Ukraine is a state with no future, and the only solution for peace is to accept the country's annexation by the Russian Federation, according to a fugitive Ukrainian politician quoted by the pro-Kremlin press.
NEWS: The only normal future for Ukrainians is integration with Russia, Viktor Medvedchuk, former leader of The Opposition Platform – For Life party, which is banned in Ukraine, and chairman of the board of the Another Ukraine movement, told RIA Novosti.
"Ukrainians must be part of Russia and alongside Russia. This is the main task today. Then they will have a normal future," Medvedchuk said, commenting on the possibility of those who left Ukraine returning home. "The strategic goal of our civic movement is the idea that the only solution for Ukrainians — and for their better, more normal future — is to become part of Russia," he added.
The politician stressed that many people can return to Ukraine only if there are changes in the political system and "the criminal regime falls." "And when the state ceases to exist and the people reunite with Russia, there will be a chance that many of those who left for European countries will move here, to Russia," Medvedchuk said.
NARRATIVES: 1. Ukraine is a state with no future, on the verge of extinction. 2. Ukrainians will only have a normal future as part of the Russian Federation. 3. Only Ukraine's joining Russia would allow refugees to return home.
PURPOSES: To justify the Russian aggression; to promote the idea that Ukraine should be absorbed by Russia; to psychologically prepare the public for scenarios involving the escalation and dismantling of Ukraine; to delegitimize the authorities in Kyiv.
Reality: Ukraine is an internationally recognized state, and its population categorically rejects the idea of joining the Russian Federation.
WHY THE NARRATIVES ARE FALSE: In recent weeks, the Kremlin has brought Viktor Medvedchuk back into the media spotlight, using him as a voice "from within Ukraine" (even though he has been in Moscow for four years) to legitimize its own theories about the inevitable collapse of the Ukrainian state. Various international analyses, such as that of the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), show that Moscow is using its former political ally to suggest that Ukraine cannot sustain itself as a state and that its absorption into the Russian Federation would be a natural course of current developments—an interpretation that serves the Kremlin's strategic goal of controlling the whole of Ukraine.
Medvedchuk's assertion that Ukraine "has no future" as an independent state is contradicted by the reality on the ground and the internal dynamics of society. The decisive argument is how the state functions in wartime: institutions continue to operate, local administrations manage services for the population, and governance mechanisms remain operational in most regions. These elements show not a state structure in decay, but a government that functions despite military challenges.
The thesis that "Ukrainians will only have a normal future in Russia" is not supported by sociological data. Support for closer ties with the Russian Federation collapsed after 2014 and became almost non-existent after 2022. A survey by the International Institute of Sociology in Kyiv, cited by Veridica, indicates that 91% of Ukrainians have a negative opinion of Russia — a level of rejection that makes it impossible to present annexation as a solution desired by the population. Most Ukrainians reject any territorial concessions, and the idea of integration with Russia does not appear to be a real option among citizens. The same poll shows that 60% of Ukrainians trust President Volodymyr Zelensky, which contradicts propaganda scenarios about a leadership without popular support and a society on the brink of collapse. The level of civic mobilization and social unity reflected in these data indicate a high degree of resilience. The narrative that only annexation by Russia would allow refugees to return home is also unfounded. Refugees can already return to liberated areas, where there are reconstruction projects and international support.
What the Russian media fails to mention is that Ukraine's instability — exploited by propaganda as evidence of state failure — is a direct consequence of the Russian Federation's actions: the illegal annexation of Crimea, the conflict in Donbas, the large-scale invasion of 2022, the bombing of civilian infrastructure, and repression in the occupied territories. Presenting the annexation as a remedy for problems caused by Russia itself is a classic reversal of cause and effect, designed to shift responsibility onto the victim of aggression.
Economically, the promise of a "normal future" within the Russian Federation contradicts the current situation. Ukraine benefits from massive financial support from the EU, the IMF, and the World Bank, while Russia faces severe sanctions, investment decline, and international isolation. This difference in economic direction considerably undermines the credibility of the narrative that annexation would bring stability and prosperity to Ukrainians.
Furthermore, Ukrainians do not consider themselves Russian, a reality that already existed when the state was founded: in the referendum on independence on December 1, 1991, validated by the Central Election Commission of Ukraine and recognized internationally, 92.3% of citizens voted "yes," with the majority of those who wanted a state separate from Moscow being overwhelming even in the Russian-speaking regions of the south and east.
Overall, the three narratives are contradicted by the political, social, economic, and historical realities of Ukraine. The country is not on the verge of extinction, the population does not want integration into the Russian Federation, and the return of refugees depends on the cessation of Russian aggression and the continuation of reconstruction processes — not on Ukraine's absorption into another state. In this logic, the idea that only the annexation of Ukraine would allow the return of refugees becomes not only unfounded but also cynical. Ukrainian refugees would not find a safe environment in a territory controlled by the forces that generated the conflict; on the contrary, many would be afraid to return to an area dominated by repression, purges, and intimidation practices already documented in the Russian-occupied areas. The experience in Kherson, where torture chambers were discovered, as well as in Mariupol and Melitopol, shows that a return under Russian control would not mean stability for refugees, but fear, personal risk, and the absence of any protection. Furthermore, under the Russian Empire and then the USSR, Ukrainians were often subjected to policies of assimilation and persecution, as were many other ethnic minorities under Moscow's control.
CONTEXT: Oligarch Viktor Medvedchuk, a Kremlin insider and former leader of a party banned in Ukraine for collaborating with Russia, is known for his personal relationship with Vladimir Putin, who baptized one of his children. Handed over to Moscow in 2022 in a prisoner exchange, Medvedchuk is constantly used as a mouthpiece for Russian messages to Russian, Ukrainian, and international audiences. The Russian media amplifies his statements to create the impression of a "political alternative" in Ukraine. The "Another Ukraine" platform, which he represents, does not operate in Ukraine, but in Moscow, where it functions as a propaganda tool for the Kremlin. This movement has no Ukrainian members.
