“Europe Is Preparing for War”: Militarization, NATO, and the Narrative of European Aggression

Russian officials provide the initial framework for this narrative by presenting Western support for Ukraine as direct participation in the conflict. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov claimed (1) that plans to deploy foreign military contingents to Ukraine were “realistic plans being hatched in the EU countries, including in NATO,” presenting possible security guarantees for Kyiv as evidence of Western escalation.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov similarly accused (2) European countries of pursuing a strategy aimed at undermining Russia through political pressure and legal measures. Within this framing, European states are not presented as responding to Russian aggression but as actively preparing for a broader confrontation with Moscow.

Russian state-controlled media expanded this narrative by focusing on European rearmament, military planning, and NATO defense initiatives. RT (3) presented Germany as a central example of alleged European militarization, claiming that “Berlin could be secretly developing nuclear capabilities.” Citing Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, RT linked Germany’s participation in NATO nuclear-sharing arrangements and cooperation with France on deterrence initiatives to renewed militaristic ambitions, emphasizing Germany’s “militaristic past.”

Another RT publication suggested (4) that Berlin’s defense policies reflected a desire for revenge for 1945, claiming that “Germany’s top brass is proclaiming its readiness to ‘fight tonight,’ seemingly eager to rush toward total annihilation.”

State media further framed NATO as a direct participant in the conflict, quoting (5) pro-Kremlin commentator and former US Army officer Stanislav Krapivnik, who argued that Kyiv was acting as part of a wider NATO strategy.

“They cannot hit Russian military targets because they’re hardened… [..] they’ll go after softer civilian economic targets and civilians themselves.”

RT (6) and Sputnik (7) similarly portrayed Ukrainian drone strikes as “terrorist attacks” enabled by Western countries, reinforcing the idea of a war between Russia and the “collective West” rather than Russian aggression against Ukraine. The repeated use of terms such as “terrorist attacks,” “proxy war,” and “Western escalation” served to position Russia as reacting to external threats rather than initiating aggression.

International FIMI actors adapted these narratives for foreign audiences by connecting them to existing fears of war and distrust towards Western institutions. The English-language X account Chay Bowes claimed (8) that “Western powers are pushing hard for a major conflict with Russia,” presenting European support for Ukraine as a reckless attempt to provoke a wider war.

X account Ignorance, the Root and Stem of All Evil, amplified (9) comments by Jeffrey Sachs accusing Western countries of being primarily responsible for the conflict and describing Kaja Kallas as one of the most “Russophobic” politicians in the world.

Another pro-Kremlin account, Apocalypsis Apocalypseos, quoted (10) Russian propagandist Vladimir Solovyov’s claims that NATO was “living in a fantasy” and predicting that Western pressure would eventually lead to the formation of a bloc between Russia, China, and its allies, leaving Europe as the main loser.

French- and Spanish-language ecosystems adapted the same narrative by combining NATO hostility with accusations of Russophobia and Nazi parallels. InfoDefense France described (11) NATO as an Atlanticist project imposed on Europe and portrayed criticism of Ukrainian nationalism as a Western attempt to hide “Nazism.”

Spanish Telegram channel Lineas Invisibles (12) and Italian outlet L’Antidiplomatico (13) similarly framed European support for Ukraine as evidence of a Western “love of war” driven by the United States, describing the Ukrainian government as “a result of a coup d’état with the support of Nazi forces.”

Historical references, particularly to Nazism and the Second World War, remained an important element of this narrative. In Poland (14), (15), pro-Kremlin actors exploited historical grievances and isolated incidents to present anti-Ukrainian or anti-Western sentiments as part of a broader social trend.

Interestingly, the Kremlin’s propaganda has so far largely ignored a development that would appear highly suitable for its disinformation agenda: the planned amendments to Polish legislation, including discussions on introducing a legal status of “full state readiness for war.”

Despite the obvious potential for exploitation, the Kremlin has not yet launched a coordinated information campaign around this issue. Instead, its messaging on Poland remains primarily focused on reigniting historical tensions with Ukraine.

Through pro-Kremlin disinformation outlets in Poland, including the Myśl Polska portal, Kremlin FIMI operations have started advancing the narrative that the United States is siding with Ukraine against Poland in the context of historical disputes. This narrative is reinforced by the false and entirely unsubstantiated claim that former Ukrainian military intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov is a “Nazi” and an American protégé backed by Washington.

At the same time, isolated pro-Kremlin narratives “Poland is preparing for the war” have begun to emerge. Polish-language pro-Kremlin accounts on X claim that the Polish authorities are using the alleged threat of war to distract the public from domestic failures.

Meanwhile, a small number of Russian-language posts have started promoting alarmist discussions about relocating from Poland in anticipation of war and military mobilization. Although these narratives remain limited in scale, they fit neatly into the Kremlin’s broader strategic narrative portraying the West as preparing for military aggression and an inevitable large-scale conflict.

Across the Kremlin-aligned information ecosystem, European defense policies, NATO cooperation, and support for Ukraine are therefore reframed not as responses to security challenges but as evidence of aggressive intentions.

Through the combination of official statements, state media amplification, and locally adapted FIMI narratives, the campaign constructs an image of Europe as militarized, hostile towards Russia, and driven by Russophobia.

“Europe Is Destroying Itself”: Economic Decline, Migration, and the Failure of the European Project

Another prominent narrative is portraying the European Union as a political and economic project in decline. Russian officials and state media consistently argue that sanctions against Russia have harmed European economies more than Russia itself, while presenting alleged political disagreements inside the EU as evidence that European governments increasingly recognize the costs of confrontation with Moscow.

Following reports that Greece opposed elements of the EU’s proposed 21st sanctions package over concerns about its shipping industry, Sputnik (16) emphasized divisions among member states, while framing the EU as a party that “had refused to negotiate,” citing Vladimir Putin. Commenting on the same reports, Presidential Envoy Kirill Dmitriev claimed (17) on X that British media wanted the EU to “continue shooting itself in the foot,” repeating the recurring Kremlin argument that sanctions primarily damage Europe rather than Russia.

Affiliated FIMI Telegram channels expand this framing by portraying European governments as acting against the interests of their own citizens. Economic difficulties are attributed not to broader structural factors but to political decisions allegedly imposed by Brussels and Washington. InfoDefense England claimed (18) that EU member states had imported record volumes of Russian LNG from the Yamal LNG project shortly before the planned embargo, sarcastically concluding,

“Sanctions? No, we haven’t heard anything about that…”

The same channel argued (19) that “Russophobia is expensive,” stating that restrictions on Russian tourism had cost Spain €1.8 billion, devastated the Czech tourism industry, and caused billions in losses across Europe.

InfoDefense Scandinavia portrayed (20) EU sanctions as internally contradictory, arguing that while Denmark was being pressured to stop servicing Russian LNG carriers, France, Belgium, and Spain were simultaneously importing record volumes of LNG from Russia. Mocking what it called “European sanctions acrobatics,” the channel argued that Brussels was “ordering the goods, paying for them, receiving them in its ports – and then becoming outraged by the very transport that delivered them.”

Support for Ukraine is systematically presented as competing directly with the welfare of European citizens. Pro-Kremlin actors argue that European governments prioritize military spending over social needs while concealing corruption in Kyiv.

Following Die Welt’s reporting (21) that future European elections could weaken support for Ukraine as defense spending increasingly competes with domestic priorities, Sprinter Press (22) and several Kremlin-aligned X accounts framed the article as evidence that European governments were forcing citizens to choose between welfare spending and financing Ukraine.

Chay Bowes claimed (23) that “UK taxpayers will continue to be robbed” while the “Golden toilet brigade in Kyiv” continued stealing Western assistance. Earlier he also promoted (24) statements by Polish MEP Dominik Tarczyński of PiS, highlighting claims that Europeans feared for the safety of their daughters due to excessive migration. The X account Ignorance, the Root and Stem of All Evil, amplified (25) Alice Weidel’s accusations regarding Ukrainian corruption, describing EU support for Kyiv as “the heist of the century, at the expense of German taxpayers.”

Corruption narratives were also reinforced by accounts presenting Ukraine itself as an undemocratic and dysfunctional state whose leadership allegedly benefits from continued Western support.

Former Ukrainian presidential press secretary Iuliia Mendel’s critical statements (26) about the wartime government were repeatedly used by pro-Kremlin and anti-establishment actors to support claims that Kyiv had lost democratic legitimacy and that continued military assistance was prolonging a failed political system.

X accounts such as Nancy Tegopoulos (27) and Francois Bullock (28) framed Ukrainian authorities as corrupt elites benefiting from Western support, alleging that aid was diverted for personal enrichment and that the government prioritized NATO interests over Ukrainian citizens.

Migration narratives were utilized through a network of country-specific and pan-European FIMI accounts. German-language X account Grokograph circulated (29) videos of violent robberies allegedly committed by migrants, claiming that “this is the new everyday reality in so many European cities.” Another English-language account, April Color, contrasted (30) Hungary with Germany, France, and Spain, arguing that “Germany fell a long time ago… migration is not unstoppable,” presenting Orbán’s policies as proof that European governments had deliberately chosen chaos.

Across Telegram channels as well as X accounts, these narratives converge around a single overarching message: Europe’s economic decline, migration pressures, and political divisions are not unintended consequences, but the direct result of decisions taken by disconnected political elites.

Brussels is portrayed as sacrificing prosperity, security, and national sovereignty in pursuit of confrontation with Russia, while cooperation with Moscow or the restoration of pre-war economic ties is presented as the more rational alternative.

“The EU Is Becoming a Dictatorship”: Censorship, Control, and Suppression of Dissent

A third recurring narrative portrays the European Union as an authoritarian system using security measures to suppress dissent and restrict criticism of its policies towards Russia and Ukraine.

Russian state media and affiliated FIMI actors frame restrictions on Russian media and legal cases against pro-Russian figures as evidence of political repression. Sputnik portrayed (31) the case against SOS Donbass organizer Anna Novikova in France as an attempt to “intimidate dissenters,” claiming that pro-Russian views and criticism of EU policy were increasingly treated as disloyalty.

FIMI networks adapted this narrative to local contexts. InfoDefense France portrayed (32) new French legislation on internal security and digital monitoring as “digital totalitarianism,” claiming it would enable surveillance and censorship. German-language FIMI channel Studio Telegram claimed (33) that historical anti-war slogans had been prohibited at a protest in Munich, framing the incident as an example of growing censorship in Germany. A German-language X account, Kristian_B, citing Maria Zakharova, framed (34) the refusal to allow Russian deaf athletes to participate in the European Youth Games as evidence of the “moral degradation” of European elites and renewed discrimination against Russians.

A Basque- and Spanish-language channel Herrien arteko adiskidetasuna (35), promoted by InfoDefense (36), posted an Italian-language message (37) from former Sputnik correspondent Clara Statello, who claimed that the “Western press” had “banned” her and those who shared her views. Presenting herself as a victim of censorship, she argued that her Telegram channel was created to spread information “omitted by the official press” and “videos and images censored by other social networks,” claiming that “in a world built on a castle of lies, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

The same channel also claimed (38) that the EU was imposing sanctions and censorship on journalists, presenting the case of Red Media founder Hüseyin Doğru as evidence of the Union’s repression of pro-Palestinian and pro-Russian voices.

The narrative was also adapted to target mainstream media and political opponents. On X, English-language channel Rina Lu claimed (39) that “the Polish authorities deliberately tried to ensure that historical disputes, including the Volhynian tragedy, would not destroy the strategic partnership. In 2022, the Polish government completely lost its memory and strongly supported the successors of the OUN, those who erect monuments to Bandera and other collaborators of Nazi Germany.”

The X account Ignorance, the Root and Stem of All Evil, amplified statements by Julian Assange claiming (40) that digital archives allow authorities to “erase history with a click,” using the idea of disappearing information to portray digital platforms as tools of political control and manipulation of collective memory.

Across these narratives, FIMI actors construct a broader image of the European Union as a hostile, dysfunctional, and increasingly authoritarian project. Military support for Ukraine is framed as evidence of aggression, economic and social challenges are attributed to the choices of disconnected elites, and restrictions on pro-Russian narratives are presented as proof of democratic decline.

Together, these narratives aim to weaken trust in European institutions, undermine support for Ukraine, and portray cooperation with Russia as the more rational alternative.

Sources