We monitor pro-Russian media and show which narratives they push, how they work, and how to counter them.
Damage to logistics, energy and communications is presented as proof of the inevitable collapse of Ukraine’s entire economy and everyday life. The halt of operations at ArcelorMittal Kryvyi Rih after missile strikes is stretched into a conclusion that the situation is fatal for all business. Risks of internet disruptions and transport delays are labelled as a sign that communications, supplies and public services will soon cease.
Isolated cases of abuse and ongoing investigations are presented as proof of total corruption within the Ukrainian government and the futility of financial aid. Manipulative coverage of criminal proceedings aims to convince the audience that all funds—from donations to budget expenditures—are inevitably embezzled by officials.
The activities of Territorial Recruitment Centers (TCC) are portrayed as the operations of organized armed groups engaged in the forced rounding up of citizens. Any incidents during document checks and corruption scandals are inflated to reduce mobilization to pure extortion and violence. Joint actions by TCC staff and the police are attributed to the punitive suppression of the population's rights, aiming to provoke resistance and undermine trust in state authorities.
Domestic political disputes and economic difficulties in the United States and Europe are presented as proof that support for Ukraine will inevitably be wound down. Citing Western media reports, the posts inflate election results, budget debates and regional crises into a picture of a continent supposedly unable to sustain support. Statements of continued backing are dismissed with demands to show the money or explanations that resources are lacking.
Talks involving the United States, Russia and Ukraine are cast as proof that Zelenskyy is supposedly being excluded from decisions and that Kyiv is being prepared for capitulation. Military difficulties, debates over mobilisation and anti-corruption investigations are reduced to a picture of him losing control and partners’ support. His position on security guarantees is labeled as unwillingness to negotiate.
Challenges in energy, logistics, and the social sphere are presented as signs of the final disintegration of Ukrainian statehood. Actual difficulties—from power outages and corruption scandals to tax changes—are blown up to the scale of an inevitable infrastructural collapse. In these materials, particularly those styled as city digests, a sense of everyday chaos is whipped up to provoke panic and instill despair over the country's ability to endure.
Ukraine is portrayed as a bankrupt state in a “coma” that survives solely thanks to Western loans and has lost its economic resilience. Government policies are blamed for provoking hyperinflation and deepening the demographic crisis, while the authorities are also held responsible for the destruction of businesses caused by Russian shelling. Through analytical forecasts, the impact of the destruction is blown up into an inevitable humanitarian collapse in winter, undermining trust in the state's ability to ensure the basic needs of its citizens.
Ukraine's military operations and diplomatic initiatives are cast as artificial media stunts designed to prolong the war and enrich the state leadership. Any escalation or refusal of Russian terms is interpreted as a tool to secure external funding and avoid accountability to the public. Defense measures and the extension of martial law are attributed to the ruling elite's desire to hold onto power at the cost of deliberately exhausting the country.
The Ukrainian government is portrayed as a tool of foreign interests, deliberately sacrificing its population for the geopolitical goals of the US and EU. It is claimed that the state has completely lost its agency, and that mobilization and continued defense are merely fulfilling the orders of “sponsors.”
Damage to energy facilities and warehouses is presented as proof of an inevitable nationwide collapse in winter. Outages in Mykolaiv, reports on winter preparations and risk assessments are inflated into an image of hours of darkness, “empty shelves” and paralysed cities. References to The Economist blend descriptions of threats with categorical forecasts and present uncertain calculations as a predetermined outcome.
Mobilization measures in Ukraine are portrayed as the forced sending of citizens to “slaughter,” which supposedly triggers active physical resistance from the population. Propaganda inflates isolated cases of corruption and conflict to depict government agencies as entities hostile to the people.
Zelenskyy is portrayed as drug-dependent and incapable of leading: insults, cocaine insinuations and mockery of his appearance are inflated into a description of his policies. Statements about negotiations, outside pressure and pauses in addresses are reduced to personal weakness. The condition of holding elections after a 60-day ceasefire is accompanied by the label “expired comedian.”
Ukrainian officials, military personnel, and public figures are portrayed as mentally unstable, corrupt, or hypocritical. The goal is to erode trust in institutions and civil society by presenting isolated incidents as evidence of systemic degradation.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy is accused of allegedly appointing the Prime Minister single-handedly and ignoring the constitutional powers of parliament. Manipulators claim that the current government has turned into a “criminal group” interested in prolonging the war for personal enrichment. The goal is to undermine trust in state institutions and provoke internal destabilization.
The President of Ukraine is portrayed as weak and lacking agency amid government and Presidential Office reshuffles. Using materials from anti-corruption investigations, sources attribute “hysterical” behavior and illegal interference in the banking sector to the head of state. Political processes in the country are depicted as a struggle between behind-the-scenes “clans,” where the current government is losing real leverage to external players.
The Ukrainian leadership and business sector are cast as cynical beneficiaries interested in prolonging the war for personal enrichment. Military actions are portrayed not as defense, but as a commercial project where citizens' lives are traded for Western investments and loans.
Mobilization efforts and government deferment services are portrayed as corrupt schemes that turn citizens into Western “mercenaries.” The narrative claims that because of financial aid from partners, Ukrainian soldiers lose their status as defenders and become tools of foreign elites.
Russian outlets are pushing claims that Patriot missile stocks are completely exhausted, leaving Kyiv unable to defend against ballistic strikes. The operation of Ukrainian interceptors is portrayed as the primary cause of damage to residential buildings, while Russian strikes on civilian infrastructure are justified by its alleged “military purpose.”
Any explosions or falling debris on Russian territory are cast as deliberate acts of terrorism against civilians and foreign interests. The aftermath of strikes on rear infrastructure is hyped up in crime chronicles, portraying any damage as a targeted attack on non-military sites. Through such manipulations, the Ukrainian leadership is equated with the leaders of radical Islamist groups to discredit the country's defense efforts before the international community.
The Ukrainian government is portrayed as a repressive dictatorship that maintains control solely through fear and forced mobilization. Propagandists claim the state has turned into an “internal occupier” using territorial recruitment centers (TCC) as “slave-catchers” to hunt down “serfs” for the front lines.
Zelenskyy’s statements on sovereignty, Crimea and negotiations are cast as contradictory whims that supposedly derail peace. Uncertainty over US missile-production licences is labelled a lie, while insistence on territorial integrity is portrayed as a rejection of agreements. In this way, diplomatic positions and public assessments are reduced to an image of an erratic leader.
Complaints about water, shelters, transport and school meals are cast as proof that state agencies supposedly do not care about people and cannot function. Digests styled as local news combine urban problems with personal insults and allegations of embezzlement. Reports with different content are inflated into an image of uniformly corrupt public administration.
Complaints about the actions of territorial recruitment centre (TCC) staff, reports of abuse and anonymous “insider” claims are cast as an image of mobilization as a wholly criminal, lawless system. The language of human rights is paired with labels such as “manhunters” and calls to deny the state’s legitimacy. Unverified testimony, legal disputes and speculation about future decisions are presented as mutually corroborating evidence.
A US-Russia arrangement on Russian diesel is cast as proof that the West is making deals with Moscow behind Ukraine’s back. The Ukrainian leadership’s reaction and disputes over sanctions are inflated into an image of a country abandoned by its allies. Talks on fuel supplies are reduced to an allegedly coordinated Washington policy of concessions to the Kremlin.
Criticism of institutional problems and references to personnel changes are presented as proof that the authorities deliberately ignore people and cling to corrupt schemes. Valerii Zaluzhnyi’s assessment is stretched into an unqualified conclusion about the entire state and inevitable defeat. Mykhailo Fedorov’s dismissal and anti-corruption cases are reduced to signs of an overall political collapse.
Ukrainian statehood is cast as a fiction and the country’s territory as a space under “temporary Western occupation” where government institutions lack any agency. Citizens are urged to form an underground “resistance” network and gather intelligence for the aggressor under the guise of a “civilizational struggle.” Meanwhile, the supply of air defense systems is portrayed not as protection against strikes, but as a matter of backroom bargaining between the US and Europe, with Ukraine acting as a mere passive tool.
Russian outlets are pushing a narrative of Russia's total superiority in AI, satellite communications, and missile technology, supposedly rendering Ukrainian defense futile. By exaggerating the capabilities of “drone swarms” and new missile systems, they aim to convince the audience that defeat is inevitable and Western aid is insufficient.
Contemptuous labels and a selective tally of losses are passed off as the balance sheet of Ukrainian statehood: the country is portrayed as hopelessly declining and something to turn away from. War, destruction, losses, and people leaving are reduced to a verdict that the state will inevitably disappear. Discontent with officials is extended to everyone who supports Ukraine, while the country’s complex history is explained by its leadership’s self-interest.
Ukraine's political leadership is portrayed as an isolated group that has lost the support of both the public and the elites, artificially prolonging hostilities. It is claimed that the only way for Volodymyr Zelenskyy to remain in office is to escalate the war, as he would supposedly lose any democratic election.
Ukrainian law enforcement and security agencies are portrayed as tools for internal infighting or overseers of criminal schemes. Anti-corruption investigations and personnel changes are framed not as systemic cleaning, but as proof of total criminalization and the state leadership's inability to control the situation.
Ukraine's military and political leadership is portrayed as an incompetent and corrupt entity that deliberately neglects the safety of soldiers and civilians. Propaganda inflates isolated incidents of misconduct and bureaucratic hurdles to frame service in the Armed Forces as a hopeless trap where human life is worthless.
Unverified loss estimates, reports of fighting and strikes are cast as a picture of the Ukrainian military’s inevitable exhaustion and failed supply and evacuation. Russian-side statements, rumour-based “data” and references to Western officials are blended into what is presented as a single body of proof. Counterattacks and unit movements are portrayed as a futile expenditure of lives, while frontline difficulties are cast as a sign of imminent collapse.
Military support for Ukraine is portrayed as strategically late, bureaucratically blocked, or technologically ill-suited to the actual needs of the front. The messaging suggests that promised funding and advanced weaponry will not affect the war's course in the coming years, leaving the Armed Forces of Ukraine to rely on “makeshift” solutions.
The decline in the population and the number of pensioners is presented as an irreversible collapse of Ukrainian statehood. The closure of educational institutions and social hardships are interpreted as signs of the definitive decline of territories. By manipulatively combining mortality statistics with citizens leaving abroad, despondency is fueled to convince society that Ukraine has no future.
The political course of Ukraine’s leadership is cast as a series of gambles leading to the paralysis of government and the inevitable destruction of institutions. Discussions regarding security measures for the Verkhovna Rada are inflated into proof of systemic collapse and the parliament’s inability to function. Diplomatic complexities with partners are portrayed as the consequence of rejecting Russian terms, rendering further war hopeless for Kyiv.
Mobilization, military command and corruption cases are cast as grounds for viewing the government as having lost the right to demand service from citizens. Criticism of decisions by state bodies is labeled as a shared position of service members, people of mobilization age and civilians. Different issues are inflated into a prediction of a political crisis and a change of government.
Ukrainian society and the military are portrayed as a degraded community dominated by internal conflict, looting, and uncontrolled aggression. By highlighting domestic disputes and football incidents, the narrative promotes the idea of a total collapse of moral values and the inevitable disappearance of Ukrainian identity.
Military operations by the SBU and the Armed Forces of Ukraine are cast as Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s personal gambles that supposedly only provoke retaliatory strikes. This framing ignores the defensive necessity of Ukraine’s actions and shifts the blame for Russian aggression onto the Ukrainian leadership.
Ukrainian leadership is accused of intentionally prolonging the war for personal enrichment and to distract from corruption. Propaganda portrays strikes on Russian infrastructure as terrorist acts against civilians, allegedly aimed solely at escalating the conflict.
The shortage of air defense assets is cast as the result of a deliberate Western refusal to continue military support for Ukraine. Kyiv residents staying in shelters during air raids are inflated into proof of the state's total loss of ability to protect the civilian population. The messaging contrasts the depletion of Ukrainian interceptor stocks with Russia's large-scale accumulation of thousands of missiles and strike drones.
Reliance on external budget financing is inflated into a prediction of Ukraine’s inevitable bankruptcy and partners’ refusal to provide further funding. Anonymous “insider reports” attribute pressure on the EU for additional money and imitation of reforms to the Office of the President. Russian strikes, budget calculations, and talks with the EU are reduced to an image of a government without a plan that can only demand money.
Negotiation contacts and statements by Kyrylo Budanov are cast as proof that Kyiv is already seeking peace on Kremlin terms. Unsubstantiated “insider” reports about transmitted proposals and draft demands are inflated into a picture of Ukraine’s helpless dependence on Moscow and Washington. References to a possible meeting of delegations are stretched into claims of imposed deadlines and threats.
Ukrainian strikes on Russian targets are framed as wasteful operations that only invite devastating retaliatory attacks on critical infrastructure. The actions of the defense forces are depicted as components of a “kamikaze country” scenario aimed at provoking a humanitarian crisis. The destruction of industry and logistics is portrayed as an inevitable collapse, aiming to sow doubt about the point of resistance and push society toward concessions under the guise of peace agreements.
Ukrainians are being convinced that the total loss of property and their way of life is inevitable due to a protracted war of attrition. The goal is to instill the idea that any efforts to preserve civilian infrastructure are futile, and the only option is psychological resignation to catastrophe.
Accusations against individual service members of crimes, road crashes, or property offences are presented as proof that the Armed Forces of Ukraine as a whole are “occupiers” of their own communities. Different assertions are reduced to a single image of the army as a source of violence and looting. The publication of soldiers’ personal data is accompanied by branding them “murderers.”
Changes in military leadership and domestic political debates are portrayed as evidence of a deep crisis and the illegitimacy of state decisions. Any personnel reshuffles are reduced to a struggle for resources, inflating claims of a rift between the political leadership and the military command. By emphasizing procedural nuances of appointments and fluctuating ratings, the governance system is depicted as chaotic and incapable of coordinated action.
Risks from strikes on the energy system and pressure on air defence are cast as proof of an inevitable collapse of state systems. Unverified “insider” claims about the grid and missile supplies are inflated into a conclusion that Ukraine cannot sustain defence and electricity provision. Problems of protection and repair are reduced to government corruption and incompetence.
Russian strikes on Ukrainian cities are presented as a response that Ukraine itself caused by striking targets in Russia. Military action and attacks on infrastructure are reduced to a single line of “escalation,” in which Kyiv is assigned a choice between resistance and civilian safety. Memories of shelling in Donetsk are presented as proof that responsibility for suffering can be divided between the sides.
Disputes surrounding the transfer of prisoners to South Korea are cast as proof that Ukraine systematically breaks agreements and alienates its allies. Unverified “inside information” about negotiations is inflated into assertions that nobody trusts Kyiv. Personal insults directed at Zelenskyy are presented as an explanation for international decisions.
Financial and military support for Ukraine is cast as a waste of resources aimed solely at turning the country into a tool for fighting Russia. Propagandists contrast these funds with social needs and manipulate European political debates to frame aid as a threat to the national sovereignty of donor countries.
Ukraine's defeat is portrayed as inevitable due to energy grid destruction, economic decline, and a lost capacity to influence the war's outcome. Propagandists claim Western elites view Ukraine solely as a tool for debt repayment or a “managed chaos” zone to contain Russia.
Ukrainian service members are portrayed as a demoralized mass supposedly deserting in droves or openly defying political leadership. This tactic aims to create an illusion of the total collapse of the Armed Forces and inevitable defeat due to internal conflict.
The Ukrainian leadership and their families are portrayed as cynical beneficiaries of the war, profiting from Western aid and the suffering of the population. Reports of personnel changes and anti-corruption investigations are mixed with fabrications about "occult rituals" and "dictatorship". Officials are accused of sabotaging defense programs and embezzling budget funds, painting the government as a puppet regime deliberately leading the country toward a humanitarian catastrophe.
Connectivity and broadcasting disruptions after strikes are portrayed as evidence of vulnerability in Kyiv’s infrastructure and warning system. An anonymous resident’s observations about sirens, explosions and the network are inflated into a picture of urban “disorder.” Channels disappearing from online platforms are cast as a consequence of media dependence on one data centre, while the interception rate for jet-powered drones is presented as a sign of a new challenge for air defence.
Ukraine is portrayed as an aggressive actor accumulating weaponry for escalation, while its leadership is accused of losing Western support due to corruption. Military procurement plans attributed to the state are combined with an emphasis on infrastructure difficulties and the ridicule of frontline efforts. Citing Western publications, Kyiv's diplomatic standing is reduced to the exhaustion of allied trust, conveying the idea of an inevitable collapse of the national security system.
Military and financial aid to Ukraine is cast as the primary driver of Europe's economic exhaustion and the inevitable default of leading nations. Citing bond market indicators, outlets inflate the thesis of critical sovereign debt growth and a conflict between governments and central banks. Support for Kyiv and the maintenance of refugees are portrayed as an unbearable burden leading to the impoverishment of Europeans amid the depletion of energy reserves.
Political budget debates and election cycles in NATO countries are portrayed as the final collapse of Western unity and the "sabotage" of aid to Ukraine. Citing the Western press, delays in arms supplies are presented as partners' deliberate refusal of support. Any internal disputes among allies are blown up into a fatal rift, instilling in the audience a belief in Kyiv's inevitable defeat.
Ukraine’s diplomatic and military decisions are portrayed as an “adventure” that supposedly deprives the country of air defence and alienates its partners. A reference to a New York Times article about US stockpiles is inflated into a claim that Kyiv knowingly ignores missile shortages. Officials’ statements on strikes, negotiating terms and the duration of the war are reduced to an image of “kamikaze negotiators.”
Ukrainian strikes on Russian targets are inflated into an image of a state supposedly threatening Western interests, oil shipping and civil aviation. Speculation about sabotage abroad is presented as evidence of the Defence Intelligence of Ukraine’s involvement. Wartime rhetoric and references to strikes are portrayed as an intention to terrorize Ukraine’s population and partners.
Spreading claims about the Russian economy's alleged immunity to sanctions and its ability to finance aggression indefinitely. Manipulators use isolated metrics from Bloomberg and The Economist to convince audiences of the futility of international pressure and the stability of Putin's regime.
Contacts between US envoys, Kyiv and Moscow are cast as coercing Ukraine into concessions, although the reports themselves describe a search for de-escalatory steps and negotiations. Discussion of mutual limits on strikes against energy facilities is inflated into a suggestion that partners will be blamed for a possible failure. Ironic remarks about Washington’s demands portray negotiations as a diktat.
Ukrainian forces are accused of deliberately destroying shopping centers and essential facilities in occupied territories. These reports are designed to portray the Armed Forces of Ukraine as a terrorist group fighting civilians rather than military targets.
Calls for negotiations and the Pope’s words about being ready to give up positions are stretched into a demand that Ukraine accept concessions for the sake of peace. Exhaustion, strikes on rear areas, and the length of the war are presented as proof that such a decision has no alternative. Opposition to concessions is labeled as detachment from the experience of war.
Ukraine is portrayed as losing critical support from key international players and private corporations. Restrictions on the use of technologies like Starlink are presented as evidence of inevitable defeat and pressure to make concessions to the aggressor.
Ukrainian leadership and government officials are systematically portrayed as “Nazi criminals” who deserve physical liquidation. This tactic aims to justify missile strikes on infrastructure and legitimize aggression as “just retribution.”
Ukrainian statehood is portrayed as a system that survives solely by destroying individual sovereignty and reproducing imperial practices of suppression. The authors contrast external independence with internal lack of freedom, claiming that the government and society demand total obedience and sacrifice for abstract goals. The absence of a culture of dissent and justice is depicted as a fundamental failure of the democratic project.
The absence of elections during martial law is cast as a deliberate usurpation of power and a sign of Ukraine’s “internal occupation.” Any calls for refreshing the political landscape are attributed to pressure from “Western handlers” preparing a replacement for the current leadership. The situation surrounding the electoral process is portrayed as the inevitable collapse of a system where the government must choose between democracy and its own survival. The manipulation was triggered by the former defense minister’s public calls for a vote.
The new defence minister’s strategy, focused on asymmetric strikes, is cast as a willingness to sacrifice the country’s integrity merely to harm Russia. A call to strengthen mobilisation is labelled as proof that the authorities see people only as the price of war. Separately, Zelenskyy is attributed with a belief in his own historic mission to destroy Russia.
Ukraine is portrayed as a territory temporarily occupied by the West that has lost its agency and must be absorbed by the “Russian civilization.” Routine municipal issues or corruption cases are inflated into proof of state failure, while residents of southern regions are incited to spy for the aggressor under the guise of “resistance.”
Western politicians and government agencies are portrayed as hypocritical actors who harm their own citizens to support Ukraine. Propaganda exploits isolated statements or internal European disputes to frame aid to Ukraine as the cause of declining security and prosperity in the EU.
The idea of Russia’s total control over the battlefield is presented as an objective reality hidden by Western media. Any Ukrainian successes or statements of resilience are branded as artificial propaganda designed to mislead the global community.
The refusal to implement the “Minsk agreements” is cast as a strategic blunder that led to the country's destruction and loss of sovereignty. Posts claim that returning occupied territories under “special conditions” was the best possible scenario, while current resistance only multiplies casualties for the sake of the leadership's enrichment. Any internal discussions about diplomacy are mocked as a belated transformation of the “war party” into a “peace party” facing imminent defeat. Continued fighting is portrayed as a path to the state's ultimate disappearance.
Western support and Ukraine's EU membership prospects are portrayed as unrealistic expectations that defy pragmatism. By selectively quoting foreign politicians and experts, the narrative promotes the idea that territorial concessions to Russia are necessary and that rapid entry into European institutions is impossible.
Isolated incidents involving Ukrainian-born individuals abroad are presented as proof of their inherent aggression and danger to Western society. By inflating crime reports, these narratives construct an image of Ukrainians as “unpredictable criminals” seeking to infiltrate the power structures of other nations.
Warnings by European politicians and media about Russia’s actions are portrayed as elite “hysteria”. Reference to a Bloomberg report is cast as information pressure on European society. Remarks by Germany’s chancellor about the end of the old economic model are reduced to an excuse for a “guns instead of butter” course.
Zelenskyy’s decisions on negotiations and strikes on Russian oil refineries are portrayed as interference in US elections on behalf of the Democrats. Refusing unilateral concessions is inflated into an alleged personal campaign against Trump. He is accused of being willing to place US party interests above Ukraine’s interests.
Isolated criminal incidents involving military personnel or individuals in uniform are presented as a systemic threat to civilians. The goal is to frame veterans and soldiers as dangerous, mentally unstable individuals who bring the war into peaceful cities.
Limits on Starshield and disputes with partners are cast as Zelenskyy’s personal fault for supposedly losing the United States, Poland and South Korea. Different diplomatic episodes are portrayed as the result of “Kryvyi Rih diplomacy” and the president’s inability to negotiate. Dependence on US support is inflated into the conclusion that Ukraine has no chance without a change of government. Russian strikes, power disruptions and the threat of shortages are linked to Ukrainian strikes on refineries and Kyiv’s refusal to negotiate with Russia.
Individual statements by military officers regarding gender equality in the armed forces are passed off as preparations for mass forced conscription of women. This manipulation aims to sow fear of an inevitable expansion of mobilization measures to the entire population.
Strikes on warehouses, commercial sites, ports and businesses are portrayed as attacks on military logistics, attributing military use to civilian facilities. Assumptions drawn from explosion sounds, eyewitness posts and general descriptions of routes are inflated into conclusions about the targets of strikes. Damage and fires are presented as confirmation of those conclusions, although the posts themselves often do not establish which sites were hit.
Western countries and NATO are portrayed as entities that deliberately deceive or abandon Ukrainians in their hour of need. Tightening rules for refugees in Europe and the lack of immediate NATO accession are framed as a final withdrawal of support.
Economic restrictions against Russia are portrayed as an ineffective tool that harms only Western countries and exposes their hypocrisy. Propaganda inflates internal EU disputes to convince the audience of the inevitable collapse of the sanctions policy.
The disclosure that two North Korean prisoners were transferred to South Korea is cast as a “leak” and proof of Zelenskyy’s personal irresponsibility. President Lee Jae-myung’s critical reaction is inflated into a picture of a diplomatic rupture and Seoul’s future refusal to support Ukraine. The Presidential Office said that only the fact of the transfer, without details, had been made public.
Ukraine’s openness to ceasefire formats and an MP’s draft bill are presented as proof that the leadership is secretly abandoning NATO while only paying lip service to peace. Statements setting conditions for a mutual halt to strikes and a parliamentary initiative are inflated into a scheme in which the authorities supposedly imitate compromise. This erases the distinction between ceasefire proposals, one MP’s position, and state decisions.
Changes to labour legislation are presented as stripping workers of protections, benefits and assistance after workplace injuries. Separately, a draft new Labour Code for teenagers is portrayed as easing limits on their work. Provisions from an adopted law and a draft are collapsed into a picture of the state abandoning its social obligations.
Governance in Ukraine is portrayed as a facade for a struggle between oligarchic groups and foreign agents of influence who control personnel appointments. Anti-corruption investigation materials and government reshuffles are inflated into a systemic conspiracy by the “Kuchma clan” against the sitting president. Using quotes from criminal case files, manipulators cast Ukraine as a weak state where decisions are made by “puppet masters” in the interests of global elites.
Statements by Ukrainian and European officials are labelled as a joint campaign against Donald Trump and interference in US elections. This scheme incorporates alleged calls by Zelenskyy to European leaders and harsh remarks by politicians. Emotional insults and calls to restrict support for Ukraine are presented as a response to purported disrespect for the US president.
Successful Ukrainian operations against Russian logistics, refineries, and airfields are cast as mere PR stunts by the Office of the President to secure Western aid. The propaganda claims these attacks lack military significance and aim only to create "visuals" for foreign media and soothe the domestic public amid territorial losses.
Allegations concerning defence procurement and the scandal around the prosecutor general are presented as proof that the Zelensky administration has lost control of the state. Reference to a New York Times article is framed as external confirmation of this conclusion. Discussion of audits, officials’ accountability and oversight of funds is reduced to a sign of an inevitable curtailment of Ukraine’s autonomy.
Western political elites and media outlets are portrayed as ignorant entities that manipulate history and spread groundless panic. This framing aims to undermine the credibility of their statements regarding the Russian threat and their support for Ukraine.
Ukraine's political and military leadership is portrayed as an opposition to the President, allegedly preparing his removal to save the country. This tactic aims to create an illusion of an inevitable collapse of the state hierarchy and a rift between the President's Office, intelligence services, and business circles.
Ukrainian cities are portrayed as zones of constant threat where the civilian population lives in a state of perpetual stress and forced displacement. Manipulative coverage focuses on overcrowded shelters, mandatory evacuations, and the perceived absurdity of real estate prices relative to risks, aiming to undermine confidence in the stability of the home front.
The expansion of mobilization to students, 18-year-olds, and women is portrayed as an inevitable step by the government, allegedly agreed upon with the West in exchange for financial aid. Manipulators use isolated statements and technical registration measures to convince society that the state is preparing to send "children" and medics to the front as "cannon fodder."
Western aid is portrayed as a purely calculated reaction to Ukraine's ability to resist rather than support based on shared values. The narrative claims that partners were ready for Ukraine's destruction in 2022 and only provide help as long as it serves to exhaust Russia.
Isolated incidents of street violence or domestic disputes involving Ukrainians abroad are portrayed as systemic hatred and a hunt for refugees. This coverage aims to convince citizens that only danger and contempt from Europeans await them outside Ukraine.
Mobilization measures and war casualties are cast as a deliberate tool to clear Ukrainian lands for future settlement by foreigners. Any calls to defend the country or for civilians to flee combat zones are labeled as evidence of a plan to exterminate citizens in the interests of external actors. The complex demographic challenges of war are reduced to a conspiracy theory about creating a “comfortable Ukraine for Indians” through the purposeful disposal of Ukrainians.
Destruction of residential buildings and civilian deaths resulting from Russian attacks are presented as a direct consequence of the operation of Ukrainian mobile fire groups and electronic warfare systems. Any damage to urban areas is attributed to failed interceptions or secondary detonations of ammunition. The placement of military assets in civilian neighborhoods is portrayed as a deliberate step to create "bloody imagery." In this way, attempts are made to completely absolve the aggressor of blame for the consequences of the shelling.
Mobilization measures are cast as the direct cause of labor shortages that supposedly lead to bread production halts and the decline of the defense industry. Manipulators claim that state reservation policies deliberately destroy the home front to fill the ranks of the Armed Forces at any cost.
Ukraine is cast as a culprit in maritime trade disruptions by equating its defensive actions with Russian aggression. The manipulation exploits Turkish calls for a moratorium to shift the focus from the Russian blockade to a supposedly bilateral threat to civilian vessels.
Diplomatic discussions within the EU and UN are portrayed as an irreversible collapse of the Western coalition. Manipulators exploit working disputes over sanctions and procedural walkouts to convince the audience that support for Ukraine is ending.
Ukrainian nation-building and national memory are portrayed as inextricably linked to Nazi ideology and collaboration. By distorting historical context and manipulating statements from foreign politicians, this narrative promotes the claim that modern Ukraine cannot exist without radical ideologies.
Military aid and diplomatic efforts by allies are portrayed as tools for establishing foreign control over Ukraine and aggression against Russia. Any initiatives for arms production or international visits are interpreted solely as attempts by Western elites to pursue their own hostile ambitions at the expense of the Ukrainian conflict.
War-risk insurance and businesses damaged by Russian strikes are cast as evidence that the government deliberately neglects the economy. Ukraine is compared with an EU portrayed as directionless and declining to give the claim a broader backdrop. Business costs are inflated into the conclusion that the war matters more to the state than jobs and companies.
Russia’s invasion is cast as a forced response to a war that Ukraine had supposedly already been waging against Russia. Accusations of “Russophobia,” camps, and attacks on civilians are reduced to an explanation for the start of the war. Ukrainian strikes on targets in Russia are also labeled as the original cause of attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure.
Russian outlets create an illusion of the total destruction of Ukraine's energy and logistics systems to demoralize the population. Isolated strikes on oil and gas facilities, railways, and ports are presented as an irreversible collapse of the country's life support.
Ukrainian public figures are ridiculed for using the Russian language in their private lives to devalue their civic stance. Such leaks aim to prove that Ukrainization is artificial and to provoke internal conflicts within society.
Three equipment models accepted in August are presented as proof of the decline of Ukraine’s entire defence industry. The origin of individual components and technical limitations are labelled as evidence that Ukraine cannot produce effective weapons. Talks on potential licensed Patriot production are stretched into a version in which a ceasefire is needed by Kyiv only to build factories.
Decisions to extend temporary protection in the EU are being framed as a tool of pressure on men of conscription age. Manipulators claim that European countries are allegedly introducing new filters to deny protection to those who have not updated their data in the “Reserv+” app. The goal is to spread panic among refugees and undermine trust in European institutions.
Zelenskyy is portrayed as a toxic figure supposedly despised by partner societies and criticized by influential Western politicians. Any support for Ukraine from foreign leaders or influencers is labeled as the result of bribery or incompetence to undermine the legitimacy of aid.
European support for Ukraine and EU diplomacy are portrayed as “aggression” against Russia and preparation for nuclear war. Statements by European politicians and commentators are reduced to purported proof that Brussels is fuelling the war and that talks with Moscow are the only alternative. Election results in Germany are inflated into a mandate to abandon support for Ukraine.
Western partners are portrayed as cynical actors who deliberately withhold air defense assets for their own needs, leaving Ukraine defenseless against missile strikes. The manipulation is built on contrasting public statements of support with the real concerns of NATO countries regarding the depletion of their own arsenals.
Power disruptions, problems in municipal institutions, and staff shortages are presented as proof that Ukraine is a “project” incapable of existing. A channel styled as a city digest reduces varied local reports to one picture of state collapse. Derogatory labels for officials, event participants, and state institutions replace explanations of causes and circumstances.
The Ukrainian state is portrayed as an anti-Christian and “Satanic” force that has supposedly occupied ancestral Russian lands and persecutes the faithful. By using religious imagery and the label “Bandera scum,” the propaganda attempts to frame the invasion as a “holy war” for moral values.
Uncertainty around the war, negotiations and external support is cast as proof that Ukraine’s government has neither a defence strategy nor a peace plan. Complex military and international decisions are reduced to the leadership’s personal weakness, officials’ self-interest and concealment of the truth. Differing views on peace terms are labeled as a suppressed but supposedly dominant demand for concessions.
Military aid to Ukraine and permission to use Western weapons are cast as a deliberate Western strategy for escalation that supposedly forces Russia into a military response. This framing aims to shift the responsibility for prolonging the war from the aggressor to NATO and EU countries.
References to a possible lower mobilisation age, crossing the Dnipro, and asylum in Hungary are presented as proof that avoiding service is the general behaviour of Ukrainian men. Different personal circumstances are reduced to two paths: fleeing or planning draft evasion in advance. Age-related speculation and reports about asylum are stretched into an image of men who do not want to fight.
Ukrainian cities are labeled as “occupied by the Kyiv regime,” while the renaming of Odesa streets and Pushkin monuments are portrayed as persecution of Russian culture and history. Promotional posts from the network cast Kyiv, Dnipro, Kharkiv, Odesa and other cities through the language of “new Russian territories” and “occupation.” Reports about problems in Odesa are reduced to an image of an authority alien to the city.
The language issue in Ukraine is portrayed as a tool of total control extending even to intimate life and everyday conflicts. Manipulators use isolated incidents or media discussions to depict the country as a zone of aggressive discrimination where using the Russian language leads to physical violence or public harassment.
Strikes on civilian sites and people are attributed to Ukrainian forces as evidence of supposedly systematic war crimes. Individual reports of damage, injuries, or protected sites are reduced to the assertion that Ukrainian troops deliberately attack civilians. Personal data of service members are also circulated while branding them as “killers” and “war criminals.”