How does Vladyslav Novikov use open-source intelligence, AI tools, and digital evidence preservation to investigate Alabuga Polytech and Russian drone recruitment networks?
Vladyslav Novikov is a Ukrainian journalist, investigator, and broadcaster with 24 Channel whose work focuses on open-source intelligence, digital evidence preservation, and Russian information operations. He is the creator of the Alabuga Case Archive, a project documenting the online promotion and recruitment activities of Alabuga Polytech, an institution linked to Russia’s drone-production ecosystem. Through large-scale analysis of social media content, archived videos, and promotional networks, Novikov examines sanctions loopholes, propaganda, and wartime recruitment.
In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Vladyslav Novikov about open-source intelligence, digital security, and the investigation of Alabuga Polytech, an institution linked to Russia’s drone-production ecosystem. Novikov explains how he transformed raw datasets into a public evidence archive, discusses the role of AI-assisted research, examines the challenges of protecting sources and investigators, and reflects on the risks, responsibilities, and democratic implications of exposing recruitment networks operating through Western online platforms.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Many individuals involved in open-source intelligence have formal qualifications, whether from secondary education, university programs, or specialized training. My suspicion, however, is that in wartime environments, many people engaged in open-source intelligence begin without directly relevant qualifications and develop expertise through experience.
In the Ukrainian context, many people conduct this work because they want their country to survive and remain independent. For Ukrainians interested in open-source intelligence research, what would be your first recommendations for conducting investigations responsibly? Specifically, how should they approach data collection, information verification, and the development of a research program?
Vladyslav Novikov: In my experience, the process evolved.
When I first found this information, I sent it to the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and other government institutions. I assumed they would review the material and take whatever action was necessary.
However, that is not how it worked in practice. After submitting the information, I received little or no feedback. I did not know whether the data was being used, whether officials were investigating it, or whether any action had been taken.
At that point, I realized I could not simply hand over the information and walk away. I needed to do something more.
Initially, the material existed as datasets, spreadsheets, and documents. A large file containing hundreds of pages is difficult for people to understand and use effectively. Even when the evidence is important, it can be inaccessible if it is presented only as raw data.
So I began thinking about how to make the information more useful and easier to understand. That led me to the idea of creating a public website. If the evidence were presented in a clear and accessible format, it would attract attention from Western media, Ukrainian officials, researchers, and policymakers.
The first step was collecting the data. The second was verifying the links, videos, and evidence. The third was building the website itself. The fourth was to promote the project and share it with journalists and others who might be interested.
That is what I have been doing.
So far, the results have been modest. The project has been mentioned by CBS News, by 24 Channel, where I work, and by the National Union of Journalists of Ukraine.
I continue to reach out to journalists, including those at organizations such as Bloomberg, as well as independent journalists like yourself. My goal is to bring attention to the issue, encourage further investigation, and ultimately help close the loophole that allows this recruitment activity to continue.
Jacobsen: Are there additional security measures that you need to take into account when conducting open-source intelligence research, or is that not a major concern? For example, do you need to use a VPN while doing this kind of work?
Novikov: In this particular case, not always. However, if I want to access certain parts of their website or investigate specific content more deeply, I use a VPN.
One interesting aspect of this investigation involved the Alabuga Polytech website itself. When you visit the main website, you see content about education, technology, opportunities, and career development. There is no mention of drones, military production, or war.
However, they made what I consider a significant mistake. They created a separate promotional page under the same domain. On that page, they explicitly advertised work involving drones, including Shaheds and Gerans. The message was essentially, “Give us your name and phone number, and we will contact you.”
For me, that was another example of how they use an educational façade. The public-facing website presents a single image, while other materials reveal a much closer connection to military activities.
I found that page while conducting research using a VPN.
Jacobsen: The National Union of Journalists of Ukraine has outlined several security measures for journalists. Would you add any additional recommendations for people conducting highly sensitive open-source intelligence research? More advanced precautions. What would you recommend if someone is conducting particularly sensitive research and wants to do so safely?
Novikov: If we are talking about the National Union of Journalists of Ukraine, they helped promote the project. They mentioned it on their website, shared my contact information with interested journalists, including you, and connected me with some government contacts in Ukraine. That support was valuable.
Jacobsen: What about protecting sources? Suppose you were researching another institution, and someone working there provided information. They might not support drone production or military activities, but they are willing to speak with you. How would you protect that source within your records, databases, or communications?
In other words, I am not asking about your own safety but about the safety of people who provide information.
Novikov: That is a very good question.
Jacobsen: YIn this second part of the conversation, I am trying to understand how researchers can conduct this work safely, both for themselves and for the people who help them.
Novikov: Regarding the technical side, I draw on my own experience. When I was about fourteen years old, I wanted to become a programmer, so I became familiar with technology and coding.
Today, with AI tools available, it is much easier to create technical solutions. For example, I used AI-assisted coding tools when building the website for this project. Those tools helped me create and manage the code needed to collect, organize, and present the information.
For people who want to conduct similar investigations, technical skills, programming knowledge, and familiarity with AI tools can be very useful. As for safety, are you referring to digital security online or physical safety in the real world?
Jacobsen: Both. If someone’s identity or data is exposed online after they have provided sensitive information, it can create risks for them in the real world. So I am asking about both digital and physical security.
Novikov: I think Russia targets many people in Ukraine who are working against its interests. If you start investigating a case like this, try to publicize it, and make it more difficult for them to recruit people or produce drones, you could become a target.
Yes, I think about that, and I worry about it.
But when the war began, I worked near the front lines as a war journalist. The risks associated with this investigation feel similar to me. Living in Ukraine is generally not entirely safe. If you are in Kyiv, you can be asleep in the middle of the night and suddenly wake up to the sound of a drone attack.
That may be one reason I became so invested in this story and want to change something.
For me, this is not simply another article or another news report. It is about closing a loophole. I was shocked when I first discovered it, and I remain shocked today, even though many people are aware of the issue, yet I do not see meaningful action being taken.
That is why I continue to promote the project. I want to encourage change.
After our conversation, I will continue to contact journalists and policymakers, including those in the United States. My goal is to encourage action that makes it more difficult for Russia to use Western platforms for recruitment and promotion.
In a sense, I think this case is about democracy. Platforms such as YouTube often claim to protect openness and democratic values, but that approach can sometimes be exploited in unintended ways.
Jacobsen: We should also consider the reverse question. For uncertain people, what are some reasons they should not engage in this type of research?
Novikov: When I talk about becoming a target, that is my personal assessment. I don’t have visibility into how Russian authorities evaluate each case or what actions they might take.
They may pay no attention to a particular investigation. I cannot say for certain.
However, if they view your work as threatening, you could become a target. That is something people need to consider before taking on this kind of research.
Anyone who wants to do this work should understand that there may be risks, both for themselves and potentially for their families. They should also understand the importance of digital security and know how to protect themselves online.
If someone lacks the knowledge or resources necessary to protect their information, communications, and identity, they should think carefully before becoming involved in such an investigation.
The risks do not necessarily affect only the researcher. They can also affect family members, colleagues, sources, and others connected to the project.
That does not mean people should never do this work. It means they should understand the risks and be prepared to manage them responsibly.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Vladyslav.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen is a contributor to The Washington Outsider. He is the Founder and Publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978–1–0692343; 978–1–0673505) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369–6885). He writes for International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN, 0018–7399; Online: ISSN, 2163–3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), Humanist Perspectives (ISSN: 1719–6337), A Further Inquiry (SubStack), Vocal, Medium, The Good Men Project, The New Enlightenment Project, The Washington Outsider, rabble.ca, and other media. His bibliography index can be found via the Jacobsen Bank at In-Sight Publishing comprised of more than 10,000 articles, interviews, and republications, in more than 200 outlets. He has served in national and international leadership roles within humanist and media organizations, held several academic fellowships, and currently serves on several boards. He is a member in good standing in numerous media organizations, including the Canadian Association of Journalists, PEN Canada (CRA: 88916 2541 RR0001), Reporters Without Borders (SIREN: 343 684 221/SIRET: 343 684 221 00041/EIN: 20–0708028), and others.