How the Kremlin uses video games for war propaganda

For decades, television has been considered the primary vehicle for propaganda. However, the digital age has brought to light a new and potentially more dangerous instrument of influence: video games.

Under the guise of entertainment, they shape worldviews and political narratives, making propaganda subtle, scalable, and effective.

Unlike passive media, video games offer players not only a story, but also an experience in which they actively participate.

As a result, ideological messages embedded in narrative and mechanics can be more deeply internalized because they feel natural in the game world.

This matters considering the roughly 3.3 billion gamers worldwide in the industry, with those aged 18-34 making up around 38% of the audience.

Invisible persuasion in interactive worlds

The influence of video games extends beyond plot and graphics. It operates through players' social networks, interactive engagement with the game world, and symbolic systems that are constantly reinforced to consolidate particular perceptions.

Taken together, these characteristics make games a powerful medium for shaping beliefs, often without the player's conscious awareness.

Community formation and the 'in-group' effect

Video games create global communities that bring together millions of people. Forums, in-game chats, tournaments, and festivals foster distinct cultures with their own language, jokes, symbols, and rituals. Players’ own jargon often signals ‘in-group’ membership. In this environment, social integration becomes a powerful channel of influence: the stronger the ties, the greater the trust in the information circulating within the community.

Messages from 'insider' people are less critically assessed, even when they carry ideologically biased or harmful narratives. On platforms such as Fandom, Reddit or Steam Community, structured discussions can consolidate shared interpretations of in-game events and, under the guise of plot analysis or 'personal opinions', gradually build narratives that later serve as channels for ideological influence.

Full immersion and the illusion of choice

Game worlds create their own systems of values ​​and norms, within which the player interacts with ideals through narrative and mechanics. The player makes decisions and receives rewards or punishments, learning the internal logic of the game. What is essential is that these messages are perceived as the result of personal choice. Even when freedom of action is limited by predetermined frameworks, the sense of control strengthens the acceptance of the prescribed behavioral patterns.

This effect is particularly evident in long-running franchises, where players return to the same universe for years, repeatedly immersing themselves in familiar narratives. In this way, long-term loyalty is formed not only to the brand, but also to the ideological constructs through which images of the enemy, justice, and conflict are conveyed.

Symbols, repetition and pseudo-reality

Human consciousness tends to simplify complex reality through symbols. In video games, each element carries a coded meaning that does not require explanation. The repetition of these symbols amplifies the effect of illusory truth: known information seems more reliable after just a few encounters. When propaganda messages are integrated into the game mechanics or narrative, they are perceived not as an external influence, but as an organic part of the logic of the world.

Since video games are associated with a safe space for leisure, critical thinking is reduced. The player does not expect manipulation and easily accepts distorted historical narratives or stereotypical images of the enemy. This is especially characteristic of games that model wars, state governance, or global conflicts. Here, the boundary between reconstruction and manipulation becomes blurred. The narrative is not analyzed. It is lived as a personal experience.

An industry under Kremlin control

The Russian Federation was among the first to recognize the potential of video games as a means of ideological influence. Within the framework of the concept of 'digital authoritarianism', the gaming industry is gradually being integrated into the state information apparatus. This is not hidden even at the highest level. Russian President Vladimir Putin has openly stated that games should exist at the intersection of art and education and serve to raise individuals in the spirit of patriotism.

To implement this policy, the Kremlin is building a closed ecosystem in which ideologically loyal projects receive financial and administrative support. A central element of this system is the Institute for Internet Development, an organization included in the EU sanctions lists as a propaganda entity. It is this body that distributes billions of rubles in state subsidies for the creation of “patriotic” digital content. For the period 2025-2027 alone, funding of 3.4 billion rubles is planned.

At the same time, the state is pursuing technological autonomy: developing domestic game engines like VK’s Nau Engine, alternative game distribution platforms, and even promoting a proprietary game console. At the same time, censorship is intensifying, as authorities try to ban games that they say contain a ‘distorted representation’ of history or Russia’s place in the world. The result is a controlled digital space in which only ideologically approved content is allowed.

Of particular concern is the use of video games to shape a militarized worldview among children and adolescents. State institutions and government-controlled movements are actively involved in this process. The military-patriotic youth movement 'Yunarmiya', which numbers more than 1.75 million participants, integrates electronic sports and video games into its activities, combining entertainment with military themes.

Some games work effectively as training manuals. The Russian military recommends tactical shooter games like Squad 22: ZOV for cadets and members of the Yunarmiya. These games recreate real combat operations in Ukraine, including the ‘Mariupol’ and ‘Avdiivka’ campaigns, with clear pro-Kremlin narratives and Z symbolism. War in this format is presented not as a tragedy, but as a heroic adventure in which violence is normalized and aggression is justified.

As a result, video games in Russia are ceasing to be a neutral cultural product. They are becoming an instrument of soft power capable of shaping loyalty to the regime, reinforcing desired historical interpretations, and preparing younger generations to perceive war as a natural state. Ignoring this sphere is a strategic mistake, as a new, highly effective front of information warfare is emerging before our eyes – silent, interactive, and therefore particularly dangerous.

Community-driven radicalization in gambling spaces

Gaming platforms, especially Steam, have become not only spaces for entertainment, but also infrastructures for ideological influence. Steam allows users to exchange reviews, discuss and publish their materials about games, engage in debates, and create modifications. In 2025, the platform was visited by approximately 132 million users per month and 69 million daily. At the same time, communities are formed on the platform in which users interact primarily with those who share their views.

In such conditions, even marginal or radical ideas gain ground, forming echo chambers – information environments in which alternative views are ignored and critical reflection is virtually absent. Research by the Anti-Defamation League – a civil rights organization that combats anti-Semitism – recorded more than 1.8 million instances of extremist or hateful content on Steam, including Nazi, racist and militaristic symbols.

Of particular importance is Z-propaganda, which is disguised as humor, fan-made materials, or game modifications. Through nicknames, avatars, in-game discussions, and guides, ideological messages are spread that normalize the war, glorify Russian soldiers, and dehumanize Ukrainians. This content is rarely perceived as propaganda. It is presented as part of the community culture and an 'alternative thought', which reduces the critical awareness of players.

Thus, video games are no longer a neutral space for entertainment and increasingly serve as a medium for socialization, identity formation, and the normalization of violence. Through game mechanics, communities, symbolism, and repetitive narratives, they are capable of subtly reinforcing ideological positions, reducing critical thinking, and shaping allegiance to aggressive political projects. A particular threat lies in the fact that this influence is disguised as culture, humor, and ‘free choice’, and is therefore rarely perceived as propaganda. In the digital age, the battle for consciousness is waged not only on news screens, but also in virtual worlds where the war can begin with the press of a ‘Start’ button.

In light of these dynamics, prevention should go beyond reactive removals and instead build in ongoing, evidence-based monitoring of games for ideological narratives and symbols that normalize aggression or legitimize violence. One practical step is to adopt a standardized checklist by experts to flag indicators of risk, such as historical reframing, biased threat narratives, and dehumanizing stereotypes. Transparency measures are also essential: they require clear disclosure of a game’s country of origin, funding streams, and any advisory or promotional ties to state or representative actors. Platforms should extend governance to the layers of the community – forums, chats, streams – where propaganda and hate speech are often amplified, and implement robust moderation and reporting pathways there.

Public awareness must adapt to interactive media, equipping users to recognize biased narratives, disengage from radicalized communities, and report attempts to incite real-world action under the guise of gaming.

Governments can support independent monitoring capacities that combine technical expertise with legal and human rights analysis, particularly for content originating from authoritarian environments.

Finally, investments in ongoing research and focused education on young people to understand the impact and calibrate proportionate interventions – from labeling to targeted restrictions for content that is clearly manipulative – can be useful.

The Geopost