Ukraine 'more prepared' for fight in the Donbas says Heappey
We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. More info
Following the first invasion of Ukraine, explained psychologist Dr Jon Roozenbeek of the University of Cambridge, news media in the “People’s Republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk in Donbas were forcibly taken over by Russian-backed insurgents. However, the mis-information expert added, their efforts to instil a pro-Russian sense of “identity” in the region were “lazy and half-baked”, dwindling to nothing within months. Accordingly, the lacklustre propaganda campaign likely had little effect on the consciousness of Russian-speaking Ukrainians in Donbas, Dr Roozenbeek has concluded.
In his study, Dr Jon Roozenbeek analysed more than 85,000 news articles published by 30 local and regional outlets across Donetsk and Luhansk between 2014–17.
Using a form of artificial intelligence called “natural language processing”, he charted patterns in the content, as manifested through the appearance of key words and phrases, in the wake of the first Russian invasion of Ukraine.
For example, one of the researcher’s focuses was on the notion of “Novorossiya” (literally: “New Russia”), a historical concept long trumpeted by Vladimir Putin.
The term, which dates back to the rule of the Catherine the Great (1762–1796), was used to refer to Donbas when it was temporarily part of Imperial Russia — and is used today by Putin and the People’s Republics to try to legitimise claims that the region belongs in Russia.
According to Dr Roozenbeek, 36 percent of coverage in print media in Donbas was devoted to identity-shaping propaganda.
Despite this, however, pro-Russian “news” in Donbas hardly mentioned the idea of Novorossiya at all, instead favouring the demonization of the Ukrainian government as fascists onto whom hostility should be focussed.
(Such a portrayal also underpins Putin’s assertions that the present invasion of Ukraine is necessary to “denazify” the country.)
This emphasis on what psychologists would call an “outgroup”, he said, left the propaganda efforts lacking the vital component of an “in-group” story — the “us” that would contrast against the “them” of the Ukrainian leadership in Kyiv.
Dr Roozenbeek said the “descriptions of an in-group identity that situated Donbas as part of the ‘Russian World’ were almost entirely absent from the region’s print media” — a pattern largely replicated in online media, who were even more ferocious in their attacks on the outgroup of the Ukraine government.
This, he argued, fundamentally compromised the goal of fostering lasting division.
Dr Roozenbeek added: “Eight years of Russian propaganda have failed to provide a convincing alternative to Ukrainian nationhood in eastern Ukraine.
“The invasion has been a strategic and logistical disaster.”
Among the key reasons for this, he said, are “the Kremlin’s decision to favour outgroup animosity over in-group identity building, and its vast overestimation of the extent to which its lies about non-existent Ukrainian ‘fascists’ promoted pro-Russian sentiment.”
The researcher noted he was able to identify a handful of stories covering “patriotic” cultural events organised by Luhansk’s Kremlin-owned leadership.
However, he explained, even here the in-group identity was “lazily assumed”, rather than something established by the texts themselves.
DON’T MISS:
EU in turmoil as Orban backs Putin with veto on energy ban [REPORT]
Energy crisis: UK opens North Sea taps to SLASH household bills [INSIGHT]
Pandemic horror: Climate change to cause 4000 new virus transmissions [ANALYSIS]
The most surprising part of this failure is the importance of constructing an ideology of “cultural sovereignty” in Donbas was in fact emphasised in Russian strategy.
A blueprint for propaganda in Donbas, which also called for an emphasis on Russia as a benevolent force for the region, was leaked to German newspapers back in 2016.
The scheme is widely believed to have been drawn up by “Putin’s puppet master”, the Kremlin’s former chief propagandist Vladislav Surkov.
Dr Roozenbeek said: “Despite the importance given to constructing identity and ideology after the Russian-backed takeover in Luhansk and Donetsk — including as directed by the Kremlin — very little in-group identity was promoted.
“What identity-building propaganda I could find in Donbas after 2014 was vague, poorly conceived, and quickly forgotten.
“Political attempts to invoke Novorossiya were cast aside by the summer of 2015, but such weak propaganda suggests they didn’t stand much chance anyway.”
“Putin has severely underestimated the strength of Ukrainian national identity, even in Donbas, and overestimated the power of his propaganda machine on the occupied areas of Ukraine.”
As Russia shifts its present-day war onto Donbas, however, Dr Roozenbeek has warned it may turn to spreading Novorossiya-style propaganda narratives in order to justify land seizures and atrocities of war as being actions supported by the local population.
The Cambridge mis-information expert has called for a pre-emptive global debunking of the notion both that ideological projects like ‘Novorossiya’ have deep roots in the region, or that the peoples of Donbas have ever themselves subscribed to these myths.
Else, Dr Roozenbeek said, such falsehoods may take hold in the West via those pundits, politicians and news outlets that tow the Kremlin line.
He concluded: “If the nonsense of Novorossiya or other half-baked ideological narratives start to spread in the West, it could end up being used to pressure Ukraine into relinquishing large swathes of its territory, as a drawn-out war in the Donbas causes the global community’s nerves to fray.”
The full findings of the study will be published in Dr Roozenbeek’s forthcoming book “Influence, Information and War in Ukraine”, which is being published by Cambridge University Press.
Source: Read Full Article
