Narrative Analysis of War Crimes in Ukraine - Part 2
Ripple Research dives into the narrative analysis behind war crimes taking place in Ukraine since Russia’s invasion, uncovering competing narratives and dissecting disinformation campaigns.
In Part 1, we leveraged our open-source intelligence capabilities to analyse over 3.6 million public online posts from over 200 countries to better understand how the conversation on war crimes in Ukraine is unfolding. Read on to discover how disinformation is influencing the online narrative of this ongoing conflict.
Contents
Section 3: Disinformation campaigns
Section 4: Points to ponder
Section 3: Disinformation Campaigns
#ZelenskyyWarCriminal
To complement the mainstream war crimes narratives, we have also conducted a preliminary analysis to uncover disinformation campaigns related to this topic.
We have identified new online disinformation campaigns targeted at Ukraine and Zelenskyy in the war crimes context. Specifically, there is an emerging campaign, #ZelenskyyWarCriminal, aimed at discrediting claims made by the President as well as evidence of war crimes in Ukraine. The exhibit below shows the geographical origin of these disinformation posts.
We have also uncovered other disinformation campaigns related to the #ZelenskyyWarCriminal topic. The exhibit below shows more detail.
With additional time and resources, we could expand on these preliminary findings to conduct a more thorough analysis to identify the evolution and propagation of these disinformation campaigns, key influencers and sources, and their influence on public consciousness.
Section 4: Points to ponder
The war in Ukraine has demonstrated the importance of discursive power. The Ukrainian government and its allies appear to have the upper hand in this regard, but we need to monitor the full scope of the discourse, not just the western media expressions. With more time, we could map the full contours of the discussion and the shifting balance of discursive power.
In the wars of perception and understanding international organisations and accountability mechanisms face the challenge of verifying facts and proving allegations, whereas the perpetrators simply have to sow doubt. This is an unequal battle and one in which an understanding of the narratives and the discursive balance of power is vital.
The conversations around war crimes accountability began in the US, and the USG continues to drive actions against Russia. Many commentators note however, that there is an element of hypocrisy at work given that the US is not a state party to the ICC and refused any accountability for its actions in other wars. This is an example of how doubt in the integrity of accountability processes can be spread.
In a world where autocrats and illiberal democrats seem to be ascendant, is there still a role for the ICC and independent investigations? Do people still believe that the rules-based system is working and capable of holding criminals accountable?
Does this war, and others as well, represent a challenge to the rules-based global order (Geneva Conventions, peace treaties etc)? Is there still a strong demand for responsibility and accountability, or a cynical acceptance that the perpetrators will never be held accountable? What are the drivers of these sentiments? Are there geographical differences?
The big question is: What are the levels of Trust in International Organizations and processes? How are they perceived in different countries and demographics? How can these organizations gain, retain and rebuild Trust and relevancy in a complex global context? If requested, we can track the movement of trust indicators in reaction to interventions by international organisations and leaders.
If you missed Part 1, read the first installment here.
You can also read our previous post that covers how Russian and Ukrainian support spread through social media networks during the first two weeks of the war.
To learn more about our mission at Ripple Research and for details of our capabilities, click here.
Follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn.
For further information and requests, contact us.