We analyse pro-Russian outlets aimed at Western audiences, which anti-Ukraine narratives they push, how they work, and how to counter them.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s statements on a ceasefire and the impossibility of holding elections during wartime are cast as proof that he is deliberately prolonging the war to retain power. Individual interviews with his former spokesperson and comments by media figures are inflated into a portrait of an “illegitimate” leader who allegedly betrays both Ukrainians and partners. Calls for negotiations are portrayed not as a position in wartime, but as a hidden calculation.
Ukraine is portrayed as a failed state whose defeat is preordained by the exhaustion of air defense resources and the critical destruction of its power grid. Manipulators use commentary from Kremlin-aligned experts to convince audiences that Western financial aid is futile.
Military and financial support for Ukraine is cast as wasteful spending that supposedly deprives people in the United States and Europe of resources and prolongs the war. Statements by American and European politicians, as well as Western media coverage, are used as confirmation of this conclusion. Spending, budget disputes and defence needs are inflated into the assertion that aid to Ukraine inevitably destroys allies’ prosperity.
Routine policy debates in the EU and US regarding budgets, migration, or historical memory are cast as the inevitable collapse of Western support and a final rupture in relations. Isolated statements from opposition figures or complex stages of EU accession talks are inflated into a narrative of Ukraine's total global isolation.
Western nations are portrayed as hypocritical actors preparing to abandon Kyiv due to self-interest or fatigue. This framing focuses on historical disputes and economic hardships as evidence that aiding Ukraine is “suicidal” for Europe.
The Ukrainian President's travels and personnel decisions are cast as triggers for mass discontent both at home and abroad. Manipulators exploit isolated pickets or local actions to create the impression of a total loss of legitimacy and support for the national leader.
Ukrainian defense forces are portrayed as a terrorist group that deliberately targets civilians and critical infrastructure. These messages aim to shift the responsibility for humanitarian disasters onto Kyiv and justify Russian aggression as a “defensive” measure.
Contacts between US envoys and Moscow and Kyiv are cast as US pressure on Ukraine to accept concessions. References to a “breakthrough before winter” and to “compromises” reduce negotiations to a scenario in which Kyiv must accept a decision made without it. The envoys’ meetings in Moscow and Kyiv, along with a possible trilateral format, are inflated into an image of an imposed settlement.
Support for Ukraine, sanctions against Russia, and Kyiv’s position are cast as the main obstacles to peace, while Russia’s responsibility for the war is pushed aside. A US sanctions law signed on 19 September is stretched into evidence that Washington is supposedly blocking an agreement. To do so, the war is reduced to a consequence of Western “Russophobia”, while NATO, corruption, and “neo-Nazism” are labelled as dangers greater than Russia.
Propaganda outlets promote the thesis that Russia is forced to continue hostilities only because of "Western plans" to expand the conflict. Moscow's aggression is framed as a forced reaction to the strategy of the US and its allies, who allegedly seek a "war of attrition" and block peace initiatives.
The Ukrainian leadership and Volodymyr Zelenskyy personally are portrayed as corrupt beneficiaries enriching themselves through foreign support. By spreading unverified data about elite real estate and financial schemes involving officials, the narrative promotes the idea that further funding for Ukraine's defense is futile.
The Ukrainian state leadership is portrayed as a system built on nepotism and corrupt traditions, allegedly leading to international isolation. Manipulators use isolated critical publications or statements to promote the thesis of the government's total professional incompetence.
Ukraine is portrayed as an uncontrollable aggressor that attacks civilian vessels and commits crimes abroad. These messages aim to convince the world that supporting Kyiv only fuels international chaos and threatens the security of third countries.
Systemic corruption and the activities of fraudulent call centers are presented as inherent features of the Ukrainian state that directly threaten the welfare of Western citizens. Manipulators use real law enforcement reports on crime-fighting to accuse the country's top leadership of complicity in robbing foreign retirees.
Ukrainian diplomacy and military operations are portrayed as destabilization tools that exceed the bounds of self-defense. The actions of ambassadors are framed as unacceptable interference in European politics, while strikes on strategic targets are cast as fulfilling Western orders against third countries.
Western states’ support for Ukraine is cast as indulgence of “Ukrainian Nazism,” while Kyiv is labeled a “Russophobic regime.” Critical statements by European politicians about Russia and support for Ukraine are reduced to “Russophobia” and preparation for war with Russia. Historical memory and the transfer of Nazi remains are passed off as proof that Ukraine and its partners endorse Nazism.
The destruction of retail-chain warehouses and a possible 2027 budget deficit are collapsed into a picture of an economy unable to function. References to Ukrainian outlets and Bloomberg give these claims the appearance of external confirmation. An assessment of warehouses and reporting on talks with the IMF are stretched into a conclusion that trade and public finances are breaking down.
Ukrainian statehood is portrayed as a criminal entity that has supposedly lost its legitimacy and is controlled by external forces. By using aggressive labels like “junta” and “neo-Nazi regime,” the narrative denies Ukraine’s right to sovereignty and international support.
Claims about a veteran being beaten, fathers dying because of mobilisation, and a soldier disappearing after criticism are presented as proof that Ukraine’s authorities and military use violence against their own people. These stories are reduced to a picture of corruption and persecution in the army and government bodies. Other countries’ support for Kyiv is labeled complicity by those countries in the “crimes” attributed to it.
Disagreements over strikes on Russian energy facilities and US arrangements with Russia are presented as proof that Zelenskyy has already lost Washington’s support. Citing comments by Trump and Musk and reporting by the WSJ and FT, the messages personalize the dispute as the Ukrainian president’s fault. Criticism and tension in the relationship are stretched into a prediction of a complete Ukraine-US rupture and EU estrangement.
Ukraine’s military and diplomatic moves are portrayed as strategic miscalculations that only worsen the country’s position. Any attempts to strengthen leverage for negotiations are labeled as backfiring and leading to inevitable defeat.
An episode involving the training of a foreign contract soldier, a claim about Russian missiles affecting port operations, and an assessment of interceptor drones are cast as evidence that Ukrainian forces cannot train personnel, defend airspace, or sustain maritime transport. To add weight, two posts cite The Telegraph and Welt. Distinct elements of the war are inflated into a generalisation that the military is unable to operate.
Ukraine's European integration process is portrayed as a doomed initiative facing insurmountable resistance from neighboring states and European societies. By leveraging isolated political statements and sociological polls, manipulators create an illusion of Kyiv's total isolation on the path to membership.
Ukrainian strikes on Russian fuel infrastructure are portrayed as the cause of a global diesel shortage and as grounds to stop them. This causal claim is reinforced by references to Donald Trump’s remarks and repeated across several posts. The effects of the war on fuel markets are reduced to a single action by Ukraine, while other factors are omitted.
Isolated criminal incidents involving Ukrainian citizens are inflated into a systemic threat to the security of European countries. The goal is to dehumanize refugees and provoke ethnic tension between Ukrainians and the citizens of host nations.
Cases involving sabotage and espionage suspicions against individual Ukrainians are inflated into a portrayal of Ukraine as a state allegedly running a terrorist campaign in Europe. Proceedings on the Nord Stream indictment are cast as proof of the involvement of Ukrainian state agencies. Reports of arrests and “secret cargo” are reduced to a single wave of sabotage.
Ukraine’s and EU states’ participation in joint defence projects is portrayed as proof that the West is preparing for a major war. Diplomatic statements, arms purchases and security discussions are reduced to a single scenario of inevitable escalation. Responsibility for a possible conflict is assigned to Kyiv and European capitals while other factors are omitted.
Russian strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure are framed as a logical response to allegedly provocative actions by the Ukrainian leadership. Manipulators claim that the president's policies led to the depletion of air defenses and the destruction of the energy grid, shifting the blame away from the aggressor.
Ukraine is cast as a passive object used by Western nations to test new warfare technologies and provoke Russia. This tactic aims to dismiss Ukrainian agency and shift the responsibility for the continuing conflict onto Kyiv’s allies.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s diplomatic contacts and public disputes are cast as proof that he harms Ukraine and its partners. Critical remarks by foreign politicians and media-cited reporting are inflated into a portrait of an irresponsible leader who seeks war and derails agreements. Responsibility for tensions in relations with allies is reduced to his personal conduct.
Support for Ukraine is portrayed as a path to the EU’s economic and geopolitical decline, while a claim about €200 billion that “disappeared” is inflated into an accusation that Ukraine’s leadership launders money. Citing a Polish MP’s remark, the posts present his assessment as an explanation of EU policy. Shifts in the international balance of power are reduced to the thesis that Kyiv has claimed the role of “saviour” of European democracy.
The absence of elections is cast as evidence that Volodymyr Zelenskyy retains power by prolonging the war. Debates about aid to Ukraine are inflated into suspicions about how funds are spent, while wartime decisions are reduced to the president’s personal interest. Political assessments, changes in approval ratings, and wartime circumstances are assembled into a pre-scripted story of “dictatorship.”
Ukraine's requests for financial aid for its agricultural sector are portrayed as endless demands for subsidies that drain allied resources. This manipulation ignores the root cause of the losses—the Russian port blockade—and casts the country as a dependent that only consumes taxpayer funds.
Military aid to Ukraine is cast as a manifestation of hereditary hatred toward Russia, allegedly stemming from the ideology of the Third Reich. By manipulating the biographies of Western journalists and politicians, support for Ukraine is labeled as a desire to “kill Russians” inherited from Nazi ancestors.
Ukraine is portrayed as a mindless tool of the West, supposedly used in a futile attempt to defeat Russia. This tactic aims to frame the defensive war as a foreign geopolitical project rather than a struggle for survival.
Western aid to Ukraine and resistance to Russian aggression are cast as a direct path to global nuclear catastrophe. This tactic aims to convince the international community that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable unless Russia achieves its goals.
Trump’s remarks about a new leader and elections are presented as proof that he is already seeking to replace Volodymyr Zelenskyy. References to Newsweek, BILD, Die Welt and Axios create the appearance of several independent confirmations. An agreement on importing Russian diesel is inflated into a claim that Trump’s attitude toward Zelenskyy has changed permanently.
Military aid to Ukraine and intelligence sharing are cast as elements of NATO’s “hybrid war” against Russia. Separately, a proposal for a permanent “European Legion” including Ukrainian veterans is labeled as directed against Russia. Different allied decisions and discussions are reduced to an image of NATO as a party to the war.
Support for Ukraine is cast as a cynical business project aimed at extracting natural resources and generating windfall profits for defense companies. This framing devalues the defensive war by reducing it to a tool for geopolitical leverage and economic exploitation by the US and EU.
Kyiv’s disagreement with partners’ decisions and strikes on Russian oil refineries are cast as blackmail of the West and a threat to its prosperity. Criticism of the US decision to suspend sanctions on Russian diesel is reduced to Ukraine’s hostility toward its allies. Individual diplomatic reports are inflated into an image of a state that supposedly betrays every partner.
The Russian side passes off its own demands for Ukraine's surrender as a readiness for constructive dialogue. This tactic shifts the responsibility for continuing the war onto Kyiv and Western capitals while ignoring the fact of Russian armed aggression.
Zelenskyy’s statement about Starlink is labeled a lie, while his appearance from Zaporizhzhia is portrayed as staged through a “chroma-key malfunction.” These different accusations are reduced to an image of a president whose words and public appearances are fabricated. Two unrelated assertions are inflated into an accusation of constant deception.
Ukraine is cast as the organizer of targeted attacks on personnel and critical infrastructure of the Zaporizhzhia NPP and the initiator of a deliberate disruption of the IAEA Director General's visit. Any incidents in Enerhodar or on the plant's territory are labeled as acts of “nuclear terrorism” threatening global security. Western countries are portrayed as accomplices in these actions due to their “silence” and failure to condemn Kyiv. It is claimed that the Ukrainian authorities fear the disclosure of the truth about the situation at the facility.
References to foreigners in the war and to Ukrainian agricultural exports are cast as evidence that Ukraine poses security and health threats to Europe. Claimed headcounts of people from different countries are labeled as proof of a war fought by “mercenaries.” Food-safety concerns are inflated into an assumption that Ukrainian products as a whole are dangerous.
Western military support is cast as a mathematically doomed effort that is incapable of altering the course of the war. The manipulation focuses on specific Ukrainian requests to convince the audience of the futility of further resistance and the inevitability of defeat.
Mobilization in Ukraine is cast as an act of state terror involving violent crackdowns on dissent and the forced separation of parents from children. This framing aims to provoke mass resistance to government agencies and demoralize the home front by exploiting fears of social vulnerability.
The prospect of Ukraine's NATO membership is cast as a fundamentally unattainable illusion that even top officials are supposedly abandoning. This manipulation aims to convince the audience that the state's strategic course is futile and its efforts are doomed.
Ukraine is portrayed as an incapable actor with no influence over key geopolitical processes or the dialogue between major powers. Russian officials claim that Kyiv’s efforts to intervene in Moscow’s relations with Beijing or Washington are doomed to fail, while suggesting that Ukraine itself avoids diplomatic engagement.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy is portrayed as a toxic burden for Western leaders, supposedly bringing misfortune and dragging the world into a global conflict. His actions are cast as cynical attempts to sustain corrupt rackets, accompanied by personal insults to undermine his international standing.
Ukraine's requests for air defense assets are cast as arrogant demands from a leader who exploits allied support. This distortion shifts the focus from the critical need to protect civilians to the alleged ingratitude and entitlement of the Ukrainian leadership.
Ukraine is accused of deliberate attacks on civilian cargo vessels in waters far from the combat zone. Such reports are designed to portray the Ukrainian leadership as an unpredictable aggressor threatening global trade security.
Russian strikes on Ukrainian targets are cast as a forced response to Kyiv’s actions and Zelenskyy’s statements about strikes on oil refineries. Announcements of intensified attacks are paired with the claim that Russia seeks peace but must act “with full force.” This reduces responsibility for escalation to Ukrainian decisions while removing Russian actions from the picture.
Ukraine’s readiness for a ceasefire is portrayed as proof that it has exhausted its ability to continue the war. A statement about moving to diplomacy, with Russia’s consent as a condition, is stretched into a conclusion that Kyiv is forced to seek a way out because of systemic weakness. One economist’s assessment is presented as a diagnosis of the state’s position.
The application of international sanctions and the seizure of Russian assets are portrayed as illegal theft and acts of international piracy. This narrative aims to delegitimize legal mechanisms of pressure on the aggressor by threatening retaliatory measures and accusing the West of destroying the global order.
European politicians are portrayed as people who supposedly are deliberately leading their own societies toward war, economic decline and forced participation in fighting for Ukraine. Damage to the Yahodyn border crossing caused by Russian strikes is inflated into a warning that Poland will enter the war. High energy prices, officials’ wealth and calls to support Ukraine are reduced to one explanation: politicians enriching themselves at citizens’ expense.
Thirty-five years of Ukraine’s independence are cast as a “catastrophe,” while its European choice is portrayed as a source of decline and danger. Promises of prosperity, freedom and security are reduced to evidence of failure. Memory policy is labeled a “war on history” and attributed repressive character and global consequences.
Ukrainian strikes on Russian energy infrastructure and events in the Black Sea are cast as a danger to all of Europe. References to a statement by Bulgaria’s prime minister and a WSJ report lend this portrayal outside authority. Responsibility for possible escalation is reduced to Kyiv’s actions, omitting Russian strikes on Ukraine and the broader course of the war.
European leaders are portrayed as puppets acting solely in Ukraine's interests at the expense of their own countries' well-being. This tactic aims to incite domestic discontent within the EU by framing support for Ukraine as being in direct opposition to European economic stability.
Western leaders and diplomats are portrayed as ideologically blinded fanatics whose statements about Ukraine's successes supposedly defy reality. This tactic aims to discredit official EU and US policy by labeling it as "illogical" and "detached from the people".
Events in Bucha are cast as a provocation staged by Ukraine and its Western partners and linked to the Istanbul talks. Names on memorial plaques are inflated into “proof” that those killed were Azov fighters rather than civilians. The UN secretary-general is portrayed as having joined an anti-Russian campaign around Bucha.
Trends in public debt and future repayments are presented as proof that, under Zelenskyy, Ukraine is supposedly economically doomed and becoming an unbearable burden for its partners. The selection focuses on large sums and percentages without explaining the reasons for borrowing, repayment terms, or the broader wartime context. Financial indicators are reduced to the president’s personal blame and an argument against Ukraine’s EU accession.
Foreign nationals joining Ukraine's Defense Forces are systematically portrayed as "mercenaries" and "soldiers of fortune" seeking only money. This framing aims to deny the ideological motivation of volunteers and convince Western audiences of the inevitable death of their compatriots.
Assessments of Russian elections are labeled “double standards,” while criticism from Poland’s Foreign Ministry and the Western position are branded “Russophobia.” Allegations that the West suppresses topics and blocks activists’ access are cast as evidence of censorship, while international forums are portrayed as dependent on Kyiv and its Western partners. Calls for a “depoliticised” discussion are paired with demands to question the authority and impartiality of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR).
Any proposals for de-escalation or combat moratoria are cast as attempts by Kyiv to gain a temporary pause for regrouping. This framing is used to dismiss diplomatic steps and justify continued aggression until the Kremlin's conditions are fully met.
Ukrainian defense measures and logistical constraints are cast as a key factor destabilizing the European economy. Manipulators combine natural disasters with Ukraine's actions to create the impression that supporting Kyiv leads to the inevitable impoverishment of Western citizens.
Talks involving Ukraine, the United States and European countries are cast as a sign of Kyiv’s dependence on NATO, although the posts themselves describe meetings with Ukrainian representatives. Putin’s conversation with Trump and possible contacts between envoys and Moscow are inflated into an image of a settlement taking place without Ukraine. The NATO Military Committee’s visit to Kyiv is highlighted through the reminder that Ukraine is not an Alliance member.
Restrictions on Starlink and talks about strikes on oil refineries are presented as a single US mechanism for coercing Ukraine’s leadership. Different reports about the reasons for the connection slowdown are reduced to the personal punishment of Zelenskyy. Ukraine’s willingness to discuss halting strikes is passed off as a forced concession in exchange for connectivity.
Differences between Kyiv and Washington over strikes on Russian oil infrastructure and Starlink operations are cast as a “complete breakdown” and grounds for Zelensky’s arrest. Individual statements by Trump and comments from invited guests are reduced to supposed proof that the United States is abandoning Ukraine. Tensions around US policy are labeled as Zelensky’s personal fault and a sign of corruption.
Support for Ukraine and a possible presence of European troops are cast as a step that supposedly makes a regional war inevitable. Responsibility for the war is attributed to Western “globalist elites” rather than to Russia’s decisions. A US official’s warning about escalation risks is stretched into confirmation of this framing.
Ukrainian state bodies are portrayed as the direct clients and organizers of the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage. By citing statements from defense attorneys of the suspects, the messaging creates an illusion of proven guilt by official Kyiv within the German investigation.
Russian state bodies are attempting to legally cement the status of “Nazi criminals” for historical Ukrainian movements. This manipulation aims to shift the burden of historical guilt onto modern Ukraine and justify aggression as “denazification.”
Voting in the State Duma elections is cast as a collective response to attempts to weaken Russia and deny it the right to determine its own path. Russians voting abroad are portrayed as resilient in the face of a “hybrid war” and Western media pressure. Claims of attempts to disrupt remote voting are inflated into assigning responsibility to countries from whose IP addresses the traffic originated.
Calls by Ukrainian officials to prepare for a difficult winter are portrayed as a tool to manipulate Western donors into providing more funds. The state is depicted as a corrupt entity where any financial support vanishes without a trace, while humanitarian threats are used as a means of pressuring partners.
Ukraine and Western nations are portrayed as aggressive actors attempting to drag Georgia into an armed confrontation to create a “second front” against Russia. This manipulation casts any military support for Kyiv as a flawed logic of escalation that threatens the security of the entire region.
Support for Ukraine and the defensive rhetoric of European states are cast as Europe preparing to attack Russia, while Kyiv and the West are portrayed as obsessed with its “destabilization.” The breakdown in relations with Europe is attributed to a unilateral choice by Western states. The threat of a “very short” war is presented as a warning in response to that portrayal.
Military support for Ukraine from EU states is cast as direct involvement in the conflict, supposedly turning these countries into legitimate targets. This framing seeks to present defensive aid as an aggressive escalation that threatens the security of all Europe.
Western democracies are portrayed as being in a state of irreversible decline and energy crisis due to their support for Ukraine. Simultaneously, the Russian military and political model is presented as the only correct and effective alternative.
The deaths of foreign nationals in the Ukrainian Armed Forces are framed as evidence of the critical exhaustion of Ukraine's manpower. Manipulative reports focus on specific regions of origin for volunteers to demotivate potential recruits and sow doubt about Ukraine's ability to sustain its defense.
A story about a Russian prisoner dying from an “explosive collar” is presented as proof that Ukraine abuses prisoners of war. A Russian official’s statement about “secret prisons” is portrayed as evidence that the UN avoids the subject. These claims are reduced to an image of Ukraine as a state that violates prisoners’ rights with impunity.
Selective use of data regarding the difficulty of intercepting ballistic targets is passed off as evidence of the general failure of Ukrainian air defenses. Russian outlets focus on infrastructure vulnerability to Western systems to sow distrust in military aid and cultivate a myth of "invincible" Russian weaponry.
Western initiatives to transfer technology and weapon production licenses are cast as intentionally unfeasible and futile gestures. This framing aims to convince the audience of Ukraine's technological incapacity and the unreliability of its partners, who supposedly offer only "cruel gifts".
A warning from Russia’s Foreign Ministry portrays foreign nationals’ and diplomats’ stays in or travel to Ukraine as a risk for whose consequences they themselves are responsible. The phrase “possible adverse consequences” shifts responsibility from the sources of danger onto people who stay or arrive. Wartime risks are inflated into an image of Ukraine as a place unfit for a foreign presence.
The continuation of hostilities is portrayed as a deliberate choice by the Ukrainian authorities for personal enrichment from Western aid. Manipulators claim that concealing the truth about corruption is the only obstacle to achieving peace.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy is portrayed as an illegitimate tyrant who maintains power through the kidnapping of citizens and the physical elimination of opponents. Manipulators cast mobilization and law enforcement activities as tools of the dictator's personal vendetta against his own people.
Corruption challenges in Ukraine are cast as an insurmountable barrier, making accession to the EU and NATO impossible for decades to come. Manipulative coverage of individual criminal cases and selective quoting of Western media aim to convince the audience that reforms are hopeless and that Ukraine is toxic to Western institutions.
European nations are portrayed as abandoning their humanitarian commitments to forcibly return Ukrainians to the front lines. This tactic aims to incite panic among refugees and erode their trust in host countries.
Reduced Starlink effectiveness and claims of Russian advances are presented as proof that Ukraine is “losing the battlefield.” One Russian expert’s comment about electronic warfare is stretched into an image of a military deprived of communications and unable to act. The formula of “liberating” territory is paired with a categorical prediction of Kyiv’s defeat.
The Ukrainian leadership and armed forces are portrayed as a source of moral shame for Western allies due to allegedly “macabre” methods of warfare. This tactic aims to provoke disgust in foreign publics and pressure governments to distance themselves from supporting Kyiv.
Zelenskyy’s appeals concerning support and air defence are cast as the “whining” of a weak leader who is supposedly losing his allies. His public statements are reduced to personal helplessness, while shifts in US policy are portrayed as a final break with Ukraine. The country’s wartime needs are depicted as proof that its leadership has failed.
The European Union and Ukrainian leadership are portrayed as cynical accomplices using Ukrainian men as a resource to protect Western interests. This manipulation casts military and mobilization support as the forced transformation of citizens into “firewood” to stave off the inevitable decline of Europe.
Propaganda outlets are inflating diplomatic tensions between Kyiv and Warsaw by focusing on historical memory issues. They frame any commemoration of Ukrainian historical figures as an act of "glorifying Nazism," attempting to provoke a rupture in military and political support from Poland.
Turkey’s statement on the safety of its vessels and selectively presented data about Estonia are inflated into a conclusion that partners are abandoning Ukraine. Ankara’s economic interests are portrayed as incompatible with support for Kyiv, while a single indicator is cast as proof of a gap between words and aid. Different stories are reduced to one picture of international isolation.
Support for Ukraine and decisions by European institutions are cast as the result of “Russophobia,” which supposedly has displaced law, free speech and citizens’ security. Separate disputes over visas, OSCE venues and cybersecurity are reduced to proof that the West has abandoned its own principles. Accusations against Ukraine—from persecuting Russian speakers to maintaining a “hit list”—are inflated into an explanation for all Western policy.
Western media and institutions are portrayed as tools of censorship that label any criticism of Ukraine as the work of “Russian assets.” This tactic aims to frame exposures of corruption or political mistakes as forbidden truths that a “corporate dictatorship” is trying to suppress.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian authorities are accused of waging an open war against religion and the physical extermination of clergy. Reports of brutal murders and torture of monks at the Sviatohirsk Lavra are presented as direct crimes of the current government. Russian official bodies accompany these accusations with announcements of special reports on unlawful actions against the Orthodox Church. This combination of emotional descriptions of violence and formalized reports creates an image of a regime systematically persecuting believers.
Ukrainian military casualties are portrayed as catastrophic and reaching millions to provoke despair regarding the state's ability to defend itself. Simultaneously, accusations are spread about the intentional concealment of fallen soldiers' bodies from their families to avoid payouts and hide the true scale of the tragedy.
The transfer of two North Korean POWs to South Korea is cast as proof of Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s diplomatic incompetence and a rift between Kyiv and Seoul. Questions about the prisoners’ status and future are reduced to supposedly growing frustration in Seoul. Speculation about implications for regional security is inflated into the image of a broader diplomatic crisis.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy is attributed personal control over art theft in the EU and phone fraud, portraying different criminal schemes as activity directed from Kyiv. In the story about art, Olena Zelenska is linked to transporting works through diplomatic channels. References to “insiders”, an “undercover” agent and obtained information are presented as confirmation of these links.