The Language Trap: How MEPs Tell Different Stories About Ukraine Depending on Who’s Listening

When European lawmakers switch languages on social media, they don’t just translate their messages; they change them. A new study analyzing over 80,000 posts about Ukraine reveals a troubling pattern: politicians say one thing in English to their Brussels colleagues and quite another when addressing voters back home.

The gap is measurable and significant. Posts in English lean 81% pro-Ukrainian, but when MEPs communicate in their native languages, pro-Ukrainian content drops by nearly four percentage points while neutral messaging increases by the same margin. It’s a small shift with large implications for democratic transparency.

This linguistic split isn’t universal. The research, conducted by the Media and Journalism Research Center, found that mainstream pro-European groups maintain nearly perfect alignment across languages. Renew Europe and the Greens show 100% consistency between their English and native-language messaging, with the European People’s Party and Socialists & Democrats close behind.

But move right on the political spectrum and the picture fractures. For non-attached MEPs (those without party affiliation) the study reveals dramatic message recalibration. The dominance of their top narrative cluster plunges from 93.5% in English to just 62% in native languages, suggesting these politicians carefully tailor their Ukraine messaging depending on whether they’re addressing European institutions or domestic audiences.

The European Conservatives and Reformists group shows a similar, if less extreme, pattern. Their native-language concentration drops to 73.5% compared to 85.4% in English, consistent with what researchers describe as “domestically adapted rhetoric.”

This dual-track communication creates what the report calls “parallel publics”, audiences consuming fundamentally different versions of the same political reality. Citizens following only local-language content may encounter meaningfully different emphasis than the message projected in English at the European level.

The implications extend beyond simple inconsistency. When politicians present a united front in Brussels while hedging their positions at home, they undermine the transparency essential to democratic accountability. Voters cannot make informed choices if the positions they hear depend on which language their representatives happen to be using.

The timing matters too. As the report documents, pro-Russian narratives have expanded eightfold since February 2022, while moral framing has steadily declined in favor of security and demonization frames. In this increasingly polarized environment, the structural duality between European and domestic messaging creates openings that adversaries can exploit.

The researchers identify English as “the channel for disciplined, coalition-compatible messaging” while native languages carry “more domestically tailored, constituency-facing content.” That’s a diplomatic way of describing a breakdown in message integrity.

Some might argue this reflects political skill: the ability to speak to different audiences effectively. But when the substance shifts along with the language, it crosses from communication strategy into something closer to deception. The language gap reveals something more fundamental about how European democracy functions, or malfunctions, in a fragmented media environment.

For citizens trying to hold representatives accountable, the lesson is: if you’re only following politics in one language, you’re only seeing part of the picture. And that’s exactly how some politicians prefer it.

Photo: Unsplash+ License