Stock taking on IMS’ work in Ukraine

Gohar, you have been involved with media development in several post-Soviet countries and witnessed important changes. What were the turning points?

I would highlight the challenges and opportunities brought by the internet. Initially, the logic was that if a piece was published in print, it should also appear online. But it gradually became clear that this model wasn’t sustainable. Audiences began to expect free content and the willingness to pay for news declined. Then came a broader transformation: not just print, but also TV and radio began migrating to digital platforms. Terms like multiplexing, digital migration and media restructuring became part of everyday conversations.

The rise of digital media made journalism more accessible. But with that came new challenges – especially around monetisation, quality and professional identity. New questions emerged: who qualifies as a journalist? What standards apply? What protections exist? Opportunities for manipulation also grew. The digital space opened doors for innovation, but also for disinformation and blurred boundaries between professional and non-professional content.

What are, in your opinion, the strongest qualities of Ukrainian investigative journalism?

Ukrainian investigative journalism is remarkably strong, especially given how few resources journalists have to work with. Another strength is the speed with which this sector developed and matured. Ukrainian investigations are now part of Europe’s broader body of investigative work. Sometimes this work comes with a risk.

In Ukraine we supported investigative journalists from Bihus.info and others when they faced pressure. We did the same in Moldova when freedom of speech was under threat.

If authorities act unethically or undemocratically we must act. We have criticised governments regardless of whether they were pro-European or not.

I remember speaking to Ukrainian media when investigative journalists were being persecuted. It was clear that some in power wanted to suppress fact-based reporting about problems in the army. The argument was that investigations harmed Ukraine’s international image.

But Europeans are not naïve – everyone understands that decades of entrenched corruption cannot disappear overnight. Ukraine’s EU candidacy does not mean automatic change. On the contrary, the president and government should support investigative journalists in fighting corruption, not hide it. Otherwise, it undermines Ukraine’s credibility and support from European partners.

I am especially proud that Scandinavian countries helped Ukrainian colleagues grow. Since 2003, IMS has been working actively on investigative journalism in Ukraine. We had the SCOOP programme, which trained hundreds of journalists across the Eastern Partnership, Central Asia and even the Balkans. Ukraine’s level was very high even then.

A key feature was combining training with practice. Journalists didn’t just attend lectures – they carried out real investigations. It was a peer-to-peer model: a Scandinavian journalist worked directly with a Ukrainian or Moldovan colleague. They developed the story idea together, found solutions and published. It was true learning-by-doing. Scandinavian trainers made a significant contribution to Ukraine’s investigative school. The programme lasted until about 2018 – more than 15 years.

Today, Ukrainian investigative journalism excels in using open-source information, harnessing new technologies (including AI) for investigations and building deep expertise in complex topics.

One area deserves special mention – investigating war crimes and documenting violence. This is incredibly difficult work. Sadly, such expertise also exists elsewhere in places like Myanmar or Palestine – but in Europe, it is Ukrainians who lead it.

For now, the top priority is Ukraine’s security and safety of its people. But of course there is strong interest in oversight of public spending – donors need to know whether the resources they channel are used transparently. Investigations into budget allocations, both central and local, are crucial in this regard.

Are Eastern Partnership countries today at higher risk due to disinformation?

Yes. We see how Russian propaganda works in Ukraine – highly professional, well-resourced, with networks of contacts, emails, phone campaigns. To mitigate risks, we invest more in supporting quality media.

In Moldova, for example, this has produced positive results. Our aim is not only to counter disinformation, but to strengthen responsibility and analytical skills in the media. We also try to anticipate Russia’s next moves and prepare accordingly. Our motto is simple: good journalism, better societies.

We draw on Ukraine’s experience, adapting it to Moldova’s political and linguistic context. Russia also targets Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia. That’s why we prepare action plans for various scenarios – optimistic, negative and baseline.

In March 2022, we organised the first training targeting Moldovan media to prepare journalists for potential crises. We discussed contingency plans, worst-case scenarios and crisis response.

The war in Ukraine has brought along a rethink across many areas – disinformation, security, the importance of supporting quality journalism in place where Russia seeks to influence.

For me and for IMS, the formula remains unchanged and effective: good journalism, better societies. 

Read more about the IMS’ work in Ukraine: MERIT Forum, support programmes for journalists’ mental health and tech initiatives .

Gohar Khodjayan has worked with IMS for over 17 years, joining the organisation after earning a Master’s degree in International Business Language and Communication, with a specialisation in European Studies, from Copenhagen Business School. Her work is deeply connected to Ukraine, where IMS has significantly expanded its support for independent journalism since 2022.