Kremlin Speak in Syria
Communication scholars who study propaganda most often try to understand how people are fooled by such information operations. They are so often patently false.
But I find it interesting that we often neglect the study the shifts made in propaganda. Not only do the targets of propaganda seem to swallow the line of the day, but they seem to bend with every turn of the argument. Those who follow an autocrat, for example, are simply likely to support anything s/he says as well as rationalise any shift in the argument.
The Atlantic Council provides a recent example that is nicely Orwellian. The enemy one day ends up being the friend the next. With the collapse of Assad’s forces in Syria, the Kremlin rapidly shifted from characterising the forces opposed to Assad as ‘terrorists’ to referring to them as ‘armed opposition groups’ (Dickenson 2024). This shift allows them to smooth over the Kremlin’s defeat in Syria and start paving a way to retaining its military bases and the Russian Embassy in Syria.
This shift has a logic to it, of course. But it is clearly disingenuous to say the least. Will they get away with this shift? Probably, yes, if the new rulers of Syria see advantages to gaining Russian assistance. Is this the art of negotiation, Orwellian propaganda, or both?
Reference
Dickinson, Peter. (2024), ‘Putin’s quiet Syrian surrender reveals the weakness behind his intimidation tactics’, Washington DC: Atlantic Council: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putins-quiet-syrian-surrender-reveals-the-weakness-behind-his-intimidation-tactics/