Written by Matt Wickham, UCMC/HWAG analyst
Diana Panchenko is no stranger to Ukrainian screens. Known for her work on Kremlin-sponsored outlets since 2018, she has long branded herself as a truth-teller, the voice of reason, and Zelensky’s “personal enemy.” Panchenko claims to reveal information that the Ukrainian government and Western media allegedly don’t want “you” to know, carefully guiding her audience through a masterclass in manipulating events—poisoning the truth with narratives that are often more difficult to refute than usual Russian TV propaganda.
Who is Ms. Panchenko?
Before the full-scale war, Panchenko aimed to resonate with Ukrainians skeptical of their government and Western influence, particularly those who had been fed a barrage of Russian disinformation since 2014 in the East. Working for Russian-sponsored channels headed by Viktor Medvedchuk (Putin’s Ukrainian tycoon), she portrayed her “journalism” as patriotic, doing what is “right,” and providing hard-talking sense in a world “gone mad.” However, her content was primarily laden with conspiracy theories, sandwiched with false, truthful, and unverified information—a track she continues to this day.
By using phrases like “They don’t want you to know this” or “They’ve been lying to you,” she subtly hooks her audience into questioning the government, sowing the seeds of Kremlin doubt. This approach of offering something other than “what the government wants you to know” capitalizes on the older Ukrainian generations’ low level of critical thinking (due to years of Soviet repression) and on the already deep-seated distrust Ukrainians have in politicians, fueled by decades of corruption and Kremlin interference in Ukraine’s independent political processes. Moreover, portraying herself as a Ukrainian gives her power over the Zelensky skeptics in the West and Russia, positioning herself as a true patriot shunned by her government and people for “speaking the truth.”
So what is her allure?
Apart from the aforementioned ‘hooks,’ Panchenko has often leveraged her physical attractiveness—an archaic yet effective tactic previously used on pro-Russian TV channels before the full-scale war, known as a “televised honey trap.” These channels often used close-up shots and the overt sexual allure of female legs to attract a particular demographic susceptible to Kremlin propaganda. This wasn’t limited to just females; male hosts, such as Maksym Nazarov, would wink at the camera when saying something sexual or inappropriate.
This strategy targets those more susceptible to manipulation through visual appeal rather than factual accuracy—think middle-aged to pensioner-aged men. After all, the younger generation in Ukraine doesn’t even own a TV and has never been the target audience of pro-Russian television channels. This strategy is not unique to Ukrainian and Russian media; it mirrors outdated (and largely eradicated) practices in Western news stations before the #MeToo movement and the shift toward journalism that focuses on attracting viewers through high-quality reporting rather than sexual appeal.
Understanding Panchenko’s Role: Unveiling the Risks
Since the full-scale invasion began, Panchenko has significantly shifted her tactics from appealing to the Russian-supporting Ukrainian segment, mainly located in the eastern unoccupied territories of Ukraine, to those disenfranchised with the war, including those in the West calling for an end to the war even if on Russia’s terms..
After initially staying and working in Kyiv during the initial days of the full-scale war, sharing images of her grandmother hiding in her bathroom from Russian missiles, she soon fled to Russia, believed to be somewhere in Moscow. Once settled, she quickly built on her already launched YouTube channel, which saw view counts rise from 40,000-200,000 to millions, with one video reaching 9 million. Natural growth? Doubtful. Panchenko, of course, had her audience before the war, but supporters in the millions, as her channel figures suggest, unlikely.
Moreover, being supplied with her own personal team, access to what appears to be Russian bot activity on Twitter, and episodes shot in an expensive studio all point to additional financial support, especially following YouTube’s decision to disable monetization of Russian channels. Likewise, under the Kremlin’s oppression, Panchenko would not have been able to continue her work without the Kremlin’s “nod” of approval. If any doubt remained, Panchenko’s access to self-proclaimed Belarusian President Lukashenko enabled her, of all journalists, to be the first to interview him post-full-scale invasion, an interview seemingly designed to allow him to take back his “Kyiv would fall in 3 days” rhetoric.
With her YouTube channel gaining traction, Panchenko’s behavior becomes increasingly in line with the Kremlin’s most theatrical speakers; she, arguably, could now give Maria Zakharova (Director of Press and information for Russia’s Foreign Affaris) and so the National Security Council of Ukraine filed a request to YouTube to ban her account—and YouTube complied. This acceptance of channel blocking only provides further proof that her content violated their policies and aligns with Ukrainian security services’ suspicions of her committing high treason and justifying Kremlin aggression.
After her YouTube channel was banned and realizing her influence in Ukraine was waning—after all, she holds little interest to the Russian audience—Panchenko shifted her focus to X (formerly Twitter). Now, she engages with an English-speaking audience, commenting under various official Ukrainian pages and posts, almost certainly using Kremlin bots. This move aims to disseminate oversimplified answers to complicated issues, a tactic that resonates with Americans who are often far too sympathetic to the Kremlin.
What’s more, not a word is mentioned about Panchenko in Russian propaganda channels, nor do they spread her content. This distancing from her channel could represent the Kremlin’s attempt to separate itself completely from Diana (on face value) to push the idea that she is entirely independent from Kremlin sponsorship or their aligned agenda.
Blend of Truth and Lies
Despiteher recent claims that she finds it difficult to watch Kremlin propaganda, her YouTube content is saturated with the same Kremlin drivel, mirroring narratives found on Russian state shows like “60 Minutes.” As previously mentioned, Panchenko’s narratives are particularly dangerous because her methodology involves presenting true statements, often supported by evidence from Ukrainian sources, interspersed with subtle falsehoods, selective truths, and currently unverified information. For instance, regarding the Russian sabotage groups in Kyiv during the first days of the large-scale war. While it is true that the exaggerated threat of sabotage contributed to chaos and panic, these groups did exist and continue to pose a threat. Instead, Panchenko argues that the threat was “perhaps completely” non-existent. Moreover, she twists this narrative to suggest that there was no genuine threat to Zelensky as no Russian forces, as confirmed by the AFU, couldn’t break through to the city. She conveniently overlooks the fact that while the Russians couldn’t breach Kyiv, there were sleeper agents stationed within the city, tasked with carrying out the Kremlin’s orders on Zelensky within those critical first 72 hours.
While the full extent of their infiltration remains unknown, we know that a year later, it led to the dismissal of two colonels of the State Security Administration (a law enforcement agency responsible for the security of top state officials and government institutions), who, according to the SSU, leaked secret information to the Russians regarding the Ukrainian president. By omitting this critical context, Panchenko portrays the Ukrainian government as orderless liars, creating panic for their own political interests, manipulating both Ukrainians and the West.
Although Panchenko may appear harmless, her extensive resources, wide reach, and refusal to call it quits make her a propagandist worth keeping tabs on. Her ability to manipulate information, coupled with her recent shift to X (formerly Twitter) and operations in English, presents a new challenge for Ukraine. Unlike YouTube, which enforces stricter policies, X offers a distorted version of freedom of speech and thus will allow her narratives to spread far and wide, unchallenged. Perfect for a Russian propagandist.
As Panchenko’s English-language operations are still in their early stages, we should anticipate this as just the beginning. Her growing proficiency in the language will only ease her operations and widen her audience and influence. Thus far, she is limited to posting synchronized translations on X, which inevitably gain lower levels of engagement.
Her objective, driven by money and a distorted understanding of reality, has remained unchanged for many years: presenting herself as a Ukrainian patriot, wanting only what is best for her country, while undermining it to advance Kremlin interests.
