Russian Propaganda: The Hidden Force Multiplier in Ukraine War

Despite suffering an estimated 1.2 million casualties in Ukraine since 2022, Russian forces continue to replenish their ranks at a pace that roughly matches battlefield losses. While many analysts point to coercion or financial incentives, these explanations fail to capture the complete picture. In fact, enlistment bonuses for soldiers have been reduced or eliminated across many Russian regions since 2025.

Ukrainian intelligence indicates approximately 76 percent of captured Russian troops are contract personnel who voluntarily joined the invasion. This raises a critical question: What drives this continued willingness to fight? The answer may lie in a factor often overlooked in military assessments: propaganda.

A recent study conducted by Kyiv-based NGO LingvaLexa in collaboration with Ukraine’s Office of the Prosecutor General analyzed survey data from over one thousand Russian prisoners of war. The findings reveal a stark connection between adherence to Russian propaganda narratives and combat readiness.

Soldiers who endorsed Moscow’s propaganda messaging were up to six times more likely to view the invasion as legitimate. Perhaps more troubling, these same individuals were nearly twice as likely to express willingness to return to combat and significantly more inclined to dehumanize Ukrainians. Nearly half embraced the Kremlin-promoted “Russian World” imperial ideology, complete with notions of violence and self-sacrifice.

“These findings suggest Russian propaganda isn’t merely shaping soldiers’ interpretation of the war—it’s determining their willingness to fight, endure, and even re-enlist after being released from wartime incarceration,” explains Anna Vyshniakova, an international criminal lawyer and head of LingvaLexa.

This aligns with Russia’s long-standing military doctrine. Moscow has historically treated the information environment as a warfare domain equal in importance to kinetic operations, integrating narrative control, ideological framing, and psychological conditioning into its broader strategy.

Western responses, however, reveal a significant blind spot. While NATO increasingly recognizes the strategic importance of the information space, policy responses still treat propaganda primarily as a communications challenge to be countered via messaging, debunking, or media literacy initiatives.

“If propaganda helps the Russian military generate manpower, sustain morale, and normalize violence, then it must be understood not as peripheral to the war effort, but as part of its core infrastructure,” argues Jais Adam-Troian, assistant professor of psychology at Heriot-Watt University Dubai and fellow at the NATO Stratcom Center of Excellence.

Current accountability efforts worldwide remain fragmented and narrowly focused. While international law has established that propaganda-related conduct can give rise to criminal responsibility—including persecution and incitement to genocide—these precedents don’t offer a comprehensive framework for addressing propaganda as an organized system embedded within military aggression.

Investigations typically focus on visible public figures like television hosts and commentators. This approach overlooks the broader machinery that produces and coordinates propaganda at scale. In reality, Russia’s propaganda apparatus functions as a structured system with defined hierarchies encompassing political supervisors, media executives, editors, producers, and cultural actors.

“Understanding this system requires moving beyond questions of whether individual statements are false or inflammatory,” notes Kristina Hook, assistant professor of conflict management at Kennesaw State University and nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center. “The more consequential question is whether propaganda actors contribute to enabling and sustaining military aggression.”

At present, Russian propaganda is treated as ordinary speech to be debated, rather than as a strategic weapon of hostile state influence. By the time false narratives are publicly contested, their impact in shaping perceptions, normalizing aggression, and influencing behavior may already be entrenched.

Addressing this challenge requires a shift from reactive to systemic responses. Accountability must extend beyond public-facing figures to those who design and coordinate Russia’s messaging. Governments and international institutions should develop clearer frameworks for investigating propaganda-related conduct, particularly where it contributes to aggression and other international crimes.

Russia’s war against Ukraine demonstrates propaganda’s critical role in modern warfare. Recognizing propaganda as part of Russia’s infrastructure of military aggression is essential for countering it effectively—not merely as a communications issue, but as a fundamental component of national security strategy requiring coordinated international response.