NATO Report on the Falsification of History

• Overview
• History as a Weapon: How Russia Shapes the Past to Control the Future
  • Introduction: More Than Just Memories
  • 1. The Kremlin's Core Story: The "Great Patriotic War"
  • 2. The Propagandist's Toolkit: Russia's Key Tactics
  • 3. Case Studies: History in Action
  • 4. Conclusion: Why the Past Matters for the Present
• Unpacking History: How Russia Reinterprets the Past for Propaganda
  • Introduction: Why History is a Weapon in Modern Russia
  • 1. The Two World Wars: Understanding the Key Omission
  • 2. Flashpoint 1: The Start of the War and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (1939)
  • 3. Flashpoint 2: The "Liberation" vs. "Occupation" of Eastern Europe
  • 4. Flashpoint 3: The Legacy of Resistance - The "Forest Brothers"
  • 5. Bringing History to the Streets: The St. George Ribbon
  • 6. Conclusion: Why This Matters for You
• Strategic Report: Russia's Use of Historical Narratives as a Tool of Foreign Influence
  • 1.0 Introduction: The Weaponization of History in Russian State Policy
  • 2.0 The Core Narrative: Victory in the Great Patriotic War
  • 3.0 From Narrative to Campaign: Symbolic Mobilization and International Reach
  • 4.0 Case Studies: Historical Revisionism in Practice
  • 5.0 Military and Security Implications for NATO
  • 6.0 Recommendations for NATO Strategic Communications and Countermeasures
• Policy Briefing: Russia's Weaponization of History Against Finland, Estonia, and Latvia
  • 1.0 Russia's Doctrine of Historical Revisionism
  • 2.0 A Pattern Analysis of Russia's Historical Influence Operations
  • 3.0 Instruments of Dissemination
  • 4.0 National and International Security Implications
  • 5.0 Strategic Conclusion

Overview

This report published by the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence investigates how the Russian government systematically manipulates and weaponizes history to achieve modern geopolitical and domestic objectives. Through specific case studies of Estonia, Finland, Latvia, and Poland, various academic experts detail how the Kremlin employs propaganda to rehabilitate Soviet-era narratives and distort the events of World War II. Key strategies identified include the use of whataboutism, the denial of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact’s secret protocols, and the labeling of neighbors as fascist or Russophobic to undermine their international standing. The authors argue that these information operations aim to justify aggressive foreign policy, build national identity around the Great Patriotic War, and alienate Russian-speaking minorities from their host nations. Ultimately, the document emphasizes that educating military personnel and the public on objective historical facts is a vital defense against these persistent influence operations.

StratCom | NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence Riga, Latvia

(Download Link for the Manual)

This report, published by the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, examines how the Russian Federation utilizes historical propaganda as a strategic tool to advance its modern foreign policy goals. Through case studies involving Estonia, Finland, Latvia, and Poland, the authors detail a systematic effort by the Kremlin to redefine the past by glorifying Soviet triumphs while omitting or distorting aggressive actions like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. By labeling objective historical research as falsification and accusing neighboring states of Russophobia or neo-Nazism, Russia aims to undermine the international credibility of these nations and build domestic legitimacy. Ultimately, the text argues that these weaponized narratives serve as a form of information warfare designed to erode the resilience of NATO allies and justify Russia's contemporary geopolitical ambitions.

History as a Weapon: How Russia Shapes the Past to Control the Future

Introduction: More Than Just Memories

History is often seen as a collection of settled facts—a static record of what has happened. However, for some governments, the past is not a memory to be preserved but a tool to be actively wielded. As leading Russian affairs scholar Keir Giles notes, the country's leadership has the power to "'redefine the past arbitrarily'." He observes that Russia's historical narratives often "'do not stand up to objective scrutiny because they are based on fiction, distortion, or omission'." This is not an academic failing; it is a feature of a sophisticated state strategy that uses historical propaganda to advance modern-day political goals, justify foreign policy, and undermine the sovereignty of its neighbors.

This article will explain the core concepts of Russia's state-directed historical narratives. We will explore the central story that forms the foundation of this strategy, the key tactics used to promote it, and how these methods are applied in the real world. Using the specific examples of Estonia, Finland, and Latvia, we will illustrate how history is transformed from a subject of study into a weapon of influence.

1. The Kremlin's Core Story: The "Great Patriotic War"

To understand Russia's use of history, one must first grasp the absolute centrality of its victory in World War II, which is known in Russia as the "Great Patriotic War." This single event serves as the cornerstone of the modern Russian national identity and its foreign policy messaging.

1.1. Russia's "Shining Glory"

After the collapse of the Soviet Union—an event President Vladimir Putin called the "major geopolitical disaster of the century"—Russia faced an identity crisis. The new nation needed a positive, unifying story to build upon. The victory in 1945 was the perfect candidate. In a century marked by a humiliating defeat to Japan in 1905, the disastrous Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in World War I, and a bloody civil war, the triumph over Nazi Germany stood out as Russia's "shining glory."

This victory is not just a source of pride; it is the foundation of Russia's claim to great-power status. It secured the Soviet Union a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council and cemented its role as a global superpower—a status the current leadership is determined to reclaim.

1.2. A Tale of Two Wars: What Gets Left Out

A crucial element of Russia's historical narrative is the distinction it makes between "World War II" and the "Great Patriotic War." While often used interchangeably in Russian media, the terms refer to different time periods, a difference that is highly significant.

Feature	World War II	The Great Patriotic War (Russian Narrative)
Start Date	September 1939	June 1941
End Date (Europe)	May 8, 1945	May 9, 1945

The significance of this framing lies in what is deliberately omitted: the nearly two-year period between September 1939 and June 1941. During these 22 months, the Soviet Union was actively collaborating with Nazi Germany under the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. This agreement divided Eastern Europe between the two totalitarian powers and led directly to the Soviet invasion of Poland and Finland and the annexation of the Baltic states. By starting its historical clock in 1941, the Russian narrative erases the USSR's role as an aggressor at the beginning of the war, recasting it solely as a victim and liberator.

This tactic of deflecting blame by accusing others is not a modern invention but a continuation of a Stalin-era propaganda playbook. When the U.S. State Department published the secret protocols of the Pact in January 1948, the Soviet Union instantly responded with its own publication, a booklet personally edited by Stalin titled "Falsifiers of History," which sought to blame the West for the war.

This carefully constructed core narrative is promoted and defended using a specific set of propaganda tactics.

2. The Propagandist's Toolkit: Russia's Key Tactics

Russia employs several distinct methods to project its historical worldview, undermine its neighbors, and deflect criticism.

2.1. Accusation in a Mirror: Crying "Falsification!"

One of the most common tactics is to accuse others of the very actions the propagandist is committing. This is not just a rhetorical habit but an institutionalized state policy. The Kremlin consistently and aggressively accuses its neighbors—especially the Baltic states and Poland—of "falsifying history" and "rehabilitating Nazism."

This tactic is backed by the state's legal and bureaucratic machinery. In 2009, a high-level "Commission under the President... on countering attempts to falsify history" was established, filled with officials from the security services. In 2014, the state went further by amending the criminal code with Article 354-1, "Rehabilitation of Nazism," which criminalized the "public dissemination of knowingly false information about the activities of the USSR during the Second World War." This serves two purposes: it deflects criticism by preemptively discrediting contradictory analysis, and it frames Russia as a victim under attack from hostile, revisionist forces.

2.2. Weaponizing Symbols: The St. George Ribbon

The St. George Ribbon campaign is a prime example of repurposing a historical symbol for modern political goals.

• Original Meaning: The black and orange ribbon dates back to the 18th century as the Order of St. George, one of Russia's highest military honors for heroism.
• Modern Repurposing: In 2005, it was relaunched as a massive public campaign to create a patriotic symbol commemorating the victory in the Great Patriotic War. Millions of ribbons are distributed annually.
• Controversial Evolution: The symbol's meaning has been deliberately expanded and made controversial. Its modern use as a symbol of military aggression was first established in August 2008, when the re-established Cross of St. George was awarded for the military campaign in Georgia. It was later used by top officials like State Duma Speaker Sergei Naryshkin to celebrate the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and has been worn by pro-Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine ever since. As a result, what was once a symbol of shared victory has openly become a symbol of "Russia's aspirations for conquest."

2.3. Sowing Doubt: The Power of "Alternative Truths"

Instead of outright denying established facts, a more subtle tactic is to introduce "competing narratives" or "alternative truths." The goal is not necessarily to convince everyone that the alternative version is correct, but to muddy the waters, create confusion, and make audiences doubt the established historical record. This method aims to create an environment where objective truth seems unknowable, leaving audiences to believe that one "story" is as good as another. This tactic has been particularly evident in Russia's approach toward Finland.

These tactics are not just theoretical; they are actively applied to target specific nations with tailored historical messages.

3. Case Studies: History in Action

The following case studies show how Russia applies its toolkit of historical manipulation to pursue political objectives against its neighbors.

3.1. Estonia: Denying an Occupation

A primary Russian narrative aimed at Estonia is the complete denial of the Soviet occupation of 1940. Instead of an illegal military takeover, Russia frames the event as a legal and voluntary "incorporation" into the USSR. In a 2020 article, President Putin stated this view directly:

"Their accession to the USSR was implemented on a contractual basis, with the consent of the elected authorities. This was in line with international and state law of that time."

This narrative is reinforced by two supporting claims:

• Accusations of Nazism: Russia attempts to incriminate Estonia by alleging widespread collaboration with Nazi Germany.
• Discrediting Resistance: The anti-Soviet partisans, known as the "Forest Brothers," who fought against Soviet rule for years after the war, are consistently portrayed in Russian media as criminals, bandits, and fascists, rather than as a national resistance movement.

3.2. Finland: Creating Competing Narratives

Russia's approach to Finland often involves creating "alternative truths" aimed primarily at a Russian domestic audience, designed to sow doubt about well-documented historical events.

• The Shelling of Mainila (1939):
  • Established Fact: The Soviet Union staged a false flag artillery incident, shelling its own territory near the village of Mainila and blaming Finland. This fabricated attack was used as the pretext to invade Finland, starting the Winter War.
  • Alternative Narrative: Russian state-backed channels like Zvezda, the official media channel of the Russian Ministry of Defence, have promoted the claim that Finland actually started the war with a "military provocation," encouraged by Germany and the West, in order to test the Red Army.
• The Sandarmokh Mass Graves:
  • Established Fact: Sandarmokh is a forest in Russia's Karelia region containing the mass graves of over 9,000 victims of Stalin's Great Terror, executed in 1937-38.
  • Alternative Narrative: In recent years, Russian state-backed historians have pushed a new theory: that the graves primarily contain the remains of Soviet prisoners of war executed by the Finns during World War II. This is not a genuine academic debate but a state-directed political operation. In a revealing letter, Karelia's Acting Minister of Culture, Sergei Solov'ev, explained that the purpose of the new theory was to counter the "destructive information and propaganda" of the original story and to combat an "unwarranted sense of guilt in the public consciousness." This admission provides a rare, direct look at the state's intent to manipulate history to serve a political goal: shifting historical focus from Soviet crimes to the alleged crimes of its external enemies.

3.3. Latvia: Questioning a Nation's Legitimacy

Russia's historical narratives about Latvia are designed to directly attack the legal and constitutional foundation of the modern Latvian state.

1. The Core Conflict: Latvia's restored independence is legally based on the principle of state continuity—the idea that the pre-war Republic of Latvia was illegally occupied by the USSR but never ceased to exist in a legal sense. Russia's narrative of a "willful and peaceful" incorporation in 1940 is a direct assault on this constitutional reality.
2. The "Nazi" Accusation: Russia frequently accuses Latvia of glorifying Nazism, primarily by distorting the annual remembrance day for the Latvian Legion. Russian propaganda omits the crucial fact that the Nuremberg trials explicitly excluded conscripted forces, which the majority of the Legion were, from its definition of a criminal organization. This is a strategic move designed not just to slander Latvia, but to "limit a real scientific debate and to build an inextricable link between its false and politicized interpretation of the past with the existing international legal system," effectively co-opting the legitimacy of international law for its own propaganda.
3. The Goal: By denying the occupation and painting the country as a haven for Nazism, Russia aims to delegitimize Latvia's statehood, alienate the country's large Russian-speaking population from the Latvian state, and portray Latvia as an ungrateful and historically revisionist nation on the world stage.

These examples demonstrate that Russia's use of history is a far-reaching strategy with clear and present-day implications.

4. Conclusion: Why the Past Matters for the Present

Russia's manipulation of history is not an academic debate confined to university halls. It is a deliberate, state-directed foreign policy tool designed to achieve concrete political goals. The strategy is built on a foundation of omission, distortion, and outright falsehood, all in service of a narrative that casts Russia as a perpetual hero and victim, while its neighbors are portrayed as ungrateful, illegitimate, or fascist.

The primary goals of this strategy can be distilled into three key points:

• To Justify Modern Actions: Framing history in a specific way provides a pretext for current foreign policy. The narrative of protecting Russian speakers and fighting "fascism" was used to justify the annexation of Crimea and the war in Ukraine.
• To Undermine Other Nations: By attacking the historical narratives of its neighbors, Russia seeks to weaken their national identity, create internal divisions, and damage their credibility in international forums like NATO and the European Union.
• To Build Domestic Cohesion: The unifying myth of the Great Patriotic War, combined with the image of Russia as a "besieged fortress" surrounded by hostile, revisionist neighbors, helps rally the Russian population around the current regime and distracts from domestic problems.

Understanding this strategy is the first step toward countering it. The most effective defense against this form of information warfare is not counter-propaganda, but a steadfast commitment to historical awareness, rigorous scholarship, and critical thinking.

Unpacking History: How Russia Reinterprets the Past for Propaganda

Introduction: Why History is a Weapon in Modern Russia

Crucially, for the modern Russian state, history is not a static record to be studied, but a dynamic and powerful tool to be wielded in pursuit of political goals. This approach treats historical narratives as a critical component of national security, shaping both domestic identity and foreign policy. As leading scholar Keir Giles notes, Russia "wishes to ensure its historical narratives are unchallenged... because they are based on fiction, distortion, or omission." By controlling the story of its past, Russia seeks to legitimize its actions today.

The core of this national story is the victory in World War II, known in Russia as the "Great Patriotic War." After the collapse of the Soviet Union—which President Vladimir Putin called the "major geopolitical disaster of the century"—Russia needed a powerful, positive event to forge a new national identity. The 1945 victory became that "shining glory," standing in stark contrast to a century of other military humiliations, including defeats in the Russo-Japanese War (1905), World War I, the war in Afghanistan (1989), and the first Chechen War (1996). This victory is not just a source of pride; it is the event that is seen to have underpinned the USSR's superpower status, a position Vladimir Putin is determined to reclaim.

The victory in 1945 is foundational to Russia's identity and its claim to superpower status, including its permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.

However, the official Russian version of this victory clashes with the globally accepted historical timeline. This discrepancy is not a minor detail—it is a deliberate omission designed to erase inconvenient truths and present a flawless image of the Soviet Union as a heroic liberator.

1. The Two World Wars: Understanding the Key Omission

The most significant distortion in Russia's historical narrative is the difference between what the world calls "World War II" and what Russia calls "The Great Patriotic War." By insisting on the latter term, the Russian narrative effectively erases nearly two years of history, allowing for a sanitized version of events that serves its political interests.

The following table breaks down the crucial differences:

Feature	World War II (WWII)	The Great Patriotic War (GPW)
Start Date	September 1, 1939 (Invasion of Poland)	June 22, 1941 (Nazi Germany's attack on the USSR)
End Date (Europe)	May 8, 1945	May 9, 1945
Key Implication	Acknowledges the period of Soviet-German collaboration from 1939-1941.	Omits the first 22 months of the war, erasing the period when the USSR and Nazi Germany were allies.
Geographic Scope	Global conflict	Primarily the conflict between the USSR and Nazi Germany on the Eastern Front.

Why is this 22-month omission so important? Ignoring the 1939-1941 period allows the Russian narrative to hide the "embarrassment" of its early cooperation with Nazi Germany. The most critical event during this time was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, a non-aggression treaty that included a secret protocol for dividing Eastern Europe between the two totalitarian powers.

This deliberate reframing of the war's timeline is the foundational distortion. Let's now examine how it enables Russia to reinterpret one of the most controversial events at the start of the war: the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

2. Flashpoint 1: The Start of the War and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (1939)

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, signed on August 23, 1939, between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, is a central point of historical contention. Russia's official narrative actively works to reframe the pact and the subsequent Soviet invasions as defensive necessities rather than acts of aggression.

The Official Russian Narrative	Historical Reality
The USSR's actions were necessary "strategic military and defensive goals."	The Pact contained a secret protocol that divided Eastern Europe into spheres of influence between the USSR and Nazi Germany.
The "incorporation" of the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) was done "on a contractual basis, with the consent of the elected authorities" and was "in line with international and state law of that time." (Quote from Vladimir Putin's article).	The USSR's actions led to the military occupation and illegal annexation of the Baltic States in 1940, a fact confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights.
The Soviet invasion of Poland on September 17, 1939 was a "Liberation Raid" to protect Ukrainian and Belarusian populations after the Polish state had collapsed.	The invasion was an act of military aggression against Poland, coordinated with Nazi Germany as agreed upon in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
The existence of the secret protocol was denied by the Soviet Union for over four decades, labeling its publication by the US State Department in 1948 as the work of "Falsifiers of History."	The USSR Congress of People's Deputies finally acknowledged the existence of the secret protocol in December 1989.

The strategic goal of this revisionism is unmistakable: to recast the Soviet Union not as a co-aggressor with Nazi Germany at the start of World War II, but as a defensive power forced into action by circumstance. This reinterpretation of the war's beginning extends to its conclusion, creating a deeply divisive legacy in the nations of Eastern Europe.

3. Flashpoint 2: The "Liberation" vs. "Occupation" of Eastern Europe

While the end of World War II brought an end to Nazi rule, for many countries in Central and Eastern Europe, it marked the beginning of a new chapter of subjugation under the Soviet Union. The official Russian narrative champions the "great liberation mission of the Red Army," a heroic story that forms a cornerstone of its national pride. However, for the nations of Central and Eastern Europe, this "liberation" was merely the exchange of one occupier for another, as the "liberating Red Army units had no intention of leaving." This fundamental disagreement has created a deep and lasting historical schism. The European Court of Human Rights has affirmed that the Soviet presence in the Baltics after WWII constituted an occupation, a finding Russia vehemently rejects.

This point of contention is so sensitive that it provokes sharp reactions from Russian officials. As Russian Army General Mahmut Gareev, a leading military historian and former president of the Russian Academy of Military Sciences, declared:

"It is especially strange and insulting to hear statements by some historians, politicians, and journalists about the 'occupation of the Baltic states by Soviet troops'."

Russia's framing of this period also seeks to delegitimize any local resistance to its rule by labeling it as fascist.

4. Flashpoint 3: The Legacy of Resistance - The "Forest Brothers"

After World War II, armed partisan groups in the Baltic states—known as the "Forest Brothers"—waged a guerrilla war against Soviet rule for years. How these fighters are remembered today is a key battleground in Russia's information war.

Western/Baltic Historical View	Official Russian Narrative
A partisan resistance movement fighting against an illegal Soviet occupation.	"Bandits who operated in the Baltic region after the Second World War." They are framed as "purely criminals, fascists and collaborators with the Nazi regime."

This is a classic propaganda tactic: by framing all anti-Soviet resistance as "fascist," the narrative preemptively disqualifies any opposition and creates a false moral equivalence. This approach reinforces Russia's self-image as the sole defeater of fascism and portrays any challenge to its authority, past or present, as a resurgence of Nazism. This strategy of using historical narratives and labels extends beyond academic debate and into the realm of modern symbols.

5. Bringing History to the Streets: The St. George Ribbon

The St. George ribbon, a black-and-orange emblem, is one of the most visible modern symbols of Russia's historical narratives. Originally launched in 2005 to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the victory in the "Great Patriotic War," its meaning has since been expanded and repurposed for contemporary political and military objectives.

The ribbon's evolution shows how a symbol of historical memory can become a tool of modern conflict:

• Original Meaning: A patriotic sign to commemorate the victory over Nazi Germany, distributed in Russia and to "compatriot" communities abroad.
• 2008 - Georgia: The Cross of St. George, a military award sharing the ribbon's colors, was awarded for the first time since its re-establishment for the military campaign in Georgia.
• 2014 - Ukraine: The ribbon became a prominent symbol of pro-Russian separatism in Eastern Ukraine, leading to its official ban there in 2017.
• 2014 - Crimea: The ribbon was widely used to celebrate the annexation of Crimea, openly becoming a "symbol of Russia's aspirations for conquest."

The St. George ribbon is a clear example of how historical symbols are not just relics of the past but are actively deployed in current geopolitical struggles to signal loyalty and justify aggression.

6. Conclusion: Why This Matters for You

Russia's systematic use of history is a form of "information war" where the past is weaponized to achieve present-day objectives. The primary goal is to create a heroic and unblemished historical narrative that legitimizes Russia's current actions on the world stage. But this strategy is not merely for domestic consumption or international diplomacy; it is an active component of its military doctrine.

During a 2016 military exercise, Russia's psychological operations (PSYOPS) units broadcast a message in multiple languages at simulated NATO forces:

NATO soldiers! You are being lied to! You are not peacekeepers! Lay down your arms. ... You will suffer retribution and the anger of a people who have never suffered defeat in any war. Drop your weapons and stop being pawns for your leaders.

This message is built on the central fiction of Russia's historical narrative. The claim of being "undefeated" is a lie, designed to demoralize troops by invoking an image of invincible Russian power. It deliberately ignores a century of Russian and Soviet military defeats, from the Russo-Japanese War and World War I to the withdrawals from Afghanistan and Chechnya.

Understanding how history is manipulated is therefore not just an academic exercise. It is a matter of operational readiness and strategic resilience. The battle over the past is a direct assault on the present, and recognizing the weaponization of history is a critical skill for navigating the conflicts of the modern world.

Strategic Report: Russia's Use of Historical Narratives as a Tool of Foreign Influence

1.0 Introduction: The Weaponization of History in Russian State Policy

Russia's manipulation of history is not an academic debate but a deliberate and systematic component of its foreign policy and national security strategy. This analysis deconstructs Russia's core historical narratives, symbolic campaigns, and specific applications against NATO allies to inform effective countermeasures. These state-directed efforts constitute a sophisticated form of propaganda, defined as a "deliberate and systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behaviour to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist." The Kremlin treats the past as a strategic battlespace, where historical narratives are weaponized to justify current political actions, undermine the sovereignty of neighboring states, and project influence abroad.

This approach is formally enshrined in Russian state policy. The 2009 National Security Strategy explicitly identifies that "'attempts to review the understanding of history of Russia and its role and position in the world's history have a negative influence on national security in the field of culture [...]'." This doctrine has been institutionalized through state-sponsored bodies, such as the 2009 "Commission... on countering attempts to falsify history to the detriment of Russia's interests," a high-level body that included the heads of the General Staff and representatives of the SVR and FSB intelligence services. More recently, constitutional amendments passed in 2020 mandate that the Russian Federation "protects the historical truth" and forbids "diminishing the significance of the heroic deed of the people in defending the Fatherland." These legal and institutional frameworks provide the architecture for a state-led campaign to control historical interpretation, built upon a single, foundational narrative.

2.0 The Core Narrative: Victory in the Great Patriotic War

The victory in the "Great Patriotic War" (GPW) serves as the foundational myth for Russia's post-Soviet national identity. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union—an event Vladimir Putin described as the "major geopolitical disaster of the century"—Russia's new leadership required a unifying historical event to build a renewed sense of national pride and purpose. With a 20th-century military record marked by numerous defeats—including the Russo-Japanese War (1905), World War I (1918), wars of independence against Estonia and Latvia (1918-1920), the Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989), and the First Chechen War (1994-1996)—the 1945 victory over Nazi Germany stood out as Russia's "shining glory." This singular triumph not only granted the USSR a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council but also cemented the superpower status that the modern Kremlin seeks to reclaim.

The official GPW narrative, however, is built on significant omissions and distortions designed to present the Soviet Union as a blameless victim and heroic liberator. This framing deliberately ignores inconvenient historical facts that contradict the state-sanctioned version of events.

Official Russian Narrative	Historical Context & Omissions
The Great Patriotic War (1941-1945) is presented as the defining event of WWII, effectively making the two synonymous in state discourse. The USSR is framed as the primary victim and decisive victor over Nazism.	World War II began on 1 September 1939. The 22-month period between September 1939 and June 1941 is deliberately omitted from the GPW narrative.
The USSR acted defensively and with moral authority throughout the conflict.	This period was defined by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939, which included a secret protocol for the division of Eastern Europe between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union's actions in Eastern Europe were missions of liberation.	Soviet attacks on Poland (17 September 1939) and Finland (30 November 1939) are reframed as "Liberation Raids" to obscure the reality of Soviet aggression and collaboration with the Nazi regime.

An analysis of reporting from the Russian news agency Interfax confirms the rising importance of this narrative. Mentions of the "Great Patriotic War" show a clear upward trend, with distinct peaks corresponding to the 55th, 60th, 65th, and 70th anniversaries of the victory. A notable spike also occurred in 2007 during the Bronze Soldier crisis in Estonia, demonstrating how the narrative is activated during geopolitical confrontations. This core narrative is operationalized and amplified through symbolic public campaigns designed for mass participation.

3.0 From Narrative to Campaign: Symbolic Mobilization and International Reach

Symbolic campaigns are a key strategic tool for translating abstract historical narratives into tangible, participatory actions. These campaigns reinforce state ideology both domestically and internationally by mobilizing "compatriots"—a term Russia uses to encompass ethnic Russians and Russian speakers regardless of citizenship—and projecting Russian influence into the public square of foreign nations.

The St. George Ribbon campaign is a primary example of this symbolic weaponization. Its evolution reveals a deliberate shift from commemoration to a symbol of political and military assertion.

• Origin: The campaign was launched in 2005 in cooperation with the state news agency RIA Novosti to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the victory in the Great Patriotic War.
• Expansion: It grew rapidly, with ribbons distributed in as many as 90 countries worldwide. The campaign's international reach is facilitated by a network of "Russian compatriot" organizations.
• Politicization: The symbol's meaning has been deliberately altered. In 2008, the associated Cross of St. George was awarded for the first time since its re-establishment to soldiers who fought in the military campaign against Georgia. The ribbon was prominently displayed during the 2014 Kremlin ceremony celebrating the annexation of Crimea and was subsequently adopted as a recognition mark by pro-Russian separatist militants in Eastern Ukraine.

The "Immortal Regiment" march, another commemorative event, is often synchronized with the St. George Ribbon campaign. Together, these campaigns create a visible presence for Russian state discourse in the public spaces of foreign countries, leveraging the memory of World War II to advance contemporary geopolitical objectives. The following case studies demonstrate how these narratives and symbols are tailored for specific target countries.

4.0 Case Studies: Historical Revisionism in Practice

This section analyzes the practical application of Russia's historical propaganda against four key NATO and partner countries. These case studies reveal tailored narratives designed to undermine national sovereignty, distort historical memory, and erode international credibility.

4.1 Estonia: Contesting the Soviet Legacy

Russia's historical propaganda against Estonia focuses on delegitimizing its statehood and denying the trauma of Soviet rule. The primary lines of effort include:

1. Denial of Occupation: The Kremlin promotes a narrative of a voluntary and legal "incorporation" of Estonia into the USSR in 1940. In a 2020 article in The National Interest, Vladimir Putin personally endorsed this view, claiming the accession "was in line with international and state law of that time." This directly contradicts the historical record of a military invasion and forced annexation.
2. Accusations of Nazism and Russophobia: A common tactic is to accuse Estonia of collaboration with Nazi Germany, thereby deflecting from Soviet-Nazi cooperation. The post-WWII armed resistance against Soviet rule, known as the "Forest Brothers," is systematically disparaged in Russian media as a movement of criminals and fascists.
3. Weaponizing Commemoration: Events like the "Immortal Regiment" march are used to mobilize the Russophone minority in Estonia and challenge the country's official historical memory. This strategy was on full display during the 2007 "Bronze Night" riots in Tallinn, which erupted over the relocation of a Soviet-era war memorial.

4.2 Finland: Creating Competing Narratives

Russia has deployed historical revisionism to challenge Finland's national narrative surrounding World War II and to obscure Soviet-era crimes.

1. The Shelling of Mainila: Russia has attempted to rewrite the start of the 1939 Winter War. An article published on the website of the Zvezda channel, run by the Russian Ministry of Defence, claimed the war was initiated by a Finnish provocation encouraged by Germany. This narrative seeks to portray the Soviet invasion as a defensive necessity, absolving the USSR of its role as the aggressor.
2. The Sandarmokh Mass Graves: Russian state-backed historical societies have promoted a competing narrative about the mass graves at Sandarmokh, a memorial site for thousands of victims of Stalin's Great Terror. This new theory claims the site is primarily the burial ground of Soviet POWs executed by Finns during the Continuation War (1941-1944). The strategic goal is to shift focus from Soviet crimes to alleged Finnish atrocities and to undermine the work of human rights organizations like the Memorial Society, which originally uncovered the graves.

4.3 Latvia: Undermining State Legitimacy

Russia employs a multi-pronged strategy to delegitimize Latvia's post-Soviet statehood by attacking the historical foundations of its restored independence.

1. Questioning Independence: The core Russian argument posits that challenging the official Soviet narrative of Latvia's "incorporation" into the USSR is a falsification of history. This claim is intended to undermine the legal and historical basis of Latvia's restored statehood, which is founded on the principle of continuous sovereignty and the illegality of the Soviet occupation.
2. Institutionalized Propaganda: State-backed entities such as the Foundation 'Historical Memory', the Russian Historical Society, and the Russian Association for Baltic Studies are tasked with producing and disseminating these revisionist narratives. These organizations provide a veneer of academic legitimacy to what are fundamentally political and ideological campaigns.
3. Legal and Diplomatic Pressure: Moscow uses selective interpretations of the Nuremberg trials to falsely accuse Latvia of glorifying Nazism, particularly in relation to the Latvian Legion, a military formation that included many conscripts. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs routinely issues diplomatic protests against any historical evaluation by Latvia that contradicts the Soviet "liberator" narrative.

4.4 Poland: Justifying the 1939 Invasion

Russia has deployed a range of disinformation strategies to distort the history of the 17 September 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland, which was coordinated with Nazi Germany. These methods are designed to absolve the USSR of responsibility for starting World War II.

Strategy	Description	Example Narrative
Dissembling	Avoiding or ignoring the topic of Soviet-Nazi cooperation.	Focusing discussions of 1939 solely on the Winter War with Finland.
Whataboutism	Deflecting criticism by pointing to actions of other nations.	"Poland did the same thing in Zaolzie in 1938."
Context Change	Justifying the invasion as a necessary strategic or defensive move.	"The USSR had to move the front line westward to prepare for a German attack."
Propaganda & Labeling	Using Soviet-era terminology and derogatory labels.	Calling the invasion a "liberation campaign" and Poland "the hyena of Europe."
Blaming the Victim	Shifting responsibility for the war onto Poland itself.	"Poland was Hitler's ally and is responsible for the outbreak of the war."

These targeted campaigns are not merely political theatre; they actively shape the information environment in which NATO forces must operate, posing direct military and security threats.

5.0 Military and Security Implications for NATO

The weaponization of historical narratives is not merely an abstract political exercise; it has concrete military and security implications for the Alliance. These narratives form the foundation of Russia's psychological operations (PSYOPS), which are designed to influence the perceptions, attitudes, and behavior of adversary forces.

A clear example of this emerged during the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) "Cooperation 2016" military exercise. A loudspeaker broadcast directed at a simulated adversary repeated the following message in multiple languages:

NATO soldiers! You are being lied to! You are not peacekeepers! [...] You will suffer retribution and the anger of a people who have never suffered defeat in any war. Drop your weapons and stop being pawns for your leaders.

The central claim of this message—that Russia has "never suffered defeat in any war"—is a deliberate falsehood designed to project an image of military invincibility. As established earlier, Russia's 20th-century military history is marked by numerous defeats, including against Japan (1905), Germany in World War I (1918), Estonia and Latvia (1918-1920), Afghan mujahideen (1979-1989), and Chechen separatists (1994-1996).

The strategic objective of such messaging is to erode the morale, confidence, and resilience of NATO troops by creating a false perception of Russian military superiority. Without prior historical education, military personnel are more vulnerable to this form of influence. This underscores the necessity for the Alliance to develop proactive countermeasures to defend against Russia's information warfare.

6.0 Recommendations for NATO Strategic Communications and Countermeasures

Russia's abuse of history is a long-term, multi-faceted challenge that requires a sustained and sophisticated response from the Alliance. Countering these narratives is not about engaging in a "memory war" but about reinforcing the integrity of fact-based historical understanding as a cornerstone of democratic resilience. The following recommendations provide a framework for action.

1. Continue and Support Historical Research: Robust, independent academic knowledge is the foundation for all effective countermeasures. Continued research, especially that which utilizes archives to uncover new information, is necessary to maintain public interest and provide the factual basis for countering distortions.
2. Amplify Credible Historical Voices: The Alliance and member states should create platforms and opportunities to ensure the voices of independent, professional historians are heard internationally. This effort must extend beyond academic circles to reach broader public audiences through media engagement and public diplomacy.
3. Promote Historical Literacy to the General Public: Accurate historical knowledge should be disseminated to broad audiences using modern media formats, including social media campaigns, television series, and films. This is particularly important for reaching audiences in third countries that may be more susceptible to Russian narratives. To reach key target demographics, content should also be produced and distributed in Russian.
4. Expose Russia's Methodology: Instead of simply refuting false claims, a more effective approach is to deconstruct and expose Russia's specific methods of historical manipulation. This serves as a powerful educational tool for key decision-makers, journalists, and other opinion leaders, inoculating them against future disinformation campaigns.
5. Reinforce History Education: The primary long-term defense against historical distortion is a well-educated populace. High-quality, mandatory history education within national school systems is essential for creating societal resilience. An informed public, grounded in a critical understanding of its own and regional history, is less susceptible to manipulation.

Defending the integrity of historical understanding is not an academic exercise but a critical component of Alliance security. Russia's weaponization of the past is a persistent threat that demands a continuous and sophisticated multi-domain response to safeguard the democratic principles of NATO members.

Policy Briefing: Russia's Weaponization of History Against Finland, Estonia, and Latvia

1.0 Russia's Doctrine of Historical Revisionism

Russia's manipulation of history is not an academic disagreement over interpretation; it is a centralized, state-directed instrument of foreign policy and national security. This approach is codified in official doctrine, transforming historical debate into a matter of state security and creating a powerful tool for influence operations against its neighbors. This section deconstructs the official doctrine that underpins these operations, revealing a systematic effort to control the past in service of present-day geopolitical objectives.

The ideological foundation for this strategy is enshrined in Russia's highest-level security and constitutional documents. The 2009 National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation explicitly identifies historical debate as a threat, stating that "attempts to review the understanding of history of Russia and its role and position in the world's history have a negative influence on national security." This was operationalized the same year with the creation of the Presidential Commission... on countering attempts to falsify history, a high-level body that included the heads of the SVR and FSB intelligence services, institutionalizing history as a domain of the security apparatus. This principle was further cemented in the 2020 constitutional amendments, which mandate that the Russian Federation "honours the memory of the defenders of the Fatherland and protects the historical truth," adding that "Diminishing the significance of the heroic deed of the people... is not allowed." These measures effectively subordinate historical inquiry to the interests of the state, defining dissent as a form of attack.

At the heart of this doctrine is the myth of the "Great Patriotic War" (GPW), which serves as Russia's core, unifying historical narrative. Its centrality is not merely a tool for external aggression but a necessary pillar for internal stability and regime legitimacy. After the Soviet collapse, Russia's leadership "did not like what it saw" in its 20th-century history, and the 1945 victory was one of the few unambiguous "positives to rely on" for building a new national identity. This narrative is strategically manufactured to present a story of Soviet heroism and victimhood. It achieves this primarily through a critical omission: the 22-month period of Soviet-Nazi collaboration under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (September 1939 – June 1941) is excised from the timeline. Consequently, Soviet aggression during this period, such as the attacks on Poland and Finland, is officially reframed with euphemisms like "Liberation Raids." This curated history manufactures an unassailable myth of Russia as a perpetual victim of aggression and the sole vanquisher of fascism.

To enforce this official history, Russia has created powerful legal mechanisms that extend its reach beyond its borders. A 2014 amendment to the Russian Federation's Criminal Code introduced Article 354-1, "Rehabilitation of Nazism." This law criminalizes not only the titular offense but also the "public dissemination of knowingly false information about the activities of the USSR during the Second World War." The strategic ambiguity of what constitutes "false information" creates a chilling effect, empowering Russian courts to unilaterally decide historical truth and apply it to foreign nationals. This effectively threatens international researchers, who could justifiably fear arrest in Russia for studying topics like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact's secret protocols.

This state-mandated doctrine provides the framework and justification for a coordinated campaign of historical revisionism, which is then applied in practice against specific neighboring states.

2.0 A Pattern Analysis of Russia's Historical Influence Operations

By examining the historical narratives deployed against Finland, Estonia, and Latvia, a clear operational playbook emerges. Russia consistently employs a set of core narratives and tactics designed to undermine their sovereignty, discredit them internationally, and create internal social divisions. These case studies reveal a pattern of manipulation that is systematic, repeatable, and tailored to exploit specific historical vulnerabilities.

2.1 Core Narrative: Denial of Soviet Occupation and Aggression

A central pillar of Russia's historical campaign against the Baltic states is the persistent denial that their incorporation into the USSR in 1940 was an illegal occupation and annexation. This narrative directly challenges the legal foundation of their restored independence.

The official Russian position deliberately avoids the term "occupation," which has been affirmed by the European Court of Human Rights. Instead, Moscow insists on terms like "incorporation" or "joining" to describe the events of 1940. This revisionism is articulated at the highest levels. In a 2020 article for National Interest, Vladimir Putin personally asserted that the accession of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia to the USSR "was implemented on a contractual basis, with the consent of the elected authorities," and claimed, "This was in line with international and state law of that time."

The strategic goal of this narrative is to portray the 50 years of Soviet rule not as an illegal occupation but as a legitimate historical period. By doing so, Russia seeks to invalidate the principle of state continuity upon which Estonia and Latvia restored their independence, thereby undermining their very sovereignty and constitutional order.

2.2 Core Tactic: Accusations of Nazism, Fascism, and Russophobia

Russia systematically projects historical guilt onto its neighbors by accusing them of rehabilitating Nazism, glorifying collaborators, and fostering state-sponsored Russophobia. This tactic is used to discredit these NATO and EU member states on the international stage, justify Moscow's "compatriot" policies, and deflect from the USSR's own period of collaboration with Nazi Germany.

The following table contrasts Russia's frequent accusations with documented historical context:

Russian Accusation	Context and Counterpoint
"Processions of Waffen SS legionnaires and their supporters regularly take place in Latvia."	The Nuremberg trials specifically excluded from their definition of a criminal organization those who were drafted by the state and who had committed no war crimes. This exclusion applies to the vast majority of the Latvian Legion, which was formed primarily through conscription.
Estonia and Latvia are experiencing a "rehabilitation of Nazism," where "fascism is flourishing."	This narrative deliberately conflates any national memory that diverges from the Soviet "liberation" narrative—such as commemorating resistance to Soviet occupation—with neo-fascism. The strategic aim is to delegitimize the target state's national identity on the world stage.
The Baltic states gravitate towards National Socialism, and "Russophobic and nationalist sentiments can be traced in Estonia and Latvia."	This narrative recasts policies aimed at strengthening national identity or countering Russian influence as acts of ethnic aggression. Its purpose is to create a pretext for Russia's "compatriot" policy and justify intervention on behalf of targeted minorities.

2.3 Core Tactic: Manufacturing "Alternative Truths" to Obscure History

In addition to outright denial, Russia employs a more subtle tactic of manufacturing "alternative truths" to create ambiguity and obscure the historical record. This method is designed not necessarily to replace the established history, but to dilute it with competing narratives that confuse public understanding and cast doubt on the crimes of the Soviet regime. Finland has been a primary target of this tactic.

Two key examples illustrate this approach:

• The Shelling of Mainila: Russia has revived the Soviet-era claim that Finland, not the USSR, was responsible for the 1939 artillery incident that Moscow used as a pretext to launch the Winter War. Russian state-controlled media, such as the Ministry of Defence's Zvezda channel, have published articles asserting that Finland engaged in a "military provocation" with support from Germany. This narrative attempts to shift the blame for starting the war onto Finland, portraying Russia as a reactive party rather than the aggressor.
• The Sandarmokh Mass Graves: This case demonstrates a state-sponsored, multi-pronged operation to rewrite the history of a memorial site in Karelia, a known execution ground for thousands of victims of Stalin's Great Terror. The campaign involves legal persecution, with the original researcher Yuri Dmitriev and museum director Sergei Koltyrin arrested on politically-motivated charges. The operation's intent was revealed in a leaked letter from a Karelian official stating the political goals: to counter "destructive information and propaganda," combat Russia's "unwarranted sense of guilt," and undermine "anti-government forces." The operational arm of this campaign involves organizations like the Russian Historical Society and the Russian Military-Historical Society, which are conducting new excavations to "prove" the site primarily contains Soviet POWs executed by Finns. This is a tangible example of the "Institutionalized Historical Societies" being deployed to dilute the memory of Soviet state terror and paint Finland as a perpetrator.

These narratives and tactics are not left to chance; they are injected into domestic and international discourse through a well-developed state-controlled ecosystem.

3.0 Instruments of Dissemination

Russia employs a multi-channel ecosystem to inject these historical narratives into domestic and international information spaces. This integrated apparatus ensures that official interpretations of the past are amplified, legitimized, and mobilized for political effect.

• State-Controlled Media and Digital Platforms
  • Function: Domestic outlets and international broadcasters like Zvezda, Sputnik, and RT act as the primary amplifiers, ensuring the mass dissemination of Kremlin-approved historical narratives to both Russian and foreign audiences.
• Institutionalized Historical Societies
  • Function: Organizations such as the Russian Historical Society and the "Historical Memory" Foundation lend a veneer of academic legitimacy to what is fundamentally state-directed propaganda, creating pseudo-scientific justifications for political claims.
• Diplomatic and Legal Apparatus
  • Function: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the State Duma use official statements, diplomatic protests, and legislative threats to exert international pressure and formally legitimize the state's historical narratives.
• "Compatriot" Policy and Soft Power
  • Function: Cultural movements like the Immortal Regiment march and potent symbols like the St. George Ribbon are used to mobilize Russian-speaking populations abroad. According to Russia's definition, a "compatriot" is not necessarily a citizen of the Russian Federation, and the term itself was coined by the KGB in the 1960s, highlighting the policy's intelligence-driven origins.

The deployment of these instruments has direct and tangible consequences for the national and international security environment.

4.0 National and International Security Implications

For policymakers, Russia's historical influence operations are not abstract debates but a direct and ongoing threat with severe implications for national security, regional stability, and military readiness. These campaigns are designed to achieve concrete strategic objectives that weaken target nations from within and undermine collective defense.

1. Erosion of Societal Cohesion This is a deliberate strategic objective to cultivate internal vulnerabilities that can be activated to paralyze national decision-making during a crisis. The narratives are engineered to alienate Russian-speaking minorities, countering their integration into local society and fostering a sense of grievance that Moscow can exploit.
2. Undermining State Sovereignty The persistent denial of the Soviet occupation is a direct assault on the constitutional and legal legitimacy of Estonia and Latvia. By framing their five decades under Soviet rule as a voluntary and legal "incorporation," Russia's narrative questions the entire basis of their restored independence and, by extension, their right to exist as sovereign states outside of Moscow's sphere of influence.
3. Discrediting NATO Allies Accusations of resurgent Nazism, Russophobia, and historical revisionism are intended to damage the international reputation of allies. This campaign aims to isolate countries like Estonia and Latvia within the EU and NATO, sow discord among member states, and weaken the moral and political foundations of transatlantic and European unity.
4. Direct Military Relevance Fabricated historical myths are integrated directly into Russia's psychological operations (PSYOPS) to degrade the morale of potential adversaries. During the CSTO "Cooperation 2016" military exercise, for example, PSYOPS units broadcast messages to simulated NATO forces, claiming they faced "a people who have never suffered defeat in any war." This claim is a historical falsehood, ignoring numerous defeats throughout the 20th century—including against Japan, Germany (WWI), Poland, the Baltic States, Finland, Afghanistan, and Chechnya—but it is designed to project an aura of invincibility and degrade the psychological resilience of opposing forces.

These implications underscore that Russia's use of history is a core component of its broader strategic challenge to its neighbors and the West.

5.0 Strategic Conclusion

This briefing demonstrates that Russia's weaponization of history is a systematic, deeply institutionalized, and integrated component of its national strategy. It is not a series of ad-hoc propaganda efforts but a long-term campaign to challenge the post-Cold War security order by undermining the sovereignty, cohesion, and international standing of its neighbors. Moscow views control over the historical narrative as a critical battlespace, using revisionism to justify current foreign policy, mobilize populations, and create pretexts for future action.

Effectively countering this challenge requires a coordinated, long-term, and multi-faceted approach. The foundation of this response must be a commitment to academic freedom and continued historical research to ensure that fact-based history remains robust and accessible. This knowledge must inform enhanced public and military education to build societal resilience against disinformation. Finally, proactive and persistent strategic communications are essential to expose the methods, instruments, and geopolitical goals of Russia's historical revisionism, thereby inoculating allied populations and decision-makers against its corrosive effects.