Russia’s War in Ukraine: The Resonance of Ukraine’s Resistance

Ukraine’s messaging resonates because it reflects the audience’s values, beliefs, and historical experiences. Its power lies not only in President Zelenskyy’s skilled communication, social media savvy, and emotional appeals, but in the deeper principles it expresses—justice, sovereignty, and the rule of law. These liberal democratic values define what we are willing to defend.

In late October 2022, Russia intensified its campaign against Ukraine’s critical infrastructure, striking the energy grid to degrade capacity ahead of winter. Millions of households lost electricity as major cities were hit hard. Later that day, a dimly lit President Zelenskyy delivered his evening address from a gloomy street in Kyiv. “We are not afraid of the dark,” he declared, “The darkest times for us are not without light, but without freedom.”[1]

Kyiv’s story of heroic resistance and defence of democratic values has clearly struck a chord in the west

Kyiv’s story of heroic resistance and defence of democratic values has clearly struck a chord in the west. Polls show majorities favouring aid, media analyses note overwhelmingly pro-Ukraine coverage, and western leaders continue to embrace Ukraine’s framing of the conflict.[2] From official addresses to informal channels, Ukraine’s messaging has helped shape perceptions and sustain support.

This success is often credited to Ukraine’s media strategy or the personal appeal of its leadership. While such admiration is justified, a closer examination reveals that the power of their messaging lies not merely in its construction and delivery. It also demonstrates strong alignment with the existing moral frameworks, historical memories, and cultural archetypes of their intended audiences.

“We Know Who the Good Guys Are”^[3]

Ukraine had no need to invent a new narrative overnight. Years of Russian harassment had reframed the national story—moving away from post-Soviet ambiguity towards an identity rooted in democratic aspiration and resistance to external control. The 2013-14 Maidan Revolution was a turning point, marking Ukraine’s commitment to independence, reform, and a future aligned with Europe. This was reinforced by political change, with the incoming President Zelenskyy projecting an inclusive, pluralistic vision for the nation’s future.

Concurrently, events such as Russia’s downing of MH17, its military intervention in eastern Ukraine, and its illegal annexation of Crimea highlighted the risks posed by its reckless approach to international affairs. These events did not shape western perceptions in isolation but confirmed a sense that Ukraine’s struggle was about more than territory. Russia’s behaviour signalled a disregard for international rules and civilian lives, making Ukraine’s appeals for support resonate on both moral and strategic levels.

Domestic change and external pressure positioned Ukraine to connect with western audiences when Russian forces invaded at scale in 2022. Its leadership framed their resistance as a defence of principles that resonate widely: self-determination, universal human rights, and the rejection of authoritarianism. While these values carry particular weight in Europe and North America, their universal appeal also helps explain the early sympathy for Ukraine seen in diverse regions beyond the west, even if responses there were more cautious.

Ukraine’s narrative was compelling not only because of immediate circumstance. It drew on years of identity-shaping and a shared moral vocabulary. Its wartime messaging thus reached an audience already primed to see the conflict as a stand for principles that went beyond lines drawn on a map.

Why the West Listened

One of the main reasons Ukraine’s story has resonated in the west is its unusual degree of moral clarity, a “rare conflict where the roles of aggressor and aggrieved are unmistakable.”[4] Ukraine frames the war as a contest between ‘light and darkness’, drawing on familiar tropes such as ‘David versus Goliath’—the brave defender against overwhelming odds.[5] Such imagery lets audiences project their own histories onto Ukraine’s struggle, seeing not a distant regional war but a defence of the post-1945 order and its values. Political rhetoric sharpens the message by urging responses that affirm professed values: what sort of person—or nation—are you?[6] Ukraine’s resistance becomes a mirror for western identity; to stand with Ukraine and fly its flag is an expression of personal belief in freedom and justice.

Ukraine’s resistance becomes a mirror for western identity; to stand with Ukraine and fly its flag is an expression of personal belief in freedom and justice

This broader moral framing is reinforced and personalised by President Zelenskyy, who draws on cultural memory, tailoring messages to national histories. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 for Americans, the Berlin Wall for Germans, and Churchillian defiance for Brits make abstract stakes immediate, linking values to identity. By aligning his appeals with shared historical and moral frameworks, Zelenskyy transforms distant geopolitical events into matters of personal relevance for audiences.[7]

Zelenskyy’s style further amplifies the message. Selfie videos from a capital under siege project urgency and courage, in contrast to Putin’s distant, choreographed appearances. His refusal to flee became a symbol of shared defiance. Such gestures reframed western support as mutual defence, not charity, and strengthened a sense of solidarity. Zelenskyy’s videos foster parasocial bonds that humanise a distant conflict, while documenting civilian suffering triggers moral outrage, a strong driver of political action. This emotional engagement bypasses scepticism toward institutions, appealing to moral intuition.

These elements—moral clarity, emotional challenge, cultural alignment, and symbolic leadership—have sustained western support, with public opinion remaining engaged even as the war drags on.[8] Ukraine’s campaign for F-16s showed how communication can shape policy outcomes. After Kyiv’s appeals, the US approved transfers in 2023, followed quickly by pledges from Denmark and the Netherlands, with deliveries starting in 2024. Zelenskyy’s speeches and moral framing boosted western public support and directly preceded aid announcements.[9] Western leaders later echoed Ukrainian narratives, while Kyiv’s demonstrations of operational readiness eased concerns, driving a shift in military assistance.[10]

Despite these successes, Ukraine’s communication strategy has also faced challenges. The widely publicised 2023 summer offensive, portrayed as decisive, raised expectations that could not be met and resulted in disappointment. Efforts to mobilise additional support have often been hampered by the difficulties of navigating western political dynamics. Concerns about escalation, particularly from the Biden administration, have limited assistance. These setbacks have revealed not only the risks of overpromising but also the vulnerabilities in Ukraine’s messaging.

The Long War

As the conflict extends, sustaining western support requires adapting narratives to a prolonged struggle. Framing the war as a struggle for democracy may mobilise support, yet this simplistic binary has shown fragility under strain. With no decisive outcomes on the battlefield, early expectations of victory can give way to doubt.

Zelenskyy’s warnings that delaying action against Russia risks inviting further aggression amplify urgency but leave little room for compromise. In some allied countries, support shows signs of fracture, while polling in the US suggests that backing has begun to divide along partisan lines.[11] Outside the west, many states do not view the conflict through the lens of democracy. Instead, postcolonial scepticism focuses on the selective application of western values and doubts about the universality of Ukraine’s moral framing. As divisions grow, the emotional impact of Ukraine’s narrative fades.

The urgency that initially galvanised western support for Ukraine has given way to a longer-term approach, with Ukrainian diplomacy stressing enduring partnerships and shared security interests, and framing support around achievable goals. Tying assistance to mutual benefit, such as the Kyiv-Washington minerals deal or joint ventures in arms production, helps counter donor fatigue by grounding solidarity in material as well as moral terms. Simplicity must also be tempered with honesty. Maximalist aims like territorial restoration or unconditional surrender can mobilise support, but a durable peace requires negotiation and compromise.

Appeals to shared values remain powerful. Yet, to remain credible and effective over time, narratives must accommodate nuance and contradiction, rather than rely on rigid messaging. Experience shows that flexibility enables a narrative to adjust to events while retaining coherence and public confidence.[12] Ukraine’s story shows how values can transcend borders, but also how fragile such connections become when narratives are inflexible. As global attention shifts and domestic politics fragment, narrative strength lies less in asserting what is ‘right’ and more in being able to articulate why it matters.

Communication As Strategy

A review of Ukraine’s wartime communication reinforces Joseph Nye’s maxim that in the information age “the mark of a great power is not just whose army wins, but whose story.”[13] Ukraine’s success has lain in framing the war not simply as a national struggle, but as a defence of the international order we aspire to preserve. By anchoring its narrative in shared democratic values and using emotionally charged storytelling, abstract principles such as sovereignty and collective security have become relatable. This approach mobilised both public opinion and material support, showing the strategic value of moral clarity and tailored messaging in provoking action.

Ukraine’s story shows how values can transcend borders, but also how fragile such connections become when narratives are inflexible

From this analysis, three themes deserve attention. First, despite an enduring modern preoccupation with information as data to be shared, communication is not a one-way endeavour. Audiences do not simply absorb narratives, they interpret them through their own histories, cultural memories, and social contexts. They play an active role, engaging with and sometimes reshaping the story. Citizens are not just consumers of information but co-creators of meaning. Narratives therefore resonate and endure when audiences are understood as active participants.

Second, communication should be judged by real-world impact, not superficial metrics such as online engagement. True effectiveness means shifting opinions, influencing policy, or achieving concrete goals such as securing materiel support, rather than simply generating attention. Ukraine’s campaign for F-16s demonstrates how targeted messaging can help deliver major policy outcomes. While the warm glow of publicity may be reassuring, success requires clear objectives and a realistic sense of what can be achieved.

The real lesson from Ukraine’s messaging success is not about replicating tactics but about renewing commitment to the principles that define western political and moral identity

Third, public opinion is not static and sustaining support demands more than routine messaging. Ukraine’s experience shows the power of genuine authenticity, most vividly in Zelenskyy’s early wartime addresses, delivered while the threat of personal danger was real. These moments broke through the noise to establish trust. Even the slightest hint of pretence would have shattered his credibility. This is not simply about social media presence, but about leaders demonstrating conviction and a sense of shared fate. Successful communication also depends on understanding the history and culture of the audience, making a genuine effort to connect on their terms. In an age of fragmented attention, the challenge is not only to engage, but to capture and retain interest when competition for focus is relentless. Ukraine’s case is a reminder that authenticity and a clear articulation of why values matter can still break through and mobilise support.

Perhaps the real lesson from Ukraine’s messaging success is not about replicating tactics but about renewing commitment to the principles that define western political and moral identity. The clearer these principles are expressed, the stronger the resolve to defend them—not only in Ukraine, but wherever they come under threat.

Endnotes

[1] Volodymyr Zelenskyy, “Address by President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy,” 22 October 2022.

[2] Michele Consolini, “Support for Ukraine still high among EU citizens but some fall off apparent among certain groups,” Eurofound, 24 March 2025; Henry O Fisher, “Media bias in Western coverage of the Russian-Ukrainian war,” Master’s thesis, Södertörn University, 2025; European Union, European Commission, “EU reaffirms unwavering support for Ukraine,” 9 April 2025.

[3] Attributed to Pete Hegseth: Dan Sabbagh, “Pete Hegseth says ‘everything is on the table’ to end Ukraine war,” The Guardian, 13 February 2025.

[4] Lawrence Freedman, “Ukraine: What Next?,” [Substack], 29 October 2024.

[5] For example: “Watch: ‘Prove that you’re with us,’ Ukraine’s Zelenskyy tells MEPs,” Euronews, 1 March 2022.

[6] Audrey MacAlpine, “President Zelenskyy’s most powerful speeches: 20 quotes that shaped Ukraine’s fight for freedom,” United24 Media, 26 September 2024.

[7] James V Wertsch, How Nations Remember: A Narrative Approach (Oxford University Press, 2021).

[8] Brand Ukraine, “Ukraine’s Perception Report in Europe,” October 2024; Felix Richter, “Europeans broadly back support for Ukraine,” Statista, 7 March 2025.

[9] Shibley Telhami, “More Americans want the US to stay the course in Ukraine as long as it takes,” Brookings Institution, 26 August 2024.

[10] Kristen D Thompson, “What it takes to fly the F-16: Challenges for Ukraine,” Council on Foreign Relations, 5 March 2024; “US approves F-16 maintenance deal for jets already transferred to Ukraine,” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 3 May 2025.

[11] Michele Consolini, “Support for Ukraine still high”; Megan Brenan, “Support for greater U.S. role in Ukraine climbs to 46% high,” Gallup, 18 March 2025.

[12] See: Allister Miskimmon, Ben O’Loughlin, and Laura Roselle, “Strategic narratives, soft power, and foreign policy,” in J Kaarbo and C Thies (eds.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Foreign Policy Analysis (Oxford University Press, 2024); Artem Zakharchenko, “Advantages of the connective strategic narrative during the Russian–Ukrainian war,” Frontiers in Political Science, 7 (2025).

[13] Joseph S Nye, Jr, The Future of Power (PublicAffairs, 2011).

Read also:

• Brief 1. Mobilisation in Wartime, Andriy Stavytskyy
• Brief 2. The Evolution of Grand Strategy, Leonid Polyakov
• Brief 3. War and Society, Mykola Nazarov
• Brief 4. War and Industry, Stanislav Zhelikhovskyi
• Brief 5. Russia’s Attempts to Undermine Mobilisation, Maryna Vorotyntseva
• Brief 6. Artificial Intelligence in Defence of Ukraine, Vitaliy Goncharuk
• Brief 7. Drone-Centric Warfare, Mykhailo Samus
• Brief 8. Ukraine’s Strategy And Western Military Assistance, Hennadiy Maksak
• Brief 9. Prospects for an American Peace, Laurynas Jonavičius
• Brief 10. Fortification for Drone Warfare, Sahaidachnyi Security Center

The views and opinions contained in this paper are solely of its author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the International Centre for Defence and Security or any other organisation.