From Texas to Alberta to Catalonia, the Kremlin amplifies separatist causes abroad while imprisoning those who express similar ideas within Russia.
Moscow frequently accuses other countries of orchestrating “color revolutions” and supporting separatist movements. Yet, consistent with its well-documented pattern of projection, the Kremlin engages in precisely the behavior it condemns—supporting separatist movements in Western countries both openly and through Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI) campaigns.
A Longstanding Pattern of Support
Reports of Kremlin sympathy for Western separatist movements date back years. In 2015, just one year after Russia’s annexation of Crimea, Texas separatists appeared at a far-right conference in Saint Petersburg, prompting investigations into their ties with Russian officials. Russian media amplified their messaging, while FIMI-linked bot networks promoted calls for a “Free Texas.”
This narrative has persisted. In early 2024, tensions between Texas and the U.S. federal government reignited Kremlin commentary. Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev publicly stated he would “support Texas” in the event of secession, while Sergei Mironov endorsed calls for “Texit.” At the same time, coordinated bot networks on platforms like Telegram and X amplified calls for civil unrest in the United States.
A similar disinformation campaign has targeted Canada’s Alberta region since at least 2019. In 2026, pro-Kremlin Telegram channels revived narratives suggesting separatist leaders were engaging with U.S. political figures. False claims about widespread support for independence and AI-generated videos promoting rallies were circulated, highlighting the role of emerging technologies in modern influence operations.
Europe as a Testing Ground
In Europe, such efforts have been even more persistent. Spanish authorities confirmed that Russia-linked groups attempted to spread disinformation related to the Catalonia independence referendum, aiming to destabilize the country.
In the United Kingdom, experts identified disinformation campaigns surrounding the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, with pro-Kremlin accounts amplifying claims of electoral fraud. Russian-linked FIMI operations during the Brexit referendum have also been widely documented, with some analyses suggesting they may have influenced public discourse.
Separatism in the Post-Soviet Space
In the post-Soviet region, supporting breakaway territories remains a key tool of Russian influence. In Moldova, the Russia-backed region of Transnistria serves as both a platform for influence operations and a source of political pressure on Chisinau. Similarly, in Georgia, South Ossetia functions as a lever of influence over Tbilisi. These regions operate both as “frozen conflicts” and active instruments of geopolitical leverage.
Russia has also exploited fears of similar scenarios elsewhere. In Estonia, disinformation campaigns targeted the border city of Narva—home to a large ethnic Russian population—by promoting the idea of a “Narva People’s Republic.” Investigations later concluded that this was not an organic movement but a coordinated FIMI campaign.
A Double Standard on Sovereignty
While Moscow promotes separatist narratives abroad, it enforces strict repression at home. Russian law criminalizes public support for separatism, with penalties of up to five years in prison. This legislation, introduced in 2014 following the annexation of Crimea, has been used to prosecute activists such as Ilmi Umerov, a Crimean Tatar figure sentenced for opposing Russia’s control of the peninsula.
In 2025, Russia’s Supreme Court designated the Free Nations of Post-Russia Forum and its affiliated organizations as “terrorist,” citing their advocacy for regional autonomy and independence.
Separatism as a Strategic Tool
These cases reveal a consistent Kremlin playbook. Separatist movements abroad are encouraged and amplified when they serve to weaken rival states. Within Russia, however, even limited expressions of regional identity or autonomy are treated as serious threats.
This contradiction is neither accidental nor inconsistent—it reflects a deliberate strategy. For the Kremlin, sovereignty and territorial integrity are not principled positions but flexible tools: used to justify repression domestically while destabilizing adversaries abroad.
The double standard is clear. Separatism is seen as a useful instrument beyond Russia’s borders—and an unacceptable risk within them.
