An analysis of over 100 Russian propaganda telegram channels revealed coordinated efforts to exploit the assassination of former Ukrainian parliament speaker Andriy Parubiy, with identical narratives appearing across pro-Russian social media accounts commenting on Ukrainian YouTube videos, according to research by Texty.org.ua.
The study identified 380 messages about Parubiy’s murder across Russian propaganda channels, with 231 publications containing “insults, joy, propaganda clichés, and fakes,” while 149 provided dry informational reports about the killing and investigation status.
Former Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian Parliament) Andriy Parubiy was shot and killed in Lviv on 30 August.
The 54-year-old politician served as Speaker of Ukraine’s parliament from April 2016 to August 2019 and played a key role during the 2014 Ukrainian revolution as Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council.
Parubiy gained prominence during the 2013-2014 Euromaidan protests as commandant of the tent camp and head of self-defense detachments. During the February 2014 revolution, after the ousting of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych, Parubiy led forces that took control of the government quarter in Kyiv, including the Verkhovna Rada, Presidential Administration, Cabinet of Ministers, and Interior Ministry buildings.
Russian propaganda portrayal
For Russian propagandists, Parubiy embodied “everything bad in this world,” described as a “black politician, primary enemy of Russians in Ukraine, Maidan ideologue, [supporter of] all these wild slogans ‘hang the Moskals’.”
Russian channels labeled him an “ideological backbone of this terror formation,” “Maidan instigator,” “inciter of interethnic hatred,” and “one of the founding fathers of the Nazi regime.”
Maidan organizer narrative
Russian propaganda emphasized Parubiy’s role as “one of the main organizers of Euromaidan” and “Maidan commandant,” making him responsible for the “state coup in Ukraine.”
According to their narrative, Parubiy “brought snipers to Ukrainian Maidan in 2014,” with claims that “police and protesters at Maidan were shot from the philharmonic hall — Parubiy was responsible for the building.”
Odesa “organizer” claims
A recurring theme claimed Parubiy organized the 2 May 2014 Trade Unions House fire in Odesa: “He will remain as complicit in organizing the Odesa Khatyn and mass murders at Maidan.”
Russian channels alleged he attempted to cover up the “truth” by creating a journalist group codenamed “May 2”: “Under the guarantee of the ex-speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, they created a group of biased journalists under the unofficial name ‘Second of May.'”
War criminal accusations
Propaganda channels branded Parubiy a “war criminal” who “directly coordinated the use of the army against the civilian population of Donbas in 2014.”
They claimed “Parubiy repeatedly stated the need for forceful suppression of Donbas following the model of the Croatian operation ‘Storm.'”
Murder theories deflecting Russian involvement
Russian propagandists promoted multiple contradictory theories while denying Moscow’s involvement: “Russia was completely uninterested in Parubiy 11 years after Maidan. With such a motive, he should have been eliminated during Maidan.”
However, the lexicon suggested Russian involvement through terms like “liquidation,” “destruction,” and “denazification” rather than “murder”: “The liquidation of Andriy Parubiy became revenge against one of the direct perpetrators of the Odesa tragedy.”
One propaganda channel summarized the campaign: “Officially Russia will deny its involvement in the liquidation of the terrorist, unofficially ours are already congratulating each other.”
Political conspiracy theories
The primary target of blame was President Volodymyr Zelenskyy: “This is not an investigation, but a pathetic setup. They framed a random person, called him a killer and closed the case. The real customers are at Bankova [presidential office].”
Propagandists suggested Zelenskyy planned to surrender Donbas to Russia, and nationalists like Parubiy would have started a revolt: “If Ze is forced to eventually sign some agreements on Russia’s terms, then the greatest danger for him is extreme nationalists and national battalions.”
Analysis of nearly 8,000 comments on 10 Ukrainian YouTube videos about Parubiy’s death revealed widespread promotion of identical Russian narratives.
The most popular theories blamed the government, personally Zelenskyy, with 7.5% of comments (612) promoting this line: “That is, looking at the video, you can see that the murder was recorded with a camera with an operator… this government killed him,” wrote user @BorisShtatnov.
Another user, @AlexanderKizim, commented: “The government killed Mr. Andriy. Don’t look, because they won’t find the government.”
Six percent (485 comments) promoted internal political conflict theories, with @VitaliyUrban writing: “No, I think it’s not the Moskals. But this is the work of our hands. He knew a lot, and that’s why it happened.”
Coordinated disinformation campaign
The research concluded that Russian propaganda effectively transformed an individual’s death into “a multi-level theatrical story, where real motives disappear in the chaos of political and criminal versions,” demonstrating the propaganda machine’s ability to “act in coordination, create multiple alternative realities and manipulate the emotions of Ukrainians through tragedy.”
Kim Seongmin last November. His shortwave radio reports brought North Koreans information they could not get through their government-controlled news media.
The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) reports that the Kremlin is intensifying its campaign to destabilize the Balkans, likely as part of a broader effort to divide and distract Europe.
“The Kremlin haspreviouslyleveragedits relationship with Republika Srpska to further influence the Balkans, sow divisions in Europe, and undermine the US-backed Dayton Accords to throw the Balkans into turmoil,” ISW noted.
Lavrov meets Dodik in Moscow, targets Dayton peace framework
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met Milorad Dodik, President of Republika Srpska, in Moscow on 9 September. Republika Srpska is the Serbian political entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina. Lavrov and Dodik’s meeting marked the 30th anniversary of the signing of the Dayton Accords, which ended the 1992–1995 Bosnian War.
At a press conference following the meeting, Lavrov declared that the Dayton Accords brought an end to what he called NATO “aggression” during its 1995 Operation Deliberate Force. He stated that Russia is one of the guarantors of the December 1995 agreement and accused the West of having “trampled” the deal to seize “undivided control” over Bosnia and Herzegovina while depriving Serbs of their rights.
Lavrov described “external interference” in Bosnia and Herzegovina as inadmissible and condemned what he called Western efforts to remove “undesirable” Serbian leaders from power. He referred to a recent ruling by a Bosnian appeals court that sentenced Dodik for defying the Constitutional Court and ignoring decisions made by an international peace envoy.
ISW: Kremlin aims to dismantle Dayton Accords to sow European division
The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) assessed on 11 September that the Kremlin continues its attempts to destabilize the Balkans and dismantle the Dayton Accords. According to ISW, this effort is part of a broader Kremlin campaign to fracture and distract Europe.
Lavrov warned that “destroying the consensus that underlies Bosnia and Herzegovina is… an invitation to another war in the Balkans.” He also praised Dodik’s plan to hold a referendum in Republika Srpska in October, claiming that “the West does not like referendums,” including Russia’s 2014 Crimea sham plebiscite, which he described as “transparent.”
ISW noted that Lavrov and Dodik met on the same day that Russian drones entered Polish airspace in a major incursion, suggesting a coordinated attempt to test NATO and EU unity.
Russian occupation forces have destroyed all Ukrainian murals, monuments and pedestals in the occupied city of Mariupol.
In their place, authorities have installed Soviet-era military propaganda and imperial Russian imagery—massive murals celebrating World War II pilots, workers from remote Russian regions, and quotes from Peter the Great and Catherine II asserting Russia’s historical dominance.
The Mariupol City Council calls it a deliberate campaign to erase Ukrainian identity from the port city.
Mariupol survived nearly three months of siege in 2022. Russian forces surrounded the port city on 24 February and bombarded it relentlessly until 20 May, cutting residents off from food, water, and electricity. The assault targeted civilian areas—bombers hit a maternity hospital in March, then struck the drama theater where families had taken shelter, burying hundreds in the rubble.
As the city crumbled around them, Ukrainian defenders and thousands of civilians retreated to the massive Azovstal steel complex. The plant’s underground tunnels became their final refuge before surrender in late May. Thousands of civilians died during those 86 days of siege.
Where Ukrainian symbols once stood, Russian tricolors now hang. Murals celebrating local history have been painted over with propaganda promoting “friendship with Russian cities.”
One such mural depicts workers from Russia’s Yamal Peninsula offering traditional bread to local residents, presenting the relationship between the conquered Ukrainian city and distant Russian regions as voluntary partnership rather than occupation.
A Russian mural in occupied Mariupol depicts workers from the Yamal Peninsula offering traditional bread, part of Moscow’s campaign to promote “friendship” between Russian regions and the conquered Ukrainian city. Photo: Mariupol City Council.
Russian occupiers emphasize imperial past
Another mural features imperial quotes including Catherine II’s declaration that “Russia itself is vast and powerful, and no one needs it.” The painting also references Peter the Great and military commander Mikhail Kutuzov. Here what the quotes say:
Left portrait (Peter I): “If there is a desire – there are thousands of ways, if there is no desire – there are thousands of reasons! Peter I, first emperor of All Russia.”
Center portrait (Catherine II): “Russia itself is vast and powerful, and it doesn’t need anyone. Catherine II, Empress of All Russia.”
Right portrait (Kutuzov): “Everything comes at the right time for those who know how to wait. Kutuzov M.I., Russian commander”
Russia alters symbols of Ukrainian resistance during siege
The occupation forces also rename historically significant locations. Azovstalska Street, named after the major steel plant where tens of thousands of residents worked and which became a symbol of Ukrainian resistance during the 2022 siege, has been renamed Tulsky Prospekt and now features monuments to Tula gingerbread and a samovar.
By installing monuments to these specifically Tula regional symbols, occupation authorities promote “friendship” with the Russian city while encouraging residents to see themselves as part of Russian rather than Ukrainian cultural heritage.
“It’s simply not profitable for Russia for people in Mariupol to remember even Azovstal,” said Mykola Osychenko, director of Mariupol Television, speaking to Espreso media.
Explore further
BBC: “Life is constant tension, fear, distrust” — reality of Russian occupation in Mariupol
Russia aim to rewrite Ukraine’s history on occupied territories
Before the 2022 full-scale invasion, Mariupol had become what Ukrainian officials called a “showcase of post-2014 recovery” in Donetsk Oblast.
The development of the city was happening after pro-Russian separatists briefly seized the city in May 2014, gutting buildings like the police headquarters before Ukrainian forces drove them out by June. The city’s visible prosperity contradicted Russian narratives about Ukrainian governance in the east.
Mariupol before Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. Residents stroll in front of the Donetsk Regional Drama Theater during a festival as part of France Days in Ukraine in 2019. Mariupol after Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. An elderly woman walks past the destroyed theater and a Russian occupation forces armored vehicle in April 2022.
Ukrainian authorities invested heavily in rebuilding Mariupol’s damaged infrastructure, fostering economic growth, and improving public services. By 2021, the city had gained status as a Cultural Capital of Ukraine and earned recognition for transparency and public welfare improvements.
This success directly challenged Russian propaganda narratives that portrayed Ukraine as a failed state hostile to ethnic Russians. Russian media consistently depicted the Ukrainian government as corrupt and nationalist, claiming Kyiv persecuted Russian speakers and had lost control of its territory.
Osychenko, who taught journalism at a local university and witnessed the siege, described the destruction as deliberate.
“Putin needed to completely destroy this showcase,” he said, explaining how Russian forces leveled much of the city before beginning what he calls a systematic effort to “cleanse people’s memory and rewrite history.”
When Russian forces ultimately destroyed the city in 2022, they reframed this devastation as “liberation,” aligning with Kremlin’s narrative that it invaded Ukraine to “free Russian-speaking populations” from what it calls a “fascist Kyiv regime.”
One of the murals that depicts a woman in a traditional dress and her son beneath a Russian flag states that 20 May 2022 is “Mariupol Liberation Day,” while it was the official end of the siege of Mariupol when the last remaining Ukrainian troops defending the Azovstal steel plant, surrendered.
A Russian mural celebrates “Mariupol Liberation Day” on 20 May 2022—the date the city’s defenders surrendered after a devastating three-month siege—reframing Russia’s conquest as “liberation.”A Russian mural in Mariupol with industrial imagery that says “becoming stronger” which can also mean “stronger than steel.”
Another mural shows industrial imagery with “Stronger than steel” messaging and winter imagery, directly referencing the Azovstal plant, which is key to Mariupol’s identity and economy. The slogan creates a deliberate play on words as the phrase says “becoming stronger” while it can also be interpreted as “stronger than steel.”
The propaganda twist presents resilience themes while omitting that Russia inflicted the suffering on civilians by invading first, transforming Azovstal from a symbol of Ukrainian resistance into claimed Russian triumph over the very industry that defined the city.
Explore further
Russia legally steals 20,000 homes in razed Mariupol — then charges homeless victims for rent
Hundreds of protesters gathered outside London’s Royal Opera House demanding the cancellation of concerts by Russian opera singer Anna Netrebko, after organizers ignored calls to remove her from the program, Radio Svoboda reported on 7 September.
Ukraine’s Ambassador to the United Kingdom Valeriy Zaluzhnyi also spoke out against Netrebko’s participation in the season.
All tickets for the events have already been sold out. Her first appearance at the British Royal Opera in the 2025/26 season is planned for 11 September.
Protesters stood outside the opera house with Ukrainian and British flags, holding cardboard signs calling for the concerts to be cancelled and the soprano to be replaced.
“As an Englishman, I feel ashamed of the Royal Opera’s hypocrisy, and how they have betrayed Ukraine. This is a disgrace to the British nation. This affects me very strongly because Anna is close to Putin, and Russian artists are generally allowed to perform while Ukrainian artists sacrifice their lives,” protester Steven Lacy told Radio Svoboda.
In a column for British newspaper Daily Mail, Valeriy Zaluzhnyi emphasized that Netrebko’s participation is unacceptable for Ukrainians, and the singer herself is not a victim of circumstances as she presents herself:
“Her voice on stage drowns out the real cries – the cries from destroyed maternity hospitals in Mariupol, schools in Kharkiv, kindergartens in Kramatorsk. And while Netrebko will sing about an imagined tragedy, for us these sounds echo a real one. Tosca will be weeping with the tears of Ukrainian children.”
He added that Netrebko’s voice on the international stage is an instrument of cultural influence that “legitimizes murders in Ukraine.”
“This is not just a cultural occasion. This is a test. Will we allow Putin to use art as a curtain to hide his crimes? Will we allow his closest allies to stand on the world’s stages as if nothing has happened? Russia always tries to smuggle betrayal into the very soul. It does so under beautiful words, under music, under the guise of culture. But behind this mask of high art lie blood and ruins,” Valeriy Zaluzhnyi wrote.
Earlier, more than 50 Ukrainian cultural figures, British, French and New Zealand politicians and activists signed an appeal to the opera administration not to allow Netrebko on the London stage.
Among the signatories were diplomat Serhiy Kyslytsia, writers Andriy Kurkov, Serhiy Zhadan, Kateryna Babkina, former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark, Holodomor researcher Daria Mattingly, political science professor Olga Onuch, British politician Alex Sobel and many others.
“The Royal Opera now faces a defining choice: between status and responsibility, between profit and values, between silence and conscience. We call on you, as you have consistently done, to remain on the ethical side of art and history,” the letter stated.
About Anna Netrebko
Anna Netrebko is a Russian opera singer who has also held Austrian citizenship since 2006, where she currently lives. She was Putin’s trusted person in elections and received awards from him. In 2014, the singer supported the pseudo-republics “L/DNR” and was photographed with the flag of the so-called “Novorossiya.” In 2022, under pressure from her European agents, she published an anti-war statement, hoping to continue her career in Europe.
In January 2023, she was included in Ukraine’s sanctions list. After the start of the full-scale war in Ukraine, Netrebko was fired from the Metropolitan Opera in New York due to her connection with the Kremlin.
Anna Netrebko filed a complaint against the Metropolitan Opera’s actions with the American Guild of Musical Artists, which represents opera performers. An arbitrator in this case ordered the institution to pay her over $200,000 for 13 cancelled performances. Later, the singer continued to sue, demanding at least $360,000 for discrimination based on nationality, defamation and breach of contract. The Metropolitan was able to challenge her claims.
She was later denied participation in a concert in Stuttgart. The singer was also removed from performances at the Bavarian Opera and Milan’s La Scala.
However, already in autumn 2022, Netrebko continued performing in Europe and worldwide. Her schedule then included performances in Milan, Verona, Belgrade, Baden-Baden, Berlin and other cities.
In May 2023, the famous Milan theater La Scala returned Netrebko to its stage.
But not all countries agree to show audiences performances by Putin’s admirer again. In August 2023, Tallinn, Estonia cancelled a concert by Netrebko and her husband Yusif Eyvazov. Also in early May 2024, a performance by the pro-Putin opera singer was cancelled by the Culture and Congress Centre (KKL) in the Swiss city of Lucern.
In February 2025, Anna Netrebko performed at a gala concert with Palm Beach Opera in Florida. This was her first performance in the United States in over five years.
The Russian opera singer last appeared on an American stage before the pandemic, in 2019. For almost two decades, she was a prima donna of the Metropolitan Opera.
On 7 September, several hundred demonstrators gathered outside London’s Royal Opera House to protest scheduled performances by Russian soprano Anna Netrebko, according to Radio Liberty.
The opera singer is set to perform four shows in Giacomo Puccini’s “Tosca” beginning 11 September, with all tickets already sold out.
A protest outside the Royal Opera House in Convent Garden, London, against performances of the Russian soprano Anna Netrebko, September 7, 2025. Photo: Olga Betko / Radio Liberty
Why protesters want her canceled?
The opposition stems from Netrebko’s documented ties to the Kremlin, Radio Liberty reports.
She served as Vladimir Putin’s proxy in the 2012 presidential elections and was photographed in 2014 with separatist leader Oleg Tsarev, holding a flag of the so-called “Novorossiya” in Russian-occupied territory.
Former Ukrainian politician and separatist leader Oleg Tsarev holds the flag of the so-called “Novorossiya” with Russian opera singer Anna Netrebko, December 2014.
That same year, she donated one million rubles to a Donetsk opera theater already under Russian control. At the time, she stated she “simply wanted to support art.”
“As an Englishman, I feel shame for the Royal Opera’s hypocrisy,” protester Steven Lacey told Radio Liberty. “Russian artists are allowed to perform while Ukrainian artists are sacrificing their lives.”
Cultural and political figures demand her removal
Opposition to Netrebko’s appearance extends beyond street protests. Fifty prominent Ukrainian and international figures signed an open letter demanding her removal from the London performances, published by the Guardian.
Signatories include Ukraine’s Deputy Foreign Minister Serhiy Kyslytsia, writers Andriy Kurkov and Serhiy Zhadan, and British MP Alex Sobel.
They describe her as “a long-standing symbol of cultural propaganda for a regime responsible for serious war crimes.” The signatories also criticized statements by the Royal Opera’s executive director suggesting that previous support for Ukraine reflected a “global consensus at the time” that has since changed due to the “complex geopolitical situation.”
Russian opera singer Anna Netrebko. Photo: Anna Netrebko / X
However, Netrebko claims she opposes the war. After the Metropolitan Opera in New York fired her in March 2022 for refusing to distance herself from Putin, she posted on Facebook condemning the full-scale invasion. She insisted she never received Russian government funding and isn’t allied with any Russian leader. Later, the Bavarian State Opera in Munich also terminated her contracts following protests.
The Royal Opera House stands nearly alone among top-tier institutions in maintaining her engagement.
Zaluzhnyi calls her “soft power” to mask Russian crimes
Ukraine’s Ambassador to the UK and former Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces Valerii Zaluzhnyiwrote in the Daily Mail that Netrebko “is not a victim of circumstance” but “made her choice” through decades of supporting Putin.
He argued that “artists like Netrebko are the Kremlin’s ‘soft power‘” designed to present Russia as civilized while masking its aggression.
“Her voice on stage drowns out the real cries – the cries from destroyed maternity hospitals in Mariupol, schools in Kharkiv, kindergartens in Kramatorsk,” he writes.
Ukraine’s Ambassador to the UK and former Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces Valerii Zaluzhnyi. Photo: Vogue Ukraine
Zaluzhnyi described her upcoming performance as a test of whether the West will “allow Putin to use art as a curtain to hide his crimes” and permit “his closest allies to stand on the world’s stages as if nothing has happened.”
“It is proof that even after Bucha, Mariupol, Kramatorsk, Russian artists with a past in service to a dictator can once again take to Europe’s finest stages,” he states.
Zaluzhnyi emphasized that he is not calling for censorship, but rather for memory and honesty.
Netrebko’s first performance is scheduled for 11 September, with Czech conductor Jakub Hrůša leading the production. The sold-out shows suggest public appetite remains strong, even as institutional and diplomatic pressure mounts.
In its 8 September assessment, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) warned that Russian officials are now applying the same disinformation tactics used to justify the invasions of Ukraine in 2014 and 2022—this time targeting Finland.
Russian messaging toward Finland—especially claims of genocidal intent, NATO aggression, and revanchist goals—strongly resembles the rhetoric used in the lead-up to full-scale war in Ukraine. ISW concluded that these patterns are not accidental, but part of a calculated strategy to justify potential acts of aggression against NATO countries.
Medvedev threatens Finland with collapse, echoes invasion rhetoric
Russian Security Council Chairperson Dmitry Medvedev issued direct threats against Finland in a 8 September opinion piece published by Kremlin newswire TASS. He claimed that Finland should not “forget” that conflict with Russia “could lead to the collapse of Finnish statehood forever.” Medvedev accused Finnish authorities of having historic ties to Nazi Germany, and alleged they aimed to expand into parts of modern-day Russia, including Eastern Karelia, Leningrad (now St. Petersburg), and the Kola Peninsula.
Medvedev claimed that Finland’s government is “Russophobic” and driven by greed, “installed in Finnish minds back in the days of Hitler.” He also alleged that Finnish authorities committed genocide against Slavs and tried to erase the historical and cultural identity of ethnic Russians. According to Medvedev, Finland joined NATO under a false pretense of defense but is actually preparing for war against Russia.
ISW noted that Medvedev’s claims closely mirror the Kremlin’s well-documented narratives used to justify its prior invasions of Ukraine. In particular, ISW emphasized the repetition of false accusations of Nazism, ethnic cleansing, and cultural erasure—claims that laid the groundwork for aggression in both 2014 and 2022.
ISW: Kremlin setting conditions for future aggression
According to ISW, the propaganda targeting Finland follows a familiar pattern. The think tank noted that Russian officials are once again invoking the so-called “root causes” of conflict—a phrase frequently used to support Russia’s aggressive policies toward Ukraine. Medvedev claimed these root causes date back to World War II, aligning with Kremlin arguments that NATO’s expansion and alleged anti-Russian discrimination justify military responses.
ISW highlighted that Kremlin narratives like these are not isolated. On 13 March, Russian Presidential Aide and former Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev accused Finland of attempting to “exterminate” the Slavic population and claimed the West is turning Finland into a launchpad for aggression. In December 2023, Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed NATO “dragged” Finland into the alliance and warned that “there will be problems” with Finland.
The ISW report stated that Russian information operations increasingly focus on Finland’s historical ties to Russia, its alleged alliance with Nazi Germany, and intentions to reclaim lost territories. The think tank warned that these narratives aim to prepare domestic and international audiences for potential future Russian aggression.
ISW assessed that the Kremlin is now applying the same disinformation playbook to NATO members, such as Finland and the Baltic States. The think tank emphasized that this shift is part of a broader effort to normalize the idea of conflict with NATO and lay the informational groundwork for escalation.
In a report on 31 August, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) outlined how the Kremlin has intensified its multi-pronged information campaign to weaken Western support for Ukraine and derail the European role in peace efforts in the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war.
Russia is now aggressively pushing three narrative lines at once: blaming European states for prolonging the war, reviving nuclear threats, and portraying Russian victory as inevitable.
Kremlin blames Europe for dragging out the war
Kremlin officials have returned to a long-standing propaganda line that paints European states as obstacles to peace in Ukraine. ISW noted that Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov and Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) CEO Kirill Dmitriev recently implied that European countries are deliberately extending the conflict. According to ISW, Russia is using Dmitriev—who frequently represents Kremlin interests on Western platforms—to reintroduce this message into the Western media environment, aiming to erode US confidence in European allies.
Medvedev threatens nuclear consequences for backing Ukraine
On 31 August, Russian Security Council Chairperson Dmitry Medvedev launched a pointed attack against French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Posting on his English-language X account, Medvedev accused the two leaders of having “forgotten the lessons” of World War II. He warned that “things could end up like they did in 1945 – [Macron and Merz] too may end up being identified by their teeth,” directly invoking the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Medvedev also described recent Russian military progress as “bad news” for the European leaders.
ISW assessed that this language is intended to threaten France and Germany with nuclear consequences for their involvement in US-led efforts to end the war, while simultaneously amplifying the idea of unstoppable Russian military momentum.
Moscow promotes image of inevitable victory
Alongside these threats, the Kremlin continues to push the idea that Russian victory in Ukraine is certain. ISW reported that the Russian Ministry of Defense has ramped up its efforts to project battlefield success using large volumes of qualitative data. However, ISW assessed that these claims are inflated and part of the broader strategy to demoralize Ukraine’s allies and reduce Western resolve.
The Institute for the Study of War reported on 30 August that the Kremlin appears to have launched a coordinated informational effort posturing military strength on the battlefield in order to shape Western thinking and falsely portray a Russian victory as “inevitable.”
The Kremlin’s presentation of likely inflated territorial gain statistics without critical context for the losses for those gains is likely an attempt to manipulate perceptions about Russia’s military performance and buttress a longstanding Kremlin narrative that Russia’s victory on the battlefield is inevitable. It is not.
Russian generals inflate battlefield numbers
Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov claimed on 30 August that Russian forces had seized 3,500 square kilometers and 149 settlements since March 2025. ISW assessed the real figure is about 2,346 square kilometers and 130 settlements. The Kremlin claims include exaggerated control in Sumy Oblast, Kupiansk, Lyman, and other directions.
Defense Minister Andrei Belousov claimed Russia was gaining 600–700 square kilometers per month. ISW calculated only 440–500 per month.
Real losses contradict Russian narrative
Russian non-Kremlin-aligned reported on 29 August that RND inheritance data suggests at least 93,000 Russian soldiers died in 2024, and 56,000 more since the start of 2025. By mid-2025, inheritance cases reached 2,000 per week. Most new missing persons rulings involved men.
ISW says these losses are unsustainable. Russia’s advance remains slow. It uses light vehicles and infiltration tactics, but cannot consolidate gains. The Kremlin’s statistics paint an incomplete picture of its battlefield performance.
In an editorial published on 27 August, Rzeczpospolita stated that in the fourth year of Russia’s all-out war against Ukraine, Polish President Karol Nawrocki has taken a position that aligns with the aggressor. The commentary by Zuzanna Dąbrowska focused on Nawrocki’s recent veto of a bill that would have expanded support for Ukrainian citizens, framing the decision as politically motivated rather than policy-based.
Domestic strategy behind the Ukraine aid veto
According to Rzeczpospolita, the Polish president’s veto marks the beginning of a process to unify Poland’s right-wing political forces in preparation for the 2027 parliamentary elections. Nawrocki needs to build a right-wing coalition between the Law and Justice (PiS) party and the Confederation, the article argues.
The editorial highlights Nawrocki’s signing of the Toruń Declaration promoted by pro-Russian politician Sławomir Mentzen as part of this broader strategy. It notes that unless the ruling coalition presents a strong presidential challenger, the right-wing bloc may achieve its goal of securing a constitutional majority.
A consistent anti-Ukraine stance
The piece argues that Nawrocki has maintained a clear and consistent anti-Ukrainian position since entering political life. While such positions are not unique among world leaders, the context of war renders them significant. According to Dąbrowska, in wartime there is a binary choice between supporting the victim of aggression or the aggressor. The op-ed concludes that for the president’s circle, this distinction appears secondary to internal political priorities.
Public attitudes and political response
Rzeczpospolita connects the shift in political decisions to changing public sentiment. The commentary states that societal attitudes are now shaping political behavior, and that political messaging in turn reinforces those attitudes. The result, it says, is a feedback loop that has already led to incidents of violence, public conflict, and discrimination against children.
Russian influence on Polish discourse
The op-ed also links the rise of anti-Ukrainian sentiment to earlier Russian disinformation campaigns. It notes that efforts originating in the Kremlin since 2022—using false stories, social media content, and memes—were initially dismissed as implausible. However, the article states that these narratives have become more influential and are now shaping public discourse. The seed planted by Moscow in 2022, the editorial says, is now producing results.
Russian state-funded propaganda media outlet Sputnik will cease operations in Azerbaijan, Russia Today media group CEO Dmitry Kiselyov said on July 3, according to the Russian state news agency RIA Novosti.
"We regret to say that, as of today, the conditions for Sputnik Azerbaijan to continue its activities in this country are not in place," Kiselyov said.
The move comes amid a major deterioration in Russian-Azerbaijani relations.
Kiselyov's comments followed the detention of several Sputnik Azerbaijan employees by Azerbaijani police on June 30. Authorities said two of the detainees were operatives of Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB), prompting a formal protest from Moscow.
Kiselyov called the charges "far-fetched," saying the staff had worked to "develop cooperation between Azerbaijan and Russia." He added that legal action would be taken to defend them.
Sputnik, a key pillar of the Kremlin's global propaganda network, has long been accused by Western governments and media watchdogs of spreading disinformation and pro-Russian narratives.
These developments follow a deadly June 27 operation in Russia's Yekaterinburg, where Russian security forces killed two Azerbaijani nationals and injured several others in a raid linked to a 2001 murder case.
On June 28, Azerbaijan's Foreign Ministry issued a rare public rebuke, calling the operation "ethnically motivated" and part of a "systematic pattern" of unlawful treatment of Azerbaijani nationals in Russia.
The diplomatic rupture deepened further after Azerbaijani authorities arrested eight Russian citizens the next day, presenting them in court handcuffed and visibly injured. They were accused of participating in organized crime, cyberattacks, and drug smuggling from Iran.
The closure of Sputnik's bureau marks a new low in relations between the two former Soviet states, which have seen escalating tensions despite longstanding ties.
Armenian authorities should "seriously" consider banning the broadcast of Russian television channels in Armenia, Armenian Parliament Speaker Alen Simonyan said on July 1, citing concerns over interference and deteriorating ties.
"We must very seriously discuss the suspension of the Russian television channel broadcast in the territory of Armenia," Simonyan told reporters, according to Armenpress. He criticized recent content aired by Russian state broadcasters, which the Armenian government has denounced as harmful to bilateral ties.
The remarks come as Armenia continues to pivot away from Moscow's sphere of influence and seeks to bolster ties with the West.
Simonyan suggested that individuals connected to Armenian-Russian oligarch Samvel Karapetyan may be financing efforts to meddle in Armenia's internal matters.
"If there are channels that allow themselves to interfere in Armenia’s domestic affairs, perhaps we ought to respond likewise, by at least banning their entry into the homes of our society," he said.
Tensions between Armenia and Russia have mounted since Moscow's failure to intervene during Azerbaijan's military operation in Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023, which resulted in the mass displacement of ethnic Armenians.
In April, Armenian President Vahagn Khachaturyan signed a law initiating the country's formal accession process to the European Union.
Though symbolic, the legislation marks a significant political shift, embedding European integration into Armenian law. The bill, passed by parliament in March, was backed by 64 lawmakers and opposed by seven.
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has said that EU membership would require a referendum, while the Kremlin warned that joining both the EU and the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) is "simply impossible." The EAEU, established in 2015, includes Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan.
Editor's note: The story was updated after the Sputnik news agency disclosed the names of those detained in Baku.
Azerbaijani police detained two alleged agents of Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) on June 30 following searches at the Baku office of the Russian state-controlled news agency Sputnik, the Azerbaijani news outlet Apa.az reported.
Sputnik later elaborated that Igor Kartavykh, chief editor of Sputnik Azerbaijan, and Yevgeniy Belousov, managing editor, had been detained in Baku. The agency called the allegations that the detainees were FSB agents "absurd."
The move comes amid a major deterioration in Russian-Azerbaijani relations that followed the detention of over 50 Azerbaijanis as part of a murder investigation in Yekaterinburg on June 27. Two people died during the detentions, and three others were seriously injured.
The searches in the office of the Russian propaganda media outlet, which operates as a local branch of Russian state news agency Russia Today (RT), began on June 30.
The Russian propagandist Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of Russia Today, said that representatives of the Russian embassy in Baku were on their way to Sputnik's office. Sputnik employees were offline and probably did not have access to phones, she added.
According to Simonyan, some of Sputnik's employees were Russian citizens.
The Azerbaijani government ordered in February that the activities of Sputnik's Azerbaijani office be suspended.
The authorities said that the move was intended to ensure parity in the activities of Azerbaijan's state media abroad and foreign journalists in the country. This meant that the number of Sputnik Azerbaijan journalists working in Baku was to be equal to the number of journalists of the Azerbaijani news agency Azertadzh in Russia.
As a result, Sputnik Azerbaijan had to reduce its staff from 40 people to one but refused to do so and continued to operate despite the Azerbaijani government's decision, according to Apa.az.
As the Russian-Azerbaijani relations deteriorate, Azerbaijan has cancelled all planned cultural events hosted alongside Russian state and private organizations, the country's Culture Ministry announced on June 29.
The announcement followed the deaths of two Azerbaijani citizens during police raids in the Russian city of Yekaterinburg.
Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry said on June 28 that Ziyaddin and Huseyn Safarov had died during a raid carried out by Russian authorities. Azerbaijan called the killings "ethnically motivated" and "unlawful" actions.
Baku called for the perpetrators to be brought to justice and said it expected Moscow to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the incident.
In the meantime, the Russian Foreign Ministry said that the detentions were carried out as part of an investigation into serious crimes. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova claimed that these were cases related to murders committed in 2001, 2010, and 2011.
Editor's Note: This story was updated with comments from Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said "all of Ukraine" belonged to Russia in a speech on June 20 at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, amid increasingly aggressive official statements about Moscow's final territorial ambitions in Ukraine.
Putin's claim was based on the false narrative often pushed both by himself as leader and by Russian propaganda that Russians and Ukrainians are "one people."
The narrative has long figured prominently in Putin's rhetoric, often brought up as justification for its aggression in Ukraine.
In July 2021, just half a year before the full-scale invasion, the Russian leader stoked fears of a larger attack when he wrote and published an essay on the "historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians."
In response to the speech in St Petersburg, Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha condemned Putin’s comments as "cynical," saying it showed “complete disregard for U.S. peace efforts."
"While the United States and the rest of the world have called for an immediate end to the killing, Russia's top war criminal discusses plans to seize more Ukrainian territory and kill more Ukrainians," he wrote in a post on X.
Putin made several other statements at the forum, some contradictory, about Moscow's aims in the war going forward.
"Wherever the foot of a Russian soldier steps is Russian land," Putin said, directly implying Russia's intention to continue occupying more than just the five Ukrainian regions that Moscow has illegally laid claim to: Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson oblasts, as well as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.
Sybiha said that "Russian soldier's foot" brings only "death, destruction, and devastation." He accused Putin of indifference toward his own troops, calling him “a mass murderer of his own people.”
"He already disposed one million Russian soldiers in a senseless bloodbath in Ukraine without achieving a single strategic goal. One million soldiers. Two million feet," the minister said.
"And, while Putin is busy sending Russian feet to invade other countries, he is bringing Russians inside the country to their knees economically."
As per the "peace memorandum" presented by the Russian delegation at the last round of peace talks in Istanbul on June 2, Moscow demands Kyiv recognize the oblasts as Russian and hand over all territory not yet controlled by Russian forces into occupation, including the regional capitals of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.
Asked whether Russia aimed to seize the regional center of Sumy in Ukraine's northeast, Putin said that while such a mission has not been assigned, he wouldn't rule it out.
Russian ground attacks into Sumy Oblast have intensified along the northeastern border in the past weeks, having first crossed the border after Ukraine's withdrawal from most of its positions in Kursk Oblast in March.
Russian troops have moved 10-12 kilometers (6-8 miles) deep into the region, according to Putin.
"The city of Sumy is next, the regional center. We don't have a task to take Sumy, but I don't rule it out," Putin said.
Sybiha urged the West to ramp up military aid to Ukraine, tighten sanctions against Russia, designate Moscow a terrorist state, and "isolate it fully."
"His cynical statements serve only one purpose: to divert public attention away from the complete failure of his quarter-century rule," the minister added.
Since March, Russia has reportedly taken control of about 200 square kilometers (80 square miles) in northern Sumy Oblast, including roughly a dozen small villages, according to open-source conflict mapping projects.
As of May 31, mandatory evacuations had been ordered for 213 settlements.
In May, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered his military to create a so-called "security buffer zone" along the border with Ukraine, while Zelensky said on May 28 that Moscow had massed 50,000 troops near Sumy.
In a separate interview with Bild on June 12, Zelensky dismissed Moscow's claims of significant territorial gains as "a Russian narrative" aimed at shaping global perceptions. He stressed that Ukrainian forces have managed to hold off a renewed offensive for nearly three weeks.
When asked if Moscow requires the complete capitulation of Kyiv and the Ukrainian leadership, Putin denied this, saying that Russia instead demands the "recognition of the realities on the ground."
The statement follows a consistent line from Russian officials since the return of U.S. President Donald Trump brought new momentum to the idea of a quick negotiated peace in Ukraine.
Projecting a winning position on the battlefield and gaining confidence from Trump's frequent anti-Ukrainian rhetoric and refusal to approve further military aid to Kyiv, Moscow has stuck to maximalist demands, refusing the joint U.S.-Ukraine proposal of a 30-day unconditional ceasefire along the front line.
On June 18, in an interview to CNN, Russian ambassador to the U.K. Andrei Kelin said that while Russian forces were advancing on the battlefield and taking more Ukrainian, there was no incentive to stop, and that Kyiv must either accept Moscow's peace terms now or "surrender" after losing much more.
On Friday afternoon in Delhi, I was at my daughter's school, waiting to pick her up and straining to eavesdrop on knots of parents and -- this being Delhi -- separate knots of household staff. Every tightly bunched group was absorbed by conversation on the only subject anyone in Delhi, and no doubt the rest of India, was talking about: are we going to war with Pakistan?
By Saturday afternoon, my assumption that India and Pakistan would find a way to step back from the brink because they had no other serious choice, seemed wildly optimistic. On the jingoistic, cacophonous, largely unwatchable Indian news channels, there were still reports of drones being shot down and air bases and military infrastructure being attacked. War seemed imminent. So imminent that India’s largest-selling weekly newsmagazine went with “War!” and a battalion of fighter jets on its cover.
But by five pm on Saturday, Donald Trump announced a complete ceasefire. Before anyone from the Indian or Pakistani government had said anything. Entire nations were caught off guard. The screeching newsreaders, still foaming at the mouth, were outraged – “who moved my war?”
And then the media swiveled on a dime (rather, a one-rupee coin). Spinning furiously, crazed hamsters on their wheels, the analysts and anchors insisted India had won. In Pakistan, their counterparts were doing much the same. The truth is, both countries had lost
India and Pakistan had been locked in a clumsy, deadly two-step while the rest of the world looked away. It began on April 22, with a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, in which 26 men, almost all of them Hindu, and singled out for their religious affiliation, were killed. United States Vice President JD Vance, was in India on a “private trip” at the time, with his Indian-American wife and children.
The attack was a provocation that the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu nationalist government could not tolerate. Their supporters bayed for vengeance. And Modi, whose personal brand as the protector of the Hindu nation – boasting in campaign speeches about his 56-inch chest – is predicated on him being the leader of a newly vigorous, aggressive India, an emerging superpower, had to respond with overwhelming force.
It took two weeks -- during which India did not provide proof of the Pakistani state's involvement in the April 22 attack beyond an established history of Pakistan’s financing of terror. The country featured on the Financial Action Task Force's grey list between 2018 and 2022, though it insists it has since largely cleaned up its act. Indian retribution came in the form of the bombing of what India described as terrorist camps. This was, Indian officials said, a restrained, responsible response to Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. No military sites, for example, were hit.
Pakistan said civilians were killed and that mosques were bombed. They then retaliated to India's retaliation. And India retaliated to Pakistan’s retaliation against India’s retaliation. Inevitably, there was a retaliation to the retaliation to the retaliation against the retaliation. And so on, until Trump announced the ceasefire. As the bombings intensified, both India and Pakistan insisted they didn't want war and were taking responsible actions to de-escalate. In the warped logic of this fighting, the bombs being dropped actually signaled both countries' understanding that they could go so far and no further.
Initially, the United States, which has played a part in brokering peace in previous clashes between India and Pakistan, seemed content to let both countries duke it out. It’s “none of our business,” said Vance. While Donald Trump seemed to think the dispute over Kashmir was the latest episode of a show that dated back "1,000 years, probably longer." Later, he modified this assessment to mere centuries.
The truth is, this conflict is a product of British colonial rule, of the hastily conceived and disastrously executed partition of India in 1947. The Cliffs notes, with considerable nuance lost through inadequate summary, are as follows: Kashmir, a Muslim-majority state with a Hindu king, wanted to be independent of both India and Pakistan. But when Pakistani forces invaded Kashmir in October, 1947, the king asked India for help and signed an agreement binding Kashmir to the Indian union.
It led to the first war between Pakistan and India, nations that were born just weeks earlier as the British departed. Under the terms of a United Nations-negotiated ceasefire, India gained control of about two-thirds of Kashmir. But this was temporary until a plebiscite to determine the future of Kashmir was held. This plebiscite never happened. As a result, both countries believe they have an inalienable right to the entirety of Kashmir: India because of the king's decision to sign the instrument of accession; Pakistan because Kashmir is a Muslim-majority state and Pakistan was created as a homeland for the subcontinent's Muslims. In 1965, both countries fought another inconclusive war.
But as long as India continues to pretend there is a viable military solution to its disputes with Pakistan, the prospect of conflict, if not outright war, remains an ever-present Damoclean threat.
But since 1989, as the Soviet Union collapsed and there was a proliferation of US-funded mujahideen in the region, separatist sentiments in Kashmir spiraled into violent insurgency. India says these militants are a proxy, a tool of the Pakistani deep state. So Kashmir became a theater of both postcolonial and post-Cold War conflict.
Between 1999 and 2019, the U.S. reliably talked both countries off the ledge and leading international diplomatic efforts to get India and Pakistan to back off when overly aggressive gestures and posturing threatened to become kinetic. The U.S. has Cold War-era strategic and security ties with Pakistan but only recently has India become a close partner with an active role to play in containing China’s emerging dominance. India, Australia, Japan and the U.S. are part of the Quad, a loose grouping intended to counter China’s designs on the Indo-Pacific.
Modi and Trump have made several displays of personal friendship, each supporting the other’s election campaigns. But the Trump administration had declined to intervene in current tensions. It was a position of apathy, as if it had no stake in preventing war. For Modi, it must sting that carefully choreographed hugs with Western leaders had not resulted in more diplomatic support for his military action against Pakistan.
Modi also received little support from institutions. For instance, India had lobbied for the IMF to withhold funds from Pakistan. But the IMF chose to release $1 billion in loans to Islamabad, even as Pakistan was engaged in artillery exchanges with India. With the U.S. seemingly taking a back seat, Saudi Arabia and Iran had offered to mediate, as had Russia. Even China, which provides over 80% of the Pakistani army's weaponry and also administers part of Kashmir, said it would help broker peace.
But it was the U.S. that swooped in over the weekend. Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio both posted about the negotiations, with Trump even saying he had used trade as leverage to prevent a nuclear war. “Millions of people,” he said, “could have been killed.”
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi greeting "our brave air warriors and soldiers" on May 13 at an air force base in Adampur, Punjab. Press Information Bureau (PIB)/Anadolu via Getty Images.
While Pakistan were happy to acknowledge the U.S. role in forcing a truce, Indian diplomats and politicians were either tight-lipped or disapproving. India has long resisted external interference in the Kashmir dispute, insisting that negotiations have to be strictly bilateral. Ultimately, neither India nor Pakistan can afford full-scale war. This is not asymmetrical combat. India may be much larger than Pakistan and conventionally more powerful. It may have a growing economy, while Pakistan is struggling to finance its debts. But, as one British analyst said, if this is a Goliath-David struggle, David has a nuclear weapon in his sling.
The Trump-brokered ceasefire may only be temporary respite – so temporary, indeed, that barely hours after the agreement was announced, the chief minister of Indian-administered Kashmir posted on X that he had heard explosions in the state capital Srinagar. “What the hell,” he wrote, “just happened to the ceasefire?” But as long as India continues to pretend there is a viable military solution to its disputes with Pakistan, the prospect of conflict, if not outright war, remains an ever-present Damoclean threat.
As an Indian citizen and a parent, I find both governments' confidence that they can toe an invisible line more than a little disconcerting. But, judging by the political and media response to the prospect of war, only a few shared my scepticism. In India, since April 22, there have been very few calls for peace, very few questions about the need for a military response to a terrorist attack, even though bombing Pakistan has not deterred subsequent terrorism.
One of those calls for peace, though, came from Himanshi Narwal, whose husband of six days, an Indian navy officer, was shot in front of her. Narwal, who was photographed kneeling beside her husband's prone body, became a symbol of India's grief and outrage.
That was before she spoke. Narwal told reporters that she only held the men who had murdered her husband responsible and not all Muslims or all Kashmiris. "We want peace," she said, "and only peace."
This sentiment made her a target of Hindu nationalist scorn on social media. Narwal was excoriated as a "woke secular" – a particularly Indian insult, mixing American right wing culture war tropes with the Indian use of the word "secular" to mock Indian liberals who supposedly kowtow to minorities, particularly Muslims.
India's initial retaliation was given the code name "Operation Sindoor", a reference to the deep red powder some married Hindu women dab on the parting of their hair or on their foreheads. India's military action, in other words, was being taken on behalf of the women who had lost their husbands on April 22. Women like Himanshi Narwal. Though what she, and others like her, might think is apparently besides the point or even worthy of contempt.
The contrast between Narwal's dignity and the absurd propaganda peddled by the mainstream Indian media would have been comical if it were not simultaneously so depressing. On Friday evening, a friend, an editor at a national magazine, sent me a collection of screen grabs of headlines in India, mostly from television news. Each claim was remarkable -- Pakistani planes being shot out of the sky, rebels from Balochistan capturing the city of Quetta, the Indian navy bombing Karachi, even reports of a coup -- and each claim was either knowingly false or entirely unverified. On Indian TV screens every night, since Wednesday night when India first bombed its targets in Pakistan, we've been exposed to a tale told by idiots.
Was it too much to hope for some restraint? But the tone taken by the mainstream media, a mimicking of the abrasive arrogance of Hindu nationalist trolls on social media, was matched by the Indian government. I watched a spokesperson from the BJP, India's governing party, tell a British news channel about Modi's "3E policy -- evaporate, eradicate, eliminate... shameless Pakistan needs to be taught a lesson." Oy vey!
And now, does the ceasefire mean that the so-called 3E policy has been abandoned? Would the Modi government – which had blocked the few critical, independent voices – have the courage to reimagine its response to Pakistan, to reevaluate the belligerence of its rhetoric, and to instead embrace the inherent strength in India’s secular, constitutional values and enter into constructive dialogue?
The signs are not encouraging. In a late bid to wrest the narrative momentum from Donald Trump, Indian politicians, journalists and commentators spread word of the country’s new approach to terrorism. Modi, having been silent through much of the fighting, elaborated on the “new normal,” in an address to the nation on Monday night. India, he said, would no longer distinguish “between the government sponsoring terrorism and the masterminds of terrorism.” The words were belligerent, the policies no kind of solution.
Perhaps, India’s wounds are still too raw for self-reflection. But the question remains: Is India going to be held hostage to its own anger? Or will it acknowledge that talks, and people to people contact, must resume.
A version of this story was published in last week’s Sunday Read newsletter. Sign up here.
Last week, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky spoke to right wing influencer Ben Shapiro, founder of "The Daily Wire". The interview showed how much stock Zelensky puts in speaking to a MAGA and Republican audience. It is with this audience that Zelensky has little credibility and Ukraine little sympathy, as Donald Trump calls for a quick peace deal, even if it means Ukraine ceding vast swathes of territory to the Russian aggressor. Zelensky needs Shapiro to combat conservative apathy about the fate of Ukraine, and combat its admiration and respect for Putin as a supposed bastion of traditional values and religious belief.
Two questions into the interview, Shapiro confronts Zelensky with a conservative talking point. Is Ukraine persecuting members of the Russian Orthodox Church? It is a view that is frequently aired in Christian conservative circles in the United States. Just two months ago, Tucker Carlson interviewed Robert Amsterdam, a lawyer representing the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Amsterdam alleged that USAID, or some other U.S. government-sponsored organization, created an alternative orthodox church "that would be completely free of what they viewed as the dangerous Putin influence." This, Amsterdam said, is a violation of the U.S. commitment to religious freedom. Trump-supporting talking heads have frequently described Ukraine as killing Christians, while Vladimir Putin is described as a defender of traditional Christian values.
On April 22, Putin met with the Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church and Patriarch Kirill, his Russian counterpart. The Serbian Patriarch told the Russian president that when he met with the Patriarch of Jerusalem, the latter said "we, the Orthodox, have one trump card... Vladimir Putin." It was the Serbian Orthodox Church's desire, the Patriarch said, that "if there is a new geopolitical division, we should be... in the Russian world." It is Orthodoxy's perceived political, rather than purely spiritual, link to Russia that the Ukrainian parliament was hoping to sever in August last year by passing legislation to ban religious groups with links to Moscow.
The Russian orthodox church, which is almost fully under Kremlin’s control, is one of Moscow’s most potent tools for interfering in the domestic affairs of post-Soviet countries. Its ties to Russian intelligence are well-documented and run deep. Patriarch Kirill, head of the Russian Orthodox Church, spent the 1970s spying for the KGB in Switzerland. Today, he blesses Russian weapons and soldiers before they’re deployed to Ukraine.
While Christian conservatives in the U.S. accuse Ukraine of violating religious freedoms and "killing" Christians, Zelensky says that it is, in fact, Russian forces that are persecuting Ukrainian Christians. On Easter, Zelensky said 67 clergymen had been "killed or tortured by Russian occupiers" and over 600 Christian religious sites destroyed. I spoke to the Emmy-winning journalist Simon Ostrovsky who said Russia targets Christian denominations.
"If we're talking about an evangelical church," he told me, "then the members of the church will be accused of being American spies. And if we're talking about the Ukrainian Catholic Church, they'll consider it to be a Nazi Church.” But, Ostrovsky added, "Russians have been able to communicate a lot more effectively than Ukraine, particularly to the right in the United States. Russia has been able to. make the case that it is in fact the Ukrainians who are suppressing freedom of religion in Ukraine and not the Russians, which is absurd."
Back in 2013, Pat Buchanan, an influential commentator and former Reagan staffer, asked if Putin was "one of us." That is, a U.S.-style conservative taking up arms in the "culture war for mankind's future". It is a perception Putin has successfully exploited, able to position himself as the lone bulwark against Western and "globalist" decadence. Now with Trump in the White House, propelled there by Christian conservative support, which has stayed steadfastly loyal to the president even as other conservatives question policies such as tariffs and deportations without due process. With the Christian right as Trump's chief constituency, how can he negotiate with Putin free of their natural affinity for the president not just of Russia but arguably traditional Christianity?
The battle over religious freedom in Ukraine is not just a local concern – it’s a global information war, where narratives crafted in Moscow find eager amplifiers among U.S. Christian conservatives. By painting Ukraine as a persecutor of Christians and positioning Russia as the last defender of “traditional values,” the Kremlin has successfully exported its cultural propaganda to the West. This has already had real-world consequences: shaping U.S. policy debates, undermining support for Ukraine, and helping authoritarian leaders forge alliances across borders. The case of Ukraine shows how religious identity can be weaponized as a tool of soft power, blurring the line between faith and geopolitics, and revealing how easily domestic debates can be hijacked for foreign influence. In a world where the persecutors pose as the persecuted, understanding how narratives are manipulated is essential to defending both democracy and genuine religious freedom.
A version of this story was published in this week’s Coda Currents newsletter. Sign up here.
Connexion
