Russia’s Psychological Warfare Against Ukraine

At Firestone Complete Auto Care, we hold our service to the highest standard.

That's why we have thousands of ASE-certified technicians nationally. So don't wait any longer.
Give us a call and book your next appointment today. Spring into deals with fresh savings at Lowe's.
Right now, get four Stay Green or premium two-cubic-foot mulch bags for just $10. Plus, get up to 35% off select major appliances.
And save $50 on every $500 you spend on select LG appliances. Shop in-store or online today.
Lowe's. We help.
You save. Valid through 430.
Selection varies by location. While supplies last.
See Associated or Lowe's.com for more details or qualifying items. Excludes Alaska and Hawaii.
Russian forces are advancing in Ukraine, including a major offensive near Ukraine's second largest city. President Zelensky has warned that Russia's latest push in Ukraine's northeast could be the first wave of a wider offensive.
Congress approved $60 billion in military aid for Ukraine in April. The approval came after months of dire warnings from Ukraine that its troops were running out of weapons and losing ground to Russian fighters.
The news out of Ukraine has recently turned bleak. Russia broke through critical lines in the north, and the Ukrainian side seems depleted of manpower and weapons.
Now, a major part of what changed the dynamic

was the whole And the Ukrainian side seems depleted of manpower and weapons.

Now, a major part of what changed the dynamic was the halt in U.S. aid.
The aid was stalled since Republicans took over Congress, although a month ago they passed the first aid bill in over a year, which may or may not be too late to turn things around. Now, I know that there is a connection between what happens on the battlefield in Ukraine and U.S.
politics. But I did not truly grasp how deep that connection was and how it could affect not just the upcoming election, but all of American culture, until I talked to staff writer Anne Applebaum.
Anne is the first person I always want to talk to in these moments when major shifts are underway because she can read between the lines. I'm Hannah Rosen.
This is Radio Atlantic. And this week, how Russia has brought a tour much closer to home than Americans may realize.
Anne has a new book coming out this summer called Autocracy, Inc. And in it, she's been putting together the pieces.
How the war in Ukraine is not just a fight for ground, but a fight for psychological territory. In Russia, in the U.S.
election, and pretty much all over the world. So things have shifted on the battlefield in Ukraine.
I know that much. Can you explain exactly what happened? So in essence, there are two different stories.
There's a story about the front line in northern and eastern Ukraine. And there we see what's now a full-scale, very large Russian offensive.

All of a sudden? Like, it just all of a sudden?

It's been pushing for a while, but there was a relaunched attack

in recent days and weeks against the city of Kharkiv,

which is in the far north, quite near the Russian border,

sort of northeast Ukraine, as well as in the east,

in the sort of Donetsk region. The Russians moved tens of thousands of troops into the area, so supposedly 50,000 east of Kharkiv, and redoubled their attacks on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure.
That seems to have been a plan, and it seems to have been timed to happen now. And why was it suddenly successful? Like, I feel like it's been stalled and stalled and stalled for almost a year.
The Ukrainians had been running out of ammunition for a long time and had during the six months in which we weren't helping them. And the European ammunition was also still on its way.
The Ukrainians were holding ground, but were losing weapons and equipment. And during that same period, the Russians regathered their forces.
And in the last few days, they decided to push forward, as I said, in those two places. And did anything change on the Russian side, like new strategy, new something? A couple of things changed on the Russian side.
One was the recruitment of more soldiers. They now pay people a lot of money to be in the army and in very poor parts of Russia, they will now go and fight.
Also, there's a kind of constant back and forth electronic warfare, drone warfare. The Russians got better at using drones and better at blocking Ukrainian drones and equipment.
That's one of these things where, and then they do one thing and and then the Ukrainians learn another thing, so there's a kind of constant spiral, and that's changing all the time. But they did recover from an earlier phase in the war when the Ukrainians could beat them using high tech a lot more easily.
I should say there's another piece of the war, however. The second piece of the story is that the Ukrainians are now using long-range weapons, some European, some American, some stuff they've been given recently, to hit targets in Crimea and also in Russia itself.

They hit an airfield.

They've been hitting gas and oil storage facilities, production facilities.

They've supposedly taken out perhaps as much as 10% of Russia's oil refining capacity. They've hit major military targets in Crimea.
And so this is their new form of innovation is to block Russian efforts from farther back. It's almost like a separate war from the war on the front line.
I see. So the traditional battlefield that we report on and have been tracking and monitoring looks bleak, but there's other things happening elsewhere.
Okay, that's good to know. A last battlefield question.
What's the importance of the cities, the particular cities and places where Russia has made incursions? So the attack on Kharkiv, which is sort of Ukraine's second city. It was actually at one point in history, it was the capital of Ukraine.

It's a major cultural and industrial center.

The fact that the Russians are now so focused on it,

focused on taking out their power stations,

taking out their infrastructure,

seemingly in order to force people out

to make people leave Kharkiv,

is a pretty major shift in the war.

They weren't attacking Kharkiv earlier in the war. Tactically or psychologically? Because it's such an important city.
I think it's probably psychological. The idea is to make it unlivable.
And my guess is that that's really the Russian strategy for all of Ukraine, is to make it unlivable. They can't capture it.
I mean, capturing Kharkiv would be a kind of six-month Stalingrad-like urban battle, would be my guess. And they probably don't want to do that.
So what they probably want to do instead is force everyone to leave. If there's no electricity and there's no water and the center is bombed out and you can't live there, then that's a different kind of victory.
Okay, I understand the strategy so much better. You mentioned USAID.
Everybody talks about USAID. I feel like you for months have been warning, USAID is critical.
Please pass an aid bill. Looking back on this year, how critical is or has USAID been to this shift in momentum? So the U.S.
aid and the argument in the U.S. over the aid were hugely important, both for real reasons in that, you know, the USAID provides ammunition and bullets and guns on the ground, and for psychological reasons.
Because what the Russians are trying to do is to exhaust Ukraine to convince people that Ukraine can't win, to convince Ukrainians that they have no allies, and thereby to get them to stop fighting. And so the Russians are hoping to win through a psychological game as much as a military game.
Interesting. Okay, so it's not just literal weapons.
I mean, it's also literal weapons. It's also literal weapons, but it's not only the literal weapons.
It's you are friendless and alone. You're friendless and alone, and your major supplier, which is the United States, or your big friend in Washington, isn't going to help you anymore.
And, you know, this had some impact on Ukrainians. I mean, there's a certain scratchiness that Ukrainians now have about the U.S.
You know, we relied on them. And then, you know, U.S.
domestic politics undermined that, you know, I remember Biden went there, first U.S. president to visit a war zone in a place where the U.S.
didn't even have troops on the ground and promised them he would stand by them. And then he didn't.
And okay, it wasn't his fault and it wasn't him alone. But nevertheless, that was experienced by a lot of people as a kind of betrayal.
That was very psychologically damaging. And think about also what it meant.
It meant that there were soldiers on the front line who didn't have anything to shoot back with. Right.
So when you say scratchiness, that's what you mean, just a mistrust. Mistrust, you know, doubt, the sense of being part of a big friendly alliance is chipped away quite a bit.
I mean it has to be said that during this time there have been a bunch of new European projects to give them aid. There was the so-called Czech ammunition initiative.
The Czechs are major producers of ammunition and weapons and have been for many decades. And there are a number of big European projects that are just getting off the ground to make new weapons, to make ammunition and so on.
So other things have been happening. But the U.S.
aid was expected to carry Ukraine over for six months and it wasn't there. Right.
So U.S. aid was literally important and it was meant as a bridge.
So it's like there is no more bridge. Yes.
I mean it's fixed now, in other words. So the aid is coming.
It's hard for me to tell from outside how fast it's coming. It seems some things got there right away.
These long-range weapons got there right away. Other things seem to be taking longer.
So that's hard for me to tell. But there was some damage that was done by the delay.
So both psychological damage and damage in terms of lost territory and lost ability to fight. Can we look at this from the U.S.
side for a minute, since there is about to be an election? Do you just look at it as standard deadlock, or do you see some isolationism rising up in a more powerful way than it had before? How do you read the long delay from the American side? So I don't think isolationism is the right word to use. I think what we were seeing was something different, which was a concerted effort to block aid that was coming from Donald Trump and people around Trump and was supported by people inside the Republican Party who are actually pro-Russian.
So I don't think it's just that they, you know, want America to withdraw and live in splendid isolation. I think there is a piece of the Republican Party that actively supports Russia.
There are members of Congress who repeat Russian propaganda on the floor of the House and of the Senate and who actively spread Russian propaganda on social media. So you can't, those people aren't isolationists.
I mean, there's something a little bit more than that happening. Okay.
So that sounds conspiratorial to the uninitiated. So prove yourself.
Yes, please. So to unpack, I mean, so first of all, don't listen to me.
Listen to this various Senate and House leaders who have also said this. So chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Tom Tillis, who's a Republican senator.
They're all people who have said on the record, on TV in the last few weeks, weeks and months, have talked about their colleagues repeating Russian propaganda. There's one specific story.

For example, there's a story that circulated on social media a few months ago that said that President Zelensky of Ukraine had purchased two yachts, and there were pictures of the yachts that came in some kind of post. Obviously, President Zelensky has not purchased any yachts.
Kiev is landlocked. What does he need the yachts for anyway? It was a completely made-up story that nevertheless was passed around

the sort of MAGA Russian echo chamber,

which are more or less the same thing.

That story, during the debate about Ukraine aid,

Senator Tillis said he heard his colleagues in the Senate,

Republican colleagues in the Senate, cite that story and say, for example, you know, we shouldn't give Ukraine aid because Zelensky will just spend it on his yachts. So that is a direct example of a false story that comes from the swamp of the internet that is being passed around and that is then repeated by a member of the United States Senate as a reason why we shouldn't help Ukraine.
You couldn't get a more pure example of how fever dreams created in some troll's brain or, you know, on somebody's phone then become a part of the conversation in Congress. And there's another set of arguments that are coming from Donald Trump's camp.
You know, and Trump himself says some of it in public. He says he wants to do a deal with Russia.
And there have been little leaks about what that deal might look like. And perhaps the deal includes some kind of negotiation over the border.
Perhaps the deal includes some new U.S. relationship with Russia.
Perhaps the deal includes some kind of deal to do with fuel prices, oil prices. Clearly an interest in the Trump camp to have some kind of alliance with Russia.
And some people also in the Trump orbit talk about breaking up Russia and China. We need a relationship with Russia in order to oppose China, which is one of these things that sounds great until you remember how much Russia and China have in common and the reasons why they're in alliance have nothing to do with us.
But that's a separate company. But there are enough people in that world who are looking for reasons why we should be allied with Russia and not with Ukraine, that it's not some kind of coincidence.
I see. Okay.
So what I'm taking from that is it's not a totally coherent plan or motivation.

There's a little bit of this. There's a little bit of pro-Russia business interests.
There's a little bit of Trump magic. There's a whole bunch of interests, but somehow the result is that there's a repeating of propaganda.
Yeah, I don't think it's a conspiracy, and 99% of it is visible to the naked eye. I'm just quoting you things that people have said.
And it's simply a desire by a part of the Republican Party to have a different role in the world. We don't want to be the country that aids struggling democracies.
We want to be the country that does deals. We're going to do a deal with Russia.
We'll do a deal with whoever we can do deals with. The idea is that the United States isn't a leader of NATO.
The United States isn't the leader of the democratic world. Instead, the United States is one power among many who does transactional deals with whoever it deems to be in its interest at that moment.
And that was Trump's foreign policy in the first term. He was restrained in it.
He was prevented from doing everything that he wanted to do. He wanted to drop out of NATO, but he was talked out of it by John Bolton and others.
But that's not a new phenomenon. That's the way a part of the party is going.
And interestingly, that faction did not win. There was USAID.
USAID was delivered. How critical do you think the new infusion of aid is or will be? So the new infusion of aid is critical.
Again, I'm not on the ground and I can't tell you what exactly has got there and what exactly it will be doing. But psychologically, it means the Ukrainians know more stuff is coming.
So they're not being shot at on the front lines with no help arriving. So they have something is coming, it's on the way.
That's very important. And then also some of the new weapons we've already seen in effect.
So the hits on Crimea and on some of the other places, you know, on the front lines seem to be effective because of some of the New Year's weapons. All right.
So that's the situation in Ukraine. When we come back, Russian propaganda,

how surprisingly effective it's been, and how it's taken root far from Moscow, both in the United States and elsewhere, and what that means for the future of democracy everywhere. Are you still quoting 30-year-old movies?

Have you said cool beans in the past 90 days? Do you think Discover isn't widely accepted? If this sounds like you, you're stuck in the past. Discover is accepted at 99% of places that take credit cards nationwide.
And every time you make a purchase with your card, you automatically earn cash back. Welcome to the now.
It pays to Discover. Learn more at discover.com slash credit card.
Based on the February 2024 Nielsen Report. Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile.
I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same premium wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities.
So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to do at mintmobile.com slash switch.
Upfront payment of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available.
Taxes and fees extra. Default terms at mintmobile.com.
So where we are now, there's this critical moment in the war, and then there are all these shifting underlying alliances that we saw come out in the debate over aid. And a lot of them have to do with shifting propaganda and messaging, which is really interesting.
How is Vladimir Putin messaging this moment? Like, what's he saying? So, Putin's messaging, what Putin himself says, is of no significance. Russian messaging and Russian propaganda comes through a lot of different channels.
So, it comes through proxies, it comes through some Russian ambassadors, there's, of course, Russian TV, there's RT, and some of it is laundered through, it's called information laundering. It's laundered through other kinds of publications that have links to Russia that you can't see.
So there'll be newspapers or websites in Africa or Latin America, which look on the surface like they have anything to do with Russia, but in fact, they have links to Russia. This is why we have you and Apple.
Some of it. I mean, I'm actually very interested in how it works in Africa, which I think is more interesting than how it works in the U.S.

But that's a separate story. But some of it, as we know, I mean, it comes through trolls on social media.
Twitter is now pretty much awash in different kinds of Russian trolls. It's hard to say if they're really Russians or they're just people who like Russia or they're being paid.
Who knows? Who knows? But there's a lot of it. So a lot of the attempts that social media companies made a few years ago to control some of this stuff, some of them don't work as well anymore, especially on Twitter, but not only.
So the messages come in different ways. And I should also say that the other new factor is that the messages are sometimes amplified by other autocracies.
So in addition to Russian messaging, you now have Chinese messaging, some of which echoes Russian messaging. You have Iranian messaging, same thing.
Venezuelan messaging, same thing. What do you mean same thing? Like same message about the Ukraine war? Yes, same messages about the Ukraine war.
What's the message? The message is the Ukrainians are Nazis. The Ukrainians can't win.
The war is America's fault. This is a NATO war against Russia that was provoked by NATO.
There's a kind of another strand alongside it that also says, you know, Ukraine is decaying and chaotic and catastrophic. The United States is also decaying and divided and catastrophic.
You know, these are all losing powers and you shouldn't support them. I mean, that's it.
So I'm being very, very overgeneral. But there's now a kind of authoritarian set of narratives, which more or less are all about that.
And they're now repeated by lots of different actors in different countries. I mean, there's some specific things about Ukraine.
In a cover story I wrote for The Atlantic, I describe a story that was very important at the very beginning of the war, the so-called biolabs conspiracy theory, which was an idea that the U.S. is building biological weapons in laboratories in Ukraine, and that somehow that's the reason for the war.
This was completely fake. It was debunked multiple times, including at the UN.
Nevertheless, it was repeated by Russian sources. It was repeated by Chinese sources.
It went out. China has a huge media network in Africa.
That story went out on that network. You can find it all over, you know, Ecuador and Chile and so on.
And that was a story that was so prevalent at the beginning of the war that something like 30 percent of Americans saw it and may well have believed it. And certainly a lot of Africans and Latin Americans also saw it and may well have believed it.
You're speaking and I'm feeling utterly defeated. I mean, that's the truth.
Like, I feel utterly defeated by these washes and washes and washes of information coming from all corners that are going to snag in some people's minds and sort of corrode them. Like, that's the image I had as you were talking.
So, in a moment like this, all that is the groundwork. What you just described as the groundwork has been going on since the Ukraine war began.
It's been going on for a decade. I mean, it has to be said the Ukrainians are also good at messaging and they have resisted that pretty well.
And they were very good at it in the first year of the war. The majority of Americans still support Ukraine.
The majority of Europeans still support Ukraine. So it's not as if the Russians are winning everywhere all the time.
It's just that they have, it turned out they had affected a key part of the Republican Party, which actually, by the way, took me by surprise. When the aid didn't pass early last autumn, I was initially surprised.
Surprised that this broader message was seeping up into... It was the broader message and the degree to which Trump didn't want it passed and was blocking it.
And therefore, first it was Kevin McCarthy, later Mike Johnson were also willing to block it. That was not something I expected.
Because you and your mind are used to like, okay, there's some isolationist strain, but the idea that the argument itself has taken on all kinds of force, motivation. The idea that they had that much power at the top of the Republican Party, because many senior Republicans, the leaders of all the important committees in the House, are all people who have been to Ukraine, who have been very pro-Ukraine, who understand the significance of Ukraine and the war in the world and were willing to help.

None of the congressional leadership were buying any of this Russian propaganda.

But then it turned out that it still mattered because of Donald Trump.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this global propaganda war that you're describing.

I'm used to thinking of propaganda, I guess, in an old-fashioned way, which is it's something that happens over there in countries that are autocracies, and the autocrats impose it on their beleaguered citizens, and it doesn't have anything to do with me. Like, it's something I anthropologically witness.
That's very 20th century. Yes.
That's the 20th century idea. So, in the 20th century, when you think of what was Soviet propaganda, right? It was posters with tractor drivers, and they had square jaws, and they were digging lots of wheat, and there would be overproduction in the steel industry and so on.
And we might buy them in a campy way. We might buy them.
I think I'm sure I own some. Yes, I do.
Yeah. So that was 20th century Soviet propaganda, which ultimately failed because it was so easy to compare that with reality.
Right. So even when I first went to the Soviet Union in the 80s, people could see that wasn't true.
That was the major flaw of that form of propaganda. What happens now and led by the Russians, and this has been true for a decade, modern Russian propaganda and now other autocracies echo it, is not focused so much on promoting the greatness of Russia.
Sometimes there's a bit of that. Mostly it's focused on the degeneracy and decline of democracy.
So the idea is to make sure that Russians don't imagine there's something better anywhere else. Because they wouldn't know.
Like you can tell that Russian propaganda about Russia is a lie because you're actually waiting on a breadline. So you know that it's not as good as the posters are showing.
But you don't necessarily know. But you haven't been to Sweden or the United Kingdom or wherever.
And so, and a lot of it was the implication of it. Now I'm just paraphrasing, but it was, okay, not everything in Russia is perfect.
And okay, we may be, we have some corruption and we have some oligarchs, but look over there at the hideous decline of, you know, England and

France. perfect and okay, we have some corruption and we have some oligarchs, but look over there at the hideous decline of, you know, England and France and Germany and America.
You wouldn't want to be like that. And the purpose of this is that the main opponents of Putin and Putinism were people, and over the last two decades have been people, who used the language of democracy and transparency and anti-corruption.
And freedom. And freedom.
And that kind of language was also aligned with an idea that there were better societies like, you know, in Europe and North America and Russia could be like them. And remember that many Russians in the 90s did hope that their country would become a democracy and believed it well into the 2000s that it was still a possibility.
And we're used to the idea that these countries are our friends. And so what Putin has set out to do is to poison that idea.
So poison the idea that there's anything better and And to poison the idea of the ideas. Poison the language.
Democracy, freedom, transparency, rule of law, anti-corruption. All those things have to be shown to be false.
And this has been done in various ways. So there's a version of this inside Russia.
And there's a version abroad. But inside Russia, it's been part of an anti-LGBT campaign.

You know, the Western world is degenerate. Putin has said it himself.
There are many different kinds of genders. Who even knows what happens over there anymore? An implication of degeneracy here, we still have some kind of clean, more traditional way of life.
Exactly. And that was mostly originally designed for the Russian audience.
But it also had a certain echo and an appeal to a far-right audience in the United States and in Europe. You know, the Russians do it because they want to weaken the United States.
They want the U.S. to leave Europe.
They want, you know, American decline to accelerate. And Americans do it because they want to take over the government and replace it with a different kind of government.
And so many of the people who will repeat Russian propaganda have been repeating some of those same ideas also for a day. I mean, this story goes back, you know, probably 20 years.
So this is nothing especially new. But it became much more turbocharged in 2014 during the first Russian invasion of Ukraine.
It sounds like what you're saying is we are vulnerable. I mean, it seems like their propaganda war is winning, the autocrats.
I feel like the Americans are duped in this scenario. So a little bit, I mean, first of all, it's not clear yet that they're winning.
I mean, again, majority of Americans support Ukraine and majority of Americans support the idea that the U.S. should be a democracy.
So we's not, we're not finished yet. It's a very delicate thing.

I mean, are we being manipulated and duped by foreigners,

or is it elements in our own society that are seeking to manipulate us and dupe?

In other words, the farthest thing I want to do is say that somehow the Russians are intervening in our politics and changing it.

I think it's more complicated than that.

I think we have a very important element of U.S. politics that believes the same things and uses the same tactics and is very happy to be amplified by the Russians for its own ends.
So usually what happens is that Russian propaganda doesn't invent things that are new. So, for example, in France, the Russians did not invent Marine Le Pen, who's the French far-right leader.
She's been part of French politics for decades. They just amplify her.
In her case, they gave her some money. In Spain, there's a Catalan separatist movement, which has also been supported by the Russians in different ways.
Did they invent that? No, it was already there. It's been part of Spanish politics for decades.
What they do is they take an existing fault line or an existing division and then they help it get worse. So whether that's through, you know, social media campaigns, in some cases through money, in some cases through helping particular individuals, they seek to amplify.
So it's almost like there's this coalescing global division and on one side a sort of autocracy and nostalgia. Except that it's...
And the other side is what? Like freedom and democracy? Yeah, except that it's more complicated because there is no... It's not the Cold War.
There's no geographic line. There's no Berlin Wall and good guys are on one side and bad guys are on the other.
These are struggles that are taking place within each democracy and actually within each autocracy. I mean, I'm leaving out the fact that there are Democrats in Russia and movements in Iran and in China, for example, that have also wanted greater freedom, greater autonomy, rule of law.
A lot of it's about transparency. You know, we want to know where the money is and how did our leaders become so rich.
That's what the Navalny movement was about, for example, in Russia. And so there is

a battle going on between two worldviews, but it's not, you know, the divisions aren't geographical. They're in people's heads.
Right. Okay.
So with Ukraine and this whole propaganda war in mind that you're describing, what are the stakes for the 2024 election? I think the stakes for the 2024 election are really stark. Is the United States going to remain allied with other democracies? Is it going to continue on the path of the struggle against kleptocracy, which is finally beginning to gain a little bit of traction? So against money laundering and anonymous companies and so on.
Is the United States going to militarily resist Russian incursions in Europe? And this is a package of things. Is the United States going to maintain its alliances with Japan and South Korea and Taiwan? Or is the United States going to become a transactional power whose friends one day might be Russia, another day might be North Korea, no longer leads a recognizable democratic alliance, either on the ground in the world or mentally? I mean, are we still going to be seen as a country that stands for a set of ideas, as well as a country that respects language about human rights and human dignity and so on?

Or are we going to become a transactional power like so many others? And that's one of the questions that's on the ballot in November. Well, that is very clear.
And thank you for helping us put all these pieces together. That was very helpful.
Thank you. to read more of Ann Applebaum's work, check out her June cover story of The Atlantic, The New Propaganda War, and look for her upcoming book, Autocracy, Inc., this summer.
This episode was produced by Kevin Townsend and edited by Claudina Bade. It was engineered by Rob Smirciak and fact-checked by Yvonne Kim.
Claudina Bade is the executive producer of Atlantic Audio, and Andrea Valdez is our managing editor. I'm Hannah Rosen.
Thank you for listening. To preserve democracy, one has to believe in it.
To believe in democracy, one has to understand it. Where it came from.
How it works. What's true.
What's not true. What others did before you.
How it could be better. How to make a difference.
I'm David Frum, a staff writer at The Atlantic.

I'm starting a new show where each week I'll dig deep

into the big questions people have about our politics and our society.

I'll explain progress that the peoples of the democratic world have made together

and remind you that the American idea is worth defending.

Listen to or watch The David Frum Show

wherever you get your podcasts.