Manufacturing Blame: Russian Propaganda, Peace Narratives, and the Geopolitical Future of the War in Ukraine

In early 2025, a revealing report by Vyorstka illuminated a critical dimension of Russian wartime propaganda: the narrative reengineering of failed peace talks.

A Kremlin-linked source confirmed that within the corridors of Russian power, “no one was under any illusions” that peace before Easter was achievable (Vyorstka, 2025). This admission came amid heightened Russian media activity portraying Ukraine—and by extension, its Western allies—as deliberately sabotaging peace.

The underlying objective was clear: to construct a durable narrative framework that justified the war’s continuation while shifting moral and strategic blame away from the Kremlin.

Such discursive strategies are not new. The Russian state has long relied on tightly controlled media and psychological framing to maintain legitimacy.

What makes the current strategy distinct is its simultaneity across domestic and international fronts.

While inwardly reinforcing narratives of victimhood and besiegement, outwardly it projects Western aggression and duplicity.

This text examines the machinery and trajectory of this blame-oriented propaganda through an interdisciplinary lens, integrating political psychology, narrative analysis, and geopolitical forecasting.

Russia's modern information strategy builds on Soviet-era techniques of disinformation (dezintformatsiya), now adapted for the 21st century media ecosystem.

The centralized control over state media—such as RT, Sputnik, and domestic outlets like Channel One—facilitates synchronized messaging.

At the institutional level, the Presidential Administration’s domestic policy bloc coordinates with the Ministry of Digital Development and the Federal Security Service (FSB) to shape online discourse and suppress dissent (Pomerantsev, 2019).

Crucially, this strategy is not solely reactive but preemptive. By creating “narrative depth,” the Kremlin ensures that any emerging geopolitical outcome—military loss, diplomatic breakdown, or economic crisis—can be immediately interpreted within a familiar and emotionally resonant storyline.

As Nye (2021) argues, such narrative prepositioning forms the backbone of “soft coercion” in hybrid warfare.

The notion of peace before Easter in 2025 was less a policy objective than a dramaturgical tool.

Russian messaging invoked Orthodox religious symbols and cultural idioms to create a temporal anchor for expectations. Internally, the narrative created hope among war-fatigued Russians, while externally it positioned the Kremlin as a rational actor open to dialogue.

However, the Vyorstka source’s admission confirms the performative nature of these discussions.

There was no realistic path to peace at that juncture, particularly given the concurrent military offensives in Donetsk and Kharkiv.

The discrepancy between performative diplomacy and military action recalls Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical theory of politics, where actors sustain a front-stage performance to legitimize back-stage strategies.

Anti-Americanism remains a structural component of Russian political identity. By casting the United States as a hegemonic power exploiting Ukraine as a proxy, the Kremlin externalizes both its moral responsibility and its strategic failures.

This binary worldview simplifies complex international dynamics into a familiar “us vs. them” schema (Laruelle, 2020).

Particularly effective is the invocation of historical grievances: NATO’s 1999 bombing of Serbia, the 2003 Iraq invasion, and the alleged role of the CIA in Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan Revolution.

These events are continuously recycled in Russian media as evidence of American duplicity and imperial overreach.

Polling conducted by the Levada Center (2024) indicated that 67% of Russians believe the U.S. is directly responsible for the prolongation of the Ukraine conflict.

Moreover, the Kremlin exploits internal divisions within the U.S.—including partisan gridlock and isolationist sentiment—to amplify narratives of American hypocrisy and strategic incompetence.

The 2024 U.S. elections provided ample material for this messaging, especially in relation to military aid debates.

In Russian discourse, Ukraine is routinely stripped of sovereign agency and portrayed as a puppet regime manipulated by Washington.

President Zelenskyy is caricatured as both an entertainer and a tool, delegitimizing his leadership.

This erasure serves two functions: it delegitimizes Ukrainian resistance and reframes the conflict as a Russian-American confrontation.

Russian textbooks revised in 2023 refer to Ukraine not as an independent state but as part of the “historical Russian space” compromised by Western interference.

This narrative mirrors Putin’s 2021 essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” which laid ideological groundwork for the invasion.

Such ontological framing undermines potential for negotiation. If Ukraine is seen not as a subject but as an object in geopolitics, then negotiations with it are inherently performative, reinforcing the Kremlin’s justification for escalation.

Propaganda functions best when combined with coercion. Russian authorities have intensified surveillance, censorship, and legal penalties for “discrediting the army.” According to Human Rights Watch (2024), over 30,000 individuals have faced legal consequences for anti-war speech.

Yet the system is not purely repressive—it is affectively engineered. Russian television programming now integrates narratives of suffering, resilience, and heroism, often through cinematic storytelling or personal testimonials.

These mechanisms create emotional investment in a war that many might otherwise oppose.

Levada Center polling from March 2025 revealed that 58% of Russians supported “continuing the special military operation until victory,” though 41% expressed “war fatigue.”

Support was highest among older demographics and those in rural regions, where alternative information is limited.

While Western governments largely reject Russian propaganda, the Global South presents a more mixed landscape.

Russian narratives gain traction in regions with historical grievances against Western hegemony—particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and parts of Latin America.

For instance, in Indian media discourse, a narrative persists that the West provoked Russia by expanding NATO.

Similar views appear in Brazilian and South African alternative media ecosystems. Russia leverages BRICS partnerships and economic instruments (such as grain diplomacy) to reinforce these narratives.

Moreover, Turkey’s balancing act and China’s strategic ambiguity—refusing to condemn Russia while maintaining economic ties with the West—create narrative openings for Russian influence.

These relationships suggest a multipolar media landscape where the Kremlin can disseminate its messages without immediate contradiction.

Predictive Scenarios: Geopolitical Trajectories (2025–2027)

Scenario 1: Entrenchment and Escalation

Russia continues to frame peace efforts as sabotaged by the West. With increased mobilization and partial economic autarky, the war becomes institutionalized. Belarus and breakaway regions in Moldova or Georgia may be drawn into new conflicts, expanding the war theater.

• Probability: Moderate-High

• Implications: Prolonged instability in Europe, collapse of Ukrainian economy, weakening NATO consensus.

Scenario 2: Negotiated Ceasefire via Third-Party Mediation

A convergence of war fatigue, economic deterioration, and international pressure forces both sides to negotiate. China or Türkiye may play mediator roles. Russia accepts a ceasefire without formal recognition of territorial loss.

• Probability: Moderate

• Implications: Freeze of territorial conflict, but unresolved tensions. Russian propaganda pivots to "peace through strength."

Scenario 3: Internal Russian Destabilization

Economic downturn, elite infighting, or regional unrest leads to instability within Russia. A shift in power may trigger re-evaluation of war priorities. Propaganda loses coherence, opening space for reformist narratives.

• Probability: Low-Moderate

• Implications: Strategic opening for Ukraine, potential democratic transition or authoritarian hardening.

  Russian propaganda’s ability to manufacture blame is not merely a defensive tactic but an active mechanism of geopolitical manipulation.

• By crafting emotionally potent narratives that externalize responsibility, the Kremlin maintains domestic compliance, forestalls international intervention, and prepares for a long war.

  The peace-before-Easter narrative and its deliberate collapse exemplify how strategic messaging intertwines with political objectives.

• Understanding these narrative architectures is vital for international actors seeking to counter disinformation, support Ukrainian sovereignty, and navigate the emerging multipolar world order.

  A global counter-narrative strategy must thus do more than fact-check. It must offer alternative imaginaries—ones grounded in historical truth, democratic resilience, and credible visions of peace.

•