The US-based Time Magazine has named Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the “Spirit of Ukraine” as the “Person of the Year” for 2022 for proving that “courage can be as contagious as fear, for stirring people and nations to come together in defence of freedom, for reminding the world of the fragility of democracy — and of peace.” In the context of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war which has become the most “informationised war” of recent times, this recognition needs examination.
As the character of warfare has been evolving and humankind has entered the fifth generation of warfare, battle spaces have surpassed conventional domains and entered the cognitive domain. Therefore, information is among the most powerful weapons that turn wars on either side. This has been most visible in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war. Given the scale of media coverage, it is among the most widely covered wars in human history. However, along with the dispersal of information, disinformation is being spread at a wide scale as well. Starting with the Russian propaganda machinery to the retaliatory Ukrainian information war, this war in the information domain has been much discussed. What has not been discussed, however, is the role of the United States of America in this war.
Tracing the US’ role, one notices that, unlike popular perception, the information warfare began neither with the Russian propaganda nor by the Ukrainian and combined Western response. The war, in fact, started with American pre-emptive efforts at setting a narrative in late 2021, much before the invasion even began. This role may be divided into three phases — the pre-emptive; the defensive; and the offensive. In terms of pre-emptive, The Washington Post released a map on 3 December 2021 depicting the positions of the Russian troops deployed at Ukrainian borders warning of a possible Russian invasion. The map was a US Intelligence map that was released in the media by the agencies. This created ripples throughout the world and most probably robbed the Russian invasion of the surprise element through an unexpected invasion. The President himself went on to refer to Putin as a man who wishes to “invade a country for no reason.”
With this, even before Moscow could justify its invasion, an anti-Moscow narrative had been floated. A similar tactic was used in the case of warning against probable Russian use of chemical weapons as well as China supplying ammunition to the Russians. Both these turned out to be untrue. However, security experts believe that this weaponisation of information was indeed instrumental in deterring the Russians to engage in similar acts. This tactic is being termed as “downgrade and share” — downgrading the intelligence so that no assets and sources are harmed and sharing it thereafter, regardless of the fact that they are true or not.
In terms of defence, the Americans have been blocking Russian access to social media platforms through the big techs that are essentially American. Instances of the same are galore — Meta has tweaked its algorithm to limit engagement of pro-Russia content; the use of phrases like “death to Russian soldiers” and “death to Putin” are no more restricted under the hate speech policy of the platform; similar restrictions have been placed on Twitter and YouTube.
In terms of offensive, the US has been vigorously using its media to keep the global narrative turning against Moscow. Individuals associated with the US Military Academy have shared toolkits on Twitter guiding Ukrainians and others to follow and ace the war on social media. The Washington Post and The New York Times have been circulating a single narrative (referring to heavily connoted terms like the “Ukrainian Resistance”) and the impact is quite prominent. Moreover, the provision of technical assistance to Ukraine in ensuring an upper hand in this domain has been openly called for among US military circles.
All that said, the fact remains that the US is not directly involving itself in this war, and only playing a “mentorship” role at best. Every act of the US is largely supportive and at best a disruptive act — much below the threshold of a direct confrontation. However, this has far-shadowed the fact that in the most “informationised war” in recent history, the role of the US by no means is a passive one. The US is an active forerunner in this ongoing war in the information domain.
Tejusvi Shukla is an independent security analyst. She has served as a Research Assistant with the Centre for Land Warfare Studies between May 2019 and November 2020. She has also previously interned at the Manohar Parrikar Institute of Defense and Strategic Analyses. Views expressed are personal.
Read all the Latest Opinions here
Comments
0 comment