Українською читайте тут.
We risk losing the achievements of three decades of work and increasing threats to Ukraine's statehood, democratic values, and pro-Western orientation.
On 27 January, the United States suspended funding for international aid programmes around the world. So far, it has been suspended for 90 days. The support programmes are to be reviewed to determine whether they are working effectively and are in line with ‘American values and interests.’
In Ukraine, the suspension of US budgetary funding threatens to have disastrous consequences for a wide range of areas, from restoration to healthcare and from anti-corruption to private farms. More about the damage to the economy and social sphere can be found in the reviews by Ekonomichna Pravda and the BBC. As a public figure and former civil servant, Max Nefyodov explains, it is not only about grants for Ukrainian organisations but primarily about direct subsidies from the state budget and the purchase of what Ukraine needs. Read more about the mechanism of international technical assistance in Vitaliy Rudenkyi's article on Texty. In the column by photojournalist Vladyslav Sodel, you can see vivid examples of American aid that citizens might not have known came from the US.
The media sector is far from being a leader in terms of financial support from America. As can be seen from the infographic by Slovo i Dilo, the structure of spending by USAID, the largest, though not the only source of government financial assistance to Ukraine, is dominated by economic development and humanitarian aid. However, for the establishment and development of independent Ukrainian media, the material, expert and organisational assistance of American donors has been and still is of great importance. The American contribution to the history of our media since the mid-nineties will one day be the subject of a separate article. For Detector Media, this is also part of its own history, as our project was launched and has existed and developed for a significant part of its 23-year history thanks to grants, primarily from the United States.
Unfortunately, both the general public and even parts of Ukraine's media community and political establishment have so far failed to realise the significance of this contribution or have taken it for granted. The debate that is taking place on social media these days is full of incompetent opinions and superficial assessments by adherents of the well-known (partly Russian-inspired) narrative of ‘’grant eaters‘’. However, this reaction can hardly be explained by the influence of Russian propaganda or the ultra-conservative ‘anti-Maidan’ movement alone. The media themselves are partly to blame, as they have not explained to their audience and society over the years what value they create at the expense of American taxpayers. And why it is impossible to preserve this value without foreign aid. Now, such explanations have emerged, and some readers are genuinely surprised - it turns out that Hromadske TV reports, Ukraїner films or the Ebaut YouTube show are not made for free. Investigative teams in times of war and economic crisis cannot be commercially successful while exposing corruption.
Meanwhile, various players in the media and media-related space are looking for a replacement for American money - perhaps temporary or perhaps permanent. The Media Movement has appealed to international organisations and foreign donors to support the Ukrainian media in this difficult situation and has also called on our businesses and citizens to help in any way they can. The authorities are also looking for comprehensive solutions, which will most likely primarily concern the lost revenues of the state budget of Ukraine. Civil society organisations working in the media are also looking for their own ways to solve the problem, as are the media outlets themselves, who are asking for support from businesses and their readers.
However, it is important to understand that the threat to the Ukrainian media posed by the loss of US aid is more serious than a few unrecorded podcasts, partial layoffs of editorial staff, and the closure of certain projects. The detrimental consequences will be felt far beyond the media sector: in public and political life, in the restoration of what was destroyed by the war and the building of democratic institutions, in public communications and international relations, in the course of the organisational and value transformation that we call the ‘movement to Europe’.
These are just some of the areas and directions where the loss of US financial support could lead to a complete halt or significant reduction in work and, in the long run, to the regression and loss of the achievements and changes for the better that we have had in recent decades.
Freedom of speech. ‘Freedom is not a gift. Freedom is not given,’ wrote Serhii Zhadan. Ukrainian civil society and the media sector have achieved the level of freedom of speech and expression that we have today with great effort and at great cost.
Much of this effort has been and continues to be spent countering politicians, officials, and oligarchs' attempts to control and censor the media space. Financial, political, and diplomatic support from the United States has played a huge role in this process, supporting the progressive part of the media community in its struggle against the political and economic dictates of owners and political patrons.
We have no reason to believe that the current political elites, or those who may replace them as a result of the upcoming (indefinitely distant) elections, will give up their desire to control, restrict and exploit the media. We also know that financially weakened and insecure media outlets are much more vulnerable to threats, bribery, administrative and economic pressure. Let's also take into account the weakening of the civil society sector, which ensures the transparency of the government, provides legal support to those who have been subjected to pressure, and draws the world's attention to human rights violations and unjustified restrictions on civil liberties in Ukraine. Who knows if the Stop Censorship movement, which united the democratic media underground during the Yanukovych era, will not have to be brought out of the woodwork.
Investigative journalism. The high-quality, systematic and courageous work of several dozen professional teams of investigative journalists is a Ukrainian phenomenon that some EU countries may envy. Media disclosures have become an organic part of Ukraine's anti-corruption model; without the publicity and evidence gathered by journalists, Ukraine would not have achieved most of its anti-corruption victories. However, there are few ways to make money from investigative journalism, even in peacetime; the production process is expensive, and even in wealthy and stable countries, this type of journalism is subsidised. In Ukraine, it was supported by grants, primarily from the United States.
‘We hope for the support of our readers, but we understand that we will not be able to maintain an investigative newsroom with thirteen employees solely on crowdfunding and advertising. We'll have to become lifestyle bloggers,’ jokes Volodymyr Torbich, editor-in-chief of the Rivne-based publication Chetverta Vlada.
In times of war, when the mechanism of changing the government through elections does not work and may not work for a long time, cooperation between civil society, investigative media, anti-corruption bodies and international partners is the most effective tool to keep the government within a democratic framework and discourage abuse. We should not forget about another area of investigators' work: exposing and documenting war crimes committed by the Russian invaders, identifying criminals, and bringing the truth about the war to the world. Many actors in the media, civil society, and law enforcement are engaged in this work, but the number of unexplored and unreported stories remains enormous.
Transparency and public control of the authorities, from the highest level to the level of communities. A recent study by the Media Development Foundation, News Deserts 2.0, demonstrated how many communities in Ukraine have no viable free media or single newsrooms that are independent of local ‘elites’ or authorities. The independence and capacity of such media are largely dependent on grant funding. If journalists who ask tough questions of the authorities, analyse budgets, send inquiries and are not afraid to write about abuses and shortcomings cease or limit their work, the desert landscape conducive to corruption and other undemocratic phenomena will spread across the country. ‘The suspension of US aid will definitely affect the transparency of the authorities, the number of corruption schemes and various offences, and encourage officials to be negligent in their duties,’ predicts Kateryna Rozhdestvenska, editor-in-chief of the Zaporizhzhia-based Soda publication.
‘This could be a huge gift to Russia and some Ukrainian politicians. Because neither of them needs free media in Ukraine,' said Valerii Bolgan, editor-in-chief of the Intent publication and head of the Odesa-based Centre for Public Investigations.
Reporting on the war. Sending journalists and film crews to a war zone is not only dangerous, it is also expensive. Transport, accommodation, insurance, special equipment, and safety equipment - all of these are in addition to the cost of producing content. This content, by the way, is a priori ‘non-commercial’ - it is almost impossible to monetise; on the contrary, newsrooms are fighting desperately against bots and algorithms of social platforms to ensure that reports from the frontline reach viewers, listeners and readers. Fewer missions to the front mean fewer facts and footage obtained by hand and shown with a purely Ukrainian lens. Journalists will be forced to retell the news about the war more hearsay rather than showing what they saw with their own eyes. The ‘fog of war’ dispelled by professional military commanders will become thicker.
The survival and stable operation of media outlets from border and frontline regions, which are often the first to cover the consequences of Russian shelling, are also under threat. For example, Kordon.media from the Sumy region, which Detector Media has written about, has stopped several projects and is looking for alternative funding. The head of the publication, Alyona Yatsyna, wrote on Facebook after returning from the site of another Russian attack: ‘The SES was heavily funded by US programmes, which have now been suspended. The materials used by volunteers to board up windows, roofs, etc., were also purchased under US programmes, which are currently suspended. The work of military officers and journalists who tell you and the world about all this was also partially funded by US programmes, which are now suspended. The help that the injured people received for their recovery; the equipment of hospitals and intensive care units where the wounded are now staying were partially funded by programmes from the United States, which are currently suspended.’
Evacuated editorial offices and media for the occupied territories. Readers, viewers and listeners of these media are mostly in difficulty and trouble themselves, scattered across Ukraine and other countries, or living in occupation. It is impossible to expect such media to make money from advertising or content sales. Without grants, they will have to reduce their staff and expenses or simply close down.
‘We have recently launched a survey of our readers, one of the questions of which was whether they are willing to pay for information,’ says Lyubov Rakovytsia, manager of the Novyny Donbasu publication and head of the DII-Ukraine NGO, ‘Most of those who took the survey cannot afford to pay. We understand this because our main audience is residents of the occupied territories, settlements in the combat zone, IDPs - that is, people in difficulty. We also do not plan to introduce subscriptions because our task is not to complicate the audience's access to content, but rather to simplify it as much as possible because our audience is flooded with free information from pro-Kremlin sources.’ The Relocated Media Cluster project, which supports media in the evacuation, has stopped work in some areas due to the loss of funding; 12 relocated newsrooms from Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia will not receive subgrants.
Hanna Bokova, editor-in-chief of Bakhmut.in.ua, which moved to the free territory after the occupation of Bakhmut, says it hurts her ‘to have to tell people who have come a long way with our media, who share our values and are qualified and professional staff that we cannot continue to work with them.’ For journalists who are displaced themselves, losing their jobs is an additional shock that will be difficult to recover from. ‘I think this whole situation will hit independent and high-quality media first, which will open a window of opportunity for manipulation and propaganda,’ adds Hanna.
‘Unpopular’ social topics. Without grant support, the coverage of important social issues in the Ukrainian media would be much less intense and in-depth. The need to earn a living encourages newsrooms to focus on more resonant and ‘clickable’ topics and to abandon large and in-depth stories for the sake of news. The creation of large, high-quality materials requires resources that most Ukrainian media outlets cannot afford. Thanks to the grants, the media wrote more about IDPs, veterans, volunteers, social cohesion, women's rights, national and other minorities, history, culture, psychology, decentralisation, energy efficiency, reconstruction and many other things that are important to society (even if this importance does not always translate into the number of views). The grants helped develop solutions journalism.
This is how the Recovery Window, a network of media and civil society organisations, describes this work, which was funded by foreign aid: ‘In 2024, the media network published 842 materials in cooperation with partners. These reports, stories, analyses, investigations and explainers were read by 24 million people on social media, websites and other platforms. Regional and national media from the network told the stories and challenges of the recovery of people, businesses, territories, and institutions. They found out where the money came from and where it went, and why there were delays in the reconstruction, explained how victims of Russian aggression could use support services, and, with the help of think tank experts, drew attention to shortcomings in the assistance mechanisms and gaps in legislation. Civil society organisations and think tanks shared research findings on the real possibilities of achieving energy efficiency, green recovery, the mood of citizens in different regions and their vision of Ukraine's recovery, etc., thus creating a demand for better solutions.’
All of this will not disappear overnight with the cessation of US funding, but without this support, the information agenda will be flatter and poorer, and society will be less connected. There will be less constructive debate, new ideas, innovation, mutual support, and tolerance, which Ukrainians need in times of war.
Data journalism. Successful data visualisation can fundamentally change the way society thinks about a problem or explain a trend better than any text. However, data analysis and visualisation projects are expensive and resource-intensive. This kind of journalism can only be ‘slow’ and requires specific knowledge and constant training. ‘We need to retain people in the team because a data journalist or investigative journalist is not the kind of journalist trained by turnkey universities,’ explains Iryna Podoliak, NGL.media's Development Director, "It's about constant development, training, great analytical skills, a broad outlook, continuous improvement of skills, and taking risks." If data journalists leave the media after the funding stops, it will be extremely difficult to find a new one to replace them.
Professional education and training. The progress that has taken place in state professional education for media workers in recent decades is largely due to grant projects. When it comes to non-governmental educational and training programmes, online and offline schools for students and young journalists, editorial internships and exchanges, and study tours abroad, the loss of US funding will put a significant portion, if not most, of these projects on hold. This loss cannot be compensated for either by educational institutions, by students and media professionals who want to develop themselves, or by the industry, which is itself in a deep economic crisis. There are other opportunities besides those paid for by American grants, but competition for them will intensify. The likely result is more undereducated and poorly trained media professionals.
Self-regulation of the media sector. The establishment and strengthening of self-regulatory mechanisms in the media industry is slow - slower than we would like. However, there is a strong demand for the value that self-regulation brings to the media community, as evidenced by a recent survey conducted by the Commission on Journalism Ethics. Self-regulation is not only about building industry institutions that resolve conflicts and evaluate content. It also means the introduction of editorial policies, the long-awaited national press card that will regulate involvement in the journalistic workplace and large-scale educational work. If Ukraine's media sector fails to move towards viable and effective self-regulation, this niche may be filled by the state. State control and interference in the work of the media are problems that the media community has been treating for many years. It would be a pity to start from scratch.
Monitoring and controlling media quality. The White Lists, the Map of Recommended Media, the monitoring studies of the content quality of the United News telethon and the Suspilne TV channel are all work that has two important goals: to encourage media professionals to work better by highlighting their mistakes and weaknesses and to tell the audience which sources to trust and which not to trust. US government agencies have funded all or almost all such projects in Ukraine, and all of them are now under threat. This negates one of the few advantages of quality media compared to toxic and unreliable sources of information.
‘We were the first to start monitoring television news in Ukraine back in 2003,’ says Nataliia Lyhachova, head of the NGO Detector Media, ‘It was made possible thanks to American grants and had a great impact on the events of, say, the journalistic revolution that preceded the Orange Revolution. Through monitoring, we supported those journalists who defended the principles of freedom of speech and clearly demonstrated the manipulations used by TV channels that were working under the orders of Russian political technologists. All these years, monitoring has been a barometer of freedom of speech and pluralism in our media space. Their loss will stimulate the curtailment of such pluralism and diversity of voices in the media.’
Countering Russian propaganda and promoting media literacy. For Ukraine, which has suffered from Russian information attacks for decades, countering propaganda and increasing citizens' media literacy is an urgent need. It would be almost impossible to monetize media and educational activities aimed at this in peacetime, let alone wartime. If the state can partially take on the educational part, then in the media sphere, the Ukrainian authorities' ideas about effectively countering Russian narratives are limited to the "United News" telethon and the efforts of several state institutions. That is unification, monopolization and state control in the media space. Perhaps such an approach was adequate in the chaos of the first months of the great war, but not now. The termination of fact-checking programs, research on manipulation and propaganda, debunking and prebunking, and the reduction of activities to promote media literacy among various segments of citizens is a weakening of the information immunity of Ukrainian society precisely when it is especially vulnerable.
Information security and sovereignty in the media space. Fewer responsible, capable and professional media on the market means more space for information attacks, proxy media, manipulative campaigns and poisonous narratives that Russia is interested in spreading. “…we are being squeezed informationally, culturally, just by being showered with petro-rubles, and the less money there is in the sector, the sooner the Russians will gain control over us, just as they gained informational control over Georgia after the war they launched against them,” writes Ukraїner’s director Bohdan Lohvynenko.
The share of anonymous and Russian Telegram channels, trash sites, pseudo-experts and clickbait “news factories” in the information menu of Ukrainians will grow. In the near future, we can predict the strengthening of anti-democratic and anti-Western narratives, the incitement of resentment towards the “West that abandoned us”, and calls to find “our own way” outside the European Union and NATO. This will not only make Ukraine more vulnerable and reduce its chances in the information war with Russia but will also contribute to isolationism and populism, all sorts of “the new Rasputins”, as the American historian Anne Applebaum calls them.
"Ukrainians can always be left alone with the marathon, Arestovych, and Trukha, but a society that consumes only such an information surrogate will be a terrible genetically modified organism. Do we want this? Obviously not. Therefore, if we want to remain adequate, we must support the adequate," says Iryna Podoliak from NGL.media.
Therefore, the temporary loss and further reduction of American budget funding will not kill the Ukrainian media sector, but it will weaken it and make it more vulnerable and more open to Russian and other toxic influences and interventions. It will stimulate the atomization of the media community and the ideological polarization of the media (the desire to please a solvent audience and sponsors), will reduce the quality of content and will encourage media professionals to deviate from professional standards and cross ethical “red lines”. Many processes that have taken years of effort and millions of dollars of the same American aid will have to start from scratch.
As some radical commentators hope, will the market be cleansed of “parasites”? This is doubtful—at least, previous crises have not produced such a cleansing. Instead, competition for resources will intensify between honest, professional players—the media, in fact—and quasi-media: Telegram channels, aggregators, one-day sites, and “sink tanks.” In this competition, quality media are doomed to either lose or radically lose quality.
A moving column by the English-language publication The Kyiv Independent, which is no longer dependent on American grants but called on the world to support Ukrainian media, ends with the following conclusion: “But here’s what we know for certain: A healthy society cannot exist without free media. A functional democracy depends on it. And in a world increasingly plagued by disinformation, genuine journalism is more essential than ever.”
Golden words; it remains to be seen how important it is for the new government of the country that has made the greatest contribution to the development of free media in Ukraine to preserve the foundations of Ukrainian democracy. And whether the Trump administration realizes the threat to American interests posed by the emergence of an information "grey zone" on the map, where Western civilization has increasingly asserted itself in recent decades.
Illustrative photo: Esther Vargas/Flickr
