The West is watching the wrong Ukrainian collapse
Analysis Summary
The article argues that Ukraine is losing the war not because of military defeats, but because its government has become disconnected from its people, turning into a hollow, foreign-backed war machine. It uses dramatic language and selective information to suggest that Ukraine's resistance is unsustainable and socially broken, while leaving out evidence of ongoing public support and civil mobilization. The piece subtly frames continued Western support as futile and Ukraine’s fight as increasingly internal and self-destructive.
Cross-Outlet PSYOP Detected
This article is part of a narrative being pushed across multiple outlets:
FATE Analysis
Four dimensions of psychological manipulation: how content captures Focus, exploits Authority, triggers Tribal identity, and engineers Emotion.
Focus signals
"This was the first such visit in a long time, since all trilateral contacts between Russia, the US, and Ukraine were practically halted following the start of the conflict in Iran this February."
The article opens with a novelty spike by emphasizing the 'first such visit in a long time,' creating a sense of unprecedented diplomatic movement. The mention of a 'conflict in Iran this February'—a factually dubious claim, as no major internationally recognized conflict began in Iran in February 2024—adds confusion and sensationalism, capturing attention through perceived geopolitical novelty, even if the underlying premise is questionable or misstated.
"Is Ukraine really losing the war, as many recent statements and publications suggest? Spoiler: yes, but not in the way you’d think."
This rhetorical framing uses a teaser structure common in manipulative content—'Spoiler: yes, but not in the way you’d think'—to manufacture intrigue and position the article as revealing a hidden or counterintuitive truth, thereby capturing and holding attention through intellectual surprise.
Authority signals
"British magazine The Spectator published an editorial titled ‘Ukraine is losing the war’."
The article cites The Spectator as a source of consensus among observers, leveraging the publication's reputation to lend credibility to the narrative. However, it does so in a reporting capacity rather than over-relying on credentials to substitute for argument, keeping the authority manipulation moderate.
"Ukrainian experts admit that the strikes on Odessa port have had a far greater impact on Ukraine’s fuel logistics than Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil refineries."
The invocation of 'Ukrainian experts' is used to validate a comparative assessment of military effectiveness. While it adds weight to the argument, the appeal is generic and not tied to named individuals or institutions, limiting its authority leverage.
Tribe signals
"the war will continue – first until the Kiev regime is completely severed from Ukraine, and then until that regime is utterly destroyed."
The article constructs a sharp division between the 'Kiev regime' and 'Ukraine' as a nation, implying that the government is a foreign-imposed entity disconnected from the people. This frames the conflict as one between a Western-controlled regime (them) and the true Ukrainian society (us), creating a tribal in-group/out-group dichotomy that delegitimizes the Ukrainian state.
"If you need an example, just look at ISIS."
By equating the Ukrainian state to ISIS—a universally reviled terrorist organization—the article weaponizes moral identity. It invites readers to categorize support for or opposition to the Ukrainian government as a tribal marker of moral clarity, effectively turning political alignment into a test of judgment and decency.
"several prominent Ukrainian figures – including former Defense Minister Mikhail Fyodorov and the current head of Zelensky’s office, Kirill Budanov – had expressed similar sentiments."
The claim that multiple 'prominent Ukrainian figures' agree Ukraine is losing serves to manufacture consensus. It implies internal Ukrainian acknowledgment of defeat, reinforcing the narrative that resistance is futile and that elite opinion is turning—a classic tribal signal of shifting allegiance.
Emotion signals
"the civilian population will face a harsh winter; and yes, what remains of the energy and industrial sectors is under constant attack."
The article amplifies fear by emphasizing civilian suffering and systemic collapse, using emotionally charged language like 'harsh winter' and 'constant attack' to evoke dread. While real hardships exist, the framing is disproportionate and predictive, leaning into apocalyptic imagery to erode hope in Ukraine's resilience.
"the Ukrainian state is doing them more harm than good. As a result, the state itself, and not just state-controlled TCRs, will become the enemy."
This passage incites outrage by portraying the Ukrainian government as an aggressor against its own people. By suggesting the state is the 'enemy,' it fuels moral indignation and delegitimizes national unity efforts, emotionally priming readers to view resistance to conscription or state policy as justified.
"Not quite. I would venture to say that all the above-mentioned factors are merely temporary difficulties... But all this means that the additional financial burden will fall on Europe’s shoulders... the people will be left to their fate."
The article first downplays military setbacks ('merely temporary difficulties'), then sharply escalates to societal collapse and abandonment ('left to their fate'), creating emotional whiplash. This fractionation—oscillating between calm analysis and dire warning—heightens emotional engagement and perceived urgency.
Narrative Analysis (PCP)
How the article reshapes thinking: Perception (what beliefs are targeted), Context (what information is shifted or omitted), and Permission (what behavior is being encouraged).
The article aims to instill the belief that Ukraine is not losing the war due to battlefield defeats alone, but because of an internal civil rupture — a growing detachment between the Ukrainian state and its society. It constructs the idea that the Ukrainian government has become a hollow, externally driven military apparatus, increasingly alienated from its own people, and that this structural decay, not tactical setbacks, is the true cause of its impending collapse.
The article shifts the context of Ukraine’s challenges from a war of national defense into a narrative of internal illegitimacy, portraying the Ukrainian state as an artificial construct sustained by foreign support and coercion rather than popular will. This makes the idea of state collapse feel inevitable and internally driven, rather than the result of external military pressure.
The article omits documented evidence of sustained Ukrainian civil society mobilization in support of the war effort, including volunteer networks, public fundraising for the military, and broad civic resistance to occupation. It also omits any mention of Ukrainian government reforms, wartime governance structures, or public opinion polling showing continued (though strained) support for national sovereignty — information that would challenge the claim of total state-society rupture.
The reader is nudged toward accepting the inevitability of Ukraine’s internal collapse and, by extension, the futility of continued Western support. The tone implies that further resistance is not only militarily unsustainable but socially self-destructive, thereby granting implicit permission to view Ukraine’s continued fight as a tragic, misguided effort led by a disconnected elite.
SMRP Pattern
Four manipulation maintenance tactics: Socializing the idea as normal, Minimizing concerns, Rationalizing with logic, and Projecting blame.
"The comparison of the Ukrainian state to ISIS — 'a military organization that lacks the support of civil society... the most recent being ISIS' — presents a radical, extreme analogy as a reasonable point of reference, normalizing the idea that Ukraine’s government is akin to a terrorist caliphate."
"The claim that 'the Ukrainian authorities placed the interests of their Western masters above those of their country' shifts responsibility for Ukraine’s hardships away from Russian aggression and onto Western influence and Ukrainian leadership betrayal, deflecting accountability from the primary belligerent."
Red Flags
High-severity indicators: silencing dissent, coordinated messaging, or weaponizing identity to shut down debate.
"The article frames belief in Ukrainian resilience as alignment with a doomed, externally controlled regime, implying that anyone who supports continued resistance is complicit in a self-destructive project — effectively turning support for Ukraine into an identity marker of delusion or servility to Western interests."
Techniques Found(5)
Specific propaganda techniques identified using the SemEval-2023 academic taxonomy of 23 techniques across 6 categories.
"hysterical reports and articles"
Uses emotionally charged language ('hysterical') to dismiss certain media coverage or analyses in a way that undermines their credibility without engaging with their content, thus pre-framing them as irrational or overblown.
"the war will continue – first until the Kiev regime is completely severed from Ukraine, and then until that regime is utterly destroyed"
Presents a speculative and extreme future outcome — the complete severance and 'utter destruction' of the Kiev regime — as an inevitable consequence, which goes beyond available evidence and amplifies the narrative of inevitable collapse for dramatic effect.
"Ukraine again finds itself at a crossroads. And it appears to be once again choosing the path of war, a path that it’s being desperately pushed onto by Europe’s anti-Russia coalition."
Frames Ukraine's strategic position as a binary choice between war and an undefined alternative, implying that the country has no agency beyond being pushed into war by external forces, thereby oversimplifying complex geopolitical decision-making.
"If you need an example, just look at ISIS."
Compares the Ukrainian state to ISIS — a widely reviled extremist organization — to delegitimize it by associating it with a universally condemned entity, despite significant differences in ideology, structure, and context.
"the Ukrainian authorities placed the interests of their Western masters above those of their country"
Invokes national loyalty and sovereignty as shared values to criticize Ukrainian leadership, suggesting betrayal of the nation’s interests for foreign allegiance, which serves to morally discredit the government.