By Aadi Achint
The war in Ukraine is a ‘hybrid’ war. This means that alongside all the traditional military firepower, we see in action every imaginable form of propaganda, information, and disinformation, misinformation overt and covert, aimed at domestic and international audiences. Internal conflicts and wars between neighbouring countries do not suddenly break out from a vacuum, as it can be seen in Ethiopia, Ukraine or India and Pakistan, which is an ongoing crisis. They are often the results of ongoing tensions deeply rooted in history or in conflicting and even aggressive narratives.
In the case of Ukraine, the start point of the discussion seems to be premised to start on 24th Feb 2022, the day of the invasion. The active narratives from both ends since the Maidan 2014 do not seem to see the light of day in today’s recourse. The start of the conflict and the positioning of the two opponents with their own reasons for actions have been controlled mostly by the western media. We saw each country place their story in front of the world with a large backing for the Ukrainian narrative given by the MSM as well as on social media. It seemed like a barrage of content that flowed out into the airwaves which made it difficult for a consumer to make a balanced judgment. This was further extended by a ban on Russian media especially in parts of Europe and the US. The war of narratives at the beginning was left to be a one sided affair. This situation might seem favourable, but as time flows by a different picture emerges.
In 2014, Ukraine and its allies, to showcase the anti Russia sentiment created a slogan “Heaven Admits No Slaves, Glory to the Heroes”. This roughly translated Cossack call to arms became the rallying cry for the Maidan protesters. We saw this emerging into a huge branding opportunity by manufacturers and peddlers of useless collectables like mugs, t-shirts, flags, pin ups etc.. We see a great example of this today with the added flag on the online profile, a change with the “e” era that we live in today.
Russians are the aggressor in this “war” as they were the ones who “invaded”. Something that we have heard countless times from our favourite news channels, as well as from the highest authorities within countries, supporting Ukraine. Control over the social media and a strict control over MSM have erased happenings six-eight months prior to the 24th Feb rather aggressively, where we saw people being shadow banned or removed from online platforms upon referring to the “other” side of the story. It seemed like a cabal of resources were allocated to analyse, identify and target followed by a tag “Putin Propagandist” or “Russia baiter” which is quickly attached to the concerned. Rarely we find a discussion wherein the presentation of the European security framework given by Russia to its colleagues in the West and the following discussions took place between Joe Biden, President of the United States, as well as Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia.
There are certain events that will help throw some light on how a narrative battle goes sideways, when a realisation of complete control of the said narrative happens to any side. The understanding of counterbalancing as well as carrying on with a narrative established is sometimes forgotten with the oncoming of a fresher, more juicer narrative. We see certain narratives like the Ghost of Kiev and the Bucha massacre which pretty much vanished from the discourse as time went by. This leads one to question the base apart from a factual analysis of these incidents. We also saw a report by Amnesty International that mentioned Ukrainian soldiers using civilians as human shields, which had to be withdrawn as it did not fit the popular discourse of events. The recrimination on these western backed organisations was huge and people had to resign. It has today come to a point where a criticism of Ukraine has now become acrimonious. A mention of peace or negotiations could bring about government backed investigations and hatred. Just ask Elon Musk.
The major narrative against Russia from the European states is the dream of Russia to reestablish a Soviet style empire by amalgamating eastern Europe into its boundaries. This we have heard to be the justification of the levels of help and support towards the Ukrainians in “defending” Europe. In the same breath we also hear that the Russian army is useless and cannot fight, they are running out of missiles and so on.. It makes one wonder whether there is a thought process behind speeches and statements made by leaders of the collective west or an over-confidence of the tight control over MSM and social media.
Complete control of the sources of “NEWS” makes one side believe that any statement made would be the gospel truth and would be taken by word in the great cause of Ukraine. Taking a loose tongue syndrome further one also saw the Ukrainian President change his statements regarding his request to NATO countries for a preemptive nuclear strike on Russia along with his signing of membership papers for NATO which were both, with embarrassment, had to be pushed away.
The saddest part of a high focus on influencing the world, playing on critical crises like food shortages in various parts of the world. The Ukrainian wheat which was touted to be saving countries in Africa and other poorer nations has made its way to European nations more than it reached the critical countries. This narrative was created to put pressure on Russia, but the end result would again show a shameful selfishness shown by the collective west on the similar lines as the hoarding of vaccines during COVID.
Another big narrative in the US is about Trump’s election. Here, the accusation about Russians having “influenced” the election by using west based social media amongst other tools. When we analyse the events today we must ask, if the Russians were so entrenched within the western system how is it that in all this time especially with “Russian Friend” Trump being in office, the Russians could not get the Ukraine narrative to favour them?
The Russians on their part have shown a complete lack of understanding of a global narrative and were found willfully short of being able to communicate their version to the world. Interestingly, the Russian story has been promoted more by western analysts than Russia itself. Their terming the Ukrainian Operations as a “Special Military Operation” and internal control over the use of the word “War” is an example of the Russians trying to build up a narrative for its own people. Although most Russians are patriotic and apolitical in nature, they still have a large population that does not believe what their government is saying. This is clearly established by the escapees post the announcement of the Partial Mobilisation. Having mentioned that, the west forgot a core value of Russian culture, history is an inextricable part of Russian national identity, attacking Russia’s version of it constitutes an attack on all Russia. This is a belief system on which the Russian society is based and agreeably so considering their losses during World War 2.
The question about the global south, not supporting Ukraine, in its effort with the aggressor has been attributed to Russian influence, especially India, China, Africa, and Southeast Asia as well. Today this propaganda, as per the west, extends to the Middle East looking at the growing rift between the US and Saudi Arabia. It is a wonder that no one till now has asked a simple question: are Ukrainian lives more valuable than the lives of people in other countries in the world, fighting wars, like Syria, Iraq, Ethiopia or others fighting for survival in Afghanistan, Myanmar, Pakistan etc.. The Global South who lives in a neighbourhood of these created crises is well aware of this style of the Collective West and has at this time decided to put an end to their muted responses.
The funniest and the most dangerous of them all was a narrative that Russians were shelling the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power plant when they have been in possession of the said plant since early in the war. The dangerous actions of shelling conducted by Ukraine risked the safety of a large part of Europe, but was allowed to happen as it put pressure on the Russians.
In Ukraine, in July the country’s ombudsperson for human rights, Lyudmyla Denisova, was removed from her post and accused of having neglected her duties. The accusation against her was of having focused too much on media work and on describing sexually motivated crimes in gratuitous detail to the media. However, some of these accounts had not been verified, which harmed Ukraine’s reputation and distracted media attention from other, proven crimes and problems. This was stated by the deputy chairman of the parliament regulatory committee in Ukraine, Pavlo Frolov.
The trouble with the Ukrainian narrative is that it does not allow questioning of facts or incidents. It is always portrayed that the Ukrainians are victims of aggression and were living a peaceful democratic life prior to this invasion. Those who are familiar with history or followed the same western media’s coverage of the major problems in Ukraine like far-right groups, continuous fighting in Donbas would be a bit more realistic in their approach.
To conclude, a constant western subtle push of the Ukrainian state into believing that they could become a part of NATO has been termed as the freedom of any sovereign nation. While knowing the answer to the question of Ukraine joining NATO, one has to wonder, is it we who are the victims of a narrative war or the people of Ukraine who are fighting and dying for the cause of being a part of a western alliance when the west itself does not want them.
Author is a geopolitical analyst at DEF Talks. You can read and hear him speak at www.thedeftalks.com
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of Financial Express Online. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.