Across Europe, Russia’s information strategy has evolved from centralized messaging to local translation—re-tailored for national audiences. In Austria, two digital media platforms, TKP (tkp.at) and Report24.news, have become consistent conduits for pro-Kremlin narratives, transforming Moscow’s justifications for its war against Ukraine into familiar language for skeptical, Eurosceptic, or “alternative” audiences.
These pro-Russian media present a consistently pro‑Kremlin, anti‑Ukraine, and anti‑EU line in the analyzed articles, normalizing Russian geopolitical aims, delegitimizing Ukraine’s statehood, and framing EU support and sanctions as criminal or suicidal. Its texts repeatedly turn Russian talking points (collapse of Ukraine, genocide in Donbas, legitimacy of Crimea/Donbas annexation, “special military operation”) into “alternative expertise” for an Austrian audience.
TKP positions itself as an “alternative” outlet that exposes the alleged lies of Brussels, EU elites, and “system media” while heavily relying on fringe or explicitly pro-Kremlin figures (Seymour Hersh, Stephen Bryen, Andrew Korybko, and unnamed “Telegram insiders”) as authoritative voices. The tone is polemical rather than analytical: Brussels is a “war mafia,” EU elites are “warmongers,” and citizens are victims of an “illegal” anti‑Russian crusade.
TKP positions itself as an “independent science and politics blog.” Its slogan of “alternative information” frames mainstream European outlets as biased or controlled, while presenting itself as a truth-telling outsider. Yet behind this positioning lies a clear ideological alignment with Russian state narratives.
In November 2025, TKP published an article titled “Kriegsmafia: Kommission verlangt Milliarden für ”Ukraine”—literally, “War Mafia: Commission demands billions for Ukraine.” It described the European Commission as a criminal cartel and accused Brussels of “demanding billions for Ukraine” in order to enrich “warmongers.”
Another article illustrated with an EU flag in flames—an image of Europe consuming itself—claimed that “citizens are the victims of an illegal anti-Russian crusade.”
“Since Ukraine is not part of the EU, and supporting Ukraine does not constitute an act of aggression by Russia against the EU, the “emergency” was deliberately created by the EU administration”, the article reads.
In December, as the entire Kremlin propaganda machine was bombarding the EU’s plan to block the Russian frozen assets until the war ends, TKP made a contribution locally, slamming Brussels, not Russia, for its war of aggression. The article titled “The citizens are paying the price for the EU’s illegal seizure of Russian funds” criticizes the EU’s decision, asserting that the EU is effectively seizing €210 billion that belonged to the Russian central bank. “This action is unprecedented worldwide and is not covered by any legal framework, yet it is presented in a manipulative manner.”
Another article from November 19, citing American commentator Stephen Bryen, declared, “The collapse of Ukraine is accompanied by blatant propaganda from Brussels. Ukraine’s military collapse is becoming increasingly obvious.” Citing Stephen Bryen, it reports the Kremlin’s wishful thinking about Ukraine’s collapse.
Such language is not analysis but a repetition of the Kremlin’s “Ukraine is collapsing” narrative—a trope designed to suggest futility in supporting Kyiv.
In addition, it provides coverage to fringe activists presenting their statements as widely accepted in the country: “Ukrainian opposition member on EU warmongers. A Ukrainian living in exile in the US commented over the weekend on the current peace efforts surrounding Ukraine. He said he was “absolutely shocked” by statements from Europeans and their elite who continue to demand a Ukrainian victory. Denys Yelisevych is a libertarian Ukrainian activist.”
Throughout 2025, TKP’s contributors—including Russian propagandist Andrey Korybko, a regular voice on Kremlin-aligned outlets worldwide—used Russia’s official terminology of the invasion. In one August piece, the outlet explained that “one of the reasons for the ‘special operation’ is to stop NATO expansion in Ukraine.”
Korybko uses the Kremlin’s terminology of “special military operation”: “This position is unlikely to change, as one of the reasons for the “special operation” is to stop NATO expansion in Ukraine. Western troops on the ground after the war would therefore be seen as a failure to achieve Russia’s primary objective.”
No critical distance or contextualization was provided. The “special operation” euphemism appeared unchallenged, implicitly legitimizing Russia’s framing of a “justified” war as defensive and inevitable.
The TKP’s approach to territorial issues closely aligns with Russia’s official discourse. In an August article titled “What does the population of Crimea actually want?”, it claimed:
“In 2014, the Crimean Peninsula separated from Ukraine in a referendum and joined Russia. After decades of fighting for independence, the people of Crimea were able to assert their desire to belong to Russia. Since then, Russia has been branded an aggressive occupier by NATO, and the Ukrainian army has been trying to take Crimea by force since 2022.”
It erases the fact that the “referendum” occurred following Russian military invasion and under military occupation and was never recognized internationally.
“For the war to end and for there to be some kind of stability in this part of the world, Ukraine must recognize that Crimea belongs to Russia, because that is the will of the Crimean people. The same applies to Donbass, if Ukraine concedes this and agrees to remain outside NATO. Putin could withdraw from the other provinces, provided Crimea is secure”, it further reads with no balanced coverage provided.
In December 2025, another piece asked provocatively, “Is Odessa becoming Russian?” and argued that “Russia has a strong emotional motivation to avenge the murders at the Trade Union House in Odessa.”
The article builds the perception that Russians can conquer Odessa. It justifies Russia’s war by saying, “What must not be forgotten is the strong emotional motivation driving Russia to avenge the murders at the Trade Union House in Odessa.” The framing transforms a pretended vengeance into moral logic—a rhetorical device that casts invasion as justice.
Perhaps most revealing is TKP’s manipulation of international law. Reporting on proceedings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), TKP published a headline asserting, “Claim against Russia dismissed, allegations against Ukraine further investigated.”
The article presented Russia’s 10,000-page counterclaim as factual evidence of Ukrainian genocide, quoting, “The Ukrainian government, instigated by the West, employed a wide arsenal of war crimes against the civilian population in implementing its genocidal agenda.”
It claims, “On November 18, 2024, the Russian side submitted over 10,000 pages of evidence to the court documenting the genocide of the Russian and Russian-speaking population of the Donbas by the Kyiv regime,” and “The Ukrainian government, instigated by the West, employed a wide arsenal of war crimes against the civilian population in implementing its genocidal agenda: mass murder, torture, bombings, and indiscriminate shelling.” It claims, “The West’s hopes of using legal ‘weapons’ against Russia have been dashed.”
The actual ICJ docket shows the opposite—Russia’s invasion remains under legal scrutiny, while its counterclaims were only deemed admissible for review. Yet TKP’s narrative inverts the roles of aggressor and victim, allowing readers to perceive Russia as legally vindicated and Ukraine as a genocidal perpetrator.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is hearing cases between Russia and Ukraine, primarily revolving around Ukraine’s lawsuit alleging Russia violated the Genocide Convention by falsely claiming genocide to justify its invasion and Russia’s counterclaims alleging Ukraine itself committed genocide in Donbas. In late 2025, the ICJ accepted Russia’s counterclaims for consideration.
TKP failed to mention that on 16 March 2022, the court ruled that Russia must “immediately suspend the military operations” in Ukraine while waiting for the final decision on the case. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_v._Russian_Federation_(2022).
Ukraine’s Initial Case (Feb 2022): Ukraine brought a case to the ICJ, arguing Russia’s invasion was based on fabricated genocide claims, violating the 1948 Genocide Convention. Furthermore, ICJ’s 2024 ruling accepted jurisdiction over Ukraine’s core claim that Russia falsely invoked genocide.
Through such manipulative construction, TKP does not report on the war; it reframes it. It converts disinformation into plausible “expertise” and moralizes Russia’s actions through the language of justice and resistance.
The outlet is frequently providing a stage for the Russian propagandist Korybko. In the article, “Kyiv corruption scandal: Is Zelensky next?” Andrew Korybko uses the corruption scandal to further demonize Ukraine: “With Yermak just ousted, Zelenskyy could be next—unless he gives in to Trump’s demands for peace. The Kyiv corruption scandal is having far-reaching consequences that could lead to regime change.”
Read also: How Pro-Russian media in EU are selling Putin’s war narrative around peace talks
While TKP favors an editorial tone of “alternative analysis,” Report24.news operates as a more overtly polemical outlet. Its thematic range extends beyond Ukraine, linking war narratives to a broader conspiratorial universe: the “US Deep State,” “EU warmongers,” and “the arms mafia.”
Report24.news operates as a strongly pro‑Kremlin, anti‑Ukraine, and anti‑EU “alternative” outlet that systematically reframes Russia’s aggression as a defensive reaction, depicts Ukraine as corrupt and fascist, and presents NATO/EU/“Deep State” as the real culprits and main obstacles to peace. Its Ukraine coverage turns Russian core talking points into a coherent meta‑story for an Austrian/German‑speaking audience.
The analyzed articles show Report24.news as a Eurosceptic, conspiratorial portal that targets the EU, NATO, “Western values,” and mainstream media while defending or normalizing Russian positions. It blends war narratives with broader conspiracy themes (“US Deep State,” “arms mafia,” bureaucrats expanding power “beyond democratic control”), positioning itself as a truth‑telling outsider exposing hidden motives behind EU/US policy.
“The war allows the EU to centralize powers, create new funds and procurement structures, and thus expand its economic influence—beyond the democratic control of the member states. The insistence on a Ukrainian victory therefore serves not only moral or security policy goals, but also the self-preservation of the European bureaucracy.”
In a December article, “EU Größenwahn: Brüssel & Co. setzen weiterhin auf Sieg der Ukraine,” Report24 argued that “the declaration reads like a manifesto of the Deep State: more pressure, more sanctions, more war economy, more trillions for the arms mafia and Kyiv’s oligarchs. The EU leadership wants to force Ukraine into NATO and the EU, no matter what the cost—even without America.”
The rhetorical formula—“Deep State,” “arms mafia,” “oligarchs”—merges American far-right vocabulary with Kremlin messaging, producing a hybrid conspiracy that appeals to European skeptics.
Report24 consistently depicts Russia not as an aggressor but as a reactive power. In its October feature, “NATO als Haupthindernis für Frieden in der Ukraine,” it claimed that “the only reliable guarantee would be the complete dissolution of NATO. Without NATO, there would be no danger of Ukraine or other states suddenly joining on Russia’s borders.”
The notion that peace requires NATO’s dissolution is a direct echo of Moscow’s strategic line—the idea that Western security structures, not Russian invasion, are the root cause of instability.
In another piece titled “Putin warns European hardliners of a devastating war,” the Russian president is described as prudently “warning” the West, while EU leaders are “war-enthusiastic.” Here again, the aggressor becomes the adult in the room, and West becomes the reckless child.
The Kremlin narrative that “Ukraine has lost and Russia has won” is widely supported across the articles of this online outlet. It’s enhanced with metaphors and strong terminology, like “endgame” and “new borders”, and also with AI-generated propaganda graphics.
“Endgame Ukraine: How Washington and Moscow want to end the war. It is a plan that amounts to nothing less than a de facto admission of Western defeat.”
“Fear of peace is spreading in Europe. Washington and Moscow, without consulting Brussels, Berlin, or Warsaw, have struck a deal that seals Ukraine’s defeat. The reactions of the war-enthusiastic EU leadership are predictably hysterical.”
“Ukrainian territorial cessions—borders are not set in stone. Russia is demanding that Ukraine recognize new borders. This is being rejected in Kyiv and in European capitals. While American and Russian negotiators have agreed on a peace plan for Ukraine, the Europeans, in particular, are vehemently opposed. And why? Because this plan also includes territorial concessions to Russia.”
Report24’s coverage of Ukraine’s government blends information manipulation with moral degradation. One November article asked, “48 Billion Shock: How corrupt is the Zelenskyy regime really?” and claimed:
“Sometimes you get the feeling that Ukraine is less a state than a gigantic vacuum cleaner, sucking up Western taxpayers’ money with uncanny precision and spitting it out somewhere between Kyiv, Dubai, and Tallinn.”
It cites discredited figures like Larry Johnson and Alina Lipp, both of whom have amplified Russian disinformation. Lipp is under EU sanctions for spreading Russian disinformation. In another report, “Hintergrund: Das Sprachenverbotsgesetz in der Ukraine war eine Kriegsursache,” the outlet declared that banning the Russian language in Ukraine constituted “ethnic cleansing,” arguing that this “made peaceful resolution impossible.”
Such phrasing aligns seamlessly with Russia’s 2014–2022 justification for invasion—the myth of “oppressed Russian speakers” needing protection. Report24 concluded bluntly: “The EU and NATO supported racism in Ukraine at great expense, politically, financially, and militarily.”
In its December 2025 obituary-like story about Ukrainian politician Andriy Parubiy, “Maidan-Macher erschossen: Parubij und die dunkle Seite der Ukraine,” Report24 resurrected a decade-old conspiracy theory about sniper shootings in Kyiv’s Maidan square: “He coordinated the notorious paramilitary units that stationed their snipers in the Hotel Ukraina. These units killed both demonstrators and police officers—thus creating the desired bloodbath that made the overthrow of President Yanukovych possible.”
The article labeled Parubiy, a former speaker of the Ukrainian parliament, a “Banderite, deeply rooted in fascist ideology,” ignoring multiple investigations that disproved these claims. Parubiy was killed in August 2025 by a man who acted, according to the investigation, on the order of the Russian security services. Once again, history is rewritten to depict Ukraine’s democratic revolution as a coup orchestrated by extremists—the central seedbed of the Kremlin’s favorite “Nazi Ukraine” trope.
Report24’s editorial logic can be condensed into one formula: “Russia reacts, the West provokes.” In piece after piece, this inversion persists—the West is “war-hungry,” “hysterical,” or “corrupt,” while Russia’s demands are “reasonable” and “historically justified.”
Even a story about a captured Austrian military vehicle on a Russian exhibition concluded with the warning that “Moscow now considers Austria a party to the war,” implying that the Austrian government, not Russia, is breaching neutrality.
Austria’s constitutional neutrality and a longstanding ambivalence toward NATO make it particularly receptive to narratives that frame the EU as an aggressor and Russia as a misunderstood neighbor. Both TKP and Report24 exploit this cultural frame. They transform “neutrality” from a legal principle into a moral identity—one that supposedly justifies rejecting sanctions, doubting mainstream Western media, and viewing Ukraine’s resistance as the West’s proxy warfare, while Ukraine isn’t left with any other choice than to fight against Russian invasion in order to survive.
The stylistic convergence between these outlets is striking. Both rely on emotionally charged imagery—flames, collapse, vengeance—and on an authoritative tone that conceals ideological selection under the guise of “analysis.” Both quote Kremlin-approved commentators like Andrey Korybko and Seymour Hersh, described respectively as “experts” and “investigative journalists,” without revealing their propagandistic records.
And both amplify pro-Russian Telegram channels conducting anti-Ukraine information operations, such as Legitimny and Rezident, which TKP praises as sources that “publish fairly unvarnished information about the course of the fighting.” Ukrainian authorities, by contrast, have identified these channels as components of Russia’s hybrid information operations.
In short, what Moscow’s own outlets can no longer achieve directly within the EU, these Austrian sites accomplish through local adaptation—giving Kremlin talking points an Austrian accent.
The pro-Kremlin online landscape in Austria extends beyond these friendly sites. The Austria-branded version of Russia’s Pravda (austria.news-pravda.com) and social accounts such as @GeromanAT on X contribute to the same network of amplification. Posts and articles frequently reference each other, forming a closed information loop where fabricated claims circulate as mutual corroboration.
Also, in 2025, Austrian authorities announced that they revealed a Russian-driven campaign aimed at spreading disinformation about Ukraine. It was linked to Russia’s agents of influence.
Together, these information manipulation layers constitute what disinformation analysts describe as a “narrative relay system”—a structure where locally branded outlets retransmit Russian state narratives, filtered through domestic political grievances and distrust of EU institutions. In this relay, Austria’s neutrality is reframed as moral superiority, the EU as a “warmonger,” and Russia as a “guarantor of peace.”
Read also the interview: “In Austria, it’s basically legal to spread Russian propaganda,” said Dietmar Pichler, a leading Austrian disinformation expert, head analyst at Inved.eu, and founder of the Vienna-based Disinfo Resilience Network.
The cumulative effect of these narratives is not to convince readers that every Russian claim is true, but to blur moral distinctions: if “everyone lies,” then Russia’s lies are no worse than anyone else’s. When TKP declares that “the West’s hopes of using legal weapons against Russia have been dashed,” or when Report24 insists that “Europe insists on a victory for Ukraine” to “preserve its bureaucracy,” the outcome is the same—the erosion of moral clarity about aggression and responsibility.
By reframing war crimes as reciprocity, invasion as reaction, and democratic solidarity as authoritarian coercion, these Austrian outlets have achieved what Russian state media can no longer do openly in the EU: make disinformation sound like dissent.
Pro-Kremlin networks across Europe weaponize democratic debates to fabricate EU and NATO collapse narratives, transforming…
Pro-Russian media in the EU portray the use of frozen Russian assets for Ukraine loans…
European leaders and prominent EU officials have issued a joint statement welcoming progress in diplomatic…
The European Union has expanded sanctions against Russia in response to escalating hybrid operations and…
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has arrived in Kupyansk, directly contradicting Kremlin statements that the town…
Pro-Russian outlets in the EU amplify a Kremlin-directed “Nazism” campaign, framing Ukraine as a fascist…