By Jabir Deralla
Drawing on the work of the CIVIL Hybrid Threats Monitoring Team (CHTM)
CIVIL’s ongoing monitoring and analysis shows that Russian propaganda narratives continue to expand across platforms and regions, while democratic societies still fail to protect themselves effectively against long-term information manipulation and psychological operations.
In this report, we present several core propaganda narratives pushed by the Kremlin and amplified, localized, and normalized through proxy governments, civil society actors, media outlets, business networks, religious institutions, and far-right and far-left radical structures.
These narratives function in parallel as a coherent war propaganda ecosystem designed to justify Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. By blurring reality—portraying Russia as acting in self-defence, depicting Ukraine as a “Nazi” state, and framing the invasion as a “liberation” while falsely claiming that Ukraine is under NATO influence—this ecosystem systematically inverts responsibility, obscures the aggressor–victim distinction, and normalizes an illegal war as a defensive or moral necessity.
Figure: Overview of core anti-Western propaganda narratives and their strategic functions. (Click to enlarge; use your browser’s back button to return to the article.)
“EU preparing for war”
What is being claimed
This narrative portrays the European Union not as a political and economic community, but as a militarizing actor allegedly preparing European societies for an inevitable large-scale war. Any increase in defence budgets, joint procurement, civil preparedness, or strategic autonomy is framed as evidence that “war is coming.”
How it is framed
“Defence = escalation”: Even purely defensive measures are rebranded as aggressive or provocative.
“Brussels wants war”: EU institutions are personified as distant elites dragging citizens into conflict.
“Candidate countries will pay the price”: Western Balkan countries are warned they will become “frontlines” or “buffer zones.”
Why it resonates
Fear is universal and politically potent. In post-conflict societies such as the Western Balkans, the concept of war is emotionally loaded and easily instrumentalized. Legitimate debates within the EU on security preparedness are selectively quoted, stripped of context, and weaponized.
Strategic purpose
The strategic purpose of this narrative is to undermine trust in EU institutions and increase accession fatigue by portraying integration as a security liability rather than a guarantee. It also pre-emptively delegitimizes EU defence cooperation by equating preparedness with warmongering.
“NATO threatens sovereignty”
What is being claimed
NATO is depicted as an external force that allegedly overrides national decision-making, imposes foreign troops, dictates military spending, and turns countries into subordinates rather than allies.
How it is framed
NATO is framed as an “occupying structure,” not a collective defence alliance. Membership is portrayed as a loss of control rather than shared security.
Historic grievances—especially from the 1990s in the Balkans—are selectively reused, stripped of context, and combined with false narratives that conceal or fabricate facts.
Local docking mechanisms
In the Western Balkans, this narrative is anchored in references to air campaigns, foreign troops, or imposed political solutions.
In Central and Western Europe, the same narrative is reframed through the language of “anti-globalism,” “anti-elites,” or the “defence of national identity.”
Why it resonates
Sovereignty is a powerful symbolic concept, particularly in smaller or post-authoritarian states. NATO’s institutional complexity enables oversimplification and distortion. Crucially, existing scepticism toward international institutions is exploited, rather than created.
Strategic purpose
The purpose of this narrative is to weaken public support for NATO without explicitly advocating withdrawal, while normalizing “neutrality” as a supposedly safer and more dignified alternative. Ultimately, it aims to fracture alliance cohesion by generating internal instability and reinforcing nationalist and isolationist reflexes.
“Western decadence / collapse”
What is being claimed
Liberal democracies are portrayed as morally corrupt, demographically declining, economically failing, and socially fragmented—a civilization allegedly in irreversible decay.
How it is framed
This narrative employs culture-war language, invoking claims of “loss of values,” “degeneracy,” and the “collapse of the family.”
Economic alarmism reinforces the claim that the West is facing inflation and inequality, while energy prices are presented as proof of systemic failure. Selective statistics and anecdotal exaggeration routinely replace structural analysis.
Cross-ideological utility
Kremlin-aligned propaganda deploys this narrative geopolitically, while far-right, far-left, and authoritarian actors use it domestically to attack pluralism, rights, and democratic norms. Its effectiveness lies precisely in its ideological flexibility.
Why it resonates
Democratic societies openly debate their challenges; this openness is reframed as weakness. Real crises do exist, but context and comparison are stripped away. Audiences experiencing social or economic insecurity are particularly receptive to such narratives.
Strategic purpose
The purpose of this narrative is to delegitimize democracy as a system, not merely specific policies.
In parallel, it promotes authoritarian or illiberal models as supposedly “more stable” or “healthier,” eroding confidence in reform, participation, and democratic accountability.
“Orthodox world vs. the West”
What is being claimed
Geopolitics is reframed as a civilizational struggle, positioning Russia and “Orthodox societies” as moral, spiritual, and historical alternatives to a corrupt West.
How it is framed
Identity is effectively elevated above policy, democracy, and the rule of law. Faith, tradition, and “authentic values” replace rational debate. The West is depicted as alien and hostile, while Russia is presented not as a state actor but as a civilizational protector.
Primary targets
This narrative primarily targets Western Balkan countries — especially Serbia, Montenegro, and North Macedonia, as well as diaspora communities across Europe. Conservative and religious audiences already sceptical of liberal norms are particularly receptive.
Why it resonates
Identity narratives are emotionally powerful and resistant to fact-checking. They simplify complex political choices into moral binaries and bypass policy failures by offering belonging and meaning.
Strategic purpose
The strategic purpose of this narrative is to justify geopolitical alignment through identity rather than interests, weakening Euro-Atlantic integration by framing it as cultural betrayal. It anchors influence long-term, embedding it deeply in societies beyond electoral cycles or government changes.
Exploitation of EU accession fatigue
What is being claimed
The EU is portrayed as hypocritical, deceitful, and fundamentally unwilling to accept Western Balkan countries, regardless of reforms or commitments.
How it is framed
Kremlin-driven propaganda frames the issue through recurring messages such as “You will never be accepted,” “Brussels humiliates candidates,” and “Others—Ukraine and Moldova—jump the queue, while you remain in the waiting room.”
Narrative techniques
A recurring technique is the selective comparison “Ukraine vs. Western Balkans,” ignoring differing contexts, timelines, and institutional realities. Real frustrations are exploited but stripped of nuance, while reform fatigue is reframed as existential rejection.
Why it resonates
Accession delays are real and emotionally exhausting. Domestic elites often echo this rhetoric to deflect responsibility. Disillusionment is easier to mobilize than hope.
Strategic purpose
The aim is to erode public support for reforms, normalize stagnation, and promote disengagement. This paves the way for “neutrality” or alternative alignments to be framed as the only realistic options.
What unites these narratives
These narratives are designed to connect, reinforce, and activate one another, forming a coordinated propaganda ecosystem that operates across platforms, audiences, and political contexts.
At the functional level, each narrative performs a specific role while strengthening the others: “EU preparing for war” feeds accession fatigue and fear of integration. “NATO threatens sovereignty” legitimizes neutrality and disengagement from collective defence. “Western decadence” normalizes civilizational alternatives to liberal democracy.
These narratives gradually reshape the interpretative framework through which political reality is understood.
The same core messages are repeated, adapted, and redistributed across state-controlled media, fringe portals, social networks, religious and cultural actors, and political proxies. Narratives are simplified for mass circulation, emotionalized through identity and historical trauma, and legitimized through selective “expert” commentary. Constant repetition across multiple channels produces familiarity rather than persuasion, lowering resistance to manipulation even among audiences that do not fully accept the claims.
Crucially, these narratives converge in support of Russia’s war propaganda against Ukraine and NATO. They invert responsibility by collapsing the aggressor–victim distinction into false balance—casting Russia as defensive, Ukraine as illegitimate or “Nazi,” and NATO as the concealed driver of the war. In this inverted moral universe, aggression becomes prevention, invasion becomes protection, and war crimes are obscured or normalized.
The strategic objective is not immediate conversion, but cumulative exhaustion: to erode democratic orientation, reduce resilience, normalize disengagement, and weaken support for Euro-Atlantic integration over time. This is the core “technology” of contemporary propaganda — not persuasion through facts, but domination through confusion, repetition, and the systematic blurring of reality.
From Analysis to Action: Is Europe Prepared to Respond?
In March 2025, CIVIL, together with its partners in the Defending Democracy Global Initiative (DDGI), published a strategic roadmap with actionable policy recommendations to counter propaganda and hybrid threats. Since then, the organization has continuously refined and updated this strategy in response to accelerating and increasingly complex information warfare targeting democracies in Europe and beyond.
Yet while CIVIL’s work stands out for its effectiveness and credibility, it is conducted under conditions of chronic underfunding and sustained pressure. The organization faces continuous attacks from authoritarian and pro-Kremlin structures seeking to silence independent democratic actors. At the same time, those very networks are expanding their resources and operational reach, further undermining democratic institutions and threatening the security and defence architecture of democratic states.
The question of Europe’s preparedness therefore extends beyond individual initiatives or organisations. While credible strategies and expertise do exist, the democratic response to hybrid threats remains uneven, under-resourced, and insufficiently coordinated across institutions, states, and sectors. Think tanks, experts, and media continue to produce analysis, evidence, and strategic roadmaps that too often go unread and unheard. This persistent disconnect risks discouraging the already diminishing number of genuinely committed groups and individuals across Europe. Without sustained political commitment, adequate investment, and structured cooperation among public institutions, civil society, and independent media, Europe’s response to information warfare will remain reactive— leaving democratic systems exposed to long-term erosion rather than building durable resilience and effective defence.
Figure: Russia’s hybrid warfare toolkit, illustrating how information operations operate alongside cyber, sabotage, espionage, and electronic warfare. Originally published in December 2025 as part of CIVIL’s Democracy Navigator analysis. (Click to enlarge; use your browser’s back button to return to the article.)
CIVIL is an independent civil society organisation with long-standing expertise in countering disinformation, propaganda, and hybrid threats. In line with its mission to defend democracy and human rights, CIVIL develops and applies established analytical, policy, and strategic frameworks for use by public institutions, international organisations, and democratic stakeholders.
For further information about CIVIL’s work and publications, please contact: info@civil.mk
This analysis was prepared by Xhabir Deralla, in cooperation with the CIVIL Hybrid Threats Monitoring Team (CHTM), drawing on CIVIL’s ongoing monitoring of disinformation, propaganda, and hybrid threats. The text was developed with research, analytical, and editorial support from AI tools (OpenAI / ChatGPT). The accompanying illustration was generated using AI tools based on editorial direction provided by the authors. Responsibility for all content, interpretations, and conclusions rests solely with the authors.
© CIVIL – Center for Freedom, 2026.
Related analyses published by CIVIL (Civil.Today):
BATTLEFIELD OF NARRATIVES: Russia’s Hybrid Operations in North Macedonia, Oct 29, 2025 (LINK)
CIVIL Early Warning Report: Where Europe Cracks — Russia’s Hybrid Strategy in the Western Balkans, Nov 19, 2025 (LINK)
THE FRACTURE LINE: Russia and the Battle for Democracy in the Western Balkans — Early 2026, Dec 26, 2025 (LINK)
Hybrid Operations Across Europe on the Rise, Dec 29, 2025 (LINK)