How YouTube helps Russia share how great it is in raw and subtle ways

Screenshot from YouTube showing examples of content that sanitizes Russia during a time of its continued war of aggression.

It is now the third year of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. While many people in Ukraine and the western world might think that we have won the informational battle, from time to time we get stark reminders of the ugly reality. Yes, no matter how difficult it might sound there are still people who sympathize with Russia in Europe and North America, despite all the cruelty and ignorance of its regime. And despite all the effort that many professionals in that field are putting into combatting Russian disinformation, Moscow still finds creative ways to share its narrative. This even includes YouTube videos.

For example, it is worth looking at one of these channels – “Videos From Mariupol”. The content of it consists mostly of the videos of a young guy who, you guessed it, is a local in Mariupol but speaks English. He is an open supporter of Russia and in his videos, he is quite explicit about the reasons why he chose the Russian side (apparently). There are still many YouTube channels that are actively sharing content that promote the Russian narrative in different languages, including those across Europe. Still, this case is especially interesting as it touches on the very sensitive, yet important issue of how Russia tries to utilize people in the temporarily occupied territories.

It is difficult to talk about numbers here because of how challenging it is to estimate the exact figures related to the current population of these areas. The Russian aggression made these territories a “grey zone” with limited access to goods and services. Using these limitations that it created, Russia tries to put on a show about how it is rebuilding these cities. “Videos from Mariupol” plays into that message. The guy behind the channel shows new kindergartens and buildings, while at the same time states how kind it is of Russia to put its effort and money into the new Mariupol. The only thing these videos miss is any mention of the fact that, actually, Russia destroyed them. Yes, their official narrative is that “evil Ukraine and the West have been destroying Donbas for eight years”, but if you are an ordinary Ukrainian or western person, does this make any sense? It is convenient to just destroy cities, ignore the locals’ needs, and then use a huge chunk of resources to rebuild the area. This is done not even for the sake of building something functional but rather just to show off in propaganda. At the same time, Moscow overlooks people in its own country, who have even bigger infrastructural issues without having a war to worry about. 

My colleagues from “Detector Media” conducted research on how exactly Russia tries to cast everybody except itself and its supporters on these territories as evil. Yet, the topic is still controversial because, unexpectedly for a western audience, everything is not that simple. Not everybody who stayed in these territories supports Russia. Referring to “the grey zone” mentioned earlier, Russia basically tries to force people to express their support in order to receive essential goods and services. At the same time, they hope to convince the world that this is the locals’ free will. “Videos from Mariupol” fuels that message and people seem to believe it. At the time of writing this piece, the channel had gained more than 30,000 subscribers. 

But it would be even more useful to look into the comment section under the channel’s videos. Knowing the history of Russia and its use of services to manipulate view counts and comments, it is yet chilling to see that there are fans of Russia in the United States, Germany, Austria, Spain, Belgium, etc. Even if these comments are written by bots, it is a stark reminder about the need to finally see that not everyone is yet convinced that Russia is an aggressor here. This may be due to the “guilty pleasures” of Russian culture, family ties, the mishaps of western politicians, or even the bland and sometimes painfully uniform official Ukrainian narrative. Other reasons may include the temporary inability of Ukrainian journalists to communicate local realities well to different foreign audiences, or a decline in modern journalism as a whole. Of course, today facts are often distorted for emotions and this makes it easier for Russia to play with them on social media.

Examples of YouTube Shorts that promote the Russian narrative.

Speaking of which, you can still find the channel on YouTube. And not only that. YouTube, including YouTube Shorts, is packed with lots of recent English-language content praising Russia and life there, or trying to victimize themselves by creating tabloid headlines and not addressing the Russian aggression at all. There is no direct proof that the Kremlin actually pays such groups and individuals to create such content, but it is very likely. The scale of the issue is enormous – we are talking about hundreds of videos that gain sympathy in their comments and are popularized by the algorithm. The subtlety of the themes seen in the content also aim to “impress”. You can find videos about life in Russia as “the most sanctioned country in the world”, like it is some kind of medal or achievement, or videos with thumbnails that include words like “Mobilized and sanctioned” alongside a sad face emoji. You can also find foreigners here who have moved to Russia. While some express their disapproval of many facets of Russian migration practices, you can still find videos about how great Russia is because it has “no woke propaganda”. This is a clear example of the phenomenon in which right and far-right activists from abroad sympathize with Russia, viewing the country as a model. This can be seen in almost absurd videos about loving Russia or just a vlog about “a typical day in a Russian village” or “a typical day in Saint Petersburg”. Even if some might say that it is just “a needed window into life” of that country and nothing more, it actually serves one purpose – to normalize what Russia is doing and Russia as a country. Such content wants to force people to believe that everything is fine and that the scale of the war exists just in the imagination of the West. And the fact that you cannot find any mention of the Russian attacks on Ukrainian schools or hospitals or residential areas actually confirms that notion.

This whole situation shows another issue relevant not only to Russian propaganda but to informational culture in general – huge loopholes in moderation. When Section 230 was created in the United States, it gave content platforms a magic wand to moderate the content themselves. Yet, again and again, we see that they are either very picky about their moderation patterns or just careless. Yes, sometimes it is too difficult for human beings to moderate the explicit content. Yes, some passionate Ukrainians have understandably overused distressing images in the content they have shared about the war on social media, which has made the topic toxic and complicated in the eyes of the content moderators. This has also made western audiences more distant and fatigued when it comes to the issue, and gave Russia an additional card to play in attracting these tired western audiences. But after all, the owners of these platforms have to understand that freedom of speech equals responsibility. All the nuances mentioned earlier are no excuse to not only allow openly pro-Russian content on the web but also to promote it. The scale of the numbers seen on these channels and an active comment section show that algorithms love drama, controversy and discussion concerning this type of content. We get the point of earning money, but is it really worth it?

This case indicated one more important thing – how these loopholes appeared. They did because politicians in Europe and North America gave too much power to the web platforms. This has allowed them to play the game the way they do. The ban affecting Russia Today and other officially Russian state-affiliated media is not enough, and “Videos from Mariupol” and its counterparts show that. Yes, this all seems radical. Yet Russia made it impossible to keep on playing safe. It is now time to think about punishing platforms that deliberately ignore pro-Russian content on them and banning such content in general. Not everybody likes the comparison, but imagine allowing pro-Nazi videos on YouTube. The reality is ugly and it needs ugly solutions to make it brighter. But until this is done, we will still see how Russia forces those who have never even been there, or even worse, cannot escape from there, to love her. This is true even on YouTube. 

Artur Koldomasov is a disinformation analyst at the Detector Media Research Center in Ukraine.

Please support New Eastern Europe's crowdfunding campaign. Donate by clicking on the button below.

algorythm, Russia, Russian propaganda, Russian sanctions, social media