Russian influence in social media, panic over Kursk and a long way for Ukrainian independence

Brian Bonner: Hello, everybody. It’s late August. It’s a beautiful day in Kyiv and an ugly war. We are only days away from Ukraine’s 33rd Independence Day, and a third of those years have been spent at war. We come to you as Ukraine is fighting. We are advancing in Russia, and Russia is advancing in Ukraine. That is how crazy and horrible this war is.

There are also other aspects to the war besides the military fighting. There is the informational war and the media wars. Fortunately, I have a walking encyclopedia on all things Ukraine in the studio. Yes, the professor is in the studio. Marty Dyczok, welcome.

Marta Dyczok: Thank you so much for having me, Brian. It’s great to be here and see this wonderful studio and see you again.

Brian Bonner: Well, you had a lot to do with it. Regular listeners of Ukraine Calling will remember Marta as the original host of this program. She launched it in 2016 and did 124 episodes. I think now, all said and done, we’re approaching 180 episodes, and hopefully, we’ll continue for a lot longer.

Marta Dyczok: Absolutely, for sure.

Ukraine, not “the Ukraine”

Brian Bonner: And Marta, of course, is a prolific writer. She’s a professor at Western University in London, Ontario, a Ukrainian-Canadian daughter of World War II immigrants, and has studied Ukraine a lot. She also has an unusual vacation habit: she comes to Ukraine to do research when other people are at the beach. But Marta, how’s your trip been going?

Marta Dyczok: It’s fascinating to be here. I follow Ukrainian events very closely from Canada. Coming here, I wish I were on a beach, but this is much better because I can see what’s happening from the inside. It’s such a different perspective because when I wake up in the morning, I read the news. Of course, the news covers how many times Russia has attacked, how many people have been killed, and so on.

Here, I wake up, and it’s a beautiful sunny day because it’s summer. People are walking on the streets, going to work, drinking coffee, having meetings, and doing radio shows. I see the diversity of life in a way that I don’t see from the perspective in Canada.

Brian Bonner: Life goes on until it doesn’t. We want to talk about a lot of things today, and one of them is your upcoming book, «Ukraine, Not the Ukraine.» Please tell us about this because it sounds fascinating.

Marta Dyczok: Thank you. I can’t wait for this book. It’s just about to come out with Cambridge University Press. It’s a short book, part of a new series. They are designed to present complicated ideas to a large audience. So it’s moving away from the ivory tower and reaching out to society. In my case, I’m writing about Ukraine, not the Ukraine.

I chose that title because so many people keep saying «the Ukraine,» and I correct them. The reason they say it is because they were taught history in a way that suggests Ukraine is part of Russia, which is precisely what Putin is saying. But that’s not true because the history shows that Ukraine is much older than Russia if you go back far enough.

Brian Bonner: So you’re aiming this book at people who don’t know much about Ukraine.

Marta Dyczok: It’s for the general reader.

Brian Bonner: And that’s why it’s important.

Marta Dyczok: So, my target audience is my undergraduate students, people who read The Economist, or those getting on a plane and looking for something interesting to read.

Brian Bonner: Great. How long did it take you to write?

Marta Dyczok: Well, that’s a good question. It’s only 70 pages long, and I thought it wouldn’t take very long to write. But it took a year because condensing a thousand years of history into 30,000 words is harder than I imagined.

Brian Bonner: Oh, yeah, that’s the hardest kind of writing and editing.

Marta Dyczok: I’m really pleased with it. I focused on people to make it an interesting story and slightly reframed the chronology. The people you’ll meet in my book are Prince Yaroslav the Wise, rock star President Volodymyr Zelensky, and my former PhD student Max Vyazhnsev, who was offered a postdoc at Harvard after he finished his PhD. Then Russia invaded, and he signed up to fight.

I’m still in touch with him, so he’s in my book along with many others, like Stepan Bandera, Mykhailo Hrushevsky, Maria Burmaka, the singer, and various other interesting characters. They are the heroes of the story, which covers what happened on Ukrainian territory over the past thousand years. The focus is on Ukraine and its relations with neighbors and the world.

It’s reframing and decolonizing the way history is often taught. Typically, Russian history is presented with Ukraine as a part of it, shifting the focus to Ukraine plus the rest. This trend has been intensifying since Russia’s war escalated. Many people are decolonizing the field.

A professor in Australia, Mark Edele, set up a series on decolonizing and asked different people to write books on various topics. He approached me to write this one on Ukraine, and I can’t wait for it to be finished.

How did Ukraine become independent?

Brian Bonner: I’m looking forward to it. It’s going to be called “Ukraine, Not the Ukraine.” I think it has the potential to be a big seller because, coming from America, there is still a lot of interest but not a lot of knowledge about Ukraine. I’ve been reading your travelogue on Facebook, and you’ve met a lot of people already this month in Kyiv. But before we dive into that, you were here for the first Independence Day on August 24, 1991. Can you reminisce with us about that?

Marta Dyczok: Yes, it feels like my life is one big serendipity. I came to the Soviet Union to do research for my doctorate at Oxford on Ukrainian World War II refugees. I wanted to look at archives and interview any survivors.

I arrived in March 1991, and the Soviet Union was shaking. I thought, «I can’t sit in the archives; there’s something happening around me.» So I contacted The Guardian and asked if they wanted a reporter in Kyiv. After some back and forth, they agreed to try me.

That’s how I ended up in Kyiv on August 24, 1991, in parliament [the Verkhovna Rada]. Nobody knew what would happen. There’s an amazing documentary series by Oleksandr Zinchenko for Suspilne Television, Ukraine’s public broadcaster, documenting events from August 19 to August 20, with each episode covering one day. He found original footage and interviewed many people, including the first president, [Leonid] Kravchuk, the first security minister, [Yevhen] Marchuk, journalists, myself, politicians, and analysts. He captured the uncertainty that I remember.

The coup had failed in Moscow, but no one knew what was happening. Moscow still controlled the army, nuclear weapons, and the money. All the levers of power were still in Moscow, not in Kyiv. We were aware that tanks could come here at any time. The other thing was that the majority of Parliament were communists, so how were they going to vote for Ukrainian independence? Leonid Kravchuk, who was the speaker, had been the ideology chief for the Communist Party of Ukraine and had fought against nationalism. It was uncertain because the Democrats didn’t have the votes; they had 125 seats in a 450-seat parliament.

Their task was to convince the communists to vote for independence, and Kravchuk managed the whole thing. It wasn’t clear what would happen, but then the historic moment came. The vote took place, and they voted for independence. It was this feeling.

Brian Bonner: Who do you give credit to? Was Kravchuk really a sly fox? Because that’s how he’s portrayed in some histories.

Marta Dyczok: He was a very astute politician. At the time, he wasn’t very popular. In the documentary series I watched, I was reminded that people were protesting in the streets, shouting, «Out with Kravchuk and Masol!» The democrats didn’t want him. They didn’t trust him because he was a communist.

It was a very complicated series of events. The communists ended up voting for independence because they were afraid of Yeltsin and democracy. They saw what happened in Moscow with Yeltsin on the tank and the people overthrowing the coup. As communists, they were afraid. They thought if they separated from Russia, they could avoid this. That was the communist thinking.

There were many different types of Democrats. Someone like Dmytro Pavlychko, a writer and Communist Party member, could talk to both Kravchuk and the Democrats. So, there were people who acted as bridge figures.

Brian Bonner: Was there a feeling at that time of how momentous this was? Was it emotional?

Marta Dyczok: Oh, absolutely. I remember that day. It was a beautiful summer day, just like today. Walking up to Parliament, which is uphill, there were all these people walking with flags. They stood outside the building, holding their flags and signs, waiting for the outcome inside. They weren’t going anywhere. Inside Parliament, where we journalists were, there was a feeling of tension because nobody knew exactly how it would turn out.

The Democrats had help from various people, like John Hewko, who was here as a lawyer. He had a photocopy machine, which played a key role. To put something on the agenda in Parliament, everyone needed a copy of the document. But back in 1991, who had a photocopy machine? Almost no one. Levko Lukianenko and the Democrats, as the coup was failing, drafted the Declaration of Independence. They needed copies for everyone, so they went to John Hewko, who copied them through the night. By morning, they were able to put it on everyone’s desk.

Precursors of war

Brian Bonner: Yeah, I remember. I came in 1996, sometime later, and it was still a problem back then. The people outside were demonstrating to make sure parliament did the right thing.

This was the culmination of centuries of struggle for Ukrainian independence. I can still feel the emotion today. Looking back, was there any sense, because of the way it happened—the Soviet Union just sort of ran out of gas and collapsed, rather than Ukraine winning independence by fighting for it? They’ve been fighting for centuries, but when it happened…

Marta Dyczok: It was bloodless.

Brian Bonner: Yeah, it was bloodless. Looking back, was there any sense that what we’re facing today could happen? Or did people think it was just a divorce, and thank God?

Marta Dyczok: That’s an excellent question. Hindsight is 20-20, and I’ve thought about this a lot. Looking back, all the indications were there that Russia wasn’t going to let go. At the time, Russia was too weak to do anything about it. But in August and September of 1991, I don’t remember people here being that concerned about a Russian invasion.

The political concern was whether the referendum would be successful. Parliament declared independence, but it had to be ratified by a referendum. There were also concerns about how the first presidential election would go, how to organize the armed forces, and how to structure the economy. Basically, Ukraine declared independence, and now it had to make it real. That was the mood I remember. A few days after Ukraine declared independence, [Boris] Yeltsin issued a statement saying that the Russian Federation didn’t recognize Ukraine’s borders.

A delegation was sent from Moscow to Kyiv to deal with the situation. Journalists talked to each other, so we went to Parliament to see what was happening. [St. Petersburg Mayor Anatoly] Sobchak, the speaker of Parliament, and a few others came to talk to Kravchuk and basically shake their finger at him. Kravchuk, being a clever politician, had a lot of people outside parliament. He made them come to the parliament building because he was the speaker.

He got the democrats to organize a public parliament and had a protest in front of the parliament building. Inside the lobby, he gathered the press corps, and inside the chamber, he had his deputies, so the delegation had to walk through the crowd shouting «Ukraine, Ukraine, what are you doing here?»

Then the journalists asked, «Why are you here?» Only then did Kravchuk say, «Gentlemen, come and sit.» They talked behind closed doors and came out with a joint declaration saying there was no emergency situation. But that showed that even though Moscow was on a democratic path, they didn’t like that Ukraine had separated. The whole fall was about whether the union treaty would still be signed, and Ukraine was like, «What are you talking about?» We’ve declared independence. We don’t want to be in a union with you anymore.

Brian Bonner: And you witnessed all that firsthand. Such an important living witness to history. You were a Ukraine correspondent even as the Soviet Union was still alive or on life support. Who headed that delegation?

Marta Dyczok: Sobchak, who was the mayor of Petersburg. And who was the speaker of Parliament, he had dark hair, I can’t remember his name.

Brian Bonner: Yeah, but that’s a great piece of history because I didn’t fully remember that. We had problems from the start.

Marta Dyczok: Oh, yeah.

Brian Bonner: And in the back of your mind, you knew this was not going to be an easy acceptance.

Marta Dyczok: One of the first things Ukraine did in September was to start setting up an army. They appointed a defense minister and started building a Ministry of Defense because they had nothing. And then there were economic reforms and energy concerns. They realized they needed to secure energy supplies.

But within a year, Russia was trying to divide the military hardware. When Ukraine declared independence, they said everything on their territory belonged to them, including all the military hardware, the Black Sea Fleet, and nuclear arms. Russia said, «Oh, no, no, no. That’s ours, including the Black Sea Fleet.» So there was a fight over the Black Sea.

Brian Bonner: That went on for years, and actually, decades—still going on. Fantastic. The 91 percent referendum—do you believe that was a true, honest reflection of the feeling for independence?

Marta Dyczok: Between August and December 1st I traveled around Ukraine with my colleague, Mykola Veresen, who was working for the BBC. We traveled to many different oblasts, and our goal was to gauge public opinion because, back then, there were no public opinion agencies.

So, how do you gauge public opinion? You do it yourself. You do vox popping, right? We did it. We went to the east, west, south—all over the country. The overwhelming response to how people were going to vote in the referendum was «for Ukraine, for independence.» The follow-up question was «why?» and there were a variety of answers.

Some said it was easier to take control of their own space; others gave historical reasons or said they didn’t want Russia there. Some mentioned a strong economy and the need to focus on themselves. But the overwhelming response was, «I’m going to vote for independence.» And that’s what happened on December 1st.

There’s been some discussion about the accuracy of the numbers and the whole process because some people say that the high turnout was because people were used to voting in the Soviet system, where everyone had to vote. So, some analysts suggest that’s what happened. But there had been a lot of debate. There was a referendum in March of 1991 on the Union Treaty, and the results were not 91 percent; they were 80 percent. So, that’s a 10 percent difference.

Brian Bonner: But it’s still not close. It’s fair to say.

Marta Dyczok: Yeah.

Brian Bonner: And even in Crimea, it was a majority.

Marta Dyczok: 54 percent. That was the lowest.

Brian Bonner: A lot of strange things happened that year. August 24th, 1991, was the Declaration of Independence. December 1st was the referendum. And then, finally, only on December 25th, the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Marta Dyczok: That’s when Gorbachev resigned. Which was dramatic. I love showing that video to my students because, whether you liked him or disliked him, he has gone down in history as a statesman because when he thought there was no support, he left the stage and said, «Okay.» Unlike what we’re seeing in the Kremlin now, where that little dictator is holding onto power, squeezing everybody around him.

Putin gave up on Kursk?

Brian Bonner: He’s behaving a little strangely regarding this incursion too. I think there was some analysis, but that’s another topic. He seems to be doing everything else except dealing with Ukraine’s incursion. So, this is very interesting and very volatile. And we’re reading that Russians in Kursk are actually accepting of Ukrainian soldiers. Meanwhile, the dictator Vladimir Putin is in Azerbaijan doing other things. What do you make of all that?

Marta Dyczok: Well, the first thing that comes to mind is this reminds me of someone. What did [Joseph] Stalin do when the Germans invaded? He disappeared. He panicked. This is what dictators do. When something unexpected happens, and they’re not in control, they freak out, they freeze, and they don’t know what to do.

Brian Bonner: It’s not according to the script.

Marta Dyczok: That’s right, they’ve lost control. Stalin did the same thing—he disappeared for seven days when the Germans invaded. Now, Ukraine has made this incursion into Kursk. What does Putin do? He didn’t speak for a few days, no public statements, and then he goes off to Azerbaijan.

Brian Bonner: We still don’t know what he’s doing. It’s bizarre. He’s done that many times. He did it during the sinking of the Kursk in 2000. He also did that a few days after Russian troops shot down MH17, killing 298 people in 2014. He disappeared then, too.

Marta Dyczok: But that’s typical behavior for dictators and tyrants. That’s very typical. If you contrast, it’s easy to contrast Putin and [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky in how they act. Zelensky, whether you like him or not, is always there. When something happens, he reaches out to society. If a bomb falls on a hospital, he goes there and talks to people. What does Putin do? He hides. That’s the contrast between a democratic leader and a tyrant.

Brian Bonner: I think that’s beautifully put.

Reviving education in independent Ukraine

Brian Bonner: Marta, you are the first guest I’ve had on twice since I started hosting. It’s very appropriate, and I’m happy to have you here.

Marta Dyczok: It’s lovely to be here, Brian, in this new studio. It’s great, and with this amazing host.

Brian Bonner: Yes. Marta, she is a flatterer. She was also one of the original journalists before the collapse of the Soviet Union, a Ukraine correspondent for The Guardian, the famous London newspaper. Then she became a professor at Kyiv-Mohyla Academy from 1992 to 1996—four very momentous years.

Marta Dyczok: Yeah, that was another one of those serendipitous things. When I came here for my research trip, I met all sorts of interesting people, like I am now. One of them, Serhiy Ivanyuk, said, «The Soviet Union is going to collapse. We’re going to create a university, and we’ll need professors. You’ll be finishing your Oxford PhD soon. Do you want to come and work for us?» And I said, sure. He pulled out a piece of paper.

I thought, yeah, right. But he pulled out this piece of paper and said, «Okay, let’s sign a contract.» So, I signed the contract and went back to finish my PhD because I was here for just a five-month trip that turned into a year and a half. The Soviet Union fell apart, they created the university, and I thought, well, I signed a contract.

So, I found a way to come and teach through a program funded by George Soros, called the Civic Education Program. He gave money to this organization to send Western lecturers to all the post-communist countries to teach history, political science, economics, sociology—all the disciplines that the Soviet Union had destroyed. So I came and I got to teach at this university as it was just starting.

Brian Bonner: What did you teach?

Marta Dyczok: History and political science.

Brian Bonner: History and political science, like you’re doing now for Western University in Canada. Kyiv-Mohyla Academy was recreated after being wiped out in the Soviet era.

Marta Dyczok: Oh no, it was closed down by Catherine the Great.

Brian Bonner: Even before then. I had Serhiy Kvit on the program once—very fascinating history. And what language did you teach in?

Marta Dyczok: English, because the vision of the people who created the university was to have a modern, liberal arts education that would be bilingual in Ukrainian and English. Everyone who applied to the university had to pass a Ukrainian language test and an English language test. No Russian. And that was a time when most people still spoke Russian. But they didn’t have many English-speaking lecturers, which is why they were so happy to have me.

The students in those first few years were amazing. I’m still in touch with a bunch of them, and they have become movers and shakers, both here and internationally. They spoke English and wanted a non-Soviet education. They were at the cutting edge, but they were also very brave. When the university reopened, it wasn’t accredited. It took a long time before the Ministry of Education accredited it.

So these students were taking a risk by going to a university, paying tuition, and working hard, not knowing if they’d get a degree in the end. As it turns out, by the time they graduated, they did. But the founders of the university wanted to raise a whole new generation. In the first year, they only took first-year students. In the second year, those moved up to the second year, and they took another batch of first-year students. They did this each year until they had all four years. They didn’t want anyone transferring from elsewhere; they wanted to teach a whole new way of thinking. And they did.

Brian Bonner: That’s amazing. You’ve lived through so much of Ukraine’s early history. It’s fascinating because I first came onto the scene in 1996. I have to tell you, there weren’t that many students who spoke English. I was on a journalism exchange program, and I had to do everything through translation because I’m monolingual, as we say. Two things: there weren’t many who spoke English, and they were very hungry for knowledge, especially from outsiders.

Marta Dyczok: Yeah, they wanted something from the outside world, something that wasn’t Soviet.

Brian Bonner: That was a fantastic time.

Marta Dyczok: Oh, it still is. Now is very different.

Brian Bonner: Well, yeah, different, fascinating, horrible—all those things at once.

Marta Dyczok: But inspiring. The way people here are defending themselves, getting on with their lives, and producing quality media, art, drones—everything. It’s extraordinary.

Development of media in Ukraine

Brian Bonner: This segues me to a topic of my interest, because it’s important for Ukraine domestically in its evolution as a democracy and in war. Our image abroad, the information people get from Ukraine, is crucial to whether we’re going to get the support to do this. Real journalism needs to be done, not PR journalism. You’ve met with a lot of journalists and media managers. What have you learned from your trip about the current state of media?

Marta Dyczok: That’s the topic I’ve been researching for many years. Right now, I’m focusing on social media and war. This is the social media war. The latest example is the Kursk invasion. How did we find out about it? From posts on social media by Russians. So a lot of news is breaking on social media, and politicians are using social media effectively.

It’s also a place where disinformation spreads. So, it’s a multi-dimensional phenomenon, and I’m fascinated by it. But I have more questions than answers. I come here to interview people who are engaged in this process in various ways—government officials working in the information sphere, journalists creating content and using social media, and analysts studying this.

Brian Bonner: What are they telling you?

Marta Dyczok: Social media is the primary way Ukrainians receive information and news about what’s happening with the war. The most popular social media platform here is Telegram, which is a Russian-owned platform, and its owner is lurking in the shadows. It’s hard to identify him. Unlike platforms like Facebook, Twitter, or X, where the owners are visible, platforms like TikTok and Telegram are more hidden.

Brian Bonner: We’re living dangerously.

Marta Dyczok: My research assistant from Western University sent me a cartoon this morning. It’s a Trojan horse labeled «Telegram,» covered in Russian flags, approaching Ukraine’s big gate, which isn’t closing. Government officials I’ve been interviewing, like Olha Herasymyuk and Yaroslav Yurchyshyn, and tomorrow I’m interviewing member of parliament Mykola Kniazhytsky, who has initiated a law to regulate Telegram usage.

Brian Bonner: That can be tricky. It steps into that area.

Marta Dyczok: Well, yes and no. The discussion about regulating the internet, online media, and social media is a global one. It’s not unique to Ukraine. What’s unique here is that there’s a war going on. But remember, the United States has discussions about TikTok and its use, and Canada has already banned TikTok for government officials because of concerns about data harvesting.

They deny it, but this is the fear with Telegram—that it has links to Russia and the Kremlin and that they are harvesting data. This is part of what’s happening in the war, so just to leave it unchecked is crazy. So, there are discussions about how to regulate it.

Brian Bonner: I hope they make the right choices because they haven’t always in the area of media regulation.

Marta Dyczok: Well, they’re having discussions. They’re consulting with the European Union. The head of Ukraine’s National Council on Broadcasting regularly meets with her European counterparts to discuss regulation. The European Union has strong regulations on social media. For example, things like child pornography on Telegram aren’t banned. This is shocking.

Brian Bonner: Wait, in Ukraine? How can that be? Is that true?

Marta Dyczok: But this is the whole discussion, right? Because an individual can have a Telegram channel and post whatever they want, sharing it with the world.

Brian Bonner: It’s unregulated.

Marta Dyczok: Exactly. This is why people are saying that it needs to be regulated.

Brian Bonner: Another layer to consider is artificial intelligence. But I think we’ll save that for next time. Because AI is supercharging everything. The way the Kremlin or the Russian owners of Telegram can analyze vast amounts of data instantly using AI. And that’s the way the AI works, just like drones and other technologies. This war is showing how we’re heading into a new era.

What then is the role of traditional legacy media organizations in all this? Is their role as gatekeepers of reliable information more valuable, or has it been replaced by social media?

Marta Dyczok: That’s a good question, but I wouldn’t frame it as a binary choice. Media is being transmitted through various platforms, and the role of professional media, legacy media, quality media, whatever you call it, is to serve as the moral authority for society. These are journalists like yourself who know what journalism is and who won’t broadcast information without verifying its accuracy. This is very much needed in society.

Quality news sources are losing out to anonymous, quick posts on social media that create noise and confusion. In Ukraine, it’s the war issue. In the U.S., it’s questions of democracy and so on. So, it’s a real challenge for quality media. However, quality media and social media are not separate. I read a lot of media through my Twitter feed. I don’t have to go directly to the CBC website; I see what they post on Twitter and follow up on what’s interesting. This is how a lot of people use quality media.

Brian Bonner: And financing has always been a problem. It still remains a problem.

Marta Dyczok: That’s the problem. Because having a YouTube channel doesn’t require a lot of costs, but having a TV channel is expensive. People who want influence are using social media to exert power in a way that’s very cost-efficient. This is changing the media landscape overall. In 10 years, it’s going to look very different, not only in Ukraine but globally. People don’t want to pay for content if they can get it for free. So, how do you sustain a media organization that pays journalists and produces quality products if nobody wants to pay for your product?

Brian Bonner: Exactly. Because Google, Twitter, and Facebook are not employing journalists. This is a global issue. I come from America, and I’m stunned by the high level of conspiracy theories and what I call the «screaming circuses» of cable TV, just trying to grab the audience with the most sensationalist garbage. In some ways, it’s garbage. I hear you there. Well, you’re a sophisticated connoisseur of the news media. What are your top three or five go-to sources in Ukraine on a daily basis?

Marta Dyczok: I like reading newspapers. I’m of that generation.

Brian Bonner: You mean print?

Marta Dyczok: Online.

Brian Bonner: Yeah, okay, because print—well, we’re dinosaurs. It’s gone. You don’t see press kiosks here very much.

Marta Dyczok: I haven’t seen any. I start my day with the Kyiv Independent. I read their headlines.

Brian Bonner: Why?

Marta Dyczok: Because they give me the information I want. I want to know what’s going on in Ukraine. I listen to CBC Radio. I read the New York Times, the Washington Post, Ukrainska Pravda, and Hromadske Radio.

Brian Bonner: That’s great. That’s a great mix. So, you still believe in the legacy media or the gatekeeper role that we are—not the gatekeeper, but filtering, trying to ascertain at least what’s true and what’s not true.

Marta Dyczok: Well, providing society with accurate, objective information. That’s what media is supposed to do, not just create a lot of noise that’s distorted. But that’s the reality for the current generation. My students, they don’t read any of these sources. I teach a course on media and politics, and I start the seminar by asking them where they get their news and information. All of them say social media. I ask, okay, well, social media is like a telephone. What do you look for, and what criteria do you use for selecting? And they very often can’t really answer because they’re just using the feed they get.

Brian Bonner: That’s a troubling setting.

Marta Dyczok: So then I assign them each a media source, and they have to follow it all term. Their assignment is to read the headlines every day and then present to the rest of the group what CBC Television’s top headlines were, what the Kyiv Independent’s, because it’s in English, what CNN’s main headlines were, and what the Guardian’s were. I even select a Chinese information source and Russia Today. I make them look at all different kinds of media sources.

And then they compare what the headlines were. What was interesting in England might not be the same as what’s interesting in Canada, the U.S., Germany, or China. For many of them, it’s the first time they’ve actually read legacy media, and they’re like, «Oh, this is really interesting.» But they don’t go there by themselves.

Brian Bonner: So you’re talking about what’s reliable and what’s not.

Marta Dyczok: Yeah, that’s precisely it. That’s good.

Brian Bonner: Yeah, I’m looking forward to it. So there might be a book in there, “War and Social Media.”

Marta Dyczok: Hopefully. For sure, an article, but hopefully a book.

Canada and Ukraine

Brian Bonner: Okay. Well, with you, I’m betting on a book. Maybe we can close out with Canada and sort of touch on that. I spent a month in America, and Ukraine is not the number one issue in the presidential election, for sure. But it’s there. And I did whatever I could, on whatever platforms I could, to speak about Ukraine. And there are worrying signs and comforting signs, a mix, depending on the country. You could go from Germany to France to the United States. In Canada, it’s been a reliable friend. But I have to say something, and we talked about this a bit in March when we spoke.

When the Canadian government came out and said they will meet their 2% NATO standard spending, 2% of the GDP, on defense by the year 2030, I was so disappointed. Maybe you can give us a flavor of where things are evolving in terms of Canada’s approach to Ukraine or what’s going on.

Marta Dyczok: Well, similar to the United States, Ukraine is no longer the number one story, as it used to be. It’s still in the headlines, and people are still talking about it, but not nearly as much as they used to. And that’s understandable because there are other things going on.

Brian Bonner: And we’re in the 11th year of war.

Marta Dyczok: So that is understandable. Canada’s official position remains unchanged. We will support Ukraine. We’ll be there as long as it takes. I’ve always said Canada could and should be doing more. The new defense minister, Bill Blair, is, in my opinion, really stepping up. Recently, during the Kursk invasion, he said that Ukraine could use Canadian weapons however they want. We’re not going to restrict you. Another aid package, both military and humanitarian, has been announced.

So they’re present, and they’re active. But Canadians don’t like spending money on defense. We have gotten so used to the fact that the United States is this umbrella that protects us, and we just don’t like spending money on military things. The state of the Canadian military is a topic of discussion domestically because there isn’t the modernization and funding of the military that some people think there should be.

So, never mind NATO, but even domestically, that is a discussion within Canada. Canada, like other countries, is giving all sorts of military equipment. Canada doesn’t actually have that much more to give because we’re not supplying our own.

Brian Bonner: You have the Canadian variant. In America, actually everywhere about Ukraine, there’s a raging debate among those who are very concerned or interested in Ukraine. There are really only three positions you can take on Ukraine. Isolationists, who don’t care and don’t want to give anything. Then there’s the middle of the road, like Biden, who wants to give enough to keep them in the fight but not enough to win. And then there’s the hawkish position, which is to give them everything now that they need to win. Are there elements of that debate playing out in politics?

Marta Dyczok: That’s exactly the same in Canada. And the majority is in that middle position.

Brian Bonner: Let’s just keep it going. Keep them in the fight. Well, let’s hope that changes because we could use an end to this war.

Marta Dyczok: Everybody could. This war and all wars.

Closing remarks

Brian Bonner: Horrible, yeah. But, you know, Ukraine has inspired the world, I think. And they really know how to create a black swan event and bring the war back into global attention. And you’re inspiring. Unless there’s anything else, I think this is a good point to leave our conversation.

Marta Dyczok: Well, I think Ukraine is inspiring the world. It’s inspiring me. And I really hope that they win sooner rather than later.

Brian Bonner: Yes, it will save lives. Well, Marta Dyczok, I’m so glad you found time on your month-long research slash vacation or whatever.

Marta Dyczok: Research vacation, that’s a good one.

Brian Bonner: Research vacation, whatever it is. And I’m glad you don’t spend August on the beach. I’m glad you spend it right here, reconnecting with what’s going on here, because it’s very valuable to take what you’ve learned back to Canada and also to write your books.

And one of them coming up, be on the lookout. “Ukraine, not the Ukraine.” Marta Dyczok, coming to your bookstores soon. I’ve read her other books. This one’s going to be a great one if it’s anything like your other ones.

Marta Dyczok: Thank you, Brian.