Новина Політбюро

Whose Voice? How Iuliia Mendel's Speech Echoes Pro-Kremlin Narratives

19.09.2026 - Новини Політбюро
Whose Voice? How Iuliia Mendel's Speech Echoes Pro-Kremlin Narratives

I read the English-language speech published by Iuliia Mendel herself after her appearance at an event in the European Parliament building.

This distinction matters. I am not analyzing somebody else's translation, a hostile retelling, or fragments selected by her critics. I am analyzing the speech as Mendel herself published it.

Her full text can be read here: Iuliia Mendel - "They Tried To Ban My Speech - I Gave It Anyway" .

Near the beginning of the speech, Mendel tells her Western audience:

"I am a daughter of Ukraine, and today I am its voice."

This is what makes the speech worth examining carefully.

The question is not whether Iuliia Mendel has the right to criticize President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, corruption, mobilisation policy or Ukraine's military strategy. Of course she does.

The question is different:

What understanding of the Russian-Ukrainian war is being presented to a Western audience under the label of a Ukrainian voice?

When Mendel's speech is reduced to its central political claims, a striking pattern emerges. Several of its key causal arguments closely resemble narratives that have been repeatedly documented as pro-Kremlin disinformation narratives.

What is the audience ultimately being asked to believe?

Mendel's argument leads the listener toward a fairly coherent picture:

  • Russia cannot be defeated militarily.
  • Continuing the war is destroying Ukraine.
  • Ukraine and Europe repeatedly choose war instead of peace.
  • The West wants to weaken or destroy Russia at the cost of Ukrainian lives.
  • Zelenskyy is an obstacle to peace.
  • "War lobbyists" profit from keeping the war going.
  • Donald Trump represents an attempt to achieve peace, while Zelenskyy and European leaders resist it.

Now remove Mendel's name and compare this picture with the messages that Russian officials and state-aligned propagandists have promoted for years.

The wording is more sophisticated. The emotional packaging is different. But the direction of the argument is remarkably similar.

1. "Ukraine and Europe choose war instead of peace"

Mendel says:

"Ukraine and Europe continue to choose a bad war over a bad peace."

This is more than criticism of one failed negotiation or one European policy.

It establishes a causal frame: the war continues because Ukraine and Europe repeatedly choose escalation instead of diplomacy.

EUvsDisinfo has repeatedly documented the pro-Kremlin narrative that Europe seeks to prolong the war and that Western military support prevents peace. See, for example: "The West is using Ukraine as a proxy in the war against Russia" .

Another documented version presents the West as using Ukrainian lives to weaken Russia: "For the West, Ukrainians are nothing more than cannon fodder that should weaken Russia" .

The similarity is not simply the use of the word "war." It is the assignment of responsibility. Europe stops being primarily the supporter of a country resisting invasion and becomes one of the actors responsible for keeping the war alive.

2. "The West wants to destroy Russia at the cost of Ukrainian lives"

Mendel says:

"A great many people want to destroy Russia more than they want to save Ukraine."

Elsewhere she describes a Western desire to destroy Russia regardless of how many Ukrainian lives it costs.

This is an extraordinary claim because it assigns a specific motive to Western governments, journalists, experts and political elites.

Who exactly wants to "destroy Russia"? What official policy declares that objective? What evidence establishes that Ukrainian casualties are an acceptable price for achieving it?

The speech does not demonstrate this. The motive is asserted.

Compare that with a recurring narrative documented by EUvsDisinfo: the West supposedly uses Ukrainians as cannon fodder in a proxy war against Russia .

The same idea appears much more crudely in Russian propaganda.

Olga Skabeyeva's Telegram channel published the claim:

"The West is ready to fight in Ukraine to the last Ukrainian."

Source: Olga Skabeyeva's Telegram channel .

Mendel uses humanitarian language rather than the phrase "to the last Ukrainian."

But the political frame is essentially the same: Western powers are portrayed as fighting Russia with Ukrainian lives.

3. Zelenskyy as an obstacle to peace

Mendel presents a history of negotiations in which potential agreements were rejected by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and then uses that history to question whether he genuinely seeks peace.

There is an important logical problem here.

Rejecting particular terms does not prove that a political leader does not want peace.

A government may want peace while considering particular territorial, military or security conditions unacceptable.

To move from "he rejected these terms" to "he does not want peace" requires evidence about motive that the speech does not provide.

Now compare this with the framing used by Vladimir Solovyov's media operation.

On 10 September 2026, Solovyov Live published a segment titled: "Kyiv and Brussels reject peace" .

Its description explicitly states:

"Zelenskyy and Europe do not want peace in Ukraine."

Again, the language is not identical. The destination of the argument is.

4. Is Ukraine actually choosing war instead of negotiations?

This claim can be tested against Ukraine's public diplomatic position.

On 8 June 2026, Ukraine, France, the United Kingdom and Germany issued a joint statement on negotiations and a ceasefire .

The leaders called for an immediate and complete ceasefire, direct dialogue between Ukraine and Russia and further negotiations.

They also stated that Ukraine should receive robust and legally binding security guarantees after a ceasefire.

On 5 September 2026, Zelenskyy also publicly said Ukraine was prepared to observe a temporary ceasefire in airstrikes on cities involved in the negotiation process: official statement of the President of Ukraine .

So the actual disagreement is not accurately described as:

Mendel wants peace while Ukraine wants war.

Ukraine's stated position includes a ceasefire and negotiations, but also demands security arrangements intended to prevent a ceasefire from becoming merely a pause before another Russian attack.

Mendel compresses this much more complicated dispute into the moral formula that Ukraine and Europe repeatedly choose war over peace.

5. "Military defeat of Russia is impossible"

Mendel tells her audience:

"Military defeat of Russia is impossible."

What is important here is not only the prediction, but the way it functions inside the argument.

It is presented as an established reality rather than a strategic assessment open to debate.

Once the listener accepts this premise, the remaining logic becomes easy:

Russia cannot be defeated. Therefore further resistance cannot produce victory. Therefore military aid mainly prolongs the war. Therefore those continuing to arm Ukraine are prolonging Ukrainian suffering.

This frame gradually removes Russia's agency from the equation.

Russia becomes an unchangeable fact of nature: too strong to defeat, too dangerous to pressure, too angry to provoke.

The side expected to change its behaviour is therefore not the state conducting the invasion, but Ukraine and the countries helping it resist.

6. Who is responsible for continuing the war?

One of the most revealing lines in Mendel's speech is:

"Yes, Russia started this war. But it is the war lobbyists who keep it going."

This sentence performs a major transfer of responsibility.

Russia retains responsibility for starting the war.

Responsibility for continuing it is shifted toward other actors: Ukrainian leaders, European governments, weapons producers and vaguely defined "war lobbyists."

The speech does not establish that financial profit by those groups is the reason Russia continues its military operations.

But this explanation strongly resembles a recurring message in Russian political rhetoric: Western elites and Ukrainian leaders supposedly profit from the war and therefore want fighting to continue.

Russian President Vladimir Putin used almost exactly this logic in November 2025, claiming that some Western actors wanted, together with the Ukrainian establishment, to "steal money" and continue fighting "to the last Ukrainian": Kremlin transcript .

This does not mean Mendel copied a Kremlin text. It means that the causal explanation offered to the audience is strikingly similar.

7. Trump as peace, Europe as resistance to peace

Mendel praises Donald Trump for challenging the existing strategy and argues that his efforts met resistance first from Zelenskyy and then from European leaders.

The political roles are therefore clear:

Trump is associated with ending the war.

Zelenskyy and European leaders are associated with blocking or resisting that change.

The same binary appears repeatedly in Russian information messaging, where political actors willing to reduce support for Ukraine or negotiate on Russian terms are described as forces of peace, while European governments supporting continued Ukrainian resistance are portrayed as a "war party."

Solovyov's September 2026 segment provides an unusually clear current example: "Kyiv and Brussels reject peace."

This is effective precisely because much of the suffering described is real

Not everything in Mendel's speech is false.

Ukraine does face an enormous demographic crisis. The war has devastated lives, damaged education and infrastructure, placed extreme pressure on the economy and created serious social and mobilisation problems. Corruption remains a legitimate subject of investigation and criticism.

Denying those realities would itself be dishonest.

But a true fact does not automatically prove every political conclusion attached to it.

For example:

Fact: Ukraine is losing population.

Reasonable conclusion: a long war worsens Ukraine's demographic crisis.

Additional claim requiring separate evidence: the West wants to destroy Russia with Ukrainian lives.

Another claim requiring separate evidence: Zelenskyy does not want peace.

Another claim requiring separate evidence: Europe prolongs the war because politicians and arms interests profit from it.

This transition from genuine suffering to unsupported attribution of motive is where political framing becomes most important.

Why compare Mendel with Russian propagandists?

Not because she speaks exactly like them.

She does not.

Her language is much more sophisticated, humanitarian and suitable for a Western audience.

Skabeyeva says that the West will fight "to the last Ukrainian."

Mendel says that Western actors want to destroy Russia regardless of how many Ukrainian lives it costs.

Solovyov says that Zelenskyy and Europe do not want peace.

Mendel's argument presents Zelenskyy and Europe as repeatedly rejecting the path to peace.

Russian information messaging portrays Western military support as a proxy war against Russia.

Mendel portrays Ukraine as being sacrificed for the larger Western goal of destroying Russia.

Different language. Similar political conclusions.

Why do these narratives matter?

The European External Action Service continues to document large-scale Russian Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference operations .

In June 2026, the EEAS and Ukraine's Center for Countering Disinformation also reported systematic Russian information activities aimed at eroding support for a democratic and sovereign Ukraine: EEAS joint report .

The strategic value of the narratives examined above is obvious.

If a Western voter becomes convinced that Russia cannot be stopped, that Ukraine's leaders do not want peace, that European governments profit from war and that military assistance merely sacrifices Ukrainians for an anti-Russian project, one question follows naturally:

Why continue supporting Ukraine?

That conclusion is strategically beneficial to Moscow regardless of who delivers the message.

An important distinction

Similarity of narratives is not proof of secret coordination, payment or instructions from the Kremlin.

EUvsDisinfo itself explicitly notes in its methodology that identifying a message as carrying a key pro-Kremlin narrative does not necessarily mean that the person or outlet spreading it is linked to the Kremlin or intentionally seeking to disinform.

That is not the claim being made here.

The claim is narrower and verifiable:

Several of the central causal arguments in Mendel's speech align closely with recurring pro-Kremlin narratives about Ukraine, Europe, Western military support and responsibility for continuing the war.

And one more piece of context

Mendel described her appearance as a speech at the European Parliament.

It is useful to understand what the event actually was.

According to the official announcement by Germany's Alternative for Germany (AfD) , the event was organised by MEP Hans Neuhoff. AfD co-chair Tino Chrupalla was scheduled to give the opening remarks, and Weltwoche editor Roger Köppel was listed for the discussion.

In other words, this was an event held in the European Parliament building, not a plenary address representing the European Parliament as an institution.

That context does not by itself prove anything about Mendel's arguments. But readers should know it.

"Today I am its voice"

That brings us back to the line at the beginning of the speech:

"I am a daughter of Ukraine, and today I am its voice."

No individual is "the voice of Ukraine."

Mendel is entitled to express her own political assessment of the war.

But Western audiences hearing that assessment should understand what they are being offered.

It is not simply criticism of Zelenskyy.

It is a coherent interpretation of the war in which Russia is presented as essentially unbeatable, Western military support becomes a mechanism that prolongs Ukrainian suffering, European governments become obstacles to peace, and pressure is directed primarily toward changing the policies of Ukraine and its partners.

Those are also core themes of long-running pro-Kremlin information narratives.

That does not establish who writes Mendel's speeches or whether any coordination exists.

But it does allow us to ask a fair and important question:

If someone presents herself to a Western audience as "the voice of Ukraine," while offering an explanation of the war that repeatedly echoes narratives used by the Kremlin to weaken support for Ukraine, whose political message is that audience ultimately hearing?

Sources

Автор: Volodymyr Dolhopolov

Обговорення

Обговорити на форумі