Research results
Dividing lines in Ukrainian society: the impact of mass discussions in social media
The deepest dividing line among Ukrainians concerns the issue of going abroad. This is evidenced by a study conducted by the NGO CAT-UA (Communication Analysis Team – Ukraine) at the request of the NGO Internews Ukraine within the project “Strengthening truthfulness, transparency and democracy to counter disinformation,” implemented with the support of the Government of Canada.
The researchers selected eight highly controversial topics from 2025 that were as different from one another as possible and examined at least 350 of the most popular posts on each topic across Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, Telegram, VK, TikTok, BlueSky and Threads.
“The study shows where tensions emerge in Ukrainian society and who is trying to intensify them. It also helps explain the causes of these critical pressure points and identify solutions that shift conflict into dialogue. At Internews Ukraine, we believe that only a society that understands its own differences is capable of overcoming them and preventing the enemy from turning them against us,” notes Kostiantyn Kvurt, Head of the Board at Internews Ukraine.
According to the study, the authorities remain the main target of criticism. At the same time, deliberate political campaigns have become the primary driver of public attention to scandals.
Overall, hate directed at social groups has decreased significantly compared to 2022.
“In Ukraine, it is unacceptable to hate residents of the eastern or western regions, or Ukrainian- or Russian-speaking people. If someone tries to speak harshly about them, they are usually ‘cancelled’ in the information space, as happened with blogger Alkhim. And there is only one group against whom hate is considered acceptable here: refugees,” says Artem Zakharchenko, Head of CAT-UA.
The topic of Ukrainian refugees
The study examined two aspects related to refugees: the government’s decision to allow young men up to the age of 22 to travel abroad, and stories about Ukrainian women refugees returning to Ukraine from other European countries.
Russian involvement in this topic was moderate and manifested itself in the form of mockery and accusations directed at all sides of the debate. However, many female authors complained that Russian bots appeared in their comments whenever they stated their intention to return to Ukraine.
The topic was also used by the opposition to criticise the government. Such information activity amplified the natural dividing line between people who make different life choices, prioritising either patriotic or personal considerations.
The role of pro-Russian accounts
Pro-Russian public pages targeting a Ukrainian audience were actively present in at least six out of eight scandal-related topics.
Pro-Russian accounts generally do not select messages that are clear or interesting to Ukrainians. However, in the military sphere, they still try to use messages that are already present in Ukraine’s information space, including those voiced by the military themselves: about incompetent leadership, failed mobilisation and unsuccessful military policy.
The highest share of pro-Russian communication was observed in the topic of the “сardboard protests”: over 37% of audience reach was generated by pro-Russian sources. It should be noted, however, that a significant part of the audience of these public pages, which present themselves as Ukrainian, are in fact Russians. In this topic, they worked in two directions at once: to discredit both the protesters and the authorities. They rejoiced at the protests and openly declared their support for destabilisation in Ukraine. Separately, pro-Russian lobbyists also focused on the absence of similar protests against the Territorial Recruitment Centres (TRCs).
Overall, pro-Russian authors, like pro-Ukrainian ones, mostly focus on political topics and hardly stir up others. In these topics, they promote their narrative about the failure of the Ukrainian state. Meanwhile, Russian influence networks put very little effort into fuelling social issues and have almost stopped paying attention even to the topic of LGBT rights, around which discussions unfolded in the scandal related to the Ukrainian Catholic University.
Overall attention to conflicts
In 2025, deliberate political campaigns became the main driver of public attention to scandals. The topics that gain wide reach are those that at least one political force decides to “boost” through its own channels. The most visible forces with the greatest communication capacity are:
- The network of supporters of P. Poroshenko;
- A group of channels and experts acting on behalf of the Office of the President;
- A pool of pro-Russian accounts in Ukraine;
- The anti-corruption community.
When at least one of these forces joins in amplifying accusations on a given topic, leading media outlets, news channels and supposedly “independent” top bloggers often follow suit.
At the same time, as before, each discussion deepens not just one but several dividing lines. Once a dispute begins, it immediately triggers people who are dissatisfied not only with the direct subject of the conflict, but also with other social groups or institutions. On the one hand, this makes society more fragmented. On the other, it brings mutual grievances to the surface and creates a chance to overcome them.
“It is also noticeable that, in most discussions, there is no systematic expression of understanding of the opponent’s position: they remain quite irreconcilable. Such understanding is demonstrated somewhat more often by the military and by the young intellectual audience,” adds Artem Zakharchenko.
Interestingly, in many topics there are those who “hate the haters”. In other words, the targets of criticism become those who fuel conflicts instead of focusing on supporting the Defence Forces, especially when they attack socially trusted figures such as volunteers.
The authors of the study recommend:
- Establish an institution responsible for social cohesion. It should develop unifying narratives that all sides of a debate can agree with, and encourage participants to demonstrate an understanding of their opponents’ positions. Hate speech should be considered unacceptable, and it should be promoted as a rule of thumb that criticism must target specific individuals who have acted wrongly or harmfully, rather than entire social groups.
- Hostility and the visible Russian influence in military-related topics can only be overcome by creating a new strategic narrative. The reset of the country’s leadership has opened a window of opportunity to introduce such a narrative.
- The focus of Russian actors on discrediting the authorities should be discussed openly. It is Kremlin propaganda that pushes the messages that a) it is the authorities, not the Russians, who are to blame for all Ukrainians’ problems, and b) that people should stop listening to the government and agree to Russia’s demands. More broadly, Russia’s desire to inflame internal Ukrainian conflicts should become common knowledge. In Ukraine, the obvious Russian goal of dividing society remains insufficiently communicated, including on the topics of Territorial Recruitment Centres and refugees.
- The most important priority should be overcoming dividing lines between those who left the country and those who stayed.