RT · February 2026

• foregrounds corruption and scandals involving Zelensky
• uses distancing verbs like 'claims', 'hints', 'suggests'
• highlights contradictions, failures, and unpopular actions
• frames Zelensky as erratic or desperate (profanity, manpower shortages)

Some headlines report Zelensky's statements neutrally (e.g., 10, 18, 20), but the overall selection and framing consistently undermine his credibility and authority, treating him as a problematic or unreliable actor.

• foregrounding US scandals and failures (Epstein, Guantanamo, riots)
• quoting US officials with distancing or ironic framing
• juxtaposing US actions with negative consequences or hypocrisy
• amplifying non-US or critical voices against US policies

The outlet often quotes US officials (especially Trump) directly, which can appear neutral, but the selection of headlines overwhelmingly highlights US scandals, failures, and controversial statements, creating a skeptical overall stance. The entity is the US as a country, not a single administration, so some headlines about Trump's actions are factual but the cumulative effect is critical.

• Quotes Trump's claims and statements without distancing verbs
• Foregrounds Trump's policy moves and diplomatic engagements
• Includes critical headlines on costs and legal challenges but not dominant
• Uses Trump's own positive self-descriptions ('strong, prosperous and respected')

Several headlines report Trump's actions neutrally or positively (envoy hails talks, tariff removal, State of the Union highlights), but a few (cost of Caribbean op, lame-duck ruling) introduce critical angles. The outlet does not use hostile framing or delegitimising language; Trump is treated as a major actor whose statements are reported authoritatively. The overall stance is mildly favourable, not celebratory.

• Epstein as a scandal nexus for Western elites
• Epstein files as a tool to expose hypocrisy
• Epstein's network as a systemic cover-up
• Epstein as a geopolitical weapon

RT does not praise or defend Epstein; it uses the Epstein scandal to attack Western institutions and figures. The entity is dead and not a current actor; the outlet's stance is instrumental rather than evaluative toward Epstein himself.

• Quotes Russian officials as authoritative voices without distancing
• Frames Russian actions as proactive and legitimate
• Portrays Western actors as corrupt or aggressive
• Highlights Russian diplomatic and military strength

The entity is a country, not a person; coverage is uniformly positive, amplifying Russian government positions and portraying Russia as a rational, strong actor facing hostile Western elites.

• highlights Zelensky's contradictions and failures
• uses distancing verbs like 'claims' and 'demands'
• foregrounds corruption and manpower problems
• amplifies Russian officials' criticism of Zelensky

Headline 7 shows a rare neutral/positive framing of European support, but the overwhelming majority of headlines frame Zelensky negatively through selection of scandals, failures, and Russian official quotes. The outlet's own voice is consistently skeptical, treating Zelensky as unreliable or desperate.

• Putin quoted as authoritative decision-maker
• Putin's warnings and initiatives framed as prescient or visionary
• Putin's actions presented as proactive and statesmanlike
• Putin's envoys amplify his positions without challenge

The outlet consistently treats Putin as a credible global leader whose statements are reported without distancing or criticism; even when Putin acknowledges problems (e.g., terrorist attacks), the framing is factual and not delegitimising. The entity's quoted content is often critical of Western actors, but the outlet's own stance toward Putin remains favourable.

• Lavrov's statements presented as direct, unqualified news
• Lavrov's critiques of Western actors framed as factual analysis
• Exclusive interview format elevates Lavrov's platform
• No counter-narratives or distancing language used

Lavrov's quoted content is critical of others (Palestinians, Ukraine, EU, US, France), but the outlet treats him as a credible, authoritative source whose views are newsworthy and amplified without skepticism, indicating a strongly positive stance toward him.

• portrays EU as undemocratic and corrupt
• frames EU as internally divided and dysfunctional
• uses negative evaluative language ('stole', 'Nazi nostalgia', 'undemocratic')
• highlights EU failures and setbacks

The entity (EU) is consistently framed as illegitimate, undemocratic, and internally conflicted; even when quoting EU officials, the outlet selects critical or embarrassing content. No positive or neutral framing of the EU appears.