From Victim to Victor: Ukraine should shift its public image

By Robert Harris

Permit the writer to indulge, for a moment, in a personal anecdote. When I was in 4th, 5th and 6th grades, I endured regular torments from a school bully. It began one day in 4th grade, when I came home with a black eye doled out by a large fist, and skinned elbows from being pushed off the bus and onto the concrete sidewalk. My mother was, understandably, horrified by what I had endured. She spoke to the school, who spoke to the bus driver, who spoke to the boy's father, who flatly denied his son had done anything wrong, and nothing was done. Every few weeks this pattern would repeat. I'd get hit or pushed around, my mother would call the school, the chain of communication would end at the boy's father, who simply denied any wrongdoing on his son's part.

During the third year of this I came home from school, with the latest batch of bruises, and my father, rather than my mother, was waiting at the door for me. I told him what the bully had done this time, and my father's first response was to take a long puff on his cigar and say, "well I know he hit you. He's been hitting you for years. What I want to know is what did you do back to him to keep him from doing it again?"

Now, how is this relevant to Ukraine? A fine question. Read on.

Since 2022, the image of Ukraine has been, for fairly obvious reasons, largely defined by unspeakable tragedy. From the footage from inside Mariupol broadcast by Azov's press corps, to the Hadean specter of Bucha, to the still-ongoing Shahed waves that fall upon Kyiv's civilian population every night, the world has borne witness to a humanitarian crisis whose scale surpasses anything the post-WW2 world has seen with the (possible) exception of 1950's Tibet. The attention that was paid, quite justly, to these atrocities committed without provocation against a sovereign state that hasn't attacked a neighbor since the 1600's, by an imperialist neighbor who subjected them to centuries of occupation, was undeniably crucial in galvanizing initial global sympathy and indispensable support. It stirred the conscience of nations, prompting an outpouring of aid, sanctions, and military assistance that few could have predicted. Despite an information-space saturated with Russian propaganda, most of the world managed to discern who was the victim and who was the aggressor.

After three and a half years though, that sympathy (or at least the real, tangible fruit of it, such as military aid) is beginning to wane. Let us not mince words. The Human Race has a short attention span when it comes to suffering, especially when the ones suffering are easily categorized as "them" rather than "us." Recent history is littered with examples. From the Assad regime's crimes against the Syrian population to the Chinese government's oppression of Uighurs, everyone is quick to express shock and sympathy, and maybe even a desire to send a little bit of help here and there, to alleviate the latest wave of suffering that comes across the news. However, when the story is no longer the latest news, people look for something else to stir their emotions; something newer and more shocking. It's true that giving public attention to the profound suffering endured by Ukraine's people remains (and will remain) vital for historical accountability and justice, as well as a consistent reminder of why Ukraine is fighting.

However, as mentioned before, people tend to tire of hearing the same thing over and over no matter how true it is, and a continually unchanging news feed of the same Russian atrocities every day risks inadvertently undermining the very aid that publicity is designed to seek. While this writer cannot speak for the unique sensibilities of European audiences, American audiences are less concerned with compassion and more concerned with justice; the kind that was dispensed from six-shooters at high noon. And when deciding where their military aid goes, their tendency is to quickly reach a point where they, much like the parents in my story at the beginning of the article, will begin to ask "what did you do back to keep Russia from doing it again?" In order to keep up public support, especially with American audiences who are naturally more likely to stand with a scrappy freedom fighter than a victim, Ukraine should actively shift its external messaging from a focus on the aggressor's crimes to a focus on how Ukraine has fought back.

Initially, the sheer shock and horror of Russia's full-scale invasion created an urgent moral imperative for intervention, even with hard-nosed American audiences. Most Americans who are old enough to have lived through the 9/11 attacks still recall the mingled horror and rage of that day, the way we collectively went from "how could anyone be this ruthless" at 11 AM to "we'll show them what ruthless means" by 11 PM. And those February and March 2022 images of bombed apartment blocks, displaced families, and desecrated towns, with tattered-but-still-flying blue and gold flags hastily erected in the ruins, evoked those memories. This emotional appeal was powerful and necessary, because it is what got initial aid for Ukraine rolling quickly (albeit likely not quickly enough in the case of military aid). However, the human psyche has a finite capacity for sustained compassion in the face of continuous suffering. This phenomenon, often termed "compassion fatigue," can lead to desensitization, particularly when the news cycle is saturated with reports of ongoing atrocities. Audiences, despite their best intentions, can become overwhelmed, perhaps even subconsciously distancing themselves from what feels like an unwinnable fight.

Which is exactly why Ukraine absolutely cannot afford to let foreign partners think for an instant that the fight is unwinnable.

The world understands the David-versus-Goliath nature of the conflict. But a narrative consistently highlighting destruction and human cost, without equally emphasizing success in Ukraine's fight to stop Russia, might lead some Western politicians and their constituents to question the efficacy of their investment. Why pour billions into a conflict where the recipient is consistently portrayed as suffering, rather than as capable of achieving definitive strategic objectives? For Western, especially American, audiences, there is an inherent admiration for strength, resilience, and the ability to fight back against overwhelming odds. They want to back a winner, or at least a determined contender with a plausible path to success. The narrative of a nation perpetually on the brink, constantly appealing for help to merely survive, is only going to erode confidence in that nation's capacity for ultimate victory, thus diminishing the appetite for long-term commitment. I reiterate that I cannot speak for European audiences, but for the benefit of American lawmakers, the time has come to put heavy, visible emphasis on tangible results.

And make no mistake, Ukraine has results to show. The repulsion of Russian forces from Kyiv, the liberation of Kharkiv Oblast, the remarkable success in pushing the Russian Black Sea Fleet away from Ukraine's coastline, ensuring the continued operation of the grain corridor. The very fact that Russian propaganda networks are, at this hour, attempting to portray Russian citizens huddled in Moscow's airports as "victims" of Ukraine's so-called "terrorist" attacks on their airspace (attacks which Russian air defense has been embarrassingly ill-equipped to do anything about) already puts paid to the idea of Ukraine being helpless or unable to fight back. Ukraine has put Moscow, Russia's very capital, on the defensive and under siege, shattering Russia's illusion of inviolability, more than once this summer. Time and time again in this war, Ukraine has conducted some of the most daring and -if we are to be blunt- most devastatingly effective strikes in the admittedly brief history of modern warfare, and they have done it on the invader's home soil.

Meanwhile, Russia throws a staggering number of drones and missiles at Ukraine each night, the vast majority of which are successfully shot down by a nation whom the average American thinks is constantly on the brink of collapse. The result, at least this summer, has been an average of one fatality for every fifty-three drones the Kremlin lobs at Ukraine. Not to diminish the tragedy of those civilian deaths, but that is a ratio that Ukraine's air defense should be proud of. The AFU has done what the Pentagon said could not be done, and the elephant in the room is that the reason the Pentagon said it couldn't be done is because they knew they themselves couldn't do it. And need we mention Operation Spiderweb? Or the sinking of the Moskva?

Well, as it turns out, the answer is "yes, we DO need to mention those, and far more often. Those who seek a Ukrainian victory (which, it must be said, is unlikely without a few more heavy doses of foreign military aid, or better yet, foreign investment in Ukraine's own military production) do need to start making a bit more noise about Ukraine's counterstrikes, and about the bloody nose they have given the Russian bear.Take July 20th for example. In the early afternoon, a handful of Ukrainian social media accounts and mil-bloggers picked up news of a large-scale drone attack on Moscow, usually accompanied by some sort of comment describing the type of woman karma is known to be. But these accounts commenting on this attack, were few and far between. Later in the night, as Russia attacked Kharkiv and Kyiv with the usual salvo of drones, leading to the usual bevy of destroyed lives and murdered civilians, the amount of social media coverage from inside Ukraine was more than four times the amount given to Ukraine's bold strike on Moscow. There were at least half a dozen posts on pro-Ukraine Instagram accounts such as United24 about the casualties from Russia's strike (which, considering the number of drones launched, were miraculously low, as usual). Meanwhile, Ukraine's defiant drone strike on Moscow itself earlier the same day was one of the boldest and most jaw droppingly audacious of the war so far.

Yet the only major Western coverage of it, was from Russian propagandists trying to frame it as "terrorism."

In summary, media and social media channels who support Ukraine have given consistent attention to Russia's strikes on Ukraine, and very little to Ukraine's successful strikes on Russia. They consistently portray drone attacks as if Ukraine cannot stop them, and say nothing about the fact that the majority of these drones don't reach their mark thanks to Ukraine's air defense. And finally, after three years they are still emphasizing the civilian cost Ukraine pays, while glossing over the military toll Ukraine has inflicted upon the attackers. Is it any wonder, then, why Western audiences, who have no source of news other than their own media (and in the case of Ukraine's supporters, pro-Ukraine social media accounts) still think the war is unwinnable for Ukraine?To be clear, this proposed shift is not about denying the suffering or the atrocities. Those facts are immutable and must continue to be documented, not only for the sake of justice after the war but to constantly remind the world why Ukraine fights. Rather, it is about strategically balancing the narrative to ensure its optimal impact on the very audiences whose sustained support is critical. As the world moves past the initial shock of invasion, the emotional resonance of victimhood, while profound in the beginning, becomes less potent over time.

So, instead of solely detailing destruction, it's time to spotlight Ukraine's own military achievements. Showcase Ukrainian innovation in drone warfare, cyber defense, and tactical adaptation. These are not just defensive actions; they are offensive displays of skill, courage, and of course, effective use of Western aid. And yes, all of these have indeed been given attention, but not for very long and not nearly with as much emphasis as what is given to the pain inflicted upon Ukraine's civilian populace by Russia. This should be reversed. Ukraine's emphasis should be on what they have achieved against Russia. This demonstrates that aid is not simply being absorbed by a black hole of conflict, but is being effectively leveraged for tangible gains.

Ukraine’s fight is, at the risk of being melodramatic, an epic struggle for survival, freedom, and the very principles of international law. It is a story of incredible courage against overwhelming odds. By consciously shifting its public relations emphasis from "victim" to "victor," Ukraine can tap into the deep-seated Western admiration for strength, resilience, and ingenuity. It can transform the perception of aid from charity to strategic investment in a capable, future-oriented partner. This is not merely a matter of PR tactics; it is a profound strategic imperative, ensuring that the world continues to see Ukraine not just as a nation enduring immense hardship, but as a resolute force actively shaping its own victorious destiny, fighting not just for itself, but for the very ideals the West holds dear.

And it's time for that, rather than "we are being devoured by the bear," to be the face Ukraine shows to the world. It's time to shift the narrative from "this is what Russia is doing to us" to "this is what we're doing to make them pay."

---

Robert Harris is a teacher in Lviv and the author of Smells like BULL-Shevik to ME! - A Conservative Talks to Conservatives About Russian Lies.