Wars take place on many fronts. Although the first image that comes to mind when we think of an armed conflict is that of the battle itself, there are numerous spheres where the opposing actors measure their forces and organize their offensive and defensive strategies, in coordination with their closest allies. . To the stark military struggle, to the struggle to occupy, maintain or regain control of the territory are joined by economic, commercial, cultural confrontations.
The Ukraine war is a good example. The bombings have devastated and massacred the main cities of that country, they are also fighting in a field that a priori may seem more symbolic, although it has very important practical material reverberations: the digital battle for communication, which implicitly carries the support of public opinion
public. The Ukrainian president is showing that there is another war and that winning it is decisive for the fate of the country and his own. Zelensky’s other war is waged on social networks.
Although the ruling Ukrainian group is losing the war in the real world, this is not happening in the digital world, the world of communication. The image leadership in this confrontation is held by Ukraine thanks to a public relations strategy developed by the West.
On February 24, 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the start of a “special military operation” against Ukraine. In this invasion, along with the innumerable conventional means of Moscow’s vast arsenal, propaganda, disinformation and censorship also came to the forefront. Antoni Gutiérrez-Rubí published an analysis in El País in which he states: “if the results of the blitzkrieg that the Kremlin could seek were not, presumably, the expected ones, even less so should have been the firmness of the international position, the unanimity and forcefulness of the sanctions, the military support for kyiv, the political and social support to alleviate the humanitarian crisis or the efforts of the Ukrainian and foreign media, as well as that of organizations and institutions, to defend democracy and freedom, combat lies, censorship, manipulation or to condemn attacks against the media, their personnel or infrastructure”.
This is because Ukraine and some Western countries have carried out a public relations strategy whose purpose is to convince the international community that the war in Ukraine deserves to remain in the public eye, even though the resistance capabilities of the Russian meddling are obviously weak.
The narrative has taken advantage of the decline of Putin’s leadership and shown that the invasion of some points of Ukraine’s geography is not justified. Olena Zelenska and her husband, the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, have staged a scenographic lesson in communication for security, politics and war, showing an iconography that denounces the savagery with which the Soviet army acts, accompanied by rhetoric who defends and victimizes his government.
Social interaction based on roles played in front of the camera weighs heavily in Putin’s world. His social communication managers did not design a strategy to prevent him from appearing as the villain that a former KGB agent could be.
In confrontations, public opinion tends to favor the weaker. It happened at night in the Kremlin. It is a fact that the one who is winning “the other war” is the invaded country which, although it cannot defend itself militarily if it is not with the support of
The West has indeed been able to implement a global public relations campaign, which is reaping the goodwill of many.
The media attention that this campaign has provoked has been reflected in the popular pressure it exerts so that the allied countries participate actively, supporting Ukraine by sending military material and weakening Russia with the increased weight and severity of the sanctions. This popular pressure also reaches companies with business and presence in Russia, as has been seen.
Two important analysts, Adrián del Río and Antoni Gutiérrez-Rubí agree that the communication strategies of both sides differ considerably. While the Kremlin’s media apparatus is characterized by its rigidity, censorship and repression; Ukraine (and more specifically its president, Volodímir Zelenski) has opted for a close, constant and direct speech. Del Río analyzes the features that characterize it: opacity, propaganda, censorship and repression. He points out that “the flashes of rebellion that have occurred can either encourage Russian opposition to the war and information hoaxes or be orchestrated with the aim of identifying the true internal opposition and trying to silence it.”
The channels used by both sides to transmit their messages are also not the same. The Putin regime continues to use traditional media, such as Russia Today or Channel 1, and persecute independents, although cracks have been detected in the Russian fabric. On the other hand, the Ukrainians have introduced into the equation a contemporary tool that would have been unthinkable a few years ago: social networks. This has allowed them to show the reality of war from their perspective, attracting the attention of the entire world and appealing to emotions.
of the receivers.
There are those who think that the image of the country invaded by the villain of the film throws more gasoline on the fire. Who is winning this battle? How will it affect the evolution of the war?