Since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, there has been a marked intensification in the use of museums and their digital archives across Russian-controlled territories as instruments of ideological propagation. Recent research exposes how Russian state apparatuses have increasingly harnessed cultural institutions to project a narrative that questions Ukrainian sovereignty and identity, while promoting a conflation of Ukrainian heritage with that of Russia. This development not only underscores the evolving role of museums in geopolitical propaganda but also highlights significant challenges surrounding open access to cultural data in authoritarian contexts.
Comprehensive content analysis conducted by Ksenia Lavrenteva of the University of Exeter reveals that Russian museums, along with digital repositories, have transitioned into active components of the state’s ideological machinery. Prior to 2022, digital collections within Russia already exhibited restricted provenance information and imposed museum-controlled policies, limiting utilization by academic and creative communities. However, since the invasion, these restrictions have sharpened considerably, including tighter control over information and increased barriers to accessing digital collections. Such control mechanisms appear aligned with broader governmental objectives to curtail alternative historical narratives and effectively gatekeep digital heritage.
The research delves into four major Russian museums—the Russian Museum, the State Hermitage Museum, the State Historical Museum, and the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts—as well as the State Catalogue, Russia’s national digitized database of museum objects, and 25 other museum websites. These institutions have been instrumental in crafting exhibitions that portray occupied Ukrainian territories as historically inseparable from Russia. Exhibits have advanced the narrative wherein the invasion is framed as a necessary campaign against Nazism and NATO aggression, thereby seeking to legitimize ongoing military actions through curated historical interpretation.
In the years preceding the invasion, Ukraine’s distinct cultural and historical identity was often downplayed or absorbed into a Russian-centric narrative within these institutional exhibits. This appropriation has been further entrenched post-2022, with the proliferation of at least fifty online exhibitions explicitly addressing Ukraine’s history, culture, and the ongoing conflict. These exhibitions distort historical timelines and selectively omit Ukrainian perspectives, often initiating narratives from moments that reinforce longstanding Russian claims over contested areas such as Donbas, thereby marginalizing pre-Russian imperial histories.
One illustrative example is the exhibition titled “Donbas — Russia: History and Modernity,” which has been showcased physically and online by over fifty museums, libraries, and galleries in Russia and occupied Ukrainian regions. This exhibition constructs an “authentic” historical record starting only from Donbas’s integration into the Russian Empire, effectively erasing earlier diverse cultural influences and histories. This approach exemplifies a broader strategy of hegemonic use of cultural memory to validate factual claims over disputed territories and erode the legitimacy of Ukrainian national identity.
Moreover, the weaponization of cultural institutions extends to narrative framing through exhibitions focusing on “Nazism” and “NATO’s aggression.” During the initial year of the conflict, Russian museums organized at least 58 events emphasizing these themes, aiming to equate Ukraine’s government and armed forces with neo-Nazi ideologies. Shows such as “Evidence of Crimes by Ukrainian Nazis in Donbas” and “NATO: Chronicles of Cruelty” contribute to an official storyline portraying the war as a righteous consequence of combating fascism and Western military encroachment, thereby reframing geopolitical aggression in morally charged terms.
The ideological exploitation of museum collections also permeates commemoration practices. The “Angels of Donbas” project, an exhibition consisting of 18 photographic slides, commemorates children who perished in Donetsk and Luhansk between 2014 and 2023. Curated by the Donetsk Republican Local History Museum under occupying authorities, the project circulates widely across museum websites and social media in both Russia and occupied territories. While ostensibly memorializing victims, such exhibitions reinforce narratives supportive of the occupying forces and frame civilian suffering within a context that aligns with Russian state perspectives of the conflict.
In addition, Russia’s Ministry of Culture has issued formal guidelines for exhibitions on the “special military operation,” effectively institutionalizing particular ideological frameworks. These guidelines prescribe emphasizing the occupied Ukrainian regions’ “historical significance” as parts of Russia and documenting Ukrainian nationalist ideologies pejoratively. Displays are recommended to feature objects purportedly linked to atrocities committed by Ukrainians, including blood-stained toys and instruments of torture, curated to bolster narratives of Ukrainian hostility and to justify the invasion and occupation.
Legislation has been enacted to further solidify the appropriation of cultural property from occupied territories. Federal Law No. 63-FZ (2023) stipulates that museum objects located in occupied regions become part of the Russian Federation’s Museum Fund. This law mandates the digitization and presentation of cultural objects formerly housed in Ukrainian museums or seized during the occupation, explicitly requiring their representation in line with Russian ideological positions. Such legal measures institutionalize the seizure and reinterpretation of cultural heritage under the guise of legality and cultural stewardship.
The tightening of copyright regulations on digital collections amplifies the control over how cultural data is accessed and repurposed. These intellectual property constraints present significant barriers to scholarly research, especially for non-Russian researchers, reinforcing informational gatekeeping by museums functioning as state apparatuses. This dual strategy of legal control and curated ideological exhibition sharpens the challenges for independent academic inquiry and the dissemination of balanced, diverse cultural perspectives.
Lavrenteva’s analysis highlights the broader implications of these developments for open access principles. While open access can theoretically promote inclusivity and multiplicity of cultural narratives, without critical oversight, it risks becoming a vector for propagating state-sponsored ideological narratives. This situation calls for nuanced approaches that safeguard the emancipatory potentials of open cultural data while preventing its misappropriation by authoritarian regimes to reinforce oppressive ideologies and suppress dissenting voices.
The research underlines the imperative for scholars, institutions, and digital platforms engaging with Russian museum collections to exercise heightened critical scrutiny. Prioritizing non-Russian sources, particularly Ukrainian and other independent perspectives, is essential to counterbalance dominant narratives encoded within these collections. In a broader sense, this situation reflects the vulnerabilities of cultural heritage in conflict zones where control over historical memory becomes a strategic front in warfare and ideological contestation.
Ultimately, the use of museums as instruments of state propaganda in Russia raises profound questions about the intersection of cultural heritage, digital access, and geopolitical conflict. It foregrounds the need for international cultural and scholarly communities to develop robust frameworks for ethical engagement and for safeguarding cultural data against manipulation. This evolving reality reveals that museums, far from being neutral repositories of history, can become contested arenas where control over narratives and identity is fiercely contested and ideologically weaponized.
Subject of Research: People
Article Title: Gatekeeping Access: Exploring Open Access Challenges for Museum Collections Held in Russia
News Publication Date: Not explicitly mentioned; research published 5-May-2025
Web References: https://www.iastatedigitalpress.com/jlsc/article/id/18274/
Keywords: Censorship, Mass media, Cultural anthropology, Social surveys, Sociological data, Government, Sociopolitical systems, Society, Museums, Educational institutions
