Five Markers of Russian Narratives

Russian propaganda has long and subtle tentacles penetrating and spoiling the brains of not only its direct consumers, but also, through various toxic narratives, intellectuals and laypersons alike from the far right to the far left, often including those who claim to be neutral when it comes to the current war in Ukraine, and even some of those who say they support Ukraine.

There are certain markers that strongly signal that a person or a media outlet is infected by the Kremlin virus. They always put me on the alert and suggest that whoever pours them forth doesn’t deserve my attention and should rather be ignored.

Here are the five most blatant red flags to watch out:

1. Using Russian names for Ukrainian cities and other toponyms as well as for Ukrainian people

When someone spells the Ukrainian capital “Kiev” instead of Kyiv, I can think of three explanations:

a. they spend too much time reading Russia-sponsored sources,

b. they are Russian and are ignorant of the official international spelling endorsed by Ukraine, or

c. they have been living under the rock for the last 10 or 20 years.

While languages like Polish, German, Hungarian or Romanian may have their own historical names for some Ukrainian cities and towns, in most other languages, including English, for a long time the names were dictated by Russian narratives, and it’s long overdue to revisit this practice.

In German, there’s actually a tendency to use Ukrainian names like Lwiw instead of Lemberg. For places outside of the former Austrian Empire, where previously Russian-derived names were used, Germans today also try to use Ukrainian toponyms like Saporischschja instead of Saporoschje, but many of them are still reluctant to get rid of Kiew.

Since English is the main language of international communication and diplomacy, it would be wise to use the names countries themselves use when participating in this communication and diplomacy. Moreover, this helps global decolonization efforts.

I know Nassim Nicholas Taleb used “Kiev” in his pro-Ukrainian essay “A Clash of Two Systems” in April. But, Mr. Taleb, that is disrespectful to Ukrainians. I know, too, that Tom Cooper uses a mishmash of Ukrainian and Russian names. But, Mr. Cooper, that is called poor research and negligence. It’s not that hard to look up Wikipedia or Google Maps.

2. Citing “NATO expansion” as a cause of the war

Seriously considering NATO expansion as a threat to Russia and one of the causes of the war means substituting Russian propagandist pretexts for the reality. Yes, the true cause of the war is indeed expansion, but that of Russia, not NATO.

3. Calling the events in Ukraine a “proxy war” between the West and Russia

This is what the Kremlin wants both its domestic audience and foreign victims of its propaganda to believe: the West is allegedly too cowardly for open confrontation and therefore exploits Ukraine to weaken Russia and uses Ukrainian people as a human shield.

That’s not only a recognition of Russia’s impotence, but also a distortion of motives and the will of the Ukrainian people. The Ukrainians have collectively chosen to resist the aggressor, asked the West for help, and are grateful for this help.

4. Referring to “the problem with the Ukrainian nationalists/far right/Neo-Nazis”

There isn’t any more serious “problem with the far right” in Ukraine than in most other countries. Actually, looking at the support the far right enjoy in Germany, France or Hungary, the situation there is much more worrisome.

Russia isn’t fighting nationalists in Ukraine. It is murdering Ukrainians of all possible political orientations.

If you’re an antifascist from the US, Germany or France, you’d better focus on your homeland’s issues. When the war ends, you may watch, comment and participate in Ukrainian public discourse on nationalism and related topics.

My forecast is that after the war nationalist parties will have a slightly greater support than in the last election, but it won’t be as high as, for example, that of Alternative für Deutschland in Germany. And calling the party of Volodymyr Zelenskyy or that of the former president Petro Poroshenko Neo-Nazi is pure hypocrisy, incompetence or just idiocy.

5. Complaining about “Ukrainian war crimes” and “innocent victims on both sides”

First, unlike Russia, Ukraine doesn’t prevent international organizations from accessing prisoners of war or any civilian objects or territories, so if there is anything to document, they can freely do it.

Second, those who have illegally crossed the Ukrainian border, with or without arms, and participate in the war and occupation of Ukrainian territories can’t be considered innocent. Furthermore, those who aggressively speak out in support of the war and murders of Ukrainians are also far from innocent.

I wonder, if, by any lucky chance, the Kremlin cuckoo gets killed, will the Vatican cuckoo call him an “innocent victim”, too? And how about Amnesty International?

Sure, there are some “difficult questions” related to human rights, corruption and mismanagement in Ukraine that will have to be answered after the war, but they definitely have nothing to do with “Ukrainian war crimes” and “innocent victims” on Russia’s side. First and foremost, it’s Russia who will have to pay for war crimes, and it’s Russia who has already killed tens of thousands of innocent Ukrainians and destroyed the lives of millions.