Yesterday at 19:21
In this interview — a frank conversation with Professor Tim Wilson from Great Britain — a renowned animator, caricaturist, media personality, and influential voice in British society. He speaks sharply and honestly about Russian aggression, the nature of the Kremlin’s imperial ambitions, and the future of European security.
— Before we switch to Ukraine and other topics, I’d like to ask you this: do you remember the first time you realized that animation could be more than entertainment—that it could be a way to say something serious?
— Yes, I can tell you exactly when that was. It was in 1971. I saw a television adaptation of A Christmas Carol by Richard Williams. It went on to win an Academy Award—the Best Oscar—and I believe it was the only British Oscar that year.
I wrote him a fan letter. I was about ten or eleven years old, and he wrote back and invited me to the studio. I went there, and he showed me the kinds of things he was working on, and the depth of what animation could do.
With animation, you can do anything your imagination allows—whether academic or entertaining. Animation was slightly hijacked as something just for children because of Disney’s brilliance and marketing. But in the early days, people like Winsor McCay used animation for propaganda—for example, The Sinking of the Lusitania.
Animation is extraordinarily versatile, and Richard Williams demonstrated that beautifully in A Christmas Carol. It’s available on YouTube, it’s only half an hour long, it uses only Dickens’s words, and it looks like the original illustrations brought to life. I was astonished that anyone could do that.
— Speaking of less entertaining and less creative things, you spent real time working and teaching in Russia. Was there a moment when you realized that people were not really allowed to speak freely there?
— There were two moments, and both were public.
The first was shortly after Putin seized Crimea. Outside his office there was a large relief map of Russia. I realized this was only one or two days after the invasion, and the map had already been repainted to include Crimea. I was flabbergasted. It made me deeply uncomfortable.
The second moment involved a colleague—an American, I believe—who sadly has since died. He made a comment about President Putin, and by the end of that week he was out of the university. People were whispering that he had been foolish. I remember thinking how careful I needed to be with my words.
I believe he had made a joke during a public lecture. What shocked me was how censorious even people I respected had become. After those events, I started looking for a way out.
Soon after, the rector was dismissed, and almost everyone he had appointed was thrown out of the university. It was shocking. At that time, I was in the UK, and I refused to live in Russia for more than a month at a time.
— I know about the incident when your interview was distorted on Russian television. Can you tell us more about that?
— Yes, that happened slightly earlier. I had done a number of interviews because I was frequently sent to other universities. At one point, I taught a course on ethics in journalism—ironically enough.
One of my former students graduated and went to work for Russian television. He asked me to do interviews, and I got to know the cameraman, who was very nice. Over time, I became suspicious that what I was saying was not what appeared on screen.
During one interview in the UK, I asked the cameraman if I could record it on my phone. He agreed. Later that evening, I was in Moscow watching myself on a major Saturday night program, and I realized I was hearing things I had not said.
I checked my phone recording and confirmed it. The distortion was subtle, but it was real. I later told the BBC, and they confirmed that Professor Sir John Curtice had experienced exactly the same thing with the same channel and program. I had proof that Russian television was distorting interviews.
— Turning to today: there is a US-led push for a deal. President Zelensky is speaking with Trump’s team, Trump claims progress, and Russia continues its war. What is your assessment? Can Trump persuade Putin to sign a peace deal?
— No. Trump cannot persuade Putin to sign a deal for many reasons. The biggest one is that Putin is not in a position to compromise. Whether he truly holds power or is controlled by others, any concession would be seen as surrender, and the moment he surrenders, his power is gone.
Putin has no room to maneuver. Talking is generally better than war, but Putin’s idea of “talking” is to launch hundreds of missiles at Ukrainian cities.
In some conflicts, responsibility is shared. But in others—like World War II, or this war—there is a point where one side crosses into evil. We saw that with the Holocaust. We see it now in Russia’s repeated attacks on civilians, the abduction of children, and mass kidnappings with no military purpose. That is simply evil.
My theological side says you cannot negotiate with evil. My political side says politics is precisely about talking to those you disagree with. But we have failed to counter the nonstop propaganda saturating Russia 24 hours a day.
— What does the West still fail to understand about security for Ukraine?
— Look at the Budapest Memorandum. It was a security guarantee, and it failed. Look at the Minsk agreements—they were ignored.
Any postwar security arrangement must be more than paper. Russia has ignored every agreement it signed. This war is not about resources. It is about prestige. Putin cannot lose face.
There is no future peace with Putin. Regime change is not the goal, but without it, there can be no clarity.
— When politicians say “peace deal,” Ukrainians hear “freeze the invasion” or “give up your home.” How would you explain that fear to a British audience?
— Would we give up part of England or Scotland? That comparison doesn’t play well in British media, but the fear is justified.
A demilitarized zone could be a starting point, but referendums in occupied territories are meaningless when populations have been manipulated. Referendums have historically been tools of dictators.
— How do you personally process the constant news of missile and drone attacks?
— I am horrified. I have friends in Ukraine. I’ve spoken to them while drones were approaching. Drones are terrifying because they are quiet.
I am amazed by Ukrainian ingenuity, but they are fighting a country that is mechanizing warfare at an extraordinary pace.
— When did you personally move from watching the war to actively supporting Ukraine?
— Almost immediately. I felt I hadn’t spoken out enough while I was in Russia, though doing so then would have been dangerous.
When Putin invaded and tried to seize Kyiv, I felt a clear moral imperative. The deception, the paramilitaries, the manufactured pretexts—it was all deeply disturbing.
— Have you lost friends because of your position?
— Yes. Some friends have died. Some are in prison. Others no longer speak to me.
But I believe I have a duty to be clear. When people say I’m biased, I say yes—I am biased by moral judgment.
I am appalled by Western influencers producing propaganda from occupied cities. I cannot believe people are doing this.
— Finally, what would you say directly to Ukrainians watching this?
— Keep going. You have friends in the most unexpected places, and we love you deeply.
You are doing what we are not doing—you are protecting us. Not just the soldiers, but civilians who clean the streets minutes after a missile strike. That is the Blitz spirit. We in the UK should recognize it.
You are doing this with resilience, humor, and courage. You must keep going, and you must know that we are with you.
Read also: Frozen Russian Assets Could Weaken Putin’s Influence, – Interview Andreas Umland
