistic reports” about Ukraine’s condition, implicitly including Burtin’s, which feed a false narrative of imminent Ukrainian collapse. Volna’s own experiences “attest to the contrary” – Ukraine’s spirit, while tested, is unbroken. His critique reveals that Burtin’s reporting may omit or underplay crucial context (like Ukraine’s social unity and will to win), leading to a story that contradicts the reality observed by those living in Ukraine daily.

Ukrainian Media Reactions: Accusations of Propaganda Alignment Link to heading

Ukrainian journalists and media monitors have been even more blunt in their appraisal of Shura Burtin’s war stories. The Kyiv-based media watchdog Detector Media published a scathing column (under the byline “Antonina”) in March 2025, accusing Burtin of using “Russian propaganda techniques” in his depiction of Ukraine¹. The column – titled in Ukrainian, “The scandalous Shura Burtin has scribbled yet another report for Meduza about the ‘terrible horror’ in Ukraine” – suggests that Burtin’s latest piece simply repackages Kremlin talking points in the guise of independent journalism⁸. “The meanings are reduced to the same thing that Kremlin propagandists Solovyov or Skabeeva say on the air,” the article claims. While acknowledging that Burtin “supposedly tells the truth” about real problems by quoting various sources, Detector Media concludes that “he focuses only on the bad and brings it to an absolute.” In other words, his reporting is not outright fake, but unbalanced to the point of distortion – a classic propaganda method. By ignoring any positive or normative aspects and fixating on panic and despair, Burtin’s narrative arguably becomes indistinguishable from Russian disinformation that seeks to paint Ukraine as failing.

The Detector Media piece also raised ethical concerns about how Burtin gained access in Ukraine. It notes that Meduza presented him as a Reportagen correspondent, yet Reportagen had only ever published two of his articles and listed him primarily as a Meduza author. This raises the question: when Burtin was interviewing Ukrainians (many of whom spoke candidly on condition of anonymity, as the title “Please don’t use my name” indicates), did they know he worked for Meduza – a site some Ukrainians view with suspicion due to its Russian origins? According to Detector Media, Burtin revealed in a 2024 interview from Tbilisi that he had obtained Georgian citizenship and used his Georgian passport to enter Ukraine and get press accreditation¹. In that same interview, he disturbingly referred to the conflict in Donbas as a “civil war in Ukraine,” saying “that phrase can be interpreted in both ways.” Referring to the Ukraine war (even the pre-2022 phase) as a “civil war” is a Kremlin narrative that downplays Russia’s role; Ukrainian officials and media overwhelmingly reject that term. Burtin’s willingness to use it – and to equivocate on its interpretation – set off alarm bells. It suggested to critics that he might be sympathetic to, or at least influenced by, Russian framing of the conflict.

Ukrainian commentators have not minced words about Burtin. The Detector Media column facetiously asks why Burtin was allowed back into Ukraine at all after the controversy of his 2024 piece, given the “scandals” it caused⁸. The author even muses about taking the issue to Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU). Such comments underline how toxic Burtin’s reputation has become in Ukraine’s informed circles – he is seen by some as a propagandist in dissident’s clothing. The Ukrainian news site Apostrophe summarized the affair with the headline: “Who is Shura Burtin and what kind of ‘panic’ did he see among Ukrainians?”, again underscoring the disbelief and indignation at his claims. Apostrophe echoed that Burtin’s Meduza report painted a “fear-ridden” Ukraine and that its message mirrors what Kremlin mouthpieces say¹.

In essence, Ukrainian critics charge Burtin with an ideological contradiction: while portraying himself as an independent or even opposition journalist, the substance of his Ukraine war narratives aligns with the enemy’s information warfare. If one were to strip away the byline, they argue, Burtin’s descriptions of Ukrainian “panic,” leadership failures, and societal burnout could easily appear on Russian state TV as justification for why Russia will ultimately prevail. This perspective does not claim Burtin is a Kremlin agent, but it accuses him of severe misjudgment and bias that produce a misleading story.

It’s worth noting that there have also been readers and journalists who value Burtin’s frank reportage – they see it as a necessary confrontation with unpleasant truths. For example, Meduza’s English-language editor Kevin Rothrock remarked on the intensity of the Ukrainian soldiers’ “venom” in Burtin’s 2025 piece – suggesting that even for those supportive of Ukraine, the accounts are eye-opening⁹. Rothrock noted the soldiers’ bitterness toward not just commanders but “the general public and the war itself,” calling it “an intense burnout that’s hard to describe” and urging people to read the story. This indicates that some observers believe Burtin has captured a real phenomenon (war burnout), however uncomfortable. Nonetheless, the predominant prominent responses we’ve seen – from Volna’s informed counter-testimony to Ukrainian media’s denunciations – underscore a strong sentiment that Burtin’s work lacks balance and sufficient context, tilting toward a defeatist narrative at odds with the fuller reality.

Burtin’s Alignment and Editorial Environment Link to heading

Given the above, the pressing question is: To what extent is Shura Burtin’s work deliberately aligned with Russian propaganda, and what factors might explain his perspective? Several points emerge from the analysis:

• Editorial and Outlet Context: Burtin operates within journalistic outlets that are, on face, anti-Kremlin and pro-democracy. Meduza, which has published and translated much of his work, is banned in Russia for its independent stance and explicitly condemns Putin’s war policy³. Reportagen, the Swiss magazine with which he is affiliated, is an international outlet known for literary reportage, not propaganda. This environment suggests that Burtin is not receiving directives to push a pro-Russian agenda from editors – quite the opposite, his editors are inclined to expose Russian wrongdoing. It is therefore unlikely that his writing is the result of editorial pressure to align with Moscow. In fact, publishing Burtin’s bleak Ukraine pieces was somewhat controversial for Meduza; they even prefaced one with a note reaffirming their condemnation of Russia’s invasion, as if anticipating reader concern about the content. This implies Meduza’s editors saw journalistic value in the piece (perhaps as a cautionary tale of war’s toll) rather than propagandistic value.

• Consistent Independent Viewpoint: Burtin’s thematic pessimism appears ideologically consistent on a personal level. He has a longstanding pattern of contrarian, unflinching takes: from criticizing Russian society’s moral failings to denouncing the folly of “hope” among dissidents, to spotlighting Ukraine’s internal struggles. In all cases, he tends to challenge what he sees as comforting myths. In Russia’s case, the myth is that ordinary people are innocent or that the opposition can peacefully triumph; in Ukraine’s case, the myth might be that unwavering public unity and morale will guarantee victory. Burtin relishes puncturing such narratives. This consistency suggests he is driven by his own critical (even cynical) outlook, not by a desire to toe someone else’s propaganda line. One could say he has an almost Tolstoyan or Remarque-like approach to war reporting – emphasizing the senseless suffering and disillusionment, regardless of the side.

• Influence of Russian Intellectual Tradition: Burtin is a product of the Russian journalistic and intellectual milieu, albeit the dissident wing of it. Some of his views (such as referring to the Donbas conflict as a “civil war” or focusing on Ukraine’s flaws) might stem from perspectives common among certain Russian liberals or leftists who are critical of both Putin and Ukrainian nationalism. It’s possible that his analysis is colored by a form of self-critical Russian introspection extended to Ukraine – in other words, a tendency to see the tragedy and folly in all sides of war. This can result in reporting that, intentionally or not, dovetails with Russian state narratives. For example, Russian propaganda ceaselessly highlights Ukrainian draft dodging, casualty aversion, and public fatigue to argue that Ukraine should surrender. Burtin, coming from an independent but highly skeptical stance, also highlights draft dodging and fatigue – but as a journalistic exposé of hard truth. The overlap with propaganda talking points could be coincidental or structural. It might be less deliberate alignment and more a case of “negative synergy”: Burtin’s grim storytelling overlaps with what Russian propagandists want to hear, even though his motives differ (his aim may be to jolt audiences with reality, whereas Kremlin media’s aim is to demoralize).

• Deliberate Messaging vs. Unintended Effect: There is no clear evidence that Burtin is purposely crafting his stories to aid Russian information warfare. He does not insert pro-Kremlin ideology in his pieces – for instance, he never claims the invasion is justified or that Russia is doing well because of Ukrainian weakness. In fact, his pieces usually carry an undercurrent of sorrow or outrage at the situation (he is not celebrating Ukrainian hardship, simply documenting it). That said, the effect of his one-sided emphasis can serve Kremlin narratives. The danger, as Volna pointed out, is foreign readers getting a distorted sense that Ukraine is falling apart, potentially undermining Western confidence in Ukraine’s cause⁵. Burtin must be aware that his stories are controversial; the backlash in early 2024 was public. The fact that he went ahead with another such report in 2025 indicates a deliberate choice to continue hammering the same message. This could be interpreted as him doubling down on what he believes to be an uncomfortable truth, rather than adjusting to avoid feeding propaganda. In other words, Burtin might feel that telling what he sees as the uncensored truth is more important than how that truth might be weaponized by others. This journalistic ethos – “report what people don’t want to hear” – can come off as contrarian or even irresponsible in a war context, depending on one’s view.

• Editorial Biases of Outlets: It’s also worth examining the outlets’ possible biases. Meduza, while anti-Putin, is composed of Russian journalists who may at times have a more pessimistic outlook on the war than, say, Ukrainian media. Russian opposition writers often emphasize the horror and costs of war (to galvanize anti-war sentiment or simply because they are horrified), whereas Ukrainian media, in the middle of an existential fight, often emphasize resilience and defiance to maintain morale. This difference in emphasis can create friction. Burtin’s work, running in Meduza and Reportagen, did not undergo Ukrainian editorial scrutiny, and thus it didn’t get the balancing that a Ukrainian journalist might have provided. In fact, after publishing Burtin’s report, Meduza faced criticism from Ukrainian readers for amplifying a narrative of Ukrainian despair. It highlights an editorial dilemma: Meduza likely believed that showing the grim reality for Ukrainians – presumably to a mostly Russian or international audience – would underscore the war’s cruelty (and perhaps implicitly, why Ukraine urgently needs more support or a resolution). Instead, that same content was perceived by Ukrainians as undermining their image and cause. Thus, any editorial bias here might not be pro-Kremlin, but rather a bias toward dramatic human-interest war stories that inadvertently overlap with enemy propaganda.

In weighing all factors, Burtin’s work appears to be the product of an independent but starkly critical viewpoint, rather than an orchestrated propaganda effort. He comes across as a journalist who is deeply pessimistic about both Russian and Ukrainian trajectories under the brutal logic of war and dictatorship. His emphasis on despair and disillusionment is so consistent that one could call it his personal narrative lens. However, the consequence of that lens is a body of work that tilts negative in every scenario – a tilt that Russian propagandists find very useful. The key distinction is that Burtin does not spread falsehoods; his error, if one accepts the critiques, is one of proportion and framing, not fabrication. He collects real testimonies and reports real issues (Ukraine indeed has draft dodgers, Russia indeed has fearful citizens, etc.), but by omitting balancing voices, he may create a falsely bleak overall impression. Whether this is journalistic candor or a kind of bias is a matter of debate.

Conclusion: Shura Burtin as Part of a Larger Story Link to heading

So, who is Shura Burtin? Is he a truth-teller showing us the war’s most harrowing realities, or a writer whose work inadvertently echoes Kremlin narratives? It’s a fair and timely question — especially in today’s media climate, where even truthful reporting can be weaponized.

No, Burtin is not a propagandist in dissident clothing. He’s an independent journalist — a correspondent for a Swiss magazine, awarded and respected in literary reportage circles. His tone is relentlessly grim, and his stories are steeped in despair: war as exhaustion, as trauma, as moral erosion. That tone has angered many in Ukraine. But does that make his work illegitimate? Not necessarily. The real issue is whether this kind of bleak narrative is allowed to dominate, or whether it can be balanced by others showing the war’s quieter forms of courage — the calm, persistent resolve visible across Ukraine.

From some point of view, Burtin’s reporting belongs to a tradition we might call “soldier’s prose” — a step away from heroic mythmaking and into the mud and fear of real war¹⁰. But unlike postwar literature, his work appears in real time, during an ongoing existential fight. That makes the stakes higher, and the moral context more fraught. His writing does not influence Ukrainians much — they live this reality and know what to believe. But to foreign audiences, his stories can skew perception if left unbalanced.

Let Burtin write. Let him show what others may not. But let there also be many others who write differently — who illuminate resolve, adaptation, and the daily dignity that persists even amid catastrophe. The danger isn’t that Burtin writes; the danger is when only Burtin’s voice is heard.

Shura Burtin is not the hero of this story. But he is part of it. He reminds us that objectivity during war is difficult — not impossible, but difficult. His is a necessary voice, so long as it remains one voice among many.

Sources: