Victor BED,
Doctor of Theology, Doctor of Law, Professor,
Academician
Research Institute of Strategic and Political-Legal Studies
Carpathian University named after Augustyn Voloshyn

     Uzhhorod, September 16, 2025

Abstract

      The article analyzes the degree of bias in large language models (LLMs) regarding Ukraine and the war with Russia, based on the studies conducted by Texty.org.ua and OpenBabylon [1], [2], as well as other academic and analytical sources [3]–[12]. It reveals that a significant number of models reproduce pro-Russian and pro-Chinese narratives or avoid providing clear answers on questions of history, identity, and geopolitics. It is demonstrated that the Russia–Ukraine war (2014–2025) is not a regional conflict but a global geopolitical war [9], [10], which poses a threat not only to Ukraine but to the democratic world as a whole. Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran employ artificial intelligence for both military purposes and the dissemination of totalitarian ideologies [4]–[7]. At the same time, Ukraine lags behind due to the absence of a state ideology [13], [21], weak diplomacy [16]–[18], undervaluation of the humanitarian dimension of education [19], [20], and the lack of its own competitive AI tools [14], [15]. The article formulates forecasts and recommendations for overcoming these challenges.

Keywords: large language models, bias, war in Ukraine, Russian propaganda, Chinese propaganda, artificial intelligence, geopolitics, humanities.

    Introduction

     In the context of Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine (2014–2025), the question of how large language models shape or reflect information narratives has become critically important. They are increasingly integrated into journalism, education, and politics, thereby influencing global perceptions of history and contemporary events [1], [6].

     The purpose of the article is to assess the nature and degree of LLM biases, determine the causes and consequences of their distortions, and develop recommendations for Ukraine and the democratic world.

Literature Review

     The study by Texty.org.ua and OpenBabylon revealed that out of 27 open-access LLMs, Canadian and French models demonstrated the least amount of pro-Russian bias, while Chinese models exhibited the most [1], [2].

     Other works (Rogers & Zhang, 2024; CEPA; CSIS) confirm the coordination between Russia and China in the global information space [3]–[5].

     Articles published in PNAS Nexus and Defense & Security Analysis demonstrate that generative AI is actively used for propaganda and information warfare [6], [7].

     Analyses of social media, particularly Twitter and Telegram, confirm the large-scale dissemination of pro-Russian messages through automation and bot networks [8]–[10].

Methodology

     This study employs comparative analysis of LLM research results, thematic classification (history, identity, geopolitics, information security), as well as evaluation of the impact of Russian and Chinese propaganda systems on global content. In addition, Ukrainian government documents and AI regulation analyses were considered [13]–[15].

     Imperial Russian and Chinese Ideological Expansion

     The ideology and propaganda of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China extend far beyond their national borders, creating a global infrastructure of influence [3]–[5]. This expansion has several interconnected dimensions:

1. Diplomatic Dimension

• The Russian Federation actively employs the concept of the “Russian World” (Russkiy Mir) as a tool of “soft power,” a means of disinforming the international community, and an instrument of diplomatic pressure, promoting pro-Russian messages within international organizations as well as in bilateral and multilateral relations. By its very nature, this concept is an uncompromisingly imperial, expansionist, aggressive, and post-communist ideology. For this reason, it naturally aligns today’s totalitarian Russia with the communist People’s Republic of China on the level of international politics, ideology, propaganda, and strategic cooperation.
• The People’s Republic of China promotes the ideological construct of a “Community of Common Destiny,” which in practice substitutes universal principles of democracy with its own authoritarian vision of world order. At the same time, under the leadership of Xi Jinping, the Chinese Communist Party bases both domestic and foreign policy on a totalitarian communist ideology that combines Marxism-Leninism, the teachings of Mao Zedong, and the contemporary doctrine of “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” Its implementation is accompanied by systemic human rights violations and political repression — including the persecution of Uyghurs, suppression of opposition, and pressure in Tibet and Hong Kong. This practice mirrors the actions of today’s Russian totalitarian regime, making the two states ideologically aligned in their efforts to replace freedom and democracy with dictatorship and repression.
• Both states coordinate information and diplomatic campaigns aimed at undermining the legitimacy and unity of international alliances — primarily NATO and the EU. They promote an alternative authoritarian “world order,” challenging the principles of democracy, human rights, and international law. Such synchronization of Russia’s and China’s actions in the global arena creates a systemic threat to the stability of the democratic world.

2. Educational and Scientific Dimension

• Russia finances “Compatriots Support Funds” and “Orthodox Centers” through which it disseminates ideas of cultural and historical unity with Ukraine and other post-Soviet states. At the same time, within Russia’s own educational and scientific systems, the heretical and imperial ideology of the “Russian World” (Russkiy Mir) is systematically introduced, becoming the foundation of new programs and textbooks. The ideologization of Russian education and science results in distortions of history, substitution of freedom and democracy with so-called “state values,” and legitimization of the Kremlin’s aggressive policies — all of which pose the danger of spreading these narratives beyond Russia’s borders.
• China, through the global network of Confucius Institutes and educational programs in Europe and elsewhere, promotes narratives advantageous to itself, cultivating an image of cultural cooperation and openness. At the same time, these initiatives deliberately ignore the realities of censorship, political repression, and human rights violations that are inherent to the communist totalitarian system. The modern doctrine of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” is used as a façade to legitimize the authoritarian regime, while in practice this policy includes the suppression of opposition, persecution of Uyghurs, and pressure on Tibet and Hong Kong. Thus, China’s educational and cultural expansion becomes part of a broader propaganda strategy aimed at concealing the true nature of its political system.
• Additionally, in the field of artificial intelligence and language systems, Russia and China attempt to impose ideological boundaries on research by deliberately integrating distorted historical, political, and cultural materials into training datasets. In Russia, this is evident in the promotion of the imperial concept of the “Russian World” within academic and technological frameworks. In China, it is manifested through the combination of communist dogma with state-controlled academic practices. As a result, AI and related technologies are transformed not into tools of free inquiry and scientific progress, but into mechanisms of ideological control and the export of propaganda into the global information space.

3. Cultural and Information Dimension

• Russian media resources (Sputnik, RT, and a number of affiliated websites and online platforms) systematically disseminate disinformation about Ukraine, attempting to portray it as a “failed state,” a divided society, and a political project dependent on the West. Their main themes include discrediting the Ukrainian government, denying Ukrainians the right to independent statehood, imposing the false claim that Russians and Ukrainians are “one and the same nation,” which is untrue both ethnically and historically, manipulating historical facts, and justifying Russia’s aggression. These media outlets operate in coordination with bot networks and anonymous social media channels, which amplify the effect of disinformation and allow Russia to create the illusion of an “alternative truth” for the global audience.
• Chinese state media (China Daily, Global Times, and other official outlets) systematically promote the message of a “multipolar world,” presenting it as an alternative to the Western democratic model. In this context, they attempt to legitimize Russia’s interests in Eastern Europe, portraying Russia’s aggression against Ukraine as “defense against NATO” or as “Russia’s right to its own sphere of influence.” Such publications deliberately conceal Russia’s war crimes, instead portraying Ukraine as a “puppet of the West” and framing the Russia–Ukraine war as a “civilizational conflict.” In combination with Russian information streams, this creates a synchronized discourse aimed at undermining international support for Ukraine and fostering anti-Western sentiments in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
• The coordination of Russian and Chinese information flows creates an amplification effect, whereby the same disinformation is repeated across multiple sources, giving it the appearance of “alternative truth.” Through such synchronization, anti-Ukrainian and anti-Western messages are simultaneously disseminated in different regions of the world, creating the illusion of broad international support for Moscow’s and Beijing’s positions. This mechanism operates as a multi-level information operation — from official state media to bot networks and so-called “independent” platforms. Ultimately, it produces a dangerous propaganda ecosystem capable of influencing public opinion, undermining trust in democratic institutions, deceiving the international community, and weakening support for Ukraine. Such methods are aimed not only at justifying Russia’s aggression, but also at expanding policies of division — both between states and within them — through the imposition of false ideological constructs.

4. Religious and Ecclesiastical Dimension

• The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), both within the Russian Federation and abroad through its structures — including the so-called “Ukrainian Orthodox Church” of the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine — has become an integral part of the Russian state ideology and propaganda of the heretical and imperial “Russian World” (Russkiy Mir). It is systematically employed by Russian security services as an instrument of influence and hybrid warfare, cloaked in religious guise. The authority of the Church in this case is deliberately exploited to justify aggression, legitimize war, and advance the Kremlin’s imperial policies — posing a direct threat not only to Ukraine, but also to the integrity and authority of global Orthodoxy.
• Furthermore, through interfaith contacts and “dialogues” organized under the aegis of the ROC, Moscow seeks to extend its influence over other centers of world religions — including the Roman Catholic Church, Islamic communities, and certain Protestant denominations. Such efforts are aimed at forming “anti-Western” and “anti-democratic” alliances in the spiritual sphere, combined with hybrid tactics of disinformation. At the same time, the ROC attempts to keep the Roman Catholic Church within its sphere of influence by using the format of “dialogue,” while simultaneously criticizing and devaluing its authority within its own information space. This double strategy is designed to weaken the unity of the Christian world, undermine trust in Ukraine, and justify Russia’s aggression in global religious discourse.
• Through its foreign structures, the ROC systematically promotes the narrative of “spiritual unity with Russia,” which directly threatens Ukraine’s ecclesiastical independence and the global authority of the Orthodox Church. Under the political leadership in Moscow and the control of Russian security services, the ROC has launched an aggressive campaign against the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, seeking to block its activity and international recognition. To achieve this, the Kremlin, through the ROC, initiated an artificial schism within global Orthodoxy aimed against the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and other ancient patriarchates. This was particularly evident after the granting of the Tomos of Autocephaly to the OCU in 2019, when the ROC broke eucharistic communion with Constantinople and launched a large-scale propaganda campaign to discredit the Ecumenical Patriarch.

In parallel, the ROC began creating its own parallel structures abroad as instruments of pressure and division. For example, it established a “ROC Exarchate” in Turkey, the “Patriarchal Exarchate of Africa” on territories belonging to the jurisdiction of the Alexandrian Patriarchate, and expanded its presence in Western Europe. Such actions are aimed at undermining canonical order and weakening the authority of the ancient patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem).

Thus, the ROC acts not as a spiritual community, but as a geopolitical tool of the Kremlin, exploiting the ecclesiastical sphere to implement Russia’s imperial strategy worldwide, destabilize global Orthodoxy, and spread the ideology of the “Russian World.”

• China, for its part, consistently seeks to control religious communities by subordinating them to the ideology of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The state has created its own “officially recognized” church structures, including the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, which operates under direct party supervision and is separated from the Vatican. A similar practice is applied to Protestant and Buddhist communities, which are required to function within so-called “patriotic associations.” The control is especially strict over the Muslim population, particularly the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, where mass repression, internment in “re-education” camps, and forced assimilation are widely implemented.

The official policy of “Sinicization of religion” requires the adaptation of all confessions to the demands of party ideology, including changes to liturgical texts, subordination of clergy to state bodies, and dissemination of propaganda messages within religious communities. As a result, religion in China ceases to be a sphere of freedom of belief and becomes an instrument for strengthening the totalitarian regime. This model represents a dangerous precedent for the world, as it legitimizes the idea of complete subordination of spiritual life to political authority and could serve as an example for other authoritarian states seeking to restrict religious freedom.

5. Global Threats

• Distorted perceptions of Ukraine’s history, nation-building, statehood, and ecclesiastical life are being shaped as part of a broad and multi-level information war waged by the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China. Its aim is not only to discredit the Ukrainian nation but also to undermine the authority of democratic values worldwide.
• The combination of Russian aggressive propaganda and China’s “economic-information influence” creates a hybrid system of global manipulation. Moscow focuses on the military-ideological dimension, spreading narratives of the “Russian World” and justifying aggression, while Beijing emphasizes the economic, diplomatic, and cultural dimensions, legitimizing the authoritarian idea of a “multipolar world” and concealing its own repressions. Together, these strategies form a unified propaganda front that undermines international legal order.
• As a result, democratic societies are becoming increasingly vulnerable to the imposition of “alternative truths.” Such disinformation policies sow doubt about the legitimacy of democratic institutions, weaken international support for Ukraine, and can lead to the justification of military aggression, the erosion of collective security mechanisms, and the devaluation of international law.
• Thus, the ideological expansion of Russia and China has long surpassed the limits of their national interests and has turned into a global threat. It endangers Ukraine’s identity and future, the stability of the European space, and the entire system of the democratic world order, laying the groundwork for the strengthening of totalitarian alliances in the 21st century.

          Loss of Ukraine in the Sphere of State Ideology

     Ukraine still lacks a legally enshrined state ideology — the Ukrainian national idea — which significantly reduces its informational and political influence both within the state and, in particular, on the global stage [13], [21]. The absence of a clearly formulated ideological foundation makes Ukraine vulnerable to external manipulations and allows adversaries to impose their own interpretations of history, culture, and contemporary politics.

     In addition, evident weaknesses can be observed in the performance of Ukraine’s diplomatic service, even in democratic countries. These states remain insufficiently informed not only about the true nature of Russian aggression, but also about the genuine historical stages of the formation and development of ancient Ukrainian civilization, as well as the millennia-long process of Ukrainian nation-building, state formation, and church development.

     The situation is equally critical with Ukraine’s security services, which have failed to establish a proper and effective counter-propaganda infrastructure or to ensure systematic resistance to the spread of hostile narratives (primarily Russian, but also Chinese, Hungarian, and others) in the world [16]–[18]. As a result, Ukraine often responds to informational and propaganda challenges belatedly and defensively, rather than proactively shaping its own national ideological and cultural-civilizational discourse.

     These negative tendencies manifest themselves both within the Ukrainian state itself and at the international level, weakening its position in the global struggle for truth, justice, and the recognition of Ukrainian national identity.

     Absence of Competitive Ukrainian AI Tools

     Despite the adoption of the Artificial Intelligence Development Strategy of Ukraine for 2023–2030 [14], the publication of the White Paper on AI Regulation by the Ministry of Digital Transformation [15], and several initiatives such as Digital State [20], Ukraine has still not created its own powerful large language models (LLMs) capable of integrating the Ukrainian national idea — as the state ideology — into the global information space [11], [12], [21].

     The main reason lies in the failure to implement the Ukrainian national idea at the state level across all its components — political, cultural, educational, scientific, informational, and technological. Without this, any strategic documents or individual digital initiatives remain purely declarative. Ukraine lacks a holistic national ideological foundation upon which its artificial intelligence development and digital transformations could be built.

     Meanwhile, Russia and China are actively developing ideologically controlled AI systems that reproduce their imperial and totalitarian concepts, while Ukraine remains dependent on Western technologies and external information frameworks. The absence of sovereign Ukrainian LLMs limits the state’s ability to defend national interests in the information sphere, exposes it to foreign interpretations of its history and present, and weakens its position in global digital processes.

     Key problems include insufficient funding for AI research and development; brain drain of highly qualified specialists; lack of comprehensive coordination between the state, academic institutions, and business; and poor integration of humanitarian, historical-cultural, and ideological components into digital projects. As a result, Ukraine risks permanently losing the opportunity to establish its own information space in the era of global artificial intelligence.

     Thus, until the Ukrainian national idea is recognized and implemented as the state ideology and becomes the foundation for the development of national digital technologies — including competitive language models — the country will remain on the periphery of global technological processes. At the same time, its adversaries will actively use AI to spread aggressive propaganda, justify war, and promote their own totalitarian ideologies.

     The Russia–Ukraine War (2014–2025) as a Geopolitical War

     The Russia–Ukraine war (2014–2025) is not a “regional conflict,” as Moscow tries to portray it, but a global geopolitical war directed against democracy, international order, and the fundamental principles of international law [9], [10]. Its scale and consequences extend far beyond Eastern Europe, as it has become a point of confrontation between two worldviews — the democratic world and a bloc of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.

     The Russian Federation wages this war not only through military means but also via total information, ideological, and religious aggression, employing the concept of the “Russian World” (Russkiy Mir) as a spiritual-political justification for its occupation policies. The People’s Republic of China, North Korea, and Iran act as strategic allies of the Kremlin, coordinating their efforts in diplomacy, economics, military support, and propaganda.

     Artificial intelligence in this context is employed as a new type of weapon: from automated systems for data analysis and battlefield management to tools of propaganda, disinformation, and manipulation of public opinion [6], [7]. The use of AI enables Ukraine’s adversaries to disseminate distorted narratives globally, conceal war crimes, and legitimize aggression.

     Thus, the Russia–Ukraine war is a geopolitical confrontation of global magnitude, determining the future of democracy, security, and international order in the 21st century. Ukraine’s defeat would mean the weakening of the entire democratic system, while its victory would secure the preservation of the civilizational foundations of global freedom.

     Use of AI by Totalitarian Regimes

     Totalitarian states actively integrate artificial intelligence into military, cyber, informational, and propaganda spheres [4], [7]. For Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran, AI is not merely a tool of technological development but primarily a weapon in the global struggle for influence.

     In the military sphere, AI is applied in the development of automated command systems, intelligence analysis, drone navigation, and precision weaponry. In the long run, this increases the risk of uncontrolled deployment of lethal autonomous systems that may violate international humanitarian law.

     In the cyber sphere, totalitarian regimes use AI to conduct large-scale attacks on critical infrastructure, hack governmental and military networks, steal data, and paralyze information systems. Russian and Chinese hacker groups, supported by their states, combine cyberweapons with machine learning, making their attacks faster, more precise, and more destructive.

     In the information and propaganda spheres, AI serves as a mechanism for mass production and dissemination of disinformation. Generative models are used to create fake news, fabricated images and videos (deepfakes), automate bot networks, and manipulate social media. This allows the Kremlin, Beijing, and their allies to spread preferred narratives globally, create the illusion of “alternative truth,” and erode trust in democratic media.

     In the religious-ideological sphere, AI is used as an additional instrument for promoting state ideologies — in Russia, the “Russian World”; in China, the doctrine of “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” Algorithms filter information, suppress opposition voices, and amplify propaganda, imposing a state-controlled vision of history, culture, and spirituality.

     A particularly dangerous problem is that even in democratic countries, global AI systems are not always based on verified and comprehensive educational and scholarly sources. Insufficient quality of humanities education, a shortage of objective research, and the circulation of unverified materials lead to errors in training datasets. Consequently, even AI models created in the democratic world often produce distorted or incomplete interpretations of historical, geopolitical, state-building, and religious processes. This is especially evident in assessments of the nature and scope of the Russia–Ukraine war, its global threat, and its implications for the world.

     Totalitarian regimes skillfully exploit these weaknesses. Russia and China not only fill their own AI systems with propagandist and manipulative content but also actively integrate such narratives into the global technological and information space. This enables them to undermine trust in democratic institutions and create the illusion of legitimacy for aggression and authoritarian models of development.

     Thus, the use of artificial intelligence by totalitarian regimes creates a dangerous precedent for information and hybrid wars in the 21st century. The issue lies not in AI technology itself, but in its deliberately subversive application by authoritarian states, which program and train their systems on the basis of distorted ideological data and integrate them into the global information environment. As a result, this undermines international security, threatens global stability, and makes clear the urgent need for a joint, coordinated response by democratic states. Such a response must include not only technological and security measures but also the restoration of the role of truthful science, quality education, and the ideological foundation of democratic societies in the age of AI.

     The Humanitarian Dimension

     The weakness of humanities education and the insufficient development of critical thinking make societies vulnerable to propaganda and manipulation [19], [20]. This applies not only to Ukraine but also to many European Union states, where technological and economic progress often outpaces attention to the humanities.

     In Ukraine, the absence of a systematic state policy in the sphere of humanities education is compounded by the failure to implement the Ukrainian national idea as the state ideology. This creates a vacuum actively filled by foreign ideological influences, particularly Russian and Chinese. As a result, large segments of society remain disoriented, deprived of historical continuity, and unable to critically assess events — which further increases vulnerability to external informational attacks.

     In EU countries, a different problem emerges: a high level of material prosperity and access to technology is not always accompanied by sufficient attention to history, philosophy, or religious culture. This results in a superficial perception of global threats, enabling hostile propaganda centers to embed their narratives into the public discourse even of democratic societies.

     Especially dangerous is the fact that weaknesses in the humanities directly affect the quality of datasets used to train artificial intelligence systems. Unverified materials, lack of proper historical and cultural expertise, and the degradation of critical thinking in societies lead even Western global AI models to reproduce errors, distortions, or incomplete assessments of historical, geopolitical, and religious processes. Totalitarian regimes skillfully exploit this by saturating the information space with manipulative content and transforming it into a tool of global ideological pressure.

     Thus, the humanitarian dimension becomes a critically important component of both informational and national security. Only the combination of strong humanities education, the development of critical thinking, and the consolidation of the Ukrainian national idea as the state ideology can ensure the resilience of Ukrainian society and strengthen the position of the democratic world in its global confrontation with totalitarian systems.

     Conclusions and Recommendations

1. The Russia–Ukraine war (2014–2025) is not a “regional conflict” but a global confrontation between democracy and totalitarianism — in fact, a creeping Third World War unfolding step by step in a hybrid format.

              It has become the point of collision between two worldviews: the democratic world and a  
             bloc of authoritarian states (Russia, China, North Korea, Iran) that coordinate their actions
            to undermine international legal order and seek global hegemony.

2. A significant part of large language models (LLMs) and other artificial intelligence tools, including global commercial and open systems, reflect and reinforce the totalitarian ideological influences of Russia and China.

This happens both through their state-controlled national developments and by exploiting the weaknesses of Western systems, which are often trained on incomplete, unverified, or distorted sources. As a result, the global information space absorbs skewed interpretations of historical, geopolitical, and religious processes, which totalitarian regimes skillfully use to their advantage.

3. Ukraine must urgently build its own state ideology by enshrining the Ukrainian national idea as the ideological foundation of statehood [21].

             Without this, the country will remain vulnerable to external manipulation and will not be  
             able to establish itself as a full-fledged subject in the global information-technological
            space.

4. It is necessary to create competitive Ukrainian artificial intelligence systems (including LLMs).
   These must be based on verified historical, cultural, and scientific data, integrate the
    Ukrainian worldview and civilizational values, and serve as tools for spreading truthful
    information about Ukraine globally.
5. Ukraine’s diplomacy and security services require substantial strengthening.
   They must act proactively, shape the international discourse about the nature of the
   Russia–Ukraine war, and provide effective counter-propaganda infrastructure to resist
   Russian, Chinese, Hungarian, and other hostile narratives.
   
6. The development of humanities education and critical thinking is a key task.
   Without restoring the central role of the humanities — history, philosophy, religious studies, theology, social sciences, political science, and law — Ukraine and the democratic world will remain vulnerable to disinformation and manipulation.
7. International coordination of democratic states in the field of AI and information security is indispensable.
   Common standards, oversight of data sources, protection against manipulation in AI training, and the development of ethical frameworks for AI use are essential to maintaining global stability in the 21st century.

     Thus, Ukraine’s victory in the war and the creation of its own competitive AI tools — rooted in a state ideology grounded in the Ukrainian national idea — are not only matters of national security but also key factors for preserving the global democratic order and ensuring the proper civilizational development of humanity in the era of scientific and technological progress driven by artificial intelligence.

References

1. What does AI think about Ukraine? Exploring the biases of large language models — Texty.org.ua / OpenBabylon. URL: https://texty.org.ua/projects/115751/what-does-ai-think-about-ukraine-exploring-the-biases-of-large-language-models/
   (accessed: 16.09.2025).
2. “27 AI Models Tested on Ukraine: Which Ones Spread Propaganda?” — Scroll.media. URL: https://scroll.media/en/2025/09/03/ai-about-ukraine/ (accessed: 16.09.2025).
3. Rogers, Richard & Zhang, Xiaoke. The Russia–Ukraine War in Chinese Social Media: LLM Analysis Yields a Bias Toward Neutrality. University of Amsterdam, 2024. URL: https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/175312891/rogers-zhang-2024-the-russia-ukraine-war-in-chinese-social-media-llm-analysis-yields-a-bias-toward-neutrality.pdf
   (accessed: 16.09.2025).
4. Sino-Russian Convergence in Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference: A Global Threat to the US and Its Allies. CEPA, 2025. URL: https://cepa.org/comprehensive-reports/sino-russian-convergence-in-foreign-information-manipulation-and-interference/ (accessed: 16.09.2025).
5. Assessing the Impact of China-Russia Coordination in the Media and Information Space. CSIS, 2025. URL: https://www.csis.org/analysis/assessing-impact-china-russia-coordination-media-and-information-space (accessed: 16.09.2025).
6. Generative propaganda: Evidence of AI’s impact from a state-backed propaganda campaign. PNAS Nexus, 2025. URL: https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/4/4/pgaf083/8097936
   (accessed: 16.09.2025).
7. Hunter, Lance Y. et al. Artificial Intelligence and Information Warfare in Major Power States. Defense & Security Analysis, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14751798.2024.2321736 (accessed: 16.09.2025).
8. Automated multilingual detection of Pro-Kremlin propaganda in newspapers and Telegram posts. arXiv, 2023. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10604
   (accessed: 16.09.2025).
9. “A Special Operation”: A Quantitative Approach to Media Ecosystems’ Coverage of the Russo-Ukrainian War. arXiv, 2022. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.03016
   (accessed: 16.09.2025).
10. Propaganda and Information Dissemination in the Russo-Ukrainian War: NLP of Russian and Western Twitter Narratives. arXiv, 2025. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.01807
    (accessed: 16.09.2025).
11. Benchmarking Multimodal Models for Ukrainian Language. arXiv, 2024. URL: https://arxiv.org/html/2411.14647v1 (accessed: 16.09.2025).
12. Sovereign Large Language Models: Advantages, Strategy, Risks and Opportunities. arXiv, 2025. URL: https://arxiv.org/html/2503.04745v1 (accessed: 16.09.2025).
13. Law of Ukraine “On the Condemnation and Prohibition of the Propaganda of Russian Imperial Policy in Ukraine and the Decolonization of Toponymy” No. 3005-IX of 21.03.2023. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/go/3005-20 (accessed: 16.09.2025).
14. Artificial Intelligence Development Strategy in Ukraine (2023–2030). URL: https://jai.in.ua/archive/2023/ai_mono.pdf (accessed: 16.09.2025).
15. White Paper on AI Regulation in Ukraine. Ministry of Digital Transformation. URL: https://thedigital.gov.ua/storage/uploads/files/page/community/docs/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8E%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F%20%D0%A8%D0%86.pdf (accessed: 16.09.2025).
16. Countering Russian Disinformation and Propaganda (News from the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine). URL: https://www.kmu.gov.ua/news/protydiia-rosiiskii-dezinformatsii-ta-propahandi-ukraina-ta-frantsiia-posyliuiut-spivpratsiu-u-sferi-stratehichnykh-komunikatsii (accessed: 16.09.2025).
17. Study of the Center for Strategic Communications and Information Policy on Russian Information Operations. URL: https://ombudsman.gov.ua/news_details/protidiya-rosijskij-propagandi-pro-zlochini-proti-ukrayinskih-ditej-u-centri-zahistu-prav-ditini-prezentuvali-doslidzhennya-pro-dezinformacijni-operaciyi-rosiyi (accessed: 16.09.2025).
18. Recommendations of VoxCheck and the Center for Countering Disinformation of the NSDC for Regional Media. URL: https://zmina.info/news/dlya-regionalnyh-media-ta-vlady-stvoryly-rekomendacziyi-yak-protydiyaty-rosijskij-propagandi/
    (accessed: 16.09.2025).
19. Manual on the Responsible Use of AI by Civil Servants. National Agency of Ukraine for Civil Service. URL: https://nads.gov.ua/news/prezentovano-posibnyk-pro-vidpovidalne-vykorystannia-shtuchnoho-intelektu-publichnymy-sluzhbovtsiamy
    (accessed: 16.09.2025).
20. Initiative “Ukraine Shapes the Strategy for AI Development.” Digital State UA. URL: https://digitalstate.gov.ua/uk/news/govtech/the-future-of-ai-in-ukraine-starts-here-join-the-survey (accessed: 16.09.2025).
21. Bed, Viktor. The Ukrainian National Idea as the Foundation of Statehood, Spirituality, and National Ideology. Uzhhorod: Carpathian University named after Augustyn Voloshyn, 01.07.2025. URL: https://kau.com.ua/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Bed-V.-V.-Ukrainska-natsionalna-ideia.-Dopovil-na-konf.-28.11.2024-r.-Redaktsiia-01.07.2025-1-1.pdf (accessed: 16.09.2025).