In a disturbing intersection of grief and technology, Russian families are reportedly using AI-powered tools to create digital avatars of soldiers killed in Ukraine, sparking outrage from British tech leaders who warn of an emerging ‘weaponisation of grief.’ The practice, which involves feeding photos, videos, and voice recordings into generative AI models, produces interactive chatbots or deepfake videos that mimic the deceased. While some see it as a coping mechanism, critics argue it is a cynical propaganda tool to sanitise war and manipulate public sentiment.
The phenomenon first came to light through Russian social media channels, where dozens of accounts advertise services offering to ‘bring back’ loved ones. One such service, ‘Vechnaya Pamyat’ (Eternal Memory), claims to use ‘neural networks to recreate personalities with 95% accuracy.’ A user named Olga, whose son died near Bakhmut, told a local news outlet: ‘I talk to him every night. He tells me he loves me and that his death was not in vain.’
British tech firms have condemned the practice. Dr. Eleanor Shaw, a former Google ethicist now at the Alan Turing Institute, called it a ‘dangerous blurring of reality.’ She said: ‘These families are being exploited for political ends. The Kremlin is turning personal loss into a tool of state propaganda, making the war seem noble and the sacrifices meaningful. It is a manipulation of the human psyche at its most vulnerable.’
DeepMind, the London-based AI company, issued a statement warning that such applications violate fundamental ethical principles. ‘We design AI to augment human potential, not to distort reality for political gain. The weaponisation of grief is a line that should never be crossed.’ The company urged governments to regulate ‘death tech’ before it becomes widespread in other conflicts.
The controversy echoes earlier concerns about deepfake memorials used by Chinese companies to ‘resurrect’ relatives, but the Russian context adds a geopolitical dimension. With the war in Ukraine entering its third year, both sides are deploying AI for disinformation. Russian state media has amplified the stories of families using these avatars, framing them as evidence of national unity. Independent fact-checkers, however, have found that some of the most viral videos are staged or use actors.
Professor Alexei Morozov, a sociologist at the European University at St. Petersburg now in exile, said the phenomenon is a ‘symptom of a society unwilling to confront the true cost of war.’ He explained: ‘If you can digitally resurrect your child, you don’t have to process their absence. You don’t have to ask why they died. The state wants you to feel that the sacrifice was necessary, not tragic.’
The ethical dilemmas are profound. Does a digital copy have rights? Can grief be ‘hacked’ to serve a political agenda? British MP Harriet Harman, chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, has called for an inquiry into ‘digital necromancy.’ She said: ‘We cannot allow tech to be used to deceive the bereaved. This is a new form of psychological warfare.’
As the technology spreads, Silicon Valley is watching nervously. Julian Vane, a former Silicon Valley executive now based in London, said: ‘We created these tools to help people connect, not to trap them in digital purgatory. The user experience of society is being exploited. This is the Black Mirror episode we warned about, and it’s happening in real time.’
The Russian government has not commented, but the Ministry of Digital Development recently announced grants for ‘emotional AI’ projects. For families like Olga’s, the choice is stark. ‘I know it’s not real,’ she said. ‘But it’s the only place I can hear his voice.’ As the line between memory and machine blurs, the world must decide: is this a comfort or a curse?
