Propastop analysis: Russian propaganda attacks the legitimacy of the Ukrainian President

16.05.2024

Russian propaganda has portrayed Ukraine and its government in many different ways, be it as “anti-Russia,” a Nazi junta, an artificial state, or an illegitimate state in itself. Today, Propastop explores where the Russian narrative of the lack of legitimacy of Ukrainian power came from.

The narrative of the illegitimacy of Ukrainian power is by no means new and is strongly linked to the Russian narrative of Ukraine as an ‘artificial’ state. Although the narrative of Ukraine as an ‘artificial’ state has been in circulation for decades, it became the Kremlin’s official position in 2021, when Vladimir Putin published his ‘historical essay’ on the unity of the Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian peoples. In the same essay, Putin mentioned that Ukrainian statehood had been artificially cultivated by Poland from the 19th century to the present, and that it was the destiny of the Ukrainian people to be in the same state as their Russian ‘brother nation’.

The Russian news agency RIA Novosti accidentally posted an article entitled “Russia and the New World” at 8:00 on February 26, 2022, assuming that by then the Russian army had already invaded Kyiv. The article speaks of Ukraine’s annexation to Russia as “correcting a historical mistake”. Since the state of Ukraine is in itself ‘artificial’ and a ‘historical mistake’, its government must also be illegal, according to Russian propaganda. (For more on the narrative of the unity of the peoples of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, read this Propastop narrative x-ray.)

The beginning of the legitimacy narrative

In the final act of the Euromaidan protests, the Verkhovna Rada on 22 February 2014 dismissed the then Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych for dereliction of duty and killing civilian protesters. The day before, on 21 February, when his resignation was already obvious, Yanukovych fled to Russia under Kremlin protection and Ukraine declared the former head of state wanted. Under the constitution, Oleksandr Turchynov, Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada, then became president.

In his speech at the time, Putin said that Russia only recognised Yanukovych as the legitimate president of Ukraine and called what had happened in Kyiv an illegal armed coup. Although the weapons were used in the centre of Kyiv, mainly by units of the law enforcement forces subordinate to the former president. In the same speech, Mr Putin said that Russia could bring its troops into Ukraine because Mr. Yanukovych had asked Russia for help. Putin made the speech on March 4, a few weeks before the occupation of Crimea, and Mr. Yanukovych’s request was indeed used indirectly as a pretext for the occupation of Crimea.

The letter from Viktor Yanukovych in the photo was first used by the then Russian ambassador to the UN as evidence of the illegitimacy of Ukraine’s Dignity Revolution, although the details of the letter were not made public. In 2017, the full contents of the letter were leaked to the media, when it was used as evidence in Yanukovych’s treason trial. “In this regard, I appeal to the President of the Russian Federation, V.V. Putin, to use the armed forces of the Russian Federation to ensure the legality, peace, security, stability, and protection of the people of Ukraine.”

As the war in eastern Ukraine escalated, propaganda intensified, and Yanukovych continued the narrative that he was the legitimate president of Ukraine. At the same time, President Petro Poroshenko took office in Kyiv and was elected in free and special elections.

In order to maintain his image as a legitimate president, Yanukovych sued the Verkhovna Rada, claiming that his removal violated the Ukrainian Constitution (although at the same time, a treason trial was ongoing).

The Russian media, however, continued the narrative that the Ukrainian government is illegitimate. This is also underlined linguistically – in the Russian media, one can find a myriad of uses of the words junta or regime. Internationally, these terms are commonly used to describe a government that has come to power illegally, whether as a result of a military coup or otherwise.

Screenshot from Dmitry Medvedev’s Telegram channel. Translation: “The Ukrainian junta keeps insisting that the negotiations require the restoration of the 1991 state border. These are the borders of Russian oblasts and former Russian governorates, not the borders of mythical Ukraine.”

 

Screenshots from the Twitter account of Dmitry Rogozin, former deputy prime minister and current representative of the illegal Zaporizhzhia Oblast in the Russian Senate. He uses both the words “junta” and “regime”.

 

Legitimacy and the “CIA Trail”

Another reason for the lack of legitimacy of the Ukrainian government is the Kremlin propaganda narrative that the Ukrainian government is controlled by Washington and Brussels. And as a derivative of this, the claim is spread that the Revolution of Dignity was organised by the US Central Intelligence Agency. This narrative was developed over the years in response to various revolutions and mass protests in countries that the Kremlin considers to be within its sphere of influence.

In many of these events (especially in Georgia), civil society played an important role, with a small degree of support from Western governments. It is precisely the importance of Western financial support that was greatly exaggerated by Russian propaganda to portray the mass demonstrations in Russia in 2011 as CIA actions aimed at subordinating Russia to American influence.

During the Revolution of Dignity, the then US Under Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, who visited the Maidan riots in December 2013 and handed out food rations to protesters and police alike, became a major figure in narratives on the same theme. Russian propaganda used the incident to portray the Maidan protests as a US-backed plan to destroy relations between Ukraine and Russia. (For a typical Russian media portrayal of this example, see Komsomolskaya Pravda.)

Victoria Nuland rose to prominence again a month later, as a leaked phone conversation between several US State Department officials, including Nuland, leaked to the media. The calls discussed who could hypothetically become the next members of the Ukrainian government. Russian propaganda reported the phone call as proof that the Ukrainian government was being put together by Washington (see also Reuters article for more on the call). This narrative has persisted over the years, as can be seen from the tweets of various Russian authorities and embassies:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some examples of tweets by Dmitry Medvedev and Russian embassies with the narrative that Ukraine is controlled by Washington/West.

The legitimacy narrative in the context of the war in Ukraine

So how does the legitimacy narrative manifest itself in the context of the current war? President Zelenskyy of Ukraine was elected in 2019 as a result of transparent elections, in which he received almost 75% of the votes in the second round.

But according to the Ukrainian constitution, Zelenskyy’s term is due to end on May 20, this year, exactly five years after he took office. Since presidential elections cannot be held in a state of war, Zelenskyy will continue in office after the end of his term, following a unanimous decision by Ukraine’s political parties.

However, this perfectly understandable solution creates a somewhat ambiguous legal situation, as the Ukrainian Constitution does not clearly spell out what happens after the expiration of the term of office of an incumbent president if new elections cannot be held.

After May 20, Zelenskyy is expected to become “interim” president until the next elections. However, opponents of Zelenskyy may argue that in such a situation, the powers of the President should be transferred to the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, as happened in 2014 after Yanukovych was ousted. (Read more about the current legal situation here.) Only recently, Belarus’ main propaganda channel, Belta posted an article with such an argument. Lenta.ru has disseminated allegations of this nature by Ukraine’s former pro-Russian Prime Minister, Mykola Azarov.

Ukrainians are unlikely to be affected by the new situation after 20 May. At the same time, the ambiguous legal situation that is emerging will provide plenty of scope for anti-Ukrainian propaganda. Both before the start of full-scale war and now, there are ‘useful idiot’ narratives circulating on the internet about Zelenskoy as the dictator who dismantled Ukraine’s democracy and seized all power.

A selection of comments from Russian-speaking Twitter users.

Screenshot from the Twitter account of a major Russian portal, translation: ‘Only 16 days left until the end of Zelenskyy’s legitimacy’. Ukrainians, are you going to put up with this power grab after May 20, which cancelled the elections, strangled the opposition, drove you to the slaughterhouse, and won’t let you out of the country?”
@DmitryRaevski “Today is the last day Zelenskoy is the legitimate President of Ukraine. And even that legitimacy is conditional, given the way he became president. Today at 00:00, as in a fairy tale, he will change from a clown-junkie with presidential status to an ordinary clown-junkie. Symbolically, the change is taking place on International Joke Day.
@kharkovskiyizum “Zelenskoy is afraid of elections because he realizes that Ukrainians will no longer elect him president, and by the end of spring he will lose legitimacy. In essence, Ze is a “limping duck” and is rapidly losing authority both in Ukraine and abroad.”
@YWojewska “Yeah, yeah… Zelenskõi’s legitimacy ends. Let Putin’s legitimacy now not be recognised (the tweet is in response to Deutsche Welle’s post on the lack of legitimacy of Russian presidential elections). From now on, what you have in Europe is not realpolitik (a foreign policy based on practical facts, not moral or ideological principles), but a palagan of idiots.”

The narrative of Zelenskyy’s lack of legitimacy has also been repeatedly spread by official Russian sources. On March 28, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that there was no point in talking about the legitimacy of the Ukrainian President after May 20. A month later, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov claimed that he believes that the Ukrainian people will soon understand the truth and that Zelenskyy’s fate “will be known in advance.” The RT article also underlines that Zelenskoy’s popularity among the population has plummeted and that, according to members of the Verkhovna Rada, “the country is under the absolute power of one person”.
Quite interesting is a press release from the Russian foreign intelligence service on May 6, which talks about data showing that the West is deeply concerned about the mood of Ukrainian society and that ‘Zelenskyy will lose the battle for the minds and hearts of Ukrainians when his term ends on May 20‘. The same press release also underlines that it is the Americans who are now starting to look for a replacement for Zelenskyy, although ‘they do not care who leads Ukraine, because the Americans aim to continue the war to the last Ukrainian. Such a press release is uncharacteristic of the intelligence services, but it describes the important role of the Russian intelligence services in the country’s propaganda machine.

Russian Foreign Intelligence Service press release.

 

To sum up, the narrative of the legitimacy of Ukrainian power is just one of several narratives that Russia uses to attack Ukraine. As May 20 approaches, we can expect the legitimacy narrative to become more important in Russian propaganda. It can be assumed that, to some extent, the Kremlin will use this narrative to influence the Ukrainian people, but it is more likely that this narrative will be used against foreign audiences. Especially in the case of Ukraine’s key allies in Europe and America, where there is widespread scepticism about Ukraine among certain sections of society and important elections in the US and UK are coming up.