Social Networks Impose Their Narrative

By Ignacio Ramonet on March 21, 2022

What new geopolitical world are we in? What planetary consequences is the war in Ukraine having? What is China doing? What is happening with the information and lies about this conflict? What is happening, in particular, with the functioning of the social networks that appeared as the great democratizing platforms to access better quality information?

The war in Ukraine, which started last February 24, is just beginning. And when a war starts, as is well known, a media story full of disinformation starts, whose objective is to seduce souls and capture feelings in order to win hearts and captivate minds. It is not about informing. It is about being objective. Each side will try to impose – based on propaganda and all sorts of narrative manipulations – its own chronicle of the facts, and to discredit the version of the adversary.

What is happening with all the lies ^[1] that both sides are spreading about the Ukrainian conflict is not very different from what we have already seen in other wars. It is the usual war hysteria in the media, the proliferation of lies, of fake news, of post-truths, of intoxications, of manipulations. The conversion of information into propaganda is widely known and studied, particularly in the conflicts of the last fifty years. Perhaps already with the Vietnam War, in the 1960s and 1970s, the zenith of sophistication in terms of audiovisual lies and media manipulations was reached.

Today, with the war in Ukraine, the mass media, in particular the major television channels, have again been enlisted – or have voluntarily enlisted – as another combatant or militant in the battle. Here, where we are, they are fighting – and not reporting – essentially in favor of what we might call the Western position.

However, within this propagandistic normality, we are witnessing a new phenomenon. Because, for the first time in the history of information, on the front line of the media front, social networks are involved.

Until now, in times of war, the networks have not had the same importance. What was the last conflict of this magnitude in the world? Actually, since 1945, the end of the Second World War or since the Korean War in the early 1950s, there has not been a military conflagration of dimensions similar to the one in Ukraine? There have certainly been major conflicts such as the Algerian War, the Vietnam War, the Angolan War, the war in Lebanon, the Gulf War, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Serbia, the war in Libya, the war against terrorism after September 11, 2001 and the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York. All these conflicts have been colossal, appalling. There is no doubt about it. But social networks did not exist then.

Today, citizens are not only confronted with the collective and permanent war hysteria of the big traditional media, with their uniform choral discourse (and in uniform), but all this now reaches them on their phones, on their tablets, on their pocket computers. It is no longer only journalists but also our friends, our relatives, our best friends who also contribute, through their messages on the networks, to amplify this incessant choral of unique discourse. This is a new emotional dimension, a new front of the communicational battle that did not exist until now in times of war.

For example, the assault on the Capitol on January 6, 2021 in Washington – which was an attempted coup d’état – was an event of the first magnitude from a political point of view. But not military. And that attack was the result of a major prior confrontation on social networks. In which the conspiracy fanatics loyal to Donald Trump managed to impose the thesis of an electoral fraud that never existed. There was a heated frontal battle, on the networks, for the control of the narrative. A digital confrontation of great magnitude to misinform, to try to impose a false complotters truth and to hide the reality of the ballot boxes. There, the networks were decisive.

But in a military conflict of these dimensions, until now, the networks had not played a leading role? They are having it in this Ukrainian war for the first time in the history of information. Also, for the first time, there is this decision by Google to remove “adversary” media such as Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik from the platform. While Facebook and Instagram declare that they will tolerate “hate messages” against Russians ^[2]. And Twitter made a decision to “warn” about any ads that spread news from Moscow-affiliated media, and significantly reduced the circulation of such content ^[3]. Something Twitter does not do on the other side with those who support Ukraine and NATO. This has never happened before. Putting in evidence the hypocrisy about the supposed freedom of expression and the neutrality of the networks.

All this confirms that if the Ukrainian conflict is a local war in the sense that the theater of operations is located on a precise geographical territory, it is otherwise a global war, worldwide, in particular because of its digital, communicational and media consequences. On these fronts, Washington, as in the era of McCarthyism and the “witch hunt”, has enlisted the new players of international geopolitics, i.e. the mega-companies of the digital universe: the GAFAMs (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft). These hyper-companies – whose stock market value is greater than the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of many states in the world – have withdrawn from Russia and voluntarily enlisted in this war against Moscow.

This is new. Until now we knew the partisan and militant attitude of the major media which, in the event of a conflict, aligned themselves with one of the belligerents and abandoned all critical sense in order to commit themselves unilaterally and defend the arguments of only one of the powers present. What is new is that, for the first time, social networks are now doing the same thing. Which confirms that the real dominant media today are the social networks.

By definition, networks are not made to inform, they are made to excite. Evidently, many quality texts, testimonies, analyses, reports, circulate on the networks. The networks take up many excellent documentaries, videos, articles from the press and the existing media. But the way of consuming content on the networks (although each one has its specificity) is not to spend time reading or watching the entirety of the documents one receives. The networks are made above all to act? The citizen who uses the networks wants to share or adhere by liking. What the Internet user likes is to communicate, to transmit, to spread. The network, in reality, works like a chain. Each user feels he is a link, with the mission to express himself, to connect, to forward, to send, to pass on, to have an impact.

What circulates the most and has the greatest influence on some networks (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) are memes, that is, a kind of droplets, haikus, very small, very synthetic, very caricatured summaries of a topic. This is what is most shared. Memes work as if the information in the written press were reduced only to the titles of the articles, and there was no need to read them. Each of us can make the experience; post on your favorite network the best text, the most complete, most intelligent and honest video you can find on the Ukrainian crisis, and you will see that, at most, you can get a few tens of likes? But if you post a good, effective and original meme, which, due to its creativity, arouses both laughter and surprise, its transmission speed will be impressive. If we talk about viral diffusion, it is not by chance.

This compulsive desire to adhere and to share is what makes the networks succeed in massively spreading a general feeling, a dominant interpretation on any subject. This feeling is the one that, little by little, manages to impose itself on a whole part of society. This is one of the big differences between the networks and the media.

The consequences of this war are already being felt all over the world. No country, no matter how far away, is safe from its effects and consequences. Not only in the media. In principle, it is a confrontation between two powers -one big, one medium- which is taking place, as we said, in a local theater: the territory of Ukraine. But this confrontation, despite being local, fractures the world in two. As during the Cold War (1948-1991).

Since 1980, the planet was in the process of globalization, it existed as a dynamic of global interconnection. This globalization is now coming to a halt. Washington and its allies have excluded Moscow from the global functioning. As Joe Biden has said, it is a question of placing Russia in a situation of planetary pariah, of pariah of humanity. The world, from a geopolitical point of view, is again divided into two opposing camps: those who are with Russia and those who are with the United States. And the countries that are neither with one side nor the other are going to be subjected to strong blackmail and enormous pressures. Surely we will also see the emergence of a third group of new Non-Aligned countries.

As far as the war itself is concerned, the most obvious conclusion at this point is that the fighting is lasting longer than originally planned. With some logic, we could have imagined at the beginning that the Russian forces would achieve their main objectives very soon by means of a lightning operation. That did not happen.

The Russian General Staff today faces a dilemma between two contradictory needs: it must go fast, but it must preserve the lives of non-combatant civilians. Because this “special military operation” launched by President Vladimir Putin is also aimed at winning the hearts of Russian-speaking Ukrainians. And you don’t win hearts by crushing people with shelling, arson and destruction? In other words, the Russian forces are not succeeding in achieving their initial double objective: to conduct a blitzkrieg and at the same time to preserve the lives of the civilian population, which is suffering tragic losses, and resisting.

The offensive has therefore become slower and more dangerous. The possibility of any provocation, or even escalation, should not be ruled out. Ukrainian President Volodomir Zelenski demanded NATO and the US to establish an overflight ban – an exclusion zone – over Ukrainian territory. For the time being, the Western powers have not agreed, because that would mean having to shoot down Russian aircraft. Such a situation would imply a direct clash between Russia and NATO forces, i.e. a nuclear war, which so far they are trying to avoid.

In the current scenario, the U.S. objective could be to immobilize for a long time, to mire, the Russian armies in the Ukrainian countryside. Literally. That is to say, to bog them down. Taking into account a strategic element: the Russian invasion began last February 24, in the middle of winter, when the Ukrainian fields were still covered with snow. The frozen, hard ground allowed the tanks and trucks to advance smoothly through the countryside. Because many roads and bridges are mined, sabotaged or destroyed. But in a month, at the end of April, spring will begin there, the temperature will rise and the melting snow and ice will transform the vast Ukrainian steppes into endless quagmires. The tanks, trucks and vehicles of the long Russian supply lines will begin to bog down, to immobilize, and this will mark the beginning of a totally different war. This is what happened to the German army when Hitler met Soviet resistance in the Ukraine. Russia does not have much time; if it wants to win the war it has to do so in less than a month. Otherwise, it is exposed to a long and exhausting conflict, somewhat along the lines of the one in Afghanistan. His forces will be immobilized and dispersed, at the mercy of guerrillas equipped with state-of-the-art Western weaponry. What would happen if, in the meantime, another front opens up in another Russian theater of operations, for example in Syria? Russia does not have the capacity to conduct two major wars at the same time.

Beyond what happens on the battlefield, as we have already said, this is a global conflict; on the commercial and financial fronts, as well as in the media, with even sporting and cultural implications. It is a conflict that leaves no country on the sidelines. No one can say, wherever they are, that it does not concern them. This gives this war a unique character, unique since the fall of the Soviet bloc and the end of the Cold War.

The battery of sanctions or coercive measures imposed by the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union together with their allies, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, are having global repercussions. The consequences are already reflected in energy and fuel prices. Russia, as is well known, is a major producer of oil and gas, Ukraine of coal. Difficulties in sustaining production and sanctions are limiting supplies, especially in Europe. In addition, the pipelines that carry Russian oil and gas to Europe, which is approximately 40% dependent on these hydrocarbons, pass through Ukraine. All this is rapidly changing the geopolitics of energy. And it is having new effects on societies. Gas and oil are key to electricity production. This has caused the price of electricity, for example in Spain, to reach unprecedented levels, or other countries, such as Germany, to reconsider the need to keep nuclear power plants active.

Similarly, metals such as aluminum, copper and nickel saw exorbitant price increases. Nickel surpassed $100,000 a ton. Car factories, particularly those producing more modern and expensive models, are suffering from the new prices. BMW is considering whether to stop some of its production. Russia is also a major producer of titanium, a key metal for the manufacture of microprocessors (chips), which were already in crisis due to the pandemic and which are indispensable in many industrial sectors.

In other words, in a situation of severe global economic recession caused by two years of the covid-19 pandemic, the outbreak of the war in Ukraine and the sanctions are driving a further increase in the cost of living. This conflict adds inflation to inflation. Food, transport and electricity prices are set to reach such a high level that this is likely to trigger citizen protest movements and increase discontent with governments in many countries, including some in Latin America. Globally, the political translation of this war is likely to be a wave of demonstrations and social demands that could destabilize several governments.

But the ramifications are also being felt in the positions of the world’s major powers. Starting with Europe. In this regard, the most significant consequence of the Ukrainian war is German rearmament. Since the end of World War II, Germany had no significant armed forces and no relevant military budget. It was NATO, and ultimately the US, in accordance with the pacts signed in 1945, which essentially ensured Germany’s defense. A few days ago, however, Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced a colossal rearmament program of more than 100 billion euros, including the revival of the military industry, the reconstruction of shipyards, the Navy, aviation. The annual resources, from now on, are equivalent to almost 3% of the annual budget, i.e. almost as much as what the United States devotes to defense. It is a real military revolution, which will have geopolitical (even if Berlin still does not have nuclear weapons, it will soon become the main European military power) and economic impacts. Germany is the only truly industrialized country in the European Union and the world’s largest industrial exporter per capita. Whether it manufactures weapons, ships, planes, submarines or drones, we can bet that Berlin will produce a shock in the global arms industry.

In Latin America, the importance of the war in Ukraine is also reflected in geopolitical movements that until recently seemed unthinkable. One of them is the meeting, on March 5, between a high-level US delegation and the President of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, apparently to initiate negotiations to resume Venezuelan oil exports to that country. In fact, this implies a de facto recognition of the legitimacy of President Maduro, which definitively displaces Juan Guaidó from the political scene and also affects Washington’s main military ally in Latin America, Colombia, whose president, Iván Duque, was left unsettled. Such sudden changes of position confirm that we are facing a conflict of global consequences.

As for China, the second global power, in a delicate and difficult moment, it maintains a position close to Russia without necessarily wishing to break with the Western world. Part of the new Silk Roads, the great Chinese trade and infrastructure project that is now partially interrupted by the conflict and sanctions, passes through Russia and Ukraine. For China, this war has a strong economic impact, insofar as it affects a fundamental project, defined by Xi Jinping as one of the axes of Chinese development and its deployment throughout the world.

Moreover, as a result of the war in Ukraine and the sanctions, Moscow may become increasingly dependent on Beijing. To some extent, the strong coercive measures imposed by the United States and Europe are pushing Russia, whether it wants it or not, towards an increasing dependence on China, its only major ally. Beijing could see its hegemonic capacity over Moscow increase considerably.

At the same time we are seeing an eventual threat of sanctions from Washington on China should Beijing offer Moscow solutions that would allow it to avoid sanctions or reduce their effect. President Joe Biden warned his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, of “the implications and consequences” for China of “providing material support to Russia as it perpetrates brutal attacks on Ukrainian cities and civilians” ^[4]. That is why Beijing has maintained a line of cooperation with Russia without aligning itself unequivocally with Putin’s position. For example, it did not vote against the UN resolution condemning Moscow; it abstained.

Another consideration, in a context of a troubled river like the current one: China fears that the United States may take advantage of the occasion to launch some initiative in favor of Taiwan. For example, if Taiwan initiates some preemptive military maneuver with the excuse of an imminent Chinese invasion similar to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Or if the United States and its allies move to greater levels of political and diplomatic recognition of Taiwan. Likewise, the US government recently announced that it will review Beijing’s subsidy scheme for those Chinese industries whose products are exported to the US market, with a view to a possible increase in tariffs, resuming the trade war that Donald Trump had intensified at the time ^[5].

In short, the White House is determined to harass China, reaffirming that Washington’s main strategic objective in the 21st century is to contain China, to weaken it in such a way as to prevent it from overtaking the United States and disputing its planetary hegemony. In this sense, we could see, in the coming weeks, new pressures on Beijing, to what extent could China, despite its enormous size, be excluded from the “Western” functioning of the world. It is possible that this is the great strategic objective of the chess game that has just begun in Ukraine.

We are in a new geopolitical age. History has been set in motion once again. A very dangerous game has begun. The next stage could be nuclear war.

Source: Cubadebate, translation Resumen Latinoamericano – English