By Maria Popova

November 5, 2025

In late October, Italian Senator Carlo Calenda went viral for bluntly calling economist Jeffrey Sachs a liar. During a debate between the two on the Italian program PiazzaPulita, Sachs claimed that the US, rather than Ukrainian society, drove the months-long Euromaidan protests in 2014, which is a familiar trope of Russian propaganda.

Sachs’ claim is easily and widely refuted by scholarly research. There is vast, incontrovertible evidence of Ukrainian self-organization, local protestors’ desire to hold the autocratizing Yanukovych administration accountable, and the US administration’s repeated attempts to broker a compromise that would allow Yanukovych to remain in office.

Senator Calenda pressed Sachs — whose Kremlin-friendly views on the war have come under fire via everything from open letters signed by fellow Columbia economics professors to scathing op-eds —  to explain why the US would depose Yanukovych only to let Russia so easily seize Crimea militarily at the exact same time.

There is also ample documented evidence of the Obama administration pressuring the Ukrainian government not to respond militarily to Russia’s takeover of Crimea in order to avoid a widening of hostilities. Why would the US seek to depose the pro-Russian Ukrainian government only to pressure the subsequent pro-European Ukrainian government to compromise with Russia?

Sachs could not answer these questions, but instead acted outraged at the pushback he received. The Russian manipulation of the facts endures in large part because when Sachs (and others) tirelessly promote it within a proxy-supported propaganda war on democracy, opponents politely disagree and the conversation is presented as a debate of equally valid viewpoints. Carlo Calenda went viral because he refused to politely disagree with a lie.

Some have criticized the Italian senator for undermining democratic debate with his stern language. But it is important to recognize that spreading lies and manipulation, just as failing to call them out, doesn’t protect democratic debate, it undermines democratic debate.

While Sachs is free to say whatever he pleases, his interlocutors are not only entitled but also obligated to call him out when they hear him make statements that conflict with what they know to be facts. It is essential for democratic debate to be honest. We cannot hide confrontation over facts and truth behind the false-equivalency facade of “let’s agree to disagree”.

Research has shown that polarization in Western societies has fueled political instability, made the political process intractable, and undermined the possibility of compromise and reaching across the aisle to your opponent. Simply put, polarization erodes democracy.

We cannot hide confrontation over facts and truth behind the false-equivalency facade of ‘let’s agree to disagree’

So, Russia’s weaponization of democratic debate includes the framing of defenders of the truth about Vladimir Putin’s aggression against Ukraine as contributing to political polarization because it delegitimizes and presents them as enemies — even traitors — instead of as political competitors and opponents to be debated. It attempts to deter free speech by disparaging any speaker who calls out lies.

However, if we let Russian lies stand as accepted elements of democratic debate, this compromise with our conscience also fuels polarization. People who buy the Russian lies as truth often become supporters of Russia’s unprovoked, illegal aggression against Ukraine and refuse to see the mounting evidence of Russia’s hybrid war on Europe, which includes fearmongering threats of nuclear Armageddon, insults that Europe is rotting and in decline (echoed by senior figures in the Trump administration), sabotage, cyberattacks, disruptions of industrial production to undermine aid for Ukraine, hate crimes aimed to deepen societal divisions (for e.g. hateful graffiti, defacing Holocaust memorials), and lately, drones and war planes veering off course en route to attacking Ukraine and ending up in NATO airspace.

Those who embrace false Russian narratives also tend to deny that any of these Russian actions are real or purposeful. They portray Ukraine and its European allies as warmongers who prevent compromise with Russia. Some even transfer the responsibility for this war away from Russia to Europe and Ukraine.

Even more dangerously, the AI chatbots, which are now gaining popularity and quickly becoming a go-to source of information and facts for a wide audience, have been shown to spread rather than counter Russian disinformation narratives. A recent study shows that AI chatbots use Russian propaganda sources in a fifth of the answers they provided to questions about the war in Ukraine.

We need to think about how we can protect our democracies from Russia’s pernicious activities that seek to divide us and undermine our belief in our institutions. The media could take a very useful step if it moderates its absolute pursuit of covering “all sides” and stops platforming people who have been exposed as regular spreaders of Russian narratives.

Calenda has taken a belated but absolutely necessary step by insisting that the truth is not optional. We cannot pre-emptively abandon the truth for the sake of what is disingenuously defended as civility by the same people spreading the lies.

Maria Popova is Associate Professor of Political Science at McGill University and Co-Director of the Jean Monnet Centre Montreal. With Oxana Shevel, she recently published a book titled Russia and Ukraine: Entangled Histories, Diverging States.