Something is wrong with YouTuber Johnny Harris’ lens — not the one he uses to film himself, but his view of Eastern European history. Known for his unquenchable thirst for maps and archival documents, Harris has become a prominent voice on geopolitics and history. If you're unfamiliar with him, Harris developed his personal brand at Vox Media before leaving during the COVID-19 pandemic after his web series “Borders” was canceled.
On Dec. 5, he published a video titled “Why People Blame America for the War in Ukraine.” In it, he echoes Kremlin talking points about NATO expansionism being the cause of Russia’s so-called “special military operation” in Ukraine. As Kyiv Independent’s Creative Video Director, I often see this argument in our YouTube comments — usually from bots. To hear it from Harris, however, is unexpected. To summarize his argument: NATO provoked Russia, and the Kremlin was left with no choice but to invade Ukraine. Of course, buried in the final moments, he acknowledges how inexcusable and tragic this war has been.
Harris’ video claims that the United States treated Russia as a defeated belligerent at the end of the Cold War, taking advantage of its weakness to expand NATO to Russia’s borders. Despite all the maps in Harris’ possession, he shockingly overlooks how little of Russia NATO actually borders. Before Russia’s 2022 invasion prompted Finland to join the alliance, NATO only bordered about 378 kilometers (235 miles) of Russia’s 57,792-kilometer (35,910 miles) border. This point is neglected by Harris.
In his narrative, the Soviet collapse of 1991 is treated similarly to Germany’s 1918 surrender in World War I — shamed, indebted, and politically isolated. Yet, in the decades that followed, the new Russia was awarded a permanent Security Council seat, invited to the G7, given lucrative energy deals, and hosted the Olympics and World Cup. While some in Washington remained skeptical and suspicious of Russia, Moscow received far more generosity and prominence than any other former Soviet republic.
In contrast, the U.S. pressured Ukraine to weaken its defense deterrence at Russia’s insistence, prioritizing friendlier relations with Moscow over Kyiv’s security concerns. We explore this in our recent video on the Budapest Memorandum. Yes, the reality is more complex than I’ve outlined, but that’s precisely my point: Harris’ perspective is too narrow to the point of irresponsibility.
Harris’ perspective is too narrow to the point of irresponsibility.
Harris issued an apology early Dec. 6 after a “wave of feedback” and removed the video — likely prompted by his sponsor “not wanting to be associated” with it. He admitted he “omitted the valuable perspective of these Eastern European countries.” With sleek design, he mapped NATO’s expansion into Central and Eastern Europe. Somehow, it didn’t occur to him to question why these countries voluntarily joined a defensive military alliance. As one colleague put it, “When you join a gym, we don’t call it gym enlargement.” Why would these countries want to join NATO?
In Harris’ telling, Russia wanted peace and to partner with the West after the fall of the Soviet Union. Yet, Russia had a curious way of showing this. Harris neglects even a cursory glance at Russian history. Moscow spent much of the 1990s at war, occupying parts of Moldova and Georgia, and crushing the uprising in Chechnya. He praises Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s efforts to end the Cold War, yet ignores how Gorbachev sent tanks to Lithuania to crush its independence movement. Central and Eastern Europeans remember these events — and the comments on Harris’ video made him very aware of this.
Johnny Harris is not stupid. He was aware of what he was doing in this video. In fact, he joked that his viewers would be Googling “Is Johnny Harris funded by the Russian government?” after watching it. With a broad grin, he dismisses this as if it were not a serious concern. It’s not like the U.S. Justice Department exposed a Russian operation in September that covertly paid several prominent right-wing influencers to promote its agenda. Or the questionable finances of former RT journalist Max Blumenthal’s “The Grayzone.” Similar operations have been exposed in the media, academia, and NGOs — including an arrest of a think tank employee this week. With Harris’ massive following and his scrutiny of official narratives, he would make for an attractive target — whether wittingly or not.
Harris appears genuinely surprised by the backlash. But should he be? More importantly, should any of us really be surprised by this video from him?
Harris has long been guilty of a white-savior complex, broadcasting the plight of the colonized and Global South to the world — from Venezuela’s hyperinflation to Sudan’s civil war. Yet, you rarely hear their voices in his videos — especially after he left Vox. He’s hesitant to turn the camera away from himself. He understands it’s his face that gets views, so it’s understandable to put himself front and center. But when dealing with sensitive subjects, it’s past time for him to include the voices of those who have spent more time experiencing and studying the topics he explores.
Harris is not a nobody. He has over 6 million global subscribers, corporate sponsors, and a Patreon that earns up to an estimated $21,000 per month. This is not the first time he has been called out for prioritizing sensationalism over facts and disregarding history. This was evident in his video “Why Is Russia So DAMN BIG?,” which whitewashes Russia’s violent history of expansionism.
This is especially important in the visual medium we operate in on YouTube. Video is a powerful tool of persuasion. The experience of watching a Harris video is hypnotic due to his masterful use of storytelling, music, graphics, and editing. It can move viewers emotionally as well as intellectually.
Take one moment in Harris’ now-deleted video on NATO and Russia (still available on a Twitch stream), where he says: “Here in the political West, we mostly blame Russia and China for greedily trying to disrupt the U.S.-led rules-based order, but what if that’s wrong?” As he says this, he cuts to House Speaker Mike Johnson. Why him? Johnson is not representative of American foreign policy, but to Harris’ target audience, he represents American hypocrisy. Johnson has constantly defended convicted felon and incoming president, Donald Trump. He is certainly not the face of a “rules-based order.” Furthermore, Johnson only joined Congress in 2017, meaning he was not involved in NATO expansion, which Harris explores in the video.
That subconscious influence through editing makes video an effective tool for propaganda. The question for Harris is whether he wants to be a journalist or a propagandist.
Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in the op-ed section are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Kyiv Independent.
Oleksiy Sorokin
