Re my last tweet which (accidentally!) went viral. Several remarks.
1/ Just to be clear, it was a paraphrase! I was just describing what they said. Obviously, I don’t think that Ukrainian forces are destroyed or other bs they said.
2/ I don’t think it should be read as a sign that Putin is going to retreat. The overall framing of the show was still very supportive of the invasion. Other guests said that Putin should proceed with the invasion.
3/ But the fact that these two people spoke agains this invasion was markedly different from the completely monolithic pro-invasion narrative on state channels before.
4/ I think Russian propagandists are just forced to react to military failures and the impact of sanctions. You cannot tell people your invasion proceeds as planned forever when it’s not. People are starting to worry about sanctions as well. It is impossible to ignore.
5/ This, again, was pre-recorded and aired on national state TV on the main propagandist talk show. Dissenting voices wouldn’t be allowed there if the Kremlin thought they posed a threat.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
My previous tweet went viral because it resonated with what most people want today - Putin out of Ukraine (and hopefully in The Hague). Many saw a sign of an off-ramp. Unfortunately, I don't think it is. Some context about how these propagandists shows work in Russia (14).
1/ In the past decade, and especially after 2014, numerous political propagandist talk shows appeared on state television in Russia. They are used to deliver pro-regime narratives to audiences. They focus on criticism of NATO, Ukraine, praising Putin, etc.
2/ But they also represent an innovation in genre. Vera Tolz and Yuriy Teper has come up with the term “agitainment” for it - a mix of ideological messaging and entertaining formats to enhance the effect on the viewer.
Just watched Russia’s main political talk show with notorious propagandist Soloviev (Mar 9). Couldn’t believe my ears. Two hardcore pro-Putin guests - Shaknazarov and Bagdasarov - acknowledged the impact of sanctions, military failures, and called for an end to the invasion.
1/ Many Russian elites are dissatisfied with the war. But these two could not say it spontaneously. This show is pre-recorded and carefully orchestrated. Which means that these discussions were approved and permitted.
2/ Shaknazarov acknowledged that Ukrainian government has unified the country against Russia. Ukraine has well-trained military forged by 8 years of war in Donbas. There is no way to install pro-Russian government because nobody influential would agree to be in this role.
Since the beginning of the war, Russian pollsters have been publishing terrifying results suggesting that the majority of Russians support the invasion. Here is my take on why these results are inflated for @opendemocracyru
1/ Self-selection bias. Regime critics have reasons to be afraid to express their views. They trust surveys less than regime supporters and are less likely to participate. More supporters in a sample -> the results look like more people support the government’s actions.
2/ Social desirability. Regime critics may lie about their real preferences. Sometimes this effect does not happens, but in the current context it is likely. Last year 50% were afraid of repressions. Today Russia is experiencing much more cruel and visible repressions.