How Medusa looks at Odesa through imperial glasses

In Odesa, people are being persecuted for their views, Odessans are against the "language," the TCC "behave like the Gestapo," and Russia is striking the city with "high-precision weapons." All of this is not Kremlin propaganda, but excerpts from the texts of the liberal Russian Medusa, which declares its anti-war position.

If we analyze the materials of the publication dedicated to our city, it may seem that the war is "not so clear": Russia "strikes back", Odessans "run" from the TCC, do not want to fight and resist "Ukrainization".

But why does this impression arise? We will try to find out in this publication. For the analysis, we took materials from the previous two years (May 2024 - May 2026) that mentioned Odesa.

When shelling becomes an "exchange of blows"

"Medusa covers in detail the arrivals in Ukrainian cities: it refers to local officials, quotes Zelenskyy, where he calls the Russians "mad with shaheds" and "terrorists." However, it also quotes the Russian Defense Ministry's statements about "retaliatory strikes" and "all targets were hit." It would seem that this is just a balance of opinions. Both sides are given the floor. But a journalist's job is not only to report the statements of the parties, but also to find out what really happened. And if someone is passing on false information, they should write about it. Let's first look at the work of British publications.

For example, the British Times writes about the Russian strike on Uman, when a missile hit a high-rise building in 2023, killing 24 people: "Russia said strategic bombers had carried out what it called "precision missile strikes" on Ukrainian army reserve units to prevent them from moving to the front line to take part in a counteroffensive. However, civilians have reportedly been killed in these strikes, prompting President Zelenskiy to characterize the attacks as acts of terror..."

SCREENSHOT: "The Times"

The Guardian published a report from Odesa, describing the situation: "Ukrainian strikes late this year on Russian oil tankers from the shadow fleet, as well as further afield strikes on the Russian military base in Novorossiysk, coincided with a renewed Russian focus on Odesa. vladimir Putin has long maintained that Ukraine's main port belongs to Russia, and in December he threatened to cut the city off from the sea. Capturing Odesa or even establishing a naval blockade remains far beyond Moscow's reach. Ukraine's naval missile batteries have sunk its warships, including the most famous case, the Moskva, at the beginning of the war. So instead, Russia is bombarding the city with missiles and drones."

This passage does not mention "retaliatory strikes". The journalists write that the actions of the Ukrainians "coincided with Russia's renewed attention to Odesa." The text makes it clear why Russia is shelling the city: because it cannot achieve the goals set by Putin.

SCREENSHOT: "The Guardian

Of course, the coverage of the full-scale invasion by British publications is not perfect, but these examples show how, through more professional work with words, they manage to maintain accuracy in conditions where the parties present different data.

Now let's take a look at how Medusa covers Russian strikes on the city. In the text of April 16, they first write about the attacks on Ukrainian cities, including Odesa, quoting the head of the OVA, Oleg Kiper, who says that ten people were killed and 23 others were injured. They talk about the targets of the drones (a market, a civilian cargo ship), and quote a victim whose house was destroyed, "and his family remained under the rubble." There are also photos from the scene. The text ends as follows: "The Russian Ministry of Defense officially stated that the combined strike was carried out "in response to Ukraine's terrorist attacks on civilian targets in Russia", and its targets were military-industrial complex facilities involved in the production of missiles and drones, as well as fuel and energy enterprises "used in the interests of the Armed Forces of Ukraine".

This quote ends the section on the shelling of Ukraine. So for a reader who is far away from the scene (for example, a Russian who has moved to Georgia or Germany), it is not clear where the actual hits were.

SCREENSHOT: "Medusa"

This conventional reader will also be completely puzzled by the title of the following text: "War Day 1513. russia has launched its largest combined strike on Ukraine since the beginning of the year: 18 people killed, dozens wounded. Two children were killed in the Krasnodar Territory due to an attack by Ukrainian drones." This actually reflects the thesis of the Russian Ministry of Defense: Ukraine is allegedly being hit because of its own "terrorist attacks." Several other texts are written in a similar manner: "About the attack on the night of July 19, 2025", "About the attack on Ukraine, including Odesa, on the night of June 17, 2025", "About the massive strike on Ukraine on November 17, 2024".

And here is another text about the Russian attack on two ships in the Black Sea. Medusa's journalists quote Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Kuleba and the head of the UMA, Oleh Kiper, as saying that a Syrian citizen was killed in the attack. The text ends with the following paragraph: "In November 2025, Ukraine began attacking tankers from Russia's "shadow fleet" in the Black Sea. After the first attacks, Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened that Russia would "cut off" Ukraine from the sea. He also promised that the Russian Armed Forces would carry out new strikes, including on the ships of Ukraine's allies."

It looks as if Ukraine was the first to attack Russian vessels, which is, of course, not true. Since 2022, these attacks on ships and ports have been regular. According to the logic of this passage, "strikes... on ships of Ukraine's allies" are also a kind of retaliation for the tankers and look like the norm. There is no mention of such actions being a violation of the rules and customs of warfare.

There are also texts on the Medusa website about missile/drone strikes on Odesa, where there are only links to Ukrainian sources. Still, the cases of the "false" balance of opinions discussed above may contribute to the misleading impression that readers have about the consequences of Russian missile attacks and the Russians' responsibility for them.

Voices of "Odessans" or a relay of Russian narratives?

Medusa has a section called "War through the eyes of readers." Anyone can write there. "We publish your letters to see this event through your eyes," the editors explain. However, the problem with this initiative is that during the war, they publish messages that are not verified in any way. How do these letters portray "Odessans"? We will use this word in quotation marks, because it is impossible to verify the information that these are real people from our city.

An "anonymous" reader from Odesa reduces the war to "Zelensky's desperate intentions to hold on to power at any cost," calls the TCC "the Gestapo," and writes that Odesa is being shelled because the navy is resisting the enemy by launching boats from the port. "And people just want to live peacefully, and more and more they don't care what country, language, flag it is..."

SCREEN SHOT of a letter from an anonymous Odesa resident. Source: "Medusa"

Kirill, who indicated his place of residence as "Odesa -> UK," writes something similar, distorting the Ukrainian language: "For three years now, propaganda has been hammering into the heads of Ukrainian citizens the idea of 'paramountcy', the 1991 borders, 'we will be in Crimea in the fall'. What is flying in Odesa is the fault of... Zelensky's team, which did not agree to accept the Istanbul agreements in 2022.

Nadia calls: "Leave us alone with your fucking policies, guarantees, territories, 'language', rescue of Russian speakers, and other bullshit they are selling us just to continue this war."

Ten appeals have been collected in two years. Only two of them can be considered pro-Ukrainian. In particular, Inna calls for not giving up the occupied territories, and Natalia claims that she is ready to endure and will "go this way with her country and plant roses."

The Russian edition, which notes that it "tries to present all points of view," shows only one of them, as almost every letter broadcasts the same narratives. For comparison, in the New York Times' report on Odesa during this year's blackout, which Medusa reprinted, the citizens spoke quite differently. For example, Tatiana's sons are fighting at the front, and her daughter went abroad. Oleksiy, an 83-year-old Odesa resident, does not blame Zelensky, but is ready to hit Putin over the head with a stick to "straighten his brain." Olha, a social worker, comments that "you can't give up."

Perhaps this is because the journalists talked to real people?

From "burned brothers" to "internal enemies"

We have written about the questionable editorial policy of Medusa many times. For example, the publication occasionally promotes the narrative about Nazis in Ukraine and other Kremlin lies. Recently, the publication published another column by "journalist" Shura Burtin about "persecution of undesirables in Ukraine". You can read more about his previous materials here.

"Journalist Shura Burtin has studied hundreds of verdicts from both countries [Russia and Ukraine] and has come to a paradoxical conclusion," the publication writes. "Despite the deep differences between Russia and Ukraine, their special services solve their problems and act in a very similar way in the conditions of war - namely, they "sew cases" against "internal enemies," fabricate evidence, and organize provocations. "Medusa publishes Burtin's text, which contains dozens of testimonies about how the most ordinary Russians and Ukrainians ended up in prison at the behest of the special services."

Using Odesa as an example, let's see how the Ukrainian special services, according to this "journalist," are "looking for traitors" and "sewing cases."

Here he writes that the SBU arrested activists of the "Workers' Front of Ukraine" (some of them from Odesa) for posting leaflets calling on the Ukrainian military to refuse to participate in hostilities. I wonder what the author thinks the SBU should have done: apologized and let the activists go?

Burtin also describes cases of detention of recruited teenagers who were tasked with setting fire to the cars of TCC employees: "The curators paid the boys 40 thousand hryvnias. The boys used the money to buy two mopeds, but they didn't have time to ride them: they were detained the same day." Was the SBU's actions wrong here?

Another case described by the author concerns Archpriest John Pavlichenko, a clergyman of the Moscow Patriarchate. The "journalist" admits that the priest's pro-Russian position and justification of aggression are obvious, but he was imprisoned, he believes, "for private phone calls." The archpriest spoke about "crowds of Nazis" running around the city and "harassing people," that "Nazis" are "guarded by the police," so "only an external force can free them from this." If you read the court's verdict, it took into account that it was not a case of a private person, but that the accused "is a clergyman, a person who, in accordance with his spiritual status, enjoys high authority among believers and has a significant influence on the formation of their beliefs, worldview and social behavior. His statements are perceived by believers not only as a private opinion, but also as the position of a person endowed with moral and spiritual authority."

To summarize: in all these cases, we are talking about adequate actions of the SBU or the Ukrainian court during the war, which are also in line with Ukrainian law. However, Burtin himself presents the accused as "prisoners of war" who suffered unjustly. And the publication reprints this, including a warning: "Medusa condemns the invasion of Ukraine by Russian troops and the ongoing military aggression by the Russian Federation. In this text, Shura Burtin expresses her attitude to the problem described. The author's opinion may not coincide with the position of the editorial board."

Meanwhile, one cannot help but see that the text published by Shura Burtin is a series of twists and manipulations designed to show that Russia and Ukraine are the same, that they persecute people and abuse prisoners of war. Ultimately, this approach should normalize all the war crimes committed by Russia and possibly help war criminals avoid accountability.

The report of Medusa from Gagauzia, which mentions the events of May 2, is also of interest. The publication quotes one of the characters, who says that "In 2014, my brothers were burned in Odesa, then the bombing of Donbas with Russian people began. Ideally, two point nuclear bombs should be dropped on Ukraine, and all this should be over very quickly."

It would seem that the journalists of the publication should realize that their country is using and fueling separatist sentiment throughout the former Soviet Union. But this does not stop them from quoting at length the justifications for such actions, including calls for the use of nuclear weapons. It turns out that it does not fall under the Medusa code not to publish messages that "justify the killing of civilians, express direct support for an aggressive war." Perhaps the code should state that none of this applies to Ukraine and Ukrainians. It turns out that they can be hit with a nuclear weapon...

In addition to the gentleman who justifies the strikes on Ukraine, the publication quotes other characters who believe that "we need Russia to be in Odesa," that "Odesa will soon be ours," and that Ukraine "went to war against its older brother." However, how can Russia end up in Odesa if not through the "aggressive war" that Medusa condemns?

Imperial glasses

When analyzing the specific coverage of a particular topic or region, one should always ask oneself: what was NOT covered? Let's recall the events of the past two years in Odesa.

Ukrainian literary festivals were held in the city. Did Medusa notice this? And Ukrainian authors from Odesa? Some of them, by the way, are also defending Ukraine at the front.

In 2025, the Vyshyvanka Festival was held for the first time since the full-scale invasion. Its central event, according to Suspilne, "was a rally in memory of the fallen heroes on Exchange Square." Relatives of the fallen Odessans joined the action. Was there anything in Medusa about Odessans who are fighting and giving their lives for Ukraine? We couldn't find anything. They wrote about how they were hiding from the TCC. The list goes on and on.

Now let's ask the question: why does Medusa show Odesa and Odessans mostly as hostages of this war? They say that Odesa is being shelled in response to Ukraine's actions. People are suffering because of Zelensky and because of the "arbitrariness" of the SBU or the TCC. Apparently, this is because mentally (not territorially) Odesa is still a "Russian city" in the minds of the authors of the publication. Russian imperialism does not allow us to see a different Odesa and Odessans who do not share pro-Russian views. After all, one of the manifestations of imperialism is silence, non-recognition of the colony's achievements. This is exactly what is happening.

Both Putin and Medusa look at the world, including Odesa, through imperial glasses. The thickness of the lenses in these glasses is, of course, different. However, the Russian liberal publication cannot take them off. And will it ever be able to?

Наталія Стеблина