Russian President Vladimir Putin isn’t letting a crisis go to waste—as he has alleged a link between Friday’s deadly terrorist attack in Moscow and Ukraine. At least 137 people were killed while 100 more were wounded when gunmen stormed a concert venue on the outskirts of Moscow.
Putin has made no mention of the Islamic State group, which has claimed responsibility for the attack, nor has he acknowledged Kyiv’s denial of involvement. Instead, Putin is using the recent failure of his security services to push his narrative.
The Liar’s Dividend Is In Play
It was nearly 25 years ago, when Putin first rose to power that he blamed Chechens for a series of apartment building bombings—which some Kremlin critics allege may have been staged by the security services as a false flag operation to rally support for Russia’s war in Chechnya. Putin’s recent allegations that Kyiv was somehow behind or at least supported the attacks would seem to be a page out of the old playbook.
“The vast majority of Russians continue to get their news from radio and TV, which are now almost entirely controlled by the Kremlin,” said Dr. Matt Schmidt, professor of international affairs, national security, and political science at the University of New Haven.
“Russians already know that the perpetrators of the attack on Friday were members of ISIS-K, but what the regime has done is to say that elements of the Ukrainian government were supporting the group,” added Schmidt.
The Kremlin has left out a direct link to Zelensky and instead pushes the classic conspiratorial idea that something else might have been working in secret.
“They’re using it to essentially muddy the waters with a liar’s dividend that mixes in enough of the truth—that ISIS-K is involved—with misinformation so that people doubt the veracity of everything else they hear,” warned Schmidt. “It creates a situation where you can’t tell the truth from the lie.”
Could Social Media Set The Record Straight?
Likely, the majority of Russians may not hear of Kyiv’s denials, but the Kremlin won’t be able to completely shut off the flow of information from the rest of the world. Social media could serve to set the record straight on who was behind the deadly attack.
Russia may be forced to ramp up its propaganda machine even further.
“One of the things we’ve seen in the past with social media is that regimes are quick to adapt to them,” explained Dr. Cliff Lampe, professor of information and associate dean for academic affairs in the School of Information at the University of Michigan.
“One of the strategies of disinformation campaigns is ‘flooding’ where people interested in pushing a narrative will flood social media channels with a range of information in order to get people to give up on sorting it all out,” Lampe suggested. “Social media is vulnerable to flooding for the same reasons it’s resistant to state control—the ability of anyone to publish. However, flooding has seemed to work increasingly well and may hinder the ability of social media as a venue of alternative information.”
Yet, a great flood of misinformation may not be as effective as the Great Firewall that other authoritarian states have employed.
“Putin’s biggest mistake was not locking down the Russian Internet,” said Schmidt. “They don’t have the firewall to stop outside information like China and Iran do. In the early 2000s, Putin was dismissive of the Internet and didn’t understand its potential. As a result, the Russian Internet is connected to the world.”
This is noted as Russians can still access some foreign social media platforms, but also increasingly engage via the Telegram social messaging app.
“Telegram is allowing some information to come in,” said Schmidt. “But it is still being used by military bloggers and officials for propaganda, where the techniques are more of the liar’s dividend.”
However, that dividend could cut both ways. Putin’s attempt to cast blame on Kyiv could backfire and that could put into question the rationale for the invasion two years ago, as well as the conduct of the war.
“The Russian government has certainly used social media channels in the past to shape the narrative as it sees fit. They have used Telegram, specifically the ‘War on Fakes’ channel, to further spread disinformation,” said Jason Mollica, professorial lecturer in the School of Communication at American University.
That channel is known to provide fake “facts” about events that allegedly occurred to counter what it calls “Ukrainian disinformation.”
“According to Freedom House, the Telegram channel has amassed 62,500 subscribers since the beginning of the war. These so-called political channels spread Russian propaganda,” Mollica continued. “There are Telegram channels that share factual news on the war, though. It has been widely documented this is where many Russian citizens get an unfiltered view of the conflict. While there will be those in Russia who agree with the suggestion that Ukraine provided a window for the attacker, there are plenty of citizens who will hear that ISIS K is responsible.”
