The Grant Tumor: Anatomy of Informational Colonialism in Ukraine

In January 2025, the Trump administration announced the freezing of all USAID programs for 90 days. According to Oksana Romaniuk, director of the Institute of Mass Information, 80%, and possibly more, of Ukrainian media cooperated with USAID. Practically 90% of Ukrainian media survived thanks to grants. This fact reveals the scale of a phenomenon that can be called the largest experiment in informational colonialism in modern Ukrainian history.

But the real problem isn't that funding has stopped. The real problem is how, over a decade, a system was formed that replaced natural democratic processes, creating an illusion of civil society that was actually a product of external design. This is a story about how good intentions turned into a tumor that devoured Ukrainian democracy from within.

Diagnosis: Anatomy of the Grant Tumor

What is a Grant Tumor?

A grant tumor is the pathological development of an information-political ecosystem where natural democratic institutions are replaced by artificially created structures that imitate civil society but actually serve external interests. Unlike healthy civil society, which organically grows from society's needs and is accountable to it, the grant tumor feeds on external resources and is only accountable to donors.

System Metastases

As USAID stated, "Ukraine is a country with well-developed civil society and independent media that actively interact with politicians and authorities, inform citizens about the most pressing issues of political and social life, and provide them with opportunities to promote reforms and solve problems in their communities." But reality proved different: this was a well-developed simulacrum of civil society.

Key nodes of the grant tumor:

1. Financial Arteries:

• USAID — the main donor with a budget of over $6 billion for Ukraine in 2024

• National Endowment for Democracy (NED) — a quasi-non-governmental organization created in 1983 to "advance democracy worldwide"

• Internews — a global network for "supporting independent journalism"

• Pact Inc. — USAID program implementer that distributed grants through the "ENGAGE" program

2. Media Periphery: Dozens of publications, from Hromadske to Texty, from "Slidstvo.Info" to Kyiv Independent, which declared independence but received funding under the "Media Program in Ukraine" supported by USAID and Internews.

3. Personal Carriers: Entire generations of "activists," "reformers," and "experts" whose careers were built not on achievements for society, but on loyalty to the grant system.

Operating Mechanism

The grant tumor worked as a closed ecosystem:

1. Personnel Selection: Promoting "correct" figures through networks of media, conferences, awards

2. Agenda Formation: Determining which topics are important and which are taboo

3. Creating Immunity: Protecting "their own" from criticism through informational solidarity

4. Marginalizing Opponents: Excluding from public space those who didn't fit the scheme

As noted in USAID/ENGAGE program documents: "an insufficient level of civic education and citizen engagement remains a challenge for Ukrainian society." But instead of developing genuine civic education, the system created an illusion of activity through controlled channels.

Etiology: How the Disease Emerged

Historical Prerequisites

The grant tumor phenomenon didn't arise in a vacuum. After the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine found itself in a state of institutional vacuum. Western donors, guided by sincere intentions to help democracy emerge, failed to account for one thing: democracy cannot be implanted — it must grow from within.

As NED President Carl Gershman stated in 2016: "If Ukraine succeeds, it will provide a model of democracy in a country neighboring Russia where millions of people speaking Russian enjoy freedom of expression." This statement reveals the project's true essence: Ukraine was viewed not as a subject of its own development, but as an instrument of influence on Russia.

Revolution of Dignity as Catalyst

The events of 2013-2014 became a turning point. A genuine popular revolution created demand for new institutions and leaders. But instead of allowing society to produce them independently, external actors launched a massive program of "democracy import."

NED has supported civil society activists, journalists, and human rights defenders in Ukraine since 1989, but after Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022, this became "personal" for the organization. This emotional involvement, combined with enormous resources, led to Ukraine becoming a testing ground for experiments in "democratic construction."

Clinical Picture: Disease Symptoms

Artificial Elite Syndrome

The most striking symptom of the grant tumor was the formation of a caste of "untouchables" — personalities who received immunity from criticism regardless of their actions. This artificial elite had all the external signs of democratic leaders: Western education, correct rhetoric, international recognition. But it lacked the main thing — accountability to society.

Case #1: The Shabunin Phenomenon Vitaliy Shabunin, head of the "Anti-Corruption Action Center," was a symbol of anti-corruption struggle for decades. But when suspicions arose against him for using a volunteer vehicle and evading mobilization, the grant system closed around him in a tight ring. Kyiv Independent even called on the president to protect the activist — a precedent that would have been impossible in a healthy media environment.

Case #2: The NABU Paradox The National Anti-Corruption Bureau, created as a symbol of new Ukraine, had not brought a single high-profile case against top officials to conviction in its years of existence. But criticism of NABU was taboo for grant media — because it would mean criticizing the entire reform system.

Activity Imitation Syndrome

The grant tumor generated enormous amounts of "activity" that looked like democratic process but had no real results:

• Hundreds of "monitoring" reports that changed nothing

• Numerous "public discussions" of bills whose results were ignored

• "Investigations" that had no legal consequences

• "Reforms" that existed only on paper

Dependency Syndrome

The most dangerous symptom was complete dependence on external funding. Ukrainer founder Bohdan Lohvynenko noted that without USAID funds they produced twice less content. The "Tsukr" publication from Sumy reported: "Tsukr is 60% dependent on American funds."

This dependence created a vicious circle: the more media relied on grants, the less it tried to build relationships with audiences, the less viable it became without external support.

Metastasis Spread: How the Tumor Captured the System

Horizontal Integration

The grant tumor wasn't limited to the media sphere. It permeated the entire structure of "civil society":

Among the recipients of US budget assistance were dozens of media and public organizations, as well as ministries, government services, universities and others. This created the effect of "state capture" — when formally independent institutions were actually coordinated through a common funding source.

Vertical Integration

The system worked at all levels — from local media to international platforms:

• At the regional level, programs like "ENGAGE" operated with budgets over $10 million

• At the national level — large media projects and analytical centers

• At the international level — participation in global networks and conferences

Cultural Hegemony

Most dangerous was that the grant tumor established cultural hegemony — defining what to consider "progressive," "democratic," "European." Alternative opinions were automatically marked as "vatnik," "pro-Russian," "anti-reform."

Remedies That Don't Work: Why Traditional Fighting Methods Are Ineffective

The Immunity Problem

Ukrainian society proved defenseless against the grant tumor for several reasons:

1. Historical Trauma: After decades of Soviet propaganda, society was ready to trust any information source that declared itself "independent" and had Western support.

2. Economic Weakness: Low population incomes and weak advertising market made media dependent on external funding.

3. Institutional Immaturity: Absence of strong democratic traditions allowed imitation of democratic processes without their real content.

Why Ordinary Criticism Doesn't Work

Attempts to criticize the grant system encountered several defense mechanisms:

1. Ideological Cover: Any criticism was immediately marked as "attack on civil society" or "pro-Russian propaganda."

2. Informational Solidarity: System elements protected each other from criticism.

3. Resource Advantage: Critics didn't have access to the same media resources as the objects of criticism themselves.

Government Regulation Failure

Attempts at state intervention also proved ineffective:

• Formal regulation was circumvented through complex funding schemes

• Political pressure generated backlash in the form of "defending freedom of speech"

• Absence of clear legislation on foreign media funding

Unexpected Treatment: How Geopolitical Change Became Medicine

Trump as Antibiotic

The Trump administration's decision to freeze USAID funding proved to be the most effective "medicine" against the grant tumor. But not because it was a targeted fight against it, but because American foreign policy priorities changed.

As NED critics note, the organization engages in "a very particular form of low-intensity democracy chained to pro-market economics" in countries from Nicaragua to the Philippines and Ukraine. Trump saw this as a tool not of US national interests, but of Democratic party politics.

Effect of "Turning Off Oxygen"

Cessation of funding revealed the true nature of the grant ecosystem:

• Some cultural and media projects announced they were suspending work or reducing staff

• It became clear that many "independent" media were actually completely dependent on grants

• A natural selection process began — only projects with genuine audience support survived

Unexpected Consequences

The grant funding crisis revealed hidden processes:

1. Truth About "Independence": Practically 90% of Ukrainian media survived thanks to grants — this means the concept of "independent journalism" was an illusion.
    

2. Accountability Problem: Media that declared service to society actually served donors.
    

3. Ecosystem Artificiality: Many "civic initiatives" proved unviable without external support.

Lack of Immunity: Why Society Cannot Independently Fight the Problem

Structural Reasons for Vulnerability

Ukrainian society lacks natural immunity against the grant tumor for several reasons:

1. Historical Legacy:

• Absence of independent journalism traditions

• Habits of paternalistic information perception

• Tendency to trust "authoritative" sources

2. Economic Factors:

• Low income levels don't allow mass support of independent media

• Weak advertising market makes media dependent on external sources

• Absence of philanthropy culture

3. Educational Gaps:

• Low level of media literacy

• Misunderstanding of informational influence mechanisms

• Lack of critical thinking about funding sources

Psychological Barriers

1. "Good Intentions" Syndrome: People find it hard to believe that organizations declaring noble goals can serve manipulative purposes.

2. Cognitive Dissonance: Recognizing the problem requires rethinking many previous beliefs.

3. Fear of Marginalization: Criticizing the grant system often leads to social ostracism.

Institutional Weakness

1. Absence of Alternative Media: Truly independent media lacked resources to compete with grant-funded ones.

2. Weakness of Professional Communities: Journalist organizations were themselves part of the grant system.

3. Ineffective State Oversight: Regulators lacked tools to fight indirect influence.

Treatment Prospects: What to Do Next

Emergency Measures

1. Diagnosing the Scale:

• Complete audit of foreign funding for media and NGOs

• Public declaration of funding sources for all "public" organizations

• Analysis of impact on editorial policy

2. Creating Healthy Alternatives:

• Supporting truly independent media through internal sources

• Developing reader support culture

• Creating professional journalism standards

3. Educational Work:

• Improving population media literacy

• Teaching critical analysis of information sources

• Developing civic participation culture

Long-term Therapy

1. Legislative Changes:

• Law on transparency of foreign media funding

• Regulation of lobbying activities

• Standards for conflict of interest disclosure

2. Economic Incentives:

• Tax benefits for supporting independent media

• Development of domestic advertising market

• Support for local journalism

3. Cultural Changes:

• Formation of critical thinking

• Development of public control traditions

• Creation of genuine democracy culture

Prevention of Relapses

1. Funding Source Diversification: Avoiding dependence on one dominant donor.

2. Institutional Safeguards: Creating mechanisms that make system capture by external actors impossible.

3. Continuous Monitoring: Regular analysis of media ecosystem and civil society condition.

Conclusions: Lessons from the Grant Tumor

Main Conclusions

1. Good intentions don't guarantee good results. Western support for democratic development, guided by sincere intentions, led to creating a simulacrum of democracy instead of genuine democratic institutions.

2. External funding always creates dependence. Regardless of declarations about "independence," organizations dependent on external funding cannot be truly independent.

3. Real democracy cannot be imported. Democratic institutions must grow from society's own needs, not be imposed from outside.

4. Democracy imitation can be worse than authoritarianism. The grant tumor created an illusion of democracy that hindered development of genuine democratic institutions.

Treatment Paradox

The biggest paradox of the grant tumor is that the most effective medicine against it wasn't Ukrainian society's awareness of the problem, but policy change in the US. This testifies to the depth of the system's dependence on external factors.

Recovery Opportunities

The grant funding crisis opens a unique opportunity to create a truly independent media ecosystem and civil society. But this requires:

• Honest assessment of the problem's scale

• Society's readiness to take responsibility for its democracy

• Systematic work on forming alternative institutions

Warning

The danger lies in that a new grant tumor might appear in place of the old one — under different brands, with different donors, but with the same logic of external management. Only genuine understanding of this phenomenon's mechanisms can become the basis for immunity against it.

The grant tumor wasn't malicious intent — it was the result of systematic errors in the approach to democracy building. But the consequences of these errors proved catastrophic for Ukrainian democracy. Today we have a unique chance to fix everything — but only if we have the courage to look truth in the eye.

This article is based on analysis of publicly available data about funding of Ukrainian media and public organizations by international donors. All cited facts can be verified through the indicated sources.