From pro-Russian narrative to Ukraine: the turn of those who switched sides

From pro-Russian narrative to Ukraine: when changing sides is called learning

There is a confession more unsettling than a mistake: that of someone who admits having bought into a narrative and now takes it apart. At the start of the conversation, an exercise in honesty is proposed: how many of those who defended Russia vehemently have ended up supporting Ukraine? The most common answer is not a number, but a denial. "None. Full stop," one participant declares. Another attributes it to Russian propaganda itself, which he describes as "insane but at the same time very subtle": once you detect its implicit fallacies, it becomes easy to identify.

The most frequently mentioned about-face has a name: a participant who used to be among the most active in defending Russia and who now stands on the opposite side. For some, that change deserves admiration: "people who are able to change their minds and learn from their mistakes are intelligent and worthy of admiration," reads one comment. For others, it is proof that the original narrative was never a conviction, but a fad.

The argument that is not pro-Russian but anti-EU

The most articulate defense of Russia in the conversation comes not from sympathy, but from rejection. "It's not that Russia is a perfect country, it's that Europe is a disgusting place that has destroyed its values," argues a participant who describes himself as anti-EU rather than pro-Russian. His thesis: Russia protects its own and stays true to its roots, while Europe pursues "ethnic replacement and cultural and religious destruction." It is the logic of my enemy's enemy.

The counterpoint comes with uncomfortable data: suicide rates, alcoholism, the percentage of Muslim population, and wages. "Do you believe the narrative of Russia as the cradle of spirituality?" one asks. The defender's reply is revealing: "I don't believe anything about Russia, I don't live there. I suffer Europe's crap." The debate is not about Russia. It is about Europe.

Propaganda as a channel for discontent

The most incisive analysis in the conversation does not debate whether Russia is better or worse, but how the narrative was built. Russian propaganda is described as "very simple and powerful, easy to fall for," and its skill at "channeling hatred toward the EU or NATO in favor of the pro-Russian discourse" is pointed out. The diagnosis: whoever arrives with few tools or a lot of ideology gets trapped.

The example cited is striking: after the bombing of Russian data centers in Ukraine, 60% of pro-Palestinian rants on social media disappeared, according to the version being shared. It is not a verified figure, but it illustrates the thesis: the narrative moves by interests, not principles.

Contempt as an answer, and the data that unsettles

Not everything is analysis. One of the most forceful replies does not answer the question: "why the hell should I care about Russia when Europe is governed by corrupt traitors." The conversation drifts into mutual contempt and accusations of trolling. But amid the noise, a figure emerges that undermines the thesis of a third-world Europe: if Europe is so bad, why do so many migrants arrive to live there?

The question hangs in the air. No one answers it. The Russia defender insists that his war is against the EU, not against Ukraine, and that he supports Pilingui for his "courage and protection of his own." The turn toward Ukraine, in this conversation, comes not from a change of side, but from a change of enemy. And the deadlock remains.