This article analyses the textbook The History of Russia, combining contextual information with specific techniques of manipulation and questions for classroom discussion. We will examine how do strongly loaded words, such as regime, junta’ and neo-Nazi, shape students’ perception of reality in Russia

What kind of textbook is The History of Russia? 

The Russian school textbook The History of Russia. Grade 11. Basic Level, published in 2023 and edited by Vladimir Medinsky, Anatoly Torkunov and Alexander Chubarian, covers the period from 1945 to the early 2020s. It is divided into two main sections: ‘The USSR 1945–1991’ and ‘The Russian Federation 1992 – early 2020s’. The textbook focuses primarily on the history of Russia, although events from other countries are included as background to processes taking place in the USSR and the Russian Federation. 

Individual sections follow a repetitive structure: each begins with a question to guide the reader; contains illustrative material and a list of key terms; and ends with a summary, questions and tasks, exercises in chronology, source analysis and additional materials. At the back of the book, there is also a glossary, a timeline and a list of recommended publications and documentary films. 

Although the textbook formally has three editors, in public discourse it is often referred to as ‘Medinsky’s textbook’. 

 

Who is Vladimir Medinsky and where do the controversies come from? 

Vladimir Medinsky is a figure deeply rooted in Russia’s political system and in the ideological machinery that shapes the state’s public image.. He has served, among other roles, as Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation, and since 2020 he has been an advisor to the President of Russia. In 2022, and again in 2025, he headed the Russian delegation in negotiations with Ukraine, which illustrates his role not only as an official but also as an important ‘interpreter’ of the state narrative. 

Controversies also concern his academic work. A broad group of full and corresponding members of the Russian Academy of Sciences, as well as independent groups dealing with academic integrity, have questioned the credibility and quality of his doctoral dissertation. The main criticisms have concerned not only numerous errors, inconsistencies and formal shortcomings, but above all the methodological principle adopted by the author, according to which the truth of historical findings should be determined by how they fit in with the ‘interests of Russia’, rather than by verification of facts. The case has been widely discussed in the media and has became part of a broader debate about where scholarship ends and politics begins. 

 

Why can this textbook be considered an example of disinformation? 

Disinformation, in the strict sense, means to deliberately mislead. The authors’ intentions cannot be proven solely on the basis of reading the text. However, it is possible to demonstrate that the textbook contains mechanisms typical of propaganda and disinformation: the selective presentation of facts, a one-sided language, labelling the opponent and the construction of a single ‘correct’ interpretation. 

Such educational materials serve to indoctrinate and, instead of teaching critical thinking about history, they teach loyalty to the state version of events. 

Several features typical of disinformation and propaganda can be observed in the textbook, including: 

 

1) Emotive language and labelling instead of description 

One of the tools of disinformation is strong emotionally loaded language. For example, instead of neutral descriptions of the Ukrainian authorities after 2014, the text uses terms such as: 

  • regime, 
  • Russophobia, 
  • neo-Nazis, and  
  • junta.  

In this way, the readers are given a ready-made evaluation of events and have no space to form their own opinion. 

CLASS DISCUSSION TOPIC: Consider what associations and emotions these four terms evoke in you. If you do not know the meaning of any of these words, look them up in a dictionary or a reliable online source. 

 

2) Selection of facts and meaningful omissions 

Disinformation rarely consists solely of stating falsehoods directly. More often it operates through the selection of facts. In Medinsky’s textbook some events are highlighted, while others are marginalised or omitted entirely. It is important to note that the material covers the period up to 2023 (the year of publication), and a significant part focuses on contemporary Russia, that is, the rule of President Vladimir Putin. 

Context: In 2014 Russian military units seized the Ukrainian Crimean Peninsula on the Black Sea and parts of eastern Ukraine (Donbas). In 2022 Russia launched a war against its western neighbour with the aim of subordinating part of Ukraine’s territory. In official Russian government discourse, the term ‘special military operation’ is used instead of ‘war’. 

A good example of this device is the way events in Ukraine after 2014 are presented. The textbook highlights elements that allow the conflict to be framed as a narrative of Western interference and an anti-Russian conspiracy, stating that ‘in February 2014, a bloody armed uprising took place in Ukraine with the direct support of the West’, after which ‘a junta came to power’ and then adds that ‘the USA and NATO gradually began preparing Ukraine for the role of the main battering ram against Russia’. In this way, the emphasis is placed on the threat to Russia, while the internal conditions of the Ukrainian crisis, the social causes of the protests and the perspective of Ukrainian society itself are pushed into the background. 

CLASS DISCUSSION TOPIC: You are already familiar with emotive language replacing reliable description. Consider the difference between the terms ‘war’ and ‘special military operation’. 

 

3) Blurring responsibility 

Another device is the blurring of responsibility. It involves presenting events in such a way that blame is dispersed among various circumstances, pressures or the actions of other states. As a result, the reader may gain the impression that Russia’s actions were merely a forced response. 

A similar ploy can be seen in the description of sanctions imposed on Russia in 2014 after the annexation of Crimea. The textbook does not present them primarily as a response to the actions of the Russian state, but rather as the result of ‘political diktat by the USA’ towards Europe, which is said to act against its own interests, while the ‘main beneficiary of the Ukrainian conflict’ is claimed to be the United States. In this way, responsibility for the crisis is shifted from Russia to an external system of pressure and interests. 

CLASS DISCUSSION TOPIC: Identify who is presented as the main agent responsible for the crisis in the passage above. Consider how a conflict can be described in order to weaken the sense of responsibility of one of the parties. Provide other examples from around the world. 

 

4) Authority instead of sources 

A school textbook, by definition, carries the authority of the educational institution and the state. Students rarely treat it as a text that can be questioned or compared with other sources. If the authors present one version of events as the only possible one, ignoring different interpretations and other sources, the textbook easily becomes a tool for imposing a particular vision of history. Within such a framework, the authority of the school reinforces the strength of the propaganda. 

CLASS DISCUSSION TOPIC: Look at your own textbook and list the types of sources that appear in it. 

 

What follows from this? 

The Russian textbook is a model example of how history can be used to shape political loyalty and a particular worldview. Instead of focusing on conveying knowledge about the past, it devotes significant attention to the present and leaves no room for discussion or doubt regarding the evaluation of events and figures. In this way, history becomes one of the tools of propaganda and serves the purpose of educating loyal citizens. 

This does not mean Russia is alone in presenting history from a particular perspective. Every state and education system makes choices about topics, heroes and the way to narrate the past. The problem arises when one version of history is imposed as the only acceptable one, and the textbook does not encourage questioning, comparing sources or independent thinking. This is why the ability to approach every source of knowledge critically – including school textbooks – is so important. 

 

Dr Olga Dobrogowska is a historian specialising in the memory of communism in post-Soviet and post-Yugoslav countries. She works in the Academic Department at the European Network Remembrance and Solidarity and creates educational materials as part of the ‘Hi-story Lessons’ project.