To even the casually interested observer of this war, Russia’s messaging can often appear contradictory. Yet from a distance, there remains a tendency to view the Kremlin as a disciplined machine, speaking with one voice and pursuing one coherent strategy.
For those of us who have lived next door to Russia, watched its politics closely and spent years listening to its officials, the picture increasingly looks very different.
Rarely during this war has there been such diversity of messaging from senior Russian figures. Depending on which official you listen to, Russia is ready for dialogue with Europe, on the verge of achieving all its objectives in Ukraine, engaged in an existential struggle against Nazis, or preparing for a direct confrontation with NATO that risks nuclear Armageddon.
What we are hearing is no longer one confident message, but several senior Kremlin figures delivering different messages to different audiences at the same time.
Read more related news:
Army chief warns Britain must be ready to draw blood within minutes if deterrence fails
Latvian intelligence fears Russia could turn hybrid war into something worse
UK forces prepare for potential conflict in the Baltics
Kremlin wants talks, but only because Putin is getting ‘his a**e handed to him on a plate’
Russia has always tailored its messaging to different audiences. That is not new. What feels different now is the scale of the contradiction and the sheer contrast between the narratives being presented.
Because mixed messaging can sometimes reveal more than a carefully crafted narrative ever could.
Yuri Ushakov, Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy aide, recently stated that Russia is “ready” for dialogue with the European Union.
On the surface, that sounds diplomatic. It suggests Moscow may be leaving a door open, perhaps even searching for an off-ramp from a war that has proven far more costly than originally anticipated.
However, the Kremlin quickly qualified that position, insisting it would only engage in dialogue that was not conducted through what it described as “ultimatums.”
In other words, Russia wants talks, but only talks in which Russia is not treated as the aggressor, not pressured, and not required to answer for the war it started.
Then comes Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s longtime spokesman, offering a very different message.
His line is not reconciliation but victory by redefinition.
Peskov recently argued that Ukraine’s “demilitarisation” has largely been achieved because Ukraine is now using more Western-made systems and fewer domestically produced weapons.
The claim is difficult to reconcile with reality.
Putin expected Ukraine to fall, but instead they built a weapons revolution
This week I visited Fire Point, a Ukrainian defence technology company that is not merely surviving the war but helping reshape it. The notion that Ukraine has been “demilitarised” while Ukrainian companies are producing long-range strike systems, drones, missiles and entirely new concepts of warfare is absurd.
It is even more difficult to sustain when European militaries and NATO increasingly look to Ukraine for lessons in battlefield adaptation, innovation and modern warfare.
Does this mean Russia genuinely underestimates its opponent? Almost certainly not. What it does suggest is that Moscow continues to downplay Ukrainian capabilities for a domestic audience that increasingly has access to evidence contradicting official narratives.
Russian citizens no longer need to rely solely on state television. Ukrainian drones now regularly reach Moscow, disrupt airports, strike military-industrial facilities and force Russians to confront realities that official propaganda cannot entirely conceal. That is the purpose of the messaging.
Russia set out to destroy Ukraine’s military capacity. Instead, it helped create a wartime defence industry moving at remarkable speed and producing technologies that are increasingly influencing not only this war, but the future of warfare itself. Meanwhile, Sergey Lavrov remains firmly inside what might be described as the ideological bunker.
Russia’s foreign minister since 2004 and one of the longest-serving members of Putin’s inner circle, Lavrov continues to frame the war through the same lens that has defined Russian rhetoric since 2022 and, in many respects, since 2014. Nazis. Encirclement. Historical grievances. Existential struggle.
The problem for Moscow is that the battlefield has failed to match the script. Russia failed to take Kyiv. It failed to collapse the Ukrainian state. It failed to break Ukrainian national identity. And after more than a decade of war against Ukraine, Russia still does not fully control Donetsk Oblast despite formally claiming and annexing far more territory than it actually occupies. Then there is Dmitry Medvedev.
The former Russian president and current deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council has increasingly become the Kremlin’s nuclear foghorn. His threats of escalation are not new, but they sit awkwardly alongside Ushakov’s language about dialogue and engagement with Europe. One message suggests diplomacy.
The other suggests apocalypse.
More recently, Medvedev and Kirill Dmitriev appeared to welcome the prospect of political turmoil in Britain, commenting on reports surrounding Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. In doing so, they reinforced one of the Kremlin’s longest-running contradictions. Russia routinely portrays itself as the victim of Western interference while simultaneously celebrating, commenting on and attempting to influence political developments beyond its borders whenever the opportunity presents itself.
The irony is difficult to miss. Many of the platforms Russian officials use to project these messages abroad are restricted, throttled or effectively inaccessible to ordinary Russians without VPNs. Moscow speaks endlessly about sovereignty, freedom and Western hypocrisy while limiting access to the very information space its own officials use to influence audiences overseas. It is hardly a ringing endorsement of freedom of expression.
Taken together, these examples reveal something important. Russia wants to be seen as a responsible international actor seeking dialogue and stability.
At the same time, some of its most senior officials continue to threaten nuclear escalation, celebrate political instability abroad and indulge rhetoric that occasionally drifts uncomfortably close to openly genocidal language. That is not a single strategic message. It is a menu. In 2022, Russia projected certainty, the propaganda line was crude but consistent. Ukraine was an artificial state. Kyiv would fall.
The West would complain and move on. Russia would dictate the future. Four years later, that certainty is becoming harder to maintain. The Kremlin must reassure domestic audiences that victory remains inevitable, while reasuring hardliners that the war will continue until every objective is achieved while balancing a foreign audiences that dialogue remains possible, and it must also somehow explain why a three-day operation has become a multi-year war.
Mixed messaging does not mean Russia is about to collapse, nor does it suggest Vladimir Putin is suddenly searching for peace. What it does reveal is a Kremlin increasingly forced to speak to multiple audiences simultaneously. For much of Putin’s rule, the Kremlin’s greatest strength was its ability to project certainty. Whether accurate or not, officials generally spoke from the same script. Ukraine was weak.
Russia was strong. The West was divided. Victory was inevitable. Today, maintaining that certainty is becoming increasingly difficult. Ukrainian drones regularly reach targets deep inside Russia. Moscow’s airports face repeated disruption. Military-industrial facilities that once felt untouchable are increasingly vulnerable. A war that many Russians were told would last days is now measured in years.
The gap between official messaging and observable reality is becoming harder to ignore. For the Russian public, the lie is control. For hardliners, the lie is total victory. For Europe, the lie is diplomacy. For Ukraine, the message remains violence. That is not necessarily a sign of imminent failure. States at war frequently tailor messages to different audiences, however, the scale of the contradictions now emerging from Moscow suggests something else as well.
It suggests strain. Strain that has taken more than four years to achieve and has come at an enormous cost to Ukraine. Yet despite those sacrifices, Russia increasingly finds itself attempting to explain away developments that do not fit the original script. Russia launched this war expecting shock, collapse and surrender.
Instead, it finds itself confronting a Ukraine that continues to innovate, adapt and impose costs far beyond what many in Moscow anticipated. The battlefield, the information space and the technological race are no longer moving entirely in Russia’s favour, it continues to struggle with innovation while Ukraine increasingly sets the pace.
We are, however, still waiting for the much-promised retaliation following Ukraine’s strikes on Moscow and the now infamous “lid flip” that exposed vulnerabilities deep inside Russia’s capital using Ukrainian-developed technology. Officially, Russia is still projecting the same message it began with in 2022. Surrender. The difference is that reality has become increasingly difficult to reconcile with the narrative. Four years later, the Kremlin is speaking in several voices because reality keeps interrupting the script.
The longer that reality persists, the more Russia’s leverage appears to erode.
Leave a Comment