The Kremlin’s Playbook: How Russia Exploits Ukraine’s Internal Divisions
The recent political turmoil in Ukraine has provided Moscow with a golden opportunity to advance its long-standing narrative of a divided and illegitimate government in Kyiv. When President Volodymyr Zelensky made the controversial decision to dismiss his popular Defense Minister, Mykhailo Fedorov, the streets of Ukrainian cities erupted in protest. What followed was not just a domestic political crisis, but a carefully orchestrated information war that revealed the depths of Russia’s strategy to exploit internal fractures within Ukrainian society. The dismissal, which came as a shock to many Ukrainians who had viewed Fedorov as a capable and trusted leader, created an opening that Kremlin propagandists were quick to exploit, weaving together narratives that painted the Zelensky administration as unstable, corrupt, and ultimately illegitimate in the eyes of the international community.
In the weeks following the dismissal, Russian disinformation campaigns shifted into high gear, flooding social media and state-controlled news outlets with a barrage of fake articles, fabricated claims, and manipulative narratives designed to deepen the sense of crisis. The Russian propaganda machine masterfully employed a tactic of pushing contradictory claims simultaneously, presenting the protests both as a Western-orchestrated farce and as genuine evidence of collapsing support for Ukraine’s war effort. This strategic ambiguity serves a specific purpose, according to experts who study disinformation. The goal is not to convince audiences of any particular narrative, but rather to systematically undermine trust in political actors, democratic institutions, and ultimately the entire democratic process itself. One particularly insidious example came in the form of a fabricated video bearing the logo of the Ukrainian news agency Unian, which discussed a non-existent Reuters article about an alleged plot by Zelensky to assassinate his former defense minister. Such content was designed to sow chaos and confusion, blurring the lines between reality and fiction in the minds of Ukrainian citizens and international observers alike.
Moscow’s messaging quickly evolved to incorporate the election issue, which had been a sensitive topic in Ukraine since the imposition of martial law following the Russian invasion. Russian sources began circulating false claims that elections had already been scheduled for early December, suggesting that Zelensky’s cabinet reshuffle was merely a tactical maneuver to delay the vote and maintain his grip on power. This narrative gained traction when Fedorov himself broke one of Ukraine’s most sensitive political taboos by calling for wartime elections in mid-August. While this statement appeared to be a genuine political move rather than a Russian fabrication, it provided pro-Kremlin media with a treasure trove of material to amplify and manipulate. The response from Russian information channels was swift and coordinated, with state media and pro-Kremlin Telegram channels rapidly reframing the election debate to reinforce the central themes of an illegitimate government and a nation splintered by internal conflicts. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov lost no time in commenting on the situation, using Fedorov’s call for elections to reiterate Moscow’s long-standing claim that Zelensky’s wartime suspension of elections rendered him illegitimate as a leader.
The question of legitimacy has been a cornerstone of Russian propaganda since the beginning of the war, with the Kremlin consistently arguing that without new elections, Zelensky has no rightful mandate to represent Ukraine in any peace negotiations. This narrative has been carefully cultivated over months and years, with propagandists depicting the Ukrainian president as either a dictator clinging to power or a puppet controlled by Western interests. When Fedorov made his statement about elections, pro-Kremlin channels quickly seized upon it as evidence that even those within Ukraine’s inner circle were questioning Zelensky’s authority. The Rybar channel, a pro-war Russian Telegram account with over a million and a half followers, claimed that Fedorov’s call for elections cast doubt on the legitimacy of Zelensky himself as head of state, even though the former minister never made such a statement about the president. This manipulation of facts and selective quoting forms the core of the disinformation mechanism, as real statements get gradually shifted in meaning until they serve as evidence for pre-existing narratives.
The Russian strategy extends far beyond simply attacking Zelensky to encompass delegitimizing any potential alternative candidate or political figure who might emerge as a serious contender in future elections. In this carefully constructed narrative, both Zelensky and Fedorov are portrayed as mere pawns on a chessboard being moved around by Western powers, with the United States allegedly orchestrating a pressure campaign against Ukraine’s leadership. This approach serves to undermine the very concept of Ukrainian political agency, suggesting that domestic political competition is not a genuine expression of the will of the Ukrainian people, but rather a manufactured spectacle controlled from abroad. The message that emerges from the Russian media ecosystem is that any elections held in Ukraine would inevitably be falsified, controlled by the regime, and ultimately change nothing about the fundamental power structure. This messaging fits into a broader narrative that regardless of what political events occur in Ukraine, the existing regime will remain in control, making the democratic process itself seem meaningless and futile.
As Ukraine cautiously begins to discuss what wartime elections would actually mean in practice, the obstacles remain formidable. Legislation continues to prohibit holding elections during martial law, and there are no security guarantees in place to protect voters from Russian strikes that could target polling stations and election infrastructure. Millions of Ukrainians live abroad as refugees, millions more remain under occupation in Russian-controlled territories, and countless soldiers serve at the front lines unable to participate in the democratic process without significant logistical challenges. Even if a ceasefire could be achieved and these technical obstacles overcome, the years of Russian disinformation campaigns have already given a taste of what Moscow’s playbook would look like during an actual election period. Experts predict a multi-layered strategy that would include disinformation targeting specific candidates, AI-generated media designed to manipulate public opinion, and coordinated amplification through social media networks. Russia would likely amplify narratives about electoral fraud and Western interference, portray some candidates as the “party of war” while championing others as the “peace” alternative, and exploit the genuine challenges of voting for soldiers, displaced people, Ukrainians abroad, and citizens in occupied territories.
The goal of this comprehensive disinformation campaign would be twofold: to influence the outcome of any Ukrainian election while simultaneously preserving the ability to challenge the legitimacy of the results afterward regardless of who wins. This two-pronged approach would allow Moscow to claim victory either way, labeling any elected Ukrainian government as illegitimate and refusing to recognize the democratic will of the Ukrainian people. For Ukraine, the path forward is fraught with difficulty. The country must navigate the treacherous waters of holding elections under conditions of ongoing conflict while simultaneously defending against a sophisticated information war designed to undermine the very foundations of its democratic institutions. The Ukrainian people, who have shown remarkable resilience in the face of Russian aggression, now face the additional challenge of maintaining faith in their democratic processes amidst a relentless campaign of misinformation and propaganda. As the debate over wartime elections continues, Ukraine must prepare itself not only for the practical challenges of conducting a vote under fire but also for the inevitable onslaught of Russian disinformation that will seek to delegitimize whatever choices its citizens ultimately make.