Foreign Policy published an analytical material on the role of social media and artificial intelligence in the information war between Russia and Ukraine. Disinformation has long been used as a weapon, but analysts note the "innovation" of this war — the transition to social media as the main platforms of information warfare. Yes, only in the first week of the war, videos on TikTok with the hashtag #Russia collected more than 73 billion views. In addition to Russia and Ukraine, countries such as China and Belarus also spread their versions of the events of the war. They do this through coordinated social media campaigns that downplay Russiaʼs responsibility and promote anti-American and anti-NATO views. The mixture of true and false narratives broadcast by both officials and individual users has increased the influence of social networks on the dynamics of the war, the publication notes. Another interesting thing is that the banning of certain platforms in some countries makes it difficult to counter disinformation. The main platform available to both Ukrainians and Russians is Telegram. It doesnʼt have a policy of censoring or removing content, doesnʼt use algorithms to boost the ranking of certain posts, and therefore doesnʼt allow artificial intelligence to effectively amplify misinformation on this network unlike Facebook or Twitter. The FP article also discusses artificial intelligence tools such as bots and deepfakes, the scale of which makes monitoring and removing all fake posts nearly impossible. At the same time, social networks have become the main source of information for many people, which makes them attractive for potential influence from the governments of countries. For example, in the Russian-Ukrainian war, writes FP, the largest social media agreed to limit Russian content and much less withhold official information from the Ukrainian authorities.
New weapons for Ukraine hint at preparation for close combat, writes The Washington Post. Ukrainian official sources previously reported on a probable counteroffensive to liberate Kherson, and currently, the publication writes, Ukraine lacks something to implement the plan. A successful counteroffensive requires the ability to attack from different distances -- and the latest US aid package includes 40 mine-laying vehicles, light howitzers, rifles and shorter-range rocket launchers. Thanks to previously acquired long-range weapons, in particular HIMARS, Ukraine has weakened the position of the Russian Federation in various places, a high-ranking official told the publication on condition of anonymity. Military expert Rob Lee believes that the new supply does not necessarily indicate preparations for a counteroffensive. Perhaps, he says, the aid list was based on weapons that are being retired by the US military. According to the expert, a strategy of attrition may be more beneficial for Ukraine than a massive counteroffensive.
Philip Short, a biographer who has written about Putin in particular, wrote a column for The Guardian about the dictatorʼs motives related to Ukraine. Short believes that the lack of consensus on understanding Putinʼs motivations is a problem, because it does not allow us to determine the criteria for winning this war or to see the outlines of its end. At the start of the full-scale invasion, British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace called Putin a madman, and numerous media outlets published a photo of him at the end of a 20-foot-tall table. Short believes that this table is a theatrical prop intended to convince the world that anything can be expected from the Russian leader, even nuclear war. At the same time, Western leaders said that Putin was worried about the prospect of a democratic Ukraine near the borders of the Russian Federation, which led to a full-scale war. When Putin mentioned Peter I in one of his speeches, it became clear to many that he is driven by imperial ambitions, and Ukraine is not the last step in this direction. Short believes that the invasion is due to other considerations. The Russian president has been fixated on Ukraine for a long time, and after the 2008 NATO summit, where Ukraineʼs possible accession to the Alliance was discussed, "his attitude turned toxic," writes Short. It is not only about Ukraine, the author believes, because Putin wants to prove that NATO cannot stop Russia. Whether the Kremlin will be able to determine the limits of US power in the war in Ukraine depends on many factors, including the level of Western support for Ukraine. In any case, Short summarizes, this war marks the end of the world order of the last 30 years.