The Controversy Surrounding a Monograph on the War in Ukraine

Dmitry Dubrovsky

 

“There are no dangerous thoughts; thinking itself is a dangerous activity.” 

– Hannah Arendt

 

The Scientific Statement as a Position and as a Subject of Dispute

The discussion of scientific books is by no means confined to the academic community. Their mention in the context of heated public debates is often perceived not merely as a strictly scholarly statement, but rather as an act of positioning—a stance taken on behalf of a specific party in a given conflict.

Of course, one must distinguish between a conscious scientific statement made in support of a particular position and a scientific statement that itself becomes the subject of dispute.

In some cases, these statements coincide.

 

I.A. Sikorsky and Vasilii Rozanov. For instance, the Beilis case featured the expert testimony of psychiatrist I.A. Sikorsky, who confidently asserted—“in the name of science”—that blood rituals do indeed exist within Judaism. This sparked a massive public controversy in which the works of scholars—among them D. Chwolson—played a significant role.

Vasilii Rozanov, however, was expelled from the St. Petersburg Religious-Philosophical Society for a series of texts entitled “The Olfactory and Tactile Attitude of Jews toward Blood,” which supported the prosecution’s case.

In this case, the subject under discussion possessed a highly significant political dimension: the fight against antisemitism was intertwined with the logic of scholarly integrity. A conscientious scholar, even one with only a passing familiarity with Judaism, simply could not endorse such views.

 

Hannah Arendt. Another scholarly work—Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem—became the basis for accusations against the author that she had softened the image of the Nazi criminal through the formula of the “banality of evil,” describing his behavior in “understanding” language.

This sort of language was deemed inappropriate: an author addressing the subject of the Holocaust was expected to offer not analysis but moral condemnation. The prevailing moral discourse regarding the catastrophe and its victims rendered such publications unacceptable at that time.

 

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. In a similar vein—though at a later date—a polemic monograph by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt concerning the influence of pro-Israel lobbying on U.S. foreign policy sparked fierce controversy. While the authors may have been analyzing lobbying and American strategy, critics shifted the debate onto the plane of political loyalty. The authors were accused of antisemitism, of effectively supporting anti-Israel or pro-Arab positions, and of undermining support for Israel. These accusations frequently rested on the premise that criticism of Israel was synonymous with antisemitism.

 

Arguments vs. Analysis

Today, scientific publications addressing “hot-button” topics frequently become the subject of public debate. In such instances, authors are often criticized on moral grounds and accused of misrepresenting their work or of allowing it to be used inappropriately by a third party.

In the process, the scientific aspect of the research is often pushed to the sidelines. What becomes more important in the discussion is the question of “who benefits”—or, rather, who can use the scientist’s arguments to validate their own position or refute that of an opponent.

At the same time, it is not always clear why some books that put forward rather radical views become the subject of heated controversy while others receive nothing but scholarly reviews.

 

The New Imperial History

The theme of war and empire—and its analysis in scholarly literature—has become a flashpoint in such discussions. Sharp controversy has arisen surrounding the journal Ab Imperio and the associated “new imperial history” program.

Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, some scholars began to argue that the journal’s interest in imperial hybridity, diversity, and post-national forms of political organization may have contributed to the “normalization or romanticization of empire” and “insufficient attention to Russian colonial violence.”

This criticism resonated particularly clearly in the debate between Francis Davis and the editors of Ab Imperio surrounding the figure of historian Alexei Miller, a professor at the European University at St. Petersburg.

Davis primarily criticized Miller, but ultimately conflated the studies of empire published in Ab Imperio with Miller’s pro-Russian stance. The editors of Ab Imperio responded with restraint in their own post, pointing out the flawed nature of these conclusions as well as certain peculiarities in the public reaction to what is a strictly academic endeavor.

The debate unfolded in the pages of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which, without notifying the authors of Ab Imperio, not only altered the title of their response, but also revised the text of the response itself.

 

The Maidan of Discord

A recent example is the unexpectedly sharp reactions from a number of scholars to University of Ottawa researcher Ivan Katchanovski’s monograph The Russia-Ukraine War and its Origins: From the Maidan to the Ukraine War (Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2026).

In this book, the author asserts that Russian imperialism is an important, though not the sole, cause of the war, pointing to the rise in tensions between Russia and Ukraine following Euromaidan, the war in the Donbas, and the annexation of Crimea.

At the same time, the author openly speaks out against the war, pointing to its nature as a war of aggression. The author views the open phase of the war as the result of three conflicts: that between Russia and Ukraine; Russia’s indirect rivalry with NATO within Ukraine; and the continuation of a war—containing elements of a civil conflict—in the Donbas. Of these, the author considers the latter two causes to be dominant.

The most controversial claim in the book is that the shootings on the Maidan, which have traditionally been attributed to supporters of the Yanukovych regime, were a provocation involving Ukrainian right-wing radicals. According to the author, this escalated the conflict and led to the war.

These statements, which call into question the dominant Western and Ukrainian interpretations of the Maidan, sparked a heated reaction from a number of scientists, who published a protest against this scientific publication.

 

Criticism vs. Logic

It is understandable for scholars to critique approaches or point out methodological and source-critical flaws in a particular book. However, it is self-evident that any accusation of scholarly bias must be substantiated by arguments—for instance, that the book was written based on falsified data, or that it was commissioned and funded by a specific political force.

Such criticism might not only bring about the end of a scientific career, but also devalue the scientific argument in question, rendering it invalid because constructed in violation of scientific procedure and ethics.

Let us take a closer look at how the authors of the aforementioned protest constructed their argument.

While acknowledging that scholarly books are typically reviewed in academic publications, the authors contend that the present volume constitutes an exception. The alleged basis for this sort of “caveat” is those of the book’s arguments that clearly fall outside the scope of the book’s content and scholarly reasoning.

First and foremost, the authors point out that much of the funding for the open-source project came from Elon Musk and David Sacks (notably, they provided this quite openly). Next, they draw attention to what they consider to be suspicious activity on the social media platform X, where the book was announced.

It is worth noting that, thus far, these arguments bear no relation to the book’s actual content—even though they were evidently intended to demonstrate the author’s bias regarding the subject matter. After all, Musk is well known for his proposals concerning the Russo-Ukrainian war—proposals that the Ukrainian side interprets exclusively as pro-Russian and defeatist.

The primary strike against the content of the book, according to the authors and scholars who supported the appeal, is that the author allegedly “places the blame on Kyiv and its Western friends for the Russian annexations and genocide in Ukraine.”

According to the authors of the appeal, the war actually represents “…only the latest variation of centuries-old Russian expansionism, pan-nationalism, imperialism and colonialism.”

As a result, as the authors note, pro-Russian journalists actively quote this monograph, which is apparently proof of its vicious nature.

 

The Non-Scientific Plane

The language of the appeal itself is far from scientific and moves the discussion from the scientific plane to the plane of military confrontation.

The assertion that Katchanovski’s work is “rejected by the overwhelming majority of academic researchers of Eastern Europe” is untrue. Katchanovski possesses a significant h-index of 26—something that would be impossible if his work were truly ignored.

Among those who signed the appeal are several dozen Eastern European scholars, but they hardly represent the “overwhelming majority.” The stylistics of the text, using terms such as “undiscerning plutocrats,” counterintuitively resemble the literary style of populists rather than scientific criticism.

This is ironic given that that the authors’ main concern is the possible “political use of such publications by populist forces”—which could, in turn, lead “to a reduction in Western assistance to Ukraine in its struggle for survival and thereby facilitate Russia’s transparent attempt to destroy the Ukrainian nation.”

In other words, Katchanovski is literally accused of aiding Russian aggression by publishing an academic book.

This protest serves as a striking example of how a controversial monograph—one that warrants a truly scholarly review—is transformed into a hostile publication. It appears that such a struggle extends beyond the bounds of academic debate.

 

Appeal or Denunciation?

The author himself has quite openly characterized this publication as a denunciation. From his perspective, his stance is critical of the current Ukrainian authorities—and, in particular, of the role played by right-wing radicals.

The author cites an excerpt from his book to clarify what gave rise to his persecution in Ukraine—specifically, his inclusion on the “Myrotvorets” list of enemies of the Ukrainian people and the confiscation of his property.

Analysis shows that the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, constituted an extreme escalation by Russia of its conflicts with Ukraine and the West, the civil war in the Donbas, the annexation of Crimea, as well as the Western-backed violent and illegal overthrow of the pro-Russian government in Ukraine by an oligarchic-far-right alliance, achieved through mass killings during the Maidan and attempted assassinations during Euromaidan. Ukraine’s potential accession to NATO was a significant factor, yet—much like the role of the far right—it was exaggerated by Russia. Russian imperialism was also a significant, albeit secondary, factor. Ukraine is not a democracy.

The reaction to the book served as a continuation of the clash between those who view any criticism of Ukraine during wartime as “working for the enemy” and those who believe that, within academic discourse, even radical ideas may be articulated, provided they are substantiated by arguments.

 

Academic Freedom vs. Politics

In response to this conflict, another group of authors published a second petition—this time in defense of Katchanovski and academic freedom.

Its authors point out that, despite his critical reflections on power in Ukraine, Katchanovski actively protested against the Russian invasion. In this regard, the petition’s authors consider the protection of academic freedom to be of paramount importance to scholarly, rather than political, discourse.

Scientists and their books must not be objects of denunciations, censorship, sanctions, criminal prosecution, or other penalties for their scientific research. Scientific publications should be judged according to academic standards and within academic settings.

The authors of the appeal emphasize that, in the context of war, the protection of academic freedom, even from narratives that are “unsettling” and conflict with the mainstream, is of vital importance.

This petition, unlike the previous one, is still open for signatures. However, one can imagine that the list of those who support academic freedom will differ significantly from the list of people effectively accusing a scholar of supporting a war of aggression.

 

* * *

It is evident that every scientist is a citizen and should have the opportunity to exercise their constitutionally protected rights and freedoms, including the freedom to speak publicly.

Unlike freedom of speech, academic freedom of expression is predicated upon adherence to professional norms and procedures. Consequently, the attempt to transplant professional discussions to the public sphere—if Katchanovski’s accusation is to be regarded as such—constitutes a serious challenge to academic freedom.

The introduction into professional argumentation of typical populist tactics, such as cui prodest? (who benefits?), or the substitution of professional critique with political pamphleteering, poses a serious threat to academic freedom. In a time of war, that freedom is already under threat.

Petitions of this kind are generally initiated by academic vigilantes, convinced that they are doing the right thing—and averting “pernicious consequences”—by exposing secret enemies and their publications.

Yet texts of this kind themselves foster polarization and division among scholars, and do not contribute to the preservation of the academic spirit.

 

Dmitry Dubrovsky holds a PhD in History and is a researcher in the social sciences department at Charles University (Prague), a research fellow at the Center for Independent Sociological Research in the USA (CISRus), a professor at the Free University (Latvia), and an associate member of the Human Rights Council of St. Petersburg.