Statement by Deputy Permanent Representative Anna Evstigneeva at a UNSC Arria-Formula Meeting on Information Dimension of the Ukrainian Crisis: How Media Narratives Shape Conflict
Main statement:
Dear colleagues,
As you are aware, two briefers were scheduled to speak at today’s Arria-formula meeting: Norwegian political Glenn Diesen and Italian journalist Andrea Lucidi.
Mr. Diesen was due to arrive yesterday to deliver his remarks in person; however, in a remarkable turn of events, without any explanation, his flight was cancelled, notably, it was the only flight cancelled at the airport that day.
The second speaker was detained abroad while being part of an international delegation on a fact-finding mission. Thankfully, he was released just in time for our event.
We are convinced that such a chain of circumstances is far from accidental. Nevertheless, we remain hopeful that, despite these obstacles, both speakers will still be able to join us, at least via VTC, and share their perspectives with you.
And I’m very glad to see them both on the screen.
Dear colleagues,
Over the past several years, we have met repeatedly in this format to examine different facets of the Ukrainian crisis. Today we decided to address an aspect of the conflict that is too often overlooked, yet in reality lies at the very heart of the confrontation that continues to divide the European continent. I am referring to the information dimension of it – the way in which media narratives and editorial choices have shaped not only public perception, but also concrete political decisions, sanctions policies and, ultimately, the entire architecture of the European security.
In the modern world, information has become as decisive as military, economic and diplomatic means. The way events are presented – what is emphasized or omitted, whose voices are amplified or silenced – shapes how societies understand conflicts and how governments justify their actions. When journalism follows principles of balance, verification and openness to different viewpoints, it can foster de-escalation and mutual understanding. But when these standards give way to political agendas and one-sided narratives, the media becomes a tool of confrontation. The Ukrainian crisis illustrates this clearly, as from the very beginning it unfolded not only in the streets of Kiev, but also across Western television screens and newspaper front pages.
Let us recall the events of 2013-2014. Western and Ukrainian media coverage of the Maidan protests overwhelmingly framed them as a unified “popular uprising” driven by a clear and uncontested “European choice”, a “revolution of dignity”. The complexity of Ukrainian society, its regional, linguistic and cultural diversity was largely ignored. The presence and active participation of radical nationalist groups were consistently downplayed. There was little substantive discussion about external involvement in the protests or about the legitimacy of the new authorities that emerged following the violent and unconstitutional change of power. Questions, such as the role of foreign officials openly supporting one side in a domestic political crisis, were treated as insignificant, with some Western media outlets referring to them as simply as “Russian claims”.
The result was the construction, in the Western public opinion, of a positive and even romanticized image of what was, in essence, a forceful coup-d’état. This normalization had profound consequences. Once the overthrow of the president in office was accepted as a legitimate expression of democratic will, subsequent political developments in Ukraine were interpreted through the same lens of moral simplification: the post-Maidan authorities and their Western supporters representing progress and democracy, the ousted government – regression and authoritarianism.
I would like us to watch a short video about the Maidan events and how they were covered at the time in the Western media.
But what happened after? In Donbass eight years that followed provide another striking example of selective visibility. For the residents of Donetsk and Lugansk, the so-called “anti-terrorist operation” launched against them by the new authorities was a daily reality marked by shelling of residential areas, destruction of civilian infrastructure and casualties among civilians. Yet in the mainstream Western and Ukrainian media space, this period effectively did not exist. The human cost of the conflict in Donbass rarely generated headlines or emotional engagement and victims remained largely invisible to Western audiences.
Insufficient attention was paid to internal developments in Ukraine. This included mounting pressure on the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Both clergy and parishes were subjected to searches, legal restrictions and administrative measures. There was growing pressure on independent and opposition media outlets, many of which were shut down without transparent judicial procedures. Political parties deemed undesirable were restricted or banned. Opposition figures faced investigations, intimidation and criminal prosecution. Language policy became another divisive issue. Legislative measures significantly restricted the public use of the Russian language in education, media and public administration, despite the fact that millions of Ukrainian citizens consider Russian their native language.
These developments were rarely examined in depth in leading Western outlets. As a consequence, the authorities in Kiev were not subjected to the level of critical scrutiny that would normally accompany such profound transformations in any other country claiming adherence to democratic standards. Hence, no meaningful reaction from the international organizations or human rights institutions followed.
This imbalance contributed to the formation of a distorted understanding of the origins and evolution of the crisis. Without acknowledging the internal tensions and policies that alienated significant segments of the population, it is impossible to fully comprehend the trajectory that ultimately led to the events of 2022.
Of course, even during those years there were brave journalists who remained true to their professional duty. Some of them traveled to Donbass to show the reality on the ground and to give a voice to civilians affected by the conflict. In the best cases, their reports were heavily edited or reduced to brief excerpts. In other instances, they faced professional discrimination and were dismissed from their positions. The tragic fate of Gonzalo Lira, an independent journalist who publicly criticized the policies of the Ukrainian government and who later died in a Ukrainian prison while awaiting trial, has become one of the most dramatic examples of the risks faced by those whose work diverged from the dominant narrative.
Let’s look at what some of the courageous journalists endured.
I’d like to thank all the journalists who endured these difficulties in their attempt to promote truth about the situation in Ukraine and Donbass. And I hope that Andrea will later expand on this topic as well.
But now let’s turn to the period of the special military operation. When it began in February 2022, the information response in the Western media was almost instantaneous and remarkably uniform. A rigid, one-sided narrative consolidated within days. The preceding years as well as our country’s stated objectives, security concerns and diplomatic initiatives were either ignored or presumed bad faith. Even steps aimed at creating favorable conditions for negotiations, such as the withdrawal of troops from areas near Kiev in the context of the Istanbul talks, were not framed as gestures intended to facilitate dialogue, but rather as tactical maneuvers devoid of political significance.
The Istanbul negotiations themselves, which started immediately after the beginning of the military operation, clearly demonstrated Russia’s real aim: to address the root causes of the conflict and achieve a sustainable settlement instead of prolonging hostilities. Yet they received limited and often superficial coverage.
The reporting on the Bucha hoax revealed how swiftly allegations and unverified claims can be amplified and treated as unquestionable reality. Accusations were disseminated with extraordinary speed and accompanied by highly emotional framing. Graphic imagery dominated headlines. At the same time, calls for a comprehensive, independent international investigation were overshadowed by immediate attribution of blame. Inconsistencies or alternative interpretations were marginalized.
Let’s watch a video clip about how mainstream Western media depicted these events.
Dear colleagues,
We still do not have these names. Nobody provided us with this information despite numerous requests.
The consequences of the Bucha provocation were not confined to public discourse. The negotiation process that had shown signs of progress collapsed. The image of Russia as a party with which talks are impossible became entrenched in the media space and, subsequently, in political rhetoric. The possibility of compromise which is an essential element of any diplomatic resolution, was effectively delegitimized. New waves of sanctions were introduced.
In the years that followed, this pattern has continued. The Western and Ukrainian media have provided detailed and emotionally charged reporting on Russia’s actions, often using words “existential threat”. At the same time, there has been a noticeable lack of critical scrutiny regarding the actions of Ukraine. When Ukrainian forces conducted an incursion into Kursk region, the Western media largely focused on Ukraine’s tactical successes, highlighting Ukrainian military prowess. Coverage of civilian suffering and the broader humanitarian consequences was largely absent, leaving the public with a distorted perception that emphasized victory while minimizing the human cost.
Militaristic rhetoric has gradually become normalized within Western and European political discourse. Calls for long-term confrontation and even for preparing for a potential direct conflict with Russia are presented as responsible and necessary policy choices. Media outlets amplify such statements, while voices warning about the risks of escalation, the consequences for European security and economic costs for European societies receive comparatively less attention.
A striking example of this phenomenon can be seen in the recent coverage of drone incursions into Poland. These events were quickly framed as deliberate Russian provocations, emphasizing aggression, while omitting questions regarding verification. The video you are about to see captures the reported events and the manner in which they were presented to the public.
The institutional consequences of the media narratives are evident. Several Western national security strategies now formally designate Russia as an adversary or direct threat. Weapons supplies to Ukraine have continued even amid discussions of ending hostilities. Sanctions regimes expand, and calls to “prepare for war with Russia in the medium term” are becoming more frequent. Similar narratives circulate within NATO and the European Union. As a result, the information dimension of the Ukrainian crisis has become a structural factor in institutionalizing confrontation.
Can this course be changed? It can, but only through a return to fundamental principles. Russia has repeatedly emphasized the indivisibility of security, arguing that one state’s security should not come at another’s expense, and proposed legally binding guarantees before the start of the special military operation. Attempts at dialogue were made at various stages. Yet these initiatives were often ignored or reframed in the Western media, portrayed as tactical maneuvers rather than genuine efforts at negotiation, reinforcing mistrust instead of easing tensions.
A more balanced media approach would not require agreement with Russia’s position, but recognition that complex conflicts have complex origins and that lasting peace depends on examining the concerns of all sides. Without such balance, audiences receive a simplified narrative that obscures the genesis and development of the Ukrainian crisis.
All materials presented today are available via the QR code that you now see on the screen. You can also find its hard copy on your tables.
Thank you.
Concluding remarks:
Colleagues,
As a short conclusion, I’ll say that today’s discussion was an opportunity to reflect on these very important issues, openly and honestly. Unfortunately, some delegations chose to repeat established narratives rather than engaging with the complex realities. Some of them said that this event is a disinformation campaign against a disinformation campaign, a false narrative against a false narrative. And at some point I lost track of this new narrative that they presented. But I haven’t heard what was exactly false or untrue in what we showed or what our guests presented.
British writer George Orwell was also mentioned several times and summoned as a witness to some of these statements. And I think that he would have been surprised to see what his name is used for. He always said himself that the works and the books that he wrote had universal meaning. And he stressed many times that he spoke about all countries, all communities, and that none of them are immune, including his own country, Great Britain. But some of these statements that we’ve heard from our Western colleagues – it’s regrettable that they left little room for genuine dialogue in which truth can be recovered.
But at the same time, I’m very glad that we triggered this discussion. Many delegations spoke about their own situations. This situation around Ukraine and the destructive influence of Western media – we are not unique here. They shared their own experiences and presented their picture of how they see the situation. And they stressed that the integrity of information in pursuit of the settlement of international conflicts, including their own, is very important.
Yet the urgency of the matter regarding Ukraine and European security remains. If we are serious about restoring stability in Europe and preventing further escalation, we must address not only the military and diplomatic dimensions of the Ukrainian crisis, but also the information environment that frames them. Peace depends on dialogue and mutual recognition. And it’s impossible in a media space where complex realities are compressed into simplistic formulas (good and evil, as one of the briefers has said) that serve political agendas.
It is the responsibility of all participants – states, media, and international organizations – to ensure that the information dimension of the crisis contributes to understanding rather than division, and to de-escalation rather than confrontation. Let us not waste opportunities for meaningful discussion by remaining trapped in preconceptions and one-sided narratives. I sincerely hope that this discussion was very useful. I thank you all for your participation, but first and foremost, our briefers for their statements and for setting the scene for the discussion we had.
Thank you.
