Ukraine has the edge in the information war

[luzribeiro]

The world peace is at the mercy of a megalomanic madman. That's what we keep hearing these days. And this makes me ponder, why do wars often start at the whim of specific individuals, in this case Vladimir Putin?

See, I never agreed with the argument that we as humans are biologically destined to start wars and conflicts, because if we just fight each other, it's not a war. Having a brawl in front of a bar is just violence, not war. War is organized violence against another organized group. I think people start wars because they want something. The reason is greed, as seen in Putin - he wants Ukraine. The other reason is fear. Ukrainians are at war because they have no choice. Then the ideological motivations are also part of the equation, and these often overlap with the economic ones (i.e. one's values and principles are dictated by their material interests).

In Putin's case, it seems his motivation stems from some weird form of Russian nationalism. People have fought for their religion or ideology in the past more times than we could count. But very often it takes just one person to make the decision: "Yes, we are going to war." In democracies, the prime minister cannot simply tell the people that they are going to war. The decision must go through parliament, and it would be foolish for a leader of a democracy to lead his people to war if the people do not want it. It still happens apparently, but it's much harder to sell it.

But in an autocracy like Russia, where Putin has, I wouldn't say complete control, but he controls all state institutions - parliament is just a rubber stamp of his decisions. Nothing within the state apparatus matters, it's all his decision, period. I believe this is Putin's war. Like World War II, which was Hitler's war. And yet, Hitler was still able to sell his agenda to an entire nation, and Putin seems to be able to do the same with his nation too.

So what about the battle of different narratives on the social networks and in the media in general? Well, there has always been a battle of narratives whenever there's a conflict. Propaganda has always been very important in war. If we look at ancient Rome, the columns that were erected, the faces of the emperors that were put on coins - these are all sorts of ways to demonstrate the greatness of an empire.

Napoleon was also aware of the importance of propaganda. All the paintings showing him riding horses in the Alps or on the battlefield have been widely distributed and used to prove his authority and intimidate his enemies.

Propaganda is a way to use information to undermine the authority of the enemy, to win over hearts and minds. It has always been part of war. The methods of propaganda is what changes with the development of technology, but the bottom line remains the same. During the First World War, both sides dropped leaflets from planes on top of each other or fired shells at them. During World War II, they used the radio to reach the other side. And now the social media has become a way to weaken the enemy and unite your people.

So far, I think the Ukrainians are undoubtedly winning the information war. Everyone believes in their side of the story, even in Russia. For example, they used the videos of captured Russian soldiers addressing their mothers very efficiently. Take Facebook, where they've showed Russian families that their sons are safe. In comparison, the Russian narrative seems more and more insane at this point. Everyone in the Ukrainian government is drug addicts? Everyone in Ukraine is Nazi? Russia has invadad Ukraine to stop it from acquiring nuclear weapons? Really!? Are we so quick to forget that Ukraine voluntarily renounced nuclear weapons in the 1990s?

And lastly. How much influence can celebrities have on the behavior of warring states? I'd say very little while the war is going on. They can influence countries that pursue policies that the rest of the world disagrees with. During the apartheid, a sports boycott took place on South Africa, which really had an impact on South Africans, especially those for whom sport is very important, which is to say many people in South Africa. Those taking part of such boycotts in public are left with the feeling that they are helping in some way with their gesture. But will such actions succeed in forcing the Russian authorities to rethink their actions? Very unlikely.

Comments

[garote]

I don't know how to judge winners in something as messy as a propaganda war in this internet age...

Just about everyone in the West was ready to believe that anything Russia did beyond its borders was for self-serving cynical reasons, whether below the surface or right out in the open. We were all ready to believe information coming from Ukrainian officials and dismiss information coming from Russian ones, and it helps that this information fits our existing narrative. Is Ukraine winning because of their efforts, or because they have the far easier task of telling us what we are hungry to hear? How could Russia win, in our judgement, except publicly declaring that we (the West) were right all along and that our demands are all valid? Turn around, hastily exit Ukraine, give them a pile of money to rebuild infrastructure, and divest themselves of their own weapons. That level of emasculation is absolutely not going to happen. Putin would rather insert his literal dick into a literal cigar cutter.

Some of the moves the West is making are sensible: Targeted bans, seizures of oligarchs' property, propaganda. Most of the ground-level bans and boycotts, however, are little more than virtue-signaling, and are probably doing pointless harm. Do people think the point is to bring pain directly to the Russian people themselves, with the intent of somehow flogging them into rising up and stopping their own government from invading a foreign country? How different is that from trying to fight cancer by forcing the doctor to take chemotherapy?

And on the other topic: Sure, it appears to just take the whim of one dictator to initiate a war. But it also takes an entire political and economic apparatus beneath that leader to enable such whims -- or to prompt them, due to pressure from other players. Russia has a hungry military industrial complex similar to that of America. When America plunged into Iraq and Afghanistan, it was the political elite that formed the tip of the spear, but the military representatives farther down in the ranks that clamored for funds and hardware and turned an ill-fated strike from a carrier at sea (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!) into the farcical land war that we all remember dragging on for years.

So picture this: Putin's army of internet trolls foments revolution in Eastern Ukraine, finding fertile soil for it. People in his circle sense a chance to exploit jingoism for a boost in the polls, or a chance to divide and conquer a bordering country, or a lot of sweet money to be made calling for artillery, or just the chance to kick the Ukraine polity in the nuts for having the gall to exist. They tell him it's a good idea; they tell him it's destiny.

What else is he gonna do but authorize it? He's in the commander's seat, yeah, but it doesn't have very many controls installed. What's he got? Issue jingoistic press statement, prepare for war, invade country, arrest dissenters, weaken enemies with information warfare (lies, fraud), ... This is the sort of apparatus you get inside a cult. And in this one, the leader is ailing.

There is no lever for peace talks, none for fair elections, none for free speech. There is definitely no lever for restricting the wealthy families that control the economy of the country, let alone policing their corruption. In a country where macho image is a prerequisite for grasping power, these are losing moves. This is the seat he constructed for himself: The only shape that would fit on top of the dazed, cynical, long-suffering Russian state, with the only levers he can pull that won't quickly eject or kill him.

Right now I'm wondering what the next chapter is going to look like. Here's my take:

Russia will blast Ukraine into powder, extract some concession like "we won't join NATO and those new republics are not part of Ukraine", then pull back into the republics, leaving them bristling with hardware for years. The Russian economy will burn low for a long while during which they will be at the mercy of the Chinese and whatever belt-and-road-style economic devil's bargain they care to name. Animosity between Europe and Russia, the US and Russia, will remain high for a decade, accomplishing nothing.

Ukraine will remain a depopulated ruin for at least that long. The EU will turn up its nose, sensing another debtor country like Greece. Putin will die or ""step down"" in something like five years, probably less, and his replacement will try and turn the page with the West, but without internal reforms the hands that are extended will all be those of the same old oligarchs and the Russian people will continue to be screwed for another generation, continue to be susceptible to jingoism and propaganda, and will lean even harder into the Chinese philosophy of governance: Not a government of, by, and for the people, but a people of, by, and for the government (by swordpoint if necessary).

[asthfghl]

Unless Vlad just presses that red button.

[garote]

The only thing we can be sure of then is KABLOOIE!!!

[oportet]

Our propaganda here seems a little over the top - if the point was to make the war seem surreal they have succeeded.

It's creepy, the selling and buying of it.