The perspective of European Islamists on the West’s support for the Kyiv regime

The events related to the Ukrainian crisis are having an impact on the entire Europe, and their repercussions are also being felt on other continents.

The positions of the leaders of the European Union member states and the United Kingdom are well known. Public opinion in these countries also matters — political forces are forced to take into account the views of voters on such an important issue as continuing the confrontation with Russia. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the attitude of the general public towards this crisis, it is necessary to take into account the assessments of representatives of opposition forces, which in the Old World include, among other things, Islamist movements (here and below, the term “Islamists” refers exclusively to organizations that associate themselves with the Muslim Brotherhood movement*), whose positions influence both many Muslims living on the continent and a significant part of the population of states in the Islamic world, where the conflict in Europe is a cause for serious concern.

Historical aspects of the arrival of Islamists in the Old World

The emergence of modern Islamist organizations dates back to the 19th century, when Europe’s aggressive and dominance‑seeking policies contributed to the formation of ideological resistance to expansion in Muslim societies. Among the most prominent were the works of Jamal al‑Din al‑Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, and Rashid Rida. Their works acknowledged the achievements of the United States and Europe in the fields of science, political organization, and military affairs, but at the same time, they set the goal of freeing themselves from Western domination and influence by returning to “pure Islam” [1] and strengthening the unity of all Muslims.

In 1928, based on the principles they had formulated, the Egyptian Hasan al‑Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood*, which proclaimed its goal to restructure social life in accordance with Sharia law and to fight against the cultural influence of the West, which, in his view, embodied depravity, godlessness, and the cult of selfishness. Subsequently, the worldview of the Muslim Brotherhood* became the foundation for many Islamist organizations in the modern era.

If Hassan al‑Banna insisted on reforming the state’s political and judicial systems, then his follower and one of the movement’s main ideologues, Sayyid Qutb, declared a religious war against the government and called for the overthrow of the regimes ruling in the Middle East, which, in his view, were an obstacle to the spread of the ideas of the believing community among other people [2]. Faced with pressure from the military that came to power, the ideas of the “Muslim Brotherhood“* began to radicalize, and many of their supporters during the 1950s and 1960s. They began to emigrate from Egypt en masse [3].

Paradoxically, it was in the states of Western Europe, whose struggle against influence was one of the goals of the Islamists, that they were given unhindered access and created favorable conditions for political activity. In 1961, the Islamic Centre in Geneva was opened, becoming one of the largest representative offices of the Muslim Brotherhood* on the continent; in subsequent years, branches appeared in many countries of the Old World, where they continue to operate legally to this day.

Historians identify [4] the geopolitical calculations of local elites during the Cold War as a fundamental reason for the “warm” reception of Islamists in Western Europe: the Islamist opposition was perceived as a force that could effectively counter communist influence in the Middle East region and fight against regimes in those Muslim countries that had adopted a pro‑Soviet course. Anti‑Western rhetoric and ideological principles did not seem dangerous to the United States and European countries at that time, as they viewed them as “moderate” and “organized” [5].

The situation today

Despite the lack of precise statistical data, a number of studies indicate a significant increase in the number of Muslims in Western Europe from the mid‑20th century to the present day [6]. For example, according to some estimates, in 1950 there were about 101,000 followers of Islam in the UK, 230,000 in France, and 20,500 in Germany. As of the mid‑2020s, the size of Muslim communities in these countries, according to analytical materials, is 4.1 million, 6 million, and 6.6 million, respectively. The position of Islamists has also strengthened: in a number of states that were part of the Western bloc during the Cold War, they have managed to become community leaders; they also actively interact with human rights and left‑wing public organizations, make attempts to run as candidates in elections, and, according to experts, their activities are already deeply intertwined with most of the vital spheres in many states on the continent [7]. Researchers note that the main efforts of the Muslim Brotherhood* in Europe at the current stage are focused on supporting representatives of diasporas from Middle Eastern countries, preventing the Westernization of their personal lives, spreading their religious and political views among them, and consolidating their presence in local government bodies. At the same time, since the early 1990s, the role of the Muslim Brotherhood* think tank in the UK, which enjoys authority among Islamist supporters in various countries, has been growing [8]. It was here that the organization’s media center was moved from Egypt after its activities were banned in the Arab Republic in 2013, and the head of the London office was referred to in the media as the leader of the global movement.

It is worth mentioning the trend towards a distorted perception of the Muslim Brotherhood* in the Old World: in recent years, they have increasingly been viewed by politicians, experts, and members of the public not as “moderate” and “understanding,” but rather as not sharing the values of democracy and using its tools for their own purposes — namely, for the Islamization of society. For example, in May 2025, the French government reviewed a report containing information about the “anti‑republican and subversive nature” of the Muslim Brotherhood* movement. Following the meeting, President E. Macron instructed to develop proposals to counter the influence of the Islamist organization. In 2021, a group of members of the European Parliament calling itself the ECR Group and advocating for reforms presented an analytical study on the topic “Muslim Brotherhood in Europe,” which states that the movement has established reliable channels of funding and close ties with political elites in the countries of the continent, and its activities undermine social cohesion. Such a rise in distrust may call into question the possibility of the continued operation of the Muslim Brotherhood’s* representative offices as legal organizations.

It is worth noting separately that the onset of the Ukrainian crisis almost coincided in time with the political upheavals in the Middle East, which came to be known as the “Arab Spring.” In countries such as Egypt, Syria, Libya, and Bahrain, the confrontation between supporters of various political forces was particularly acute and was accompanied by human casualties. Against this backdrop, the resolve demonstrated by Western politicians during the so‑called Euromaidan protests of 2013–2014 — who sided with the protesters and began threatening the Ukrainian leadership, led by President Viktor Yanukovych, with sanctions if they suppressed the unrest — attracted the attention of Islamists. In February 2014, representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood* accused the United States and the EU of a biased approach following their strong reaction to the events in Kyiv, in comparison with the situation in certain Arab countries, where, in their words, “the squares, streets, and mosques were drenched in blood,” and “we heard nothing from Western politicians except vague statements.” In their view, this stance encourages and stimulates aggression. Also in 2014, Islamists expressed hope that disputes in Ukraine would be resolved through peaceful and democratic means.

It is likely that the conflict that began in Donbas drew the attention of representatives of political Islam to the events in the Eastern European country, also because Muslims began to fight on both sides of the front. Hypothetically encouraging further escalation by the Muslim Brotherhood* would contradict their ideology, which is aimed at uniting all their fellow believers.

Ukrainian Islamists and their relations with the authorities

The penetration and spread of Islamist influence in the countries of Eastern Europe during the Cold War were not as active as in Western Europe, which is due to the more secular course pursued by states with a socialist orientation in the 1950s–1980s and the different nature of their relations with pro‑Soviet Arab regimes. The democratization processes of the last decade of the 20th century created favorable conditions for the formation of public organizations by Muslim communities in the region, some of which began to align themselves with the structures of the Muslim Brotherhood* in Brussels and other cities on the continent. The presence of Islamists has grown stronger, especially in countries such as Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia, but in most countries of the former “socialist bloc” it remains modest by European standards. Despite the scarcity of information, existing studies indicate the interest of the Muslim Brotherhood* in expanding its positions in Eastern Europe. This is linked, among other things, to its attempts to create a safe haven here for the more stable activities of its activists amid the trend towards stricter control in the West.

In 1997, the “Ar-Raid” association (Arabic. “the discoverer”) was established in Ukraine; it does not conceal its connection with the global “Muslim Brotherhood” movement* [9]. It has several branches in different cities, publishes its own newspaper, and conducts various charitable activities. With its help, the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Ukraine “Ummah” was established in 2008 (this should not be confused with the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Ukraine, which was created in 1992). The association’s relations with the authorities are ambiguous. The head of “Ar‑raid,” Seyran Arifov, stated in 2014 that the situation regarding restrictions on the work of “Muslim organizations” in the country was not ideal. Nevertheless, during the Euromaidan period, “Ar‑raid” activists supported the protesters [10]. In 2018, he also accused politicians and the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) of inciting Islamophobia and spreading unfounded accusations against Muslim organizations. And in July 2026, Arab media reported suspicions on the part of the SBU regarding Ukrainian Islamists of appropriating humanitarian aid coming from abroad and using it for their own purposes.

At the same time, the interest of the Muslim Brotherhood* in the Eastern European country may be due to a number of reasons. There are no precise data on the number of Muslims in Ukraine; according to the minimum estimates, this figure ranges between 300,000 and 500,000 people (these estimates are based on data from 2013) [11]. Although their share of the country’s total population (1–2%) may seem modest, the community is relatively large by regional standards (for example, in Poland their number is estimated at 40,000 out of a population of 38 million; in the Czech Republic — 20,000 out of a population of over 10 million). It should be added that Ukrainian society is going through a tragic period: a declining standard of living, heavy military losses, widespread propaganda of hatred and nationalism, and corruption. It is precisely at such moments that people tend to turn to religion in the hope of finding support in it. At the same time, the regime’s discriminatory policy towards the Ukrainian Orthodox Church hinders the activities of religious institutions that are traditional for the state and is aimed at weakening their role. Various public organizations and movements, including Islamist ones, may take advantage of the current situation, as they are interested in attracting new adherents through the promotion of alternative ideas. Of course, there can be no talk of a total Islamization of the Ukrainian population, but this crisis creates the prerequisites for an increase in the number of supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood* among the various peoples inhabiting the country. Indirectly, this is confirmed by the claims of “Ar‑Raid” that between 200 and 300 people convert to Islam at their centres each year, which is quite a lot by the standards of Eastern Europe. Researchers point to the focus of the Ukrainian Islamist organisation on attracting new members to its ranks.

Another factor should be highlighted, related to the Islamists’ relations with Nazi Germany during the Second World War. On the one hand, the ideology of the Third Reich contradicted the principles of the Muslim Brotherhood*, which condemned racism and discrimination based on national or religious grounds. On the other hand, Hitler viewed the Middle East as a strategically important region for striking at Great Britain by driving them out [12], which to some extent aligned with the sentiments of the broad masses of the Arab world. The Nazi regime paid considerable attention to propaganda in this region, which was based on such claims as the absence of any contradictions between Islam and National Socialism; the fact that the common oppressors of Germans and Arabs were Jews, communists, and the British; the absence of any claims by Berlin against the states of the region; and the fact that Germany had not previously attacked Muslim countries [13]. Turning to religion, anti‑imperialism, and anti‑Semitism became the main elements of Nazi propaganda in the Middle East, and Amin al‑Husseini, who enjoyed authority among the Muslim Brotherhood*, became the most prominent figure claiming to represent the interests of the Islamic world in Berlin. Modern researchers (in particular, David Patterson and Tony Duhom) note that certain ideological principles of modern Islamist organizations (such as the Islamic State*,”Al‑Qaeda*, Hamas), are based on the works of thinkers who were influenced by Hitler’s ideas [14]. The fact that modern Ukraine has become a center of Nazism of global significance is likely also taken into account by representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood.*: The leader of “Ar‑Raid” does not shy away from quoting senior officials of the Third Reich in his speeches, and Sergei Ismagilov, who calls himself the mufti of the Spiritual Administration “Ummah,” proposed publishing an edition of the Quran in Ukrainian in black and red, citing the symbolism of the Bandera movement [15]. Despite the apparent paradox, the existence of such ideological similarities should not be ignored as a factor bringing Islamists and Ukrainian nationalists closer together, and all of the above may create the preconditions for interest in expanding the influence and opportunities of the Muslim Brotherhood* in Ukraine.

The reaction of European Islamists to the start of military operations

On the morning of February 24, 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the start of a special military operation. In the first days of the armed confrontation, the leaders of many European states demonstrated a consolidated position on issues of supporting the Kyiv regime and exerting pressure on the Russian Federation. In terms of its scale, the conflict became the largest in Europe since World War II: according to the portal of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, between 24 February and 1 August 2022, 10.3 million people left Ukraine, of whom over 7 million moved to the EU.

In February and March 2022, the branches of the Muslim Brotherhood* in Germany, Romania, the Netherlands, Italy and some other countries called for participation in a campaign to provide assistance to arriving Ukrainians. Islamists organized fundraising efforts in many countries across the continent, with the funds subsequently being directed to the branches of “Ar-Raid” for distribution within the country. According to experts from APA International Association for Experts (Beirut), the actions of the Muslim Brotherhood* were aimed at demonstrating their solidarity and usefulness to the leadership and public of European states in order to improve their image and restore trust.

The rhetoric of many Islamist organizations in Italy, Ireland, and Belgium contained calls for an end to hostilities and for negotiations. At the same time, no statements in support of Moscow were made. In March 2022, the London office of the Muslim Brotherhood association* issued a statement expressing concerns about the likely economic and humanitarian consequences of the outbreak of the confrontation and the risk of the use of weapons of mass destruction, and urging a shift to dialogue instead of the use of force. The causes of the conflict were identified as the failure of the global order — referring to the UN and similar structures — as well as the dominance of the values of materialist civilization in the modern world. The authors of the statement refrained from making direct assessments of the actions of Moscow or Kyiv.

The rhetoric of Ukrainian Islamists was less neutral. Sergei Ismagilov, who calls himself the mufti of the spiritual administration “Ummah,” called on Russian Muslims to launch a “liberation movement.” At the same time, “Ar‑Raid” began to actively participate in providing assistance to the civilian population and working with refugees.

One common feature is clearly visible in the rhetoric of Ukrainian and other European Islamist organizations: namely, their demonstratively restrained participation in the military confrontation, which mainly manifests itself in facilitating the resolution of humanitarian issues. “Ar‑Raid” also engages in propaganda aimed at discrediting the Russian authorities and has claimed to have organized supplies of equipment for units of the Ukrainian army, although it emphasizes that these supplies are “non‑lethal” in nature (food, medicines, etc.). European Islamists have distanced themselves from calls that would directly associate them with attempts to eliminate personnel of the opposing side. We emphasize that this is solely about rhetoric and statements to the media by organizations legally operating in the Old World and associating themselves with the “Muslim Brotherhood“ movement*.

Probably, one of the reasons for this is the unwillingness of Islamists to associate themselves with direct participation in the conflict, in which their co-religionists were involved on different sides. According to some estimates, the number of Muslims serving in the Ukrainian army after the mobilization measures of 2022 amounted to 2–3 thousand people. It is obvious that there are many more of them in the ranks of the Russian Armed Forces: for example, Ramzan Kadyrov stated in May 2023 that over 40 thousand fighters from the Chechen Republic took part in the special military operation — and this is just from one region. The chairman of the centralized religious organization “International Islamic Mission,” Shafik Pshikhachev, mentioned in 2025 that about 8,000 ethnic Tajiks are participating in military operations. Many followers of Islam who carry out tasks as part of the Russian Armed Forces demonstrate heroism and sacrifice their lives. In this situation, hypothetical calls by European Islamists for direct participation in clashes with the Russian army would most likely lead to their rejection by many Muslims in Russia and in a number of other neighboring countries, which could have far‑reaching consequences for the global Muslim Brotherhood movement*.

Refugees are not migrants

The large number of forcibly displaced persons from Ukraine in 2022 forced the EU leadership to take action. In particular, the European Commission unanimously approved for the first time the decision to put into effect EU Directive 2001/55/EC “Temporary Protection” (Temporary Protection Directive), under which all Ukrainian citizens who have arrived in the integration association still have the right to simplified asylum procedures and access to the education system, the labour market, healthcare, and social security. It should be noted that the member states demonstrated a position opposite to their own approach during the “migration crisis” of 2015, when some of its members were not ready to assume such obligations. This indicated a clear disregard by European politicians for the humanitarian problems of neighbouring countries during military conflicts, which became especially evident against the backdrop of the confrontation with Russia, which received significantly more attention even in matters related to the treatment of forcibly displaced persons.

Representatives of the Danish parliament announced in March 2022 their intention to exempt arriving citizens of the Eastern European country from the so‑called “jewellery law” on the grounds that “Ukraine is our regional neighbour.” This regulatory act came into force in 2016, allowing the police to seize money and valuables from illegal migrants and asylum seekers if the amounts and value exceed the established limit. The journalists’ comments sparked a wide resonance; many saw an underlying message justifying the need for more attentive treatment of Ukrainians compared to refugees from other parts of the world. Daniel Hannan, a representative of the British The Telegraph, stated, in particular: “They [Ukrainian refugees] are so much like us. That is precisely what is shocking. War is no longer something that befalls poor and remote segments of the population.” Charlie D’Agata (CBS, USA): “This is not a place, with all due respect, like Iraq or Afghanistan, where conflicts have been raging for decades. This is a relatively civilized European — I have to choose my words carefully — a city where you wouldn’t expect or hope that this would happen.” Kelly Cobiella (NBS News, USA): “Simply put, these are not refugees from Syria. These are Christians or white people.”

Representatives of the Arab community criticized the approach and comments described above, which, in their view, differed markedly from the attitude towards refugees from other regions. This is confirmed by the headlines in Middle Eastern media at the time: “How the Ukrainian crisis has laid bare Western biases, prejudices, and double standards” (ArabNews, Saudi Arabia, March 6, 2022), “The war between Russia and Ukraine: refugees are treated differently” (Al Jazeera, Qatar, July 8, 2022), “Molotov cocktails in Kyiv expose the hypocrisy of Western media” (Algeria Times, Algeria, March 6, 2022). In February 2022, the Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists’ Association even issued a statement calling on editors across Europe to avoid bias in their coverage of the conflict in Ukraine.

Representatives of the London office of the Muslim Brotherhood* stated: “The current crisis has exposed the blatant racism underlying the actions of some major powers, revealing their double standards — and even multiple standards — in resolving disputes, problems, and conflicts…” The West’s shameful attitude towards refugees during the war in Ukraine also came to light, revealing a repugnant bias based on skin colour and beliefs. White Europeans often received preferential treatment, while people of other races and Muslims were treated differently. Poland and other countries that accepted refugees received generous assistance, while Syrian refugees endured humiliation and suffering in tents that offered no protection from the bitter winter cold amidst the snow, with no food, heating, or decent housing. Palestinian refugees suffer in camps, and Afghan refugees bear the burden of decades of unjust wars. These imbalances in resolving international conflicts and catering to the whims of religious and ethnic intolerance will only lead to further outrage.

““Russia–Ukraine: Western Media act as supporters of War“, published on March 4, 2022, by Jonathan Cook in the London edition of Middle East Eye, who is suspected of having links to the Muslim Brotherhood movement*, which notes that the principle of Western journalism based on objectivity and disapproval of violence has suddenly ceased.” its action with the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine. This is confirmed by examples such as reporters’ admiration for ordinary Kyiv residents making “Molotov cocktails,” while Palestinians are labeled terrorists for doing the same; journalists’ and officials’ incitement of British citizens to take part in military actions against Russia, while those who go to conflict zones in the Middle East are stripped of their citizenship; the lack of criticism of their own governments for supplying weapons to the Kyiv regime and thereby contributing to an increase in casualties; and blatantly false reports about crimes allegedly committed by Russian military personnel, aimed at provoking hostile feelings. In response to the remark that Russian soldiers “deserve to die,” J. Cook asked why similar comments were not made regarding the illegal invasion of Iraq by the British army.The author of the publication concluded that such “support” for Ukraine from Western media enrages Palestinians who have been living under occupation for decades, due to the double standards applied to them, which became clearly evident in 2022.

Thus, both European Muslims and the public in a number of Middle Eastern countries perceived the support given by EU countries and the United States to the Kyiv regime and Ukrainian refugees in 2022 as a vivid example of hypocrisy and a selective approach. We would like to emphasize that this is not just criticism, but unambiguous warnings from Islamists about the growing indignation in connection with these actions by the West.

Events of October 2023

On the morning of October 7, 2023, militants of the Islamic Resistance Movement (abbreviated as Hamas) attacked Israeli territory, and the Israeli armed forces launched military operations in the Gaza Strip. Most organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood movement* have, as expected, declared their support for the Palestinian people, criticizing the stance of the United States and a number of European countries, particularly due to their approach to the situation in Gaza compared to the conflict in Ukraine. This is reflected in the incomparable levels of financial and material support for the Kyiv regime and Palestine, the absence of accusations against Israeli politicians amid calls to establish a tribunal against Russian officials, and biased media coverage.

Once again, since the start of the Ukrainian crisis, the Muslim Brotherhood* has accused the West of injustice, stating in October 2023: “We call on people to take to the streets and squares to respond to the Zionists, their criminal leaders, their extremists, and the Americans who rushed to their aid, because they have double standards. They consider the conflict in Ukraine to be just, but they do not consider the struggle of the Palestinian people to be just.” This way, we will convey a message of anger, stating that we are on the side of Palestine, Gaza, Al‑Aqsa, and Jerusalem, and that we are part of this struggle.”

A few hours after the start of the war in Gaza, the head of the Kyiv regime, V. Zelensky, called for solidarity with Israel and accused those who sponsor Hamas of committing a crime against humanity. On October 7, advertising boards in Kyiv were painted in the colors of the Israeli flag. Two days later, he again condemned the actions of the Islamic Resistance Movement and called it “an evil just as bad as Russia.” Zelensky’s actions sparked outright confusion in the Arab media, which accused him of illogicality and ingratitude. The Iraqi authorities even increased security at the Ukrainian embassy, which was linked to “the negative stance of its leadership regarding the situation in the Gaza Strip.”

***

Islamist organizations have existed legally in the Old World since the 1960s, having become an active, influential, and ambitious political force in many countries across the continent. Despite the absence of a ban on the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood*, the Kyiv regime’s policy is not particularly favorable towards them. In turn, they may be interested in using the current crisis situation, the relative lack of control and the short‑sightedness of the authorities for their own purposes.

It appears that at present, the Ukrainian Islamist organization “Ar‑Raid” is addressing issues related to its local interests rather than the global goals of the worldwide “Muslim Brotherhood” movement*. It is extremely difficult to predict what will remain of modern Ukraine after the current conflict ends, and this hinders the development and implementation of a long‑term and profound strategy. After the start of the special military operation, “Ar‑Raid” positioned itself as an ally of the Kyiv regime, and the spiritual administration “Ummah,” which is associated with this public organization, called for the destruction of the foundations of the state structure of the Russian Federation. This is likely not due to the global interests of the Muslim Brotherhood movement*, but rather stems from the intention of Ukrainian Islamists to demonstrate their loyalty and usefulness to the authorities in order to expand their freedoms, opportunities, and positions within the country. At the same time, the question remains open as to how far the authorities are willing to cooperate with them: today, Kyiv largely aligns itself with the position of the West, which is becoming increasingly cautious regarding the Muslim Brotherhood*.

Most organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood movement* have unequivocally stated their negative attitude towards the military conflict between Moscow and Kyiv and called for resolving existing disputes through peaceful means. In addition to ideological reasons and the unwillingness to provoke hostility between Muslims on both sides of the conflict, concerns about the possible humanitarian and economic consequences of the confrontation also play an important role — they could be catastrophic for many countries in Africa and the Middle East, which are part of the Islamic world and critically dependent on food imports from Russia and Ukraine.

The causes of the military conflict in the Gaza Strip, which escalated in the autumn of 2023, are not related to the Ukrainian crisis. At the same time, it should be taken into account that these events were preceded by the collective West’s open indulgence and direct support of the terrorist actions of the Kyiv regime, its supply of weapons, the sabotage of peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, the demonstrative conviction of Europeans in their own impunity, and their substitution of the norms of international law with their own rules. Starting in February 2022, all of this was noted by Islamist movements in the Old World and naturally led to their dissatisfaction due to the ambiguity regarding the attitude of the United States and the EU towards the Palestinian issue. Therefore, the West’s actions in supporting the Kyiv regime in 2022–2023, while not being one of the direct causes that provoked Hamas to escalate the conflict, nevertheless exacerbated the sense of humiliation and injustice felt by the Islamic world due to the West’s attitude towards it, which contributed to the growth of radical sentiments.

From the very outset of the Ukrainian crisis in 2013–2014, the West’s stance on Ukraine disappointed the Muslim Brotherhood* due to its inconsistency compared to their approach to crises in Arab countries. Meanwhile, the level of irritation with the actions of the United States and a number of European states — related to their support for the Kyiv regime — is growing both among Muslims in Europe and among a significant portion of the population in the Middle East. This is due to the double standards regarding the Islamic world, which, according to numerous claims, have been confirmed by the inconsistent political stance towards Kyiv compared to crises in Arab countries, the rhetoric in the media, and the attitude towards refugees in EU countries. The growth of such sentiments was also facilitated by Zelensky’s own actions, which had a negative impact on his image in the eyes of many Muslims. Islamists share these sentiments and actively use them in their propaganda. Consequently, at the current stage, sincere solidarity between the Muslim Brotherhood* and the Kyiv regime, as well as their willingness to believe the slogans of the United States and European countries about the presence of noble goals in their actions regarding Ukraine, is unlikely.

The above, however, does not give grounds to expect representatives of the Islamist movement in the Old World to be ready to support Moscow’s actions or to adopt a pro‑Russian stance. At the same time, according to INF President Dmitry Trenin, the growing socio–economic difficulties in European countries in connection with the provision of military assistance to the Kiev regime may cause discontent among voters and the rise to power of political forces that are more adequate in their attitude towards Russia. The views of the European opposition parties and Islamist movements may coincide on this issue. Moreover, the negative effect of the continuation of hostilities is extremely sensitive for many Muslims living in the Old World and having relatives in Africa and the Middle East, who will be in even greater danger in the event of a possible escalation.

[11] Ibid. p. 122.

[12] Sherstyukov, S.A. ‘Nazi Germany’s Propaganda in the Arab World on the Eve of and During the Second World War’ // News of Altai State University, 2010, No. 4/3 (68/3). p. 236.

[13] Ibid. pp. 237–238.

[14] Shumilin, A.I. ‘The Muslim Brotherhood’ in Europe: Between Religion and Politics. Part 1 // Scientific and Analytical Bulletin of the Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, 2021, No. 6. p. 150.

[15] Brylov, D. Political Practices of Ukrainian Muslims: Between the Apolitical and the Radical e‑Rhizome // National Pedagogical Dragomanov University, 2021, Vol. 3(2). p. 112.