“My 3-year-old ends her day by singing the anthem” Ukraine’s Information Minister Yuri Stets discusses the iArmy

The Ukrainian government has launched a project called the Information Forces. The goal is to develop a network of Ukrainian Internet users who will confront Russian propaganda. On the very first day of the project, some registered users received a letter with instructions on how to create bots for information warfare. In a special report for Meduza, Ekaterina Sergatskova spoke to Ukraine’s Minister of Information Policy Yuri Stets about the iArmy and his new ministry’s other initiatives.

Stets was one of the founders and general producers of Ukraine’s Channel Five, and was elected three times to the Verkhovna Rada (first in 2007 with the bloc Our Ukraine, again in 2012 with Fatherland, and most recently in 2014 with Bloc Poroshenko). He is also a distant relative of Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine’s current president. During the summer, Stets started establishing information-management battalions for the Ukrainian National Guard. In early December, he announced the creation of a special ministry that would manage counter-propaganda and handle information protected by the state.

— You’ve created the "Information Forces of Ukraine." Can you explain why?

— Four weeks ago, I said the Internet and social networks are crucial tools for the delivery of information. That is where a lot of false or unconfirmed information is spread about the events taking place in the eastern part of the country. The Internet and social networks are spaces that require unconventional solutions. One of the solutions we’ve seen is the ability to create an online platform on which we can place information for people to distribute.

Additionally, we will refute false claims. For example, when we see the Russian intelligence services launching more false information, we need a tool to refute those claims quickly, before they can spread. One example was the story of the "crucified boy.” (In July 2014, the Russian state TV network Channel One aired an interview with a woman claiming to be a refugee from Slovyansk who said she witnessed Ukrainian soldiers crucify a young boy.) If we’d had an information platform back then, we could have quickly debunked that story.

— If the story of the "crucified boy" took place now, how would you react to it?

— This is how it would work: Using automatic monitoring, the information would go to our analysts. We’d check this information, and if it’s not true, we’d publish a refutation with evidence.

— Why should readers trust your “Information Forces?”

— Trust or distrust depends on credible information. My task is to make sure ours is credible. If we spread the truth and journalists confirm it, there will be a rebirth of trust, something the authorities currently lack. We see that people trust reporters and the Church, but not the Verkhovna Rada or the president’s cabinet. My goal is to regain their trust, and I’m going to do it by trying to get the truth out there. If we do not redeem the credibility of the state inside and outside of the country, our state will have a major problem.

— And are the National Security Council and staff of the Anti-Terrorist Operation willing to provide you with accurate information to distribute?

— It’s like this: I have a month to work on this project. If after one month I feel I was unable to convey to every state agency that they need to tell the truth, there could only be two explanations: either I was ineffective and I lied to the public, or the state agencies gave me false information, after I told them I wanted the truth. This would mean the state is incapable of change, at which point I’d need to decide if I’m prepared to work within such a system. If they don’t listen to me, or if I fail to speak the truth, I’ll leave public service. For me, a situation like that would be unacceptable.

— The iArmy website encourages people to register, and then when they do, you send them messages with tasks and instructions on how to create and use bots...

— Yes, you’re talking about the resources that appeared in screenshots with this information. Thirty minutes after that message went out, I gathered the people who work on this and asked for an explanation. I consider the bots idea to be unacceptable and completely out of the question. Whoever was responsible for it must be held accountable. If this story is true, the person who sent the message will be dismissed immediately.

— Who is working on your team?

— Unfortunately, there are now only three people officially working in the Ministry: myself and two deputy ministers, as well as some administrative staff. Before this appointment, Deputy Minister Tanya Popova was an advisor to the Ministry of Defense, where she helped reform the Ministry’s work with journalists. This entailed the restoration of Ukrainian broadcasting in the occupied territories, attempts to enable journalists to get information from primary sources, the implementation of a program to embed journalists in military units, issuing press cards to allow quick passage through checkpoints, and improving overall security for reporters. My other deputy, Artem Bidenko, is acting chief of staff. He’s charged with organizing the work of our new Ministry. We’ll also be bringing on another deputy minister to focus on European integration.

— Can you explain what it means to "protect the information rights of citizens residing in the territory of the Anti-Terrorist Operation," which is listed among your tasks?

— The Constitution says every person has the right to information. Ensuring this right is also the task of our ministry. We’re working to give Ukrainian journalists the opportunity to be heard. To do this, we need to restore the broadcasts and establish the logistics of delivering information from the Ukrainian press.

— There were reports that one of your deputies would be Sergei Loiko, a correspondent from the LA Times. Why did he end up refusing to work with you?

— He didn’t refuse. The truth is that I offered him the post of deputy minister, but because of his commitments to the LA Times he could not combine the two jobs. He would have needed to terminate his contract with the newspaper and accept Ukrainian citizenship. But we’re still planning to work with him, once we find a way. On February 27, he should be here [in Kiev], and we’ll discuss possibilities. He’ll be an official advisor on a voluntary basis, unless it violates his LA Times contract or interferes with his day job. If it does interfere, he’ll just be a consultant.

— Can we expect initiatives from your office that would restrict or even prohibit the work of Russian media outlets?

— That’s already happened.

— Yes, but that initiative—the legislation to strip 100 Russian media outlets of accreditation at state institutions—came from the Verkhovna Rada [not the Information Policy Ministry].

— Yes, but my opinion on this matter is unequivocal. I’ve served on the committee for freedom of speech and information, and I’ve said before that I don’t see how several Russian media outlets can continue to operate in our country. These publications—they’re not the media; they’re the propaganda wing of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB). I don’t understand how representatives of the aggressor can be allowed operate inside Ukraine. This is unacceptable.

— Nevertheless, the Russian side has yet to ban any Ukrainian media.

— I don’t care what the Russian side does. I think this country is an aggressor. Representatives of this country are killing my fellow citizens.

— LifeNews and Vesti-24 continue to broadcast on the Internet.

— Well, the Internet is a free space. It’s impossible to ban anything there. So far, only China has managed it.

— Russia is working on it, too.

— Once again, I'm not interested in Russia. I wish the Russians health and happiness, if they want to believe their lies. Ukraine has adopted a policy of banning the transmission of Russian television stations, and I fully support it. On the Internet, this can’t be done, because it is technically impossible.

— In Russia, there is the state-run media watchdog Roskomnadzor, which deals with the regulation of the Internet.

— That’s just impossible here. How can we regulate the Internet?

— The Ministry of Information Policy was created out of spite for Russia...

— It wasn’t created out of spite. It was created to provide information security for Ukraine. We haven’t had anything like this in 24 years. Unfortunately, many journalists read Orwell, but never read Churchill, and that's the problem. When the UK created the Ministry of Information during World War II, many journalists feared it would become a Ministry of Censorship and were opposed. But the the ministry’s effectiveness won them over. I'm going to do the same. Do I understand that there may be such fears? Yes, I do. Does this mean that I have to do everything possible to refute these fears? Yes, it does.

— You didn’t let me finish. What I meant to say is that in Russia, they conceal the fact that they engage in information warfare. They don’t have any specific ministry for this.

— How is that so? They have special departments within the FSB.

— But those aren’t public organizations.

— But they’re officially known facts. Once again, the Ministry of Information’s charter doesn’t contain a single word about propaganda. The fact that people say otherwise doesn’t mean it’s true. Moreover, one of the safeguards preventing any attacks on free speech is the stipulation that the Ministry has no right to infringe on the freedom of speech.

— Could Ukraine eventually have its own channel like Russia Today or Vesti-24?

— No. I won’t be the one to do it, at any rate. Look, I am 39-years-old, a three-term member of parliament, and I served as head of the Committee for Freedom of Information under Yanukovych. I created Channel Five. This is what I have at stake politically. Would I try to create a Ukrainian Vesti-24? No, because I understand what’s at stake. You’d have to be crazy to try something like that, after everything that’s happened in this country. Could it be that they might try to use me to do create such a thing? Perhaps. But I’d resign the instant that ever happened. I told the president and prime minister this when we discussed the creation of this ministry.

— In this aggressive information space, it would be very easy to replace you.

— No. How could they find a substitute for me?

— An army of bots would help, for example.

— Look, there’s a story that you’re welcome to interpret as my official comment as minister. When this episode took place in December at Inter [a Ukrainian TV channel aired I’ll Be Home for New Year’s, a Russian film starring several actors declared persona non grata in Ukraine for supporting Russia’s so-called “war of aggression” in the east], I said Inter and other stations weren’t breaking a single clause of Ukraine’s laws on information. But I promised to reform the laws on persona non grata to deny them the right of appearing on TV stations registered in Ukraine. Does this mean I’m advocating censorship? No, because it’s the Verkhova Rada’s right to adopt or reject such laws. If accepted, it will be the law and I will implement it. I will not act outside the law.

— Is it possible we’ll one day see legislation that would prohibit, for example, broadcasting statements by anyone who’s officially considered to be a terrorist, like the heads of the Donetsk People’s Republic and Lugansk People’s Republic, the leaders of "Novorossiya”?

— If such legislation is passed by the Verkhovna Rada, the executive branch will observe it, like all citizens.

— Do you think it’s alright to ban them from broadcasts?

— When it comes to news and information programs, it wouldn’t be alright. It’s impossible for one simple reason: if you don’t show any statements made by a persona non grata, the audience won’t understand the issues with these individuals. It would be foolish to keep this from them.

— And what kinds of programs would it be okay to restrict?

— I don’t understand how we can broadcast content that promotes, for example, Russia's armed forces. I oppose airing anything like this—TV shows or films—in Ukraine. Espresso TV received an official warning from the government for broadcasting comments by Putin. It may be very unpopular on my part to say that this was a mistake by the state. But I took this position because I don’t see how people will understand that Putin lies without showing them the stupid things he says.

— And there was the case of Savik Shuster, whose show was shut down because he invited Russian journalist Maxim Shevchenko on-air. Do you think that was wrong?

— I’ve asked for a meeting with the leaders of the National Council for Radio and Television, to hear their explanation for this decision. Once this happens, I’ll draw my own conclusions. Where is the boundary of censorship? For example, let’s say there’s a talk show where experts are discussing forms of government, and one of says there’s such a thing as a federal system. Would it be against the law? No. But if one of these experts starts advocating the federalization of the Ukrainian state, I would consider it an attempt to undermine the government’s sovereignty. This is the boundary, and yes it’s a fine line. But I will try to make sure the line doesn’t move.

— You’ve announced the launch of a TV channel called “Ukrainian Tomorrow.” The name brings to mind the English-language TV channel “Ukraine Today,” created by Igor Kolomoisky, as well as “Russia Today.” Which will it more closely resemble?

— God forbid [it be like Russia Today]. We have a completely different mission. It’s important to understand that RT is pure propaganda, and I’m not interested in that. 1+1 Media Group [one of the largest media conglomerates in Ukraine, which Stets accused of a lack of patriotism in February] is a private company. My job is to make the truth about Ukraine known in the world, and to make sure that this channel improves our country’s public image. This isn’t just about political programming, either. Aside from political news, I want people to know about our great culture, our vacation spots, our history, our various ethnicities, and much more.

— As so this TV channel has to become the country’s main mouthpiece?

— I don’t like the word “mouthpiece.”

— Do you think that it’s necessary to broadcast this channel to people in the occupied territories?

— First we need to launch some Ukrainian channels there, beginning with Pershyi Natsionalnyi [“First National,” Ukraine’s state-run television channel], which I hope will become public television later this year. My mission is to give people the chance to listen to Ukrainian journalists.

— And how will you inform Russians about what’s happening?

— Can I win over people older than 60? I don’t think so. Is it worth trying to win over an old woman who says she saw an American helicopter [aiding Ukrainian troops]? No, because she’s lying. She couldn’t have seen it. Winning her over needed to happen 24 years ago. Today, I fight for the future generation of young people in the east.

I don’t like when the people in the east trample on my country’s flag, and honestly I do like it when, in the west, people rise to their feet and sing, when the national anthem is played. My youngest daughter is three. She starts her day with a prayer and ends it by singing the anthem. This is what I want for the entire country. Is that so wrong?