We monitor pro-Russian media and show which narratives they push, how they work, and how to counter them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.”
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.
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.
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 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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.