What can be said about the Russian-language media landscape in Finland?

To illustrate, contextualise and validate the results of the quantitative study and network analysis, we compared them with the findings of the qualitative study, which partly covered the topics of this report. Semi‑structured interviews were conducted with a range of representatives from the Russian-language media in Finland to provide deeper insight into the media landscape, as well as the motivations, identities and subjective experiences of media content creators. In this chapter, quantitative findings are presented in the context of qualitative insights, with the goal of identifying possible explanations for the characteristics of the Russian-language media landscape in Finland.

The combined results of this study reveal two key tendencies. First, there is an unequal activity distribution and migration between platforms due to the shifting nature of the audience and technological capabilities. Second, the Russian‑language media landscape in Finland is small, fragile and poorly connected, due to a low level of institutionalisation and lack of financial stability.

Comparisons of the Russian‑language media on Facebook, Instagram and Telegram reveal that they are neither equally present nor equally connected across platforms. Media actors that have strong connections on one platform are not necessarily dominant, or even present, on the others. For instance, Vsyo o Finlandii, the largest ego network on Facebook, has only two connections on Instagram. Eto Finlandiya is not connected to any of the Instagram accounts in this research, despite having an account on the platform. Tochka’s social media account on Instagram is among the core accounts in the network but its account on Facebook has only two connections. Similar trends are observed on Telegram: for instance, although Echo Helsinki’s accountis among the core networks on Telegram, the account on Instagram has only two connections. Together, these observations show that Russian‑language media actors work more extensively on their preferred platform rather than maintaining equally strong presence on all platforms.

Furthermore, the shift in focus from one platform to another is clearly evident in the activity statistics. Many media actors on the initial Cultura Foundation database ceased activity on social media, were labelled 'inactive' and excluded from this research. Even among those media actors that were included in this research, some had inactive accounts on certain platforms. For instance, Rulehti, Gazeta and Perhekeskus Maria, which were very active and present on other platforms, did not post on Instagram during the period of our research, despite having a relatively large follower base.

The interviews provided some insight into the reasons behind the choice of particular platforms, the reasons for shifting between them, and the reasons for stopping activity on some platforms. One of the key reasons was audience drift across platforms and the age composition of audiences on various platforms. Facebook, Instagram and Telegram are currently considered the leading platforms; however, audience movement from one platform to another could change this in the future. For example, as Facebook's audience is generally older, media actors targeting younger populations may need to shift their activities to other platforms.

Young people generally don’t hang out on Facebook at all. The audience there is around 24, 25, 30 years old. Facebook kind of exists, but people just don’t go there anymore.¹ – Interview participant 2 (Anonymous interviewee)

The changing nature of the audience is also evident from the increase in negative discussions and the rise of a toxic environment. According to our study participants, this is particularly apparent on Facebook. Russian‑language media actors operating on the platform choose to limit commenting, strengthen moderation or shift their activity to other platforms. This may explain why engagement rates per post on Facebook are twice as low as on Telegram and more than three times lower than on Instagram.

…we decided to stop opening discussions on Facebook because the level of negativity went through the roof. And since we only have one and a half people working on it, we could no longer moderate Facebook.²– Interview participant 4 (Levan Tvaltvadze, Yle Novosti)

The technical capabilities and limitations of different platforms may also drive shifts in usage. The most common of these factors are the posting format, the ability to receive quick feedback, more intimate communication (for example, in chats), less strict policies, and security concerns. Instagram is considered more visual and private; therefore, it is not suitable for long‑form written posts. Telegram is valued for its ability to facilitate faster feedback and substantive discussions. However, concerns have been raised by both audiences and social media content creators regarding Facebook's policies and regulations, as well as Telegram's security issues.

My format is the long read – for me, that’s five to six thousand characters. So Telegram is much better suited for publishing that kind of content than Instagram.³ – Interview participant 9 (@from_hel_with_love)

You get a reply not in a week, but in 15 minutes. It’s just a different format – a bit more convenient, more active, considering, let’s say, the age group, if that’s the right way to put it.⁴ – Interview participant 2 (Anonymous interviewee)

Many people left Facebook for Telegram because Facebook’s policy started to hinder development in many ways.⁵ – Interview participant 3 (Finlyandiya: emigratsiya)

Now there’s this thing with Telegram: people have started not to trust it either, saying the platform is no longer safe. And in the current global situation – well, maybe not entirely global – safety is incredibly important.⁶ – Interview participant 3 (Finlyandiya: emigratsiya)

Overall, it is clear that the choice of social media platform, as well as the decision to switch between them, depends on the target audience and the technical capabilities and limitations of the platform itself. Consistent with the findings of the Digital News Report (Newman et al., 2025), Facebook is still a dominant platform for news media, but the growing limitations of the platform and the nature of the audience might push media actors to alternative platforms.

Russian‑language media in Finland demonstrates adaptability and a rapid response to external changes. For instance, many accounts ceased, reduced or slowed down their social media activity after 2022. It is likely that the media landscape will continue to evolve alongside technological developments and changes in audience preferences. Therefore, longitudinal changes in the media landscape, media consumption and motivation for platform choices are viable areas for future research.

1. В Фейсбуке молодежь вообще в целом особо не зависает. То есть там контингент 24 года, 25, 30. Фейсбук, ну как бы он может быть и есть, но народ туда просто не заходит.

2. …приняли решение перестать открывать дискуссии в Фейсбуке, потому что градус негативности стал зашкаливать. А так как у нас всего полтора землекопа, то мы не могли больше модерировать Фейсбук.

3. Моя подача это лонгрид. Лонгрид для меня это 5-6 тысяч знаков. Соответственно, Телеграм подходит для этого, для публикации подобных постов гораздо лучше, нежели Инстаграм.

4. Ответ ты получаешь не через неделю, а через 15 минут. Это просто другой формат, чуть-чуть удобнее, более активный, относительно, скажем так, возрастного контингента.

5. Из Фейсбука многие люди ушли в Телеграм, потому что политика Фейсбука стала мешать развитию во многом.

6. У Телеграма сейчас появляется история, что ему тоже не доверяют, что эта платформа перестала быть безопасной. А в нашей общемировой ситуации сейчас, ну не общемировой, безопасность невероятно важна.

The analysis of the Russian‑language media landscape reveals that it is relatively small, constantly shifting, loosely connected and fragmented across and within different platforms. Most media actors have personal or low-maintenance group accounts on social media and are active on only one platform. We found only 6 Russian-language media actors in Finland that could be categorised as media outlets, although many more media actors focus on delivering news via various platforms. Despite Finland having over 100 thousand Russian-speaking residents (Statistics Finland, 2025) and likely many more visitors, half of the social media accounts we studied have fewer than 1500 followers. Accounts with the largest follower base usually attract Russian speakers from outside Finland, for example Eto Finlyandyia and Granitsa.

The individual or low‑moderation group model of Russian-language media in Finland stems largely from the fact that it relies on voluntary work. From media outlets to bloggers and community administrators, these accounts are run by people who are enthusiastic about what they do and who work unpaid, without structured teams or salaried staff. As these media actors rely on personal commitment rather than organisational stability, they are less resilient to external changes and more susceptible to change due to a lack of time, interest or resources. Furthermore, due to the personal nature of most social media accounts, connections between accounts may reflect personal interests more than professional ones.

It’s a volunteer project. We do it voluntarily. Nobody gets paid. It’s just a way to spend time. Because we happen to have some free time.⁷ – Interview participant 8 (Valery Klepkin, Echo Helsinki)

We don’t have a single person on salary – that’s important to make clear right away. We have no funding at all; everything is done out of good will and because people believe in what they’re doing. ⁸ – Interview participant 7 (Alexandr Foy, Tochka)

...but I still see it more as a hobby, at least at this stage. In a way, that’s exactly what it is – a hobby, because I don’t make any money from it. ⁹ – Interview participant 10 (Nikita Makarov, Rulehti)

Relying on voluntary work and lacking financial stability makes it difficult to maintain accounts on multiple platforms simultaneously and ensure operational integrity. This may explain why Russian‑language media in Finland mostly operate on one platform, with half of the media actors posting only moderately, at an average rate of once every five days. During the interviews, it was repeatedly emphasised that sustainable work is impossible without external support. Interviewees viewed a commercial work model as unrealistic and unattainable, while grants were seen as a short‑term solution.

We would, of course, like to become that kind of media, but, to be honest – well, it’s simply impossible without someone investing in it. ¹⁰ – Interview participant 7 (Alexandr Foy, Tochka)

So, in Finland there was even [a radio station] – Radio Sputnik – which for about twenty years was supposedly commercial, had advertising and all that, but it was never self-sustaining. It was always supported [financially] by the person who stood behind it. Spektr was always subsidized. Gazeta.fi… well, we can’t really talk about it seriously either, but it’s also done by one person and doesn’t bring any income. Yle is funded by taxpayers’ money. So what we’ll see in blogs now – that’s what will continue to exist. ¹¹ – Interview participant 9 (@from_hel_with_love)

And the risks, whether political or related to changing attitudes, I think they are less significant and less problematic than the absence of funding. ¹² – Interview participant 10 (Nikita Makarov, Rulehti)

The lack of resources is also related to the low level of formal integration of Russian‑language media and their creators into professional and civic structures, as well as a lack of institutionalisation. Most Russian‑language media actors are not formally registered as media outlets, lack stable editorial policies, and depend heavily on their founders' personal voluntary involvement. Formal structures are largely absent, and institutionalisation remains more of an idea than a practice. Even when individual participants belong to trade unions or civic organisations, such affiliations remain personal rather than institutional and do not translate into sustained professional contexts.

Yes, that’s again the problem – why we didn’t register [as a media outlet]. It’s hard for us to agree on a proper editorial policy; each of us has our own opinion. And we rarely find compromises...¹³ – Interview participant 8 (Echo Helsinki)

What keeps me motivated for now is that I haven’t lost faith in the idea that this could move into some kind of institutional stage. Maybe it is still possible after all.¹⁴ – Interview participant 10 (Nikita Makarov, Rulehti)

All these challenges mean that Russian‑language media in Finland has a short lifespan and operates with short-term planning and a situational approach. Russian‑language media tend to emerge and disappear on different social media platforms alongside the enthusiasm or personal circumstances of their creators, rather than as a result of long-term strategies. Most interviewees described their work as spontaneous and responsive – something that happens while there is energy, funding or a sense of relevance. Strategic planning is viewed as unrealistic in such unstable, volunteer-driven settings. Therefore, the sustainability of the media depends not on formal structures, but on the temporary alignment of people, interests and available resources.

So, like, to sit down and write a plan for the next 20 years – I think that’s impossible right now. <...> Someone might want to leave, someone might, I don’t know, have a child, for example, and then won’t be able to dedicate time to it at all. ¹⁵ – Interview participant 6 (Aleksanterinliiton jäsen)

…as usual, when there’s money, there are projects; when there’s no money, there’s no project. ¹⁶ – Interview participant 7 (Alexandr Foy, Tochka)

The short and situational approach, combined with a lack of institutional support, makes it more difficult for Russian‑language media to cooperate with one another, as well as with Finnish-language media. Russian-language media in Finland remain largely isolated both institutionally and professionally. They rarely interact with Finnish‑speaking colleagues, and when they do, cooperation is fragmented and ad hoc, with no stable or structured channels in place. Interest in the Russian-speaking audience and its perception of current events has increased somewhat since 2022, but not enough to change the situation.

As for the Finnish journalistic community, we definitely [don’t belong] there. Because we’re generally far from Finnish media in this regard, except for some personal acquaintances. ¹⁷ – Interview participant 8 (Valery Klepkin, Echo Helsinki)

When it all started [after the border between Finland and Russia was closed], we tried to interact with all Finnish media in general, because we wanted help – we wanted to understand what was going on. And we invited them to our events. At first, everything was fine. Then, apparently, either a stop order was given or something – we don’t know. ¹⁸ – Interview participant 6 (Aleksanterinliiton jäsen)

It’s surprising because, for example, after 2022 the number of requests from Finnish-speaking colleagues to us increased sharply. We were literally in high demand, you could say. ¹⁹ – Interview participant 4 (Levan Tvaltvadze, Yle Novosti)

Cooperation among Russian-language media in Finland is also low. While there are occasional partnerships with NGOs, cultural organisations and event organisers, collaboration within the media field itself is described as rare and unsystematic. Even basic forms of cross‑promotion or joint content production, which are common in other countries (such as informal, Telegram-based collaborations among Russian-speaking creators in France), appear to be almost non-existent in Finland. At the same time, competition between Russian-language media in Finland is absent due to the small audience size, lack of monetisation mechanisms and prevalence of volunteer-driven, non-commercial projects. This dynamic is clearly reflected in the fragmented Russian-language media landscape, where most outlets operate individually and lack the infrastructure and perceived need for inter-media cooperation.

And right now, it’s honestly hard to imagine that in our current situation, we would organize any collaborations with anyone. There are simply no resources for that again. The question of resources keeps coming up all the time. That’s life. You can plan a lot of good things, but the reality is what it is.²⁰ – Interview participant 4 (Levan Tvaltvadze, Yle Novosti)

But there wasn’t any actual collaboration or anything like that. We’ve never had a joint project. That’s just never happened. ²¹ – Interview participant 5 (Rostislav Vladimirskiy, Aleksanterinliito)

In other countries, like France, for example… well, I’m in a bloggers’ chat, people talk there, they can do mutual promotion just for French channels. They gather all the French TG channels and promote each other. In Finland, that’s practically impossible. It would be an extremely rare case. I don’t know why, maybe it’s the kind of people who come here, I don’t understand why, but that’s how it is.²² – Interview participant 3 (Finlyandiya: emigratsiya)

I don’t know, I think there are too few of us to compete. Plus, the audience here is small, so most projects are non-commercial anyway. So where could competition even come from? You don’t make money from your audience – what would you compete for? For attention? That’s something of an illness already, so I don’t know.²³ – Interview participant 8 (Valery Klepkin, Echo Helsinki)

Overall, both interview and network data reveal that Russian‑language media is currently operating in a fragmented environment. Limited resources, small audiences and weak interconnections mean that, rather than forming an integrated media field, Russian-language media consists of isolated initiatives, with cooperation mainly occurring outside the media sphere itself.

Our finding that the majority of media actors operate on a voluntary basis, without organisational structure or institutional integration, is consistent with previous research indicating that Russian‑language media are underrepresented in the country's mainstream media services and workforce (Ala-Fossi et al., 2021). However, given that Russian speakers are active social media users (Davydova-Minguet et al., 2019), it is reasonable to expect that Russian-language media, especially on social media, will thrive. Whether this growth leads to a sustainable, self-sufficient, well-integrated and connected landscape, or whether it remains fragmented, volatile and voluntary, depends on the Finnish government, the media sector and Russian-language media itself.

7. Это волонтёрский проект. Мы делаем это добровольно. Зарплату нам не платят. Это просто времяпрепровождение. Потому что у нас оно свободное есть

8. У нас нет ни одного человека на зарплате, вообще это сразу же стоит проставить все точки над i. То есть у нас нету никакого финансирования, и это всё делается за спасибо и за то, что люди верят в то, что они делают

9. …но я больше всё равно как хобби рассматриваю. В каком-то смысле на данном этапе. Ну, как хобби. Это и есть хобби, потому что я не получаю из этого денег

10. Мы бы, безусловно, хотели бы стать этим медиа, но, посмотрев правде в глаза, да, то есть, ну, то есть это просто невозможно без того, чтобы кто-то в это вложился

11. То есть там в Финляндии даже (было радио), которое “Радио Спутник”, там на протяжении 20 лет, типа а-ля коммерческий, у которого была реклама, он никогда не был на самоокупаемости. Он всегда поддерживался (деньгами) человека, который стоял за этим радио. “Спектр” всегда был на дотациях. “Газета.fi”… ну мы не можем как бы серьезно об этом говорить, но тоже она делается там силами одного человека, и она не приносит никакого дохода. Yle содержится за счет денег налогоплательщиков. Поэтому то, что мы будем видеть в блогах, то, что есть сейчас, то и будет

12. А риски, связанные какие-то политические или какие-то там с изменением отношения, то я думаю, что они менее значительные и менее проблемные, чем отсутствие финансирования.

13. Да, это вот опять же проблема, почему не зарегистрировались [как СМИ]. В том, что у нас сложно договориться о нормальной редакционной политике, у нас у каждого своё мнение. И компромиссы мы находим редко

14. Но мотивирует пока, что я не разочаровался в идее, что это может быть переход в стадию институционального какого-то. Может быть, это все-таки возможно.

15. То есть, так вот, чтобы сесть и расписать план на 20 лет вперёд, да, это сейчас, мне кажется, невозможно. <...> Кто-то захочет уехать, кто-то, я не знаю, ребёнка родит, условно, и совершенно не сможет посвящать.

16. …как обычно, есть деньги, есть проекты, нет денег, нет проекта

17. К финскому журналистскому комьюнити мы точно [не принадлежим]. Потому что мы вообще далеки от финских СМИ в этом плане, кроме личных каких-то знакомств

18. Когда всё начиналось, мы пытались взаимодействовать вообще со всеми финскими медиа, потому что мы хотели помощи, хотели вообще понять, что происходит. И мы приглашали их на наши мероприятия. И по началу всё было хорошо. Потом, конечно, видимо, то ли была дана команда стоп, то ли что. Этого мы не знаем.

19. Это удивительно, потому что, например, после 2022 года число обращений со стороны финноязычных коллег резко возросло к нам. То есть мы прямо были на расхват, можно сказать

20. А сейчас вообще даже сложно представить, что мы в нашей нынешней ситуации какие-то коллаборации будем с кем-то устраивать. На это просто нет опять-таки ресурсов. Всё время возвращается вопрос к ресурсам. Такова жизнь. Ты можешь планировать очень много хороших вещей, но реальность такова.

21. Но там не было какой-то объектной коллаборации или чего-то. То есть у нас никогда не было такого, что у нас есть какой-то совместный проект. То есть такого никогда не было.

22. При этом в других странах, по-моему, вот во Франции, например. Ну, я ж в блогерском чатике сижу, народ рассказывает. Они могут сделать взаимный пиар на каналы только по Франции. Собрать все французские ТГ-каналы и друг друга пропиарить. Чтобы в Финляндии это просто практически невозможно. Это редчайший случай будет. Я не знаю, почему другие люди сюда приезжают, что ли. Я не понимаю, почему, но вот так.

23. Я не знаю, мне кажется, нас слишком мало для того, чтобы конкурировать. Плюс аудитория тоже тут небольшая, поэтому большинство это какие-то такие некоммерческие проекты. Поэтому где тут может быть конкуренция?