Thank you @SAGE_Publishing and @LawDavF for a brilliant lecture and evening discussing the Russian invasion of Ukraine and where we now stand.
I was very struck by @LawDavF opening point, which was that Russian hybrid war (which he defined as a synergy of different approaches where each element is more effective in combination than it would be in isolation) had been much less effective than expected.
In the context of information war (which is a significant part of hybrid war), I think this is unsurprising. Underlying narratives matter more than facts or lies.
The Russian war narrative (Ukraine is a fascist state, an artificial creation, and NATO is an aggressive, expansionist power) was weak and did not travel well outside of the country.
In contrast, Ukraine had an incredibly powerful narrative - a democracy, aspirant EU member, invaded by its larger autocratic neighbour. Indeed the narrative was so powerful, in the early weeks of the war, it created popular support for Ukraine across much of the West.
Narratives are simplifications and one of the interesting questions is how sustainable this very successful narrative is in the long term? This is especially true if Ukraine and its network of allies become symbolic of a wider ideology of liberalism / anti-authoritarianism.
Wars involve compromises which don’t lend themselves to ideological purity. Britain, for example, is casting itself as a defender of Ukrainian freedom. At the same time, it is approaching to Mid East autocratic regimes asking for more oil.
bbc.com/news/uk-politics-60754163
These contradictions matter because they have the potential to chip away at narrative.
And if the narrative decays, it could well open up new possibilities for misinformation in the future.
Nick Anstead
@NickAnstead
Assoc Prof working on political communication & political ideas @MediaLSE. Also 🧵 nickanstead.
