Russian Disinformation in the Middle East - Narratives, Mechanisms, and Strategic Implications

Introduction: Why the Middle East Matters in Russia’s Information War

Russian disinformation in the Middle East and North Africa (the MENAT region) should not be understood as a side effect of Moscow’s foreign policy, nor as an isolated propaganda effort aimed exclusively at local audiences. Instead, it constitutes a central component of Russia’s broader cognitive and information warfare strategy against the West.

For the Kremlin, the Middle East is not primarily a military priority, but a strategic narrative battlefield. It offers a unique combination of political fragmentation, historical grievances toward Western powers, unresolved conflicts, and highly polarized media ecosystems. These conditions create an environment in which Russian narratives do not need to dominate outright — they merely need to undermine Western credibility, introduce doubt, and normalize ambiguity.

Rather than promoting an explicitly pro-Russian worldview, Moscow’s information strategy in the region focuses on eroding trust in Western actors, relativizing responsibility for international conflicts, and reshaping how global power dynamics are perceived.

1. The Middle East as a Space of Cognitive Warfare

Russia’s approach to the MENAT region reflects a broader shift in its understanding of conflict. Modern warfare, from Moscow’s perspective, is no longer confined to kinetic operations. Instead, it increasingly unfolds in the cognitive domain, where perceptions, emotions, and interpretations shape political outcomes.

The Middle East plays a crucial role in this strategy for several reasons:

• Societies across the region have long-standing experiences with Western interventionism, making anti-Western narratives resonate more easily.
• Regional conflicts are complex and protracted, which allows responsibility to be blurred and accountability to be questioned.
• Media environments are fragmented, multilingual, and highly politicized, facilitating narrative diffusion.
• Global South perspectives increasingly shape international debates — including positions on Ukraine.

In this context, Russia’s goal is not to “win hearts and minds” in a traditional sense. Instead, it aims to weaken moral clarity, dilute Western narratives, and present global politics as a struggle between equally flawed powers.

2. The Architecture of Russian Disinformation in the MENAT Region

Russian disinformation in the Middle East operates through a multi-layered ecosystem, rather than a single centralized channel. This system is adaptive, decentralized, and designed to appear organic.

2.1 State Media as Narrative Anchors

At the core of this ecosystem are Russian state-funded outlets broadcasting in regional languages, including RT Arabic, Sputnik Arabic, Sputnik Türkiye, and Sputnik Iran. These platforms serve as narrative anchors rather than simple news providers.

Their content typically avoids overt propaganda. Instead, it relies on:

• selective quotation of Western officials,
• removal of statements from their original political context,
• frequent use of foreign “experts” critical of Western policies,
• framing Russia as a pragmatic and rational actor.

This approach allows Russian messaging to appear balanced and analytical, even when it subtly advances Kremlin priorities.

2.2 Local Media and Narrative Partnerships

A second layer consists of regional media outlets that, for ideological or political reasons, amplify Russian narratives. Channels such as Al Mayadeen or Press TV do not need to be controlled by Moscow — alignment of interests is sufficient.

This localization effect is crucial. Once Russian narratives are reproduced by regional actors, they are no longer perceived as foreign messaging. They become part of the local media discourse, significantly increasing their legitimacy and reach.

2.3 Social Media and Emotional Amplification

Social media platforms — especially Telegram, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, and TikTok — play a decisive role in emotional amplification. These platforms are not primarily used to convey complex arguments, but to trigger affective responses.

Short videos, emotionally charged headlines, symbolic images, and simplified storylines dominate this space. Importantly, much of this content does not rely on outright falsehoods. Instead, disinformation operates through:

• omission of context,
• suggestive framing,
• emotionally loaded language,
• repetition of associative cues.

This makes Russian messaging particularly difficult to counter using traditional fact-checking tools.

3. Core Narratives Shaping Russian Messaging

Despite regional variations, Russian disinformation in the MENAT region consistently revolves around several core narrative axes.

3.1 Russia as a Rational and Stabilizing Actor

One of the most persistent narratives portrays Russia as a pragmatic power capable of engaging with all sides of regional conflicts. In contrast to the West, Moscow is depicted as:

• respecting state sovereignty,
• opposing forced regime change,
• prioritizing stability over ideology.

This framing has proven especially effective in relation to Syria and Libya, where Western intervention is often associated with long-term instability.

3.2 The West as a Source of Chaos and Hypocrisy

The United States, NATO, and the European Union are frequently framed as destabilizing actors driven by selective morality and geopolitical self-interest. Common accusations include:

• double standards in human rights advocacy,
• instrumentalization of democracy promotion,
• disregard for regional consequences.

Within this framework, Russia’s war against Ukraine is often relativized by comparing it to conflicts in the Middle East, thereby diluting Moscow’s responsibility.

3.3 Poland as a “Proxy Aggressor”

A particularly noteworthy element of Russian messaging concerns Poland. In Russian-language media targeting Middle Eastern audiences, Poland is frequently portrayed as:

• the most Russophobic state in Europe,
• a frontline executor of U.S. strategic interests,
• a militarized and destabilizing actor,
• a country allegedly driven by historical territorial ambitions.

Crucially, Poland is rarely presented as an autonomous political actor. Instead, it functions as a symbolic extension of Western aggression, reinforcing broader anti-NATO narratives.

4. Political and Social Effects of Russian Disinformation

The effectiveness of Russian disinformation in the Middle East should not be measured by overt support for Moscow. Its success lies elsewhere — in changing how conflicts are interpreted, not necessarily in changing political loyalties.

Key long-term effects include:

• declining trust in Western narratives,
• growing acceptance of “neutral” positions on Ukraine,
• normalization of the idea that international norms are selective and obsolete,
• deterioration of Central and Eastern European countries’ reputations, including Poland.

From Moscow’s perspective, convincing audiences that “everyone is guilty” is often sufficient. Moral equivalence is a powerful strategic outcome.

5. Strategic Conclusions

Several conclusions emerge from the analysis:

1. Russian disinformation in the Middle East is systemic, deliberate, and long-term.
2. Its effectiveness stems from cultural adaptation rather than sheer volume of false content.
3. Poland occupies a consistent role within Russian regional narratives as a proxy of Western aggression.
4. Western absence from sustained narrative engagement in the MENAT region creates a vacuum that Russia actively fills.

6. Recommendations: Moving Beyond Reactive Counter-Disinformation

Addressing Russian information operations in the Middle East requires a strategic shift.

First, systematic monitoring of Russian narratives in Arabic, Turkish, and Persian must become a permanent element of analytical and diplomatic practice.

Second, Western actors — including Poland — should move beyond reactive fact-checking and invest in proactive narrative engagement tailored to regional sensitivities.

Third, greater involvement of regional experts, journalists, and opinion leaders is essential to building credible counter-narratives.

Finally, disinformation should be treated as a security challenge, not merely a communication problem.

Final Note

Russia’s information strategy in the Middle East demonstrates that influence in the 21st century is increasingly about shaping how people interpret reality rather than controlling what they know. As long as ambiguity benefits Moscow, the Kremlin will continue to invest in narratives that erode certainty, weaken alliances, and normalize disorder.

The conclusions were drawn on the basis of the debate: Russian disinformation in the Middle East.