Vladyslav Novikov on OSINT, Russian Propaganda, and Ukraine’s AI Needs

Vladyslav Novikov is a Ukrainian journalist, investigator, and broadcaster with 24 Channel whose work focuses on open-source intelligence, digital evidence preservation, and Russian information operations. He is the creator of the Alabuga Case Archive, a project documenting the online promotion and recruitment activities of Alabuga Polytech, an institution linked to Russia’s drone-production ecosystem. Through large-scale analysis of social media content, archived videos, and promotional networks, Novikov examines sanctions loopholes, propaganda, and wartime recruitment.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Vladyslav Novikov discuss the emotional transformation caused by Russia’s full-scale invasion, explaining how war reshaped his journalism, relationships, and sense of feeling. Speaking with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, he emphasizes Ukraine’s need for continued access to AI, semiconductors, and advanced technologies. Novikov also examines Russian propaganda, Storm-1516-style influence operations, and the importance of better coordination among Ukrainian OSINT researchers, journalists, institutions, and civil society projects documenting wartime truth.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Mental health has become a major topic among journalists internationally. Two of the most recent national conferences for Canadian journalists included discussions about mental health, and similar conversations have taken place in Ukraine.

Globally, journalists are being harassed, threatened, defamed, imprisoned, and killed at alarming rates. Speaking not only as a journalist but also as someone engaged in open-source intelligence research, which is a particularly specialized field, do you find yourself emotionally affected by the things you encounter?

Do you experience distress or emotional difficulties as a result of this work?

Vladyslav Novikov: Are you asking how I feel while doing this work?

Jacobsen: Yes. For example, a friend of mine documents the war through photography and social media. On one occasion, he arrived at a recently bombed site and encountered an entire family that had been killed.

Experiences like that naturally provoke strong emotions. In your case, do you encounter things that affect you emotionally, or does the nature of your work create more distance from those experiences?

Novikov: I think, Scott, when this war began, I experienced a great deal of negative emotion.

The war affected every part of my life. It disrupted my career, my relationships, and my emotional and psychological well-being.

When the full-scale invasion started and I felt the impact of all those things, I decided that I needed to do something as a journalist. I took a camera and went toward the front lines to document what was happening.

After everything I experienced during that period, I think something changed in me emotionally.

I do not feel things in quite the same way that I did before the war. That applies to both positive and negative emotions.

Now I focus on doing what I believe needs to be done. I continue my work and try to contribute in whatever way I can.

Of course, I hope the war ends soon. I genuinely hope that it does. I cannot say it will happen soon, but I hope for it.

In the meantime, I know that I need to do what I can. I am a journalist, and that means continuing to do the work that I believe is necessary.

So I wouldn’t say I focus on my feelings. I focus on the work, while hoping that one day the war will end.

Jacobsen: If you were speaking directly to decision-makers and opinion leaders in Washington, what would you want them to understand about this stage of the war? You are speaking not only as a journalist but also as someone who has conducted a substantial open-source intelligence investigation. What trends have you identified? What recurring patterns or activities have you found? And what do Western analysts get wrong?

Novikov: I do not think the issue is primarily with Western intelligence. I think it is more about Western democracy.

In my view, one of the major vulnerabilities of democratic societies is their openness. At the same time, I want to emphasize that many journalists, researchers, and analysts in the United States, Europe, and other Western countries are doing excellent work. They deserve recognition for their efforts.

The same is true of the technology sector. Ukraine relies heavily on technologies developed in the United States and Europe. That support has been extremely important.

Ukraine is defending democratic principles, and because of that, support should not be viewed only in terms of weapons, ammunition, or financial assistance. Technological support is equally important.

I think we are entering a new era defined by artificial intelligence and advanced technologies. Governments often focus on bullets, missiles, and conventional weapons, but I believe that access to semiconductors, manufacturing capabilities, AI technologies, and advanced computing will become increasingly decisive.

Whoever leads in those technologies will have significant advantages not only in conventional warfare but also in information warfare and intelligence gathering.

So if I had to identify one major message, it would be that Ukraine needs continued access to advanced technologies, including AI.

Jacobsen: What do Western analysts and intelligence researchers get right? Where do the findings of Ukrainian professionals align with what Western researchers are discovering about Russian activities and conduct during the war?

Novikov: One area of strong alignment is the documentation of Russian propaganda and disinformation.

As a journalist, I see Russian propaganda as a major problem.

For example, Bloomberg reported on a Russian influence operation on X, formerly Twitter, known as Storm-1516. That is a useful example of how Russia uses information operations not only against Ukraine but also against audiences in the United States and Europe.

The goal is often not to persuade people of one specific narrative. Instead, it is to flood the information environment with large volumes of misleading or false claims.

People encounter stories alleging that President Zelenskyy is selling weapons, purchasing luxury cars, buying property abroad, or engaging in other forms of misconduct. These claims circulate constantly.

The volume of information itself becomes part of the strategy.

As a result, many people struggle to distinguish credible from false information.

I think Russian propaganda and disinformation campaigns remain one of the most significant challenges facing democratic societies.

For me personally, documenting and exposing those activities is another important part of my work. I cannot eliminate propaganda on my own, but I can contribute to efforts that challenge it.

Jacobsen: This raises an important question. What have open-source intelligence researchers within Ukraine gotten wrong? Are there cases where researchers believed they had reached the correct conclusion but later discovered they were mistaken and had to revise their assessments?

Novikov: I think there are many talented people in Ukraine doing impressive work with technology and artificial intelligence.

However, one challenge is that many projects operate in isolation. People often work independently and do not communicate enough with journalists, researchers, government institutions, or law enforcement agencies.

One example is a project called Stars About War. Only two people created it.

The project examines statements made by Russian public figures, artists, and celebrities regarding the war. Many Ukrainians are familiar with Russian music, films, and cultural figures. People may enjoy an artist’s work but have no idea what that person has said about the war.

The project helps users answer that question by collecting and organizing publicly available information.

I mention this example because it demonstrates how much can be accomplished by a very small team. Two people created a resource that many Ukrainians now use.

At the same time, it also illustrates a broader challenge. Many people in Ukraine want to contribute, build projects, and solve problems. Still, they are often uncertain about how to scale their work, coordinate with institutions, or transform a useful project into something with broader impact.

Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free

That’s one area where improvement is possible. There is a great deal of initiative and talent, but there could be more cooperation, coordination, and knowledge-sharing among researchers, journalists, institutions, and civil society organizations.

Even so, the fact that people continue trying to build these projects and contribute despite the circumstances is extremely important.

Jacobsen: Is there anything that would be too risky for you to research? For example, are there subjects where you could potentially face legal consequences or other serious risks for investigating them?

Vladyslav Novikov: Do you mean in Ukraine?

Jacobsen: Well, given the work you are doing on Russia, you are probably already viewed negatively by Russian authorities. I was thinking more about risks within Ukraine.

For example, Ukraine has institutions such as the SBU, NABU, SAPO, and other anti-corruption bodies. Corruption has decreased over time, but it remains an issue. Investigating powerful individuals or sensitive corruption cases could potentially create risks. Are there areas of research that would be particularly dangerous or inadvisable to pursue?

Novikov: I do not think that this kind of work would create legal problems for me in Ukraine.

The SBU, the police, and other institutions generally understand that journalists and researchers are working toward the same broad goal. We all want Ukraine to survive, defend itself, and ultimately end the war.

If government institutions were to review my work, I do not believe they would find that I had violated any laws.

Of course, there are always risks associated with investigative journalism, but I do not see my current work as creating legal problems within Ukraine.

Jacobsen: I should probably call it a day.

Novikov: Yes, of course. Thank you, Scott, for the interview and for your work. Thank you for listening to me and for your questions.

Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Vladyslav.

—

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is a Writer-Editor for The Good Men Project with more than 1,900 publications on the platform. He is the Founder and Publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343; 978-1-0673505) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN, 0018-7399; Online: ISSN, 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), Humanist Perspectives (ISSN: 1719-6337), A Further Inquiry (SubStack), Vocal, Medium, The New Enlightenment Project, The Washington Outsider, rabble.ca, and other media. His bibliography index can be found via the Jacobsen Bank at In-Sight Publishing comprised of more than 10,000 articles, interviews, and republications, in more than 200 outlets. He has served in national and international leadership roles within humanist and media organizations, held several academic fellowships, and currently serves on several boards. He is a member in good standing in numerous media organizations, including the Canadian Association of Journalists, PEN Canada (CRA: 88916 2541 RR0001), and Reporters Without Borders (SIREN: 343 684 221/SIRET: 343 684 221 00041/EIN: 20-0708028), and others.