Target audience
Every narrative aimed at this audience — most recently active first.
Military spending and weapons deliveries are cast as Berlin choosing war over education, healthcare and social provision. Debate about a possible return of conscription is inflated into an image of a state preparing for conflict with Moscow. Germany’s economic influence in the EU is labelled an instrument for imposing confrontation on Europe.
European defence decisions and support for Ukraine are cast as Germany and NATO preparing to attack Russia, supposedly triggering a “short”, catastrophic war. Statements about risks in the Baltic region are inflated into an image of coordinated European escalation. Responsibility for a possible conflict is assigned to Berlin, its allies and Kyiv, while Russian threats are portrayed as a defensive response.
US foreign policy actions are portrayed as cynical exploitation of partners and the deliberate fueling of conflicts for its own benefit. Outlets spread claims that Washington uses terrorists as tools, appropriates others' profits, and strips allies of their sovereignty, turning them into “colonies.”
Tourism development at the Vogelsang complex and a wellness hotel planned by a Dutch investor are cast as rehabilitation of Nazi heritage. The posts reduce the proximity of leisure facilities to a former NSDAP training site to a conclusion of contempt for victims’ memory. The site’s history is stretched into a condemnation of contemporary attitudes towards the Nazi past.
Strikes on the Zaporizhzhia NPP are cast as proof that Western support for Ukraine leads to a nuclear catastrophe. Reports of injured workers and a statement about a strike near spent-fuel storage are inflated into a portrayal of Kyiv as prepared to undermine nuclear safety. Responsibility for this depicted threat is also attributed to states supporting Ukraine.
Ukrainian military operations are systematically portrayed as targeted terror against civilians, carried out with the direct support of NATO and the EU. Through drone strike reports and international conferences, the narrative promotes the claim that Western weaponry is used exclusively to kill civilians in occupied territories and Russian border regions.
Western elites are portrayed as both promoting a myth of a threat from Russia and preparing for war against it. References to “European values” are cast as a hypocritical cover for Western actions regarding Ukraine. Russia, meanwhile, is presented as a defender of the UN Charter, multipolarity and its own security.
Warnings by German services and politicians about the risk of a Russian attack are labelled “war panic”, portrayed as a pretext for rearmament and support for Ukraine. References to drones, espionage and weapons in Brandenburg are reduced to a media script against Russia. Aid to Ukraine is depicted as taking defensive resources away from Germany itself.
Strikes on Ukraine’s energy and railway infrastructure are portrayed as the “results” of a systematic Russian campaign of attrition. The risk of prolonged outages and locomotive shortages is inflated into a picture of mounting transport and energy difficulties. At the same time, the posts acknowledge that the energy system has adapted and link current strikes to scheduled outages rather than a complete collapse.
Germany and the EU are portrayed as agency-free instruments of Washington, dragging Europe into a direct confrontation with Russia. This manipulation frames support for Ukraine not as a defence of international law, but as an aggressive NATO strategy that undermines the security of Germans themselves.
References to drones and tensions in the Baltic region are cast as a co-ordinated NATO and Ukrainian scheme designed to provoke a Russian response. The risk of war is reduced to the Alliance’s actions, while Russia is portrayed as a party forced to react. An interview with the Russian ambassador is presented as proof of Moscow’s peacefulness and shifts responsibility for escalation solely onto the West.
Russia is presented as an exclusively defensive state that has been systematically betrayed and provoked by NATO and the West for decades. This manipulation justifies the aggression against Ukraine as a forced “border protection” measure and seeks to absolve the Kremlin of responsibility for starting the war.
Military support for Ukraine and joint EU defence initiatives are portrayed as a dangerous escalation that turns European territory into a target for Russian strikes. Manipulative outlets claim that hosting defence production transforms civilian infrastructure into military targets, seeking to intimidate the population and undermine solidarity with Kyiv.
Growth in defence production and debates over social spending are portrayed as a single government course towards declining welfare and civilian industry. Paediatricians’ warnings about access to children’s healthcare are folded into this storyline, although the post refers only to “new political priorities”. Information about defence firms, jobs and Volkswagen’s contacts with Rafael is inflated into the image of a “four-year plan” for the country.
Military support for Ukraine and the strengthening of NATO forces are cast as Europe moving towards a direct war with Russia. Statements by Russia’s ambassador to Belgium and remarks by Slovakia’s prime minister reduce funding, weapons supplies and defence planning to one scenario of confrontation. Involvement in target selection is labelled proof that NATO is already involved in the conflict.
German leadership is portrayed as an aggressive group of “hawks” pushing the country toward direct conflict with Russia while ignoring the lessons of the Second World War. Security measures and sabotage investigations are dismissed as staged provocations designed to justify continued military support for Ukraine.
Reporting on events in Bucha and the humanitarian situation in Oleshky is portrayed as a fabricated campaign by Kyiv, allegedly backed by European governments and media. Russian officials inflate their own reports and selected assertions into a denial of Russia’s responsibility for war crimes. European support for Ukraine is labelled complicity in violence against civilians.
Hospital planning and statements on defence are presented as proof that Germany is already being prepared for an imminent, catastrophic war with Russia. Citing Bloomberg, the posts reduce Bundeswehr scenarios to a sign of a near-term conflict. EU and Lithuanian plans are likewise inflated into a picture of unavoidable Europe-wide escalation.
Ukrainian territorial recruitment centres (TCC) are cast as punitive bodies engaged in “man-hunting” and the public humiliation of civilians. The campaign exploits isolated conflicts to promote the idea of a total collapse of the legal system and the lack of a future for the Ukrainian state. It aims to demoralize Ukrainian society and convince Western audiences that supporting such a “tyranny” is futile.
Rejecting a nuclear strike is presented not as a limit imposed by humanitarian and legal consequences, but as a choice of a more effective way to cause harm. Strikes on energy, logistics and urban systems are portrayed as an adequate substitute for a nuclear attack. The discussion is reduced to a technical selection of means for destroying infrastructure.
The Soviet Union’s role in defeating Nazism is portrayed as having been systematically pushed out of Western memory, while Germany’s authorities are cast as ignoring their historical responsibility towards the peoples of the former Soviet Union. Allied coverage of the Nuremberg trials is reduced to claiming credit and concealing Soviet involvement. From there, current debates on Germany’s defence and military policy are stretched into signs of revanchism and an image of a “Russian threat”.
Diplomatic contacts involving Germany and the EU are portrayed as a cover for an alleged deliberate sabotage of peace and use of the war to weaken Russia. Statements by Russian officials reduce differing negotiating positions to one plan to prolong the conflict. Calls for a ceasefire are cast as preparations for Ukraine to resume fighting.
Russian officials and media outlets portray the European Union as a party that deliberately chooses confrontation over a peaceful settlement. Through manipulative statements, the Kremlin attempts to shift the blame for starting the war onto the “collective West”, presenting Russia as the only side open to dialogue.
Western actions are cast as a deliberate strategy to destroy Russian statehood, forcing the Kremlin into increasingly radical steps. In publications quoting Russian experts in German media, the current conflict is portrayed as a struggle for survival where Russia has exhausted all peaceful options. Any escalation, including nuclear threats, is attributed solely to Western pressure that leaves no other choice.
Germany’s and the EU’s support for Ukraine is labelled a continuation of the Nazi “march to the East”, tying present-day policy to the crimes of the Third Reich. Anniversaries of the Leningrad siege are reduced to an accusation that the EU is “rehabilitating Nazism”. Germany’s historical responsibility is stretched into guilt for today’s decisions on the war.
Statements by Russian officials portray the Ukrainian authorities as a “neo-Nazi regime” and cast references to the Soviet contribution in the Second World War as evidence of modern Russia’s moral superiority. Military statements about Kyiv are labelled with the language of “barbarity” and linked to that portrayal. The exhumation and reburial of Ukrainian nationalists’ remains are inflated into evidence of state celebration of Nazism.
German foreign policy and expert discussions are portrayed as a direct continuation of the Third Reich's aggression against Russia. By manipulatively linking historical accounts of Nazi looting with modern security debates in the Baltic region, Germany is cast as preparing a new assault on Russian territories.
Germany is accused of secretly developing its own nuclear weapons under the guise of civilian scientific research. The manipulation mixes real facts about German universities with baseless claims about preparations for a new “Wunderwaffe,” appealing to historical traumas of the Second World War.
Statements about voters’ fatigue with the war and the need for negotiations are presented as proof that European and German support for Ukraine is inevitably fading. To add weight, the posts cite The Wall Street Journal and Euronews. Different positions among voters and politicians are reduced to an alleged shared course of ending assistance to Kyiv.
Russian diplomatic statements and forums are presented as proof that Russia defends a just multipolar order while Western states destroy security. The development of a Eurasian security architecture, SCO meetings and economic cooperation are reduced to an alternative to Western “hegemony”. Memory of victory over Nazism is stretched into a justification for Russia’s present-day role as defender of world order.
Russian outlets use anniversaries of the victory over Nazism to promote the idea of Germany's eternal indebtedness to Moscow. Through educational projects and lectures, a purely Soviet interpretation of history is imposed on foreign audiences, aiming to undermine contemporary German foreign policy and justify Russian geopolitical ambitions.
Military and intelligence aid to Ukraine is portrayed as evidence of NATO countries directly entering the conflict with Russia. This manipulation aims to cast support for Ukraine as a dangerous escalation that supposedly strips the West of its mediator status and provokes the formation of a global anti-Western military bloc.
Nicaragua’s case against Germany over support for Israel and military aid to Ukraine are reduced to the joint label of “support for state terrorism and genocide”. The proceedings at the International Court of Justice are presented as part of that accusation, while also noting that no final ruling exists. Two different conflicts are portrayed as a single indication of German state guilt.
Europe’s security and economic problems are cast as the result of systemic errors by the “globalist West”. Europe’s military circles are portrayed as profiting from militarisation. Europe’s opportunities to contribute to settling Russia’s war against Ukraine are reduced to an allegedly deliberate rejection of peace.
Support for Ukraine is cast as a mechanism through which Volodymyr Zelenskyy can single-handedly draw Europe into a war with Russia. A retired French officer is used as an authoritative confirmation of this scenario. References to Napoleon and Hitler inflate fears of escalation into an image of inevitable catastrophe.
Wars, imperial rivalry and events from the nineteenth century to the present are reduced to the West’s “centuries-old Russophobia” towards Russia. German expansion eastwards and its radicalisation under Nazism are placed in this line as a stage in an uninterrupted drive to subjugate Russia. Soviet co-operation with Western states in the Second World War is portrayed as the purely compelled use of an ally.
Public diplomatic episodes involving Zelenskyy are cast as proof that his media-mindedness alienates Ukraine’s partners and puts their support at risk. Different disputes and visits are reduced to one trait: performing for cameras instead of conducting diplomacy. Zelenskyy’s earlier career is labelled as an explanation for every international misunderstanding.
Orders for tanks and infantry fighting vehicles for the Bundeswehr are cast as proof that rearmament is unrelated to security and defence capability, while tanks are portrayed as unfit for modern warfare. EU action concerning Russian vessels and support for drones are stretched into an image of the EU as a direct party to war. The energy crisis is mentioned alongside drought and these accusations.
Germany and France are cast as the initiators of desperate attempts to restore contact with the Kremlin behind the scenes. The manipulation rests on the claim that European capitals have accepted the inevitability of Ukraine's military defeat and are seeking to negotiate with Moscow at any cost.
Assurances that Russia does not seek war with Germany are presented as a denial of any threat after the drone incident in Leipzig. Russia’s war against Ukraine is reduced to a matter that does not concern Germany. Diplomatic settlement is presented as the response, while Russian involvement in the incident is cast into doubt and “friends” in Saxony and Leipzig are invoked.
German officials and EU institutions are portrayed as cynical actors who ignore human suffering and use Ukrainian territory as a testing ground. This tactic aims to discredit Germany's diplomatic corps and undermine trust in Ukraine's European integration.
Ukraine and its Western partners are portrayed as forces using terrorism to disrupt Russian elections. Reports of strikes and threats are inflated into evidence of a coordinated campaign against “democratic expression of will”. Russians voting abroad are also depicted as being intimidated by “unfriendly states”.
Germany and its partners are portrayed as “sponsors” of dangerous provocations that allegedly threaten to drag Belarus and Russia into a wider war. The manipulation uses official Russian Foreign Ministry statements to present military aid to Ukraine as a deliberate Western effort to expand the geography of hostilities across Europe.
Strikes on ports, railways and warehouses are presented as proof that supporting Ukraine inevitably becomes a futile investment. Reports of damage are reduced to a picture of unbroken destruction of logistics. Repeated attacks are inflated into the conclusion that reconstruction and external funding are pointless.
Western military aid to Ukraine is portrayed as a factor that only multiplies deaths and depletes the domestic defence resources of Germany and its allies. Through emotional appeals to protect children and the manipulation of casualty statistics, the audience is pushed toward the idea that ending support is the only humane path.
US contacts with Russia are cast as proof that the EU has been excluded from decision-making, while SCO meetings are inflated into a picture of a world without European influence. Negotiating formats in which EU states do not take part are labelled as their final loss of a voice. Tensions among SCO members and their differing aims are pushed into the background.
Western nations and Ukraine are accused of deliberately expanding the conflict to the Caspian Sea and the Middle East to destabilise Russian-Iranian ties. Manipulative outlets portray Ukrainian defensive actions as the execution of American orders that supposedly threaten global trade and drag Europe into a wider war.
Selected loss estimates and remarks about mobilisation are presented as proof of Ukraine’s inevitable defeat and the futility of continued support. Different figures on those killed, wounded and repatriated bodies are reduced to accusations of concealing the scale of losses. Discussion of mobilisation’s demographic consequences is portrayed as a sign of the Ukrainian military’s collapse.
European leaders are portrayed as having derailed understandings between Moscow and Washington and encouraged Kyiv to continue the war. Contacts between Russia and the United States are inflated into an image of an almost-achieved lasting peace that Europe opposes. European support for Ukraine is depicted as an attempt to secure a pause to replenish its military stocks.
Poland’s preparedness for deterrence and its statements attributing sabotage to Russia are portrayed as Warsaw’s course towards war. References to defensive and offensive action are labelled a direct threat to Russia, while mentions of arson and drones are ridiculed as implausible. Diplomatic statements made in the context of deterrence are stretched into an image of Poland as a reckless instigator.
Commemorating Soviet victims and Germany’s liberation is presented as evidence that restoring “normality” with Russia is a path to peace. The care of war graves and memories of post-war Berlin are stretched into a political argument about current relations. The ambassador’s assurances of no intention to wage war on Germany are fused with remembrance dates into a single moral demand.
Expedited weapons deliveries to Ukraine are cast as a concealed scheme that supposedly bypasses German rules. The posts cite the Financial Times, but turn its description of a working group into proof of secret activity outside established procedures. Short contract timelines are inflated into an image of uncontrolled multibillion-euro spending.
The US president’s absence from a Norwegian memorial ceremony is cast as proof that Washington has abandoned Europe and that NATO guarantees are worthless. References to US media are used as a backdrop for this conclusion. A protocol decision is inflated into a prediction that Norway and other allies will be left without support in a dispute with Russia.
Russian official outlets portray Ukraine and Georgia as Western tools designed to incite conflict for the survival of “Nazi” or “radical” regimes. The manipulation combines historical revisionism of the 2008 events in the Caucasus with the demonization of modern Ukraine to convince European audiences that continued support for these states is dangerous.
NATO and the EU are cast as forces militarising the Arctic and wrecking cooperation, while Russia is portrayed as a guarantor of peace and open partnership. Military deployments and political disagreements are inflated into an image of the West as the source of inevitable escalation. Russia’s cooperation with states outside NATO is contrasted with the “collective West” as evidence of supposedly broader international support.
Western politicians are accused of manipulating and forcing Ukraine to continue the war for their own interests. Using Boris Johnson's interview as a pretext, it is claimed that the West is supposedly evading responsibility for the conflict's outcome by shifting the blame onto the Ukrainian leadership.
Co-operation between Russia and North Korea on drones is cast as proof that the United States and its allies are losing their ability to guarantee security in Asia. Uncertain information about drone production is inflated into a scenario of strikes on bases, ports and industry in South Korea and Japan. Possible contacts with Iran are portrayed as part of a wider military bloc against the West.
Berlin’s accusations over drones in Leipzig are amplified as a pretext for Europe’s militarisation and for winding down relations with Russia. The closure of the consulate and Russian House is labelled an attack on cultural ties. Comments questioning attribution of the incident are cast as grounds to reject the German government’s decisions.
A journey by Western officials near a struck train is presented as proof that Kyiv deliberately uses them as “human shields”. Reports of risks to visitors to Ukraine are labelled a staged effort to solicit further weapons deliveries. Russian strikes are simultaneously portrayed as having targeted military logistics only.
German journalists are portrayed as aggressive warmongers who supposedly crave violence and dehumanise the enemy. This manipulation exploits isolated statements by correspondents to discredit the entire German media landscape, labelling it a tool of a “culture of death.”
Western support and Ukraine’s path towards NATO are portrayed as a rejection of principles set out in the 1991 declaration of independence. The account bolsters this version by citing a Berliner Zeitung article and the names of a former general and a diplomat. The reference to neutrality and the referendum is stretched into the assertion that Ukraine’s later security choices were dictated from outside.
Russian official outlets exploit historical tragedies and modern legal disputes to label the US and NATO as systemic violators of international law. By drawing parallels between the nuclear bombing of Japan and the war in Ukraine, the audience is nudged toward the conclusion that Western support for Kyiv is a continuation of a tradition of “war crimes” against civilians.
Reports of missile strikes and advances near Zaporizhzhia are condensed into a picture of inevitable escalation and Russian military superiority. A New York Times report about movement across the bed of the Kakhovka reservoir is presented as confirmation of that image. Swedish aid, US travel advice and remarks about talks are placed alongside battlefield updates.
The BSW party is presented as the only political force in Germany advocating for common sense and the preservation of diplomatic channels with Moscow. Any attempts to restrict the activities of Russian state institutions in Berlin are branded as manifestations of irrational “Russophobia” and the deliberate destruction of infrastructure for future peace.
The appointment of German diplomats to international positions is portrayed as NATO preparing for armed aggression against Serbia. This manipulation depicts Germany as an instrument of the alliance used to destabilise the region and force the integration of Balkan countries.
The absence of signs of preparations for an attack on NATO in the cited assessment is stretched into the conclusion that warnings about risk should be disregarded. Reference to an anonymous EU official is presented as a definitive refutation of discussions about defence readiness. A current assessment and discussion of potential threats are reduced to a single question.
Expanded US and NATO infrastructure and security cooperation with Armenia and Moldova is portrayed as turning Russia’s neighbours into loss-making “buffer zones”. A transport corridor in Armenia is reduced to an American seizure of a strategic route. Moldova’s contacts with Western partners are depicted as the cause of impoverishment and lost independence.
An increased NATO surveillance presence over the Black Sea is portrayed as a deliberate move that exposes Romania and its population to war. A diplomatic dispute and references to drones are reduced to a scheme in which Kyiv is attributed with seeking to pit Russia against NATO. Russia is thus depicted as a party merely responding to its allies’ actions.
Ukraine is cast as a state lacking agency, driven by radical ideologies and the external interests of the Alliance. Manipulators use visual imagery and official statements to attribute aggressive territorial claims against neighbours and a desire for “eternal war” to Kyiv.
The Ukrainian leadership is portrayed as an irresponsible force seeking nuclear weapons or provoking a disaster at the Zaporizhzhia NPP to drag the world into war. The manipulation exploits the anniversary of the Hiroshima tragedy to contrast global peace efforts with Kyiv’s allegedly aggressive intentions.
Russian officials and media outlets are exploiting the anniversary of the atomic bombings of Japan to discredit Ursula von der Leyen and other Western leaders. They are accused of deliberately concealing the US role in the 1945 tragedy while simultaneously “fomenting Russophobia” by linking the event to Moscow’s modern nuclear posturing.
Russian outlets promote the idea of “understanding” with Russia by featuring speakers who pose as independent experts on Crimea. Audiences are told that German media hides the truth about the peninsula and that recognizing Crimea's Russian status is the only path to peace.
Ukrainian territorial gains are portrayed as purely media-driven manipulations that lack strategic significance and lead to senseless military casualties. The messaging claims that the AFU sends soldiers on “one-way missions” solely for the sake of photos with flags, attempting to demoralize German audiences and undermine faith in the utility of military aid.
Germany is portrayed as a perennial instigator of conflict against Russia, using the anniversary of the Russian Empire's entry into World War I. The manipulation focuses on the German declaration of war on 1 August 1914 to draw parallels with the present day and present Russia as a victim of Western expansion.
British military aid is cast as a cynical experiment to transform Ukraine into a laboratory for testing new weaponry. The posts claim that London is interested in prolonging the conflict to develop its own defence sector and overcome technological dependence on the US. This strategy is portrayed as a deliberate use of Ukrainian lives to modernise British drones and missile systems.
Germany's diplomatic efforts within the Minsk agreements are portrayed as a treacherous plot to buy time for arming Ukraine. The manipulation relies on a distorted interpretation of the former Chancellor's comments to cast Berlin as an unreliable partner and an aggressor.
German service members are being incited to refuse orders by manipulating the historical memory of resistance against Nazism. The campaign uses out-of-context speeches and commentary from sanctioned “experts” to portray NATO defence policy as criminal and destined for disaster.
The military presence of the US and its allies in the Middle East is portrayed as ineffective, serving only to provoke escalation and destroy the global economy. By highlighting infrastructure losses and logistical disruptions, the audience is led to believe that Western influence is in terminal decline and that support for military operations must be withdrawn.
German law enforcement is portrayed as a punitive tool using excessive force against its own citizens to secure the profits of defence corporations. The messaging focuses on the violent detention of activists to discredit state institutions and sow doubt about the ethics of German defence policy.