Anastasiia Ratieieva, HWAG/UCMC analyst
Cultural diplomacy has emerged as a powerful tool of influence in international relations, particularly in light of Russia’s war against Ukraine. The Kremlin actively uses cinema, particularly Russia Today documentaries, to influence global opinion and promote its own geopolitical narratives. This strategy has an impact on the global perception of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
The most recent example of cultural diplomacy is the documentary Russians at War, which has received much attention at international film festivals. The film aims to portray Russian soldiers in a ‘more humane’ light, resulting in heated debate and protests.
The film was cancelled during the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF).
The function of international platforms in cultural diplomacy
International film festivals contribute significantly to cultural diplomacy by providing a forum for intercultural dialogue and exchanging ideas. They are an effective tool of soft power, which is defined as a state’s ability to achieve its objectives through the appeal of its own culture and values. That is why the Kremlin actively uses film festivals to spread propaganda narratives.
As the UCMC team has previously investigated, Russian propaganda in the form of cinema is used to justify the regime’s actions, blur post-Soviet state borders, culturally integrate occupied territories, glorify war criminals, and create an alternate reality. The regime’s control over film production, combined with significant state funding, results in the creation of a large number of films that reinforce Kremlin rhetoric.
It is not surprising that Moscow actively promotes its own cultural products through propaganda. This is preceded by a historical tradition: in 1981, the Soviet film Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears, directed by Vladimir Menshov, won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Film. The film’s success is frequently viewed in the context of Soviet cultural diplomacy, which used art and cinema as tools to soften the image of the USSR during politically turbulent times.
The Soviet Union aimed to influence Western audiences by promoting films that highlighted the universal human experience (as Moscow was—a story about ordinary people outside of political contexts). This was especially important for the USSR in the 1980s, when political tensions were high during the Cold War. Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980, the United States and other countries boycotted the Moscow Olympics. So, for the USSR, the Oscars the following year represented a step toward improving its international image.
It’s easy to see parallels with Russians at War: both depict an ‘ordinary man with ordinary human problems’. However, the debate over this issue should continue, as it is unacceptable to provide platforms for sympathy for ‘ordinary people’ who are involved in an invasion of a sovereign state, which is accompanied by atrocities and crimes against humanity.
“Documentary” and “humanitarianism” are propaganda loopholes for access to an international audience
There are messages in the public discourse surrounding the topic of ‘Russians at War’ about the need to balance creative freedom with responsibility for disseminating potentially harmful narratives. However, understanding the issue requires defining what constitutes Russian-made documentaries.
The UCMC team previously discovered that the Kremlin uses the term ‘documentary’ to elevate fake news stories to the same level as facts. Such films should be considered pseudo-documentaries because the accents and meanings used in them reflect the reality created by Kremlin propaganda.
Trofimova’s film depicts Russian soldiers’ lives and hardships during the conflict in Ukraine. The director claims that she wants to create an anti-war narrative by portraying soldiers as ordinary people. The argument for a ‘humanistic approach’ is a ruse, as the film seeks to create a positive image of the Russian army and is accompanied by outright fabrications. Trofimova spent seven months with the Russian military near the front lines and claims she saw no evidence of war crimes. This sparked outrage because it contradicted numerous documented cases of atrocities committed by the Russian army in Ukraine.
Trofimova was previously affiliated with RT Documentary, but she now claims to have distanced herself from the propaganda outlet. Later, she worked for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), but her association with RT has sparked criticism. The Russian channel RT, through its documentary division, produces films aimed at swaying global opinion in favour of the Kremlin. These films, like Russians at War, are part of Russia’s larger effort to humanize its military and change global perceptions of its actions in Ukraine.
Ukraine’s Countering Russian Cultural Expansion: A Model for the World
Ukraine and the Ukrainian community are actively countering Russian cultural expansion, particularly in the film industry. This opposition has several key areas: the activities of the community, the diaspora, NGOs, and official diplomatic missions.
The film Russians at War sparked widespread outrage after it premiered at the Venice Film Festival. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress wrote to The Canada Media Fund, which funded the film Russians at War, citing the conflict between supporting such a project and Canada’s official stance on Russian aggression. They specifically requested that the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF), which was the next venue after the Venice Film Festival to screen The Russians, remove the film from its program. The Ukrainian community in Canada also protested the screening at TIFF.
Protests against the screening of the film Russians at War in Canada
Oleh Nikolenko, Consul General of Ukraine in Toronto, condemned the organizers’ decision to screen the film, calling it a ‘deliberate distortion of the realities of war’. ‘There have been thousands of documented cases of rape, torture, murder, and neglect of Ukrainians by Russian troops. Those who join the Russian army are offered significant monetary compensation or the expungement of their criminal record, and they do so with full knowledge of their actions in Ukraine,’ he stated.
Following the Ukrainian community’s appeal, TVO, the Canadian public broadcaster that partially funded the film, announced that it would not broadcast The Russians using its own resources. Ultimately, public and diplomatic pressure resulted in the film’s cancellation from the TIFF Film Festival. Nonetheless, the organizers’ stood by their decision’, noting that the Russian film ‘deserved to be included in the festival programme’.
The case of Anastasia Trofimova’s film is not the first time Ukrainian society and government agencies have successfully opposed Kremlin-produced cultural products. In 2024, the Ukrainian Embassy in Italy played an important role in cancelling the screening of the Russian propaganda film Witness, which distorted events in Ukraine, particularly Mariupol. Protests and diplomatic appeals helped prevent the film from being shown in several Italian cities. These decisions came after local politicians, activists, and diplomats criticized the film for its propagandistic nature and negative impact on public opinion. This highlights the significance of Ukraine’s diplomatic intervention in combating Russian disinformation abroad.
Civil society organizations, including the UCMC, advocate for sanctions against Russian cultural institutions such as Rossotrudnichestvo, the primary distributor of Russian cultural propaganda abroad.
Russia’s cultural expansion through cinema poses a serious threat, as it uses international film festivals to spread propaganda narratives. Films like Russians at War attempt to humanise aggressors while distorting the reality of the conflict, influencing global perceptions of events in Ukraine. This emphasizes the importance of remaining vigilant and critical of Russian-Ukrainian war-related content.
This case highlights a broader issue: how to counter Russian cultural expansion and prevent propaganda from spreading via artistic platforms. Examining this topic will allow us to better understand the mechanisms of the Kremlin’s cultural diplomacy and develop effective counter-strategies.
