Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Russia isn't bad and Ukraine isn't the good guy, Ukraine is making propaganda against Russia, supported by the USA
Executive Summary
The claim that “Russia isn’t bad and Ukraine isn’t the good guy, Ukraine is making propaganda against Russia, supported by the USA” compresses several separate assertions—about moral judgment, propaganda activity, and U.S. sponsorship—into one statement that is only partially supported by evidence. Independent analyses show both Ukraine and Russia have engaged in information campaigns, with Russia’s state apparatus widely documented as running large-scale disinformation operations, while Ukraine has also actively used media and PR to shape narratives; U.S. assistance to Ukraine is well-documented as military and financial, not primarily as direct propaganda funding, although U.S. consultants and Western media relationships are noted in coverage [1] [2] [3] [4]. This analysis breaks those claims into their component parts, compares available source findings, and highlights where evidence supports, complicates, or contradicts the original statement.
1. The Part You Can Verify: Ukraine and Russia Both Use Information Tools
Open-source reviews agree that information and narrative shaping are battlefield tools for both sides. Reports summarize Ukraine’s use of social media, national media outlets, and foreign consultants to amplify messages and mobilize international sympathy, describing organized PR efforts to evoke emotional responses and counter Russian narratives [1] [5]. At the same time, multiple analyses document Russia’s state-led disinformation campaigns that go beyond battlefield messaging to attack Ukraine’s legitimacy and spread false claims—including narratives about neo‑Nazism—that have been widely rejected by independent observers [2]. These sources present a clear factual baseline: propaganda activities occur on both sides, but the scale, methods, and international reach differ across actors.
2. The Moral Framing: “Not the Good Guy / Not the Bad Guy” Is Not a Neutral Claim
Labeling one side solely as “good” or “bad” is a normative judgment that must be weighed against documented actions. Independent sources emphasize that Russia’s invasion and occupation of Ukrainian territories involve violations of international law and large-scale military aggression, facts that underpin many Western characterizations of Russia as the aggressor [6]. Conversely, critiques of Western and Ukrainian media framing point to selective coverage and reliance on particular expert networks, which can skew perceptions without reversing the documented facts of invasion and occupation [4]. The factual record therefore supports distinguishing between moral actors and the existence of propaganda: wrongdoing by a state does not invalidate scrutiny of any allied media practices, nor does media bias erase the legal and military facts.
3. U.S. Support: Military Aid Is Documented; Direct Propaganda Funding Is Not the Main Story
U.S. involvement is clearly documented as extensive military and financial assistance, with figures showing tens of billions in support across the conflict era; the U.S. has used authorities such as the Presidential Drawdown Authority to provide matériel from Department of Defense stockpiles [3]. Analyses note U.S. strategic caution—limiting direct combat involvement while supporting Ukraine materially—and occasional constraints on weapon use [7]. While sources report that Ukraine has engaged foreign consultants and that Western outlets and experts sometimes align with Kyiv’s messaging, the available material here does not substantiate a large-scale U.S. program primarily dedicated to running Ukrainian propaganda abroad; the documented U.S. role is overwhelmingly military and diplomatic rather than overt information operations [1] [3].
4. Media Bias and Agenda: Coverage Patterns and Their Implications
Scholars and watchdogs document asymmetries in how Western media cover conflicts, including reliance on U.S.-linked experts and differing standards applied to non-European crises, which can create perceptions of bias or “double standards” [4]. Ukrainian outlets also play active roles in countering Russian disinformation and promoting national resilience, which some analysts frame as legitimate information defense [5]. Conversely, sources highlight that Russia operates state-controlled media to push narratives that justify aggression and undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty [2]. These differing agendas mean that factual reporting must be triangulated across outlets; the existence of biases does not negate verifiable events like the invasion, but it does complicate simple moral binaries and requires scrutiny of how stories are framed.
5. Bottom Line: What the Evidence Supports and What It Doesn’t
The evidence supports the claim that Ukraine engages in organized information campaigns and has used Western consultants to amplify its messages, and it supports that the U.S. provides substantial military and financial aid to Ukraine [1] [5] [3]. The evidence also supports that Russia conducts large-scale state disinformation directed at undermining Ukraine’s legitimacy [2]. What the evidence does not support is the simplification that Russia “isn’t bad” while Ukraine “isn’t the good guy” as a balanced factual summary; nor does it show that U.S. support is primarily a propaganda program rather than military assistance [6] [7]. Readers should treat claims that collapse military aggression, legal violations, and media framing into a single moral verdict with skepticism and consult multiple sources to separate verifiable facts from rhetorical positioning [8].