Visualizing Russia's Invasion Of Ukraine Through The Eyes Of English, Russian & Ukrainian Wikipedia & Grokipedia

 December 14, 2025

Just how different are the narratives of Russia's invasion of Ukraine as told through the English edition of Wikipedia, the Russian edition, the Ukrainian edition and Grokipedia? Here we use Gemini 3 Pro and Nano Banana Pro to distill the event down into four infographics (one per article) and then a comparative infographic and textual report outlining the major differences in their underlying narratives. Such visuals offer a powerful reminder of just how differently the same event can be seen and narrated across countries and platforms.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

WIKIPEDIA ENGLISH LANGUAGE

WIKIPEDIA RUSSIAN LANGUAGE

WIKIPEDIA UKRAINIAN LANGUAGE

GROKIPEDIA

COMPARATIVE INFOGRAPHIC PROMPT

This is the infographic generation prompt generated by Gemini 3 Pro in response to the below request that was then used to make the comparative visualization at the top of this page:

Create a prompt for a large illustrated explainer poster designed to be printed on a large-format poster printer and hung up on the wall that narrates the differences in the four reports below (English Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia, Ukrainian Wikipedia, Grokipedia) as a single large poster that can be printed and hung on a wall that outlines all of the major themes and trends and findings. Focus on the major differences of the four reports and tease apart how they are different and why. The poster should be entirely in English.

Prompt for a Large Illustrated Explainer Poster: "Four Narratives of a War"

1. Project Title: The Four Fronts of Information: Deconstructing the Russo-Ukrainian War Narrative

2. High-Level Concept:
Create a single, large-format illustrated explainer poster (approx. 36" x 48" or A0 size) designed to be printed and hung on a wall. The poster will visually narrate and compare the key differences in how the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is reported and framed by four distinct sources: English Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia, Ukrainian Wikipedia, and Grokipedia.

The primary goal is not to declare one narrative "true" but to visually dissect how and why these powerful information sources present the same conflict in fundamentally different ways. The poster should be an engaging, informative, and visually striking piece of data journalism that encourages critical thinking. The entire poster must be in English.

3. Visual Style & Tone:

  • Style: Clean, modern, infographic-driven. Think "The Economist," "Visual Capitalist," or Kurzgesagt-style illustrations. Use a combination of maps, timelines, icons, illustrative vignettes, and clear typography.
  • Color Palette: Use a consistent and distinct color code for each of the four sources throughout the poster. For example:
    • English Wikipedia: Neutral Blue (#3366CC)
    • Russian Wikipedia: State Red (#D50000)
    • Ukrainian Wikipedia: National Gold/Yellow (#FFD700)
    • Grokipedia: Academic Purple (#6A0DAD)
  • Tone: Analytical and comparative, not accusatory. The design should guide the viewer to understand the differences in framing, emphasis, and omission. Illustrations should be symbolic and informative, avoiding graphic or gratuitous depictions of violence.

4. Poster Structure and Content Sections:

The poster should be organized into clear, digestible sections, guiding the viewer's eye logically from top to bottom or left to right.

Section 1: Title & Introduction (Top of Poster)

  • Main Title: THE FOUR FRONTS OF INFORMATION
  • Subtitle: A Visual Comparison of Narratives on the Russian Invasion of Ukraine
  • Central Visual Element: A stylized, simplified map of Ukraine showing the 2022 invasion vectors (North, East, South). This map acts as a neutral anchor for the entire poster.
  • Introductory Text (Brief): "The war in Ukraine is not just fought on the battlefield, but in the realm of information. This poster explores how four major online encyclopedias frame the conflict, shaping the understanding of millions. By comparing their narratives on key events, causes, and consequences, we can see how history is written in real-time."
  • Key/Legend: Introduce the four sources with their logos (or stylized icons) and their assigned color code.
    • English Wikipedia: "The Global Consensus Narrative"
    • Russian Wikipedia: "The State-Aligned Narrative"
    • Ukrainian Wikipedia: "The National Defense Narrative"
    • Grokipedia: "The Multi-Causal Academic Narrative"

Section 2: What Do We Call It? (Framing & Terminology)

  • Layout: Four distinct boxes, one for each source, color-coded.
  • Content: Visually compare the primary terms used to describe the conflict.
    • English Wiki (Blue): Use large text: "Invasion," "Escalation of the War." Pull-quote: "baselessly claimed that the Ukrainian government were neo-Nazis."
    • Russian Wiki (Red): Use large text: "Invasion," but with a prominent sub-heading: "Also known as the 'Special Military Operation'." Feature its "Terminology" section as a key difference.
    • Ukrainian Wiki (Gold): Use large text: "Invasion," "Russian Aggression." Feature terms like "Occupiers" (окупанти) and "Invaders" (загарбники).
    • Grok Wiki (Purple): Use large text: "Full-scale military conflict." Pull-quote: "In official Russian terminology, the action constitutes a 'special military operation'…" highlighting its approach of presenting competing definitions upfront.

Section 3: Why Did It Start? (A Tale of Two Causes)

  • Layout: A central dividing line. On one side, illustrate the "Imperial Ambition" narrative. On the other, the "NATO Provocation" narrative.
  • Content: Use flowcharts and icons to show how each source weighs these causes.
    • Left Side – Imperial Ambition & Russian Aggression:
      • English Wiki (Blue Arrow): Arrow points from "Russian Imperialism" and "Putin's Irredentist Views" directly to "Invasion." NATO expansion is shown as a smaller, secondary "pretext."
      • Ukrainian Wiki (Gold Arrow): A strong, direct arrow from a "2014 Aggression" icon to a "2022 Full-Scale Invasion" icon. The narrative is a clear continuation of unprovoked hostility.
    • Right Side – NATO Expansion & Security Concerns:
      • Grok Wiki (Purple Arrow): Shows two equally strong arrows pointing to "Invasion": one from "NATO Encroachment" (with icons of NATO flags moving east) and one from "Russian Imperial Ambitions." Cites Mearsheimer.
      • Russian Wiki (Red Arrow): A strong arrow from "NATO Expansion" and "Protection of Donbas" to "Special Military Operation." "Euromaidan" is depicted as a "coup," justifying the 2014 actions.

Section 4: The Story of the War (A Comparative Timeline)

  • Layout: A horizontal timeline spanning the middle of the poster from Feb 2022 to the present. Have four parallel, color-coded tracks running along it.
  • Content: Select 5-6 key events and show how each source frames them. Use illustrative icons for each event.
    • Event: The Battle for Kyiv (Feb-Apr 2022)
      • EN/UK: "Russian Defeat / Retreat," "Fierce Ukrainian Resistance." (Icon: Broken Russian tank).
      • RU: "Withdrawal from Kyiv," "Gesture of Goodwill / Redeployment." (Icon: Arrow showing troops moving east).
    • Event: The Bucha Massacre (Apr 2022)
      • EN/UK: "War Crimes," "Massacre by Russian Troops." (Icon: A magnifying glass over a map of Bucha).
      • RU: "Russia is accused of…" "Staged provocation." (Icon: A question mark or quote bubble).
    • Event: Sinking of the Moskva (Apr 2022)
      • UK: Highlighted as a major naval victory. (Icon: A sinking ship with a Neptune missile).
      • RU: Downplayed as an "ammunition explosion caused by a fire." (Icon: A ship with a fire symbol).
    • Event: Ukrainian Counteroffensives (Late 2022)
      • UK/EN: "Liberation of Kherson & Kharkiv," "Successful Counteroffensive." (Icon: Ukrainian flag being raised).
      • RU: "Regrouping of Forces," "Leaving Positions." (Icon: Arrows showing strategic movement).
    • Event: Battle of Bakhmut (2023)
      • EN/RU: Focus on the Wagner Group's role and grinding attrition.
      • UK: Emphasizes heroic defense and the high cost to Russian forces.

Section 5: Counting the Cost (Casualties & Atrocities)

  • Layout: Use data visualization—bar charts, icon arrays, or diverging charts.
  • Content:
    • Civilian Casualties: Show the UN figure used by all. Then, add callouts. EN/UK Wiki will highlight the high estimates for Mariupol and Russian-occupied areas. RU Wiki will include casualty numbers from the "DPR/LPR."
    • Military Casualties: Create a visual that shows the dramatic disparity in claims.
      • A chart titled "Who Lost More?" showing four perspectives.
      • Ukrainian Claim: Massive bar for Russian losses, smaller for Ukrainian.
      • Russian Claim: Massive bar for Ukrainian losses, very small, dated (Sept 2022) bar for Russian losses.
      • English/Grok Approach: Show a range or use Western intelligence estimates, emphasizing the uncertainty and propaganda on both sides.
    • War Crimes: A small section with icons.
      • EN/UK: Icon of a courthouse (ICC) with an arrow pointing from a Russian flag. Stated as fact.
      • RU: Icon of a document with a question mark. Framed as "investigations" and "allegations."
      • Grok: Icon of scales of justice, mentioning ICC warrants for Putin but also noting "mutual accusations."

Section 6: The World's View (International Alliances & Neutrality)

  • Layout: A simplified world map.
  • Content: Color the map four different ways to reflect the narrative emphasis of each source.
    • Map 1 (EN/UK Narrative): Titled "A World Condemns." Countries are colored in two main shades: Blue (sanctioning/supporting Ukraine) and Red (Russia/allies). The rest of the world is a muted neutral gray.
    • Map 2 (RU/Grok Narrative): Titled "A Multipolar World." Use three prominent colors: Blue (West), Red (Russia & allies), and a strong Yellow/Beige for the "Global South" / neutral countries (China, India, Brazil, etc.), visually representing them as a significant, independent bloc.

Section 7: Conclusion: Why the Difference?

  • Layout: A concluding section at the bottom of the poster.
  • Content: Four brief summaries explaining the core philosophy behind each source's narrative.
    • English Wikipedia: "Driven by a policy of Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and reliance on verifiable, mainstream Western sources, creating a narrative that reflects the international consensus."
    • Russian Wikipedia: "Operates under intense state pressure and media laws, leading to a narrative that aligns with official Kremlin terminology, emphasizes Russian security concerns, and frames opposing views as allegations."
    • Ukrainian Wikipedia: "Written from a national perspective during an existential war, it emphasizes Ukrainian sovereignty, military successes, and the documentation of Russian aggression, serving as a tool of national identity and historical record."
    • Grokipedia: "Aims for an academic synthesis by explicitly presenting competing arguments (e.g., 'NATO provocation vs. Imperialism'), giving more weight to alternative and historical frameworks than the event-driven Wikipedia model."

ONE-PAGE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS REPORT

How about a one-page textual report comparing the four?

Write a one-page report that narrates the differences in the four reports below (English Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia, Ukrainian Wikipedia, Grokipedia). Focus on the major differences of the four reports and tease apart how they are different and why. The report should be entirely in English.

Report on Narrative Differences in Reporting on the Russian Invasion of Ukraine

Date: December 14, 2025
Subject: Comparative Analysis of Four Encyclopedia-Style Reports on the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine
Sources: English Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia, Ukrainian Wikipedia, Grokipedia

1. Executive Summary

An analysis of four reports on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reveals profound differences in narrative framing, attribution of cause, and editorial purpose. The English Wikipedia report provides a comprehensive, fact-driven chronicle reflecting a broad international consensus. The Ukrainian Wikipedia entry offers a patriotic, national narrative of defense and resistance against aggression. The Russian Wikipedia article navigates a contested information landscape, carefully presenting conflicting official claims and terminology. Finally, Grokipedia delivers a meta-analytical summary that focuses on deconstructing the competing narratives and geopolitical debates surrounding the conflict. These differences are not merely semantic; they reflect the distinct geopolitical contexts, editorial goals, and information ecosystems in which each report was created.

2. Major Differences in Framing and Causality

The most significant divergence lies in how each report establishes the cause and context of the invasion.

      • English and Ukrainian Wikipedia: Both frame the 2022 invasion as a clear and unprovoked escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War that began in 2014. The English Wikipedia report uses strong, declarative language, labeling Russia’s justifications as “baseless,” its views as “irredentist and imperialist,” and its actions as a clear “invasion.” Its narrative begins squarely with the 2021 military buildup, positioning Russia as the sole aggressor. The Ukrainian Wikipedia adopts a similar starting point but with a more pronounced national and emotive tone. It consistently refers to Russia as the “aggressor” and “occupier,” framing the conflict as a long-standing war for national survival that intensified in 2022. The historical context provided serves to legitimize Ukraine’s sovereignty and resistance.
      • Russian Wikipedia: This report frames the 2022 events within a longer, more complex "prehistory" (Предыстория) dating back to the 2014 Euromaidan protests. While its title uses the word “invasion” (Вторжение), it immediately includes a dedicated “Terminology” section explaining the Russian government’s official term “special military operation” and its legal enforcement. This unique feature signals the contested information environment it inhabits. By giving more weight to the failure of the Minsk agreements and the political instability following 2014, it implicitly presents the 2022 escalation as a result of a protracted political and security breakdown, rather than a singular act of aggression.
      • Grokipedia: This report takes the most detached, analytical approach to causality. Its "Background" section begins with the shared origins of Kyivan Rus', treating the long history of political and cultural entanglement as foundational to the modern conflict. It does not present a single cause but instead structures its analysis around key debates, such as “NATO Encroachment vs. Imperial Ambitions.” This framing treats the reasons for the war as a primary subject of analysis, explaining the Russian and Western perspectives as competing geopolitical theses rather than simply debunking one.

3. Attribution of Blame and Presentation of Information

The handling of controversial events and casualty data further highlights the reports’ differing objectives.

      • English and Ukrainian Wikipedia: Both reports directly attribute blame for war crimes, such as the Bucha massacre, to Russian forces. They present Russian justifications for the war (e.g., “denazification”) but immediately dismiss them as pretexts or disinformation, citing international consensus and fact-checking organizations. The Ukrainian Wikipedia’s infobox exclusively presents Ukrainian and Western data on Russian losses, emphasizing the highest available figures to underscore the scale of Ukrainian military success.
      • Russian Wikipedia: This report often avoids direct attribution, instead presenting conflicting claims side-by-side. Its infobox is a prime example, displaying casualty figures from the Russian Ministry of Defence, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence, and independent third parties (e.g., BBC/Mediazona) without privileging one source. This approach reflects a balancing act—adhering to encyclopedic principles of neutrality while navigating an environment of intense state censorship. Controversial events are often described by attributing statements (e.g., "Ukraine accused Russia of…") rather than stating them as verified facts.
      • Grokipedia: Grokipedia’s structure is designed to explain, rather than adjudicate, blame. Its section on “Controversies and Alternative Perspectives” dedicates subsections to laying out the “Russian Justifications” in detail, explaining the logic behind claims of denazification and the protection of Russian speakers. It then presents the counterarguments. This method treats the propaganda itself as a key element of the conflict to be understood, rather than just an falsehood to be dismissed. Its purpose is less to establish a definitive truth and more to illuminate the deep ideological and informational divides.

4. Conclusion: Why the Reports Differ

The disparities across the four reports are a direct result of their differing editorial missions and intended audiences:

      • The English Wikipedia aims to be a global reference, reflecting a well-sourced, verifiable consensus that aligns with mainstream Western and international viewpoints.
      • The Ukrainian Wikipedia serves as a national chronicle, documenting a foundational event in modern Ukrainian history from a perspective of righteous defense and national identity.
      • The Russian Wikipedia functions as a battleground for information, attempting to maintain a semblance of neutrality under immense political pressure by meticulously documenting official narratives from all sides, thereby highlighting the information war itself.
      • Grokipedia acts as an analytical tool, synthesizing complex and polarized information to explain the discourse of the conflict. It prioritizes explaining why the parties believe what they do, making it a report on the war’s narratives as much as the war itself.

Together, these reports offer a powerful illustration of how a single historical event can be constructed into starkly different realities, shaped by national identity, political context, and the fundamental purpose of the medium.