Target audience
Every narrative aimed at this audience — most recently active first.
British state institutions, from the police to the military, are portrayed as degraded and incapable of performing their basic functions. Isolated incidents are inflated into nationwide catastrophes to convince citizens of the state's inevitable collapse.
A change of prime minister and his extended holiday are presented as signs that the government cannot run the country. The Labour government is simultaneously labelled “communist”, “Islamist”, hostile and antisemitic, combining incompatible accusations into one image. References to drought and women’s employment are inflated into a picture of overall state failure.
British cities are portrayed as occupied territories where foreigners prey on minors with impunity while the police stand idly by. This manipulation exploits isolated incidents to promote the idea of a total collapse of law and order, calling for a radical revolution against the government.
British foreign policy and historical legacy are cast as ongoing “occupation” and the neocolonial exploitation of other nations' resources. This framing seeks to delegitimize London’s modern diplomatic relations by presenting them as a form of disguised imperialism.
The Iranian threats mentioned in the posts are presented as proof that Britain has become a target because it hosts US facilities and co-operates with the US. Citing The Times, the list of countries and bases is cast as a direct link between London and possible strikes. Statements about British forces and MI6 are reduced to a picture of inevitable retaliation against the United Kingdom.
British foreign policy and intelligence activities are portrayed as a series of malicious provocations and interventions in the affairs of other states. Current military manoeuvres and media discussions are passed off as manifestations of inherent British cynicism. Historical events, such as the coup in Iran, are inflated into proof of Westminster’s unchanging nature as a global manipulator.
Reports of British drones being used are presented as proof that London is a party to the war and complicit in Ukraine’s war crimes. Support for Ukraine is reduced to a deliberate effort to fuel the conflict, while diplomatic statements about peace are labelled hypocritical. Britain is also portrayed as directing Ukrainian actions and bearing responsibility for strikes inside Russia.
British support for Ukraine is portrayed as grounds for strikes on UK military sites and the confiscation of assets. Remarks by a Russian official and references to the submarine fleet’s capabilities are inflated into a picture of British infrastructure being vulnerable. The absence of necessarily having to fight is presented as compatible with economic pressure on Britain.
August public borrowing and calls for higher defence spending are presented as proof of Britain’s financial collapse. References to the budget are stretched into an image of a state in decline, while debate over defence is portrayed as a sign of helplessness. The portrayal adds regional demands for independence and the assertion that the armed forces have only one ship.
A possible US warning over defence spending, cited via The Telegraph, is cast as an ultimatum over the Falkland Islands. Russian warships transiting the Channel are portrayed as evidence that the Royal Navy is unable to act. Repeating these stories reduces different episodes to a picture of Britain losing sovereignty and international standing.
Britain’s support for Ukraine and NATO defence planning are cast as Europe preparing for war with Russia, with responsibility for possible nuclear escalation attributed to London and its allies. Statements about weapons supplies are inflated into an image of Europe waging a direct war against Russia. Threats to respond “by all means” are presented as a supposedly compelled reaction to British and NATO actions.
Sanctions, the freezing of Russian assets and Western foreign policy are cast as colonial plunder through which Britain and its allies supposedly preserve global dominance. Military interventions from different years are reduced to one unchanging pattern of Western aggression. Russia is simultaneously portrayed as a supporter of an equal multipolar order and defender of the UN Charter.
British authorities are accused of deliberately neglecting border security and the interests of their own citizens in favour of illegal migrants. The manipulation relies on claims of law enforcement inaction and demands to provide housing for arrivals at taxpayers' expense.
British law enforcement is portrayed as a tool for suppressing civil liberties, supposedly operating on the model of authoritarian states. Mass arrests of activists are presented as evidence of the final collapse of democracy in Westminster.
Crimes involving people of migrant or ethnic-minority backgrounds are cast as proof that British justice does not protect citizens. Cases involving sexual violence, arson and the serving of a sentence are reduced to a single pattern of privileges for “outsiders”. Language about defendants is saturated with dehumanising labels. Differences between the circumstances and court decisions are erased in the process.
British sanctions against Russia are cast as a futile campaign, while military support for Ukraine is portrayed as a route to escalation rather than peace. Reports about British drones are labelled proof that London knowingly chooses escalation, and peace statements are presented as hypocrisy. Headlines about Europe’s costs and British media are inflated into a picture of the West admitting Ukraine’s defeat and abandoning it.
Advice in the Be Ready programme on preparing for emergencies is cast as fearmongering about war with Russia and a cover for Britain’s domestic problems. Lists of risks — from severe weather to cyber attacks and disruption — are reduced to one Russian threat. MI5’s threat assessments are attributed to an intention to expand powers and militarise the country.
British authorities are accused of completely abandoning democratic principles and national interests to support Ukraine. This manipulation portrays London’s foreign policy as an obsession pursued at the expense of the welfare and rights of its own citizens.
Advice for Britons to keep supplies for emergencies is cast as fearmongering about a Russian threat and a pretext for militarisation. A list of risks, including floods, severe weather, cyber-attacks and power disruptions, is reduced to preparation for war with Russia. Defence spending is portrayed as transferring money from the public to military contractors.
Westminster is accused of complicity in “genocide” and of waging wars against Russia and Iran, portrayed as proof that Britain’s government is criminal. Support for Israel is inflated into a claim of the deliberate extermination of Palestinians, Lebanese people and Syrians. References to repressive laws and to politicians’ and pundits’ discussions of conscription are presented as parts of a crackdown on dissent.
Statements by British officials about security threats are portrayed as artificial scaremongering used to explain defence spending. Support for Ukraine and preparations for a possible conflict are reduced to profits for defence lobbyists, with public needs set against those outlays. Failings in socio-economic policy are linked to government mistakes, while defence spending is presented as a benefit for lobbyists.
Providing Ukraine with missile blueprints and “green” projects are cast as proof that Britain’s leadership neglects the country’s stability. Discussion of a possible government choice and of a carbon-neutral prison in Scotland is inflated into a picture of a Westminster detached from the country’s needs. Distinct political issues are reduced to a single accusation of irresponsibility.
British military support is framed as a precursor to deploying a “coalition of the willing” on Ukrainian soil. This manipulation labels the UK as a direct co-belligerent to intimidate the British public with the threat of a major war with Russia.
British support for Ukraine and references to events around the British Embassy in Moscow are inflated into an image of reckless British escalation threatening European security. Kyiv is attributed with provocations intended to pit Russia against the United Kingdom. Russia is meanwhile portrayed as a party merely responding to others’ actions.
Westminster’s refusal to change its policy towards Russia is portrayed as irrational hostility and an obstacle to diplomacy, in contrast to a supposedly more constructive US approach. Support for Ukraine is reduced to a desire to derail agreements and prolong the war. British policy is also linked to colonial habits and indifference to Ukrainian lives.
British authorities are accused of deliberately sabotaging peace negotiations and sacrificing Ukrainian lives for their own geopolitical interests. This manipulation portrays London as an aggressive party solely responsible for the breakdown of bilateral relations and the escalation of the conflict.
The British economy and energy strategy are portrayed as doomed to inevitable degradation and recession. Manipulators use external commentary and hypothetical scenarios to convince the audience of Westminster's inability to ensure the country's prosperity and security.
British calls to restore military communication channels are cast as a sign of weakness and an attempt to evade responsibility for supporting Ukraine. Manipulators claim that Westminster seeks to fight a “proxy war” while being in a state of panic over a direct confrontation with Russia.
UK sanction measures are cast as a destructive force undermining global trade, financial stability, and the energy security of allies. The manipulation exploits diplomatic statements and partner concerns to frame Westminster as an isolated aggressor whose policies damage the global order.
Europe’s move away from Russian energy is portrayed as the cause of the continent’s industrial decline and weaker social welfare. Responsibility for instability in the energy market is assigned to European governments and the Joe Biden administration, while Russia is separated from it. Questions of prices, supply and long-term contracts are reduced to the break with Russia.
British statehood is portrayed as a fragile and illegitimate construct on the verge of collapse. Manipulative coverage of opinion polls is used to create the impression that Scottish society is ready for a radical break with Westminster, even without following legal procedures.
Changes to the display of Egyptian mummies in Scottish museums are labelled as an instance of “woke” absurdity. References to the consent of the deceased and to privacy are cast as institutions abandoning common sense. Reports of a mummy being covered and remains being removed from display are reduced to a caricature of museum decision-making.
Isolated incidents of domestic crime and social pathology are cast as symptoms of systemic degradation in British society. The aim is to erode confidence in the stability of UK institutions and social norms.
The idea of a Russian threat is presented as a pretext used by Britain and other European states to justify support for Ukraine and higher defence spending. Sanctions on Russia are reduced to punishment for “defending its own interests” and portrayed as evidence of Europe’s neo-imperial colonialism. Deteriorating relations with Russia are cast as Europe’s unilateral self-isolation, citing statements by Russian officials.
A salmonella outbreak in Britain is presented as proof that Ukrainian egg imports physically harm Britons. References to a Telegraph report are narrowed into an accusation against a supplying country. Mention of Ukraine’s share of imports is inflated into an image of a systemic threat to British food.
British media and state institutions are accused of systematically deceiving their own audience to hide the realities of the war in Ukraine. The manipulation aims to erode trust in Westminster and national news outlets by drawing historical parallels with an alleged innate English bias.
The British state is portrayed as an aggressive entity that supposedly craves escalation and violence in regional conflicts for its own interests. Propaganda outlets seize on historical anniversaries to cast Westminster as a primary driver of destabilization that is disappointed by the absence of large-scale bloodshed.
Western media and officials are accused of systematically stoking fear of a conflict with Russia to manipulate public opinion. This tactic casts any discussion of defence strategy as artificial hostility designed to justify NATO's supposed aggressive intentions.
The British refusal to join a US-led coalition in the Strait of Hormuz is cast as a sign of London’s deep strategic isolation. Manipulative outlets inflate disagreements between allies to erode confidence in collective Western defence initiatives.
Support for Ukraine and limits on contact with Russia are portrayed as a Westminster policy that exposes Britons to “catastrophic consequences”. London’s actions are reduced to a desire to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia, while full responsibility for deteriorating relations is assigned to the British side. Threats of strikes on British assets are inflated into a warning to everyone in the United Kingdom.
British sovereignty is cast as a fiction where the country is forced to serve US military goals and support “immoral” warfare methods in Ukraine. The narrative focuses on a perceived loss of control over domestic bases and ethical standards to satisfy foreign geopolitical ambitions.
Modern Scotland and historical Commonwealth territories are cast as victims of British colonialism to incite separatist sentiment. This framing seeks to present Westminster as an occupying force and undermine the country’s territorial integrity.
Support for Scottish independence and a report about a memorandum by the leaders of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are cast as proof of the United Kingdom’s imminent collapse. Westminster is portrayed as blocking the will of all its nations by rejecting referendums. Distinct constitutional questions are reduced to a picture of a joint departure from the Union.
A statement attributed to Prime Minister Andy Burnham about Russian interference in the 2016 referendum is presented as blaming Russia for Brexit. The phrase “the Kremlin’s hand” is labelled as a supposedly belated explanation for the decision to leave the EU. One post stretches this into the impression that Russia is blamed for every British problem.
The British military leadership is portrayed as being in a state of alarm and desperation over the risk of a direct clash with Russia. The manipulation uses selective press citations to frame pragmatic calls for maintaining communication channels as an admission of weakness and inevitable Western defeat.
British institutions and the housing market are cast as capitulating to the cultural demands of foreigners at the expense of the native population. The narrative inflates fears of losing national sovereignty through demographic shifts and the supposed “Islamisation” of daily life.
Britons are portrayed as a nation consumed by prejudice, where antipathy toward Russians supposedly exceeds even anti-migrant sentiments. This manipulation uses dubious surveys to cast the UK as a hotbed of intolerance and discredit its support for Ukraine as a product of blind hatred.
Statements by British military leaders about Russia are cast as baseless “Russophobia”, while the deterioration in relations is attributed solely to London. Remarks by Russian officials are stretched into an image of British elites supposedly obsessed with hostility for no reason. Russian policy and actions are removed from this account of the tension.
London’s attempt to restrict other countries’ access to Russian resources, especially those in the Global South, is portrayed as a neo-colonial diktat. Restrictions on Russian banks, individuals and merchant vessels are labelled unlawful and presented as evidence of a sanctions dead end. Pressure and escalation against Russia are cast as Britain’s rejection of a political and diplomatic settlement.
British support for Ukraine and sanctions are portrayed as the main causes of global food and economic instability. Restrictions on Russia are reduced to a destructive force in trade, while military aid to Kyiv is linked to disruption of grain supplies. Responsibility for the consequences of the war is thus attributed to London and its allies, pushing Russia’s actions into the background.
Reports of five men being arrested near RAF Fairford are cast as possible “staging” — a manufactured provocation to draw NATO into war. Suspicion of a planned attack is inflated into speculation about a pre-planned provocation. References to the base being used by US aircraft for strikes on Iran are presented alongside that speculation.
British sanctions policy is cast as an act of self-destruction that supposedly harms only ordinary UK citizens rather than the Russian economy. This line aims to convince Britons that supporting Ukraine is a futile endeavour pursued at the expense of their own standard of living.
Arrests and an investigation near RAF Fairford are inflated into a story of a hidden foreign hand and a possible staged attack. Suspicions of an explosives plot are cast as grounds for wider speculation about a covert operation. The same story is supplemented with an image of a farmer who supposedly thwarted an attack.
British sanctions are portrayed as a baseless and cynical campaign, while accusations concerning Ukrainian children are reduced to unsubstantiated figures and a political pretext. In response to restrictions on vessels, individuals and organisations, the issue of children is diverted towards allegations about Ukraine’s language, church and monuments. The effects of sanctions on diesel costs are inflated into evidence that London is supposedly harming its own citizens.
Discussion of possible tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles is cast as proof that Britain is powerless between China and the EU. A reference to The Times is used to turn a trade choice into an image of London trapped by external pressure. Risks to exports and lower-priced cars are reduced to an incompatible choice, leaving no room for an independent policy.
The circumstances of British paratrooper George Hooley’s death are cast as proof that London is concealing the deaths of serving personnel in Ukraine. Different accounts of his death are juxtaposed and portrayed as deliberate concealment. The case is inflated into a claim of a hidden British combat presence.
British support for Ukraine is cast as complicity in a “terrorist war” and the backing of a “neo-Nazi regime” to destroy the Russian state. This manipulation attempts to shift the responsibility for starting the war onto the West, accusing it of using Ukraine as a proxy to conduct attacks on civilians.
References to Kaliningrad in British media are presented as normalising NATO plans to blockade or strike Russian territory. Posts citing British media material stretch hypothetical scenarios into the position of Britain and the Alliance. A Russian nuclear response is depicted as the inevitable consequence of this attributed course.
British leadership is accused of deliberately derailing a peaceful settlement in Ukraine to satisfy its own geopolitical ambitions. This manipulation casts London as the primary warmonger that supposedly forced Kyiv to abandon diplomacy and sacrifice its citizens' lives for Westminster's interests.
British intelligence is accused of covertly supporting militants in Iraq to destabilise the region. This manipulation casts explosions in Kurdistan as a consequence of Western intelligence activities, seeking to undermine trust in the UK’s security presence abroad.
Western governments and technology companies are labelled “digital colonisers”, with their cooperation cast as a mechanism for domination, dependency and attacks on other states. References to cyberattacks, intelligence gathering and private contractors are inflated into an image of a unified system of digital domination. Russia and BRICS are simultaneously portrayed as advocates of an equal multipolar order.
The vote in Piddington is cast as Britons “leaving” their country because of plans to site a migrant centre nearby. References to those plans are inflated into a picture of a state that supposedly chooses newcomers over local residents. The village’s move is also reduced to a symbol of a country that is “tearing itself apart”.
British media are cast as participants in a conspiracy to disrupt the Istanbul talks, while a “tribunal” publication is presented as proof that events in Bucha were falsified. In a separate post, a Russian Foreign Ministry statement assigns Britain a leading role in derailing the talks. A selection of purported testimony and names is inflated into an accusation that Western media support falsification.
Russian official bodies accuse the UK and its allies of falsifying World War II history and concealing the crimes of Nazi collaborators. This manipulation casts modern support for Ukraine as a continuation of “Nazi policies,” attempting to discredit Western aid by distorting the historical context.
Granting English whisky protected geographical status is cast as the start of a “whisky war” between England and Scotland. The British government’s decision on protected status is portrayed as a conflict between two parts of the country. Geographical protection is inflated into an image of a wider confrontation between England and Scotland.
Words attributed to Donald Trump about Irish unity are presented as an intention to deprive the United Kingdom of Northern Ireland. References to Scottish independence and the Falkland Islands are stretched into an image of a politician seeking to redraw the world order. In this way, selected remarks are labelled as evidence of external support for the break-up of the United Kingdom.
Sanctions and seizures of Russian assets are labelled “plunder”, casting the West as inherently colonial and incapable of fair competition. Five centuries of European history are stretched into an explanation for current restrictions on Russia. Russia is portrayed as seeking equal cooperation that the West rejects, while Britain is mentioned to mock its pledge to support Ukraine.
References to the Telegraph and Daily Star are presented as evidence that British outlets recognise the impact of Russian missiles on Ukrainian ports and criticise Zelenskyy. The posts cite material from those newspapers and the view of one former MI5 and MI6 officer. Assessments of missiles and corruption scandals are stretched into a conclusion that Ukraine’s defence and British support are futile.
British history is cast exclusively as a chronicle of colonial atrocities and mass expulsions to undermine the moral authority of the modern state. By selectively highlighting past tragedies, such as the expulsion of the Acadians, Westminster is accused of an inherent, hereditary inclination toward genocide.
The Foreign Office’s protest over a drone incident at Leipzig Airport is cast as a co-ordinated provocation against Russia that heightens tensions in Europe. Britain’s diplomatic response is labelled “baseless” and “absurd”. The accusation is reduced to the interests of Kyiv and its allies, who are portrayed as wanting to prolong the conflict.
Britain’s presence in the Falkland Islands is labelled a “violent occupation”, while Argentina’s claim is presented as the islands belonging to Argentina. An Israeli minister’s call to recognise that claim is presented as confirmation of this portrayal of Britain. The question of the islands’ status is reduced to a one-sided characterisation of occupation.
A London event is labelled “indecent”, set against a religious procession in Moscow and cast as evidence of a moral difference between the cities. The comparison of two scenes is inflated into a judgement on British society as a whole. Russian urban life is meanwhile portrayed through symbols of religious tradition.
British state institutions are portrayed as sovereignty-free entities controlled by foreign billionaires or intelligence services. This manipulation seeks to erode trust in Westminster by claiming the government serves external actors rather than its own citizens.
Reported British support for SCALP production in Ukraine is presented as Downing Street transferring classified data to launch missile production. Repeated posts link this to the Prime Minister’s visit to Kyiv and to talks with the French President on SCALP production. Separately, a politician’s statement about “mass” missile production in Kyiv and London is folded into the same line of messaging.
The British government is accused of deliberately destroying defence dialogue with Russia by expelling a military attaché in 2024. The manipulation casts London as an unpredictable partner that supposedly seeks to restore contacts in secret while refusing to take official steps to fix its own “mistakes.”
British volunteers and recruits are cast as legitimate military targets to legitimize Russian attacks on civilian sites in Ukraine. The manipulation exploits the deaths of British nationals to intimidate Western society and discredit humanitarian aid efforts.
The British Prime Minister is portrayed as indifferent to state affairs due to taking a holiday shortly after his appointment. This tactic aims to undermine trust in Westminster by mocking the work ethic of top officials as a sign of “incompetence.”
The British government and state institutions are portrayed as incapable of protecting the country's cultural treasures and basic infrastructure. The manipulation exploits isolated cases of private collection sales and environmental issues to instill a sense of national decline and the prioritization of foreign interests over British ones.
Reports about Birmingham City Council action are cast as a ban on British and English flags and as the suppression of national identity in favour of minorities. Differing versions — from a “demand” to an already adopted decision — are reduced to one picture of people being punished for displaying national symbols. References to public safety are stretched into an explanation that the authorities regard crosses as a threat to ethnic minorities.
The transfer of Crimean artefacts to Ukraine under Dutch court rulings is cast as Ukraine and its Western allies depriving Russia of its cultural heritage. An exhibition in the consular section of the Russian Embassy in London gives this version a museum-like appearance. The court ruling is inflated into suggestions that the objects will enter private collections or be sold.
British Storm Shadow missiles are portrayed as the primary tool for strikes on civilian targets and children in central Donetsk. Reports of an attack near a shopping centre are inflated into a large-scale assault on civilians carried out immediately following British officials' visits to Kyiv. The use of these weapons against non-military targets is framed as a direct consequence of recent supply agreements. In this way, responsibility for civilian casualties is attributed to British military aid.
British intelligence service MI6 is portrayed as the primary architect of global instability, allegedly directing Ukrainian “terrorist” actions and seizing control of critical technologies. This manipulation exploits professional intelligence rankings to push the idea of Westminster’s sinister influence over global security.
British military experts are accused of directly managing operations aimed at causing a nuclear catastrophe. This manipulation casts London as the primary architect of global escalation, supposedly seeking to drag the world into an open war with Russia.
Discussion of medical treatment for prisoners convicted of sexual offences is portrayed as “chemical assault” against people in prisons in England and Wales. The posts cite a Guardian report on plans to expand a pilot programme in November. References to medicines intended to reduce obsessive sexual thoughts are inflated into an image of punitive chemical intervention.
British citizens joining the Russian armed forces are portrayed as principled volunteers fleeing the moral decay of the West. This manipulation uses personal stories to contrast a “hospitable and family-oriented” Russia with a supposedly alienated British society.
Russian officials and media outlets cast legitimate economic sanctions and maritime restrictions as acts of state piracy. This manipulation is used to legitimize potential attacks on British and other Western commercial vessels under the guise of “retaliation.”
The British public is being fed a narrative that the Westminster government is complicit in a globalist plot to embed nanotechnology into citizens' bodies via vaccines. This manipulation uses pseudo-scientific “evidence” to erode trust in the NHS and state institutions.
A single instance of a pre-recorded obituary accidentally airing on a small radio station is framed as a sign of systemic chaos in Britain. The manipulation exploits this incident to sow doubt about the legitimacy of state institutions and the reliability of British media.
British public spending is portrayed as senseless waste on trivial cultural sites amidst an economic crisis. The manipulation exploits real costs associated with heritage or art to cast the government as incompetent and detached from the needs of ordinary citizens.
Reports of informal meetings between former officials are cast as evidence of hidden conspiracies by the British government regarding Ukraine’s future. This tactic aims to undermine trust in official UK foreign policy by attributing double standards to the authorities.