Manipulations of Russian ‘opposition’ media on the war in Ukraine

Not long ago, we wrote about how russian dubbing of English-language films and TV series often works to whitewash the image of Soviet and russian dictators, avoid uncomfortable subjects, or eliminate negative references to russia altogether. This research focused on the propaganda embedded in voiceover practices. Today, let’s examine how even russian opposition media can manipulate narratives during the translation process.

In 2022, the American magazine The New Yorker published a series of extensive reports by journalist Joshua Yaffa from Ukrainian cities under russian siege or occupation. These materials were later translated into russian by the media outlet Mediazona with the magazine’s permission. Mediazona stated that the goal of these translations was to provide russian readers with “vivid and valuable documentary evidence of the war, both for history and for contemporaries.” According to Mediazona, russian audiences lack access to such accounts because of “cultural, language, and censorship barriers.”

However, during the translation process, Mediazona made changes to the text and added details that introduced distortions of the original narrative.

Example 1: Shifting emphasis 

In April 2022, The New Yorker published a report about the 39-day siege of Chernihiv. Hundreds of people were killed during this time as a result of constant russian shelling, freezing temperatures, and a lack of resources. The relentless bombardments made it almost impossible to bury the dead at the existing Yatsevo cemetery, forcing local authorities to reopen the disused Yalivshchyna cemetery. The report describes a meeting with a man whose wife had been killed by russian shelling and buried in the reopened cemetery. The original text reads:

“Now that the siege has been lifted, the city authorities asked if he wanted to rebury his wife elsewhere. ‘But what’s the point?’ said Oleksandr. He pointed around. ‘This is a great place. Right in the city, next to a birch grove. She loved birches.’”

In contrast, here is the version from Mediazona’s russian translation:

“Now that the siege was lifted, the authorities offered him to rebury his wife. ‘But what’s the point?’ Oleksandr said. He looked around the cemetery: ‘It’s such a beautiful place. Here is the city. Here is the birch grove. My wife was russian. She loved birches.’”

Upon careful review of the original report, we found no evidence suggesting that the deceased woman was russian. Where did the translator obtain this information? Was it based on additional data not included in the original text? This seems unlikely. A more plausible explanation is that the translator sought to make the character more relatable to russian readers by implying the deceased woman’s russian identity. This subtle alteration shifts the narrative focus, suggesting that not only Ukrainians but also russians are victims of the war. 

Another possibility is that the translator relied on the imperialist stereotype that birches are uniquely symbolic of russian culture. By associating a love for birch trees with “russianness,” the translator reinforces a cultural bias. Regardless of the intent, such changes distort the essence of the events, redirecting attention from the tragedy caused by russian shelling to a theme of “shared identity” between Ukrainians and russians.

Example 2: Whitewashing russians and interpreting history through an imperialistic lens 

The same report contains another instance of manipulation. This example involves the memoirs of 92-year-old Nina Rohachova, whose father died during World War II near the russian city of Smolensk. Nina, who was wounded on the second day of the invasion, was interviewed by the author in a hospital. The original report reads as follows:

“Her voice was soft, almost a whisper, but strained with rage. I leaned in to hear her. ‘My father died defending russia, and now this same russia is bombing me.’” 

In contrast, the russian version reads:

“Her voice is quiet, almost a whisper, but it is full of anger. I leaned over her to hear her better: ‘My father died in the Great Patriotic War... He was defending russia. And now russia has attacked.’” 

You will probably agree that the phrases “bombing me” and “attacked” carry different emotional connotations. The word “bombing” evokes a vivid and specific image of destruction caused by aerial attacks, whereas “attacked” has a broader and more neutral meaning, allowing for a less aggressive interpretation of russia’s actions. These changes shift the emotional tone of the account, distancing the reader from the reality of russian military crimes - such as the aerial bombardment of residential buildings in Chernihiv by russian pilots using FAB bombs.

Additionally, the introduction of the phrase “Great Patriotic War” in the russian translation reinforces the Soviet-russian framing of World War II. This phrase aligns with a propaganda narrative designed to emphasize the idea of “special russians who saved the world from Nazism.” By invoking this historical association, the translation diverts attention from the atrocities currently being committed by the russian military. 

Example 3: Shifting responsibility 

Another example of manipulation appears in a report about the village of Novyi Bykiv in the Chernihiv Region, written shortly after its liberation from russian occupation. The experiences of the villagers held captive by russian forces are described differently in the original text and the russian translation.

The original report in the American magazine reads:

“A day later, on March 30, the same commander came into the boiler room. He fired his rifle at the walls and into the air, forcing people to kneel and firing right next to them. Zanko and Tyrpak believe he was drunk; Didyk said the commander was crying. According to him, he didn’t want to do what he was going to do”.

In comparison, the russian translation states:

“A day later, on March 30, he went into the boiler room and started shooting at the walls and ceiling, ordering everyone to kneel. Zanko and Tyrpak believe he was drunk. According to Didyk, the commander was in tears — the young man believes that he didn’t want to do what was required of him”. 

In the translation, the detail about the commander firing his rifle next to the prisoners was omitted, and the phrase “what he was going to do” was replaced with “what was required of him.” These alterations have a significant impact on how the situation is perceived. By removing the description of shots fired near the prisoners, the translation reduces the sense of immediate danger and minimizes the implied threat to their lives. Similarly, changing “what he was going to do” to “what was required of him” shifts the responsibility away from the commander, suggesting that his actions were dictated by external pressures or higher orders. This adjustment diminishes the commander’s culpability, potentially framing him as a victim of a coercive system. It could even elicit sympathy from readers who might interpret his behavior as reluctantly following orders under duress. As a result, the cruelty of his actions is downplayed, and the focus is diverted from the harm inflicted on the victims. This framing may particularly influence readers inclined to excuse the actions of russian forces. 

Example 4: Reinforcing negative stereotypes of Ukrainians 

Another instance of manipulation appears in a report describing the early days of the full-scale invasion. The author began his journey in Kramatorsk, traveled through Dnipro and Kyiv, and visited the Okhmatdyt hospital, where children injured by russian shelling were being treated. In Kyiv, the journalist, Joshua Yaffa, met a woman from eastern Ukraine, whom he referred to by the pseudonym Svitlana. This was the second time she had been displaced by russian aggression.

In the original text, her statement reads:

“I’m an ethnic russian, I speak russian, and I hate russians,’ she said”. 

And in the russian translation:

“I’m an ethnic russian, I speak russian, I h-a-a-te them,’ she said”.

In the original, the phrase “I hate russians” is short and direct. However, the russian translation renders it with additional letters, stretching the statement to emphasize the character’s hatred. This alteration introduces an emotional tone that may serve to reinforce a negative perception of Svitlana in the eyes of russian readers. Such a technique appears to align with efforts to demonize Ukrainians by portraying even those with russian roots as hating everything associated with russia. Furthermore, this hatred is presented as irrational and uncontrollable. 

Example 5: Demonizing Ukrainians

Another instance from Svitlana's account illustrates a similar manipulation. In the original, she says:

“I just don’t want to live under the rule of the occupation forces. I didn’t invite them here. I don’t need to be saved.” When asked if she and her daughter had found any moments of comfort during these days, she replied: “We’re happy when we hear about new sanctions and dead russian soldiers.” 

The russian translation, however, reads:

“I don’t want to live with the occupation forces on principle,’ she explains. ‘I didn’t invite them here. I don’t need to be saved.’” When asked whether her daughter had found anything to enjoy recently, Svitlana responded: “‘Sanctions and dead russians bring us joy. I’m telling you seriously, and for the children too,’ she said.”

The translator may have had access to the author’s notes or Svitlana’s full interview, but the original text does not indicate where the phrase “I’m telling you seriously, and for the children too” came from. The emphasis on “children’s joy” at the deaths of russians appears designed to create an image of Ukrainians as “cruel” and willing to pass this cruelty on to their children. This aligns with propaganda narratives that seek to demonize Ukrainians. Furthermore, the translation focuses on the act of rejoicing in death, rather than the broader context of why people might celebrate sanctions or the number of enemy dead. 

These examples show how translations can alter the perception of characters and events, transforming their words into tools of manipulation. This is why we urge readers to carefully analyze the information they consume, particularly from russian sources — including those labeled as opposition.

Prepared by Aliona Malichenko