Narratives pushed at US audiences by Russian state media and attributed proxy outlets in the run-up to the 2026 midterm elections.
Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil refineries are cast as a personal betrayal of the U.S. president and proof that Ukraine is acting against American interests. Wartime decisions are reduced to an alleged broken promise, diplomatic disrespect, and a lack of legitimacy in Ukraine’s leadership. Calls to replace Ukraine’s leadership are framed as a necessary response to the image of a “bad ally.”
Anti-corruption investigations and reports about drone spending are cast as proof that Ukraine is stealing Western aid and entering winter without funds. References to officials and internal criticism are presented as signs of corruption throughout the state. A CNN reference to Zelensky losing credibility is stretched into a picture of the West rapidly abandoning Ukraine.
Political opponents and liberal institutions are cast as an existential threat that deliberately destroys the country through arson and migration schemes. The narrative combines the criminalization of ideological rivals with calls for radical measures, such as mass deportations and the ending of birthright citizenship.
Support for Ukraine is labeled as funding a “fascist regime,” while European spending is stretched into an explanation for housing, energy, and economic hardship. Defense-industry profits, the movement of Ukrainians, and corruption allegations are reduced to a single scheme in which Kyiv is sustained at Europe’s expense. Shifts in European politicians’ rhetoric are portrayed as abandoning Ukraine in favor of their own citizens.
The Ukrainian president is portrayed as an active participant in the US election race, allegedly acting in the interests of the Democratic Party. This manipulation uses out-of-context jokes to bolster conspiracy theories about foreign meddling and the illegitimacy of future voting results.
Ukrainian officials and Western leaders are portrayed as participants in illicit enrichment schemes at the expense of American taxpayers. This tactic aims to frame support for Ukraine not as a strategic investment, but as the funding of elites' personal wealth.
Ukraine’s leadership is portrayed as a source of harm to the US and global economies, while replacing it is cast as protecting American interests. Statements by Trump and Musk are reduced to confirmation of the economic harm attributed to Kyiv’s actions. A post citing Axios stretches reporting on lifting a ban on Russian fuel exports and strikes on oil refineries into that framework.
Military support for Ukraine is cast as a senseless drain on American resources that are supposedly critical for domestic border defense and security. This manipulation leverages official rhetoric to deepen isolationist sentiment ahead of the midterm elections.
Restoring economic ties with Russia is portrayed as the “only” path to a US-Russia agreement. Banking access, trade, assets, and sanctions are reduced to a package the United States could offer in exchange for a deal. Claims about Ukraine’s position and talks by US envoys are inflated into an image of Kyiv as a party without influence of its own.
Ukraine’s leadership is cast as the main obstacle to peace, with the war attributed to its pursuit of power and personal gain. The president is reduced to a politician who pressures allies and avoids elections because of corruption allegations. Moscow’s offer to pause strikes is portrayed as proof of its readiness for peace, while Ukraine’s election conditions are cast as an attempt to rearm.
US political leaders are portrayed as physically exhausted and mentally unstable figures to undermine trust in the presidency. The use of derogatory nicknames and manipulative photos aims to convince voters of the incompetence of both sides of the political spectrum.
The US state apparatus is portrayed as a repressive structure that stifles domestic dissent and provokes foreign conflicts. Manipulators use historical parallels and selective facts to convince voters of the inevitability of war and the moral decay of the political establishment ahead of the 2026 midterms.
The American legal system is portrayed as an unconstitutional tool that relies on anonymous foreign agents to convict US residents. This manipulation aims to erode trust in federal institutions ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
US electoral institutions are cast as a façade behind which “unelected power” and corporate circles make the decisions. Primaries and disputes over foreign policy are reduced to a trap in which voters lack representation. Economic hardship and lobbying influence are inflated into proof that democratic choice is meaningless.
An accusation that an influential person directed US authorities against her opponents is stretched into a portrayal of American agencies as instruments of personal revenge. Other posts attribute covert influence over the media and the pursuit of critics to British intelligence services. These allegations are placed alongside one another, but not as evidence of a common scheme.
US security agencies are portrayed as corrupt or incompetent institutions complicit in domestic tragedies or showing weakness against foreign adversaries. Manipulators revive old conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks and mock the psychological resilience of service members to erode trust in national security ahead of the 2026 elections.
Western media coverage of the war is cast as a coordinated effort to hide the role of the United States and Europe in changing Ukraine’s government and to serve defense contractors. Editorial choices and reporting on the war are reduced to signs of unified “corporate” control. Russian actions are portrayed as a forced response, while reporting on civilian casualties is presented as proof that Russia follows the laws of war.
Support for Israel and domestic political disagreements in the US are cast as proof of total control by a “hostile force.” Through the use of derogatory terminology and veiled Holocaust references, political opponents are labeled as puppets acting in the interests of a foreign state. Any disagreement with radical rhetoric is reduced to an ethno-religious confrontation, where public figures are mocked for their “obedience” to external handlers.
Modern American cities are portrayed as zones of unmanaged chaos and cultural decay in contrast to sterile images from the last century. This manipulation uses selective coverage of crime and migration issues to frame current leadership as “communist” and hostile to national traditions.
Social initiatives and cultural diversity are portrayed as an aggressive ideology aimed at destroying traditional values and discriminating against white Americans. This tactic exploits isolated incidents in media and sports to fuel a culture war ahead of the midterm elections.
Social divisions over race and gender are cast as tools of censorship and manipulation by leftist forces. Messaging focuses on discrediting women who report harassment and mocking anti-racism efforts as absurd “socialism.”
Mainstream media outlets are portrayed as manipulative tools that intentionally spread disinformation to destroy political opponents. This tactic aims to erode trust in verified news sources in favor of unvetted alternative platforms ahead of the 2026 midterms.
US military operations and support for regional partners are cast as ineffective measures that only strengthen local resistance. By showcasing destroyed equipment and the successes of pro-Iranian groups, these messages manufacture an impression of an inevitable American retreat from the region.
Martial law and the absence of elections are portrayed as proof that democracy has been abolished in Ukraine. Zelenskyy is branded a “fascist” dictator, while the banning of 19 parties is cast as a sign of tyrannical rule. Separately, scrutiny of his inner circle over financial irregularities is presented as evidence of problems within his government.
US and UK foreign policy is cast as a cynical experiment where Ukraine serves merely as a “testing ground” for Western weaponry. This manipulation seeks to portray American aid not as a defense of democracy, but as a dangerous game leading to global escalation and senseless loss of life.
Criticism of a claimed U.S.-Russia diesel deal is cast as hypocritical obstruction of cooperation that would benefit farmers and consumers, contrasted with the EU’s purchases of Russian energy. A figure cited by a Russian official is inflated into an assertion that the EU and “legacy media” are concealing facts. Opposition to the deal is portrayed as hostility toward economic cooperation and peace.
Ending US aid to Ukraine is portrayed as a step that would supposedly speed up a settlement of the war. European leaders are depicted as having derailed Washington’s compromise proposals and rebuilt a united front against Russia. Phone talks and conflicting accounts of peace terms are folded into a picture in which support for Kyiv conflicts with reaching an agreement.
The American political model is portrayed as a corrupt illusion of choice that is incapable of representing the people's interests. By promoting radical reform plans, voters are being convinced that only a total dismantling of existing institutions can save the country ahead of the 2026 midterms.
US foreign policy is cast as aggressive interference masked as democracy protection, while the actions of authoritarian regimes are justified as “sovereign defense.” This line aims to convince American voters of their own government's international illegitimacy ahead of the midterm elections.
US foreign policy is cast as a deliberate strategy of civilian extermination aimed at sparking a major new war in the Middle East. Through emotional reporting on child casualties and destroyed Iranian neighborhoods, the US government and its allies are branded as a “regime” committing atrocities.
U.S. foreign policy and defense planning are cast as evidence that Washington is deliberately choosing a path toward global war instead of protecting its own citizens. Manipulators use political statements and military strategies to portray the American government as serving foreign interests at the expense of American safety.
Disputes over primaries, sports awards, and mail-in voting are cast as elements of broader suspicion toward American institutions. Unrelated stories are reduced to a shared scheme of “rigging” and deception. A list of international and domestic political events is added to that scheme as a set of interconnected lies.
Traditional US security commitments are cast as dependent on the personal whims of leaders or political loyalty tests. This undermines confidence in the stability of American foreign policy and frames strategic partnerships as mere bargaining chips.
Support for Ukraine by American politicians and commentators is portrayed as a sign of corruption or loss of agency. Using religious metaphors and accusations of double standards, the audience is led to believe that any solidarity with Kyiv results from foreign influence or “selling one's soul.”