In August 1990, when the United States launched the Gulf War to reclaim Kuwait from the invading forces of Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein, it was touted as the world’s first real-time media war. Those of us who lived through the war in nearby Bahrain or Saudi Arabia literally followed the trajectory of the missiles as they streaked into the skies and landed in Iraq. Cynically, media observers said that the war was also being fought in the correct time zone, since most of the missiles were fired after sunset and it would be daytime and decision-making time at the Pentagon and also for the millions of TV audience in America, who woke up to watch the war coverage.
Fast forward to 2022 – right from the time that Russia started amassing tanks and troops on the Ukraine border in preparation for its brutal invasion which followed, the much smaller and less powerful country, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has used the internet to mobilise global support against the Goliath Russian enemy. The ability to slip short, powerful videos and messages to his people and to the world has time and again helped to turn this war on a dime for Ukraine. Ukraine’s social media posts alerted the world to Russia’s true intent long before the war attack began by broadcasting the sheer size of the troops massing on the border; when Russia taunted Ukrainians that Zelensky had fled the country, he posted a video of himself standing defiantly in front of the presidency building, flanked by his senior aides, telling the world, “We are here. We are in Kyiv. We are protecting Ukraine.” The video’s message would have been silenced by Russia if not for the internet and it became an iconic video and a rallying cry for the Ukrainians.
Of course, the shaping of the war narrative through social media is not a surprise for both countries and globally, a tech war is surging that seeks to wrest control of the story. The Washington Post calls this “the most Internet-accessible war in history,” and perhaps the most crucial digital technology moment came from a simple device: internet-enabled video conferencing. Near the end of Sunday’s major EU summit meeting about the war, Zelensky appeared by videoconference to plead for assistance with the assembled heads of state. As one European official described the call, “it was extremely, extremely emotional. . .. He was essentially saying, ‘Look, we are here dying for European ideals.’” Zelensky ended the video call by stating that this could be the last time the leaders saw him alive. His appeal led to the imposition of draconian sanctions intended to bring the Russian economy to a standstill.
In fact, U.S. tech companies have been at the forefront of identifying and flagging what they call “Russian disinformation and propaganda”. According to a report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Twitter announced it will label all content coming from Russian government media outlets as such. Meta and TikTok are blocking access to Russian state media in the EU, following a request from EU members. Google, YouTube, and Facebook are prohibiting Russian state media from running ads. And beyond social media, the broader tech sector has also put up barriers: Apple has suspended all product sales in Russia, SpaceX has delivered a truckload of Starlink satellite dishes to help Ukraine maintain internet connectivity, and Microsoft has played an active role assisting Ukraine and NATO members in counteracting Russian cyber-attacks.”
And what about Russia? How has the aggressor sought to counter these moves? In February this year, Russia said it would partially restrict Facebook, a move Meta said came after it refused a government request to stop the independent fact-checking of several Russian state media outlets. Spurred by roadblocks put up by international social media apps, Russia is encouraging home-grown developers to launch a series of locally made social apps which can then replace certain networks: such as Instagram which have been blocked by the Russian government, and YouTube, which is now under growing pressure. Many Russian creators are moving to parallel Russian-grown platforms like Rossgram, Yandex Zen, RUTUBE, and VKontakte (VK) as an alternative to services like Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, and even Netflix.
The Russian government has even dismantled universally accepted copyright restrictions in a policy it calls “parallel imports” that essentially legalizes intellectual piracy.
“The goal of this mechanism is to satisfy the demand for [intellectual] goods,” said Mikhail Mishustin, the Russian prime minister. “Until now, we couldn’t sell [them] on the territory of our country without the agreement of the copyright holder.”
For example, Instagram was hugely popular in Russia, representing a crucial source of income for many businesses. Russia’s ban of the app on March 14, (as a result of what the Russian government called efforts by parent company Meta to flag official Russian news sources on Facebook) was shocking to Russian people, especially the influencers. The alternative Rossgram looked roughly like Instagram, with a similar color scheme, icons, and other trademark features but still lacking the seamless feel of the original.
Similarly, a recent investigation showed that the Russian authorities had been offering money to influencers in Russia to move to the RUTUBE platform – the local alternative to YouTube - even before the Ukrainian war. RUTUBE was created by Russian company Gaz Prom Media in 2006 and is seeing a surge in growth now. claimed that its users have been increasing significantly recently.
Gazprom-Media CEO Alexander Zharov said that the Russian platform’s users are reaching 450 thousand people per day, while video downloads rose from 3,000 to 40,000 times a day.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova urged Russian YouTube users to transfer their content to the new Russian platforms, warning that YouTube may disappear from Russia soon. “Save content, transfer to Russian platforms. And hurry up,” she posted on Telegram, noting that “YouTube has sealed its fate.”
Which brings us to the peculiar acceptance of Telegram and WhatsApp, the last apps standing in the Russian internet space. As of August 2021, around 38 million Russians were using Telegram, while close to 77 million Russians were on WhatsApp, according to data from Statista. Those numbers are presumably much higher in the wake of Instagram and Facebook’s ban. WhatsApp likely hasn’t been banned yet due to its popularity: It’s the most widely-used messaging app in the country, and Russians don’t really have an alternative to the platform. Russia more notably doesn’t seem too concerned about people using WhatsApp for mass communication or information gathering. When a Russian court declared Meta “extremist,” it said: “The decision does not apply to the activities of Meta's messenger WhatsApp, due to its lack of functionality for the public dissemination of information.”
Telegram is used by many Kremlin-backed accounts and as an active voice for the Russian side of the story. The app was briefly banned by the Russian government in 2018 after the platform refused to hand over its encryption keys, which the country argued were needed to monitor potential terrorist activity. It took Telegram to court over the issue, but the ban was lifted two years later after Telegram expressed “willingness” to help the country fight terrorism and extremism.
Natalia Krapiva, a tech-legal counsel at civil rights non-profit Access Now said “Recently, there was a government official kind of hinting that Telegram is providing information about terrorists, and that's why Telegram may not be touched.”
Telegram has refuted those remarks but since Telegram’s chats also aren’t end-to-end encrypted by default, it has led to speculation that the Russian government could press Telegram to hand over available user information. With Telegram being widely used by Russian citizens, government officials and news organizations alike, there could be more room for a platform like WhatsApp to slide under the radar for users to speak out against the Russian government, Krapiva said.
Is the stance taken by Western tech companies mere posturing in favour of democracy or a realliberal stand? U.S. firms are using this moment to argue that their market dominance is a pro-democracy weapon. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, for example, has asserted that breaking up Big Tech would relinquish control of a major American lever of geopolitical influence. Where once people dismissed Zuckerberg’s words as marketing PR for his brand, using the bogeyman of Chinese tech hegemony, the Ukraine mess has changed the perception somewhat. (Of course, anybody who has followed big tech betrayals will remember that Zuckerberg’s Facebook raked big money in by allowing the now-defunct data-mining firm Cambridge Analytica to use its data for Donald Trump’s general election campaign.)
Undoubtedly, the war between Russia and Western big tech companies will accelerate the fragmenting of the internet and in the future, the governing of the internet will be even more complex. However, we must remember that democracies as well as autocracies are tightening the screws on internet freedom of expression and usage and it is not just the ‘classic authoritarian states’ like Russia and China where online content and usage is policed. Today, such state bullying is also seen in countries like Brazil, India, Nigeria, and Turkey. Will governments agree to build a shared primer to preserve internet freedom of speech and democratic values?
As Steven Feldstein of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said,
“Russia’s invasion has shown the power of internet platforms to elevate democratic voices and undercut authoritarian agendas. But they are not substitutes for diplomatic or military action; in the short term, they can do little to stop Putin’s war machine from inflicting violence and brutality on the Ukrainian people. In the longer term, the incapacity of Russia’s digital propaganda machine and the corresponding global outrage provoked by social media against Putin’s assault will bring grave consequences for Russia’s interests. The Russia-Ukraine crisis affords internet platforms a unique opportunity to demonstrate how they can support democracy and advance the public interest. This will mean staying firm against Russian pressure even when Moscow directly threatens their interests and future viability in the country.”
