United24 Media emerged as a wartime tool at a moment when Ukraine needed not only to report on the war but to defend its information space against a flood of Russian disinformation. The media project grew out of the UNITED24 initiative, launched by presidential decree in May 2022 as a global platform for fundraising and international communication. In July 2022, the Ministry of Digital Transformation officially announced the creation of an English-language digital outlet under the UNITED24 brand—“to tell the world about Ukraine through the eyes of Ukrainians” and serve as a stable external source of information about the war and the country. In the first months of the full-scale invasion, this structure fulfilled a clear and rational function as a “shield”: debunking blatant fabrications, conveying basic facts, and providing context on Russian aggression to those who followed the war primarily through English-language media. At a time when Western audiences faced both open Kremlin propaganda and fatigue with Ukraine coverage, a centralized channel offering verifiable data and transparent sourcing was not an anomaly but part of a normal strategy for a state defending itself against external aggression.
That original framework remains explicitly reflected in the outlet’s editorial policy. United24 Media declares its commitment to accuracy and fact-checking but also emphasizes that “balance does not mean giving a platform to internationally recognized enemies of human rights and democracy,” defining its audience as “the people of Ukraine and friends of Ukraine.” In other words, it is not a universal socio-political publication obliged to represent the full range of domestic debate around the authorities, but rather a specialized instrument of external communication serving Ukrainian interests. Such a mandate predetermines the direction: the platform’s mission is to explain, defend, and amplify Ukraine’s position, not to reproduce the diversity of internal political discourse.
Substantively, this is reflected above all in the structure of its sections. The anti-fake segment and related materials focus on dismantling Russian narratives—from “private Putin armies” in Europe to detailed analyses of social media disinformation, revisionist accounts of the war’s causes, and attempts to discredit Ukrainian refugees. Here, external threats are consistently unpacked—Russian propaganda, conspiracy theories among allies, manipulations over sanctions and aid. Against this backdrop, United24 Media was and remains widely perceived as one of the key filters through which Western audiences can separate facts from deliberate distortions.
Over time, the platform’s role expanded: beyond countering disinformation, it began to serve as a reputational buffer for the Ukrainian government—relying not on slogans but on formal, verifiable arguments. A telling example came with accusations that Zelenskyy was “ungrateful” toward the United States: in response, United24 Media published a tally of his public appearances and statements, demonstrating that the president had repeatedly thanked the American public and politicians for their support. While still within the bounds of fact-checking, the effect was clear—it neutralized or softened a negative narrative about the head of state and projected an image of a predictable, responsible partner abroad.
The same logic applies to coverage of corruption. One of the outlet’s most prominent Anti-Fake articles argues that the frequency of corruption scandals in Ukraine is not a sign of systemic decay but proof that the country’s anti-corruption infrastructure actually works. The piece explains in detail how NABU, SAPO, and the specialized anti-corruption court operate, citing case numbers, rulings, and international assessments. As a result, a potentially toxic topic is reframed into an argument in favor of Ukrainian institutions—and, indirectly, of those who politically support them. United24 Media does not fabricate data but consistently selects angles that showcase institutional functionality.
The same mechanisms are visible in larger thematic campaigns. The 2025 initiative “Russian culture distracts from Russian crimes” targeted European elites and the cultural sector, arguing that Russian art must be viewed through the lens of imperial policy and the ongoing war. In public statements and campaign materials, the outlet maintained that without such a critical filter, cultural engagement risks softening the perception of the aggressor. This is an example of United24 Media not merely reacting to narratives but actively setting moral and political frames for allies—again positioning itself as both a defender of Ukrainian interests and a gatekeeper of what topics are deemed legitimate.
At the same time, the platform itself has become a target of attacks. Russian channels have repeatedly circulated fake videos and reports under the United24 Media brand—including fabricated stories about alleged corruption-linked deployments of Ukrainian soldiers abroad or fictitious mobilization decrees. These forgeries were later debunked by the Center for Countering Disinformation and other specialized outlets, which noted that misuse of the UNITED24 label was designed to erode trust in the platform and in Ukraine’s official narrative. The very fact of such attacks underscores its significance: for Russia, this is a channel with real influence on how the world perceives Ukraine.
For part of the international audience, United24 Media has effectively become the main window into Ukrainian reality. Its English- and Spanish-language formats, direct association with official institutions, and frequent citation by Western outlets mean that many readers in Europe and the United States perceive events through this filtered lens. The coverage largely focuses on stories of resilience, reform, cultural identity, and international support, while controversial policy decisions, divisive reforms, or painful domestic issues appear only rarely—and often in softened, explanatory form. As a result, this portrayal of Ukraine contains few sharp edges related to the actions of the president or his office, instead forming a consistent narrative of a responsible country deserving continued support.
Against this backdrop, another layer of reality nearly disappears for the United24 Media reader—the investigations by Ukrainian journalists into wartime corruption, procurement abuses, forced mobilization, or pressure on independent outlets. These reports exist both in Ukraine’s media space and in parts of the international press, yet within United24 Media they rarely receive further development. In the English-language showcase through which much of the foreign audience understands Ukraine, internal scandals and criticisms of the authorities fall outside the frame of attention.
This editorial design also has an internal effect. Although United24 Media is aimed at an international audience, its materials circulate domestically—through reposts, social media, and citations by officials. As a result, a channel originally conceived as external begins indirectly shaping internal perception: it gives almost no reason to associate domestic problems directly with the president or his office, thus reducing the amount of negative interpretations legitimized by an “official” English-language source.
Examining coverage of topics most sensitive for domestic audiences—mobilization, winter preparedness, high-profile personnel decisions—a clear pattern emerges. The outlet covers Russia’s practices and failures in detail and with critical nuance: punitive battalions, coercive mobilization, civilian repression. Ukrainian mobilization policy, by contrast, appears mainly in explanatory formats—analyses of legal changes, arguments for necessity, and emphasis on digital solutions through “Diia” and other tech services. Similarly, energy coverage focuses on the aftermath of Russian strikes and reconstruction efforts, while debates about preparedness or management accountability are much less visible. These texts do not read as propaganda, yet they consistently reproduce the reasoning of official institutions and leave little space for critical debate. This logic is especially evident in concrete cases: the decision to strip Odesa mayor Hennadiy Trukhanov of citizenship—a move that sparked serious legal controversy—appears in international and Ukrainian media but never as a standalone analytical story on United24 Media; there, Trukhanov mainly appears as a commentator on Russian attacks. Likewise, investigations into defense-sector corruption or pressure on parts of the Ukrainian press are actively covered by independent outlets but are scarcely integrated into United24 Media’s narrative. The selection of topics does not distort facts but narrows the field of vision to those storylines that sustain trust in the central government and avoid friction with external allies.
Technically and institutionally, the platform is embedded within the ecosystem of United24 and the Ministry of Digital Transformation: it relies on state digital infrastructure, collaborates with ambassadors linked to the fundraising arm of the initiative, and simultaneously invites donations and partnerships to support its own newsroom. The model resembles a public-diplomacy service—a media outlet formally separate from the state budget but operating within the same orbit as government institutions, serving strategic purposes such as maintaining alliances, reinforcing the image of a responsible partner, and conducting counter-propaganda.
Taken together, United24 Media remains exactly what it declared itself to be at the outset: Ukraine’s instrument on the information front of the war. In the first months of the full-scale invasion, this instrument was critically necessary—as a channel that swiftly neutralized disinformation and filled the vacuum of knowledge about a country under global scrutiny. Over time, that basic function evolved into a more refined form of reputational management: shielding the president and his office from external criticism, translating complex issues into the language of institutional optimism, and minimizing the visibility of domestic conflicts or investigations within the “official” English-language mirror. This does not diminish the value of United24 Media as a source on the war and Russian aggression, but it does call for awareness: what we see is not a panoramic portrait of Ukrainian reality, but a carefully curated view of it—one in which negativity is almost always directed outward, while domestic politics and government missteps remain largely out of frame by design.