Alyaksandr Lukashenka is unhappy with the results on the fronts of the ideological war. Oddly enough, this may be a reason not to be too angry with Google and to let YouTube survive in Belarus.
Until recently, the ongoing clashes between Belarusian propaganda and Google’s video platform looked more like guerrilla warfare. YouTube would periodically delete the channels of the most notorious propagandist, Ryhor Azaronak. He would immediately create a new one, and this game of ping-pong seemed likely to continue forever.
To the great delight of Belarusian propagandists, they kept mastering new resources, inflating view counts and, as best they could, imitating vigorous activity on the battlefield of the information war that the regime declared on its own people after the events of 2020.
But at one point YouTube launched a carpet bombing campaign, immediately deleting the official channels of the largest Belarusian propaganda outlets — CTV, BelTA and ONT. Then it finished off some of the wounded by deleting CTV’s backup channel, which had been created just a couple of months before the main one was removed.
The trigger for Google’s strike was apparently another episode of Raman Pratasevich‘s program “Bez Prykrytsya”, which violated many of YouTube’s content rules, including the disclosure of personal data. A complaint was filed against the channel and, judging by everything, it was not the first one. YouTube’s patience finally ran out automatically, and CTV’s channel was shut down. BelTA and ONT suffered as well.
Most likely, this happened because all three channels were tied to the same email address. Perhaps they had all been created at the Lukashenka Administration or at the Information Ministry — that is beside the point. What matters is that everyone got hit. Sanctions had nothing to do with it, because the sanctioned Belarusian Radio and Television Company still remains on YouTube.
The story with CTV’s backup channel is revealing. It seems that when they created it, propagandists already understood that the number of complaints could trigger an avalanche. They played it safe and launched a new channel. Either they forgot to warn their colleagues, or the latter simply ignored it. In any case, that move did not save CTV from punishment either. And rightly so.
What happened next was predictable. Propaganda media descended into hysteria and began calling for the closure of this hostile video platform, which shamelessly destroys the entire pile of “huge archives of news broadcasts, analytical programs and documentary series” that propagandists had been uploading there for years.
The ministry headed by Maksim Ryzhankou accused YouTube of violating international law and applying double standards, while reserving the right to “respond appropriately — using all available means.”
Belarusians have already grown used to the regime’s “appropriate responses.” Usually, there are two: crush and prohibit. Many began to worry: would the regime now follow Russia’s example, slowing down and banning everything it cannot control? People had only recently been laughing at Russians traveling to Belarus to watch YouTube and read social media. Would Belarusians now end up in the same position?
Today, Alyaksandr Lukashenka spent the day making personnel appointments. Among other reshuffles, there were changes in the propaganda sphere. Marat Markau moved from the position of information minister to culture minister. The now vacant seat of chief curator of information flows went to former head of the publishing house “Belarus Today”, Dzmitry Zhuk.
Addressing the appointees, Lukashenka spoke about the ideological war and recalled propaganda’s recent troubles with YouTube.
“As for our ideological component — there is a war going on. (…) For now, we will keep fighting. You can see that sometimes they treat us unfairly, like YouTube deleting channels,” the politician said.
In his opinion, however, “not everything is going well for us” in this war. And this is supposedly a matter for his Administration. “Our previous ministers failed to work effectively.”
The issue with culture is clear enough. Lukashenka had long had complaints about now former culture minister Ruslan Charnecki, who apparently was not effective enough in purging public figures who dared to speak out against the regime in one form or another in 2020. Now former military man Markau is expected to correct his predecessor’s mistakes.
Lukashenka is also perpetually dissatisfied with cinema. But what exactly is wrong in the Administration? And what does YouTube have to do with it?
The criticism aimed at the Administration is really a jab at Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration Uladzimir Piartsou, who is responsible for ideology. It seems the politician understands that his propaganda machine is underperforming. It cannot dominate the agenda. And what would happen if it also lost its distribution channels?
The key phrase here is Lukashenka’s statement that “for now, we will keep fighting” — including on YouTube and other “hostile platforms.”
This message was reinforced by newly appointed information minister Zhuk. “As for platforms used by Belarusian citizens, we need to act very carefully. You know the president’s position — he is not a supporter of bans.”
The claim that he is “not a supporter of bans” is, of course, laughable. But Zhuk’s words that “we will have to fight on foreign territory — on YouTube, on Instagram” suggest that YouTube will remain untouched in Belarus. As will the major social media platforms. At least for now.
So, in the end, someone did speak up for YouTube. And there are several good reasons for that.
No, the regime would probably love to shut all of this down and hide behind an information wall. But how can it do that without hurting itself?
Create its own platforms? First of all, it already tried. It launched Video.by. But viewership there appears to be so low that they even hid the video statistics to avoid embarrassment. And there is no guarantee that after YouTube is “canceled,” things would improve. People would still find ways to break through to outside platforms. At least now some of the content still gets in front of people’s eyes. If only Video.by remained, or if several similar platforms were created, the situation on the fronts of the ideological war would become even more depressing.
The second issue is Russia. Promoting Russian narratives on popular platforms is clearly not a free service for Belarusian propaganda. And this is not only about Russian-speaking audiences — there are, for example, projects aimed at viewers in Poland. All of this is coordinated and financed from Russia.
Apparently, a significant part of Belarusian propaganda is fueled by Moscow’s money. Shut off that tap and the regime would have to feed its propagandists entirely on its own. And they are used to living well. Besides, the Kremlin could be offended: for Russia, fighting an information war against the West through proxies is no less important.
The third issue is also Russia, only from a different angle. The regime could, of course, shut down all Western platforms and switch to Russian ones like VK or RuTube. A significant share of the audience would move there out of necessity. But then there would be no trace left of any information sovereignty.
Only content beneficial to Russia would be allowed through. And what if something happened? Moscow could wipe out all of this even faster than YouTube. Google may have inconvenient rules for propagandists, but at least there are rules. Over there, the law is the taiga and the bear is the boss.
Without distribution channels, there is no point in waging an information war. With weak channels, it is ineffective. And putting all your eggs in one basket — especially a Russian one — is even more dangerous than dealing with the “decaying West.”
That is why it is still better to “fight on foreign territory.” So it is too early to bury YouTube. The regime will keep using it for a while yet. Especially if it learns to use its head and stop linking all its channels to one email address.
The opinions and assessments of the author may not coincide with the opinion of the Reform.news editorial board