The uproar among Ukrainians: why journalists amplified Portnikov's remarks about a "war for the poor."

Recently, the name of the well-known journalist Vitaliy Portnikov has become a focal point of public discussion. This was triggered by the widespread sharing on social media of a segment from one of his old interviews, provoking a strong reaction from Ukrainians. The scandal has raised a number of questions regarding the boundaries of responsibility for public figures, manipulation within the information space, and the response of Ukrainian society to such situations.

War for the Poor? What Portnikov Discussed

It all began when an old interview with Portnikov resurfaced on social media, where his remarks were taken out of context. Almost a year ago, in February 2024, Vitaliy Portnikov gave an extensive interview to journalist Natalia Baliuk for her YouTube project "Baluchі temi." Earlier this year, a snippet of his comments emerged, stating that ordinary people should perish for democracy, not the children of deputies.

Here is Portnikov's quote verbatim:

"In the Middle Ages, knights were also provided with armor and weapons. And it was a very expensive endeavor. Consequently, the aristocracy fought, not ordinary people. Ordinary people lacked the funds to fight for their own state. It was generally not their concern. Because defending the homeland was a very costly affair. Ordinary people began to fight essentially only in our times. Under coercion in great empires, and by obligation after the Great French Revolution.

Because "if you want equality, then the state will not be defended by aristocrats, because you guillotined them, you said that France belongs to you, so you all must go to the front." Now, when they say that the children of deputies should fight, they will go. No, dear ones. This is a democratic state. In a democratic state, it is the ordinary person who dies for the state. If we want aristocrats to perish for the state, we must live in a feudal state, as it was before the Great French Revolution.

To desire equality, one must pay the price, including with one's own life. And if you do not want equality, you do not pay; you peacefully engage in your own affairs in the field, while some other person dons their knightly finery and goes to battle with another knight. Because they fight for property. For their land and for you. Because you are also their property. They protect their property: you, the cow, and the land. And if you are not a cow or a house, then you must be nearby."

According to the portal Antonina, a professional internet publication project Detector Media, the excerpt from the interview was used as a pretext for an "info campaign to discredit" Portnikov.

Portnikov himself explained that the excerpt is "being used by Moscow and pro-Russian agents in our country for my harassment."

"Anyone who listens to it will see that there was not a hint of a desire to shift the responsibility for the war onto a segment of the population; on the contrary — it was emphasized that in a democratic state, everyone should stand alongside one another — and these words concluded those reflections," — emphasizes the journalist.

Unjust War: Why Ukrainians Were Outraged

Political scientist Oleg Posternak believes that this situation would never have arisen if it hadn't touched upon the sensitive strings of public perception regarding the war and its injustices.

In other words, anyone could have found themselves in Portnikov's position — a publicist, expert, or politician who would draw analytical conclusions by comparing, say, the armies of the Middle Ages and modern times. However, without the existence of public expectations shaped by the traumas of war, this story would likely not have gained significant attention or become so resonant, according to Posternak.

"The second point that particularly outraged me in this story is the aggressive and inadequate reaction of those trying to defend Portnikov at any cost. This reaction closely resembles the scenarios used in support of Uliana Suprun or Maria Berlinska, when the latter allegedly facilitated the targeting of missiles at an exhibition in Chernihiv. I speak about this openly and honestly, as is necessary. It seems there is a certain group comprising grant activists who are on the payroll of some public organizations and are closely linked to foreign circles. There is also a group of supporters of Poroshenko who actively intervene in any conflicts where it may be advantageous to protect their "leading blogger." Everyone knows that Portnikov is a supporter of Petro Oleksiyovych Poroshenko, and this is not news," — continues Posternak.

All this agony, passionate disputes, verbal exchanges, and conflicts further divide a society already exhausted by war and its injustices.

Censorship During War: Think First — Then Speak

From a historical or analytical standpoint, Portnikov's reasoning may hold validity, the expert suggests, but the question lies with the journalist himself.

"Even if this interview was recorded a year ago, during wartime, each of us — bloggers, journalists, politicians, experts, activists, or military personnel — should think thrice before saying anything about war and its just boundaries. There is a question for Portnikov. And it is not so much about what he said, as his words can be interpreted as analytical reasoning. The problem lies in the absence of responsibility, self-censorship, and understanding the pain and tragedy of a vast number of people. People who have lost loved ones, are held captive, have lost their property, or have perished themselves. This is not just a statement before the camera or a comment without any accountability," — says Posternak.

In 2014-2015, when the war was only in Donbas, or during the annexation of Crimea, the scale of the tragedy was not as global as it is now. Back then, it was a significant tragedy, but today it is even more extensive, with destruction and mass casualties. Therefore, the political scientist believes that when someone speaks publicly — on camera or on record — they need to think thrice about how their words will be perceived by those for whom the pain of war sits deeply in their souls.

"Unfortunately, and this must be emphasized, Portnikov completely lacks this understanding. Moreover, this understanding is also absent among those who defended him. Just as they previously defended Berlinska or Suprun, they now create the illusion that Portnikov is unjustly facing obstruction through media "sittings." In reality, the criticism of Portnikov is absolutely justified. The other issue is that some bloggers are using this situation to boost their own popularity and gather likes. However, the responsibility remains with Portnikov himself. And this does not excuse him, that is for sure," — believes Posternak.

But one must ask another question: why has this topic become so widely discussed now? Oleg Posternak suggests that it may be used to promote certain internet projects. It is known that many are engaged in promoting their YouTube projects and use trending topics for this purpose. This draws public attention, creates resonance, and helps increase audience size, subscribers, and views. Thus, it is quite logical that behind the amplification of this story could lie motives of increasing popularity or revenue for media projects.

However, a question arises: if this is a staged campaign, for what purpose? Simply to destroy Portnikov's reputation? That seems unlikely. His popularity is limited to a rather narrow circle of supporters who regard him as an authority. It is improbable that anyone wanted to ruin his reputation specifically in their eyes.

"Portnikov himself suggested that this could bear the hallmark of the FSB or 'the hand of Moscow,' which seeks to make him a sacred victim. He even hinted at the possibility of an assassination attempt on his life. However, personally, I find such a theory unlikely," — says the political scientist.

Rather, it appears to be a story of random nature, fueled by some opinion leaders to promote their own online projects, publications, or media. However, one cannot exclude the possibility that at some stage, Russian agents, who actively operate in Ukraine, could have joined this. For them, such resonant campaigns serve as a convenient tool to achieve their own goals, such as destabilizing society or igniting internal conflicts.

"At first, it seemed that the main goal of this campaign was not Portnikov at all. There was an impression that it was yet another attempt to sow discord in Ukrainian society, which is already torn apart by war and internal conflicts. We already have enough tension.

Nonetheless, considering the participants in this story — analysts, journalists, and the media community — it looks like the goal was quite simple: to play on the emotions and sentiments within this sphere. The only obvious reason for such activity is the promotion of their own media resources and online projects," — summarizes Posternak.

Let us recall that the People's Artist of Ukraine, Larysa Kadotchnikova, found herself embroiled in a language scandal during the award ceremony named after Serhiy Paradzhanov by the National Union of Cinematographers on January 9, 2025.