Filenews 28 March 2022 - by Nikoletta Kourousi
From the very first moment of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, a parallel war rages, the information war, which complements hostilities and bombings. However, the controversy in the field of impressions has not begun to be recorded in the days of the current conflict, since since 2014 and the beginning of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis, a parallel front has been formed in the media of Russia, Ukraine and the countries of Europe, concerning both the crisis itself and the law of war.
The current controversy is being conducted using modern technological means and methods, since in addition to the traditional media, the front extends to the use of social media, but also to the official pronouncements of the political leadership of the countries directly or indirectly involved.
Also, hand in hand with the destruction of the war, the censorship of information proceeds, since after the Kremlin criminalized the spread of "fake" news, many Western media suspended their broadcasts in Russia in order to protect their journalists from criminal prosecutions, while at the same time the Commission decided to ban the free transmission of two Russian state media.
A lot may have changed since the first war, which was broadcast live on television, the Gulf War in 1991 by the American television network CNN, but "the main difference with today is that the media not only broadcast the image of the war, but transmit narratives. In other words, it is part of the strategic communication of the state and, by extension, of its war strategy", Dr. Neophytos Aspriadis, The Visiting Researcher of the Department of Political Science and International Relations of the University of Peloponnese and Professor of the University of Patras, told "F".
"This practice", explained Dr. Aspriadis, "has two consequences: The first has to do with the very operation of the media, the independence and ethics of information and the second with their strategic use", while he added that "the media seems to be unable to function completely independently of the political leadership, especially in times of crisis and war".
Therefore, he argued, "two issues arise: One concerns the role of the media in the war, i.e. whether they can operate independently, which is required by the logic of the medium, and whether they operate on the basis of the logic of the campaign, i.e. the process of operating on the basis of strategic communication, imposed by the political leadership or the political system". He stressed that "in times of crisis, the need to engage with the political leadership makes the independent operation of the media particularly difficult, either for reasons of patriotism or for reasons of necessity".
Strategic communication part of the central planning of states
In the current warfare, strategic communication is an integral part of the central planning of states and aims to produce specific messages, not only to influence the public opinion of states, but also to deconstruct opponents and destabilize its internal adversary. In this direction, the media either "play" the power game or try to convey the news.
"Therefore, in Russia, especially on the basis of the regime that exists, it would be absurd to think that the media would share the West's view of the war. This from the outset. In practice, the Government of Russia attempted to make the support of the media in the war a given," Dr. Aspriadis pointed out.
"Apart from that," he added, "there is another issue: When the media are part of a state's communication strategy, then they inevitably become an object to be addressed. He therefore explained that "at the beginning of the war it was assumed that the Russian media would broadcast the Russian narrative or channel fake news and disinformation to the West, and for this very reason access was denied."
He added that "for the first time of the war this ban had an effect. On the one hand, it blocked Russian propaganda towards the West and prevented the existence of ambiguous and divisive tendencies on the internal front of the West, increasing its unity. On the other hand, it created a confusion in Russia's staff, since, as the 2014 crisis showed, disinformation would be a central element of Russia's strategy to help with the war."
"Russia, after that," he then pointed out, "was slow to advance its strategic narrative to the West but also to inflict communication and psychological blows on the front itself, while this gave the necessary time to the development of "immunity" to Russian propaganda and when it managed to find ways to come back it was much more difficult to become believable."
He explained that "this had not been done in 2014, when the West was unprepared to manage Russia's systematic strategic communication and was slow to react, allowing the initial prevalence of Moscow's narratives and by extension the legitimization of its actions."
Noteworthy is the fact, as Dr. Aspriadis mentioned, that "the Crisis of Ukraine in 2014 carried out the first test of systematic and structured use of all available means of communication (media, Social Media, Rhetorical discourse of officials,) in order to destabilize the internal front of the opponent".
Aggressive strategic communication, information warfare, and psychological operations were used by the system of both sides, with the aim of forming perceptions of the opposing sides and legitimizing or delegitimizing their actions or those of those opponents.
He also noted that in 2014 the strategic communication between Russia and the West included specific rhetorical schemes, which we see repeated in the current context, such as the shifting of blame on both sides, while another framework of communication, which is strongly reused by both sides" is that of "propaganda", which in relation to 2014, it has been renamed 'disinformation'. "In this case, both parties seek to deconstruct the opponent's rhetoric and therefore try with the use of propaganda to spread the controversy and bring about the loss of trust in the respective audiences," he said.
At the same time, another aspect of strategic communication is the process of strategic image formation. Compared to the crisis of 2014, Dr. Aspriadis said that at that time "the prevailing image, as it was formed, through the rhetoric of President Barack Obama, was the image of the victim for Ukraine, while at the same time, the image of Russia was that of the imperialist, but without a strong mention."
"The difference with the crisis of 2014," as he explained, "was that the U.S. did not want direct involvement in the issue and for this reason its rhetoric was not strong, while on the contrary, at the current juncture the U.S. is leading the conflict and is Russia's main adversary, since strategic image formation was used to build deterrent power."
He also noted that "information warfare is taking place between opponents of equal rank in this field and attempts on two levels: One to shield the domestic front from the strategic narratives of the opponent, while in the other to (re)shape the perceptions on the enemy front", stressing that "success in this conflict may bring more crucial results even than the war itself".
-Communication strategy for the legalization of the intervention by the Kremlin
Regarding the Kremlin's communication strategy, Dr. Aspriadis said that "the strategic narratives used mainly by the Kremlin began before the war in order to legitimize the intervention, since one of the purposes of the use of strategic communication in international politics is the production of strategic narratives, which make sense of, but also attempt to legitimize, the actions of the state."
"These narratives," he explained, "were in the context of the Naziisation of Ukraine and the emergence of its leadership as Nazis, while the narrative of the violation of rights and the threat to the lives of the Russian-speaking inhabitants in the donbass areas was also mobilized."
He added that "another element that is of interest is the narrative that President Putin developed in his speech before the invasion, which involved 'correcting mistakes of the past'. He explained that "this was a new strategic narrative, which was not aimed at achieving international legitimacy but at creating a new doctrine that might determine Russia's foreign policy."
Another dimension of the Kremlin's communication strategy is the formation of its international image, in which social media and audiovisual communication play an important role. "Its image with the war, at least in the West, has acquired a particularly negative connotation, which is also reinforced by the political rhetoric of European leaders and the American President (cf. calling it a "war criminal" for Putin). The effort to reverse the image, both through video and through hashtags, is also made through the social media of the embassies, with a typical example being the attitude and the use made by the Russian Embassy in Greece", Dr. Aspriadis said.
Specifically, as he explained, "images are being promoted that reinforce Russia's narrative of the Naziisation of Ukraine, attempts are being made to overturn the narratives promoted by Ukraine and the West, through video-factsheets, etc."
"Also, another element", he added, "is the attacks that took place against Greece regarding the attitude of the country and political figures", explaining that "this effort is part of a structured process of shaping the image of Russia and the deconstruction of other countries, such as in this case Greece, which strongly expressed their support for Ukraine". He noted that "the deconstruction is based on challenging the narratives of the West by describing them simply as 'anti-Russian propaganda', so something that does not exist or is false." Therefore, those who follow them and embrace them are simply reproducing the lies."
He further stated that "usually, so far, attempts to deconstruct the image of opponents in conflicts of great powers have concerned the great powers involved themselves. We now see with the case of the Russian Embassy in Greece that for Russia each country plays a special role, and a small country, such as Greece, is treated in the same way in a communicative way as the USA. It's as if nothing is left to chance."
-Ukraine composed a narrative of heroism
Commenting on Kiev's communication strategy, Dr. Aspriadis said that "Ukraine has largely managed to find itself in the position of the victim"." He noted that "apart from the essence of the issue, that is, that it is a country in defence, fighting for its survival, the citizens of the country managed to mobilize the narrative of the weak, in relation to that of the fighter, which composes a narrative of heroism.
He also pointed out that "the widespread use of social media by citizens allowed beyond the easy channelling of messages the easier influence of Western public opinion", explaining that "the stories of the citizens' social media were considered by the citizens of the West to be unmediated and therefore real and perhaps free from any kind of propaganda". "This," he explained, "facilitated their assimilation and synthesized the victim's image of Ukraine," adding that "there may have been some within them that were the product of a strategic communication organized by the Ukrainian leadership, but within the general 'bombardment' of the messages they could not stand out."
He went on to say that "the trigger for this practice of course was given by the President of Ukraine himself, who had come out with the collaborators at the beginning to declare that he did not leave the country", explaining that "it was a critical juncture, not only for the strengthening of morale, but also for the strategy that the people had to follow as an act of resistance".
He argued in conclusion that "they may not all be soldiers and have weapons, but they all have a cell phone. But as the war progresses, things will get tough and the narratives may change. But the original image is not going to change easily once it has been assimilated."
- Social media, influencers and fake news
At this point, it is worth noting that in this war controversy momentous is the role, played by social media. With billions of people around the world accessing platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter and Instagram, they have in recent years become a powerful force for political and cultural influences, while removing intermediaries from the transfer of messages, images and meanings, they have become a tool for direct information, but also for cultivating propaganda to millions of people.
With the escalation of the crisis in Ukraine, millions of people turned to TikTok to learn in real time about what is happening there, which was not left untapped by the White House, after making sure to inform top TikTok stars about the united states' strategic goals in the region, using influencers and the popular platform to promote its communication goals. On the other hand, telegram emerges as a protagonist in the dissemination of videos, as it is allegedly used by a huge number of people in the wider region of eastern Europe and Russia.
Many argue that for the first time a war-torn conflict is like being broadcast live via social media by thousands of different private transponders. We may have seen something similar in previous years and on other occasions, since the contribution of social media to all sorts of movements, from the Arab Spring to the mobilizations in Eastern Europe, was characteristic, however, as Dr. Aspriadis argued, "social media plays in this conflict perhaps a bigger role than any other so far".
He added that "they are a means that has direct access to public opinion regardless of borders and this in itself makes them a powerful weapon in shaping the citizens' perspective." He added that "through social media, the strategic narrative is promoted, but at the same time various kinds of campaigns are set up, either of help or even of citizens' understanding for safe shelters in the cities that are under attack".
He also mentioned that "in addition to the battlefield there is also the 'hashtag war', where images, narratives or even exhortations rise. There is, on the one hand, the #boycottRussia, which calls for a boycott of companies that continue to operate in Russia, while on the other hand there is the #stophatingRussians, which came out recently and is an attempt to change the narrative of the Westerners about the negative feelings and the negative image of Russia. It was accompanied by relevant videos, which generally show that Russia is suffering a moral exclusion perhaps on the verge of racism. So we are again seeing Russia with Western models trying to change its negative narrative and marginalized image in the West."
It is also worth noting that a barrage of fake news has been underway since the beginning of the invasion, but we have seen several digital "imitations" being debunked in real time, with the actual material being verified by a team of trained researchers from newsrooms and various voluntary organisations.
Characteristic is the snapshot on a television link, where a journalist is seen with bodies behind him, while the video depicts a transnational protest against climate change.
Another hazy video, which has recorded 12 million views on TikTok and nearly a million views on Twitter, is supposed to show a Ukrainian girl facing a Russian soldier, when in fact, the video shows Palestinian Ahed Tamimi, then 11, facing an Israeli soldier after the arrest of her older brother, in 2012.
Another image, depicting two children saying goodbye to a group of the Ukrainian armed forces has won millions of likes and shares, but the image was old , since it was first published in 2016!
In conclusion, let's keep in mind that in the midst of a so-called information war, as in the middle of a land war, it is easy to make assessments very early and get carried away by simple narratives, while what seems to make sense now may not make sense tomorrow and the shots we see may be interpreted completely differently through someone else's eyes.
