New Pro-Russian Monuments Distort Cultural Heritage in Systematic Deception

Russia’s Strategic Use of Cultural Heritage in Information Warfare

Russia has developed a sophisticated strategy of exploiting cultural heritage to legitimize its war against Ukraine and stake territorial claims, according to recent research. This approach, termed “Cultural Heritage Exploitation” (CHX), represents a coordinated effort to fuse pro-Russian historical propaganda with cultural objects.

Experts Daniel Shultz and Christopher Jasparro identified three primary propaganda narratives that Russia deploys against Ukraine: claims that Nazis control Ukraine, assertions that the Russian diaspora in Ukraine faces existential threats, and arguments that Ukrainian statehood is merely an artificial construct. Russia then attaches these narratives to cultural property as a central feature of its disinformation strategy.

The most visible manifestation of this approach is Russia’s aggressive monument-building campaign. Thousands of new monuments promoting pro-Russian themes have been erected not only within the Russian Federation and occupied Ukrainian territories but also across former Soviet states, Europe, and the Middle East.

In Syria, for instance, the Wagner Group has installed statues commemorating its mercenaries, complete with bilingual inscriptions glorifying dubious claims of heroism. Research by archaeologist Damian Koropeckyj reveals that in Ukraine’s occupied territories, 65% of new pro-Russian monuments were strategically placed in public parks or historical sites, with another 17% installed in schools, medical facilities, and government buildings—locations chosen to maximize public exposure.

“Physical reminders of a shared past or a previous military, administrative, or religious presence can offer invaders a pretext for conquest and allow oppressors to justify their continued rule,” explain Mischa Gabowitsch and Mykola Homanyuk in their book “Monuments and Territory: War Memorials in Russian Occupied Ukraine.”

The psychological impact of these monuments cannot be underestimated. Research suggests that memorials function as vessels for collective memories, myths, and emotions. Russia exploits this psychological connection by protesting alleged mistreatment of monuments as a pretext for military intervention—what Ukraine’s Center for Countering Disinformation calls a “preventative accusation.”

The creation and placement of these monuments involve a coordinated network of organizations masquerading as historical societies, youth groups, and literary clubs, while pursuing Kremlin-aligned objectives. Monument-building companies with close ties to the Russian government and military mass-produce these statues at low cost, with the Russian Orthodox Church often participating in consecration ceremonies alongside local officials.

One notable example is the “Alley of Angels” monument in Donetsk, established by Russian authorities in 2015. Russia claims it commemorates children killed by Ukrainian forces since 2014, though it provides no evidence for these allegations, which Kyiv categorically denies. Images of this monument are widely disseminated through diplomatic channels, state media, and social platforms to reinforce anti-Ukrainian sentiment.

The propaganda value of these monuments extends internationally. In Germany, for example, Russia promoted the “Children of War” traveling exhibition, which incorporated the “Allee der Engel” (Alley of Angels) project alongside legitimate organizations. This initiative spread disinformation about alleged Ukrainian atrocities against children while purportedly raising funds for children’s facilities.

What makes Russia’s current approach particularly effective is its adaptation to modern information environments. While Russia has historically enlisted culture to legitimize its territorial claims, since 2014 it has refined these techniques for the digital age. In an era where online users rely on search engines for historical information, digital images of monuments provide a sense of concrete evidence that something “really happened.”

The challenge in countering Russian CHX lies in its sophisticated blend of physical objects, emotional narratives, and digital amplification. Traditional fact-checking, while important, is insufficient. Experts recommend first acknowledging that these new pro-Russian monuments are not genuine heritage but vehicles for disinformation.

Additionally, avoiding unproductive historical debates that drain resources and distract from immediate concerns is crucial. Instead, focus should be placed on identifying vulnerabilities in societies that could be exploited by Russian persuasion tactics, monitoring the relationship between new monuments and Russian military actions, and supporting Ukrainian efforts to present alternative cultural and historical perspectives.

As occupied territories eventually return to Ukrainian control, addressing the impacts of this cultural manipulation will require sensitivity to local communities’ varied feelings about these imposed cultural artifacts. This challenge demands a comprehensive understanding of Russia’s global CHX strategy and its profound effects on information environments both within Ukraine and internationally.