Russian air defenses repel new massive drone attack. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting one side’s perspective or claims without adequately representing or contextualizing opposing views.

“On February 24, 2022, Russia launched a special military operation in Ukraine, according to President Vladimir Putin, to protect the population from ‘genocide by the government in Kyiv’ and to address the national security risks posed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s eastward expansion.” The article presents only the Russian leadership’s justification for the invasion. There is no mention that Ukraine and most of the international community reject the ‘genocide’ claim, nor that many states and international bodies characterize the action as an invasion and a violation of international law.

3 suggestions

Explicitly label the justification as a claim disputed by other actors, for example: “According to President Vladimir Putin, Russia launched what it calls a ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine to protect the population from what he described as ‘genocide by the government in Kyiv’ and to address what he said were national security risks posed by NATO’s eastward expansion.”

Add the opposing or broader context, for example: “Ukraine and most Western governments reject these claims, describing Russia’s actions as an unprovoked invasion and a violation of international law. International investigations have not substantiated Russia’s allegation of ‘genocide’ in eastern Ukraine.”

Include at least brief reference to independent or international assessments (e.g., UN, OSCE, international courts) regarding the legality of the invasion and the genocide allegation.

Biased language / Framing effect

Using terms or framing that implicitly adopt one side’s narrative, influencing perception without explicit argument.

“Russia launched a special military operation in Ukraine…” The phrase “special military operation” is the Russian government’s preferred euphemism and framing, which downplays the scale and nature of the conflict. Using it without quotation marks or alternative wording implicitly endorses that framing.

3 suggestions

Use neutral or widely accepted terminology, for example: “Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022.”

If the term must be included, clearly attribute and contrast it: “Russia launched what it calls a ‘special military operation’—widely described by other governments and analysts as a full-scale invasion—on February 24, 2022.”

Avoid adopting official euphemisms as the article’s own narrative; keep them in quotation marks and clearly attributed to their source.

Unsubstantiated claims

Presenting serious allegations or causal explanations without evidence or indication of their contested status.

“...to protect the population from ‘genocide by the government in Kyiv’…” The article repeats an extremely serious allegation (“genocide”) without indicating that it is a claim, without evidence, and without noting that it is widely disputed and not supported by international investigations.

3 suggestions

Qualify the statement clearly as an allegation and note its disputed nature: “Putin claimed, without presenting evidence accepted by international bodies, that the operation was needed to protect the population from what he called ‘genocide by the government in Kyiv’.”

Add reference to the lack of corroboration: “International organizations, including the UN, have not found evidence to support Russia’s allegation of genocide in eastern Ukraine.”

Avoid repeating grave accusations as neutral background facts; always contextualize them as contested and provide information on available evidence.

Omission of key information

Leaving out crucial context that would significantly change how readers interpret the information.

The article describes Russian air defenses repelling a “massive drone attack” and notes that “Drone attacks launched from Ukraine against military and industrial facilities in the Russian rear have since become commonplace,” but omits: - Any mention of the scale and impact of Russian strikes on Ukrainian territory, which are the broader context of these drone attacks. - Any Ukrainian explanation or stated objectives for such drone operations. - Any reference to civilian vs. military targets and casualty information on either side. This selective context can lead readers to see only Russian defensive actions against Ukrainian aggression, without the larger war context.

3 suggestions

Add brief context on the broader conflict dynamics, for example: “Since the start of the full-scale war, Russia has carried out numerous missile and drone strikes across Ukraine, while Ukraine has increasingly used drones to target military and industrial facilities inside Russia.”

Include Ukraine’s stated rationale where available: “Ukrainian officials have said such strikes are aimed at degrading Russia’s military and logistics capabilities; Russia describes them as terrorist attacks.”

Clarify, where known, whether the reported targets are military, industrial, or civilian, and note any confirmed casualties or damage on both sides.

Selective use of sources

Relying primarily or exclusively on one side’s official sources, which can skew the narrative.

The article relies on: - “the military report published on its official Telegram channel” (Russian military), and - “the national air transport agency, Rosaviatsia” (Russian state agency). No Ukrainian sources, independent observers, or international organizations are cited regarding the drone attacks, their origin, or their impact.

3 suggestions

Include Ukrainian or independent sources where possible, for example: “Ukrainian officials did not immediately comment on the reported attacks” or “Ukraine has previously neither confirmed nor denied responsibility for similar strikes.”

Note the limitation of the sourcing: “The reported figures and locations could not be independently verified.”

Where available, add corroboration or contradiction from independent monitoring groups, satellite imagery, or international agencies.

Narrative fallacy

Implying a coherent, simple narrative or causal chain in a complex situation without adequately supporting it.

“On February 24, 2022, Russia launched a special military operation in Ukraine… to protect the population from ‘genocide…’ and to address the national security risks posed by… NATO’s eastward expansion. Drone attacks launched from Ukraine against military and industrial facilities in the Russian rear have since become commonplace.” The structure suggests a simple story: Russia acts to prevent genocide and address NATO risks; subsequently, Ukraine launches drone attacks. This sequencing and framing can implicitly legitimize Russia’s initial action and present Ukrainian actions mainly as subsequent aggression, without acknowledging the broader context of invasion and defense.

3 suggestions

Separate description of motives from factual chronology and clearly distinguish claims from established facts: “Russia has cited alleged genocide and NATO expansion as reasons for its invasion, claims widely rejected by Ukraine and Western governments.”

Clarify that Ukraine’s actions occur in the context of defending against an invasion: “In the context of the ongoing war following Russia’s invasion, Ukraine has increasingly used drones…”

Avoid narrative structures that implicitly validate one side’s justification; instead, present multiple interpretations and clearly label them as such.