Kremlin FIMI actors exploited US overtures to Moscow to weaken Ukraine’s negotiating position and amplify criticism of European sanctions. Key topics:
No Peace Without Replacing Volodymyr Zelenskyy
From Peace Negotiations to German Policy Concessions
Contradictory Narratives Yet Consistent Framing of US Policy
Executive Summary
Between October 9 and 15, Kremlin FIMI outlets promoted competing interpretations of Washington’s intentions, drawing on disputes over peace negotiations for Ukraine, Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil refineries, and an agreement announced by US President Donald Trump on October 9 to ease restrictions on Russian diesel exports and increase global supplies.
Despite their differences, these disinformation narratives shared a central premise: the path to peace depends less on Moscow’s decisions than on changes in Ukraine’s leadership, Western support, or US policy. This framing reflects a longstanding Kremlin disinformation narrative that now also finds support among some Western elites: blaming others for Russia’s own crimes.
From the occupation of Georgian territory and the annexation of Crimea to the war Moscow unleashed in eastern Ukraine in 2014, its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and sabotage and electoral interference in Europe and the United States, the Kremlin’s playbook remains the same: shift responsibility onto the victims of its aggression.
In the French-language information space, FIMI outlets portrayed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European governments as obstacles to peace, contrasting their positions with the supposed willingness of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump to negotiate. Laurent Brayard, a French pro-Kremlin commentator affiliated with FIMI outlet International Reporters, argued that
“there can therefore be no truly lasting peace agreement until Ukraine has a change of president.”
Yet this portrayal of Donald Trump as a peacemaker was not universal: FIMI channel Rybar FR suggested that the White House was
“trying to adjust the strikes to suit its own interests rather than stop them altogether.” Both interpretations subordinated Ukraine’s position to decisions made by larger powers.
German-language FIMI combined attacks on Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s legitimacy with arguments for changing Germany’s policy toward Russia. FIMI commentator Dirk Dietrich claimed that
“Zelensky pretends to want peace. In reality, he wants the war to go on forever,” linking the accusation to conspiratorial allegations about corruption and the Deep State.
Other outlets used the reported US–Russia diesel arrangement to justify reconsidering sanctions against Moscow and military assistance to Ukraine. InfoDefense Germany also amplified a resolution adopted by the Saxony-Anhalt state parliament with the votes of Alternative for Germany and the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance calling for an end to sanctions and weapons deliveries, illustrating how demands favorable to Moscow could be presented as domestic German political priorities.
English-language FIMI displayed a particularly striking contradiction. While SouthFront, Military Summary, and the English-language branch of Pravda (Portal Kombat) portrayed an alleged suspension of US intelligence support as evidence of Washington’s pressure on Kyiv, pro-Kremlin commentator Brian Berletic dismissed the supposed rupture as political theater, calling the war “wholly a US proxy war against Russia.” Meanwhile, FIMI channel Geopolitics Prime used the reported diesel arrangement to attack Western sanctions:
“Europe swallowed the energy costs of confrontation, and the country that pushed sanctions hardest is making an exception.”
Whether Washington was depicted as abandoning Kyiv or secretly directing the war, the result was similar: Ukrainian agency was minimized, and responsibility for the conflict was redirected away from Moscow.
No Peace Without Replacing Volodymyr Zelenskyy
FIMI outlets portrayed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European governments as obstacles to peace negotiations, while presenting Russian President Vladimir Putin as willing to reach an agreement. These disinformation narratives circulated amid disagreements (1) between US President Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy over Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil refineries and a proposed (2) energy ceasefire.
On October 11, Russian state-controlled broadcaster RT en français circulated (3) Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov’s claim that Volodymyr Zelenskyy was “clearly in a state of hysteria” and that, were he capable of acting rationally, he would demonstrate a willingness to negotiate. On October 14, the French-language branch of the Kremlin’s multilingual Pravda (Portal Kombat) network reproduced (4) commentary by Valentin Bogdanov, New York bureau chief of Russia’s state broadcasting company VGTRK, asserting that Donald Trump understood who needed to be pressured:
“It is the head of the Kyiv regime who needs to be brought into line. And certainly not gently.”
On October 13, French pro-Kremlin FIMI actor Laurent Brayard, a member of the editorial team of French-language FIMI outlet International Reporters, interpreted (5) Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s proposal for a 60-day ceasefire to organize presidential elections as an attempt to preserve his position and allow Ukrainian forces to regroup. Brayard argued that
“there can therefore be no truly lasting peace agreement until Ukraine has a change of president,” describing the ceasefire proposal as “a maneuver for the personal and collective survival of a regime.”
His article circulated through International Reporters, his personal Telegram channel, (6) and FIMI channel Ukr Leaks FR. (7)
On October 12, FIMI outlet International Reporters connected (8) the reported October 9 US–Russia diesel arrangement to Donald Trump’s pressure on Kyiv, arguing that the objective was “to free up Russian production and export capacity while increasing pressure on Ukraine to obtain concessions in the negotiations.” The article, amplified (9) by FIMI channel France Libre, portrayed European energy policies as imposing unnecessary costs on French consumers. On October 13, FIMI outlet Géopolitique Profonde promoted (10) a broadcast featuring Florian Philippot, leader of the French nationalist party The Patriots (Les Patriotes), which described the
“sidelining of Volodymyr Zelenskyy in favor of a peace negotiated between Washington and Moscow.”
The broadcast contrasted Donald Trump’s economic pragmatism with French President Emmanuel Macron’s energy policy.
On October 11, the same argument appeared (11) on FIMI channel Le Grand Rééquilibrage through commentary originally published by the Brazilian branch (12) of Sputnik. Mexican international-relations lecturer Rubén Ramos Muñoz, affiliated (13) with the National Autonomous University of Mexico’s Aragón Faculty of Higher Studies, is a recurring Sputnik contributor (14), (15), (16) whose appearances on Russian state media date back to at least 2023.
Ramos Muñoz claimed that Volodymyr Zelenskyy was “obstructing negotiations aimed at resolving the conflict” and that Donald Trump could seek “a change of course in Ukraine.”
On October 14, InfoDefense France, part of the multilingual Russian FIMI network run by pro-war military blogger Yuri Podolyaka, declared (17) that
“the Kyiv regime and its European sponsors (primarily Paris, Berlin, London, and Brussels) do not want any peace process to begin in Ukraine.”
The channel portrayed Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries as provocations and Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure as retaliation. By contrast, FIMI channel Rybar FR argued (18) that the White House was
“trying to adjust the strikes to suit its own interests rather than stop them altogether.”
Unlike outlets presenting Donald Trump as a committed peacemaker, Rybar FR interpreted US pressure on Kyiv as driven by American domestic electoral and energy interests.
The central effect of these narratives was to redefine the conditions for peace. Rather than treating Russia’s military actions and unrealistic demands as matters for negotiation, the outlets presented Ukraine’s political leadership and European support as obstacles to be removed.
This framing made concessions to Moscow appear not as a consequence of Russian pressure but as a necessary step toward ending the war.
From Peace Negotiations to German Policy Concessions
On October 11, German-language FIMI commentator Dirk Dietrich interpreted (19) Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s proposal for a 60-day ceasefire to organize presidential elections as evidence that the Ukrainian leader was seeking to preserve his position. Dietrich claimed that
“Zelensky knows that he can remain president as long as the war continues” and that “no end to the war means he can continue using this excuse to stay in office.”
He endorsed calls for Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s removal, presenting a change of leadership as a prerequisite for peace.
On October 12, InfoDefense Germany advanced (20) a similar argument through a manipulative reading of Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s English-language response to US President Donald Trump’s calls for new Ukrainian leadership. The channel contrasted the words “choose” and “leader” with “elect” and “president,” claiming that
“his use of ‘choose’ instead of ‘elect’ was certainly no slip of the tongue, but an act of pure sincerity.”
The interpretation treated ordinary English word choices as evidence that Volodymyr Zelenskyy intended to avoid democratic elections.
By October 13, Dietrich had extended (21) the argument to the negotiations themselves. Citing Donald Trump’s assessment of the positions of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, he wrote: “POTUS confirms that Putin wants a deal more than Zelensky does.” Dietrich then alleged:
“Zelensky pretends to want peace. In reality, he wants the war to go on forever,” claiming that Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his backers needed the war to continue in order to conceal criminal activities allegedly linked to the Deep State.
The commentary was republished by FIMI channel Informationskanal für die Neue Zeit (22) and the German-language branch of Pravda. (23)
On October 14, RT DE presented (24) the reported US–Russia diesel arrangement as a strategic opportunity for Moscow, outlining four potential advantages, including sanctions relief, increased pressure on Kyiv, and the prospect that
“this diesel deal creates an additional division within Europe.” RT DE argued that pressure on Ukraine “should ideally contribute to ending the Ukraine conflict.” The analysis was subsequently circulated (25) by FIMI channel Politische Nachrichten.
On October 14, FIMI channel InfoDefense Germany utilized (26) reporting by WELT, a major German national newspaper, on a resolution adopted by the Saxony-Anhalt state parliament with the votes of Alternative for Germany and the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance. Titled “Peace talks instead of expanding the war in Ukraine,” the resolution called (27) for lifting economic sanctions against Russia, suspending weapons deliveries to Ukraine, and ending non-humanitarian financial assistance.
InfoDefense added that appealing to the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) to support these demands was “a waste of effort,” using the parliamentary initiative to promote an alternative to Germany’s existing policy toward Russia and Ukraine while dismissing the prospect of CDU support.
The significance of this framing lies in how it makes concessions to Moscow appear consistent with Germany’s own interests.
By using Washington’s reported dealings with Russia as an example of pragmatism, FIMI narratives offer German audiences a justification for abandoning sanctions and military support without appearing to side with the Kremlin.
The political choice is reframed: not whether Germany should accommodate Russian demands, but why it should continue paying for a confrontation that even the US appears willing to move beyond.
Contradictory Narratives Yet Consistent Framing of US Policy
Reports that the US had threatened to restrict (28) intelligence sharing and weapons assistance to Ukraine over Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil refineries became a central theme in English-language FIMI on October 13 and 14.
On October 13, FIMI channel SouthFront linked (29) Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s statement that Ukraine had received no advance warning of a Russian ballistic missile strike to an alleged deterioration in US–Ukrainian relations. FIMI channel Military Summary went further, declaring: “US CUTS THE INTEL: Ukraine Left Blind as Ballistic Missiles Hit Kyiv.” (30) Meanwhile, FIMI channel Heil Ukraine used (31) the same incident to emphasize Kyiv’s dependence on Washington, arguing that
“Ukraine’s wartime security still depends on external decisions it neither controls nor fully understands.”
On October 14, Pravda EN, the English-language branch of the Pravda (Portal Kombat) network, asserted (32) that the US had
“halted the provision of intelligence to Kyiv, restricted the operation of Starlink, and promised to halt weapons supplies,” portraying Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s reported visit to London as a response to Washington’s demands for a settlement with Moscow.
In comments provided to Sputnik and published in full on his Telegram channel, pro-Kremlin commentator and Sputnik contributor (33) Brian Berletic dismissed (34) the supposed rupture as political theater.
“It is almost a certainty that the US has not suspended intelligence sharing with Ukraine,” he argued, describing Donald Trump’s diplomatic statements as “the most recent round of repetitive false diplomacy used as a smokescreen.”
For Berletic, the war remained “wholly a US proxy war against Russia,” making any apparent disagreement between Washington and Kyiv part of a broader American strategy.
FIMI channel The Noticer also questioned (35) Donald Trump’s peacemaking efforts, reviving the disputed claim that former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson had derailed the 2022 peace negotiations:
“Technically the war would be over back in 2022 if someone stopped BoJo from telling Zelensky to exit the peace negotiations.”
The claim similarly cast Western involvement as a cause of the war’s continuation rather than a path toward peace.
On October 13, FIMI channel Geopolitics Prime used (36) the reported US–Russia diesel arrangement to portray Western sanctions as hypocritical and economically self-defeating:
“Europe swallowed the energy costs of confrontation, and the country that pushed sanctions hardest is making an exception.”
Although the deliveries had not yet taken place, the channel framed Washington’s apparent willingness to trade with Moscow as proof that sanctions could be set aside whenever US interests required it.
Despite conflicting portrayals of Donald Trump’s intentions, the underlying narrative remained consistent: Ukraine had little agency, while Washington held the power to determine the war’s outcome.
Whether US pressure on Kyiv was portrayed as genuine or staged, these narratives shifted attention away from Moscow’s responsibility and framed the conflict as a consequence of Western decisions.
