How Russia Gaslights the World: Putin's Decades-Long Campaign of Denial and Disinformation

Under Vladimir Putin’s leadership, Russia has perfected a sophisticated form of international manipulation that goes far beyond simple diplomatic maneuvering. The Putin regime has systematically employed what can best be described as geopolitical gaslighting—creating elaborate false narratives, denying verifiable facts, and exploiting the structural weaknesses of the international order to pursue aggressive actions while maintaining a veneer of innocence. From unmarked soldiers seizing Crimea to drone swarms violating NATO airspace, Russia operates in the grey zones of international law, betting that Western democracies will consistently choose diplomatic politeness over confrontation. This isn’t merely about winning individual disputes; it’s about fundamentally undermining the shared understanding of reality that underpins the global order, making genuine dialogue impossible while Russia advances its interests through coercion, subterfuge, and outright aggression.

The Rhetorical Architecture of Russian Gaslighting

The concept of gaslighting, while not a formal psychological term and often misused, captures something fundamentally real about certain patterns of manipulation. A person who gaslights doesn’t simply tell individual lies or issue isolated denials. Instead, they construct an entire false narrative designed to manipulate someone into accepting their version of reality.

The gaslighter constantly shuts down even the possibility that a differing perspective might have merit, insisting that it would be irrational or irresponsible to accept any version of truth except the one they’re presenting. Facts that contradict the gaslighter’s preferred view are dismissed or denied outright, even when the person on the receiving end can clearly recall the reality and knows the gaslighter was present when the disputed events occurred.

For the person employing these tactics, gaslighting provides control, makes genuine dispute impossible, and places themselves at the center of their fabricated truth while diminishing the other person. The tactic works most effectively when the target is genuinely trying to engage and find common ground—their good faith becomes a vulnerability to be exploited.

Under Vladimir Putin, Russia has become exceptionally proficient at this same form of rhetorical manipulation, bending and outright denying truth whenever convenient. But Russia doesn’t merely use these tactics to win diplomatic arguments. The Putin regime’s specific approach to gaslighting is designed to muddy the waters around its intent and actions when it comes to warfare—or more precisely, conflict, since a massive component of Putin’s approach involves denying that Russia could ever be engaged in war against anybody at all.

At the core of Putin’s strategy lies exploitation of a key failure in the modern world order: wars and warlike acts of aggression are defined by rigid legal constraints, diplomatic and institutional norms, and the global public’s understanding of what constitutes reasonable cause for concern. If everyone operates with good intentions, there’s always time to de-escalate and negotiate so wars never break out. But when an actor within the international order wants to undermine, sow confusion, or use violent, aggressive, coercive, or underhanded tactics, there exists vast grey space within the current world order where they can operate virtually unchecked.

Russia’s Unique Position in the Grey Zone

Russia isn’t the only nation operating in grey space—most nations do to some degree, and any nation wielding global power must participate. However, Russia stands out in several critical ways. Moscow demonstrates far greater willingness to act in grey space than most rivals, invests tremendous resources to go on offense there, and shows strong preference for these murky tactics even when it could handle disputes through conventional diplomatic channels. Russia possesses an exceptionally deep repertoire of tools compared to global competitors, and readily employs smuggling, theft, sabotage, assassination, interference, and even invasion as standard operating procedures.

While Russia’s specific actions warrant examination, understanding why this broad tactical approach proves effective is crucial—and the fault lies primarily with other nations rather than Russia itself. Whether the United States, China, India, Brazil, European NATO members, or others, world powers must observe Russian actions and determine appropriate responses. This represents the standard course of global affairs, with each nation or alliance reacting to others.

However, Russia’s adversaries in the NATO alliance have proven uniquely ineffective at taking meaningful stands. NATO places heavy emphasis on diplomatic decorum, group unanimity, and establishing clear proof of offense or attack before engaging in any response. Even more problematically, the vast majority of NATO members remain genuinely beholden to voting publics, and confronting Russian provocations isn’t always politically expedient when issues can be ignored or minimized.

This structural weakness creates predictable patterns Russia exploits systematically. Russian intelligence can poison dissidents on European soil, knowing Europe won’t respond directly if the responsible agent can’t be easily tied to the Kremlin. Russia can engage in cyberattacks or sabotage, knowing that if NATO issues public accusations and Russia forcefully denies them, NATO will feel too bound by diplomatic politeness to press the issue.

Russia can meddle in NATO elections, run disinformation campaigns targeting member nations, or support international forces fighting NATO troops, because in a thirty-two-member alliance where several states maintain friendly relations with Putin, there’s minimal chance of unanimous agreement on response. When Russia marches troops into countries NATO considers strategically important partners outside the alliance, Russia knows NATO won’t justify war to voting constituents defending non-member nations.

If Russia genuinely miscalculates and overplays its hand, consequences could prove severe. But betting on NATO to avoid confrontation has historically proven as reliable as betting the sun will rise tomorrow.

The Crimean Seizure: A Masterclass in Plausible Deniability

The Russian seizure of Crimea in 2014 exemplifies the extraordinary lengths Russia will pursue to preserve plausible deniability. Russia dispatched thousands of professional warfighters in unmarked combat uniforms who appeared on the Ukrainian isthmus of Crimea and rapidly seized control of the entire territory. Putin insisted for over a year that the troops on the ground—dubbed “little green men” in the West—weren’t Russian, finally admitting in 2015 that he had ordered subordinates to seize the territory and directed soldiers to participate.

Until that admission, Putin and the Kremlin maintained these troops were merely local self-defense forces. They employed identical explanations for soldier groups appearing shortly afterward in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region. Again, Russia vehemently denied any troop involvement and flatly refused to entertain NATO accusations to the contrary.

Ukraine and NATO produced clear evidence of Russian troops on the ground—but this didn’t matter. As long as Russia could provide NATO sufficient exit routes to avoid substantive action, its murky operations could proceed without Western interference. This established the template Russia would refine and expand in subsequent years: conduct aggressive military operations while maintaining just enough ambiguity that adversaries could justify inaction to their domestic audiences and alliance partners.

The Full-Scale Invasion: Redefining Reality Through Language

The full-scale invasion of Ukraine represents perhaps the most audacious example of Russian gaslighting. Putin and his allies refused to refer to it as war—let alone invasion—until literal years after commencement. Instead, it received the now-notorious label “special military operation,” a linguistic choice designed to minimize the scale and nature of Russian aggression.

During Putin’s speech announcing the invasion, he presented an entirely fabricated narrative to justify Russia’s actions. He claimed Ukraine had been committing ongoing genocide against Russian-speakers in Ukraine’s east, that Ukraine was ruled by neo-Nazis, and that Ukraine was actively building nuclear weapons. All these claims have been thoroughly demonstrated as false, but again, factual accuracy proved irrelevant. Rather than presenting evidence supporting its claims, Russia has repeatedly insisted it possesses evidence and therefore regards its narrative as fact.

This deliberate disinformation has continued throughout the war. Russia claims it was provoked into invading Ukraine because of purported threats to its sovereignty posed by NATO—a patently false claim unless one interprets Russia’s ability to meddle in other nations’ affairs as inviolable statehood. In reality, this represents the geopolitical equivalent of telling someone “please don’t touch me” while wiping your hand across their face: advancing Russia’s front lines toward NATO and building preparations for continental war while maintaining innocence and accusing NATO of the very actions Russia won’t admit to conducting.

Putin has routinely denied allegations that his forces committed war crimes in Ukraine, despite clear documentation in areas Ukraine has recaptured after forcing Russia back. Russia has accused Ukraine of building bioweapons, harvesting organs from dead soldiers and even children, and engaging in crucifixion of Russian soldiers and civilians. No credible evidence supports any of these claims, yet they continue circulating as part of Russia’s information warfare strategy.

Attacking Ukrainian Identity and Rewriting History

Russia has embarked on a relentless assault against the very concept of Ukrainian identity, let alone Ukrainian nationhood. Under Kremlin rhetoric, Ukrainians are part of a far larger Russian nation, a single people with no right to separate into a sovereign state. To support this idea, Putin and his allies have articulated an extensive alternate reading of history and, perhaps more importantly, demanded the world prioritize Russia’s version of historical events to decide Ukraine’s future rather than prioritizing modern geopolitical realities or the wishes of Ukrainian people.

In occupied parts of the Donbas region, Russia denies exerting pressure on Ukrainian civilians, despite the fact that civilians are routinely excluded from healthcare systems, including emergencies, and barred from receiving elderly pensions unless they produce Russian passports. In the lead-up to war and early stages, the Kremlin insisted Ukrainian civilians would welcome Russian invasion and cheer soldiers as heroes marching through streets.

Russia continually insists it does not target civilians, does not attack civilian infrastructure, and has not stolen away thousands of Ukrainian children taken to Russia against their families’ will. Each of these denials contradicts extensively documented evidence, but Russia maintains its narrative regardless of factual contradiction. The strategy isn’t to convince informed observers of Russian innocence, but to create sufficient confusion and doubt that decisive international action becomes politically difficult for democratic governments to justify.

Global Operations: Paramilitaries and Shadow Warfare

Moving beyond Ukraine, Russia has employed similar methods globally, dispatching shadowy paramilitary groups to assert Russian will abroad without uniformed Russian soldiers ever deploying outside their country. The most famous among these organizations is the Wagner Group, but they’re far from alone. Before Wagner became deeply involved in Russia’s full-scale Ukraine invasion, their existence was a relatively well-kept secret of Russian geopolitics.

During the 2010s and early 2020s, these paramilitaries locked down control of lucrative resource mines and protected Russia’s allied heads of state, often massacring civilians, sometimes killing journalists, and in 2019, attacking American troops in a major battle in Syria. These operations provided Russia with significant strategic advantages while maintaining official deniability—the fighters weren’t formally part of the Russian military, allowing the Kremlin to disclaim responsibility for their actions.

In Syria, Russia intervened starting in 2015, continually insisting it was only there to fight the Islamic State organization. In reality, Russian troops and air power were deployed against any and all parties not allied with then-dictator Bashar al-Assad, while frequently striking schools and civilian neighborhoods. Russia performed double-tap strikes to kill emergency responders responding to initial Russian bombs at given locations. At times, Russia would announce its own humanitarian pauses to fighting before intensifying bombing runs when those pauses were supposedly in effect.

This pattern—announcing humanitarian intentions while conducting brutal military operations—exemplifies Russia’s approach to international manipulation. The announcements provide diplomatic cover and create confusion about Russian intentions, while actual operations proceed unimpeded by the rhetoric surrounding them.

Dismissing Evidence and Controlling the Narrative

Russia has used gaslighting techniques not just to deny overt operations, but to dismiss legitimate evidence implicating Russia in efforts it attempted to keep hidden. Whether in occupied Ukraine, in Africa through its paramilitaries, or on its own soil, videos and photographs emerge with relative frequency accusing Russia and its proxy forces of heinous conduct on and off the battlefield.

When these items are reported, they’re dismissed as fake news, AI-generated content, or actors portraying fantasy, despite thorough verification on the international stage. The same applies to Russia’s wartime casualty figures, which it refuses to publish, and any criticism levied by Western media or governments. When criticism is offered, Russia doesn’t merely issue denials of wrongdoing—it consistently works to reject the very idea that Russia could be legitimately criticized.

Any and all criticism, in Russia’s telling, is either blatant fabrication, expression of anti-Russian political bias, or intentional slander. If Russia cannot force a compelling alternative narrative down the throats of global onlookers, it introduces misinformation and outright disinformation, often confusing or self-contradicting by design, to make it far more difficult for casual onlookers to establish truth.

After all, if Russia can dictate its version of events and force acceptance as truth, that’s precisely what Russia will do. But if Russia can’t decide what the truth is, it can ensure that nobody can have the truth at all. This represents perhaps the most insidious aspect of Russian information warfare—when establishing a favorable narrative proves impossible, creating confusion and doubt becomes the objective. In an environment where truth becomes indeterminate, Russia can operate with greater freedom since holding it accountable requires consensus on what actually occurred.

Escalating Provocations Against NATO

Vladimir Putin still rules Russia, his inner circle still controls the Kremlin, and the Kremlin still controls Russia’s ongoing war and grey-zone operations worldwide. These well-tested Russian tactics continue in use today. However, the story doesn’t end with maintenance of the status quo. Putin is escalating, and escalating in ways suggesting something significant is coming sooner than later.

The most obvious recent example involves Russia’s repeated violations of NATO airspace, each constructed to either give Russia just enough plausible deniability to claim innocence or otherwise fall just short of provocations NATO would have to respond to through force. On the night from September ninth into the tenth, over twenty Russian drones flew in multiple swarms into Polish airspace. The drones were slow-moving decoys, not loaded with explosives, meaning they didn’t kill anyone and couldn’t quite be interpreted as an attack. But they did violate NATO airspace en masse, and one even landed conveniently outside a base for the Polish territorial guard.

Russia, of course, denied the drones were sent intentionally, claiming Ukrainian jamming had been responsible. This explanation is highly implausible given that drones came in multiple waves hours apart and didn’t seem subject to any different Ukrainian jamming than usual. But it’s not quite impossible, providing just enough ambiguity for NATO members seeking to avoid confrontation.

Then came the overflight of three Russian MiG-31 aircraft above the Baltic nation of Estonia, one of the tiny countries on Russia’s flank at greatest risk of outright invasion. Those MiG-31s were armed with air-to-air missiles, not ground-attack weapons, and did turn around when intercepted, meaning they weren’t quite enough of a threat that NATO couldn’t avoid shooting them down. They also carried pilots, meaning NATO would risk killing Russian troops by destroying the aircraft—something NATO is quite reticent to do.

But the planes also spent a full twelve minutes in Estonian airspace at a time when Russia knew NATO’s air defenses were on high alert. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov then insisted the incident never happened at all, and that Russia’s jets had operated “strictly within the confines of international law,” while Estonia was “escalating tensions and provoking a confrontational atmosphere.”

On that same day, Russian jets buzzed over a Polish-owned oil platform in the Baltic Sea, low enough to violate the known safety zone around the platform. Again, this was done in what were technically international waters, and while they violated a safety zone, that carries far less weight than violation of true airspace restrictions. Then a Russian intelligence aircraft flew just barely short of NATO airspace a couple days later, refusing to respond to attempts to reach it until the last possible moment—not technically breaking any rules, but pushing right up to the limit.

The same has happened in western Ukraine repeatedly now that Russia knows NATO aircraft are positioned near the border. Russia will attack militarily insignificant targets just barely short of the border and force NATO aircraft to scramble as precaution, even though the drones don’t actually enter NATO airspace. Each incident individually might seem minor or explainable, but collectively they represent a pattern of deliberate escalation designed to test NATO’s resolve and response thresholds.

The Peace Talk Paradox: Diplomatic Overtures and Military Escalation

Russia’s actions during America’s failed attempt at a peace summit exemplify the disconnect between Russian rhetoric and Russian actions. Vladimir Putin personally attended an Alaska summit with Donald Trump. Before, during, and after the summit, Russia gave extensive lip service to the idea of peace while simultaneously hammering Ukraine with some of the most intense waves of drone attacks across the entire war until that point. In fact, Russia has broken its own record for its largest coordinated drone and missile attack on several occasions during that same time period.

This dynamic traces back over several months. Ever since Trump came into office, Putin and his inner circle have signaled openness to peace negotiations through diplomatic statements and personal remarks. At the same time, Russia has more than tripled its rate of drone attacks against Ukraine month over month, clearly demonstrating that it seeks to escalate actions against its neighbor rather than demonstrate willingness to draw down hostilities.

This pattern reveals a crucial aspect of Russian strategy: diplomatic engagement serves as cover for military escalation rather than genuine pursuit of peaceful resolution. By maintaining the appearance of willingness to negotiate, Russia provides Western governments with justification to delay or avoid more robust support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, the intensified military pressure aims to degrade Ukrainian capabilities and resolve, positioning Russia more favorably for eventual negotiations or outright victory.

The approach also exploits Western desires for diplomatic solutions. Democratic governments facing war-weary publics can point to ongoing diplomatic engagement as reason for restraint in military support, even as Russia’s actions on the ground demonstrate no genuine interest in peace on terms acceptable to Ukraine or the international community. This creates a situation where Russia benefits from both the diplomatic process—which constrains Western responses—and from military escalation, which advances Russian objectives on the ground.

The fundamental challenge this presents to the international order is profound. How can meaningful negotiations occur when one party systematically uses the negotiation process itself as a tool of warfare? How can trust be established when diplomatic overtures and military escalation proceed simultaneously? These questions have no easy answers, but they must be confronted if the international community hopes to develop effective responses to Russian aggression that go beyond reactive measures to individual provocations.

Europe Under Siege: Russia’s Accelerating Sabotage Campaign

Across Europe, Russia has conducted an extensive sabotage campaign since the Ukraine war began, with the pace and intensity of these attacks continuously escalating. From 2022 to 2023, Russia quadrupled its rate of sabotage attacks against Europe. Then from 2023 to 2024, Russia tripled that already elevated rate again—a staggering ninefold increase over just two years.

These Russian attacks systematically target critical infrastructure and military capabilities across the continent. Focus areas include military bases, airports, railway networks, seaports, pipelines, fiber-optic cables, and defense contractors. The operations employ diverse methods, often involving physical sabotage with explosives, electronic weapons, or even the weaponization of migrant flows to create chaos and strain European resources.

Most recently, Russia may be responsible for a massive ransomware attack that crippled major European airports for days. This attack aligns with both Russia’s documented history of ransomware operations and its current strategic focus on disrupting NATO air capabilities. The timing and targeting suggest coordination with Russia’s broader campaign of airspace violations and provocations against NATO air defenses.

Simultaneously, Russia stands accused of conducting mass disinformation operations against Moldova, a nation outside both NATO and the European Union but occupying a geopolitical position strikingly similar to pre-war Ukraine. This suggests Russia may be laying groundwork for future aggression beyond its current theater of operations, testing methods and gauging international responses in a vulnerable state that lacks the security guarantees of alliance membership.

In all cases, Russia denies these acts of subversion out of hand. While the NATO alliance broadly agrees on what’s actually occurring, member states have experienced tremendous difficulty organizing a coherent response to Russia’s campaign. This difficulty stems partly from the sophisticated design of the sabotage operations themselves, which are engineered to operate at a relatively low level using paid third-party aggressors, cryptocurrencies, and untraceable communications networked through several hard-to-trace intermediaries at a time. This layered approach provides Russia with plausible deniability while making attribution difficult enough that consensus-based organizations like NATO struggle to justify robust responses to their diverse memberships and domestic audiences.

The Paradox of Russian Escalation Amid Mounting Losses

Russia is now more than three and a half years into its invasion of Ukraine, and the costs have been catastrophic. Estimates suggest Russia has lost hundreds of thousands of fighting men and boys, with some figures from NATO members placing casualties at perhaps over a million. Russia’s economy shows severe strain, so weak and overstressed that even Putin’s own Minister of Economic Development and the Bank of Russia are issuing warnings of imminent crisis—a remarkable admission given the Kremlin’s typical insistence on projecting strength and stability.

For the first time, nations within the NATO alliance have agreed to jointly deploy troops into Ukraine after the war concludes, representing a significant escalation in Western commitment that should theoretically give Russia pause. Yet despite these mounting costs and strengthening Western resolve, Russia isn’t slowing down its acts of sabotage, downsizing its drone waves, or scaling back its challenges to NATO airspace. Instead, Russia is accelerating—ratcheting up tensions even further and seemingly throwing away an opportunity to reach peace terms that would fall short of victory but would be far more acceptable than total defeat.

This paradoxical behavior demands explanation. Why would Russia escalate when its position appears increasingly untenable? Why intensify provocations against a vastly more powerful alliance when Russia’s own economic and military resources are stretched to breaking? The answer lies not in Russia’s current strength, but in its assessment of future trajectories and the narrowing window of opportunity Putin perceives for achieving his objectives.

Reading the Warning Signs: Why Something Is Coming

The warning signs of impending Russian escalation can be found not only in Russia’s actions but in its rhetoric. When Vladimir Putin and his allies want to take a new, aggressive action, they start by building a narrative. That narrative doesn’t have to be backed up by any observable facts on the ground—after all, no world-class gaslighter would ever allow themselves to be held back by what their enemies’ lying eyes would have them believe. But make no mistake: Russia’s shadowy storytellers are hard at work laying the foundation for a new stage in this conflict.

Russia can now approach the international community claiming it tried to find peace with the West, tried to find common ground, but Ukraine refused to come to terms. This narrative conveniently ignores Russia’s simultaneous military escalation during peace talks, but it provides the rhetorical foundation Putin needs to justify further aggression. Russia can accuse the NATO alliance of trying to manufacture a confrontation—indeed, that’s already what the Kremlin is doing, claiming that NATO’s response to its drone provocations are overblown and insisting that Estonia is fabricating claims of Russian fighter jets overhead.

Add the potential imposition of new sanctions, plus the possibility that US tariffs could target both India and China for supporting Russia, and Moscow has assembled all the narratives of grievance it could ever want. These aren’t random complaints or reactive defensiveness—they’re carefully constructed justifications being positioned in advance of actions Russia has already decided to take. The pattern is consistent with Russia’s behavior before previous escalations, from Crimea to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The Closing Window: Russia’s Deteriorating Strategic Position

Russia isn’t in a particularly strong position to escalate against NATO right now, but the power imbalance between Moscow and Brussels isn’t the right thing to focus on. Vladimir Putin can’t predict the future, but he’s almost certainly aware that Russia’s position will be worse in two years than it is today. In five years, Russia’s position will be even worse.

Shift the calendar ahead to just 2027, and Europe will be well down the path of rearmament, with production lines open, ammunition and heavy weapons starting to roll off in large quantities, and the militaries of NATO member nations growing to be considerably larger than they are today. In the United States, Donald Trump may be significantly less powerful, relegated to a lame-duck presidency by a strong performance by his Democrat rivals in 2026. Russia’s wartime economy is held together with little more than duct tape and toothpicks, showing signs that it’s on the verge of overheating completely.

North Korea can’t feed Russia its personnel forever. China’s patience with Putin will run out as China gains in power, and if Ukraine’s front lines haven’t collapsed by now, it’s not certain that they ever will. Russia is not in a strong position to act aggressively toward NATO right now, but Russia’s position today is about as good as its position is likely to be across the next several years.

That wasn’t always the case. Over the last few years, Western intelligence officials suggested that Russia would be ready to attack NATO somewhere between 2027 and 2030. But now the situation is changing fast, and Russia has reason to believe that its military disparity against NATO will grow during the next five years instead of Russia narrowing the gap. If Vladimir Putin is going to act within his lifetime, then it’s got to be soon—and if Russia were planning to act soon, then its history in Ukraine, Syria, Georgia, and all across the world would suggest that Russia’s gaslighting operations would already have started to accelerate.

Here we are. The acceleration is happening in real time, visible to anyone paying attention to the pattern rather than individual incidents. The question is no longer whether Russia is preparing for escalation, but what form that escalation will take and whether NATO will recognize the warning signs in time to respond effectively.

Potential Scenarios: What Russian Escalation Could Look Like

NATO member nations have developed assessments of what Russian escalation might look like based on intelligence gathering and analysis of Russian capabilities and doctrine. In June, Bruno Kahl, the head of Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service, explained in a podcast that his agency had learned Russia doesn’t believe NATO’s collective defense obligations have any real force in 2025. According to Kahl, Russia was actively preparing options to build a confrontation with NATO that would stop short of full-scale war but would reveal whether the United States would actually make good on its commitments.

Quoting Kahl directly: “It’s enough to send little green men to Estonia to protect supposedly oppressed Russian minorities.” This scenario would replicate Russia’s Crimea playbook in a NATO member state—a direct challenge to Article 5 collective defense commitments but executed with sufficient ambiguity that NATO members seeking to avoid confrontation could find justification for inaction.

Recently, defense analysts have highlighted additional possibilities. Russia could start capturing islands in the Baltic Sea, testing whether NATO would risk broader conflict over small, sparsely populated territories. Russia might conduct limited incursions into Finland or Norway, both of which share extensive borders with Russia and have relatively small populations concentrated away from border regions.

Others have suggested Russia would attempt to capture the Suwalki Gap, a thin stretch of Polish and Lithuanian land next to Belarus that represents the only land connection between the Baltic states and the rest of NATO. Seizing this corridor would effectively isolate the Baltic members from rapid reinforcement, creating a fait accompli that NATO would struggle to reverse without major military operations.

More recently, in the weeks following the start of Russia’s incursions into NATO airspace, Donald Trump and his aides have indicated that America would honor its commitments—but the alliance’s actions tell another story. NATO has failed to shoot down Russian incoming threats, including a trio of armed fighter jets, and American air power is conspicuously absent even as other NATO members try to make up the difference. This gap between rhetoric and action provides Russia with exactly the intelligence it seeks: evidence that NATO’s collective defense may be more theoretical than practical, at least under current political conditions.

The Strategic Reserve: Russia’s Preparation for Wider Conflict

On the day this analysis was prepared, the Institute for the Study of War published a report indicating that Russia has added nearly 300,000 fresh recruits to its military since January of this year. These forces are forming a massive and relatively well-trained strategic reserve that has yet to reach Ukraine’s front lines—a significant detail that demands explanation.

If Russia were simply trying to overwhelm Ukrainian defenses or replace catastrophic losses in its current theater of operations, these troops would be deployed to Ukraine immediately. The fact that Russia is holding them in reserve, maintaining their training and readiness rather than feeding them into the meat grinder of the Ukrainian front, suggests they’re being preserved for a different purpose.

Quoting the Institute for the Study of War directly: “Russia may also be building out its strategic reserve as part of wider Kremlin preparations for a possible Russia-NATO conflict in the future.” This assessment aligns with other indicators of Russian intentions—the accelerating sabotage campaign across Europe, the systematic testing of NATO airspace and response times, the construction of narratives justifying grievance against the West, and the timing of escalation during a period when NATO unity and American commitment appear uncertain.

A strategic reserve of this size represents a significant investment of resources that Russia’s strained economy can ill afford. The decision to build and maintain such a force rather than commit it to Ukraine indicates high-level strategic planning for contingencies beyond the current conflict. It suggests Russia is preparing options for rapid escalation that would require substantial forces held in readiness rather than troops that need to be extracted from ongoing operations, retrained, and redeployed.

The Pattern of Gaslighting as Strategic Signal

For the last decade and more, Vladimir Putin has made clear that he is the world’s great master of geopolitical gaslighting. But that gaslighting isn’t just an attempt by Putin to stroke his own ego or win individual diplomatic exchanges. It’s a valuable geopolitical signal that consistently indicates when Russia is looking to defend itself, maintain pressure, or prepare to escalate.

The fact that Russia is gaslighting is a surprise to no one—it’s been the consistent pattern of Putin’s regime since he consolidated power. But the way that Russia is gaslighting right now suggests that it’s time to prepare for an escalation. The specific characteristics of current Russian rhetoric and disinformation differ from the baseline maintenance of false narratives that characterizes normal Russian operations.

Russia is simultaneously building justification narratives (claiming it sought peace but was rebuffed), constructing grievance narratives (accusing NATO of manufacturing confrontation), intensifying denial of documented actions (dismissing clear evidence of airspace violations), and accelerating the pace of provocations while maintaining implausible innocence. This combination has historically preceded major Russian escalations.

How Russia intends to escalate, or when, or where, cannot be predicted with certainty. The specific form of escalation will depend on opportunities Russia perceives, NATO’s responses to ongoing provocations, political developments in the United States and Europe, and the situation on Ukraine’s front lines. But when Russia’s rhetoric and its actions start to change in these characteristic ways, it’s never an accident.

The nations of NATO would be wise to remember that Russia’s gaslighting serves as an early warning system for those willing to read the signals. The pattern is clear: narrative construction precedes action, denial intensifies before revelation, and the pace of provocations accelerates before major escalation. Russia is following this pattern now, in real time, with increasing boldness.

The question facing NATO is whether the alliance will recognize these warning signs and prepare accordingly, or whether it will continue responding to individual provocations in isolation while missing the larger strategic picture Putin is painting. The answer to that question may determine whether NATO’s collective defense proves real or rhetorical when Russia decides the time has come to test it.

Related Coverage

• The UAE is Destabilizing the Entire Middle East
• How the UAE’s Regional Meddling Triggered a Historic Realignment Across the Middle East
• The UAE’s Regional Ambitions Collapse as Middle East Powers Push Back

Frequently Asked Questions

What is geopolitical gaslighting and how does Russia use it?

Geopolitical gaslighting involves creating elaborate false narratives, denying verifiable facts, and manipulating others into accepting a fabricated version of reality. Russia uses this to muddy the waters around its intent and actions in warfare, constantly shutting down differing perspectives and insisting only Russia’s version of truth has merit. The tactic makes genuine dispute impossible while Russia advances its interests through coercion and aggression, all while maintaining a veneer of innocence.

Why is Russia’s gaslighting strategy so effective against NATO?

NATO’s structural weaknesses make it vulnerable to Russian tactics. The alliance emphasizes diplomatic decorum, requires group unanimity among thirty-two members, and demands clear proof before responding. Most NATO members are accountable to voting publics who often prefer avoiding confrontation. Russia exploits this by operating in grey zones with just enough plausible deniability that NATO members seeking to avoid confrontation can justify inaction to domestic audiences and alliance partners.

What were the ‘little green men’ in Crimea and how did Russia use them?

The ‘little green men’ were thousands of professional Russian warfighters in unmarked combat uniforms who seized control of Crimea in 2014. Putin insisted for over a year that these troops weren’t Russian, claiming they were merely local self-defense forces. He finally admitted in 2015 that he had ordered subordinates to seize the territory. This established Russia’s template of conducting aggressive operations while maintaining sufficient ambiguity that adversaries could justify inaction.

How has Russia escalated its sabotage campaign across Europe?

From 2022 to 2023, Russia quadrupled its rate of sabotage attacks against Europe; from 2023 to 2024, it tripled that already elevated rate — a ninefold increase over two years. These attacks systematically target military bases, airports, railway networks, seaports, pipelines, fiber-optic cables, and defense contractors, employing physical explosives, electronic weapons, and the weaponization of migrant flows. Russia may also be responsible for ransomware attacks that crippled major European airports.

Why is Russia escalating despite its weakened military and economic position?

Russia’s position today is likely as strong as it will be for years to come. By 2027, European rearmament will be well underway, NATO militaries will be larger, and Russia’s wartime economy — already showing signs of overheating — will be under greater strain. North Korea cannot supply personnel indefinitely, and China’s patience has limits. If Russia intends to act against NATO within Putin’s lifetime, analysts assess it must move soon, making the current acceleration of provocations a genuine strategic signal rather than random noise.

Sources

• https://reportandsupport.kcl.ac.uk/support/what-is-gaslighting
• https://www.newportinstitute.com/resources/mental-health/what_is_gaslighting_abuse/
• https://www.thehotline.org/resources/what-is-gaslighting/
• https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/russias-gray-zone-warfare-campaign-in-europe/
• https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/11/russia-gray-zone-aggression-baltic-nordic?lang=en
• https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/06/myths-and-misconceptions-around-russian-military-intent/myth-1-russia-waging-grey-zone
• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31796226
• https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/what-invasion-russian-denials-crimea-trigger-war-words-n45666
• https://www.brookings.edu/articles/watch-out-for-little-green-men/
• https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/why-was-crimea-taken-so-easily
• https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/05/myths-and-misconceptions-debate-russia/myth-12-crimea-was-always-russian
• https://www.crisisgroup.org/visual-explainers/conflict-ukraines-donbas-visual-explainer
• https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/why-ukraine-russia-can-t-agree-autonomy-donbas
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/18/donbas-faultline-ukraine-russia-talks-putin-trump-zelenskyy
• https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/19/why-does-russia-want-the-donbas-region-so-much.html
• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14650045.2024.2401413
• https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-crossroads-europe-and-russia
• https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putins-russia-is-trapped-in-genocidal-denial-over-ukrainian-independence/
• https://time.com/6150046/ukraine-statehood-russia-history-putin/
• https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/peace-is-impossible-while-vladimir-putin-denies-ukraines-right-to-exist/
• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56720589
• https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putin-is-ruthlessly-erasing-ukrainian-identity-in-russian-occupied-ukraine/
• https://www.csis.org/analysis/struggle-ukrainian-self-determination-and-identity
• https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/kremlin-editorial-ukraine-identity-1.6407921
• https://www.bbc.com/news/64718139
• https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/all-of-ukraine-is-ours-putins-russian-imperialism-is-now-on-full-display/
• https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-war-ukraine-identity-history-and-conflict
• https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseih/2020/07/01/there-is-no-ukraine-fact-checking-the-kremlins-version-of-ukrainian-history/
• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj0q964851po
• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10758216.2023.2254915
• https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-putin-authorises-military-operations-donbass-domestic-media-2022-02-24/
• https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2023/03/how-putins-special-military-operation-became-a-peoples-war?lang=en
• https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/17/russia-us-news-media-disinformation-campaign-00512173?utm_medium=email&utm_source=substack
• https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/how-us-can-counter-disinformation-russia-and-china
• https://theconversation.com/five-disinformation-tactics-russia-is-using-to-try-to-influence-the-us-election-238379
• https://www.fpri.org/article/2025/01/the-fight-against-disinformation-a-persistent-challenge-for-democracy/
• https://www.nbcnews.com/specials/russian-disinformation-2024-election-storm-1516/index.html
• https://cepa.org/article/were-winning-say-russias-fake-news-manufacturers/
• https://warontherocks.com/2016/10/the-misadventures-of-russia-and-the-united-states-in-syria-complete-strategy-implosion-edition/
• https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/a-trail-of-broken-ceasefires-in-syria/
• https://apnews.com/article/syria-ap-top-news-international-news-damascus-russia-cf564d4d2bad46999b181f36110fed4f
• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37683244
• https://www.reuters.com/article/world/russia-rules-out-extending-bombing-pause-in-syria-s-aleppo-unilaterally-interfax-idUSKCN12J16R/
• https://thedefensepost.com/2025/09/22/russia-nato-airspace-tension/
• https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/poland-downs-drones-its-airspace-becoming-first-nato-member-fire-during-war-2025-09-10/
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/sep/20/poland-russia-estonia-ukraine-war-europe-latest-news-updates
• https://www.newsweek.com/russia-test-nato-dud-drones-ukraine-poland-2129561
• https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/20/world/europe/poland-drones-russia-nato.html
• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0m8gn7grn2o
• https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/07/world/europe/russian-strike-kyiv-ukraine.html