Labelling international courts as tools of “legal aggression”

What it claims

The freezing of Russian reserves and the work of international courts are presented as Western “legal aggression” against Russia. Legal disputes over assets are inflated into an image of coordinated “robbery”, while ICC investigations are labelled as a process bought in advance. Extracts from a Russian minister’s speech and his interpretation of court procedures are treated as proof.

Target audience

Examples (paraphrased)

We paraphrase rather than quote: propaganda's exact wording is built to spread, so we carry the claim and not the craft. Each example cites the post it came from.

• Frozen Russian assets are stolen property, and the income from them finances war against Russia.

  Russian Embassy in Berlin (Telegram), 22 Sept 2026 · Archived copy

• The ICC is funded by Western states to try Russia as a defendant selected in advance.

  Russian Embassy in Berlin (Telegram), 22 Sept 2026 · Archived copy

We link archived copies rather than the posts themselves, so that checking our work sends no traffic to the source. Where a platform cannot be archived, we print the post's address instead of linking it.

Goal

To encourage Germans with low trust in institutions to view international justice and EU decisions on Russian assets as arbitrary political instruments rather than procedures subject to legal scrutiny.

Techniques used

• Loaded LanguageThe freezing of assets is described as “robbery” and “theft”, replacing a legal dispute with the language of crime.
• Appeal to AuthorityA Russian minister’s interpretation of procedures is presented as a final verdict on European and international courts.

The real grievance it exploits

The narrative seizes on the legitimate need for transparent rules, judicial oversight of government decisions and explanations of how war and sanctions affect Germany. Those questions do not disappear because they are used to discredit international institutions.

How to counter

• Technique exposure: Watch for the substitution of terms: words such as “theft” or “a bought court” are not legal findings. They shift discussion away from specific rules, decisions and procedures towards moral outrage.
• Reframe: An assessment of an international court by a party to a dispute does not replace reading its decisions, jurisdictional limits and stated reasoning. Different legal positions should be examined separately rather than reduced to a single conspiracy.

Sources (all time)

• Russian Embassy in Berlin (Telegram)Tier 220,794 subscribers
  3 posts · 21–22 Sept 2026

  • 22 Sept · Archived copy
  • 22 Sept · Archived copy
  • 21 Sept · t.me/RusBotschaft/18562
• Russian Embassy in Berlin (X)Tier 264,257 followers
  3 posts · 21–22 Sept 2026

  • 22 Sept · x.com/RusBotschaft/status/2102400312929599500
  • 22 Sept · x.com/RusBotschaft/status/2102341867148919039
  • 21 Sept · x.com/RusBotschaft/status/2102058246349418505