GUARDIANSHIP OF MEANING: RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION, EUROPEAN ‘GOSPELS OF HATE,’ AND TÜRKIYE’S LEGAL STABILITY IN THE BLACK SEA
Abstract
Discussion of Russian disinformation in Türkiye highlights a layered strategy designed to weaken public support for NATO, reframe the Ukraine war as a Western provocation, and erode confidence in Ankara’s alliance commitments. At the same time, European debates show far‑right actors instrumentalizing Christian symbolism and the Christmas message to promote exclusionary “gospels of hate,” redirecting public anger towards migrants, Muslims, and “globalist elites” rather than towards Russian aggression. Together, these informational campaigns seek to delegitimize the very multilateral and legal frameworks that have allowed Türkiye to uphold a stabilizing role in the Black Sea, where what has mattered in practice is not rhetorical confrontation but consistent application of international law—especially Montreux—and Ankara’s restrained guardianship of the Straits. This commentary analyzes how disinformation and value‑politics narratives try to displace a law‑based understanding of Black Sea order with civilizational and identity frames, and argues that Türkiye’s strategic communication should emphasize its legal custodianship of stability rather than mere alliance solidarity. In this sense, Black Sea stability becomes a question not only of maritime power but also of who defines the meaning of security and order.
Keywords:
Russian disinformation in Türkiye; far-right narratives; Christmas ‘gospel of hate’; information warfare; strategic communication; Black Sea stability; Montreux as narrative anchor; value politics
Dr. Teoman Ertuğrul Tulun, Center For Eurasian Studies January 12, 2026
Keypoints:
-Russian disinformation in Türkiye seeks to weaken alliance confidence and cast doubt on treaty based guardianship in the Black Sea. European far‑right “gospels of hate” instrumentalize religious symbolism to divert anger away from Russian aggression and against migrants and Muslims, undermining support for multilateral legal orders. -Both narrative streams try to replace a law‑based understanding of Black Sea order with civilizational confrontation, eroding the legitimacy of Montreux‑centred stability. -Türkiye’s strategic communication should foreground its role as legal custodian of Black Sea stability, showing that de‑escalation through law—not narrative escalation—is the credible guarantor of order.
1. Introduction: From drone risks to meaning wars
Earlier AVİM commentaries have underlined that incidents such as drone shoot downs and attacks on merchant vessels demonstrate how the Russia–Ukraine war exports escalation risks toward Türkiye’s maritime zones, while also confirming that the relative stability of the Black Sea has so far rested on the Montreux regime and Türkiye’s law based guardianship rather than on shifting NATO–Russia force balances. What is increasingly at stake today, however, is not only control over drones or tankers but also control over the meaning of the conflict, as Russian disinformation networks and parts of the European far right seek to reshape public perceptions through coordinated campaigns of narrative warfare. By questioning alliances, casting treaty based restraint as a loss of sovereignty, and reframing the war as a civilizational struggle, these actors aim to erode confidence in precisely those legal frameworks and mediating roles that have contained spillover into the Black Sea. The core claim of this commentary is that, even in this “war of meanings,” the concrete stabilizing factor remains Türkiye’s consistent application of international law in the Black Sea; what is being contested is whether domestic and external audiences continue to view this legal custodianship as a legitimate and desirable basis for order.
2. Russian disinformation in Türkiye: targeting alliances and legal anchors
Russian disinformation in Türkiye operates as a layered effort to weaken both the country’s alliance ties and the legal institutional anchors of its Black Sea policy. Analyses discussed in the Turkey Recap conversation with Karolina Wanda Olszowska and Karol Wasilewski indicate that pro Kremlin and Russia-sympathetic outlets, notably Sputnik Türkiye, frame NATO as a reckless actor, depict the Ukraine war as primarily a Western provocation, and suggest that Türkiye is being dragged into somebody else’s conflict by its alliance commitments. Within this narrative universe, sovereignty rhetoric is often deployed in ways that can indirectly cast treaty‑based restraint, above all the Montreux regime and Türkiye’s custodial role over the Straits, as an externally imposed limitation, making it easier to argue, for instance, that the Straits should be used as political leverage or that restrictions should be relaxed to suit preferred partners. Such framings run directly counter to AVİM’s findings that it is precisely this legal architecture, implemented through Türkiye’s guardianship, that has so far kept Black Sea escalation in check; if internalized in public debate, they risk eroding societal support for the guardianship posture that underpins regional stability.
3. European ‘gospels of hate’: value politics and displacement of responsibility
The same pattern of narrative manipulation is visible on the European side, where far right actors instrumentalize religious language to construct what has been described as a “gospel of hate” around Christmas and Christian identity. As highlighted in recent commentary, these groups mobilize Christmas symbolism not to promote solidarity but to redirect public anger towards migrants, Muslims, and vaguely defined “globalist elites,” thereby reframing political and economic frustrations as a civilizational struggle. When projected onto the Black Sea context, such value laden narratives help displace responsibility for a war rooted in Russian aggression and clear violations of international law, allowing Moscow to pose as a putative “defender of tradition” while casting Türkiye and other non EU actors as part of an amorphous external threat. In doing so, they weaken support within European societies for multilateralism, treaty based security, and legal constraint—precisely the frameworks that underpin both the Montreux regime and Türkiye’s role as a law bound guardian of Black Sea stability, as underscored in earlier AVİM analyses on guardianship, equilibrium, and the legacy of order in the region.
4. Competing frames: confrontation logic vs. law‑based guardianship
Taken together, these narrative currents work to replace a sober discussion of legal obligations and de escalation instruments with emotionally charged stories about identity, betrayal, and humiliation. Instead of debating Montreux compliance, EEZ security, or the requirements of crisis management, Russian linked outlets in Türkiye and far right voices in Europe invite audiences to see the Black Sea through the lenses of “reckless” allies, “threatened” Christians, and “restrained” nations allegedly prevented from exercising full sovereignty. This shift dovetails with the dual logic schema developed in earlier AVİM work: a confrontation logic, which interprets the region primarily through NATO–Russia rivalry and civilizational rhetoric, and an order logic, which centers Türkiye’s implementation of treaty commitments and measured guardianship over the Straits. By casting law based restraint as either weakness or capitulation to hostile “globalist” norms, these information campaigns seek to delegitimize the order logic itself, thereby lowering political and societal resistance to escalatory or revisionist moves that would erode the very legal architecture that has so far contained the conflict’s spillover into the Black Sea.
5. Implications for Türkiye’s strategic communication
In this context, Türkiye’s response cannot simply consist of counter slogans within the same confrontation logic; mirroring disinformation or civilizational rhetoric would only deepen the erosion of the very legal institutional order that has served the Black Sea well. Instead, strategic communication should consistently foreground a narrative of legal custodianship: Montreux as a guarantee for all littoral states, guardianship as equilibrium rather than domination, and Black Sea stability as a public good that benefits allies, partners, and neighbours alike. Practically, this means highlighting concrete instances where treaty based decisions and measured restraint have prevented escalation, explaining to domestic and international audiences that Türkiye’s cautious implementation of Montreux protects both national sovereignty and regional order, and insisting that the true “values” at stake are predictability, de escalation, and fidelity to international law rather than polarising civilizational narratives. In an era of “wars of meaning,” preserving Black Sea stability therefore requires guarding not only the Straits themselves but also the narrative that law—rather than hate based identity politics—is what ultimately underwrites security and equilibrium in the region.
Endnotes:
1) Teoman Ertuğrul Tulun, “GUARDIANSHIP UNDER PRESSURE: DRONE ESCALATION, RUSSIAN MILITARIZATION, AND TÜRKIYE’S LEGAL ORDER IN THE BLACK SEA,” AVİM Commentary no. 2026/1 (Ankara: Center for Eurasian Studies (AVİM), 05.012026), accessed January 6, 2026, https://avim.org.tr/en/Yorum/GUARDIANSHIP-UNDER-PRESSURE-DRONE-ESCALATION-RUSSIAN-MILITARIZATION-AND-TURKIYE-S-LEGAL-ORDER-IN-THE-BLACK-SEA 2)“Russian Disinformation in Turkey with Karolina Wanda Olszowska and Karol Wasilewski,” Turkey Recap (newsletter and podcast), December 16, 2025, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.turkeyrecap.com/p/russian-disinformation-in-turkey . 3) Teoman Ertuğrul Tulun, “At the Crossroads: Türkiye and the Battle for Black Sea Order,” AVİM Analysis no. 2025/23 (Ankara: Center for Eurasian Studies (AVİM), 21.10.2025), accessed January 5, 2026, https://avim.org.tr/en/Analiz/AT-THE-CROSSROADS-TURKIYE-AND-THE-BATTLE-FOR-BLACK-SEA-ORDER ; 4) Teoman Ertuğrul Tulun, “Black Sea Attacks on Merchant Vessels: Türkiye’s EEZ, the Montreux Regime, and the Risk of War Spillover,” AVİM Commentary no. 2025/53 (Ankara: Center for Eurasian Studies (AVİM), December 2, 2025), accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.avim.org.tr/en/Yorum/BLACK-SEA-ATTACKS-ON-MERCHANT-VESSELS-TURKIYE-S-EEZ-THE-MONTREUX-REGIME-AND-THE-RISK-OF-WAR-SPILLOVER . 5) ditorial, “The Guardian View on Far Right Perversions of the Christmas Message: Promoting a Gospel of Hate,” The Guardian, December 11, 2025, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/dec/11/the-guardian-view-on-far-right-perversions-of-the-christmas-message-promoting-a-gospel-of-hate?CMP=share_btn_url&fbclid=IwY2xjawPMf_tleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFkZ3FqcjF4dmdDN3FRVURUc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHq-1snvnr4xcBF2FOhgq4ufec_0FWZbw6u1yWkJ0C4FRU8Ow8DZ3DI1vztGQ_aem_SUmv06IjNgAAagN0uLQvpw 6) “Patrick Christys and the Far‑Right Target Way of Life SQ’s Christmas Video,” S2Jnews, December 23, 2025, accessed January 5, 2026, https://s2jnews.com/patrick-christys-and-the-far-right-target-way-of-life-sqs-christmas-video/ 7) Holly Bancroft, “Don’t Exploit the Christian Message for Your Populist Politics, Church Leader Warns Tommy Robinson,” The Independent, December 9, 2025, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/church-england-tommy-robinson-christmas-populist-b2879645.html 8)eoman Ertuğrul Tulun, “GUARDIANSHIP UNDER PRESSURE: DRONE ESCALATION, RUSSIAN MILITARIZATION, AND TÜRKIYE’S LEGAL ORDER IN THE BLACK SEA,” 9) Teoman Ertuğrul Tulun, “At the Crossroads: Türkiye and the Battle for Black Sea Order,”
%20(2).jpeg)
Jell Code:
F51 , F52, D83, Z12,
Hasgtags:
#BlackSea , #Montreux , #Türkiye, #Disinformation, #InformationWarfare, #ValuePolitics, #LegalOrder, #Guardianship