Moscow Responds to Washington’s Unilateral Concessions

Executive Summary:

• Moscow has instructed Russian propagandists, including state officials and media, to offer “restrained” praise for the new U.S. administration. In practice, they manage to follow this directive only when discussing U.S.-Russia relations.
• Some propagandists gloat and claim that the U.S. administration’s domestic policies and relations with other countries benefit Russia while some radical patriots still view the United States as an enemy of Moscow regardless of any new actions in Washington.
• These narratives led to suspicions about the White House’s ties to Russia during U.S. President Donald Trump’s first term, resulting in harder lines toward Moscow and if they continue, a similar situation could unfold again.

The Kremlin views numerous steps taken in the first few months of U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration as beneficial to its agenda. These include the closure of USAID, the termination of offensive cyber operations against Russia, attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders, and the recent termination of U.S. funding for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (TASS, January 30; Meduza, February 18; Izvestiya, March 1; Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, March 15). Russian propaganda outlets, however, are wary of openly stating that the U.S. president is acting in Russia’s interests, as they did seven years ago (Topwar.ru, February 5, 2018). Independent journalists have discovered, through a Kremlin source, that Kremlin-linked media are instructed to offer restrained praise for Trump as “a man who had the wisdom to respond to Russia’s outstretched hand.” Simultaneously, propagandists are advised to “maintain balance” if negotiations over a peace settlement between Ukraine and Russia break down (Verstka.media, February 27).

In line with these directives, it appears that Kremlin media avoids portraying the actions of the new U.S. administration as concessions or weaknesses and instead tries to frame them as steps that Trump is taking primarily in the United States’ interests. Propagandists, however, are not always successful in maintaining this narrative. The most restrained tone is maintained when covering Russian-U.S. relations. For example, to explain to their audience Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proposal for Trump to make a deal with Russia on rare earth metals (REM), leading propaganda outlets clarify that “Russia needs to regain expertise in REM separation” and that “American investments and technology would be just what Russia needs to make a breakthrough in this market” (RIA Novosti, March 2).

Some Russian propagandist media simultaneously praise actions from U.S. politicians while demanding more from them. For example, the Russian Defense Ministry-affiliated website Military Review, known for its radical stance, explains to readers that if relations with the United States improve, U.S. companies will return to the Russian market, and sanctions on the banking sector could be lifted, highlighting this as a positive development (Topwar.ru, February 24). Additionally, Russian media demonstrates clear approval for remarks by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio that a “proxy war between Russia and the United States” is taking place in Ukraine. Propagandists insisted, however, that Rubio should also acknowledge that this war had been a “profitable enterprise” for the United States and that its main goal was to sever ties between Russia and Europe (Vzglyad, March 7).

When covering U.S.-Ukraine relations, propagandists struggle to maintain the same professional and restrained tone as they cannot hide their joy and schadenfreude (see EDM, March 3). For instance,  every detail of Trump’s meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office was eagerly analyzed with descriptions of not only Trump’s words but also his facial expressions (Komsomol’skaya Pravda, February 28).

Russian propagandists describe the shutdown of USAID in the same gloating tone. They note that Trump’s team is dismantling it “in a demonstrative and particularly ruthless manner,” implying that even “the façade and symbol of the deep state system is subject to total destruction” (Vesti.ru, February 9). Kremlin media openly call USAID an “enemy of Russia” and rejoice that the Russian opposition in exile and other so-called “grant-eaters” will be left without funding (Gazeta.ru, February 7). Some suggest, however, that the U.S. government could revive USAID and even make it more effective, warning that Moscow “should not relax just yet.” They emphasize that Trump would only take such a step reluctantly as a compromise with the Democrats (Vzglyad, February 4).

Propaganda has given just as much attention to Elon Musk’s criticism of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, quoting his remarks about the “crazy radical leftists” who are “talking to themselves” (MK.ru, February 9). The suspension of military aid to Ukraine has also been met with widespread approval in Russia. Propagandists eagerly calculated how long Ukraine would “hold out” in such a scenario, concluding that Kyiv would last no more than six months without U.S. support (News.ru, March 5). Citing Polish media, propagandists also note that “the suspension of U.S. intelligence sharing with Ukraine will be a serious blow to Kyiv” and could ultimately “break” Zelenskyy (RIA Novosti, March 7).

Most propagandists either avoid claiming that Trump is deliberately yielding to Russia or stress that he is doing so unintentionally, driven by his own interests. For example, Russia’s leading propagandist, Vladimir Solovyov, claimed that Europe “started fighting with the United States” by supporting Zelenskyy, which could lead Trump to form a military alliance with Russia (YouTube/@Russianmediamonitor, March 4). Lower-ranking propagandists, such as 60 Minutes host Yevgeny Popov, sometimes openly state that Trump is “doing Russia’s work” by sowing discord in Europe (YouTube/@Russianmediamonitor, February 12). Military analysts also argue that by leaving Ukraine to face Russia alone, “the American president is siding with the Kremlin” (Topwar.ru, March 2).

Some propagandists remain skeptical about the possibility of warmer relations between Moscow and Washington. Ultranationalists insist that the “collective West,” led by the United States, is Moscow’s existential enemy, with the goal of destroying the Russian people. According to this narrative, the United States is actually controlled by Satanists whose aim is to conquer the entire world—starting with Russia. They claim the United States will never stop, and therefore, Russia’s only path to survival is to crush its enemy (YouTube/@Borovskih, March 6). This radical viewpoint, however, remains marginal, while most propagandists are openly optimistic about the actions of the new U.S. administration. Still, it is worth remembering that during Trump’s first term, Kremlin praise became a major catalyst for suspicions about the White House’s ties to Russia. As a result, to dispel those suspicions, Trump was forced to take a harder line toward Moscow. If Kremlin propagandists continue to promote these narratives, a similar situation could also unfold this time.