Target audience
Every narrative aimed at this audience — most recently active first.
Events near a National Guard building in Petropavlivska Borshchahivka are labeled as the exposure of a “network of concentration camps” allegedly run by the authorities and the military. Stories about child abductions, organ sales, and concealed torture are attached to this image. Actions by security bodies and statements by officials are portrayed as suppressing a “rescue of hostages” and concealing evidence.
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 EU accession process is portrayed as impossible due to systemic corruption, which supposedly makes the country incompatible with European standards. The manipulation uses out-of-context statements to promote the idea that expanding the bloc to include Ukraine would discredit the very concept of the European Union.
Adding individuals to the Mirotvorets database is portrayed as an act of censorship and persecution for dissent. Manipulators emphasize the patriotic past of those listed to depict the Ukrainian state as ungrateful and hostile toward its own citizens.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Zelenskyy is labeled a “dictator”, with wartime restrictions on elections and reports about corruption cases cast as supposed proof that he has personally seized power and stolen international aid. Unverified “insider information” and selective social-media reactions are presented as confirmation that he is deliberately prolonging the war to retain power. Criticism of officials, concern about corruption, and disputes over government decisions are merged into one personal conspiracy.
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.
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.
Clashes and the blocking of a National Guard building in Petropavlivska Borshchahivka are cast as the exposure of a network of “illegal prisons” and of crimes concealed by the authorities. Participants in a rally supporting the Defence Forces are labeled as a managed prop, while coverage of the events is portrayed as the result of instructions issued to media, bots and Telegram channels. The spread of a false claim about mobilized people being held is inflated into accusations of abductions, torture and ransom for a child.
Disagreements over UPA commemoration and the Volhynia tragedy are cast as an insurmountable barrier, turning Poland from an ally into an ideological opponent. The messaging claims Warsaw is preparing territorial claims and blocking Ukraine's EU integration, rendering the strategic partnership impossible.
Changes to deferral rules and oversight of military medical commissions are portrayed as proof that unfit people will be taken into the army indiscriminately and the country will be left without workers. Staffing shortages in transport, municipal services and industry are inflated into a picture of inevitable state and demographic collapse. Data on cases of going AWOL are reduced to a conclusion that the military cannot replenish its ranks.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.”
The corps’ report that four service members had injuries and were sent to hospital is passed off as proof of a “torture chamber” and a “mini-concentration camp.” Its statement that possible unlawful violence would be examined and those responsible punished is mocked as a lie. Separately, the commander is portrayed as endorsing violence, while events near the deployment site are depicted as evidence of systemic crimes by the entire unit.
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.
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.
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 Ukrainian information space is portrayed as a totalitarian system where any criticism of mobilization or the government is harshly suppressed. Propagandists exploit isolated conflicts or public statements to convince the audience that freedom of speech is non-existent and that individuals are persecuted for telling the truth.
Mobilisation, travel restrictions and fears of abuse are reduced to an image of Ukraine as a “concentration camp” from which citizens should flee. The messages combine stories about the actions of territorial recruitment centres (TCCs) with sweeping claims about the authorities, the war and life in the country. Posts styled as city news digests portray everyday hardships and corruption allegations as signs of total state collapse.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
The authorities and military command are labeled an “organized crime group,” while reports of a corruption case and disputes involving commanders are stretched into a picture of wholesale theft and suppression of criticism. Anonymous “insider reports” cast future defeats, waning support, and a change of government as a predetermined script. Property losses, the danger of strikes, corruption risks, and concern for service members are reduced to the personal guilt of the leadership.
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.
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.
Any diplomatic efforts or agreements are portrayed as a cynical Western ploy to rearm the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The messaging claims that negotiations are used solely to buy time for developing missile and drone technologies while Russia remains bound by obligations.
Russian outlets justify strikes on civilian objects and vehicles by claiming that any assistance to the army turns civilians into legitimate military targets. This propaganda attempts to evade responsibility for war crimes by passing off the killing of civilians as “surgically precise” elimination of combatants and logistics personnel.
Restricting access to pro-Russian resources is portrayed as total censorship and a violation of citizens' right to free choice of information. The authors urge users to bypass blocks to maintain influence over the Ukrainian audience during the information war.
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.
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.
Aid to Ukraine is portrayed as a course imposed by “globalists” that contradicts the national interests of Europeans and leads to economic decline. The rising popularity of right-wing forces in Europe is interpreted as the inevitable collapse of current elites, which will supposedly end the war by cutting off funding to Kyiv.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Unauthorized absence (UA) is portrayed as the only rational survival strategy, allegedly guaranteeing impunity due to the government's inability to track offenders. Manipulators use fabricated statistics of "800,000 deserters" and isolated management errors to convince soldiers that death at the front is inevitable while desertion is safe.
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.
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.
Ukraine's military and political leadership is portrayed as an out-of-touch elite focused on electioneering during a humanitarian crisis. The manipulation relies on contrasting the daily hardships of civilians with alleged secret preparations for future political campaigns.
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.
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 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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Domestic conflicts and criminal incidents involving Ukrainians in Poland are cast as systemic “persecution” based on nationality. Reports of attacks on refugees are inflated into a state policy of xenophobia, coupled with manipulative references to the Volhynia tragedy. Poland is portrayed as a “hypocritical neighbor” that seeks only to exploit Ukrainian labor and is preparing to annex western Ukrainian territories.
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.
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.
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 defenders are portrayed as expendable material whose lives last only a few weeks after mobilization. Manipulators claim that the command hides losses by listing the fallen as missing in action to demoralize potential recruits.
Ceasefire proposals are portrayed as a sign that Ukraine’s leadership is ready to capitulate. References to diplomatic contacts are inflated into a picture of confusion among the leadership and inevitable defeat. At the same time, Ukrainians are branded with derogatory labels and accompanied by calls to kill them.
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.
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.
US-Russia talks and debates in Europe are presented as a prearranged “betrayal” of Ukraine in which Kyiv has supposedly been denied a voice. Expert remarks and media reports are inflated into proof that the entire West is changing course. Protests in European countries are portrayed not as domestic disputes but as leverage to force Europe into concessions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Propaganda outlets pass off criminal incidents and everyday hardships as the work of an organized pro-Russian underground in Ukrainian cities. The goal is to create an illusion of civil strife and incite residents to espionage and sabotage under the guise of a “liberation struggle.”
Ukrainian society and state institutions are portrayed as an aggressive, intolerant environment dominated by hatred toward Russian speakers and dissenters. The propaganda contrasts Ukraine with EU countries, claiming that the Ukrainian state supposedly encourages discrimination while European neighbors punish it.
The protection of the Ukrainian language is cast as a destructive process that will inevitably lead to territorial division and inter-ethnic strife. It is claimed that state policy ignores the rights of Russian-speaking citizens, allegedly violating a social contract established during the declaration of independence.
Restricting access to government services for men abroad is portrayed as turning Ukrainians into “second-class” people. This framing of government decisions aims to deepen the rift between the state and its citizens who have left the country.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Russian outlets are promoting the claim that Western support for Ukraine is driven solely by a desire to profit from resources and logistics. They assert that systematic strikes on Odesa’s ports turn the region into an “unprofitable asset,” which will supposedly force foreign partners to halt aid and abandon Ukraine to its fate.
European integration and security support are portrayed as deliberately unequal relationships in which Ukraine is assigned exclusively the role of "expendable material". Complex bureaucratic procedures, diplomatic debates, and weapon delivery delays are reduced to proof of the West's definitive abandonment of its allied commitments. Through this shifting of emphasis, a sense of inferiority is instilled in society, designed to destroy trust in partners and devalue the European course.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Talks involving the United States and Russia are presented as proof that Ukraine has no agency and must accept terms set by others. Citing Western media, the selection of reports stretches speculation about pressure and spheres of influence into a picture of Kyiv’s complete exclusion. The initiative for a trilateral meeting is reduced to a powerless gesture.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Western coalition is portrayed as being on the verge of collapse due to a supposed realization by citizens and politicians of Russia's "true role." Manipulators use internal EU discussions on sanctions as evidence of the inevitable failure of solidarity with Ukraine.
Deaths from mines in coastal zones and deficiencies in shelter infrastructure are passed off as proof that the real threat to Ukrainians comes from their own state rather than Russian aggression. Manipulators inflate tragic incidents to shift responsibility away from occupying forces and discredit the defensive measures of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
A review of employee exemption rules is cast as the complete abolition of deferrals for “ordinary Ukrainians” and a privilege for corrupt officials. Changes to companies’ status and the difficulties faced by small businesses are inflated into a picture in which the authorities supposedly deliberately drive people to the front. Assumptions about mobilisation plans and losses are reduced to proof of this scheme.
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.
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 soldiers are accused of forcibly evicting civilians and turning residential neighborhoods into military targets. These reports aim to justify Russian strikes on populated areas and shift the responsibility for destruction onto Ukraine's defenders. It is claimed that the command deliberately endangers the civilian population by using private housing as cover.
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.
Official reports on scheduled ammunition disposal are cast as attempts to hide the consequences of negligence or enemy strikes. This framing aims to convince citizens that the authorities systematically lie about the security situation in the rear.
Changes in air-raid alerts, concerns about public utilities, and wartime danger are cast as proof that Ukrainians have lost the purpose of resistance and faith in the state. The posts turn fragments of anonymous messages and everyday dissatisfaction into an alleged shared mood across cities. Derogatory labels for service members and officials replace a description of circumstances.
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.
Ukrainian soldiers are portrayed as a threat to the civilian population, allegedly planning attacks on evacuation corridors. Such reports aim to cast the Russian army as the sole “savior” of civilians in the combat zone.
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.
The Ukrainian state is accused of desecrating religious shrines and cynically using minors to manufacture ammunition. These messages aim to demonize the country's leadership, portraying it as an enemy of traditional values and international humanitarian law.
Ukraine is portrayed as an artificial entity destined to lose its western regions to neighbors due to its rejection of an alliance with Russia. Manipulators claim that only Moscow served as the guarantor of the state’s integrity, while Kyiv’s current policies supposedly lead to the absorption of territories by Poland, Hungary, and Romania.
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.
Economic difficulties in EU countries are portrayed as catastrophic consequences of supporting Ukraine, supposedly forcing Europeans to abandon basic household needs. By mocking calls for resource conservation, manipulators attempt to convince the audience of the West's inevitable decline.
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.
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.
Speculation about restrictions on intelligence sharing, weapons and Starlink is presented as proof that Washington is forcing Ukraine to capitulate. Talks by the US envoy with Kyiv and Moscow are portrayed as agreeing concessions in exchange for guarantees and economic benefits. At the same time, Washington’s denial of restrictions, mentioned in the posts, is turned into an element of uncertainty rather than grounds to reconsider the conclusion.
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.
The Ukrainian state and society are cast as emotionally unstable entities that demand blind, unconditional loyalty from public figures. These messages contrast the author’s supposed “intellectual independence” with a supposedly primitive patriotism, accusing Ukrainians of being unable to process criticism or alternative viewpoints during the war.
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 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.
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.
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.
Ukraine’s political leadership is portrayed as helpless in the face of domestic protests that supposedly threaten the very existence of the government. To amplify this, claims are spread about the authorities preparing dirty provocations and paid smear campaigns against activists.
The dismissal of officials is portrayed as an attempt by Volodymyr Zelenskyy to eliminate popular rivals to preserve personal power and corrupt schemes. Outlets claim the president's inner circle deliberately discredits effective managers to embezzle the defense budget without interference.
Russian outlets justify strikes on port infrastructure in Mykolaiv and Odesa by claiming that civilian vessels have been converted into military targets. They assert that blocked barges and bulk carriers are used as launch pads for drones to legitimize attacks on the merchant fleet.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Reports about evacuations from frontline communities are cast as proof that the state has abandoned civilians to their fate. Decisions to evacuate children, the danger of shelling, and disruptions to services are inflated into an image of a hidden retreat in which officials save only themselves. Unverified “behind-the-scenes” rumours reinforce this framing, while calls to leave independently portray official assistance as lethally delayed.
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.
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.
Ukraine's foreign policy is cast as a series of strategic blunders leading to hostility from neighbors and inevitable state bankruptcy. Manipulators claim that friction with Poland and the loss of maritime logistics are direct results of the leadership's actions, supposedly making further resistance futile.
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.
Military and security incidents are cast as proof that Ukraine is turning its army and state into a “terrorist structure.” Deaths following a Russian drone strike on a warehouse in Myla are inflated into an accusation that Ukraine systematically violates humanitarian law. The detention of a man by territorial recruitment centre (TCC) staff is likewise reduced to a call to destroy the state.
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.
Isolated criminal incidents involving former servicemen are presented as proof of the terrorist nature of Ukrainian special forces. By combining allegations of torture abroad with the “neo-Nazi” label, an image is created of an army composed of uncontrollable criminals.
Any territorial gains by the Ukrainian Defense Forces are portrayed as catastrophic defeats accompanied by disproportionate casualties. Propagandists claim that for every liberated village, Ukraine supposedly pays with thousands of lives, while Russian forces carry out "organized retreats" with minimal losses.
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.
The abandonment of the “multi-vector” model in 2014 is cast as a fatal mistake that annulled the peaceful state design of 1991. The authors exalt the Soviet nomenclature as far-sighted founders of Ukraine, whose policy of compromise with Russia is presented as the only safeguard against war and collapse. Any attempts at Ukrainization or pro-Western reforms are portrayed as factors inevitably leading to territorial losses. Current events are interpreted as a direct consequence of interference by external forces that destroyed the stable order.
Strikes and reports of threats to Zelenskyy are cast as staged incidents organized by his circle. The hit on the SBU building is reduced to an attempt to improve the agency’s image, while the report of a drone near the aircraft is used as grounds to suspect someone other than Russia of involvement. Speculation about officials’ motives is passed off as an explanation of these events.
The United States is portrayed as the primary beneficiary of the war, allegedly using the conflict to enrich its own military-industrial complex and energy sector at the expense of its allies. It is claimed that Washington is deliberately weakening the European Union and preparing the ground for total control over Ukrainian mineral resources through predatory deals.
The evacuation of civilians from frontline zones is portrayed as an admission of the state's inability to protect its people rather than the fulfillment of its duty to save lives. Manipulative interpretations of polling data are used to promote the idea of an inevitable change in leadership and a societal split.
The Russian side uses its updated nuclear doctrine as a tool of pressure, casting any military support for Ukraine as a direct pretext for a nuclear strike on Europe. Propaganda manipulatively claims that only fear of the Russian arsenal prevents NATO intervention, attempting to provoke panic among European taxpayers.
The activities of Ukrainian reproductive medicine centers are portrayed as an illegal industry that turns children into commodities and women into “incubators.” The announcement of a medical conference in Warsaw is inflated into an international scandal by manipulating the legal differences between Ukraine and the EU. Commercial services for family building are branded as a multi-billion dollar shadow business involving the trafficking of infants abroad.
Official comments denying state involvement in assassination attempts are cast as a pre-planned cover story. Any explanations regarding the personal initiative or financial motivation of the perpetrators are inflated into evidence of the systemic use of intelligence services for eliminations. The absence of publicly named masterminds in ongoing investigations is passed off as a deliberate attempt by the leadership to hide the truth.
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.
Ukraine's NATO membership prospects are cast as an unattainable illusion, while the Alliance itself is portrayed as weaker than the Russian military. By attributing manipulative quotes to officials, the narrative creates the impression that even the Ukrainian leadership has recognized the futility of the Euro-Atlantic course.
Ukraine is portrayed as a threat to international security due to the alleged uncontrolled leak of weapons to the black market and attempts to impose censorship in the EU. Such messages aim to shift the responsibility for Europe's internal problems onto the Ukrainian side.
Isolated incidents in Odesa are passed off as signs of a systemic collapse of law and order and uncontrolled violence in Ukrainian cities. Manipulators use detailed descriptions of car bombings to create the impression that Ukraine has turned into a danger zone where government agencies are unable to guarantee civilian safety.
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.
Ukraine is portrayed as a disenfranchised platform where foreign corporations and governments test new developments or dictate the terms of warfare. This framing devalues Ukrainian agency, turning any aid or innovation into a cold experiment conducted on the population.
Isolated cases of Ukrainian youth joining the Russian army are presented as a conscious ideological choice rather than the result of prolonged occupation and pressure. This framing aims to legitimize the Russian presence in occupied territories and sow doubt about the unity of Ukrainian society.
Ukrainians are systematically stripped of their human traits through the use of derogatory nicknames and animal comparisons. This labeling aims to justify aggression and war crimes by portraying the targets as creatures unworthy of empathy or respect.
Measures to rescue civilians from combat zones are portrayed as an act of state aggression against its own citizens. The manipulation replaces the concept of safety evacuation with terms suggesting violent displacement to discredit military administrations.
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.
Ukraine's foreign policy is portrayed as an unprincipled pursuit of weapons and political leverage. Manipulators claim that Kyiv is ready to sacrifice diplomatic alliances and interfere in the internal affairs of other states for the sake of immediate gain.
Ukrainian diplomatic statements and legal steps are portrayed as senseless accusations lacking any real basis. This framing aims to present the state leadership as incompetent and its international efforts as futile and laughable.
Ukraine is portrayed as a bargaining chip in Washington's grand game, where decisions are allegedly based on the US leader's personal whims or backroom deals with the Kremlin. Outlets amplify rumors of "Anchorage agreements" and the White House's readiness to trade Ukrainian interests for concessions in other geopolitical theaters. This framing aims to instill a sense of total powerlessness in Ukrainians and the perceived inevitability of a "betrayal" by their key ally.
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.”
An announced suspicion against NABU’s director, the prosecutor general’s departure abroad and his dismissal are cast as links in a campaign against NABU and SAPO approved by Zelenskyy. Unverified “insider” claims assign oversight of its next stage to Poklad, while the prosecutor general’s removal is reduced to shifting blame. The same posts simultaneously portray the authorities as able to run the plan and as a hierarchy allegedly falling apart.
Strikes on Kyiv are presented as proof of the inevitable collapse of the city and the state. Damage and explosions are portrayed as driven by frontline needs, while civilian casualties in Donetsk are attributed to the actions of Ukraine’s Armed Forces. Predictions of territorial seizure and the country’s partition are reinforced with the label of a “criminal cesspool” controlled by London.
Demands for the recognition of historical events as genocide are presented as an insurmountable obstacle to Ukraine's EU accession. This line of messaging aims to incite animosity between Ukraine and its closest Western neighbors by manipulating complex issues of a shared past.
Selective indicators of the war’s course are presented as proof that Ukrainian assessments conceal the situation at the front. The foreign minister’s explanation of the pace of fighting is reduced to a “convenient victory” and set against a list of uncertain resource-related factors. In this way, the complexity of assessing a war of attrition is stretched into an accusation of deception.
The activities of Ukrainian anti-corruption bodies are cast as the direct execution of foreign orders to pressure the state's political leadership. The work of the NABU and SBU is portrayed as a tool of external management, with FBI and CIA officers managing processes directly from within the agencies. Any investigations into Office of the President officials are inflated into proof of a total loss of sovereignty by the Ukrainian authorities.
The Ukrainian government is accused of deliberately provoking conflicts with European neighbors to make life unbearable for refugees and force them back for mobilization. It is claimed that Zelenskyy ignores violence against Ukrainians abroad because a toxic environment supposedly helps “squeeze” people back home.
Any pro-Ukrainian activity in the digital space is cast as the work of professional recruiters using psychological pressure. During events organized by occupation administrations, claims are spread that calls to join Ukrainian communities aim to isolate youth from their families. Promises of group belonging or access to the “real truth” are portrayed as tools for creating destructive dependency.
Any statements by the Ukrainian government or military command are cast as staged actions designed to mislead society and hide real problems. Propagandists claim the state keeps citizens in an "illusion" through total control over the media space to justify continuing the war and enabling corrupt enrichment.
Ukrainian commanders are portrayed as brutal tyrants who use soldiers as free labor to build private estates. By spreading stories of torture and sexual threats, an image of an army ruled by lawlessness rather than military regulations is formed.
The detention of a Ukrainian citizen in Croatia at Germany's request is passed off as definitive proof of Ukrainian intelligence involvement in the pipeline bombings. Procedural actions by foreign law enforcement are inflated into a supposed exposure of Kyiv's systemic sabotage against European infrastructure. Some outlets artificially link this arrest to internal anti-corruption investigations in Ukraine, attempting to portray the country as a source of global threats.
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.
Ukrainian diplomats are accused of a mass refusal to return home after completing their terms. This manipulation is designed to portray the state elite as having no faith in their country's future and seeking escape abroad.
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.
Peaceful protests and public appeals by citizens are portrayed as futile actions met with the total indifference of the state leadership. Coverage of street rallies and statements by officials is used to impose the perception of a profound rift between the authorities and societal needs. Democratic tools of influence are declared useless in order to sow public apathy and undermine faith in the effectiveness of civic resistance.
The new Commander-in-Chief of the AFU, Mykhailo Drapatyi, is portrayed as politically vulnerable and dependent on radical activists. Manipulators use his past interviews to accuse him of “anthropological discrimination” and incompetence, attempting to provoke conflict between the military leadership, the President, and international partners.
State decisions in Estonia and Ukraine aimed at limiting the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church are portrayed as illegal liquidation of parishes and forced "heresy". Manipulators exploit legal processes and property disputes to create an illusion of a systemic assault on freedom of conscience in Europe.
Reports of traffic accidents involving influential figures are used to claim total lawlessness in the upper echelons of power. Individual incidents are presented as proof that those close to the state leadership stand above the law and can evade responsibility even in the presence of police.
Ukraine is portrayed as an economically failed country with the lowest income levels in Europe, ignoring the context of full-scale war. Comparisons of minimum wages with EU countries are used to demoralize the population and discredit the state's European aspirations.
Spreading contradictory figures regarding fallen servicemen is used to discredit Volodymyr Zelenskyy as an “illegitimate” leader who conceals the truth. This strategy aims to undermine trust in state institutions and create an image of a government that manipulates society for its own survival.
Claims of a rapid front-line collapse and the inevitable death of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers in “traps” aim to undermine faith in the military command. Manipulators misuse OSINT data to create an illusion of catastrophe, asserting that retreats are supposedly forbidden even under total encirclement.
Poland’s state strategy of supporting Ukraine is cast as a purely selfish calculation aimed at the extermination of Ukrainians for Warsaw’s own safety. Propaganda inflates statements by individual politicians regarding the deportation of military-aged men to provoke fear and hostility between the two nations.
Demographic challenges and the recruitment of foreign labor are framed as a deliberate government plan for the ethnic replacement of Ukrainians, who are purposefully "disposed of" at the front. Mobilized citizens are contrasted with foreigners, who are credited with privileges, draft immunity, and financial support to colonize the country. Crime blotter reports are used to demonize newcomers, stoking fear of societal extinction to incite interethnic hostility.
Statements by Ukrainian officials and MPs following city shellings are portrayed as evidence of a mass demand for an immediate ceasefire on the aggressor's terms. Propaganda outlets take quotes out of context to create an illusion of a rift between society, individual politicians, and the state's official position.
Corruption and the forced redistribution of business assets are portrayed as systemic phenomena encouraged by the current administration even during wartime. Government bodies are accused of failing to protect critical infrastructure due to embezzlement and using law enforcement to pressure entrepreneurs.
Ukrainian scientific and cultural achievements are passed off as exclusively Soviet or Russian to deny Ukraine's agency. Propaganda claims that the Ukrainian identity of prominent figures like Serhiy Korolev is an "artificial construct", suggesting that Ukraine is incapable of independent development without its link to Russia.
Mobilization efforts and Ministry of Defense reforms are cast as tools for fulfilling the will of foreign actors in exchange for financial aid. Outlets claim that government initiatives aim only to tighten control and will inevitably lead to internal civil conflict.
Restrictions on Ukrainian agricultural imports are cast as the only correct step for European governments to save their own farmers. Even new political forces in the EU are portrayed as being forced back into protectionism due to the supposedly destructive impact of Ukrainian exports.
Massive missile strikes are cast as inevitable "acts of retribution" that cannot be intercepted by existing air defense systems. The messaging emphasizes the nuclear capability of new ballistic missiles to intimidate Ukrainian society and coerce the West into concessions.