How does Russia manage its communication on the war in Ukraine within its borders?
In Russia, the power presents this conflict as a “special military operation” which would be a peacekeeping operation to respond to the need to “denazify” Ukraine. This narrative is first constructed to legitimize the conflict with the domestic population, this takes precedence over perception abroad. The way in which the Second World War is re-exploited shows this quite well. The great victory of 1945 is sacred in Russia. It is a very patriotic story that can infuse a large part of Russian opinion.
Did the Russian press play a relay role?
There is a very strong focus on what is happening in eastern Ukraine, in the Donbass, thanks to the Russian media. They over-mediatize the events in the Donbass and the Ukrainian strikes which reach it, while muting what can happen elsewhere in the country. What is interesting is the way everything is extrapolated. The discourse on denazification and on the presence of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists is very interesting: you have neo-Nazi and ultra-nationalist battalions in Ukraine which have a certain importance, but by an extrapolation effect, each Ukrainian is presented as a neo-Nazi.
What strategy has Russia chosen to retaliate in the field of information abroad?
The fact that Ukraine won the image battle, by creating empathy, does not mean that Russia lost the information war. We can clearly see how the Russian state appropriates practices widespread among Westerners, such as “fact-checking”. Instead of answering on the merits, they will criticize and denigrate the opponent’s arguments. With the “War on fakes” site, the Russian Foreign Ministry is trying to incorporate this practice of “verifying” information into its propaganda effort. The example of the maternity hospital in Mariupol, presented as a “staging” is very telling, even if it betrays the very principle of fact checking.
Does this strategy have an impact on how the West perceives the conflict?
The way Russia has brandished the threat of nuclear weapons, or the fact that Washington reacts to accusations of financing alleged biological weapons in Ukraine, shows that their strategy is hitting the target. Moscow seeks to arouse their fear rather than the adhesion of Westerners. This is a fairly common practice in Russian influence devices.
What surprises you the most in this war communication?
What is new is the much more aggressive tone of Russian embassies abroad, via their Twitter or Telegram accounts. Russian “digital diplomacy” is moving away from the diplomatic language that we have known so far, to use a more offensive vocabulary. This virulent way of communicating was before the prerogative of Trumpism, of polemical and propagandist figures. Now Russian diplomats are grabbing it, as the Chinese did before them.