While the Russian and Ukrainian militaries have been clashing violently on the bloody battlefields of Eastern Europe, a parallel war has long been underway in the media sphere, where armies of information warriors have battled to shape the ways Western publics think about the conflict.
The dominant army in this information war has comprised most Western governments and leading media organs, abetted by a formidable array of public relations firms working in partnership with the Ukrainian government. It has insisted that the Ukraine war is best understood as a modern-day variation of Nazi Germany’s World War II aggression, with Putin reprising the Hitlerian role of revanchist dictator seeking to grab land and dominate Europe. Unless he is stopped through resolute military force, they argue, his armies will move from Ukraine to the Baltic states, Poland, and beyond.
Arrayed against this army has been a loose band of realist experts and anti-establishment skeptics who contend that the war’s origins more closely resemble those of World War I. To varying degrees, they acknowledge that Russia’s paternalistic attitudes towards Ukraine have played a significant role in Moscow’s motivations, but they argue that the invasion is fundamentally the product of what international relations theorists call a “security dilemma.” Steps by NATO to bolster the security of its members and aspirants were perceived as threatening by Moscow. Aggressive efforts by Russia to block these moves threatened the West, producing a spiral of action and reaction that continued to escalate absent diplomatic efforts to arrest it.
This debate has largely been conducted outside mainstream media, however. Inside it, the information war has long been a rout. The dominant army insisted that news stories describe Russia’s invasion as “unprovoked,” rejecting any connection to NATO expansion. Those suggesting that the war had more complex origins were anathematized as Kremlin apologists. News about Ukrainian setbacks was downplayed, while Russian weaknesses were highlighted in an effort to sustain or increase flows of Western military and economic assistance.
This narrative effectively ruled out compromise between Russia and the West as a prescription for ending the war, dismissing it as “appeasement,” a sign of weakness that would only invite further Russian attacks. The war could only end through Ukrainian battlefield victory or Russian capitulation at the negotiating table, denying Russia any plausible belief that it had profited in any way from aggression.
Enter Donald Trump. Candidate Trump crossed swords with the dominant information army by insisting the conflict should end in a compromise and that Russia had at least some legitimate interests at stake in opposing NATO membership for Ukraine. He pointed out that the war in fact was not going well for Ukraine, whose much anticipated “counteroffensive” in 2023 had failed spectacularly and whose manpower reserves were dwindling. He accused popular news coverage of providing “fake numbers” about war losses and Western aid, warning that the threat of escalation into “World War III” was real. Voters noticed.
As president, Trump failed to make good on his campaign promise to end the war in 24 hours. But he has quickly initiated direct talks with Russian officials and signaled to Ukraine and European allies that they will not be given a veto over seeking a peace accord. Russian officials have engaged rather than rejecting talks, although it remains to be seen how open Putin will be to compromise. Last week, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth broke with fifteen years of official NATO policy when he told allies that Ukrainian membership would not realistically be part of a settlement, a statement consistent with the notion that this issue lies at the core of the conflict over Ukraine.
At the Munich Security Conference, Vice President JD Vance followed Hegseth’s bracing message by launching a direct broadside against Europe’s information warriors. For Europe to be strong and the trans-Atlantic partnership to be healthy, he warned, European governments had to do more than increase defense spending and rev up military industry. They also had to respect freedom of speech and live up to other democratic ideals the Western community has long shared, listening to voices of popular dissent rather than delegitimizing them as extremist purveyors of mis- and disinformation. That many of these dissenting European voices have been calling for settlement of the Ukraine war has almost certainly not been lost on Vance and other Trump officials.
Those embracing the “World War II” paradigm for the war have recoiled in horror. European headlines warned that “Donald Trump’s betrayal of Ukraine has emboldened Vladimir Putin and pulled the rug from under NATO allies.” EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas asserted, “It’s appeasement, it has never worked … The Ukrainians will resist, and we will support them.” French president Emmanuel Macron called an emergency meeting of European leaders in Paris to discuss options for dealing with what he called the “electroshock” of Trump’s new approach to dealing with Europe and ending the Ukraine war.
But when forced to weigh their realistic alternatives to seeking compromise with Russia, European leaders came up empty in Paris. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who had earlier called for sending British troops to Ukraine as part of a European effort to enforce peace, had to acknowledge that such a move would require a US security guarantee—something the Trump administration has already rejected. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk ruled out sending Polish forces altogether, while German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said it was premature even to discuss a European peacekeeping operation.
Although the narrative managers have proved adept at media spin, they have shown little ability to reshape the hard realities of Ukraine’s circumstances. Caught between Ukraine’s dependence on the United States, which is now insisting on peace negotiations, and Europe, which cannot offer viable alternatives, Kyiv has few options but to accept the looming inevitability of a compromise and work with Trump to strike the best settlement deal possible, one that preserves Ukraine’s independence and offers a viable path toward reconstruction and eventual membership in the European Union.
All this is a sign that the war in Ukraine is entering its endgame, which will play out as negotiators wrestle with tough choices over the coming weeks and months. But the broader information war is far from over. Just as the adjective “unprovoked” featured prominently in Western media coverage in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion, Western audiences should expect to encounter the words “appeasement” and “betrayal” increasingly often in newspapers and broadcasts.
This campaign is not likely to prevent an end to the fighting in Ukraine. The information warriors, however, will have their eye on a bigger objective: hamstringing Trump’s ability to effect a broader reorientation of American foreign policy.