August 2025.
As part of the program Regional Initiative to Combat Disinformation “Western Balkans Anti-Disinformation Hub: Exposing Malign Influences through Watchdog Journalism”, we present you a new monthly analyses of fake news and disinformation narratives.
How Pro-Russian media portray Europe as an obstacle to peace
The summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska, held in mid-August, became a trigger for a major shift in the rhetoric of Serbian pro-Russian and pro-government media. An event that, objectively speaking, had limited diplomatic significance was presented by pro-Russian outlets as a historic turning point — a moment when “the world is changing” and when Russia and the United States allegedly take full control of global processes. Within that constructed myth, Ukraine and the European Union are no longer seen as partners of the West, but as obstacles and losers in a new “realpolitik order” shaped solely by Moscow and Washington.
Pro-Russian tabloids and portals, including Informer and Sputnik, launched a synchronized narrative about the “isolation” of Ukraine and the EU, portraying them as redundant actors digging their own diplomatic graves. In the article “Ukraine and the EU on the Brink of Isolation: Are They Ready to Face What Awaits?” it is claimed that “Ukraine and the European Union will find themselves isolated on the global stage if they refuse to support the efforts of Russia and the United States to resolve the Ukrainian crisis,” and that they would “exclude themselves from the world” if they do not accept the Trump–Putin deal. Such claims have no basis in international diplomacy but serve a clear propaganda purpose: to impose the perception that the EU has lost influence, that the West is divided, and that Russia, after years of sanctions, has re-emerged as an equal global player.
A unifying motif in these reports is the attempt to shift responsibility for the failure of negotiations and the continuation of the war onto Europe and Ukraine. In a Sputnik article, the head of the African Center for Security and Strategic Studies is quoted as saying that “Europe is not interested in the success of the Trump–Putin negotiations and wants a ceasefire on its own terms, especially given that it is NATO that wages the war and determines Ukraine’s fate.” This sentence encapsulates the essence of the propaganda narrative: NATO is framed as the real aggressor, Europe as a war profiteer, and Russia as the side seeking peace but being “prevented” from achieving it. This narrative displaces attention from the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine and occupies its territories, redirecting the focus to the myth of a “peace-loving Moscow” besieged by a warmongering West.
The tone of delegitimizing Kyiv is particularly striking. Ukraine is portrayed as a corrupt, panicked regime ready to commit crimes and provocations. In the article “Ukrainian Diversion Attempt Fails: Both Russians and Americans See Through It”, it is claimed that “the regime in Kyiv is in panic, as are its sponsors — the EU and the UK,” and that it “planned to stage an attack on the day of the major Russian–American summit.” Even more drastic is the assertion that “the only chance the neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine has is to stage false-flag attacks to blame Russia.” Terms like “neo-Nazi regime” and “terrorist methods” are part of a well-established propaganda lexicon designed to render any legitimate act of Ukrainian defense morally unacceptable. This rhetoric is not meant to inform but to create an image of Ukraine as a state that has forfeited the right to international support.
It is noteworthy that these same media outlets, until recently, focused their hostility primarily on the United States. The anti-American tone was a central pillar of propaganda throughout the war, accusing Washington of “imperialism,” “colonial wars,” and “NATO expansion.” However, after Trump’s return to the White House and his announcement of renewed dialogue with Moscow, the narrative shifted abruptly. America is no longer depicted as an enemy but as a rational negotiator who “recognizes reality,” while the new target has become the European Union. This change does not signal pluralism but rather disciplined propagandistic flexibility: when it suits the Kremlin to present the U.S. as a partner, the media machine instantly transfers the blame to Brussels.
Within this framework, Europe is depicted as a powerless and possessive force that “pushes Ukraine into another circle of suffering.” One article claims that “Vladimir Zelensky does not belong at the table with the two most powerful men in the world,” and that “European leaders are pushing Zelensky to the table only so he can play the role of their Trojan horse and sabotage the talks.” This construction serves a dual function: it both humiliates Ukraine by stripping it of agency and delegitimizes the EU by portraying it as a cynical manipulator exploiting someone else’s tragedy for its own interests. The implicit message is that peace would only be possible if Ukraine and Europe were excluded from the process — in other words, if the war were resolved bilaterally between Moscow and Washington, without any “interference.”
In articles such as “Moscow: Kyiv Will Use Its Entire Arsenal of Banned Weapons to Disrupt Russia–U.S. Talks” and “Kyiv, Together With the West, Uses Terrorist Methods…”, Ukraine is accused of “using terror against civilians” and being “unwilling to pursue peace, since it would lead to elections the current authorities would lose.” Analysts and “experts” cited by Sputnik, like Mahmud el-Efendi, claim that “Kyiv, with the support of its Western mentors and particularly British intelligence, takes steps clearly aimed at escalation.” Thus, the propaganda picture is completed: Russia is portrayed as a victim of international plots, and the West as the organizer of terror and sabotage.
This narrative does not operate in a vacuum. It has a clear political purpose — to support the Russian thesis of “Western fatigue” and the alleged incapacity of Europe to conduct an independent policy. In the Serbian media landscape, it reinforces anti-European sentiment, fosters skepticism toward EU membership, and relativizes Russia’s responsibility for the invasion. When citizens are repeatedly told that “Europe is in panic,” that it “has no influence,” and that “America and Russia are the ones solving things,” the effect is to normalize the idea that EU integration is futile, that the world’s fate is decided without us, and that neutrality — in practice, a pro-Russian stance — is the only rational option.
What is particularly revealing is the coordination and repetition of these messages across multiple portals. All the articles follow the same formula: they begin with a dramatic tone (“Brussels in panic,” “failed diversions,” “terrorist methods”), quote “experts” who confirm Russian talking points, and conclude that Europe has lost credibility. This is a form of soft propaganda that does not rely on overt falsehoods — it suffices to exaggerate, to selectively present facts, and to wrap them in an emotional frame favorable to Russian interests.
Taken together, these messages reveal a broader propagandistic pattern: an effort to portray the war in Ukraine as merely an episode in a larger internal conflict within the West, where Russia plays the role of a stabilizing force. In that narrative, Europe becomes a powerless observer, Ukraine a helpless puppet, and the United States a pragmatic negotiator that has finally “woken up.” The public is thus gradually conditioned to accept the idea that negotiations without Europe and Ukraine are natural — even desirable.
Ultimately, the narrative of “isolation” says nothing about the real balance of power in the world, but it speaks volumes about Russia’s need to restore its sense of global importance. The Kremlin uses propaganda to sustain the illusion that the West is collapsing, because in that imagined scenario Russia again appears central and powerful. While Europe continues to build alliances and support Ukraine’s defense, pro-Russian media promote a vision in which those efforts are futile and hypocritical. Yet beneath this façade lies Moscow’s growing fear that any sustainable peace process could emerge precisely within a European, not a Russian–American, framework.
Author: Nataša Stanojević
