{"id":4962,"date":"2026-04-28T00:20:46","date_gmt":"2026-04-27T21:20:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/factcheck.lt\/?p=4962"},"modified":"2026-04-28T15:12:14","modified_gmt":"2026-04-28T12:12:14","slug":"eu_belarusian_media_march2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/factcheck.lt\/eng\/news\/eu_belarusian_media_march2026\/","title":{"rendered":"How Belarusian State Media Talked About Its EU Neighbours \u2014 March 2026","raw":"How Belarusian State Media Talked About Its EU Neighbours \u2014 March 2026"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\n\n
\n
6,960<\/div>\n
Total materials<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
1,040<\/div>\n
AI deep-analyzed<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
634<\/div>\n
Propaganda identified<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
265<\/div>\n
High risk<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
6<\/div>\n
Countries monitored<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n
\nKey Findings \/ TL;DR<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u2022 Top target by volume<\/strong>: \ud83c\uddeb\ud83c\uddf7 France<\/strong> \u2014 3,879 materials. Followed by: \ud83c\udde9\ud83c\uddea Germany (2,354), \ud83c\uddf5\ud83c\uddf1 Poland (2,128).<\/p>\n

\u2022 Top narrative<\/strong>: Military buildup \u2014 134 materials in deep analysis (21% of identified propaganda).<\/p>\n

\u2022 Multimodal FIMI on YouTube<\/strong>: Baltic cluster 96.9%<\/strong>, Weimar Triangle 94.6%<\/strong>. Highest country: \ud83c\uddf1\ud83c\uddfb Latvia (100.0% on 10 videos).<\/p>\n

\u2022 AI<\/strong>: 1,040 materials processed, 265<\/strong> flagged as HIGH risk (25.5%). 634 identified as propaganda (excluding neutral and not-about-targets).<\/p>\n

\u2022 Coordination<\/strong>: TASS cited in 133<\/strong> materials \u2014 primary amplification pipeline from Russian state media. 55 coordination events detected across 31 days.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Mentions by Country<\/strong><\/p>\n

\ud83c\uddeb\ud83c\uddf7 France<\/strong> leads with 3,879 materials.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udd36 \ud83c\uddf5\ud83c\uddf1 Poland<\/td>\n\n
<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
2,128<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\ud83d\udd35 \ud83c\uddf1\ud83c\uddf9 Lithuania<\/td>\n\n
<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
1,061<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\ud83d\udd35 \ud83c\uddf1\ud83c\uddfb Latvia<\/td>\n\n
<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
896<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\ud83d\udd35 \ud83c\uddea\ud83c\uddea Estonia<\/td>\n\n
<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
705<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\ud83d\udd36 \ud83c\udde9\ud83c\uddea Germany<\/td>\n\n
<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
2,354<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\ud83d\udd36 \ud83c\uddeb\ud83c\uddf7 France<\/td>\n\n
<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
3,879<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

Propaganda Narratives<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Country<\/th>\nPropaganda materials<\/th>\nDominant narrative<\/th>\nDistinctive feature<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
\ud83d\udd36 \ud83c\uddf5\ud83c\uddf1 Poland<\/strong><\/td>\n279<\/td>\nBorder tensions (26%)<\/td>\nFIMI 91.7%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\ud83d\udd35 \ud83c\uddf1\ud83c\uddf9 Lithuania<\/strong><\/td>\n232<\/td>\nBorder tensions (33%)<\/td>\nFIMI 92.9%, Border tensions 33%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\ud83d\udd35 \ud83c\uddf1\ud83c\uddfb Latvia<\/strong><\/td>\n120<\/td>\nMilitary buildup (29%)<\/td>\nFIMI 100.0%, propaganda 8.2\/10<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\ud83d\udd35 \ud83c\uddea\ud83c\uddea Estonia<\/strong><\/td>\n48<\/td>\nMilitary buildup (29%)<\/td>\nFIMI 100.0%, propaganda 8.38\/10<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\ud83d\udd36 \ud83c\udde9\ud83c\uddea Germany<\/strong><\/td>\n174<\/td>\nEconomic decline (24%)<\/td>\nFIMI 100.0%, propaganda 8.24\/10<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\ud83d\udd36 \ud83c\uddeb\ud83c\uddf7 France<\/strong><\/td>\n139<\/td>\nInternal problems (22%)<\/td>\nFIMI 93.3%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n
\n\ud83d\udd36 Weimar Triangle: Two Attack Strategies<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Weimar Triangle countries (Poland, Germany, France) receive fundamentally different propaganda treatment than the Baltic states. While the Baltics face a monotonal military threat narrative (43\u201347%), each Weimar country is attacked through its unique perceived vulnerability.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n
\ud83d\udd35 Baltic States: military monotone<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Military buildup<\/td>\n\n
<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
24%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Border tensions<\/td>\n\n
<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
23%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Economic decline<\/td>\n\n
<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
18%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Internal problems<\/td>\n\n
<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
17%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Western aggression<\/td>\n\n
<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
9%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n\n
\ud83d\udd36 Weimar Triangle: diversified attack<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Military buildup<\/td>\n\n
<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
21%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Internal problems<\/td>\n\n
<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
21%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Economic decline<\/td>\n\n
<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
20%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Border tensions<\/td>\n\n
<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
15%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Western aggression<\/td>\n\n
<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
6%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

Radar: narrative distribution<\/strong>
\n\"\"