Fifteen years of change in media as Ukraine marks 35 years of Independence

Today, Gohar serves as Programme Manager at IMS (International Media Support), leading IMS’s presence and operations in Ukraine. In this role, she oversees strategic partnerships and programme implementation, working closely with independent media, journalists, civil society organizations and relevant groups across the country to strengthen media resilience, information integrity and democratic development.

For the 35th anniversary of Ukraine’s independence, she reflects on her first visit to Kyiv, meetings with Ukrainian media and IMS partners, Vilnius in 2013, changes in the media market and society and why the story of Ukrainian media is part of the much broader story of building an independent state.

When did you first come to Ukraine, and what were your first impressions of the country and its media landscape?

My first visit to Ukraine was in 2011. I came to Kyiv as part of a programme that IMS was implementing together with partners and with support from Danish institutions. The purpose of the trip was to analyse the media market, understand the needs, look at how the sector worked and identify where IMS could be most useful in supporting democratic processes.

This was after the Orange Revolution, but before Euromaidan. I remember that democratic aspirations in society were already very strong. Ukraine was a country with its own voice, its own movement and its own political competition.

At the same time, the media sector faced very serious problems. Many media outlets depended on oligarchs, political forces and owners. Sometimes business and politics were almost the same thing. Independent newsrooms existed, but there were not many of them, and they lacked the resources they needed to survive.

In 2011, the business models we see today did not yet exist. Many things were only beginning to take shape. The foundations of the media market we see now were being laid at that time.

What impressed you most about Ukrainian journalism at the time?

Professionalism. I clearly remember that investigative journalism in Ukraine was already at a very high level. This was evident not only compared with other post-Soviet countries. Even in a broader international context, Ukrainian investigative journalists were very strong.

Investigative journalism is a complex and costly form of journalism. It is difficult to monetise. It requires time, travel, access to data, sources and legal support. It also always involves risks. But in Ukraine, I saw a very strong determination among journalists to do this work.

One of the major challenges at the time was safety. After the murder of Georgiy Gongadze, impunity for crimes against journalists remained a deeply painful issue. Journalists’ lives were not always valued in the way they should be valued in a democratic society.

How did Ukrainian partners perceive IMS in 2011? Was there openness?

Yes, there was. I do not remember any suspicion or distrust from the people we met. On the contrary, many conversations were very open, even friendly.

At the time, we worked with a range of partners: the Commission on Journalistic Ethics; the organisation then known as the Media Law Institute, now the Centre for Democracy and Rule of Law; teams from Telekritika (now Detector Media); Internews Ukraine; the Kyiv Post; and others.

IMS was not the largest international organisation working in Ukraine at the time. USAID, Internews, the OSCE and other major actors were already present. But our role has always been to work in a focused, high-quality way with partners where we saw the possibility of long-term impact.

One of our areas of focus then was investigative journalism and media reform. We supported experts and partners working on access to information, media legislation and journalistic standards.

Can we say that even then, in 2011, Ukraine was already moving in practice towards Europe?

Yes, I think we can. Through dialogue with media actors, we worked on reforms and looked at European examples: how access to information works in Denmark, how it is regulated in other countries and what standards exist in the field of media law.

We did not always call this European integration. Often, we simply spoke about international standards in journalism, media law and access to information. But in substance, it was a move towards European standards.

Even then, there was a demand in Ukraine from partners and the media community for clear rules, standards and reforms. The media law was discussed for many years precisely because it contained many complex points that required discussion and alignment. But it was already clear that the country was moving towards a more democratic system.

Could you specify one or two concrete examples of media reforms or initiatives from 2011–2014 that IMS supported and that, in your view, had long-term significance for the Ukrainian media sector?

Looking at the period from 2011–2014, I would highlight at least two areas that had long-term significance. First, support for the implementation and practical use of access to public information legislation, which strengthened journalists’ ability to obtain data from public authorities and became an important tool for accountability. Second, support for the development of investigative journalism, independent professional networks and self-regulatory standards, which helped create an environment from which many strong Ukrainian investigative and public-interest media later emerged. These changes were not always immediately visible, but they helped lay the foundations for a more independent, professional and resilient media sector in the years that followed.

You were in Vilnius in 2013, at the very moment when Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign the Association Agreement with the EU. How do you remember it?

I was in Vilnius at the same time as the summit, not because of that event but because of another IMS programme I was working on. Still, I effectively found myself at the centre of a moment that changed Ukraine’s history.

I remember being there with a Ukrainian colleague. When it became clear that the agreement on Ukraine’s European choice would not be signed, she immediately said: “We are going home; something is about to start.” From Vilnius, we began following what was happening in Ukraine.

At first, these were student protests. Then everything grew into a major social movement. For me, it confirmed that Ukrainians had already made their choice. They did not want to return to the Soviet past. They wanted a different future.

It was society’s choice. And when the president, under pressure from Russia, refused to sign the agreement, people came out to say they did not accept such a reversal of the country’s direction.

How did IMS respond to the events of Euromaidan in 2013 and the first months of 2014?

We followed the events closely, almost every day. I remember seeing reports that so-called titushky – aggressive young men used to intimidate demonstrators – were being brought to Maidan, and that the situation was becoming increasingly dangerous.

In February 2014, at the height of the events, IMS organised an advocacy trip to Kyiv. It brought together people from several Danish organisations, including representatives of the media sector. They met with partners, tried to understand what was happening, what journalists needed and how we could respond.

After that, IMS began to think even more carefully about focused support for Ukraine. We continued to work on media reforms, but we also became involved in issues related to journalists’ safety. I remember that we helped with press vests and helmets. These were not bulletproof vests, but basic protective equipment marked “press”, which journalists on the ground urgently needed at the time.

At the same time, IMS tried to support requests from Ukrainian teams that needed resources for their ongoing work, including livestreaming, investigations and anti-corruption reporting.

When you think back to Kyiv in 2011, what is the first thing that comes to mind?

A big city, beautiful, with a sense of the Soviet past still lingering in the air. In contrast to Copenhagen, some things were very noticeable. For example, in 2011 we organised a major global conference for investigative journalists in Kyiv. It took place at the Rus Hotel, and I remember feeling as if I had stepped back into the 1980s.

Of course, there were already modern places, too – good conference venues, open people and strong professional communities. But at the airport and in everyday interactions, you could still feel an older culture in the way people were treated.

Today, Kyiv feels completely different to me. Even during the war, when you see how human-centred everyday communication has become, the kindness, the willingness to help and the way businesses continue to create good services and spaces for daily life, you understand how much the country has changed. There is a war in the country, but the feeling of the old Soviet mentality that was still present in 2011 has disappeared.

Ukraine has moved far ahead. In many ways, it now looks like one of Europe’s most dynamic countries.

You speak Ukrainian, which is very valuable both for partners and for understanding the processes shaping Ukraine’s media market. When did you realise that the language was important for your work?

When I started working at IMS in 2008, colleagues would sometimes give me texts in Ukrainian and ask me to briefly explain what they were about. They thought that if I knew Danish, English, Armenian and Russian, I would probably understand Ukrainian somehow. At that time, I could grasp the general meaning, but it was not full understanding.

Until 2016, when I travelled to Ukraine, I did not feel that I needed Ukrainian. I hardly remember situations where people around me spoke Ukrainian with each other in a professional context.

The first time I truly heard Ukrainian as a living working language was in 2019, during the International Training Programme. There were participants from Ukraine, Armenia and Moldova. The Ukrainians spoke Ukrainian with each other. I really liked the melody of the language. And I thought: I want to learn it.

In 2020, I began learning Ukrainian. In 2022, I spoke Ukrainian publicly at an event for the first time. It was brief, but I did it.

For me, this is also part of the change in Ukraine. The Ukrainian language has become more visible, more natural and more present in professional life, in everyday life and in public spaces.

What stereotypes about Ukraine have you heard most often over these years?

One of the main false narratives that has existed – and continues to exist – is the claim that there is supposedly no Ukrainian nation and no separate country called Ukraine. This is a very dangerous narrative, and Russia has promoted it for many years.

There has also been, and still is, a narrative about “two Ukraines”: western and eastern, Ukrainian-speaking and Russian-speaking, “European” and “pro-Russian”. This division has been artificially amplified.

Language is part of this again. I never felt that people in Ukraine treated me badly because I did not speak Ukrainian. But for years, Russia used the language issue as a tool of political pressure and as a justification for aggression.

These narratives still circulate not only in Russia. They can also be heard in other countries in the region.

When were you last in Kyiv before the full-scale invasion?

I was in Kyiv in December 2021. It was a conference for investigative journalists. At that point, we were already discussing the possibility of a full-scale invasion, but many people in Ukraine did not believe it would really happen.

In Copenhagen, perhaps we assessed the risks as higher. There were many warnings. We were planning a trip to Ukraine at the end of February 2022, but by then it was already clear that the situation was extremely tense.

On 24 February, I was returning from Georgia via Frankfurt. When we landed in Frankfurt, I had many messages from Ukrainian colleagues. They were not writing about themselves; they were asking whether we were all right, whether everything was fine with our flight from Georgia. And I had already opened the news and seen that the full-scale invasion had begun.

That was very characteristic. People in Ukraine were already under attack, but they were still asking whether we were safe.

You mentioned oligarchic dependence of the media as one of the main problems you observed in 2011. What does this look like today?

Many of the problems that existed in 2011 look different today. Oligarchic influence over the media no longer has the same form or force it had then. Some oligarchs have lost influence, some have left the country and some media outlets have changed their role.

In 2022, some media outlets linked to oligarchic groups also approached IMS for support. But standards are always important to us: standards first, then support. If a media outlet has not upheld editorial independence for years, if it has been told what to write and how to write it, we cannot simply ignore that, even if the outlet has a large audience.

At IMS, we look at ethics, transparency, editorial independence and a willingness to work according to professional rules. Where media outlets are oriented towards European standards and want to move in that direction, we are ready to support them, even if this is part of a process of transformation or transition.

Which challenges do you consider most significant for the Ukrainian media sector today?

Beyond physical safety, one of the main challenges today is disinformation and elements of cognitive warfare. This is a serious problem. I think the active phase of Russian information operations began long before 2022, but for a long time many people in Ukraine and Europe did not fully grasp the scale.

Today, societies have a better understanding of Russian propaganda. But the problem has changed. Many manipulations now spread through social media, Telegram channels, YouTube and opaque information ecosystems. This is very difficult to balance and very difficult to track. It is a challenge for the next decade, and much will depend not only on the work and decisions of professional communities and institutions, but also on the resilience of societies across Europe.

Media literacy is an important part of the response. In Denmark, for example, schoolchildren already learn about behaviour on social media, critical thinking and information security. But much more is needed, both in Europe and in Ukraine.

Another challenge for Ukraine is internal manipulation. During war, political competition inside the country does not disappear. Sometimes narratives that circulate domestically can deepen divisions within society. This is very dangerous, because the enemy exploits any disagreement or division.

Over 15 years of working with Ukraine, what do you consider the country’s greatest achievement?

Over these 15 years, I would say Ukraine’s greatest achievement is not only reforms or specific institutional changes, but society’s ability, again and again, to defend its democratic choice. From Euromaidan to today, Ukrainians have shown extraordinary resilience, responsibility and commitment to freedom. This is reflected in the media sector as well: despite war, political and economic pressure, Ukraine has preserved independent media, an active civil society and open public debate. In my view, this resilience of democratic institutions and citizens is the country’s greatest achievement.

In recent years, IMS has significantly expanded its work in Ukraine and has become one of the leading media development actors in the country. This includes support for media outlets, partnerships with professional platforms and work on data, safety, media resilience, reforms, disinformation and European standards. Why does IMS describe support for Ukraine’s independent media today as an important part of European security?

Today, supporting independent Ukrainian media is not only a matter of media development or democracy in Ukraine. It is also a matter of European security. Ukraine is on the frontline not only of military aggression, but also of disinformation, information manipulation and attempts to undermine trust in democratic institutions. Independent media help society make decisions based on facts, ensure accountability of those in power and strengthen social resilience. That is why supporting strong, professional and independent media in Ukraine today is a contribution to the security and stability of Europe as a whole.

What are three facts about Ukrainian journalism that you would like people in the Nordic countries to know? And which three adjectives would you use to describe Ukrainian journalism in 2026?

Ukrainian journalism today operates under the conditions of a full-scale war, but despite constant security risks, it continues to inform citizens, document the consequences of the war and hold power to account.

Ukrainian media remain remarkably diverse and independent. Despite the war, national, regional and local independent newsrooms continue to operate across the country, covering not only the war, but also social, economic and anti-corruption issues.

Ukrainian journalism is an important part of the country’s democratic resilience. Independent media help counter disinformation, support accountability and strengthen citizens’ trust in verified information.

The three adjectives I would use to describe Ukrainian journalism in 2026 are:

Resilient, innovative and unbreakable.

More information on other IMS programmes and projects in Ukraine:

Thirty-five years of Ukrainian journalism: facts, paradigms, stories

Operational Readiness for DSA Alignment: An Expert Definition. Practical Checklist for EU Candidate Countries

Humour against anxiety: How the Kyiv-based Ukrainian Toronto Television communicates with young audiences through infotainment

MERIT Forum 2026: Who are this year’s voices of Ukraine?

Seven lessons learned for media resilience during long‑term war

IMS and Ukraine’s public broadcaster, Suspilne Ukraine, sign a memorandum of strategic partnership

Key priorities and recommendations for investigative media and donors in Ukraine

Reconstructing Ukraine with good journalism

Stock taking on IMS’ work in Ukraine

Covering recovery in Ukraine – a win-win for journalism?

New media hub in Ukraine creates community among journalists and provides emergency shelter

Emergency safety work for journalists in Ukraine

Women chaplains and ageing without stereotypes: equality and diversity best practices in Ukrainian newsrooms We invite you to learn more about journalism in Ukraine in the news article on the emotional state of media professionals, as well as in the news piece on investigative journalism.