Thread by @Calthalas

A lot of people try to make sense of the current crisis with maps, so why don't we talk a bit about why the approach of the majority of media in this regard is not the best. And why it might actually (inadvertently) represent the way Putin wants us to think. (Source: Guardian) 1/

First disclaimer: I work a lot with representing data on maps and with narratives that they contain. I am not a military expert. But I am a researcher of narratives of visualisations. 2/

For all we know Putin's forces are present in most of the areas highlighted here as "under Russian control". But apart from Crimea and Luhansk and Donetsk separatist areas they don't actually control all of it. (Source: Die Zeit) 3/

Even when Russian forces are present in major cities in those areas we have little knowledge of successful attempts to even temporarily administrate them. The reason for it is simple: it is impossible at this stage, if ever in the foreseeable future. 4/

For Putin such a view, the presence of "under Russian control" on these maps, is actually a boon for his narrative. The more of these are in red (and there will be more), the more those maps confirm that Russia securely controls swathes of Ukrainian territory. (Source: BBC) 5/

Why do it, then? We are used to think geographically in terms of areas of control and borders, lines in the sand. This is why we still draw maps of medieval Europe with neat borders representing lines on the ground. The "states" have to "touch" on a map. (Source: Cyowari) 6/

Second disclaimer: such maps are actually great for a lot of purposes and the one above is gorgeous to look at while giving a good rough overview. It just doesn't really represent the way space was controlled at the time. 7/

These maps don't even show 'zones of control' (actually a wargaming term) understood as areas were Russian military denies Ukrainian military presence. (And certainly not, as here, 'occupies' them). This is just simply not how this form of invasion works. (Source: NYT) 8/

For Putin, establishing the presumption of control of as large a territory as possible is key for a number of goals, not least for the attempt to establish a puppet government. This presumption of control, due to the general lack of secure info, will be expressed in maps. 9/

Third disclaimer: all this does not mean that Ukraine fully or partially controls these areas. The whole point is that 'control' and 'occupation' are at their cartographical limit of meaning here. 10/

The situation might change in the near future. But for now we should try to think in a more fuzzy way. Maps like this one, showing directions of operations of Russian forces are more useful. And they deny Putin's illusion of full territorial control. 11/

Some general thoughts for the end: every map is a projection of power. As the war progresses and as the intensity of information war increases maps will only gain in significance. And they will be crucial for establishing a settlement. Beware of maps bearing easy lines. 12/

Also: news outlets, journalists, media. Talk to us, humanists and especially historians. How space and movement are represented and how Putin's invasion is shown on maps matters now and will matter even more in the future. 13/

If you are interested in a deep theoretical dive into why aggregating and mapping data is always a form of a narrative, I have written a paper about "Facsimile Narratives". (This is what academics link when they don't have a Soundcloud). 14/

academic.oup.com/dsh/advance-ar…

For everyone interested in more complex analysis of the role of maps in the Russian invasion, here is my piece for @ForeignPolicy about it. 15/

foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/07/rus…

Jetzt auch eine Analyse auf Deutsch, die sich auf konkrete Beispiele und Ideen zur Verbesserung konzentriert. 16/

uebermedien.de/69336/die-mach…