Over the past week, French- and Polish-language pro-Kremlin FIMI actors developed competing interpretations of the September 13 Russian drone strike that hit a Kyiv–Warsaw passenger-train locomotive near the Polish border. The same incident was read differently in two distinct security contexts: in France, officials described it as coercive signaling intended to intimidate and divide Europeans; in Poland, the strike was framed as a Russian threat reaching the country’s border, while Russian and pro-Kremlin actors presented it as an attack on Ukrainian military logistics resulting from Western support for Ukraine. Key topics:
France: Russian Threat Denied, Coercive Signaling Normalized
Poland: Russian Strikes Acknowledged, Responsibility Redirected
Executive Summary
The September 13 Russian drone strike that hit a Kyiv–Warsaw passenger-train locomotive approximately two kilometers from the Polish border created a challenge for pro-Kremlin FIMI narratives:
Russian military action was openly acknowledged, but its intent and responsibility for the resulting insecurity remained contested.
In France, where the government described the strike as an attempt to intimidate and divide Europeans, FIMI actors argued that Russian coercive signaling did not mean that Moscow intended to attack Europe. In Poland, FIMI actors acknowledged Russian strikes near the border but increasingly attributed the resulting danger to Poland’s support for Ukraine and Western military supplies.
In the French-language environment, FIMI actors acknowledged that Russia was using the strike to send a threatening message, while continuing to argue that Moscow posed no threat to Europe. French-language InfoDefense, part of the multilingual pro-Kremlin FIMI network run by Russian milblogger and FIMI actor Yuri Podolyaka, rejected claims that European officials had been targeted while simultaneously presenting the strike near Poland as a message that
“you are safe nowhere in your failed country.”
Rybar, a pro-Kremlin Russian military analysis network linked to the Russian Ministry of Defense, made the contradiction even more explicit, describing strikes near Poland as a “very positive indirect outcome” that allowed Russia to “increase the level of escalation against the West relatively safely” without attacking Poland directly.
In Poland, where Russian military activity occurred immediately beside the border, FIMI actors did not need to deny the strikes themselves. FIMI outlet Myśl Polska rejected the alleged targeting of European officials but argued that Russia was attacking Ukrainian railways carrying “war materiel delivered by rail from NATO countries,” concluding that “one should not, however, become hysterical.”
Responsibility for the resulting insecurity was then redirected toward Poland itself.
FIMI outlet Niezależny Dziennik Polityczny captured this reversal in the headline “Drones over Ukraine, and as usual we are the ones who suffer!” while Pravda PL reframed Warsaw’s defensive response as the Polish Prime Minister announcing “an escalation of the conflict with Russia.”
Russian action was acknowledged, but Poland’s support for Ukraine increasingly became the explanation for why its consequences were reaching Poland.
France: Russian Threat Denied, Coercive Signaling Normalized
French-language pro-Kremlin FIMI actors had already framed the Russian threat to Europe as exaggerated or manufactured, while presenting Western involvement in Ukraine as the real source of escalation. Russian state-controlled RT en français linked (1) the September 8 Russian drone incursion that disrupted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s departure from Moldova to the August 4 Leipzig/Halle Airport drone incident and the August 31, 2025, GPS interference affecting European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s aircraft, describing a broader European “drone hysteria.” It amplified Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s claim that European governments relied on an “artificial image of an enemy embodied by Russia,” alongside comments by Florian Philippot, leader of the French Eurosceptic Patriots (Les Patriotes) party, who called the latest case
“another piece of fake news designed to manipulate public opinion.”
Philippot has repeatedly opposed (2) sanctions on Russia and French support (3) for Ukraine, called (4) for France to leave NATO, and denounced (5) the EU ban on RT and Sputnik as censorship. At the same time, FIMI outlet and Telegram channel Géopolitique Profonde applied the same logic to Western military involvement in Ukraine. On September 5, it argued (6) that “the real threat” was not an imminent Russian invasion but escalation generated by Western policy, while Russian threats toward NATO were intended “to deter a direct war with NATO in Ukraine, not to trigger one.”
The September 13 strike created a direct test of this framing.
A Russian drone struck a Kyiv–Warsaw passenger train approximately two kilometers from the Polish border. A separate diplomatic train carrying former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and other senior European figures had passed through the area shortly beforehand; Ukrainian Railways suggested that it may have been the intended target, although this remained unconfirmed. European officials interpreted the incident as coercive signaling directed beyond Ukraine. French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Noël Barrot said (7) that the attacks had
“a very clear objective: to intimidate Europeans, discourage them and, above all, divide them.”
EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas similarly described (8) the strike as “a message directed at the Western world,” arguing that it was intended to frighten Western countries away from supporting Ukraine.
The Russian response instead framed the strike as part of the war inside Ukraine. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov emphasized (9) that Russian forces were operating “across the entire territory of Ukraine” and “will continue to do so.” His statement was amplified (10) by FIMI channel Stratégies Mondiales, linked to InfoDefense. Another InfoDefense-affiliated (11, 12) French-language channel, International Reporters, developed (13) the military framing further, describing an ongoing “hunt for Ukrainian locomotives” and the railway network as “one of the backbones of Kyiv’s logistics.” French-language FIMI channel RUSSOSPHÈRE similarly reduced (14) the incident to “a locomotive [being] hit in Volyn.” The French-language branch of InfoDefense then applied the military-logistics framing directly to the passenger train. It stressed (15) that
“in reality, these appear to be two different trains,” rejecting claims that European officials had been targeted.
It described the strike as part of Russia’s “systematic attacks” on Ukrainian railways, argued that “passenger trains are also used to transport military units,” and claimed that the attack was “not intended to kill passengers, but only to destroy the train’s locomotive.” Yet InfoDefense simultaneously called the strike’s proximity to Poland “unprecedented” and argued that Russia “certainly” used it to send a clear message:
“you are safe nowhere in your failed country.”
The coercive effect was therefore not denied but reassigned from Europe to Ukraine.
Rybar, a pro-Kremlin Russian military analysis network operating a French-language channel, then shifted the explanation for the strike’s proximity to Poland toward Western involvement. It stressed (16) that
“the Polish side has not claimed that a drone crossed Polish airspace and struck Polish territory,” while predicting that “Polish rhetoric will sharpen again, and new explosions will be heard near Poland’s borders.” But “rhetoric plays little role here,” it continued, because “a considerable amount of military cargo passes through this very border” and planned strikes would therefore continue.
A day later, Rybar went further, claiming (17) that the possibility of the diplomatic train being the intended target had been “fabricated by representatives of Ukrainian Railways,” although the railway operator had presented it as an unconfirmed hypothesis. Yet Rybar simultaneously identified a “very positive indirect outcome”: strikes near Poland made it possible to “increase the level of escalation against the West relatively safely” by “frightening Johnson and former CIA Director David Petraeus without having to send drones into Poland.” Petraeus was traveling separately from Johnson’s diplomatic train and was at Yahodyn station at the time of the strike.
The same combination of denied aggressive intent and overt coercive threat appeared elsewhere in the French-language ecosystem. Fabrice Le Fruskof, a self-described independent Franco-Russian geopolitical commentator affiliated (18) with InfoDefense, insisted (19) that “Russia has no reason to attack” Poland, while warning Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski that, if Poland attacked Russia, he could count the days before his country became “an ice rink.”
The prospect of a Russian attack on Poland was dismissed as a “Russophobic” fantasy, while potentially devastating Russian violence was normalized as a conditional response to Polish aggression.
The French-language FIMI response therefore adapted rather than abandoned the pre-existing narrative of a manufactured Russian threat. Once the strike placed Russian military activity directly beside NATO territory, the dispute shifted to what that activity meant: the strike supposedly targeted Ukrainian and Western military logistics rather than Europe, while its proximity to Poland resulted from Western support for Ukraine. Yet the coercive effect itself could be acknowledged or even welcomed, whether as intimidation of Ukraine or as a way to frighten Western figures below the threshold of a direct attack on NATO.
Russian coercive signaling and Russian aggressive intent were thus separated: Moscow could still be portrayed as posing no threat to Europe even while its capacity to intimidate European actors was justified or celebrated.
Poland: Russian Strikes Acknowledged, Responsibility Redirected
The September 13 Russian strikes immediately adjacent to Poland produced a direct security response in Warsaw and Kyiv. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha described (20) the attack as evidence that
“Putin’s terror is knocking directly on the doors of the EU and NATO,” while Polish authorities activated defensive measures near the border.
The Russian Ministry of Defense offered (21) a competing interpretation, stating that the strikes targeted
“railway infrastructure facilities in western regions of Ukraine ensuring the transportation of military cargo from European countries.”
These competing interpretations were reproduced side by side in the Polish-language FIMI environment. Alternative outlet Wolne Media cited (22) the Russian Ministry of Defense’s statement alongside Sybiha’s warning, juxtaposing the framing of the strikes as a threat approaching Poland with the Russian claim that they targeted military logistics inside Ukraine. Polish-language FIMI actors developed this distinction by narrowing what the incident could establish about Russian intent. FIMI channel InfoKju acknowledged (23) that a Russian drone had struck a passenger-train locomotive “just 2 km from the Polish border” shortly after a separate train carrying European officials had passed through the area.
Myśl Polska converted this evidentiary distinction into a broader explanation of Russian intent, arguing (24) that the
“Ukrainian narrative about an alleged deliberate Russian attack on a train full of European politicians” did “not withstand confrontation with the facts.” Instead, “everything indicates” that Russia was attempting to block Ukrainian railway transport used for military purposes and disrupt “war materiel delivered by rail from NATO countries.”
The article speculated that Russia may have provided advance information about the operation because it wished “to avoid incidents with NATO,” before concluding:
“One should not, however, become hysterical.”
The focus then shifted to why Poland was exposed to this danger at all. Polish pro-Kremlin commentator Piotr Panasiuk asked (25) why Polish authorities had not warned citizens against traveling to Ukraine, dismissed reports that European officials had been targeted as a possible “Ukrainian fake,” and argued (26) that the Dorohusk crossing “should be closed immediately,” pointing to “free Polish fuel for the Ukrainian junta.” He also recast (27) Boris Johnson from a potential victim as “the main instigator of the war in Ukraine,” who continued to “incite and provoke.”
Responsibility for exposure was then extended into responsibility for escalation.
Pravda PL, part of the Kremlin’s multilingual Pravda (Portal Kombat) network, reframed (28) Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s warning that intensified Russian attacks could affect Polish territory, together with Warsaw’s intention to seek allied assistance for its defense, by claiming that the
“Polish Prime Minister announced an escalation of the conflict with Russia.”
The escalation frame was also adapted to domestic political grievances. FIMI outlet Niezależny Dziennik Polityczny reacted (29) with the headline
“Drones over Ukraine, and as usual we are the ones who suffer!”
Rather than denying the danger, it ridiculed Brussels for being “concerned” and mocked Polish assurances that “we have everything under control,” while asking readers to remember who genuinely stood with Poland and who was motivated by “scandals and foreign interests.”
Not all actors denied deliberate Russian strategy near Poland. Tomasz Maciejczuk, who describes himself as an “ex-political commentator in Moscow” and “former Donbas volunteer,” argued (30) that “Putin wants to close the Polish–Ukrainian border,” identifying the objective as a blockade of Ukrainian exports through Poland and disruption of Ukrainian cross-border movement. He linked the strikes to similar Russian operations near Ukraine’s borders with Moldova and Romania.
Even in this interpretation, however, deliberate Russian action immediately adjacent to Poland was directed primarily against Ukraine’s connections with neighboring European states rather than against Poland itself.
Polish-language FIMI narratives did not generally need to deny Russian military activity near Poland. Instead, they separated acknowledgment of Russian action from attribution of responsibility for the insecurity it created. Russian strikes could be acknowledged while their purpose was limited to Ukrainian infrastructure and European military support, undermining their interpretation as evidence of a Russian threat to Poland. From there, Poland’s support for Ukraine increasingly became the explanation for why Russian military activity was reaching its border, while Warsaw’s defensive response could itself be reframed as escalation.
The causal sequence was thus reversed: Russian action was acknowledged, but responsibility for the resulting insecurity was redirected toward Poland’s involvement in supporting Ukraine.
Sources
How EK Strategies selects material, verifies sources and phrases attribution: Read our Research Methodology.