Russian propaganda intensifies with claims of NATO involvement in Kursk as Ukraine's incursion continues

The claim originated with Major General Apti Alaudinov, commander of Ramzan Kadyrov's Akhmat special forces, who alleged that NATO servicemen were among the foreign mercenaries entering the Kursk region. This assertion has been widely disseminated by Russian state media and their associated foreign outlets.

“NATO overlords aid Ukraine in violating Russian territory”

Russia’s network of disinformation actors, including media outlets and online personalities across Europe and beyond, continues to operate with consistency. State-funded Russian media such as Sputnik and RT remain central in promoting false narratives, with other pro-Kremlin platforms amplifying these messages:

• Sputnik
• Mondialisation.ca
• Le Média en 4-4-2
• Pravda - 11 August 2024
• Pravda - 20 August 2024
• Pravda - 20 August 2024
• Pravda - 21 August 2024

Pro-Russian media propagate several consistent narratives to shape public perception of the war in Ukraine, particularly focusing on NATO and U.S. involvement, including: 

1. Blaming NATO and the U.S. for escalation: A key narrative claims that the Ukrainian offensive in regions like Kursk was planned and executed with NATO and Western secret services' participation. By asserting that Ukraine wouldn't have dared to launch such operations without U.S. support, this narrative shifts the blame for the war to Western powers. It portrays the West, especially NATO and the U.S., as the primary aggressors manipulating Ukraine as a proxy to weaken Russia.
2. Depicting Ukraine as a puppet state: Pro-Russian media often describe Ukraine as a mere tool of Western interests, suggesting that the current Ukrainian government lacks sovereignty and is fully controlled by NATO and the U.S. By emphasizing that the West "created" the Ukrainian regime and commands its army, this narrative seeks to delegitimize the Ukrainian government and portray its military actions as orchestrated by foreign powers rather than independent decisions.
3. Alleging U.S. deception: Another frequent narrative accuses the United States of hypocrisy and deception, claiming that American foreign policy is marked by dishonesty, with the U.S. saying one thing and doing another. This narrative aims to undermine the credibility of Western governments and portray Russia as more transparent and trustworthy in its international conduct.
4. Justifying Russian military actions: Pro-Russian media frame any Russian military response as a necessary defense against a coordinated assault by NATO and its proxies. By depicting the Ukrainian offensive as Western-backed aggression, this narrative seeks to justify Russian military actions and maintain support for the ongoing war, portraying Russia as a victim of external threats rather than an aggressor.
5. Undermining Ukrainian military success: Russian propaganda often highlights Ukrainian casualties and dismisses any military success by Ukraine, portraying them as temporary and insignificant "PR victories." By exaggerating the costs to Ukrainian forces, this narrative reinforces the idea that Ukraine's actions, guided by Western powers, are ultimately futile and costly.
6. Depicting the West as Russophobic: The narrative also portrays the West, particularly high-ranking U.S. and EU politicians, as pathologically Russophobic, intent on undermining Russia at any cost. This plays into long-standing Russian narratives of Western aggression and encirclement, fostering a sense of victimhood within Russian society.
7. Framing Ukrainian actions as terrorism: By labeling Ukrainian military actions as "acts of terrorism," pro-Russian media seek to delegitimize these operations and evoke fear and outrage. This narrative portrays Ukraine as a state willing to target civilians and engage in terroristic behavior, thereby justifying Russian military responses and rallying international support for Russia's position.

These narratives work in concert to paint the West as an imperialistic force, depict Ukraine as subservient to foreign interests, and justify Russian military actions as necessary and defensive. By employing these narratives, pro-Russian media aim to reinforce domestic and international support for Russia's stance in the war.

“NATO forces on Russian soil”

Some media outlets have alleged NATO's direct involvement in the fighting, suggesting that NATO troops have been deployed to Russian territory. A significant number of these reports were authored by Lucas Leiroz De Almeida, credited as a journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, and geopolitical consultant. Leiroz De Almeida frequently contributes to Global Research and Mondialisation.ca and has numerous articles on the CRM Portuguese page. These platforms have previously been identified as spreading pro-Kremlin narratives.

The platforms spreading the NATO involvement claim include:

• Mondialisation.ca
• Réveil International
• L'Information Nationaliste
• Free Niooz
• RT
• Weltwoche
• Weltwoche

Scott Ritter, who has been featured in some of these reports, is a notable figure in pro-Russian or Russian state media. Recently, he was searched by the FBI due to his connections with Russia.

The article focuses on the following narratives:

1. Foreign mercenaries as part of Ukraine's incursion: Pro-Russian narratives emphasize that Ukraine's military operations, especially in the Kursk region, heavily rely on foreign NATO mercenaries.
2. Direct NATO involvement: These narratives frame NATO not just as a supporter but as a direct participant in the war. By alleging that NATO soldiers are involved in combat, the narratives depict NATO as an active aggressor rather than a supportive ally. 
3. Operational failures due to foreign presence: Pro-Russian sources argue that the presence of foreign mercenaries leads to significant operational issues for Ukraine, including communication barriers and logistical problems. Predictions of future failures are used to undermine the effectiveness of Ukrainian military operations and to suggest that reliance on foreign fighters is a strategic disadvantage.
4. Highlighting specific countries’ roles: The narratives emphasize the roles of specific countries like Poland and Georgia, suggesting that their involvement in Ukraine is substantial and semi-official. Poland is portrayed as a de facto participant in the war, while Georgia’s “mercenaries” are depicted as driven by anti-Russian sentiment. This focus aims to frame these nations as proxies of Western interests.
5. Legal and moral justifications: “Foreign mercenaries” are described as "illegal" and outside the protection of international humanitarian law. This characterization is used to justify harsh treatment and legal actions against them, reinforcing the narrative that Ukraine's military strength is based on criminal elements rather than legitimate forces.

Some outlets go as far as to claim that Russian forces have defeated NATO troops. The article by lemediaen442.fr reports that Russian troops from the North grouping have inflicted a severe defeat on Ukrainian forces and their “NATO mercenaries” in the northern Kharkiv region. The Russian Defense Ministry claims significant losses for the Ukrainian side. The narrative emphasizes the involvement of foreign mercenaries, particularly from the French Foreign Legion, and portrays the Ukrainian forces as heavily reliant on external support and plagued by various issues. The report aims to highlight Russian military successes and discredit the effectiveness of the Ukrainian military.

A number of outlets are labeling the Ukrainian Armed Forces' incursion as a NATO operation and questioning whether President Putin's patience has limits. For example:

• Global Research suggests that despite Russia's territory being invaded and Russians being killed by NATO forces, President Putin has yet to declare war. The article implies that more direct NATO attacks might be forthcoming and criticizes Washington for its “inaction.”
• Mondialisation and Controinformazione also discuss the possibility that NATO is engaged in an invasion of nuclear Russia and question whether this marks the beginning of World War III.
• A French analyst on the Pravda network suggests that Russia should respond to NATO provocations by targeting NATO countries, while also advocating for a ban on F-16 implantation sites, which he views as a symbol of Kyiv’s hope for victory in the war (News-Pravda).

All these claims are also being disseminated across social media platforms, particularly X and Telegram:

• https://t.me/rybarFR/3916
• https://x.com/xinfolive/status/1823054482227315006
• https://t.me/infodefenseFRreserve/5314
• https://x.com/camille_moscow/status/1824341814851104956
• https://t.me/ri_reseauinternational/19931
• https://x.com/stratpol_site/status/1824553935484686803
• https://x.com/BPartisans/status/1824342700180586895
• https://t.me/jqhnspartan/87185

RFI provided an overview of Russian misinformation, including alleged videos purportedly showing NATO soldiers fighting in the Kursk region, in their article, which can be found here. The article debunks these alleged videos as intentionally misrepresented to fit Russia's narrative.

These narratives collectively aim to discredit Ukraine’s military operations, justify Russian actions as a necessary defense against an international conspiracy, and reinforce the perception that the war is largely driven by external – and illegal – forces.

Espreso TV has conducted this study on the spread of the Russian disinformation campaign on NATO soldiers being involved in Ukraine’s Kursk operation in collaboration with InsightNews.