In today’s world, wars are no longer confined to traditional battlefields dominated by tanks and infantry. The true—and at times, seemingly central—battle now unfolds in a different arena: the realm of public perception, both local and global. Missiles are launched not only through physical skies or over urban landscapes but also within virtual spaces—on social media, in diplomatic speeches, and through media headlines. In the era of hybrid warfare, where the boundaries between reality and imagination, between the physical and the digital, increasingly blur, narratives have emerged as a weapon equally potent, if not more so, than conventional arms. They shape reality, define identities, justify actions, and steer the perceptions of entire nations. This article explores the power of narratives as a geopolitical tool, analyzing their three core dimensions—the overarching, the internal, and the external—and illustrates the critical role of flexibility in their management through a contemporary case study: the strategic misstep of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during his interaction with U.S. President Donald Trump in 2025. It demonstrates how success or failure in narrative management can determine the fate of actors on the international stage.
In a geopolitical context, a narrative is far more than a mere story or propaganda campaign. It is a complex framework that weaves together national values, historical memory, and strategic interests into a cohesive structure, guiding policy-making and state behavior. A narrative does not exist in isolation; it is crafted in constant dialogue with competing or complementary narratives—sometimes as a mirror image, at other times as a stark counterpoint. It serves multiple audiences: the domestic population, external adversaries, and the international community observing from afar. In this sense, a narrative is a dynamic tool requiring continuous adaptation to shifting conditions, while maintaining internal consistency to preserve credibility and coherence. This article will later examine how three key states—the United States, Russia, and Israel—deploy their narratives across these three dimensions, and how narrative flexibility shapes their effectiveness.
The Core Narrative: Defining National Identity
The core narrative forms the foundation of a nation’s identity, shaping how it presents itself to the international community and within. It defines the “us” versus “them” dichotomy and serves as the strategic basis from which all other stories derive. For the United States, this narrative is that of the “defender of democracy”—a framework that divides the world into forces of liberty and forces of tyranny, with America as the torchbearer of freedom. This narrative has been prominent from the Cold War through interventions in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. Russia, by contrast, constructs its core narrative as the “protector against Western imperialism.” It portrays itself as a defender against attempts by the West—particularly the United States—to impose its values and expand its influence while undermining the sovereignty of other states. Israel, for its part, adopts the narrative of a “villa in the jungle”—a Western fortress surrounded by a hostile regional environment, defending itself while serving as a buffer between the free world and the chaos beyond its borders. Each of these narratives constitutes the starting point from which internal and external narratives emerge.
The Internal Narrative: Mobilizing the Nation and Justifying Policy
The internal narrative is the instrument leadership uses to unify a nation around shared goals and legitimize actions—whether military, economic, or political. In the United States, this narrative is “America cannot stand idly by in the face of global injustices.” This concept permeates American culture, reflected in laws like the “Good Samaritan” statutes, which impose criminal liability on those who witness wrongdoing and fail to intervene. Such laws embody the belief that involvement is not merely a right but a moral obligation—a belief mirrored in America’s history of interventions, from Vietnam to Afghanistan. In Russia, the internal narrative is framed around the assertion that “we are strong people standing against the world’s great powers.” This narrative draws on the memory of the Great Patriotic War—World War II—where Russia, as it sees it, single-handedly halted Nazi Germany and secured victory for the world. This narrative continues to resonate as the historical mission of the Russian people: to endure, stand firm, and protect themselves and others from external aggression. In Israel, the phrase “never again” is the internal narrative that drives the nation. It is the oath of a nation that endured the Holocaust and vowed never to let history repeat itself. This narrative reinforces a sense of national duty—manifest in mandatory military service and constant vigilance—while providing legitimacy for a stringent security policy in the face of an ever-present existential threat.
The External Narrative: Demonization and Justification on the Global Stage
The external narrative is the strategic representation a state presents to the rest of the world—its adversaries, allies, and neutral observers. It is inherently adversarial to some degree, as it derives from the internal narrative’s pre-existing “us” versus “them” framework. For the United States, the external narrative integrates the roles of “defender of democracy” and “Good Samaritan.” Interventions in distant conflicts—from oceans away to foreign continents—are framed as altruistic acts aimed at spreading liberty and preserving a world order in which America is the rightful and obligated hegemon tasked with resolving disputes. For instance, its involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war is presented as a fight for democracy, rather than a direct stake in a local conflict. Russia, conversely, deploys its external narrative most prominently during periods of direct conflict, such as its 2022 invasion of Ukraine. In that instance, it portrayed NATO as an aggressor threatening its borders with ballistic missiles and positioned itself as combating a resurgence of Nazism—a direct reference to the Great Patriotic War. This narrative demonizes the West as an imposer of values through force, while justifying Russia’s actions as self-defense. Israel legitimizes its external actions along two key narrative frameworks: the “villa in the jungle”—a fortress protecting the West from hostile Arab states and serving as a barrier between them and the free world—and “never again,” providing justification for any action deemed necessary to avert an existential threat.
Narrative Flexibility: A Strategic Imperative in a Dynamic World
On the surface, these narratives may appear rigid and immutable, but success in the geopolitical arena requires flexibility and constant adaptation. A narrative that fails to adjust to its audiences, interests, or adversaries’ responses risks becoming a liability rather than an asset. For example, Russia could not rely on the simplified “strong people against great powers” narrative to justify its invasion of Ukraine—a relatively small, weak state once part of the Soviet bloc. Instead, the Russian leadership reframed the conflict into a broader struggle against NATO, characterizing the West as a ballistic threat and an imposer of values. This shift allowed Russia to reframe the invasion as part of a larger strategic confrontation rather than a clash with an unequal rival. Another example is the post-Cold War adjustment of the American narrative: transitioning from a “war against communism” to the “war on terror” preserved its role as democracy’s defender while adapting to new threats. Statesmen, politicians, and diplomats must master this skill—the ability to adapt a narrative without losing the core thread that defines their national identity.
Case Study: Zelensky’s Failure Against Trump in 2025
Managing narratives is an art that requires not only consistency but also sensitivity to changes in the geopolitical environment. The case of Volodymyr Zelensky versus Donald Trump in 2025 exemplifies the risks associated with narrative rigidity and the consequences of failing to interpret accurately the narratives of adversaries and partners alike. On February 28, 2025, a White House press conference featuring Trump and Zelensky ended in a heated exchange, mutual accusations, and even a recorded expletive. Superficially, it appeared as a personal clash or as a manifestation of American hostility toward Ukraine, but a deeper analysis of narrative management—considering the press conference itself, preceding addresses, and statements in the media—reveals Zelensky’s strategic failure to recognize and adapt to the evolving international landscape.
The Ukrainian Narrative: From Heroic Resistance to Abandoned Victimhood
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, forced Ukraine to craft a new external narrative, something it had not actively required since its independence in 1991. Initially, Zelensky opted for a narrative of “heroic resistance”—a classic David-versus-Goliath analogy—and successfully rallied unprecedented Western support under the Biden administration. Appearing in informal attire from secure locations, he portrayed Ukraine as a courageous victim of Russian aggression. The United States responded with its own narrative of the “Good Samaritan,” providing billions in military and financial aid. In the subsequent phase, Ukraine’s narrative evolved into that of “Europe’s shield”—a protective barrier preventing Russian aggression from spreading westward. Zelensky transitioned from concealment to addressing Western parliaments and international bodies, presenting Ukraine as defending not just itself but the entire free world. This narrative secured further support, particularly from the U.S., which saw it as a continuation of its role as a promoter of democracy and protector of Western values.
However, with the ascension of Trump’s second administration in 2025, the American narrative shifted decisively toward “America First.” The “Good Samaritan” narrative emphasizing moral intervention gave way to a focus on economic gain and resource conservation. The American public, having witnessed substantial investments in distant conflicts with no direct return, embraced a policy prioritizing national self-interest. Zelensky, however, persisted in adhering to the narrative of a democratic victim requiring ongoing protection from Russian aggression—a position effective under the Biden administration but rendered obsolete under Trump.
The Strategic Failure and a Russian Opportunity
Zelensky’s 2024 speech, in which he explicitly rejected any willingness to compromise, and his conduct at the 2025 press conference exposed his inability to adjust his strategic narrative to the emerging geopolitical context. While Trump emphasized economic pragmatism and national advantage, Zelensky remained anchored in a narrative of moral victimhood reliant on international assistance. Russia, by contrast, seized the strategic opportunity. It portrayed Ukraine as forsaken by its traditional allies and signaled openness to economic cooperation with the U.S. In an interview from that period, Vladimir Putin stated he would readily welcome American partners into Russia’s aluminum business—a surprising narrative shift that directly aligned with the “America First” policy, casting Russia as a pragmatic actor interested in collaboration rather than merely confrontation.
Conclusion and Outlook: The Need for Dynamic Narratives in a Changing World
From Zelensky’s success in mobilizing the West in 2022 to his failure in the face of Trump’s administration in 2025, this case study underscores the immense power of geopolitical narratives—and their limitations when insufficiently adapted to changing geopolitical realities. Narratives are a crucial strategic instrument for shaping reality, uniting nations, and securing international legitimacy and support, but they demand flexibility and sensitivity to evolving audiences, shifting interests, and adversarial strategies. Maintaining internal coherence is vital for credibility and trust, yet the ability to recalibrate a narrative effectively distinguishes successful political leaders and diplomats from those who falter.
We now stand at the threshold of a new geopolitical era: the United States is turning inward, prioritizing economic interests over humanitarian and ideological interventions; Russia, historically a staunch adversary of the West, is now exploring economic partnerships with the U.S., leveraging its abundant resources; and other actors—from China and Iran to Russia’s allies and Israel—must navigate this evolving landscape. How will old alliances adapt to emerging geopolitical opportunities? What will be the implications for Israel, and how will the West’s narrative toward China evolve if the U.S. and Russia establish converging interests? These questions highlight that the contest over geopolitical narratives is far from over—it is evolving into a more sophisticated and multi-dimensional challenge. In a world where power is defined not only by tanks and missiles but increasingly by narrative dominance, the ability to construct compelling stories, communicate them strategically, and revise them in real-time will determine who shapes the global order and who remains marginalized.
