EXPERT PERSPECTIVE — In the summer of 2008, as Russian tanks rolled toward the borders of Georgia, the battle had already begun—shaped decisively by large-scale cyberattacks and cognitive warfare. Weeks before the first shots, cyberspace erupted with coordinated attacks crippling Georgian government and media websites, including distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) and defacements. Simultaneously, state-controlled and aligned media saturated both domestic and international audiences with fabricated narratives portraying Georgian aggression, warnings of impending genocide in South Ossetia, and accusations blaming the U.S. for encouraging Georgian belligerence through NATO membership promises. These tailored information operations sowed confusion and paralysis, isolating Georgia as Russian forces advanced.

The invasion of Georgia by Russia may have marked the first notable instance in which Moscow simultaneously employed conventional military operations, cyberattacks, and cognitive warfare in a military campaign. Of particular note for this article, Russia’s weaponized narratives before, during, and after the invasion constructed a false reality that attempted to influence—at the speed of global media—and with some success, how the West and a broader international audience understood what was happening in Georgia—and why it was happening—with the goal to manipulate Western views, decisions, and actions. Of the many lessons Russia learned in its invasion of Georgia in 2008, that may have been one of the most important.

If this sounds similar to Russia’s actions against Ukraine in 2014 and 2022; it should. This strategic approach of using persuasive and weaponized narratives is grounded in Russian “Active Measures” and “Reflexive Control”.

Active Measures: Russian actions, most of which are covert and deniable, to achieve its foreign policy objectives through the use of political coercion, espionage, sabotage, assassination, media manipulation, ambiguous forces, and propaganda.

Reflexive Control: Actions by Russia to influence and shape an adversary’s decisions so that the adversary voluntarily makes choices that favor Russia.

These two elements of Russian doctrine embrace cognitive warfare as a comprehensive strategy and the blurring of lines between peace and war to target civilians, military leaders, and policy makers. As evidenced in Georgia, Russia’s goal is to also sustain long-term cognitive impact, or cognitive occupation, according to the Institute of Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI), even after fighting ends so that a target state’s people, government, and institutions unconsciously align with Russian interests. “Cognitive occupation”, or the calculated persistent and long-term presence and effects of cognitive warfare on people, institutions, policies, and decision-making, is also a threat to the U.S.

Russia’s use of weaponized narratives has played a foundational role in Russia’s long-standing attempts to subjugate Ukraine and blunt U.S and Western interference. Narratives that criminalize, delegitimize, and “Nazify” Ukraine’s leaders, claim that Russian is protecting vulnerable populations within Ukraine, point to U.S. and Western interference as forcing Russia’s hand, and provide even a thin rationale for illegally annexing territories are now recognized as textbook Russian strategy.

Those narratives and Russia’s use of broader cognitive warfare tools have evolved as conditions change to now include negotiations, and remain in use today against Ukraine, but also against the U.S., NATO, and in fact a global audience. Russia’s intent is to deceive, confuse, fracture, intimidate, and to manipulate decisions that favor Russia both on the ground in Ukraine and in negotiations. Feigned cooperation with the West as well as distractions and delays—while Russia is simultaneously attempting to seize more territory in Ukraine and conducting gray zone attacks in Europe to fracture and weaken NATO support for Ukraine—is part of that same strategy.

This isn’t a new topic—in fact, much has been written by analysts and think tanks on Russia’s use of narratives in its war on Ukraine and the persuasive power of narratives. This article argues that there are five broad Kremlin narratives aimed squarely at the West, and the West’s lack of an effective counter-narrative strategy is inadvertently allowing these narratives to weaken Western resolve toward Ukraine and ceding control of the information space to Russia.

The Cipher Brief brings expert-level context to national and global security stories. It’s never been more important to understand what’s happening in the world. Upgrade your access to exclusive content by becoming a subscriber.

These are the five broad narratives that Russia is employing today, all of which you will recognize.

1. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was justified—The West/NATO/Ukraine is the root cause of the war in Ukraine

This narrative has been well documented in Russian foreign ministry statements, Russia media, and Vladimir Putin speeches beginning with the Crimea crisis. It is similar to Russian tactics during its 2008 invasion of Georgia. Topics on “protecting Russian speakers,” “de-Nazification,” and “forced into war by the West” feature in almost all Russian communications leading up the invasion of Ukraine and after, particularly Putin’s speech that launched the invasion.

Although the “strategic declassification” by the U.S. in 2022 of Russia’s plan to invade Ukraine helped undermine the legitimacy of these narratives, Russia’s persistence in pushing this narrative extended its influence. Russia has used this narrative to attempt to cast itself more as a victim of U.S. and NATO expansion or even as a reluctant actor in Ukraine.

Most in the West generally dismiss this narrative, but it is still influential within Russia and with pro-Russian voices around the world. It has resonance in the Global South and is amplified by China. It will be difficult to displace globally as it exploits historical grievances and anti-Western sentiments and is still discussed in some Western policy debates.

2. Putin wants peace—but pressure on Russia will collapse talks

This is a constant theme in Kremlin messaging, beginning in 2014, and particularly pronounced from late 2021 onward as Russia massed troops near Ukraine. Russia often stated that it was only seeking negotiations and security guarantees and that pressure from the U.S. and the West would undermine potential talks.

The narrative has particularly manifested itself in the approach to the negotiations. Putin established redlines early as negotiations approached, and the U.S. team offered concessions to get Putin to the table, to test his commitment to real negotiations and a ceasefire, and to prevent him from walking away. Putin instead offered to stop fighting and freeze battle lines if Ukraine turned over all the territory in its Donetsk and Luhansk regions that remains in Kyiv’s hands. Putin basked in the warm reception in Alaska but continued to resist making any concessions or move toward a ceasefire.

This narrative appears to be weakening in influence today, in part because of Putin’s maximalist demands, delaying tactics, and very visible resistance to a ceasefire and concessions.

3. Ukraine will have to give up territory—Ukraine’s intransigence prolongs the war

This has become one of the more normalized, and I think potentially persuasive, narratives employed by Russia, and it is often presented as the “only reasonable solution” to the war in Ukraine. Russia began demanding territorial concessions in 2014, with greater intensity in 2022, when Russia raised Ukraine’s “inevitable” need to cede land for peace. Within months of the invasion, discussions began to appear in some Western media about “difficult compromises” facing Ukraine. Over time, this narrative managed to replace “Russia must withdraw its forces”, demonstrating the influence of narratives in countering geopolitical realities.

Ukraine finds itself in an odd place. There must be a term that describes how an invading aggressor (Russia) is not asked to give up illegally-seized territory because of the perception that it is irreversibly entrenched in its negotiating position, while the defending country under attack (Ukraine) is asked to concede more, to give up more, merely because it is more cooperative.

Of course, this also reflects the power imbalance and the perceptions of strength and weakness in the negotiations. The U.S. does not believe it can compel Putin to make concessions—even the most obvious ones, like withdrawing from Ukraine or paying reparations—so it doesn’t demand them or put them on the negotiating table. Conversely, the U.S. believes it can persuade Ukraine to make concessions because Ukraine needs U.S. support, so it expresses more expectations for Ukraine, including to sacrifice its national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

This narrative is rising in influence. War fatigue, Russian intransigence, the perception of a lack of real options, and the desire for a settlement are increasing the discussions for “realistic outcomes.” If this narrative prevails, it could result in an outcome that directly rewards Putin’s aggression and signals to global authoritarians that invasion is a viable long-term strategy

4. Ukraine joining NATO is off the table—Russia must be involved in security guarantees

Russia has been long opposed NATO membership for Ukraine. Going back to the 2008 Bucharest Summit, Moscow has strongly stated that Ukraine joining NATO aspirations was unacceptable. This intensified after 2014 and this became a core Russian talking point after its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, including the stated requirement of the involvement of Russia in any future security arrangements. Today, Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov have explicitly advanced this narrative since the first phases of negotiation, particularly when discussing alternatives to NATO membership for Ukraine.

The question of NATO membership for Ukraine has also been debated within Western policy circles for years. Discussions of possible security guarantees involving Russia surged in early 2022 as policymakers sought alternatives to NATO membership. Russia’s insistence on being part of those security guarantees continues to complicate these discussions.

It is fair to say that this narrative continues to be influential. A hold on Ukraine’s NATO prospects is essentially U.S. and NATO policy for now. Russia continues to strongly state the requirement for its involvement in future security guarantees—essentially a Russian veto on the implementation of those guarantees—as essential to any agreements.

5. A Russian victory is inevitable—Ukraine can never win

This is less about a single speech and more about a recurring theme in Russian state media and propaganda since the bleak outlook at the beginning of the war when it looked like Ukraine could fall within days or even hours. Russian propaganda of “unstoppable” Russian forces contrasted with Ukrainian weakness and futility was a persistent theme. Some Western analysts and so-called experts also predicted a quick Russian victory. Russian propaganda about the strength and power of its forces had effectively influenced a global audience.

I believe it is fair to say that a theme of Russian invincibility and inevitable victory regardless of actions by Ukraine and the West can and has undermined some support to Ukraine. It can create a defeatist attitude and risk aversion in some Capitals. It may also cause some countries to question the value of continued investment in Ukraine. Many nefarious actions and statements by Putin, including his own deliberately-crafted strong-man image, are meant to support this narrative.

Today, this narrative is far less credible than in 2022 from a battlefield perspective. Ukraine, with the support of the U.S. and NATO, shattered the myth of Russian battlefield dominance. However, this narrative has shifted to Russia’s ability to use political maneuvering, manipulation of the negotiations, bypassing of sanctions, support by China, and exploiting division within the West to achieve its goals. This narrative still influences many in the West and has the potential to undermine negotiations to the favor of Moscow.

These five narratives gain strength and persistent influence when repeated throughout traditional and social media. They are significantly enabled by Russia media and its proxies. They are also strengthened when discussed or even supported by U.S. and Western public officials. I have not heard official in the West having a real discussion about Nazis in Ukraine, but there have certainly been numerous discussions about a NATO role in Russia’s invasion, the “need” for Ukraine to give up territory, the challenges of Ukraine joining NATO, and if Ukraine can win at all even with U.S and NATO support.

I am not implying that U.S. and Western officials are intentionally using Russian narratives, but the alignment of Russian narratives with views already held by some in the West extend the life and influence of these narratives.

Are you Subscribed to The Cipher Brief’s Digital Channel on YouTube? There is no better place to get clear perspectives from deeply experienced national security experts.

Although these Kremlin narratives have been somewhat successful, particularly when used in unison, they are also somewhat fragile because they are false and not anchored in reality. If we compare a narrative to a flame, a narrative needs oxygen to grow and spread; without that oxygen, narratives can weaken and lose relevance.

Oxygen for narratives come from their continued use in social and traditional media, in legitimate public discourse, and by legitimate public figures. These narratives are also persistent and persuasive when they are unopposed by equally persuasive and persistent narratives. For example, narratives, such as “Ukraine will have to give up territory” or “Ukraine joining NATO if off the table”, which are based on the evolving positions of the involved parties will remain persistent and legitimate with continued use and in the absence of alternative narratives.

Let’s look at the five narratives that can undercut and replace the Kremlin’s five false and manipulative narratives. These five new narratives don’t require complex explanations. They are principled, grounded in facts and international law, speak directly to sovereignty and territorial integrity for all nations, and are based on a commitment to accountability and to deny reward to authoritarian invaders. We’ve heard them all before: yet as Kremlin narratives have spread, these have faded from prominence and influence.

1. The invasion of Ukraine was an illegal and unprovoked military action by Russia.

This narrative grounds the conflict in international law and strips away Russian efforts to justify its invasion. It’s a reminder that Russia alone is the “root cause” of the war in Ukraine.

2. Russia must withdraw all forces that invaded Ukraine in 2022 and pay reparations to Ukraine. Crimea remains sovereign Ukraine territory illegally occupied by Russia.

This narrative addresses accountability of Russia’s actions and undermines Russian efforts to normalize its presence in Ukraine. Further, it puts pressure on Russia to explain why it isn’t withdrawing from Ukraine instead of Ukraine explaining why it should not give up territory to an invader. It is also a strong statement that invasion and occupation by aggressive authoritarians will not be rewarded.

3. Ukraine is a free, independent, and sovereign state. A decision to join NATO is a decision between Ukraine and NATO.

This narrative reinforces the sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence, and autonomy of nations, including Ukraine. It undermines any efforts by Russia to undermine the legitimacy of Ukraine as a nation and to control discussions over Ukraine’s future.

4. Russia is attempting to delay and undermine the negotiations. It must come to the negotiating table willing to make concessions or face consequences.

This puts the burden squarely where it belongs—on Russia—to engage in meaningful negotiations to end its occupation of Ukraine and the war, or face real and sustained consequences. This narrative is strengthened by US and NATO publicly planning and implementing measures, such as energy and banking sanctions, secondary sanctions, redirection of seized assets to Ukraine, expulsion of Russian diplomats, and other persuasive actions directed at Russia.

5. The U.S and NATO stand together to support Ukraine.

This narrative emphasizes the unity and shared commitment to the security of Ukraine that Russia has worked so hard to undermine. It is also a signal that Putin’s efforts to charm America and increase its gray warfare on Europe has failed. It is strengthened by an increase in arms and sustained support to Ukraine by the U.S. and NATO as a strong signal of unity to Russia.