Executive Summary
The US–Israeli strike on Iran and the killing of leaders of a key Russian partner have forced the Kremlin into a cautious balancing act — avoiding direct criticism of President Trump while trying to limit reputational damage and tighten alignment with China. In the long term, deepening strategic dependence on Beijing — which needs Russian energy and supports the aggressive posture sustaining the regime — is likely to become Moscow’s top priority. Publicly distancing itself from the conflict, the Kremlin frames it through the prism of Ukraine and economic gains, while muting criticism of Trump, shifting blame to the “Israeli lobby,” and amplifying a unified Moscow–Beijing line.
The Kremlin is demonstratively signaling that the war launched by Israel and the United States against one of Russia’s allies, Iran, and the killing of Iran’s leader Ayatollah Khamenei are not currently priority issues for Vladimir Putin. Moscow has limited itself to formal calls with Middle Eastern leaders and statements expressing extreme concern about “strikes against the international legal foundations of the world order.”(1) In practice, however, White House policy — regardless of its underlying motives — directly challenges the anti-Western axis being constructed by China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, and affiliated actors. This alignment has only recently begun consolidating in various forms: from material participation in and support for Russia’s military operations by its partners, to the advancement of institutional formats such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), BRICS, and related platforms.
The unpredictability and speed of U.S. actions in Venezuela or Iran likely help Washington achieve tactical objectives, such as eliminating Iran’s leadership or abducting the Venezuelan leader. However, in the context of intensified confrontation with China — which incurs losses from direct attacks on its allies and suppliers of discounted oil — the longer-term consequences of White House policy may become even less predictable. The Kremlin’s attempt to balance between Beijing — which sustains the Russian economy to varying degrees — and the illusory prospect of renewed trade with the United States has so far only deepened Russia’s economic crisis. This unfolds against the backdrop of Moscow’s limited capacity and unwillingness to end the war in Ukraine or abandon its broader militaristic agenda, which the regime increasingly views as its only viable survival model. The escalation of U.S. pressure — including the detention of Russian shadow fleet tankers, the abduction of Nicolás Maduro, and the killing of Khamenei — will push the Kremlin toward a strategic choice. China, which depends on Russian oil, is likely to become the primary partner, effectively returning Putin’s Russia fully to the Chinese track where, in reality, it has been positioned all along, despite intermittent and often artificial attempts to balance between the two superpowers.
In response to the attack on a partner within the anti-Western coalition, and despite attempts to distance itself from an unfavorable conflict, Moscow issued several joint statements specifically with China, emphasizing a “unified Moscow–Beijing approach.”(2) This line — effectively the only clearly articulated one — has become the central narrative in Russian propaganda concerning the war against Iran. Less prominent narratives included claims that Washington’s actions legitimize Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and attempts to redirect criticism away from President Trump toward “Israel, which started the war.” Subtle but noticeable signals of Moscow’s reluctance to criticize the U.S. too harshly outside coordinated formats with China suggest that the sharper joint statements with Beijing may reflect a compelled strategic necessity.
This trend is likely to intensify in the coming months. When forced to choose between China’s growing demand for Russian energy, the ability to continue the aggressive policies deemed essential for regime survival, and a fragile — and in Moscow’s view temporary — offer of possible cooperation with Washington, particularly ahead of autumn elections, the Kremlin is likely to side with Beijing, regardless of the negative consequences of increased dependency.
A separate geopolitical emphasis in Kremlin propaganda focused on continued discrediting and humiliation of European leaders and NATO, signaling continuity in Russia’s confrontational course. Narratives about the “collapse of Western diplomacy as an institution” were combined with previously voiced insults by Putin directed at the EU and assertions of a “split within the West and NATO,” where “European piglets [European leaders] are watching as the main boar [the United States] in their most defensive military alliance in the world [NATO] attempts to devour yet another independent country [Iran] in order to control its resources.”(3)
Russian propaganda directed at domestic audiences sought to demonstrate that the Kremlin remains focused on the full-scale war in Ukraine, and that Moscow is not “unable” to assist its partners in Iran, but simply does not consider such assistance necessary. Attention is shifted from the attack on a partner to the assertion that “the U.S. has shown that military-political leadership constitutes legitimate targets,” implicitly suggesting that Ukraine’s leadership may be treated similarly. At the same time, the Kremlin actively promoted the message that “attention will inevitably shift away from Ukraine — America cannot sustain two large-scale conflicts.” Another significant narrative concerned negotiations as an instrument of diplomacy. Across multiple propaganda outlets, the Kremlin used the example of the latest round of U.S.–Iran negotiations to argue that “negotiations are a performance designed to lull the opponent’s vigilance.” In this context, propagandist Dmitry Kiselyov stated: “It’s time to apply this to ourselves. What guarantees do we have that all this [negotiations] on their side is serious?”(4)
Within ultrapatriotic Z-aligned platforms, reactions to the U.S. operation were mixed, though most agreed that Russia’s priority remains the war in Ukraine. Several hawkish commentators criticized the Kremlin for failing to apply methods similar to those used by the United States in its own military operations(5),(6). Views on supporting Iran diverged. The Telegram channel “Svarshchiki,” associated with security-service circles (siloviki), called(7) for “creating our own Rzeszów in Azerbaijan and assisting the Iranians together with the Chinese,” referencing the Polish logistics hub used for Western military supplies to Ukraine. By contrast, VGTRK journalist and Moscow City Duma deputy Andrei Medvedev argued that Iran is not a genuine ally of Russia(8). Other commentators adopted a more observational stance, focusing on potential benefits for Russia, including rising oil prices(9) amid a severe federal budget crisis and the possibility of future shortages of air defense missiles for Ukraine(10).
Monitoring of Propaganda: Official Reaction
“Yet another unprovoked act of armed aggression against a sovereign and independent Member State, in violation of the UN Charter and international law,” said(11) Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, describing the U.S.–Israeli strike on Iran during the February 28 UN Security Council session. Other official statements echoed concerns about violations of international law. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued three statements (12), (13), (14), “with outrage and deep regret,” warning about the “systematic destabilizing strikes carried out by the U.S. Administration against the international legal foundations of the world order.” On March 1, Vladimir Putin sent condolences regarding the killing of Ayatollah Khamenei, calling it an act committed “with cynical violation of all norms of human morality and international law.” (15) Official statements particularly emphasized that “the attacks were carried out under the cover of negotiations.” Former President Dmitry Medvedev stated: “The Peacemaker has once again shown his face. All negotiations with Iran are a cover operation.” (16) The most important element for propaganda was the joint statement by Russia and China. Sunday news broadcasts highlighted that on March 1 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi condemned “violations of international law and the UN Charter” during a phone conversation. (17) On February 28, at the UN Security Council, China and Russia “jointly signaled that pursuing the overthrow of legitimate governments of sovereign states is unacceptable, and that this constitutes the unified approach of Moscow and Beijing.” (18)
Core Domestic Propaganda Narratives
“The goal of U.S. aggression is the elimination of leadership and regime change, which will end in failure.” Propaganda extensively reviewed (19) the named list of senior Iranian regime officials who were killed, including detailed personal portrayals, with particular emphasis on Ali Khamenei as a treacherously and “martyr-like” killed leader of Iran. At the same time, despite the loss of key figures, the line was advanced that “Iran is ready for a long war and, based on the results of the first day, does not appear broken or deprived of control”: “the system of power in Iran is structured in such a way that every most influential leader has successors.” (20) A central component of this narrative is the assertion that U.S. actions will not achieve their intended goal and will not lead to Iran’s prosperity. Instead, the fate of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq will be repeated, where aggression gave rise to ISIS, as well as the fate of Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya, which lost its statehood and became a place of “desolation” and “the flourishing of the slave trade.” Particular emphasis is placed on “calls for a military coup,” alongside claims that sabotage groups, spies, and terrorists coordinated via Starlink have already emerged in Iran.
“Trump made the decision to attack under unprecedented pressure from Israel.” Within this narrative, propaganda shifts responsibility for the operation to Israel. This reflects guidance from political managers “not to criticize Trump too strongly” outside coordinated formats with China. Propaganda reports claim that “Israel started the new war, but the United States joined with its main striking force,” while also stating that “the decision to attack was made as early as February 11 during Netanyahu’s visit to the United States” (21) — and that “Israel and the Zionist lobby intervened to preempt diplomacy.” (22) “Yet again, the Israeli tail is wagging the American dog.”
“Having stopped, by his own account, eight wars, peacemaker Trump stumbled on the ninth — the Ukrainian one — and nullified himself on the tenth.” (23) The core of this narrative is the idea that current U.S. policy is temporary and politically unstable. By launching an operation against Iran, described as friendly to Russia, Donald Trump is said to have significantly weakened his own political standing in the United States. “The American people are bewildered: the very idea of a new war in the Middle East frightens Americans <…>, and ‘Epic Fury’ may turn into an epic failure. A rise in gasoline prices in the United States will become inevitable if oil prices increase. Other geopolitical ambitions will also have to be curbed <…> If Trump fails to manage the situation, Republicans will be held accountable in November not only for their president’s inability to change power in Tehran, but for everything at once — from inflation and the economy to promises of global peace, which, according to the worst American pre-election tradition, have once again turned into another war.”
“Pandora’s box has been opened in the Middle East, leading to a new major war.” (24) According to this narrative, the consequences of U.S. and Israeli aggression will affect the entire planet. If Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz, this will disrupt global logistics chains and drive up oil prices — developments portrayed as beneficial for Russia. In this context, Kirill Dmitriev, the Kremlin’s negotiator, wrote on social media (25): “Time to secure long-term contracts for Russian LNG to build a diversified and balanced supply base. Too bad that Ursula and Kaja will have to be at the end of the long line. They are an example of how shortsighted politics and lack of diversification leads to bad consequences.” (26) In addition, simmering regional conflicts and radical groups — the Yemeni Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas — are expected to intensify, potentially leading to a “new major war.” As evidence of escalation, propaganda cites “legitimate retaliatory strikes by Iran against American bases,” affecting neighboring Arab countries.
“Europe is searching for, and failing to find, its role in the current configuration.” This narrative is rhetorically constructed in a markedly more aggressive tone than the others, reflecting strong hostility toward European countries. Propaganda asserts that “EU leaders enviously digested the fact of negotiations in Geneva, where no seat was reserved for them at the table, and on Saturday switched to the new war, which they learned about from the media.” Thus, “with mixed feelings, European piglets are watching as the main boar in their most defensive military alliance in the world attempts to devour yet another independent country in order to control its resources.” (27) Contradictions within the Western coalition are emphasized: “The West has split — there is no longer a unified West. NATO as a cohesive bloc is no longer heard from. Trump’s America has its own game, the Old World another.”
“Negotiations are a spectacle designed to lull vigilance.” This is one of the most developed narratives and reflects a particular effort by the Kremlin to shift responsibility for the lack of progress in negotiations over Ukraine. Propaganda speaks of the “collapse of Western diplomacy as an institution, where treachery becomes the primary argument.” Propagandist Dmitry Kiselyov asks: “It’s time to apply this to ourselves. What guarantees do we have that all this [negotiations] on their side is serious?” Another propagandist Vladimir Solovyov reinforces the argument: “Any negotiation process is part of a military operation designed to calm the opponent. We will return to diplomacy only upon receiving ironclad guarantees.” (28)
“The U.S. has shown that military-political leadership are legitimate targets.” The essence of this narrative is the claim that “the first thing Americans did in their military operations was eliminate leaders,” implying that Russia may draw conclusions from this precedent. Traditional propaganda examples are cited: the execution of Saddam Hussein, the killing of Muammar Gaddafi. At the same time, clear parallels are drawn with the Russian–Ukrainian war, without naming specific individuals. Vladimir Solovyov frames the issue as a double standard: for the U.S. it is “permitted,” while for Russia it is “forbidden”: “Russia must not dare. Russia cannot do this.” (29)
“Attention will inevitably shift away from Ukraine — America cannot sustain two large-scale conflicts.” On the very first day of the U.S. operation against Iran, pro-government commentators stated that “if this truly becomes a full-scale war, it will benefit Russia and the entire world. It will stop the Americans and, therefore, halt support for Ukraine. Ukraine will cease to resist, Europe will weaken without America, and peace will follow. This is a common war against a ‘seven-headed dragon’: America, Europe, Ukraine — all links in one chain. On the other side stands unprecedented consolidation: Russia, China, Iran.” Propaganda also actively cited a Financial Times article (30) suggesting that the U.S. operation in Iran could lead to shortages of air defense missiles for Ukraine (31).
Reaction of the Z-Community
Ultrapatriotic Z-authors reacted to news of the U.S. operation in a critical tone, projecting U.S. methods onto Russian military conduct in Ukraine and posing pointed questions. The Telegram channel Fighterbomber wrote: “So is it permitted or not to attempt to permanently eliminate the ayatollah/leader/president/king/chancellor of a country you are at war with or conducting a military operation against? This is not even a rhetorical question. It is one of the priority objectives.” (32)
The channel MIG Rossii welcomed (33) the sharp increase in oil prices, which would support the Russian economy, referred to Trump as a “red-haired madman,” (34) and warned Europe of consequences comparable to Iran’s reaction should Russia be attacked (35).
The Telegram channel “Svarshchiki”, associated with security-service circles, implicitly criticized Kremlin inaction and called for “creating our own Rzeszów in Azerbaijan and assisting the Iranians together with the Chinese <…> And learning willpower. There will be no better chance to break the backbone of the imperialists.” (36)
The same perceived passivity was criticized by the Telegram channel Hard_Blog_Line, which wrote: “And they are not afraid of us. What will we do? Issue a firm condemnation? A reliable strategy. Let them be ashamed.” (37)
Fully controlled Z-channels aligned with the Presidential Administration and the Ministry of Defense adopted a more neutral tone for domestic audiences in order to avoid inflaming emotions over the strike against yet another ally. (38)