Українською читайте тут.
In early May, Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that a series of new security agreements with seven countries would be concluded in the near future. At that time, similar agreements providing security guarantees and military assistance had already been signed with nine different countries. During his foreign tour at the end of the month, the President of Ukraine visited Spain, Belgium, and Portugal. These nations joined those who supported the implementation of the G7 Joint Declaration adopted in Vilnius on July 12 of the previous year and signed bilateral agreements with Ukraine. Each visit was accompanied by announcements of military aid packages, allocated funding amounts, or details regarding the supply of equipment and weaponry.
The first visit was to Spain, where on May 27 in Madrid, Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed a bilateral security agreement with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. The €1 billion aid package included armored vehicles (including additional Leopard 2 tanks), artillery, and a commitment from the Spanish side to replenish missile supplies for Ukrainian air defense systems. The Spanish Prime Minister emphasized that “air defense is necessary to protect civilians, infrastructure, and cities that continue to suffer from attacks, as happened this weekend in Kharkiv.”
Next, on Tuesday, May 28, during a visit to Brussels, the President of Ukraine and Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo signed a 10-year bilateral security agreement (similar to other bilateral agreements). This agreement stipulates that Belgium will provide nearly €1 billion in military aid this year and confirms Belgium’s commitment to deliver 30 F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine by 2028, with the first of them arriving this year. However, the Belgian Prime Minister, during a joint press conference with Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Brussels, stressed that the signed agreement prohibits the use of Belgian military equipment and materials, including F-16 aircraft, outside Ukrainian territory.
Finally, on the same day, Zelenskyy visited Portugal, where in Lisbon, a similar agreement was signed by Portuguese Prime Minister Luís Montenegro. Portugal committed to provide at least €126 million in military support this year and confirmed its participation in the F-16 coalition and the Czech program for procuring large-caliber ammunition.
We examine how propagandist Telegram channels, in their posts and comments, link the signing of these agreements with themes such as the deployment of NATO troops or individual European countries’ troops to Ukraine, granting Ukraine permission to use foreign weapons to strike military targets in Russia, and other related topics.
“Yet Another Little ‘Budapest’”
Analyzed pro-Russian propaganda Telegram channels emphasized the “insignificance” of the newly signed bilateral security agreements. They argued that the countries Zelenskyy is currently visiting are merely joining what was agreed upon in Vilnius last year, that the timelines for arms deliveries are excessively prolonged, and that the sums of the latest signed agreements (such as with Portugal) are “very modest.”
One channel, with over 400,000 subscribers, offers readers a “modest achievement with an aftertaste of failure,” claiming that the President’s Office of Ukraine has not disclosed the entire “truth” about the agreements. Propagandists argue that only a small portion of the weapons will be supplied from existing stocks and reserves, while a significantly larger portion will simply be orders for the European military-industrial complex, which will take at least two years to produce. This promotes a typical propaganda narrative that “Europe and the US are profiting from the ‘conflict in Ukraine’,” suggesting that EU countries are now more actively adopting the defense industry practices of the US.
In reality, if we talk about a long-term confrontation with Russia, the gradual increase in the defense production capacity of the West sends a positive signal for Ukraine. For example, this spring, the German defense contractor Rheinmetall announced plans to establish joint production of large-caliber shells at a factory located in Ukraine. The US military-industrial complex plans to triple the production of artillery ammunition from the current 30,000 per month to 100,000 per month by early 2025. Thus, Western countries are preparing their industries and businesses for long-term support of Ukraine.
Another Telegram channel, with over 1 million subscribers, focuses on the notion that the signed agreements are not “security guarantees” because they do not oblige the signatory countries to immediately send their troops to Ukraine. This is yet another manipulation: the signed agreements never intended for the deployment of troops from the signatory countries to Ukraine. The propagandists themselves have argued that this should have been in the agreements and now claim that this is a setback for Ukraine because such a clause is not present. They argue that these agreements are “worthless,” carrying the weight of a “memorandum,” and are merely “arrangements between individual politicians.” They frequently reference the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, which also did not provide for military intervention by partner countries in the event of violations by Russia.
Detector Media has already analyzed a similar narrative from Russian propaganda during the signing of the first bilateral security agreement with the United Kingdom in January 2024. At that time, after the signing, propaganda channels were calling Ukraine a “British puppet” that had allegedly lost its agency, and it was emphasized that such an agreement “would prevent Ukraine from exiting the conflict through negotiations.” In reality, the announcement by UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak of the parliamentary re-election date (July 4) is an excellent opportunity to debunk the propaganda narrative that signing security agreements by Ukraine is merely a “deal between individual politicians.”
As reported by Politico, the likely winners of the next elections — the Labour Party — have been actively working on their image among British voters, demonstrating that they will be as strong on defense and international relations as the Conservatives. Recently, candidates for the positions of Minister of Defense and Minister of Foreign Affairs from the Labour Party visited Kyiv, where they met with the head of the President’s Office, Andriy Yermak, assuring that “the UK continues to be united in its support of Ukraine” and confirmed the target of allocating 2.5% of GDP to defense, a target set by Sunak’s government.
Frequently, after mentioning the signing of agreements with Spain, Belgium, or Portugal, the very next post on several analyzed channels discusses how the West is deliberately creating a model where less and less weaponry will be supplied directly from existing stocks and more emphasis will be placed on orders for the Western defense industry. Quoting NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg on the necessity of establishing a separate mechanism for financing and supplying weapons to Ukraine, they twist his words to suggest “duplicating inefficient institutions, where officials like Stoltenberg will be employed with high salaries.” On another channel, it’s emphasized that “the West’s main goal is to fund its defense industry for years to come, using the ‘Ukrainian crisis,’ while the outcome of the war is irrelevant to them.” In other words, propagandists again promote the narrative that the West and NATO are interested in prolonging the war (from which Ukraine “will not be allowed to exit through negotiations”) rather than supporting peace initiatives from Moscow or Ukraine’s Global Peace Summit in Switzerland.
Commenting on Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s visit to Belgium, during which he visited an airbase housing the F-16s to be transferred to Ukraine, one channel (with over 990,000 subscribers) mocked the “pink ponies” (referring to people who consume information coming from the President’s Office with a focus on their alleged disconnection from reality), claiming that the training of pilots for these fighters is still ongoing, and the visit to the airbase will be portrayed in Ukrainian media as a “significant achievement.” Overall, visits to Spain, Belgium, and Portugal were generalized by propagandists as a “show of signing ‘little Budapests’,” used solely for the president’s PR, allegedly not aimed at genuinely strengthening the Ukrainian Armed Forces, “The impact of these agreements on the Armed Forces of Ukraine will be very weak and very slow to materialize.”
“Unpeaceful and Illegitimate”
Just last week, pro-Kremlin propagandists and Russian officials publicly “sentenced” Zelenskyy’s legitimacy. For instance, Russia Today chief Margarita Simonyan pondered on her Telegram channel how they would title Volodymyr Zelenskyy, “former president of Ukraine, illegitimate, self-proclaimed,” and suggested the epithet “expired.” Russian ex-president Dmitry Medvedev, in one of his recent posts on his channel, elaborated that “the loss of legitimacy by the pseudo-president of the former Ukraine changes nothing” and that the current president of Ukraine should be treated “like a terrorist” because “such a fate befell Zelenskyy’s spiritual mentor — Stepan Bandera.” Comparing Zelenskyy to Bandera in this context is nothing more than a public threat of assassination. Detector Media has already examined how Russian propaganda promotes the theme of “Zelenskyy’s illegitimacy” and how propagandists even called on Ukrainians to protest at the end of May.
A typical paradoxical inconsistency was also observed in anonymous Telegram channels, where contradictory arguments could be presented simultaneously in adjacent posts. Readers were offered “insider information” that Zelenskyy was allegedly ready for secret negotiations with Moscow while at the same time claiming that he “deliberately created conditions in which the Ukrainian president is forbidden to sign anything with Putin” — referring to participation in peace negotiations or inviting Russian representatives to discuss the “peace formula” in Switzerland. For example, an anonymous channel with an audience of nearly 420,000 subscribers posted such contradictory statements. Alongside posts discussing the “worthlessness” of the signed security agreements with Spain, Portugal, and Belgium, they spread fears and “insider information” about the presence of French and German military personnel in Ukraine. Allegedly, they are “already in Odesa,” and “in a few months, these won’t just be instructors.”
The peak of this inconsistency was the spread of a video fragment where French President Emmanuel Macron allegedly shows a map with the locations of military facilities in regions of Russia adjacent to Ukraine, which could supposedly become targets for Ukrainian strikes with Western weapons. On one hand, propagandists reassured their readers, asserting that “Ukraine has already used Western weapons on Russian territory,” citing the downing of an IL-76 military aircraft near Belgorod, for which they blame a “Ukrainian [MIM-104] Patriot.” On the other hand, anonymous channels described a “cognitive operation,” which, according to propagandists, involves provoking Russia with bombings in Belgorod and raids by the Russian Volunteer Corps in the Belgorod region; then receiving “retaliation” in the form of bombings in Kharkiv, and subsequently demanding permission from the West to strike Russian territories with Western weapons. All this, they claim, is to satisfy Zelenskyy’s desire to prolong the war (according to a Telegram channel with over 400,000 subscribers).
This week, while commenting on possible negotiations with Ukraine, Vladimir Putin stated that “Russia has no answer to participating in any conferences on Ukraine because it is unclear what they are about.” The Russian dictator reiterated the claim that Russia “has not refused negotiations” but will only engage in dialogue “with legitimate representatives of the government.”
For Putin, these representatives are the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and its speaker, Ruslan Stefanchuk. Following Putin’s statements, a Russian propagandist Telegram channel (with over 2.5 million subscribers) published a post about changes to the Russian-language Wikipedia page dedicated to Ruslan Stefanchuk, adding information that the head of the Verkhovna Rada is the “legitimate President of Ukraine.” Propagandists claim that Wikipedia itself “complied with the laws of the ‘Independent’ [Ukraine],” and although “it is unknown who made the edits, the resource [Wikipedia] is entirely and completely a ‘pro-Ukrainian’ platform.” Indeed, the page was briefly altered, but moderators have since corrected the article, removing the Russian fake about “Stefanchuk as the legitimate president of Ukraine.” This example clearly shows the derogatory language, accusations against internet resources of supporting Ukraine, and the level of contempt with which Russian propagandists and high-ranking officials regard Ukraine and its current government.
***
This week, all these publications in the pro-Russian segment of Telegram continued an active information campaign leading up to the security forum in Switzerland, which will take place in mid-June. The campaign attempted to scare readers with stories about the presence of foreign military personnel in Ukraine and claims that the West had “given the green light” for Ukraine to strike Russian territory “with NATO weapons.” The ongoing promotion of the idea of Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s “illegitimacy” coincided with the signing of security agreements by the President of Ukraine with three European countries. Propagandists emphasized that the practical result of the agreements is allegedly negligible, and Ukrainian diplomatic efforts are futile because the agreements bear Zelenskyy’s “illegitimate” signature. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin is supposedly ready for peace talks, but only with those representatives of the Ukrainian government whom he himself recognizes.
Main page illustration and infographic by Nataliya Lobach
Frequently, after mentioning the signing of agreements with Spain, Belgium, or Portugal, the very next post on several analyzed channels discusses how the West is deliberately creating a model where less and less weaponry will be supplied directly from existing stocks and more emphasis will be placed on orders for the Western defense industry. Quoting NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg on the necessity of establishing a separate mechanism for financing and supplying weapons to Ukraine, they twist his words to suggest “duplicating inefficient institutions, where officials like Stoltenberg will be employed with high salaries.” On another channel, it’s emphasized that “the West’s main goal is to fund its defense industry for years to come, using the ‘Ukrainian crisis,’ while the outcome of the war is irrelevant to them.” In other words, propagandists again promote the narrative that the West and NATO are interested in prolonging the war (from which Ukraine “will not be allowed to exit through negotiations”) rather than supporting peace initiatives from Moscow or Ukraine’s Global Peace Summit in Switzerland.
