2022: The Year of Isolation and Information Warfare

The impact of confrontation in the information space on the average information consumer is one of the least studied “side effects” of any world battle. Today, as in the era of World War II, the global importance of propaganda and misinformation should not be underestimated.

The Russian aggression against Ukraine in February 2022 revealed an interesting detail – the Russian Federation proved to be the least prepared for war in the information space. Apparently, the Russian leadership really staked on primitive military force. It turned out to be a strategic mistake. Kiev did not capitulate after two weeks (and even after two months), and the Zelensky government did not surrender or flee the Ukrainian capital. Ukrainian (and Western) society in general, previously over-politicized and divided into “war” and “peace” parties, found itself consolidated in the face of Putin’s aggression. Russia has learned a harsh lesson. The Russian elites and ordinary citizens, as further events have shown, were not prepared for this lesson at all.

In terms of information strategies, in 2022 there was a global “disconnect” between people, countries, brands, and information consumers. This also includes the destruction of previous patterns of human behavior and interpersonal communications.

The military conflict left its mark on the perception and circulation of information, the formation of opinions and people’s behavior. The communication sphere during the conflict has undergone a comprehensive functional test — in terms of meanings, tone of messages, channels of information and trust in sources.

The most important effect is isolation. Military conflict has a complex effect — it strengthens intragroup identity and fear of isolation, reduces tolerance for others and tolerance for doubts within one’s group. Perception of information becomes more subjective — decisions and assessments are often formed not on the basis of arguments, but on markers of proximity to the opinion of others. Sensitivity to context, nuances, alternative opinions and assessments decreases.

In a situation of polarization and low tolerance, the so-called echo-chamber effect emerges: previously accepted beliefs are reinforced because they are constantly repeated by the state and social media (when an echo effect occurs), while there is no inflow of new ideas. It is worth noting that the algorithms of social networks, especially Facebook and YouTube, play a huge role in this. People are trapped in their own stereotypes and emotional assessments, amplified many times by artificial intelligence offering content “based on your preferences.” Seriously, when sometimes I see a comment under my article with the advice “you can google…” (and followed by a long lecture about exactly what I should google), I stop. Humans should have their own position based on a conscious choice of information, not on the choice of a ready-made opinion offered by a machine. At least as long as humanity has not destroyed libraries and books, this choice exists.

Being in a “circle” where a certain position seems to dominate, one is afraid to voice one’s doubts. The choice of sources of information is also subject to the principle of isolation.

However, quite often I get comments like, “I don’t trust any source of information; “I don’t trust the media in the United States.” This shows that the media and social media’s capacity for indoctrination is limited. Indoctrination of citizens works well during periods of mobilization, consolidation of society, but no mobilization can last forever. The “partial mobilization” announced in the Russian Federation is perhaps a rare exception. And even in this case, indoctrination does not work, coming into contradiction with bitter reality.

A communicative feature of the current conflict is the mutual deprivation of subjectivity. The rhetoric acquires a moral connotation, and the opponent is described as a person without an independent position or deprived of morality — deceived or bribed. The consequence of the strategy of shaming is constant escalation, as attacks are perceived as aggression and further unify the group. Moreover, without full-fledged reconstruction of the opponent’s position, it is simply impossible to negotiate with the opposite side.

The expert position acquires a special character. Those endowed with expert status often also ride the waves of emotional solidarization. Forecasts and assessments follow the attitude towards the situation. In the Russian Federation this tendency was noticeable long before February 24, 2022. For the last 15–20 years, experts working for the government have been repeating the same narratives that are pleasing to the ears of the authorities and lull the authorities into a state of suspicion. This went on for years. The truth came out after the start of the “special military operation” in Ukraine, which revealed the colossal incompetence of Russian politicians, military officers, diplomats and special services. It turned out that the army, as an organized military force equipped with modern weapons, was an informational myth. It existed only in the reports of the military to the top leadership and presentations of military exercises and new weapons models. The reality was far more brutal and prosaic. A whole series of euphemisms appeared in the information space to describe Putin’s military defeats in the summer and fall of 2022: regrouping, a goodwill gesture, and redeployment to more comfortable positions. The crisis of trust in official information was the main consequence of the authorities’ failed attempts to explain what was happening.

This is noticeable on both the elite and mass levels. Elites are completely absorbed in strategies of self-survival and self-preservation. Today they are more consolidated than ever, all the most moderate “opponents” of the special operation have long since left the country.

Russian society is at a loss: the population is ready to support any decision of the president, be it a military escalation or a peace negotiation.

In a situation of uncertainty and risk, people need, on the one hand, to understand what is happening and, on the other, to communicate and be close to their “inner circle.” This creates an ideal breeding ground for the spread of rumors and fake news, especially if official communications leave gaps.

Finally, there is the paradox of the scarcity of information in the midst of its abundance. Most news today is NOT news, in the sense that it does not answer the most important questions. As was the case during the pandemic — it is not clear when it will all end and what needs to be done today.

The general public has a need for official trustworthy information. But it is not entirely trustworthy, because it is clear that the situation is volatile and no one can predict the challenges of tomorrow with any certainty. Moreover, distrust has been accumulated since the pandemic due to contradictions and a lack of clear answers from the authorities. Each new message increases entropy and doubt.

To give no answer and to hesitate means to cause bewilderment. To give answers is to risk making mistakes and losing trust in the future. The cancellation of Vladimir Putin’s big press conference in 2022 was mainly due to this factor. The main challenge for a politician is how to speak to an audience amidst uncertainty.

There is a growing gap between what is broadcast in unofficial channels and what is reported in official ones. This creates a sense of closed information.

“The truth is being hidden from us,” the average information consumer often complains today. In the context of information warfare, this is not far from reality.

Thank you for reading. If you want to get unlimited access to everything on Medium then click here to become a member. You will directly support my writing signing up through my link.