Russian Ambassador to Iraq, Elbrus Kutrashev, in an interview with Al-Sharqiyah television, promotes
propaganda narratives that blame the West for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. To justify this
aggression, Kutrashev distorts history, claiming that it was the West that instigated World War II,
whereas the responsibility lay with both Hitler and Stalin, as confirmed by the Ribbentrop-Molotov
Pact.
Kutrashev’s False Claims:
→ “The West planned World War II.”
Reality: It was Hitler and Stalin who led to World War II by signing one of the most treacherous
international agreements, the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, on August 23, 1939.
→ “The same countries [that caused World War II] have now planned a war against Russia.”
Reality: Neo-imperialist and neo-colonial Russia invaded Ukraine because it does not respect the
sovereignty of other countries and consistently seeks to expand both its territory and influence.
→ “Poland and the Baltic countries are non-sovereign and follow the will of the USA.”
Reality: Poland and the Baltic states—following Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, invasion of
Ukraine, and numerous threats—have legitimate grounds for concern and an assertive stance
towards Russia.
Learn history as it truly is. Don’t let yourself be manipulated!
Public task financed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland under the competition “Public Diplomacy 2024-2025 – European dimension and counter-disinformation.”
The publication expresses only the views of the author and cannot be identified with the official position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland.
![In official discourse, Russia today presents itself as a natural partner of the Global South and as a defender of a multipolar world order in opposition to what it describes as Western dominance. This narrative resonates strongly in the Arab world, as it echoes a deep political memory that goes back to the Bandung Conference of 1955, when post-colonial states, including Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser, sought to chart an independent path beyond the rivalry of great powers. At that time, the goal was not alignment, but precisely the opposite. As analyses published by Explaining History note, Bandung leaders declared their rejection of “colonialism in all its forms”, whether Western or Soviet. The central idea was clear: true independence meant not becoming a tool in someone else’s conflict. Today, Russia invokes the same language, but operates according to a different logic. From Partnership to Exploitation Facts on the ground reveal a different picture. In Iraq, for example, security investigations uncovered recruitment networks targeting young people. As reported by The New Arab, they were lured by offers of work or study, which later “turned into military service contracts” after arrival in Russia. The issue was not only deception, but also the structure of the process itself, where individuals were pressured to sign documents in a language they did not understand. Other sources confirm that these were not isolated cases. The National reports that young people were recruited through “seemingly legal channels such as travel agencies or employment offices”, only to find themselves bound by contracts they could not escape. The same source adds that “around 3,000 Iraqis ended up in the Russian army”. What is happening here is not cooperation between states, but the exploitation of economic and informational asymmetries. Cuba and Africa: The Same Pattern, Different Tools In Cuba, the mechanism takes a different form but follows the same logic. According to an analysis by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, recruits were offered salaries “of up to 2,000 USD per month, compared to an average Cuban income of around 17 USD”, along with promises of property and citizenship. In such conditions, the issue is less about free choice and more about economic pressure. In Africa, the picture is more fragmented, but the underlying logic remains similar. Al Jazeera reported, citing Ukrainian sources, that “more than 1,780 African nationals are currently fighting in the Russian army”, with recruitment spanning dozens of countries. The same sources indicate that many were drawn in through “black market labor […] without proper training”, often under the pretext of civilian employment. At the individual level, the situation becomes even clearer. A Reuters report states that some recruits were sent “directly to dig trenches and engage in frontline operations”, often without adequate preparation or logistical support. Not Only War, but Also Messaging This process is not limited to military use. The presence of foreign fighters is also instrumentalized in the information domain. According to The New Voice of Ukraine, citing Ukrainian intelligence, the aim is to build a narrative that “Russia is not an aggressor because it is also supported by the ‘civilized world’”. In other words, these individuals serve not only as soldiers, but also as elements of a broader propaganda strategy. What Happened to the Spirit of Bandung? This is where the central contradiction becomes visible. The idea behind Bandung was based on independence and the refusal to be drawn into great power conflicts. What we observe today, however, reflects a different dynamic. The Soviet Union once used the rhetoric of supporting liberation movements, while simultaneously expanding its sphere of influence. Contemporary Russia employs a similar pattern. Instead of overt ideological framing, it relies more on economic incentives, intermediary networks, and information influence. The outcome, however, remains comparable. Countries of the Global South are not treated as equal partners, but as environments from which resources can be extracted, including human resources. The Real Question The issue is not what is being said, but what is actually happening on the ground. If “cooperation” means that young people from Baghdad, Havana, or African cities are sent to fight in wars that are not theirs, then the question must be asked: is this support for independence, or a new form of dependency? The key analytical distinction lies between rhetoric and practice. Official language may speak of resisting imperialism, but operational reality may reproduce it in a different form. This is where the paradox becomes evident. Under the banner of opposing “Western imperialism”, mechanisms are being deployed that follow a similar logic, even if they are framed differently.](https://shaffafiya.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Human-resources.png)
