logo
The sinister Russian novels fuelling a rise in young people fighting for Putin: How 'Z literature' is enticing young men to enlist

The sinister Russian novels fuelling a rise in young people fighting for Putin: How 'Z literature' is enticing young men to enlist

Daily Mail​2 days ago

A chilling new wave of ultra-nationalist fiction is sweeping through Russia, and it is aimed straight at the country's teenagers and young men.
Dubbed 'Z literature', the action-packed novels are being branded the Kremlin's latest weapon in a growing propaganda war as they lure vulnerable young readers into enlistment and glorify death on the battlefield.
From mainstream bookshops to school libraries, these novels are saturating Russian youth culture with one central message - fight, die, and serve.
Named after the 'Z' symbol splashed across tanks and billboards to promote the invasion of Ukraine, these books present a dystopian world where Russia stands alone - noble, embattled, and surrounded by Nazi enemies.
Heroes are not just brave soldiers, but martyrs, laying down their lives for glory, brotherhood, and Vladimir Putin 's vision of resurgent Russia.
'What the state is trying to do to create a culture in which everyday life is militarised,' Dr Colin Alexander, senior lecturer in political communications at Nottingham Trent University, told The Telegraph.
'It is normalising the idea that to be a good citizen, a good patriot, a good man, you go and fight in the war, because Russia is surrounded by enemies.'
With dramatic cover art depicting storming soldiers, tanks ablaze, and Russian flags flying high, these novels would seem straight from a Soviet propaganda playbook, but they are packaged for a modern and digital generation.
White Z on the Front Armour by Mikhail Mikheev (left), Crimean Cauldron by Nikolai Marchuk (right)
One such novel, Colonel Nobody by Alexei Sukonkin, follows a down-and-out young man who finds purpose and redemption by joining the Wagner mercenary group after prison.
He discovers camaraderie in battle and ultimately sacrifices his life for 'the cause'.
The message appears clear - if you're lost or disenfranchised, war will make you whole.
'There is often a sense of brotherhood, that you can turn into a good citizen, a good patriot, a strong man, a man who can provide for his family, a man who defends the country and the community,' said Dr Garner, an expert on totalitarian media.
And the reach is vast.
These books are discussed on state TV, handed out in schools, and even shared online by the late Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigozhin before his death in 2023.
Another standout title, White Z on the Front Armour by Mikhail Mikheev, reads like a spy thriller where a brutal Russian agent posing a liberal journalist cuts a bloody path through Ukraine.
He travels across the country, killing evil characters and delivering one-liners including: 'You wanted Crimea, pigface?'
In Crimean Cauldron by Nikolai Marchuk, the action reaches surreal heights as a lone Russian commando defeats an army of Nazis in Crimea before capturing the Capitol Building in Washington DC.
And in PMC Chersonesus, a bizarre blend of mythology and military fiction by Andrei Belyanin, a trio of Russian heroes styled on Greek gods travel back in time to retrieve artefacts stolen from Crimea - including Scythian gold, a direct reference to real-life cultural treasures awarded to Ukraine by Dutch courts.
The villains are zombie Nazis.
'The underlying narrative is always that Russia as a state, as a country, has been wrong in the past, and through these heroes, we can rectify Russia's greatness and its destiny,' said Jaroslava Barbieri, a doctoral researcher into Russian foreign policy and post-Soviet affairs at the University of Birmingham.
This sinister genre is just one cog in a much larger system - patriotic education programmes, youth military clubs, and pro-war content flooding social media.
Experts warn this ecosystem is shaping a generation primed for conflict, not peace.
'Five years from now, these readers will be soldiers. The Kremlin isn't trying to appease aggression – it's cultivating it,' Barbieri said.
And the consequences could be far-reaching.
According to Dr Garner, this militarised mindset could make any future efforts to liberalise Russia all but impossible.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Britain enters a new nuclear age
Britain enters a new nuclear age

New European

time31 minutes ago

  • New European

Britain enters a new nuclear age

Alongside an ambitious plan to build up to 12 new attack submarines, and to create jobs in six new ammunition factories, one of the most striking commitments is to enter discussions with the USA aimed at 'enhanced participation in Nato's nuclear mission'. This innocuous sounding sentence represents a big change in nuclear posture. Make no mistake: today's Strategic Defence Review marks the start of British rearmament. Not only does it signal the UK's commitment to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP, but to a type of spending designed to enhance the UK's strategic clout in the world. At present, only Belgium, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands host US-owned tactical nuclear bombs, with their aircraft designed to be 'dual capable' of delivering such bombs on target. The UK, which lacks tactical nuclear weapons, could now volunteer to do likewise, but would need to buy a different variant of the F-35 combat aircraft than the one that is flown from the Royal Navy's carriers. That would be a major change in nuclear policy – because the British deterrent has, since the 1990s, been strategic-only. As I've argued here before, we need a wider range of options because Putin is now making regular threats to use nukes against Nato, and tactical nukes against Ukraine – so it makes sense to place more of Nato's collective nuclear armoury closer to the front line, and distributed among a larger number of allies. Over and above deterring Russian aggression, almost everything Labour has announced today looks designed to achieve three things: to boost Britain's influence among its allies, to deliver high skilled jobs to places where they are scarce, and to get ahead of the game in the military technologies of the future. These don't only include drones – though the spectacular Ukrainian strike on Russia's strategic bomber fleet on Sunday shows that we've hardly even begun to understand their power. The technological arms race is now focused on niche areas of science – like nanotech, materials and quantum computing – and Labour, to its credit, has understood that it in any conflict with Russia it is the science labs of Oxbridge, Imperial and Edinburgh, not the 'playing fields of Eton', that might be decisive. Suggested Reading We must take a nuclear leap into the unknown Paul Mason For the armed forces, often bound by tradition and prone to inter-service rivalry, making the SDR work will be a challenge. Because in every domain of warfare – land, air, sea, space and cyberspace – they face the same problem: they are running decades-old kit designed for an era when Britain could choose which wars it fights, while at the same time moving to a completely new, digitally enabled way of fighting, in which technological change never stops. In this context, faced with a Russia that has turned itself into a war economy, and itself learned to innovate rapidly – deterrence comes down to showing Putin that our own industry, science and digital technology base could crank itself up to speed, and indeed surpass what Russia itself could achieve. For me, the most basic task of the SDR was to assess the scale of the Russian threat and offer the electorate an honest proposal of how to meet it – within our means. Though it might sound simple to achieve, it was not achieved at any point during 14 years of Conservative government, above all after 2020, when Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings declared a 'tilt' of security priorities towards Asia, while systematically underfunding the ministry of defence. Labour reversed that stance, declaring from day one that its priority is: 'Nato First'. The SDR places maritime warfare as the highest priority and designates the Atlantic and the Arctic as the UK's prime areas of interest. There's been a row today over the precise form of words Keir Starmer is using – describing the 3% target in the 2030s as an ambition. I think it's clear that Labour means to find the money to achieve that – but it stands way outside the term of UK fiscal forecasting, and no chancellor would allow it to be stated as a firm commitment outside of a budget statement. The real question with the SDR is: do the capabilities match the threats? The answer is: only if you believe Russia can be deterred through Nato remaining cohesive and the UK leading an enhancement of continent-wide nuclear deterrence. If it cannot, then 3, 4 or even 5% won't be enough. In 1939, after seven years of rearmament, Britain's defence budget was 9% of GDP – and once war broke out it rose above 50%. Today's focus on the big stuff – submarines, which are the capital ships of the 21st century, and a £15bn upgrade to nuclear warheads – reflects Starmer's determination for this country to avoid any impression that it wants to be 'Little Britain'. With a cash-strapped treasury, it is a decision to spend on what's strategic, and rely on allies for that which is not. There is even the promise, thinking long term, to specify within this parliament a replacement for the Dreadnought submarines, currently being built at Barrow: and they don't even go out of service until 2050. I would like to have seen more spending and faster – above all because defence industrial investment is one of the surest ways to boost growth and social cohesion in communities that have seen too little of it. But until Labour can win the argument with the British people that they need to pay more tax, and tolerate more borrowing to fund defence, progress is going to be incremental. That, in turn, will depend on the outcome of Ukraine's peace negotiations with Russia. If they fail – and that looks likely – people may wake up to the fact that the prospect of endless war on our doorstep requires a change of attitude to defence. In that sense, the SDR was the start, not the end, of something.

Ukrainian strikes cut power to Russian-held areas, officials say
Ukrainian strikes cut power to Russian-held areas, officials say

Reuters

timean hour ago

  • Reuters

Ukrainian strikes cut power to Russian-held areas, officials say

June 3 (Reuters) - Ukrainian shelling and drone attacks triggered power cuts over swathes of Russian-controlled territory in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions in the south of Ukraine, Russia-installed officials said early on Tuesday. Officials said there was no effect on operations at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station - Europe's largest nuclear facility which was seized by Russia in the weeks after Moscow's February 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Russian officials running the plant said radiation levels were normal at the facility, which operates in shutdown mode and produces no power at the moment. Russia-installed governors in the two regions said the Ukrainian attacks prompted authorities to introduce emergency measures and switch key sites to reserve power sources. Power was knocked out to all parts of Zaporizhzhia under Russian control, Russia-installed Governor Yevgeny Belitsky wrote on Telegram. "As a result of shelling by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, high-voltage equipment was damaged in the northwestern part of the Zaporizhzhia region," Belitsky wrote. "There is no electricity throughout the region. The Energy Ministry of Zaporizhzhia region has been instructed to develop reserve sources of power. Health care sites have been transferred to reserve power sources." In adjacent Kherson region, farther west, Russia-appointed Governor Vladimir Saldo said debris from fallen drones had damaged two substations, knocking out power to more than 100,000 residents of 150 towns and villages in Russian-held areas. Emergency crews working to restore power quickly, he said. For many long months in the winter, it was Ukrainian towns and villages that endured repeated electricity cuts as Russian attacks focused strikes on generating capacity. Each side has repeatedly accused the other of launching attacks on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant and running the risk of a nuclear accident. The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said last week in response to a Ukrainian complaint that it saw no sign that Russia was preparing to restart the Zaporizhzhia plant and connect it to the Russian grid. The IAEA has stationed monitors permanently at Zaporizhzhia and Ukraine's other nuclear power stations.

Russia publishes ceasefire demands
Russia publishes ceasefire demands

Telegraph

timean hour ago

  • Telegraph

Russia publishes ceasefire demands

Vladimir Putin has laid out his demands for both a ceasefire and ending the war in Ukraine. Russian negotiators tabled a long memorandum in a second round of direct negotiations with Ukraine in Istanbul on Monday. The document's first section contained Moscow's 'basic parameters of a final settlement'. It stipulates that Ukraine must withdraw its troops from four eastern regions that Russia only partially occupies, and that international recognition of Russian sovereignty over them and Crimea must be granted. Kyiv must also commit to curbs on the size of its military, as well as to permanent neutrality and to having no foreign troops deployed on its territory. Diplomatic and economic ties between the two nations must be reinstated, which would include the resumption of Russian natural gas transit through Ukraine. Other demands included a ban on 'glorification or promotion of Nazism and neo-Nazism' and for the Russian language to be given official status. The second section listed the Kremlin's conditions for agreeing to a 30-day ceasefire, and appeared to give Kyiv two choices. These were that Ukraine should withdraw its troops from four mainland regions claimed by Russia, or agree to a package of demands that included cancelling martial law and holding elections. Among the other requirements was a total halt on all foreign military aid and for Ukraine to begin demobilising. The US and Turkey-brokered negotiations at the Ciragan Palace on the banks of the Bosphorus appeared to bring the sides no closer to a truce. Ukraine and Russia, however, agreed to an exchange of 6,000 bodies of fallen soldiers, as well as an 'all-for-all' swap of seriously wounded and injured prisoners of war and captured servicemen aged under 25. The Russians offered a series of smaller, localised truces across the front lines to allow for the collection of corpses. This, however, appeared to be rejected by Ukraine, as a senior military figure told The Telegraph that Russia had previously used similar pauses to prepare for fresh assaults. Both sides could not bridge the divides on a 30-day ceasefire being pushed by Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine's president, and Donald Trump. Despite the lack of progress, the US president on Monday said he was open to holding talks with his Ukrainian counterpart and Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader. Ukrainian officials had been waiting weeks for the Russian peace proposals to be published, but these documents were only made available as talks started in Istanbul. Read side-by-side, the two memorandums reveal a mountainous wedge between their opposing positions. Russia's demands appeared almost identical to the set of proposals put forward in the early months of the full-scale invasion, which were ultimately rejected by Mr Zelensky as a capitulation. The Russian terms of surrender for Ukraine were published by Russian state media hours after the talks were wrapped up in Turkey. Kyiv's proposed route to a ceasefire, and ultimately a fuller peace deal, including security guarantees to prevent another Russian invasion, no international recognition of Moscow's occupation of Ukrainian territories and no restriction on Kyiv's armed forces. A Ukrainian official familiar with the talks described them as 'unproductive', and branded Moscow demands as unacceptable. The two delegations entered a large conference at the Ciragan Palace without exchanging handshakes or pleasantries. The Russians, led by Putin aide Vladimir Medinsky, appeared stony faced as they positioned themselves around the U-shaped table, after Ukraine mounted an audacious drone attack on Moscow's fleet of strategic bomber warplanes. At one moment in the hour-long talks, Mr Medinsky accused the Ukrainians of 'putting on a show' after they handed over a list of hundreds of Ukrainian children they wanted returned from Russia. 'Do not put on a show for European tender-hearted aunties who do not have children themselves,' he said, according to a quote shared with The Telegraph by a member of the negotiating team. A Ukrainian source familiar with the talks told The Telegraph that Russia made a counter-proposal to return just 10 children. 'Ukraine brought forward a list with more than 300 children requesting their return,' the official said. 'Should Russia have agreed to this request and returned those children, that would provide Ukraine with more confidence that Russia is interested in the humanitarian component of peace negotiations.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store