By Jabir Deralla
In cooperation with CIVIL Hybrid Threats Monitoring Team

This week’s headlines are vehemently repeating the claims that Donald Trump “urged Volodymyr Zelenskyy to accept Vladimir Putin’s terms or be ‘destroyed’ by Russia,” widely shared on social media and commented on in media outlets across the globe. Social media posts appear to align with reports from credible sources. However, social media content tends to oversimplify the meeting’s outcomes in ways that serve Russian propaganda narratives. The meeting took place on October 18 in the Oval Office, where U.S. President Donald Trump hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

What the sources say

The Financial Times reports that during a meeting on 17 October 2025, Trump pressed Zelenskyy to accept Russia’s terms in the war, warning that Putin “would destroy you” if he refused. Also reported by the Ukrainska Pravda and Reuters.

The Washington Post and Radio Free Europe describe the meeting as “often fraught”, with Trump reportedly tossing aside battlefield maps, pressing Zelensky to accept Putin’s terms (including ceding territory) and warning of dire consequences if Kyiv did not. The meeting is also reported to have included references to ceding the Donetsk region (part of the Donbas) to Russia as a deal-term, according to some officials.

The Reuters summary states: “Trump pushed Zelensky to give up swaths of territory to Russia… ‘Your country will freeze, and your country will be destroyed’ if Ukraine doesn’t make a deal.”

Multiple media outlets quote European officials familiar with the meeting who say Trump echoed many of Putin’s arguments and was aggressively pushing Zelenskyy toward a deal, Українські Національні Новини (УНН) reported.

What to be cautious about

While social media posts around Europe and in the Western Balkans region claim exactly “urged … to accept Putin’s terms or be ‘destroyed’ by Russia” (which matches the gist of the FT/Reuters reports), some nuances are missing or the narrative is amplified in favor of Russia.

However, it is important to emphasize that the reporting is based on sources familiar with the meeting, which means that direct transcript is not made public. So, while the reports have credibility, they are not verbatim quotes released by a primary participant.

More importantly, Trump has denied that he told Zelenskyy to give up Donbas or discuss concession terms. For example, one source says Trump told reporters “I hadn’t” urged ceding Donbas, RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty reports.

Some social media posts use a dramatic framing (“or be destroyed”) that simplifies and amplifies the reported rhetoric. Media coverage tends to embed more context: the terms being discussed, territorial concessions, etc. Social media posts might exaggerate or omit that broader context.

In summary, the claims in social media, including the one by Financial Times itself may be considered largely accurate, insofar as credible reporting supports that Trump urged Zelensky to accept Russia’s terms and warned of destruction if he did not. The gist matches the reputable sources. However, it is not fully precise: it simplifies complex negotiations and uses dramatic shorthand that omits some nuance and context from the original reporting.

The dramatic posts and claims “accept Putin’s terms or be ‘destroyed’” simplifies and condenses a more intricate dialogue involving war strategy, territorial issues, U.S. support, missiles and diplomacy. The exact full context of what “Putin’s terms” entail (territory, cease-fire, Russia’s demands) is less clearly publicly detailed.

Key propaganda narratives in the context of Trump-Zelensky meeting reports

Some of the themes that are being amplified by Russian-media and Kremlin-aligned discourse include:

The “West divided, Russia triumphant” narrative: Russian outlets portray the meeting as evidence that the U.S. is wavering in its commitment to Ukraine, and that Russia is gaining diplomatic leverage. For example, analysts note that when a Western leader echoes Russian positions, “for the Russians, it’s a dream come true”, Le Monde reports.

Ukraine as a burden or “ungrateful” recipient: Some Russian commentary emphasizes Zelensky being “lectured” by Trump, or presented as failing to secure sufficient U.S. support, thereby casting Ukrainian leadership in a weak or dependent light.

The U.S. as opportunistic or shifting policy: Propaganda frames the U.S. meeting as evidence that American strategy is transactional (“you give up territory and we’ll help”) or unpredictable, undermining the reliability of Ukrainian allies, The Lowe Institute’s The Interpreter reports.

Legitimising Russian demands/position: By highlighting Trump’s reported push for Ukraine to accept Russian terms, Russian-aligned media can claim “see: even the U.S. admits those terms are reasonable”. This bolsters Russia’s negotiating posture.

Sowing demoralisation: By broadcasting narratives of discord among allies, and emphasising U.S.–Ukraine tensions, the campaign aims to weaken Ukrainian morale and Western public support for the war.

How it’s actually being deployed

Some of the mechanisms by which these narratives are spread include:

State-media amplification: Russian state-controlled outlets (TV, websites, Telegram channels) highlight every element of the meeting that can be framed as weakening Ukraine or enhancing Russia’s position. For instance, a Russian outlet described the meeting as giving Russia “additional leverage” in diplomacy.

Selective quoting & framing: The meeting’s details (e.g., Trump’s remark about destruction, calls for a deal, suggestions of territorial concessions) are emphasized; the broader context (Ukraine’s conditions, Russian aggression, continuing strikes) is often minimized.

Leveraging Western source material: Because much of the reporting comes from Western media, Russian propagandists can point to “proof” (via those outlets) that the U.S. is shifting toward Russia’s demands—then repurpose the narrative for Russian domestic or international audiences.

Deep-fakes and disinformation: While the meeting in question is real, the broader information-war environment (for example, fake videos of Ukrainian surrender, or false claims about Ukraine) is relevant. Russian campaigns exploit any ambiguity, confusion or mixed messages to widen their narrative space.

Why this matters

Hybrid warfare dimension: What we’re seeing is classical hybrid warfare: kinetic conflict plus information operations. The meeting, the reporting, and the subsequent propaganda all feed into that broader spectrum.

Narrative integrity risk: When high-profile Western leaders make statements (or are reported to make statements) that echo adversary positions, that opens a pathway for disinformation and propaganda actors to meld truths with manipulation. The nuance often gets lost.

Attention to frames, not just facts: Disinformation isn’t just about false facts—it’s about framing: what is emphasised, what is omitted, what feelings are stirred, what assumptions are seeded. For example: “Ukraine should give up territory” vs “Ukraine must defend its sovereignty” — very different frames.

Rapid amplification & second-order effects: Once a narrative is seeded (e.g., “U.S. pushing Ukraine to take Russian terms”), it spreads via social media, gets picked up by non-state outlets, is translated/adapted for domestic Russian audiences, and then loops back into international discourse.

Potential impact on policy & public opinion: These narratives can affect Western publics, weaken support for Ukraine, influence election discourse, and ultimately impact policy decisions.

This is yet another example of how the information war is being waged. To counter such narratives, it takes much more than outrage — it requires structure, competence, and constant vigilance: a dedicated team to monitor, analyze, and report; editors to verify, interpret, and present facts responsibly. Each of them carries professional and ethical obligations, weighing every word with care. On the other side, there is no such responsibility — only aggression. Lies spread like wildfire, while truth and facts move slowly, step by step, into people’s minds. Disinformation and propaganda target emotions; our work targets reason. However uneven these daily battles may be, they remain essential for preserving truth and defending democracy.

Disinformation targets emotions.
Our work defends reason, truth, and democracy.

Written with AI-assisted analysis (ChatGPT, OpenAI) – demonstrating the responsible use of technology in defending truth against disinformation.

Author’s Note: This analysis was produced through a collaborative process combining verified open sources, institutional monitoring, and AI-supported synthesis. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official positions of CIVIL’s partners and donors.