Since the Vietnam war, the international journalistic community has gravitated towards objective war reporting, in other words not showing support for either side. This new practice was considered a sign of massive progress in the direction of objectivity, in contrast to the previous practice of embedded journalism where reporters were attached to a country's military. Naturally, this was made possible thanks to the economic growth of the media but also due to the fact that most conflicts were being fought "away" from the headquarters of the big media companies. These were "foreign" wars so it was relatively easy for journalists to distance themselves emotionally. The war in Ukraine dented this theory and is likely, in the near future, to bring about significant changes to the overall functioning of the media and to their relationship with society and the state.

From a communication perspective, the war in Ukraine, which began with Russia's invasion of Crimea in 2014, was riddled with lies right from the start. International media outlets, both big and small, reported on "neo-Nazis who are oppressing Russian-speaking people" in Western Ukraine, giving the Kremlin an excuse to continue its atrocities. The publication of these reports was not so much a display of incompetence on the part of western media, but rather a sign that the "west's" media system was not ready to deal with such a wave of disinformation, organised and financed by Moscow. It was a sign that Moscow used the freedoms of the western world in order to target those very freedoms.

When this became apparent, particularly over the last three months, a large proportion of foreign journalists openly took Ukraine's side. This was not only because the country is enduring an unprovoked attack, but because these journalists understood that an attack is also being carried out on all the principles and values upon which the freedom of expression and functioning of the media – amongst other things – are based.

At first glance, this choice could be seen as an "obligation" on the part of the journalistic community to remain objective; however "objective" and "impartial" a portrayal of a rapist and their victim could be. This war showed more clearly than on other occasions that keeping an "objective distance" between victim and offender always works in favour of the latter.

The dilemma was also about having to choose between objectivity and morality. It may sound strange but many of the big media outlets face this dilemma. It was also about whether "Europe", as Ukrainians perceive it at least, is prepared to defend its freedoms, even if this requires tighter checks on potential violations of these freedoms.

For the past eight years, Ukrainian society and especially journalists in Ukraine have been aware of the fact that the Russian Federation – and from now on any power that conspires against European principles and values – believes our own freedom of expression and the media as an institution can be used as an instrument of war. Waged against us.

Despite the military invasion against Ukraine, for the past eight years Ukrainians have also been portrayed as responsible or jointly responsible for this situation. They were portrayed as offenders when in fact they were victims. One of the consequences of this was seen on the battlefield, with fewer sanctions against Russia, delays in the supply of weapons to Ukraine, etc. This situation seems to be changing now thanks not only to journalistic work that is helping to uncover Russia's colossal lies, but also to the fact that many journalists are re-discovering their role in society. Not the role of a spineless messenger, but that of society's central nervous system that is helping, amongst other things, to answer one simple question: Where is good and where is evil?

Kostas Onishenko