Live

From the first days of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, a narrative began circulating online whose impact surprised even researchers of information warfare. According to this narrative, the aggressor is not the Kremlin but Ukraine and NATO—allegedly provoking the conflict for years, violating agreements, and posing a permanent threat to a “besieged” Russia. Its durability is striking, as it relies on false assumptions, manipulation of facts, and carefully selected “truths” designed to create the impression that the West is an irresponsible hegemon and that Russia merely responds to “provocations.”

One example of such manipulation, which recently gained significant popularity in Poland, was a social-media post attributing a supposed statement to “French General Jacques Guillemana,” according to whom “NATO is always the aggressor” and “it was Ukraine, not Putin, that abandoned the Minsk agreements.” It was quickly established that this “general” does not exist, the distorted name refers to a retired lieutenant colonel known for pro-Russian publications, and the photo circulating online depicted an entirely different military officer.

But this example is not isolated. It is one of many elements of a larger puzzle that has for years been at the core of Russian information strategy: constructing an alternative version of Europe’s contemporary history, appealing to audiences seeking simple answers to complex questions.

“NATO Has Always Been the Aggressor”

The first and most widespread myth concerns NATO’s alleged aggression. In pro-Russian spaces, the alliance is portrayed as an organization destabilizing the continent and bringing war wherever its flag appears. In these media narratives, NATO is to blame for chaos in Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or Syria—as if all these interventions formed a single, coherent line of Western expansion.

In reality, the context of each of these operations was different, and in most cases they were preceded by months of negotiations, attempts at mediation, and interventions by international organizations. Operation Allied Force in 1999 was a response to ethnic cleansing and mass displacement of Kosovar Albanians. NATO’s presence in Afghanistan was mandated by a UN Security Council resolution, and the alliance’s activities in many regions were limited to advisory, monitoring, or training missions. These operations can be analyzed, criticized, and debated, but they cannot be reduced to the simplistic claim that NATO is the aggressor in every conflict it participates in.

Such simplification has one purpose: shifting responsibility for Russia’s actions onto an abstract “West,” which allegedly has been destabilizing the world for decades.

“Ukraine Never Complied With the Minsk Agreements”

A second pillar of pro-Russian narrative is the claim that Ukraine sabotaged the Minsk agreements. The Minsk accords of 2014 and 2015 were meant to halt fighting in Donbas, including provisions for a ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weaponry, and the restoration of Ukraine’s control over its border. These documents were intended to create a framework for a political solution, although they were fragile from the start and built on profound mistrust.

According to versions popularized on social media, Kyiv torpedoed the peace process, violated the ceasefire, and ignored provisions regarding reforms in the eastern regions. In reality, it was the Russian side that violated Minsk II most consistently, never ceasing to support separatists and continually transporting heavy equipment and soldiers into the occupied territories. OSCE observers repeatedly reported obstruction of their work, blocked access to certain areas, and a lack of transparency by the separatists, making monitoring nearly impossible.

Ukraine argued that political reforms could only follow after security was ensured—that is, after a ceasefire and withdrawal of Russian forces. Russia insisted on the opposite sequence, which led to structural deadlock. The disinformation claim that “Ukraine did not comply with the agreements” ignores this entire context and, above all, the fact that the conflict in eastern Ukraine was the result of Russian interference, not a spontaneous local uprising.

“The Donbas Separatists Were Victims of Ukrainian Aggression”

A third propaganda construction concerns the war in Donbas, which Russian narratives depict as brutal aggression by Ukraine against its own citizens. In this version, Kyiv “bombed civilians,” and Russia merely “protected Russian-speaking people.”

However, factual analysis reveals the opposite process: separatism in Donbas was the result of years of Russian hybrid operations—stoking anti-Ukrainian sentiment, orchestrating pseudo-referendums, and spreading propaganda about supposed threats to Russian speakers. In 2014, armed fighters supported by Russia began arriving in Donbas, followed by the appearance of so-called “little green men”—unmarked soldiers who played a key role in seizing parts of the region.

UN reports clearly show that civilian casualties occurred on both sides and that their numbers were far lower than Russian propaganda claims. The Kremlin nevertheless used the conflict as a pretext—first to destabilize Ukraine, and later to launch the full-scale invasion in 2022 under the banner of “defending the people of Donbas.”

Why Does This Propaganda Work?

The effectiveness of Russian disinformation does not stem from the strength of its arguments but from the strength of its emotions. These narratives offer a world that is simple, explained, and stripped of the complexities of diplomatic processes, conflicting eyewitness accounts, or multilayered analyses. In this worldview, there is a single aggressor—NATO, a single victim—Russia or the separatists, and a single grand conspiracy in which the West seeks to undermine the “traditional order.” Such stories are attractive because they explain the world unambiguously, without requiring confrontation with difficult facts.

Disinformation is a strategic tool. Its goal is not only to mislead but to change people’s attitudes and decisions. If a significant portion of public opinion comes to believe that NATO pursues expansion, that Ukraine “provoked the war,” and that Russia merely “reacts,” then the rationale for supporting Ukraine, rebuilding European security, investing in defense, or strengthening NATO’s eastern flank becomes undermined.

Russia has been conducting this campaign consistently for years, using networks of fake accounts, state media, influencers, and seemingly independent commentators. Countering it requires not only debunking false information but also building societal resilience to manipulation.

 

Written by

Shape the conversation

Do you have anything to add to this story? Any ideas for interviews or angles we should explore? Let us know if you’d like to write a follow-up, a counterpoint, or share a similar story.

Write a counterargument article Write a related article