We monitor pro-Russian media and show which narratives they push, how they work, and how to counter them.
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.
A strike on a warehouse near Kyiv and a secondary detonation are cast as proof that the leadership deliberately places weapons near homes and uses civilians as “human shields.” Officials’ statements about the warehouse are reduced to an attempt to conceal responsibility. One episode is inflated into a claim about hundreds of such sites and a pre-approved practice.
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.
Ukraine is portrayed as a nation on the brink of famine, where mobilization and the destruction of factories will supposedly leave no one to bake bread. Manipulative forecasts promise a sharp rise in the price of basic goods to incite panic among the population.
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.
Ukraine is portrayed as a hub for cross-border crime where fraudulent call centers supposedly operate under the direct patronage of intelligence services and political leadership. This amplification aims to discredit government institutions and justify aggression by creating the image of a “criminal state.”
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.
Russian outlets systematically frame strikes on gas stations, postal terminals, and shopping centers as the destruction of military logistics. They claim that civilian infrastructure supposedly serves as a cover for storing weapons and fuel for the AFU, aiming to legitimize attacks on essential urban facilities.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The secondary detonation after a Russian attack on an enterprise in Bucha district is portrayed as grounds for attributing “criminal negligence” in the storage of explosive materials to officials. Reports of an investigation into the causes and conditions are presented alongside speculation about a military depot. At the same time, these posts themselves link the fire and detonation to the Russian attack.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Strikes on warehouses and limits on purchases are cast as proof of an inevitable collapse of supplies in Ukraine, while missile interceptions are portrayed as a government “show”. Damage to logistics is inflated into an image of Kyiv without food or medicines and a country doomed to cold and hunger. The destruction and a future crisis are attributed to the leadership’s decision to continue the war.
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.
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 postponed launch of a system for recording displaced people’s housing needs is cast as evidence that the state cannot distribute assistance fairly or effectively. The condition of shelters is labeled proof that the authorities care only for the privileged. Delays in record-keeping, rental-support conditions, and problems with shelters are reduced to an image of a corrupt state that does not support people.
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.”
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.
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.
Russian outlets frame attacks on Ukrainian ports as the final destruction of Ukraine's export potential and military logistics. They claim that the shutdown of major agricultural firms and damage to rail hubs make maritime exports impossible, supposedly forcing the West to cut aid due to rising costs.