CHAPTER 2 UNSOCIAL MEDIA

Russia’s attack — war, although the Russians didn’t use that word — on Ukraine was not just being fought on the ground and from the air.

The use — or not — of social media became a critical point of influence for both Ukraine and Russia, the former for enlisting support and the latter for stifling and controlling the flow of information.

USA Today noted: “There’s no question the Ukraine invasion is a social media war — the world’s first. Many TV interviews are with Ukrainians who are garnering large social media followings. TikTok is filled with video clips of after-bombing scenes and bomb shelters. They are shot on smartphones by citizens and shared directly with the world, bypassing traditional media outlets.”

Ukraine sympathizers have weighed in heavily, too.

Believing, correctly on the evidence, that Russian people were not being told the full story, a Norwegian computer expert and his team created a website enabling anyone to send an email about the war in Ukraine to up to 150 Russian email addresses at a time.

Whether Russians believed the information or not would be unclear, but they were at least hearing the views of Ukrainians — and others — to which they would otherwise not have access.

The messages, estimated at 22 million within the first few days of their use, carried the subject line, Ya vam ne vrag — “I am not your enemy.”

With Russian access to other social media platforms controlled, the standard message appeared in Russian with an English translation. It read: “Dear friend, I am writing to you to express my concern for the secure future of our children on this planet. Most of the world has condemned Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.”

The message urged Russians to reject the war in Ukraine and find the truth about the invasion from non-state news services.

These emails and the welter of social media posts were the modern-day version of the World War II leaflet drops.

A member of the Norwegian team made contact with a 35-year-old woman in St Petersburg who first asked to be removed from the mailing list. The Norwegian made further contact. He said: “She told me she wasn’t sure what was going on in the conflict and wanted to know more. She said there was a lack of news coming out of Europe and she wanted to read about it all but didn’t know how to get through the blocks on websites.”

Indicative of Russian knowledge of what was really going on, another team member received a reply from an unknown Russian who argued strongly that she was wrong and it was Ukraine that was killing innocent people which is why “this special operation is a necessary measure.”

Russians themselves are finding ways to circumvent the bans on popular social media platforms.

Reports said many Russians had used a virtual private network (VPN) with an encrypted connection between their devices and a remote server. Such a server could be anywhere in the world, so in theory could link to sites blocked in Russia.

Technology experts warned that many pro-Russian posts contained old and fake footage.

Twitter launched a new privacy-protected version of its site for Russians to access it more easily.

Meanwhile, Russian prosecutors moved to designate Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, as an “extremist organization,” which would permit harsher crackdowns on users and content providers.

President Zelensky was aware of the impact of social media. He joined Twitter in April 2019 and three years later had 5.2 million followers.

Weeks into Russia’s invasion the President had 14.1 million followers on Instagram.

There is little doubt his followers played no small part in his landslide win in 2019.

It was also clear President Zelensky understood the importance of public opinion in the West.

He posted videos to social media and tweeted statements calling for help and expressing resolve to the extent he became a global hero, virtually, without personal appearances.

He addressed governments in the West, updated and reassured his citizens and taunted Russians in their own country, all via social media.

His campaigns and social media posts played a huge part in mobilizing worldwide protests against the Russian action and in support of Ukraine.

His regular Tweets updated followers on his discussions with world leaders. Two Tweets from March 12:

“I spoke with Olaf Scholz, Emmanuel Macron (Germany and France). We talked about Russian aggression and the prospect of peace talks. We must stop repressions against civilians: asked to assist in the release of the captive mayor of Melitopol and Local figures.”

“Had a substantial conversation with POTUS (President Biden). Gave him the assessment of the situation on the battlefield, informed about the crimes of Russia against the civilian population. We agreed on further steps to support the defence of Ukraine and increased sanctions against Russia.”

Ukraine’s social media campaign was to present at home and abroad an image of unified resistance to Russian aggression.

Social media arms in Ukraine published content showing alleged combatants threatening to kill Russians, instructions on how to make Molotov cocktails, Russian helicopters being shot down and civilians apparently confronting Russian soldiers.

Zelensky’s personal accounts (access is sometimes flaky) have regularly published “selfie” videos to lay to rest rumors that he fled the country or surrendered to the Russians.

He said in a video posted to Instagram: “I’m staying in Kyiv… on Bankova Street,” not afraid to reveal his location. He used his mobile phone to film out the window to show the street across from the presidential palace, recognizable to Ukrainian viewers.

In one of his regular addresses to his followers and Russians listening in he said: “Our office, Monday. You know we used to say Monday is a hard day. There is a war in our country, so every day is Monday, and now we are used to the fact that every day and every night are like that… I am in Kyiv.

Most of his statements were translated by his office for wider consumption.

When the Russians bombed a maternity hospital in southern Ukraine, the President immediately took to social media, posting words and pictures.

He tweeted: “Mariupol. Direct strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital. People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity! How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror? Close the sky right now! Stop the killings! You have power but you seem to be losing humanity.”

In a video posted online, he said: “Today is the day that defines everything. It defines who is on which side. Children’s hospital. A maternity hospital. What did they threaten the Russian Federation with?

“Were there little nationalists there? Were pregnant women going to shoot missiles at Rostov? Did someone in that maternity hospital offend Russian-speaking people? Was it the ‘denazification’ of the hospital? This is beyond atrocities already,” he said.

His wife, Olena, also shared an emotional statement and videos on Instagram about the bombing.

Her videos showed the debris, as well as some people trying to help, and a few people could be seen leaving the scene.

Russia’s embassy in London first stamped a giant “FAKE” over tweeted photos of the atrocity in Mariupol, insisting the hospital only housed neo-Nazi radicals.

When commentators pointed to photos of a heavily pregnant woman fleeing with blood dripping from her face, the embassy claimed the woman was a “beauty blogger” with “some very realistic make-up.” There was a possibility that woman was a beauty consultant who was in the hospital at the time, about to give birth.

Facebook and Twitter eventually removed the embassy’s posts.

Later reports said the woman had given birth but both she and the baby died after surgery.

Pro-Russia accounts on social media are aimed at convincing people not to believe news reports about Ukrainians suffering and dying.

They spread false claims that media outlets have been showing fake footage of Ukrainian “crisis actors” — happy, healthy people playing the role of terrified or deceased war victims for the cameras.

Many of the dubious assertions often emanate from Russian embassies in Europe.

The Russian embassy in Geneva often shared unsupported claims about Ukraine on Twitter, including allegations a Ukraine paramilitary group was using Mariupol hospital patients and staff as human shields.

Another report emanating from Russia claimed that Zelensky fled to Poland and had lied to Ukrainians about his presence in the capital. Such reports often were picked up by state outlets of friendly countries, such as Iran.

Russia’s flow of demonstrably false reports prompted Meta, Twitter, Google and others to restrict state-backed Russian media outlets such as RT and Sputnik.

In retaliation, Russia made it illegal for the media to contradict President Putin’s official line on the war (though that word was not used) and blocked Facebook and Twitter.

The social media war took an even more serious tone when leaked emails revealed Facebook and Instagram users in some countries would be allowed to call for violence against Russians and the death of Vladimir Putin on these platforms.

Britain’s Independent newspaper reported that Meta was temporarily changing its hate speech policy for posts regarding the war in Ukraine for the countries involved and most neighboring European countries.

The Independent said internal emails told content moderators that posts calling for the death of Putin or Belarus president Alexander Lukashenko would be allowed, in a change to the company’s rules on violence and incitement.

The emails said calls for violence against Russians were acceptable when the post was clearly talking about the invasion of Ukraine. Calls for violence against Russian soldiers would be considered a proxy for the Russian military — but this would not extend to prisoners of war.