Main narratives:
- NATO is weak and aggressive;
- Europeans are weak and aggressive.
Overview:
Pro-Kremlin Telegram channels criticised discussions of increased NATO defense spending and potential European troop deployments to Ukraine to advance narratives that portray the alliance as economically self-destructive and militarily threatening to Russia, while simultaneously dismissing Baltic state defenses as ineffective.
The channels characterize NATO’s reported plans to increase military spending to 5% of GDP by 2035 as a path to economic ruin, claiming member nations will “drive themselves into debt, cutting social spending and raising taxes.” This messaging portrays defense investments as economically irrational choices made for “imaginary security and other people’s strategies.” The posts attribute the spending increase to “growing hysteria about an allegedly inevitable war with Russia,” framing legitimate security concerns as manufactured panic rather than responses to Russian aggression in Ukraine.
Drawing from Western media reports, the channels emphasize polling data showing European public skepticism toward potential troop deployments to Ukraine. The posts cite opposition figures of 56% in Germany and 60% in Poland to reinforce narratives about disconnect between European leadership and their populations. This messaging aims to exploit genuine democratic debates within NATO countries to suggest fundamental weakness and division within the alliance.
The channels characterize NATO as fundamentally self-interested, claiming the alliance is “designed to plunder, not to die.” Military exercises in the Baltic states were characterized as unjustified aggressive planning against Russian territory. At the same time they simultaneously dismiss Baltic defenses as ineffective, stating about Latvia: “It’s empty. There is only one pampering.” Some posts included explicit threats against Baltic states, warning that “special ammunition is very, very capable” and that “a fence will not save you from this. And NATO will not help.” This creates a dual narrative of NATO as both threatening aggressor and incompetent defender.n.
