Amid the Russia-Ukraine war, Nato and
the European Union offer a perfect example of a type of “war
communication”. In terms of censorship, disinformation and propaganda, the
world is witnessing a replay of the happenings during the Gulf War and
the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The only voices authorized to speak are those giving the
official party line, Nato spokespersons, retired officers converted to the
lucrative business of security consulting, geopolitical experts (those who stick
to the script), Russia’s political opponents, Ukrainian deputies and other
allies of President Volodymyr Zelensky.
The mythification of Zelensky has reached absurdist levels,
partly by the acting talents of Zelensky, a professional comedian who has
shrewdly seized the moment to radically rebrand himself as a symbol of resistance,
freedom and democracy.
Zelensky is a populist demagogue and a manipulator; an
autocrat at the head of a regime that can best be described as proto-fascist.
With his demagogic cry of “the people against the elites”,
his rudimentary electoral program, his false promises to fight
corruption that were forgotten as soon as he was elected, and his brutal authoritarian leanings,
Zelensky is a perfect example of western populism.
The Kyiv regime also exhibits a growing number of
proto-fascistic characteristics: the cult of the personality, which turns the
head of state into a venerated and untouchable figure; the militarization of
society; the saturation of media and cultural spaces with war propaganda.
Before the war, western media were recognizing the
reality of that problem - but as soon as the war started, these groups were
magically whitewashed as freedom fighters, and praised as heroic
resistors through typical spin. Anyone who now raises the issue is immediately
accused of disseminating Putin’s propaganda or being an agent of the
Kremlin.
Even more shocking, yet typical of war propaganda, has been
the systematic censorship by dominant western media of any information that
would undermine the Zelensky worship and unconditional support for the Kyiv
regime.
In a March presidential decree, Zelensky banned the
opposition by suspending the activities of 11 political parties accused of
having links with Russia. Thus, the invasion was used in the most cynical
manner as a convenient excuse to crack down on political opposition
through false rhetoric about collaboration with the enemy.
Zelensky also invoked the war to eliminate media
freedom by merging and nationalizing Ukrainian television channels into a
single information platform called “United News” - a platform entirely
dedicated to his propaganda.
Zelensky regime is controlled by the most
hawkish and extremist escalationists, both Ukrainian and
foreign, starting with US President Joe Biden, who has been shunting aside
any talk of diplomatic negotiations.
Though at first willing to negotiate and compromise, Zelensky
has since fallen in line with the most extremist war hawks, none of whom appear
to care about the rest of Europe, which they view merely as something to
exploit for more arms and money.
Instead of being emboldened in this reckless military
escalation of a war that is devastating his own population and
country, Zelensky should instead be pushed towards the negotiating table - for
his own sake, that of his suffering people, and the good of the world, which is
now itself suffering from a slew of setbacks: inflation, energy and food
shortages, and a military-industrial complex ecstatic at the prospect of having
trillions of dollars redirected towards it for years to come. A deal to
end the war seems feasible, as there a reasonable peace plan on
the table.
In additional to all its other consequences, the Russian
invasion has further fractured the US-led post-war global order, which has
become a battleground between the ever-more hawkish and imperialistic US,
backed by the EU and with the instrumentalization of institutions such as Nato
and the G7; and the anti-western bloc led by China and Russia,
now officially designated as the West’s two main geopolitical
existential threats.
Given the heavy dependence of Middle East on all
involved parties - Russia, Ukraine and the West - for food and energy supplies,
as well as national security, they know they have nothing to gain but a
lot to lose from direct involvement in this conflict, or from overtly
picking sides. They have thus uncomfortably strived to distance themselves from
the war without alienating anyone - a tough balancing act that can
see them accused of siding with the enemy for shying away from the
western sanctions regime.
In fact, many have actively refused to side with Ukraine and
the West against Russia for a number of reasons, including perceived
western hypocrisy on the professed principle of non-aggression and respect
for territorial sovereignty
(Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan loom large here); racist
double standards on the treatment of refugees; and widespread distrust of
the West in general.
