Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Political communications. Lecture course. Курс лекций
.pdf
• Disinformation;
• rumors, “leaks” or transmission of information from
“confidential sources”;
• indoctrination (Stoltenberg: NATO’s new concept will
aim to contain Russia and China);
• playing on prejudices and delusions;
• personal testimonies;
• “Glorification of reality”;
• logical “traps”, when presented with two options, we
have a tendency to immediately assume that they are mutually
exclusive; for instance, the dialogue on the issue of work/life
balance starts with the exclusive alternative trap. We think
of work and life as two separate spheres, rather than recognizing that all of our time is our life. But living and working does
not have to be a zero-sum game, and thinking of it that way can
be detrimental to living a life (which includes working a career)
that you enjoy;
• intimidation.
In the modern world, non-marketing technologies are actively used in the supranational arena to achieve the goals
of the most resource-provided actors in world politics. In the
21st century, it is information that has begun to play a key role
in changing the balance of political forces on the world stage.
The quality and effectiveness of the state’s foreign policy and
the country’s place on the world stage began to depend on the
skillful management of information processes.
International relations in this context can be represented as
a communicative process of information exchange. According
to the concept of communicative action by J. Habermas, there
are two types of behavior: instrumental and communicative.
With instrumental behavior, one side focuses on its own interest, ignores the goals of the other side, does not seek mutual
understanding, which leads to a distortion of communication
or, with conscious deception, manipulation. The second behavior, communicative, on the contrary, is focused on streamlining
relations, ensuring the truth and truthfulness of information
51
during its circulation. With this behavior, information exchange occurs on equal terms. Of course, in practice in politics,
it is the first, instrumental type of communication with the distortion of information for political purposes that is most often
used. This leads to conflicts in the information environment, as
well as to its most dangerous phase – information wars.
Information war
During the 20th century, humanity has experienced
264 wars. The death toll, including the civilian population, according to various sources, is about 71,5–115,8 million people. The top 5 countries participating in the wars include China (34), Great Britain (30), France (27), USA (24), Russia (20).
In the course of the armed conflicts that have occurred, the
theory and practice of information-psychological influence has
been improved more and more. The term “information war”
appeared in 1976, when it was used by the Western physicist
T. Reiner in relation to wars, the main targets of which would
be information systems. However, US experts instead of this
term, which is interpreted exclusively as “information war”,
have chosen a different, ambiguous term – “information warfare”, and thus the information confrontation has ceased to be
a war in the literal sense of the word. Translated from English,
“warfare – 1) war; warfare; 2) fight, clash”.
Without going into details of theoretical problems and discussions regarding the content of the concept of “information
war” (IW), we will note in this textbook that, in general, understanding this phenomenon is associated with three main approaches.
The classical approach reduces the information war to
separate information events, information means of corporate
competition, interstate confrontation or armed struggle. The
second approach is the result of the activities of representatives of the US military departments, whose specialists refer
information confrontation to the sphere of military confrontation. The first definitions of IW were given in the United
52
States in a number of documents (Directives of the US Department of Defense TS3600.I “Information War” dated December 21, 1992; Directive of the Chairman of the Chief Executive
of the US Defense Ministry No. 30 “Combating Control Systems”, 1993) after “Operation desert” (1990–1991). Since then,
this concept has been officially used by the Ministry of Defense
as a kind of electronic warfare. In 1996, this concept of interpretation was expanded in the report of the American corporation Rand “Strategic Information Warfare. A New Face
of War” (MR-661-OSD). In this report, the term Strategic Information Warfare was used for the first time, which gave this
type of struggle a military-strategic meaning, and then a political one.
The third approach can be called modern. It is broader in its
essence and is connected with the fact that the information
war is a phenomenon of an outwardly peaceful period of interstate confrontation. IW allows solving foreign policy problems
in a non-violent way.
It is important to understand that regardless of the theoretical content of the IW concept, in practice its various variants
are implemented: from many years of information confrontation (the information war of the USSR and the USA, the IW
of Western actors and the modern Russian Federation) to the
use of information warfare as part of combat military operations as one of the mandatory elements of information support
of military campaigns.
An information conflict is a clash of interests of political
groups in order to resolve contradictions over influence, power,
disposal of resources, access to the adoption of generally significant decisions, as well as the exercise of political leadership
in the information and psychological space. Among the various
types of conflicts, the most significant is the classification by
spheres of manifestation. They are divided into canalized conflicts with a limited degree of activity of participants and rivalry, and escalating conflicts, involving an expanding sphere
of manifestation; such conflicts are difficult to manage and
53
have the most devastating consequences. Due to the lack of international and national legal norms, and social mechanisms
that could prevent the proliferation of conflicts in the information and psychological sphere, conflicts are increasingly becoming escalating. Therefore, information-psychological conflicts
often take the form of information warfare.
Before turning into IW, the conflict in the information
sphere goes through two other stages of information-psychological relations.
In general, there are three stages (А.В. Манойло,
А.И. Петренко).
1. Information-psychological struggle (or confrontation),
which is characterized by the use of moderate methods of resolving contradictions.
2. Aggression with intensive methods of conflict resolution.
3. War – a stage in which the parties use radical methods
of waging a struggle. The key feature of IW is the use of information weapons.
In the international legal space, there are a huge number of unresolved problems related to the theory and practice
of IW:
• there is no universally accepted definition;
• there are no legislative norms that include the criminal-legal characteristics of IW shares, the degree of their danger to society, the responsibility of the parties;
• there are no international legal norms establishing international responsibility for IW actions and aggression;
• there are no internal mechanisms of legal proceedings
against aggressor states;
• there is no procedure for eliminating the consequences
of operations.
This sad fact also suggests the further development and use
of this technology as a new format for modern wars.
Any information war consists of two components:
1) information impact;
2) information counteraction.
54
Martin Libiki identifies seven forms of information war-
fare:
1) Hacker;
2) Electronic;
3) Cyberwar;
4) Intelligence;
5) Psychological;
6) Economic;
7) Command and control.
According to the object of influence, information wars are
divided into two types:
1) information and technical, in which telecommunications
systems, data transmission systems, information security systems, radio electronic means, etc. become objects of influence
and protection;
2) information-psychological, the objects of influence and
protection are the psyche of the political elite and the population; decision-making system, public opinion formation system, etc.
In this paper, information-psychological warfare is studied.
In information and psychological wars, various methods
of influence are used: fraud, bluff, scams, machinations, political games, advertising campaigns, manipulative influence,
provocations, disinformation, propaganda, etc.
At the same time, more and more attention is being paid by
scientists and practitioners to propaganda, since this method
has the greatest potential in shaping public opinion.
Information wars are a reality for many countries, in particular, Russia, which over the past 15 years has been the object of negative information impact from Western actors. Despite the legacy of the Soviet past, post-Soviet Russia at the
end of the 20th century was of no interest to the community
of Western states. Russia was weak and did not pose a danger
as an informational opponent or an object against which it is
possible to unleash informational wars.
55
With the election of V. Putin as President in 2000, the situation begins to change, as the new Russian President actively
promotes the idea of Russia’s own interests and the preservation of Russian sovereignty. A particularly significant event
was Putin’s Munich speech in 2007, in which the President
of the Russian Federation sharply criticized the United States
for its aggressive foreign policy, positioning the United States
as the only center in a unipolar world system, and their unwillingness to follow the norms of international law.
From this moment, a new stage of information wars against
the already modern Russian state begins, waged on behalf
of the democracies led by the United States.
Russia faced in practice with information negative impact
during the so-called five-day war in August 2008, on the night
of August 8, when Georgia subjected the capital of South Ossetia to massive shelling, after which it attempted to establish
control over South Ossetia. On the afternoon of August 8, the
Russian president announced the start of a “peace enforcement
operation” in the conflict zone. Significant Russian forces were
brought into the region. Within a few days, Russian troops, together with South Ossetian armed formations, ousted Georgian
troops from South Ossetia, and also, in cooperation with Abkhaz forces, from the Kodori Gorge in Abkhazia, temporarily
occupying a number of regions of Georgia adjacent to the con-
1
flict zones
.
This conflict is unique in its two “arenas”: real – military,
and informational. Thus, a real military operation was carried
out by Russian peacekeepers in accordance with international
agreements. Any violation of neutrality on the border by Geor-
1
Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in
Georgia (September 2009). – Vol. I. Архивная копия от 5 марта 2016 г.
на Wayback Machine – The Conflict in Georgia in August 2008. – P. 11. –
“The shelling of Tskhinvali by the Georgian armed forces during the night
of 7 to 8 August 2008 marked the beginning of the large-scale armed
conflict in Georgia, yet it was only the culminating point of a long period
of increasing tensions, provocations and incidents”.
56
gia or the unrecognized territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia automatically entailed the intervention of Russian military
contingents, which happened in practice. However, the situation
was presented in a distorted way in the information space – Russia attacked Georgia using military force. In general, this provision was actively promoted in the Georgian and European media.
In January 2021, the Grand Chamber of the ECHR issued
a decision in which it stated the following: “The court rejected
Georgia’s argument that the Russian army allegedly invaded
South Ossetia the day before the start of the Georgian aggression – August 7, 2008. Russia is not responsible for the incidents that occurred during the repulse by Russian military
personnel of the attack of the Georgian army on the peacekeeping contingent and the local civilian population in the period
from 8 to 12 August 2008” (Implementation of Resolution 1633
(2008) on the consequences of the war between Georgia and
Russia). Despite this fact, in the mass consciousness of the citizens of many states, the image of Russia as an enemy, an aggressor, began to take shape, and sometimes “resurrect” again.
Thus, Russia came out victorious in the August conflict,
but lost the first major information war against itself in the
21st century.
The second major reason for the next round of anti-Russian
information wars was the entry of Crimea into the Russian Federation in 2014. Next – the operation of Russian troops in Syria
since 2015, a special military operation in Ukraine since February 2022. It should be noted that these events have become the
most large-scale “points” for the aggravation of information
aggression, however, over the past 15 years, many Russian initiatives, persons, actions have become “topics” of information
wars against the Russian Federation.
“Ukrainian case”
The “Ukrainian case” is already a traditional reason for
waging an anti-Russian information war.
57
Relations between modern Russia and Ukraine are of a pendulum nature. We note the existence of a direct connection between the nature of bilateral relations, a specific person about
the head of Ukraine, and the specifics of the information space
in both countries. In 1992–2004, Russia’s attitude towards
Ukraine was determined by the desire to strengthen interstate
integration. Against the backdrop of the five-day war of 2008
and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004–2005, relations practically came to naught, however, with the election
of the pro-Russian-oriented V. Yanukovych as the President
of Ukraine (2010–1014), relations improved, soon due to the
change of power and the arrival of the anti-Russian President
P. Poroshenko, then V. Zelensky, connections were practically
lost, and the war in the information space flares up with great
intensity.
We offer only one of the elements of the information war
against Russia, carried out by Western and Ukrainian actors
during the regime change in 2014, regarded by Russia as another color revolution.
• The rally in support of European integration, organized
on November 21, 2013 in the central square of Kiev, can be considered the starting point of the political crisis and the beginning of a new stage in the escalation of the information war.
• The protest that arose in the center of Kiev soon spread
to other cities of Ukraine. These actions were named “Euromaidan” by analogy with the events of 2004.
• The protest movement was supported by Western politicians and the media.
• To promote the ideas of European integration, the illusion of readiness to admit Ukraine to the EU was created, while
joining the Customs Union was presented as unprofitable.
• Russia itself was presented as “a new empire of evil, as
well as a source of totalitarianism, corruption and infringement of freedoms”. The entire expanded information campaign was aimed at forming a myth about the need to “protect
Ukraine from Moscow’s imperial ambitions”.
58
In the mass consciousness, some attitudes were fixed:
• Ukrainians are ethnically closer to Europeans;
• European integration is the only way to a bright future
for Ukraine;
• integration within the framework of the Customs Union – an inevitable return to the USSR, where Russia will definitely dictate its rules to Ukraine;
• “Muscovites” are occupiers who have oppressed the
Ukrainian people for centuries.
The contribution of Western actors to the escalation of the
information conflict was also significant.
• American and Western European politicians and media
have launched an extensive advertising, propaganda and disinformation campaign.
• Famous Western politicians arrived in Ukraine to support the protesters: J. McCain, V. Nuland, A. Kwasniewski.
They began to call for pressure on the government at the Euromaidan sites.
• A significant contribution to the cause of information
support for the coup d’etat was made by non-governmental associations created with US funds. For example, the National
Endowment for Democracy, which is closely associated with the
CIA, has funded 65 projects in Ukraine. At one time, Victoria
Nuland, US Assistant Secretary of State, said that the states
spent $ 5 billion to create conditions for regime change in Kiev.
• With the support of Western news agencies, whole networks of public organizations, bloggers, and electronic media
workers were created, which significantly influence the mass
consciousness. More than 270 thematic TV programs and 1220
radio programs were launched!
• The United States, among other things, has contributed
to the training of Ukrainian media workers. For example, the
American Agency for International Development (USAID),
through the European Center for Journalism, implemented the
MediaNet project, through which about 3,700 Ukrainian journalists were trained.
59
Below is a comparative analysis of Russian and Ukrainian
positions on some topics (Tab. 2.2).
Ukrainian crisis in the media and political discourses
of Russia and the West
Russia West
Advantages of deepening economic ties between Russia and
Ukraine
Integration within the CU –
non-return to the USSR
Instead of liberal rhetoric of human rights, Russian discourse
was dominated by “rhetoric of
human rights in the tradition
of countering fascism” and violence. Euromaidan is a negative
event in Russian discourse.
The image of Euromaidan participants also developed: participants – protesters – activists –
self-defense – instigators of
riots – neo-Nazi groups – rightwing extremist associations –
militants
Yanukovych is a legitimate
president
Gas and other forms of dependence
on Russia, which are worth getting
rid of in order to get out of the crisis.
“Ukraine has one foot in Europe and
the other in an economic abyss. But the
economic abyss seems less daunting
than Putin’s embrace” (Forbes, 2013)
European integration is the only way to
a bright future for Ukraine
The emergence of protests in Ukraine is
a natural and legitimate reaction of the
oppressed people to the arbitrariness of
the authorities and the oligarchy.
As for the neo-Nazis from the Right
Sector, the West either kept silent
about them, or closed its eyes “if only
they would oppose Russia”
The Western media especially noted
the corruption of the regime and its
undemocratic character
Table 2.2
60
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]