The latest independent polling institute in Russia measures the feeling of Russians vis-à-vis the “special operation” in Ukraine, which has been underway for almost a year. Lev Gudkov explains how propaganda helped to consolidate the support of the people in power.
For the Russian sociologist Lev Goudkov, the propaganda articulated around the idea of a “Besieged Russia” allows the government to benefit from the broad support of the population, in the context of the war in Ukraine. Censorship and the lack of will to inform oneself would also contribute to this. Lev Gudkov is one of the best public opinion experts in Russia. At 76, this sociologist is the scientific director of the Levada Center. Class “foreign agent” by power, the last independent polling institute in Russia nevertheless continues to produce studies on Russian society.
franceinfo: The latest poll you published shows that nearly 75% of Russians support power and the war in Ukraine. This proportion has hardly changed since the beginning of the conflict. How to explain such a level of approval?
Lev Gudkov: It should be understood that currently in Russia, a very demagogic and aggressive propaganda has been implemented. Combined with almost total censorship, this helps to freeze positioning. The only change is that, month by month, it becomes more and more obvious that the war will go on forever. Today, most people think it will last another year or even longer. Support for both Putin’s policies and the war in Ukraine is especially strong among people over 50. This is particularly true among the poor, destitute, uneducated and dependent on the state. This is the typical television audience, and, moreover, in our studies, they repeat what is said on television. Anti-war sentiment is more widespread among young people – even if it is not the majority – 38% do not approve of it. But it’s only 9% among retirees.
Are these strata of the population therefore the most sensitive to the arguments of state propaganda?
Propaganda does not create new perceptions. Its effectiveness is linked to the fact that it has its roots in notions that were formed a very long time ago. At the time of Stalin sometimes. For example, the justification for the invasion of Ukraine is constructed in exactly the same way as the justification for the war with Finland in 1939. The threat from little Finland required ensuring the security of the country and, by consequently, to push back the frontier. We hear the same things: “the country is in a hostile environment”, “the country is a besieged fortress”, “this eternal russophobia of the West towards Russia”… Therefore, today it is very difficult to speak of any understanding of the aims of this war in the mass consciousness. The motives for “denazification” or demilitarization of Ukraine have faded into the background. The main motive today is the war against the collective West, the threat of the West, NATO, the United States and others.
Do these notions consolidate the population’s support for power?
Yes. That’s what strikes me the most. I thought the reaction to the war would be much more negative. At least for the sake of self-preservation in a context of inflation, falling real incomes, fear of unemployment and when certain shortages appear. The deterioration of the material situation of the Russians was supposed to create a reaction of rejection of war and power. However, the exact opposite is happening.
>> To read also: “We are proud of our army”: does the Russian population really support the war in Ukraine?
The internal mechanisms of conformist agreement with the authorities even work independently of the propaganda, simply to relieve the psychological discomfort that the situation represents. 270 media, among the most popular, were blocked. And even if it is possible to circumvent these blockages thanks to VPNs [réseaux privés virtuels, qui “anonymisent” les connexions], the vast majority of people don’t and don’t want to. They try to stay in a psychologically comfortable position of the type: “I don’t know anything, don’t say unpleasant things to me”. We can say that it is a form of protection. A distance from events. There is clearly in these people an inability to evaluate things from a moral point of view, an absence of empathy for Ukrainians, and this is expressed in this refusal of any alternative interpretation of events.