Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addressed the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, and it has resulted in a number of controversies—including how the leader’s comments about a grain embargo resulted in a rift with its staunch supporter Poland, and how Russian diplomats attempted to block the speech from taking place.

However, there is a controversy over whether or not the video broadcast of the speech in Ukraine was edited. Social media has posted images that appear to show that Ukrainian media edited footage in order to give the impression that there was a much larger audience than what it actually appeared to be.

Zelensky was reportedly seen sitting in the same audience as President Biden during his remarks earlier that day.

Multiple news agencies have widely distributed the official video of this speech.

The Ukrainian government has not made any official comments on the broadcast that was sent to the residents of the country, but Kyiv would be in error if they did edit the video.

“A knee-jerk reaction would be that video manipulation by anyone is inappropriate—but in this case, it poses a dilemma,” suggested Susan Schreiner, senior analyst at C4 Trends. “Why are we holding Ukraine to a higher standard than the misinformation disseminated by Russia, China or even Trump—with his penchant for bragging about the size of his crowds on Inauguration Day?”

Seeing Is Believing… Until It Isn’t

It would also be easy to believe the narrative that Ukraine manipulated the video—but it does seem so sloppily done that it could be a case of disinformation, presented by Kremlin propagandists, especially as the actual clips are so readily available. What should be the concern is that the posts of the clips on X—the platform formerly known as Twitter—quickly went viral on Thursday with few questioning whether the edited videos actually aired in Ukraine.

The question is, did the fake video actually exist, or was there a deliberate disinformation campaign behind it?

With the proliferation of social media, which is awash with sophisticated technology, it has become increasingly hard to separate fact and truth from falsehood and fiction. Schreiner continued, “I fear this situation will only worsen with the increase of book censorships and interferences in classroom curricula that reflect conformity and discourage thinking and exploration.”

Most people do not seek confirmation when misinformation is spread via social media. Too often they trust what they see—but increasingly seeing shouldn’t result in believing.

“While ‘older’ logic would suggest that new ethical and moral guardrails need to be established—in today’s climate that seems Quixotic,” she continued. It’s likely that the technology will lead to new types of watermarking or other forms of verification. Can technology also deliver the context—or do new tools need to be developed that enable technology to work alongside humans?

Spreading Misinformation Like Superspreaders

As more and people rely upon social media as their main source of information, misinformation has spread like wildfire. In a world with so little faith in mainstream media, social media has become a source of misinformation and disinformation.

“We should always be on guard against propaganda, but with this kind of coverage, we are at the intersection of war news, with its inherent opportunities for false information—which can be an effective weapon—served up on social media platforms that are hard-wired to reward outrage and chaos,” warned Susan Campbell, distinguished lecturer in the Department of Communication, Film and Media Studies at the University of New Haven.

In these perilous and worrying times, people live in echo chambers and silos that reflect their so-called views. Schreiner added that in this environment it is easy for misinformation spread to the point of a wildfire.

Many reports confirm that she was correct in pointing out the influence of Russia, its troll farm and other foreign actors on the results of the U.S. elections of 2016.

“In a more reasonable world—perhaps gravity will set in and people will slowly move towards being open to finding a middle-ground for respectful discussion within the context of agreeing to disagree,” said Schreiner. “Maybe that’s become a quixotic dream but for the sake of humanity—there needs to be an evolution in the changing relationship between people and modernity with technology.”

The “milbloggers”, who are pro-Kremlin, have been adamantly supporting President Vladimir Putin since the beginning of Russia’s “special military operations” on February 28, 2024. After the Wagner Group’s short-lived coup in early this year, the propagandaists began to show cracks.

As Ukraine’s counteroffensive has picked up steam and made success in recent weeks, the milbloggers have become increasingly critical of the war effort—if not Putin directly. Moscow could be forced into action to quell any opposition.

Kremlin already was worried by the perception outside of their war in Ukraine. “They blocked Facebook and major foreign media outlets reporting the truth of the invasion,” said Jason Mollica. Professorial Lecturer at the School of Communication, American University.

The milbloggers could be the next to be silenced, at least if they offer real opinions or are too critical of the Kremlin—specifically of Putin.

Mollica added that “journalistic freedom” is not the same in America. The lack of protection will make some reporters/bloggers afraid of speaking the truth. But the world knows what’s going on. Social media makes it difficult to control the flow of news. It is possible to limit some reporting, but not all. Telegram is a good way to reach those who are interested in news, but don’t want it influenced by the Kremlin.

Against the War Effort

This is true for those milbloggers who have not criticized Putin. The regime could use this cleverly to create the impression that some generals and other leaders were responsible for failures.

The Russian milblogger community is becoming more critical of the manner in which the Ukraine conflict is being conducted. These propagandists don’t necessarily oppose the war but are concerned that Russia has not achieved its objectives against Ukraine, said Dr. Craig Albert of Augusta University, professor of Political Science and Graduate Director of the Master of Arts degree in Intelligence and Security Studies.

Even some anti-Putin voices are heard about the war.

Albert continued, “There has, of course, been an increase in censorship by the government, as well as a greater control over the media and even more disappearances among the pro-Russian activists.” The Russian government has the ability to intensify its domestic surveillance and censorship to gain control of the information space. This is more likely the more Putin struggles and the more Ukraine gains.

Russia is known for its use of fake commentators on public outlets. Both the Russian population and international communities should be expecting this practice to continue.

Albert said that “Russia has even gone so far to try to ‘plant,’ fake experts in major U.S. Cable News outlets. This hasn’t been successful, however.” As Russia continues to fall, it is only reasonable to expect this sort of behavior to continue.

No Breaking Point

The question is again, could the Kremlin face a “Cronkite Moment” in this war? This never happened in the Soviet Union’s decade-long conflict with Afghanistan. But that was before social media.

Mollica said that “these moments cannot be compared with Cronkite’s Vietnam War Report and Lyndon Johnson’s alleged comment, ‘If I lose Cronkite, then I will have lost the middle America’.”

Mollica continued, “While propagandists are turning against the Kremlin it is yet to be seen if Putin has been truly impacted.” Putin can still frame his message in any way he wants through the Russian Ministry of Defense. According to the Washington, D.C. based Institute for the Study of War, the MoD tried to silence military blogs in July who did not frame a narrative to show a Ukrainian victory. The battle continued in fact.”

The first casualty of war is the truth, but in this conflict, the truth could be hurt—but it is far from dead!

Twitter Blue users may have a tendency to spread false information about the conflict in Ukraine. The BBC reported that some of the most false and misleading posts about the conflict are being shared by subscribers with the blue checkmark – those who pay for their content to be promoted to other users.

Among the misinformation/disinformation that has gained steam on the social media platform include reports that weapons for Ukraine are being used in the riots in France, that Ukraine has “baby factories” where children are bred to have their organs harvested and sold in the West or are sent to “child sex brothels” or that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has “canceled” elections in his nation.

Both of the previous stories were debunked.

In the latter case at least, there is a small grain of truth—Ukraine’s constitution calls for elections to be held in peacetime. Ukraine’s elections have already been cancelled because the nation is under martial law following Russia’s invasion of February 2022. The issue gained momentum after former Fox News presenter and Twitter personality Tucker Carlson questioned if Zelensky was fighting for democracy, or attempting to make Ukraine a dictatorship.

Twitter has not responded to our request for comment

Unverified reports are spreading from verified accounts

Changes to Twitter’s verification system that were implemented earlier in the year have led to the fact that misinformation, disinformation and other types of false information are now being spread by Twitter Blue accounts. The current model allows anyone to be “verified”, and therefore seen as more reliable.

Cliff Lampe warns that Twitter Blue has changed.

Lampe said that for most disinformation campaign, it is important to appear as authentic as possible. Other disinformation campaigns used people who acted like’sleepers,’ created elaborate identities, or even sockpuppets, to verify the cover identity.

Twitter blue is a low-level attempt compared with other methods of establishing authenticity.

Lampe added that “since not everyone monitors the tech market, this might be a low-cost and effective strategy.”

Scott Talan said it is not all that shocking that these misinformation campaigns come from accounts claiming to be verified.

Talan stated that “it is nothing new, but still concerning.” There needs to be an established process for vetting and verifying anything.

Twitter Blue has changed this, according to him.

Talan said, “anyone with enough dollars can buy it.” A blue check, which used to have meaning before, is now available for anyone who has enough money. Pre-Musk it was hard to obtain and required proof of identity. Post-Musk the blue check has been “monefied.”

This could lead to a spread of misinformation on Twitter. This is something you can actually believe.

Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson posted the first episode of his new Twitter show Tuesday, taking to the social media platform to discuss the Ukraine war and UFOs—just a little more than a month after the controversial pundit’s departure from Fox.

Twitter has dropped all labels that warn customers when a media outlet could also be funded by varied governments world wide, together with the whole lot from NPR to Russia’s RT. And the editor-in-chief of RT expressed her thanks for the transfer on Twitter, attracting criticism from Twitter customers who’re upset about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The choice to drop all labels occurred late Thursday and was reportedly an thought from Walter Isaacson, the writer of a number of books on well-known males, who’s at the moment engaged on a e-book about Twitter CEO Elon Musk. NPR tech reporter Bobby Allyn reported on Friday that Musk explained, “This was Walter Isaacson’s suggestion.”

A number of western media organizations expressed frustration when their accounts, together with PBS, Canada’s CBC and NPR, have been labeled with “government-funded media” descriptors. NPR protested as a result of solely about 2% of its funding got here from the federal authorities. Most of NPR’s funding is from company sponsorships and charges charged to native radio stations.

However authorities funded media retailers in different international locations generally received a distinct label, marked as “state-affiliated media,” to indicate the retailers didn’t have any editorial independence. China’s Xinhua and Russia’s RT obtained these labels, together with reporters carefully affiliated with these retailers.

RT’s editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan had a label till Thursday evening, when all of the labels began to vanish.

“Twitter de-labeled me and all of our channels as ‘public funded media’. Now you possibly can even discover me within the search,” RT’s editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan tweeted on Friday, in response to an English-language translation.

Simonyan went on to thank Elon Musk by title, “from the center.”

Simonyan has been a chief propagandist for Vladimir Putin’s regime by brazenly celebrating censorship in the country, defending a media determine who recommended drowning Ukrainian children, even saying that Russia ought to use nuclear weapons within the warfare in Ukraine.

Twitter added a warning to NPR’s Twitter account on Tuesday, declaring it as “state-affiliated media,” a label that’s typically been reserved for foreign media outlets that represent the official views of the government, like Russia’s RT and China’s Xinhua.

Twitter has many users. pointed outThe social media company stated that NPR news outlets aren’t state-affiliated because of their editorial independence, even though they receive some funding from the government.

“State-affiliated media is defined as outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution,” Twitter’s Help Center reads.

The explanation on Twitter’s website went on to call out NPR as an outlet that didn’t deserve the state-affiliated label.

“Accounts belonging to state-affiliated media entities, their editors-in-chief, and/or their prominent staff may be labeled. State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the US for example, are not defined as state-affiliated media for the purposes of this policy,” the Help Center continued.

That’s what it used to say as of Tuesday morning, according to the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. While the BBC is still mentioned on the website, NPR has been removed sometime after Tuesday.

Twitter replied to Tuesday’s request for comments with an emoticon that said “poop” (an automated reply set up by Elon Musk). He has had a hostile relationship with the media since October when he bought Twitter.

Russia’s RT and China’s Xinhua have been listed as state-affiliated media for years, though Musk has privately expressed an interest in RT and its take on the news. Texts between the billionaire and several associates were made public as part of Twitter’s lawsuit against Musk last year, and one text exchange with Antonio Gracias, the former Director of Tesla from 2007 to 2021, mentioned RT.

“EU passed a law banning Russia Today and several other Russian news sources. We have been told to block their IP address,” Musk texted Gracias.

“Actually, I find their news quite entertaining,” Musk continued. “Lot of bullshit, but some good points too.”

Prior to social media, it was difficult to monitor a situation in real-time without actually going to the zone. The fighting in Ukraine can now be shared via social media thanks to every soldier having a smartphone.

There is no denying that some of the footage is raw and brutal, while some of the clips posted to social media are now so polished, curated, and edited – not to mention accompanied by upbeat music – that it increasingly resembles footage from a video game. These clips could be used to propagandize, which is why there is concern from both Kyiv as well as Moscow that they are using them for their war narratives.

There is a growing concern about this “war porn”, as it can depress some viewers and take away the human aspect. With every explosion that results in the destruction of a tank, or every rocket that is launched on an enemy position likely results in the loss of life – a tragedy regardless of who is dying. Wives will lose husbands and wives will lose children. Mothers will lose their sons.

These videos on social media are missing this part of the equation.

Jeffrey S. Debies–Carl, an associate professor of sociology at Yale University’s Department of Psychology and Sociology, warned that there is danger of people mistaking video footage for entertainment.

Debies-Carl suggested that this is likely to be exacerbated by the censoring of videos in order to remove most offensive parts. This sanitizes both the war and the videos. It is different from seeing the actual suffering of people. It is possible to mistake a cleaned-up version of what you see for the true thing, even if it does not contain any horrors.

Debies-Carl also noted that Emmett Till’s uncensored photo of his mutilated body on another continent was such an empowering, powerful force. This is especially because Emmett’s mother was included in the photograph.

Debies Carl said that “not only is it obvious, but so is her suffering.” Many people will sympathize and share her pain. Uncensored footage of war can show the human side of conflict. The horror and pain experienced by survivors of the war who have lost their loved ones is quite shocking and powerful.

It is clear that these videos are entertainment.

Use War Porn as a Propaganda Weapon

Another part of the equation is that these videos aren’t just meant to entertain – if they ever were – but they are actually being used as a propaganda tool. These videos are not intended to present an objective view of the conflict. They show a glimpse of what one side would like the rest of the world see.

Because it’s so simple to make videos editable, it makes sense that we have to ask ourselves what fact is and what propaganda is. Now, war porn is just one more form of misinformation that can be easily shared via social media.

Debies-Carl stated, “I like to think of it as how individuals viewing these videos can decide the trustworthiness”

While intelligence agencies and news organizations have sophisticated investigatory and forensic methods to determine the authenticity of videos, individual viewers must use less reliable methods.

Debies-Carl advised that before you try to determine if the video is true or false, it would be a good idea to remember that we all can be fooled. People like to believe that they are immune to manipulative messages and persuasive speech. These same people can be most vulnerable to manipulative messaging because they aren’t aware of the need to be cautious and don’t believe they should admit when they’re wrong.

To determine what truth we believe, it is important to ask critical questions about where the information came from. Is it the person who recorded the video? It was shared by who? What number of news agencies have picked it up?

Debies-Carl stated that “if not enough information is available, maybe because it’s too new”, then there is enough reason to be suspicious. Next, consider the psychology of how videos are perceived. These are the characteristics of both purposeful propaganda as well folklore and rumors.

Debies-Carl said that “Ghost of Kyiv”, is an example.

What person wouldn’t be enthralled by the heroic flight of an ace who saved the Ukrainian people against tyranny?” It was a bit too dramatic and exaggerated. He noted that the video didn’t hold up to scrutiny. However, it wasn’t difficult to see the truth of what was happening.

The Historic Record

Last, consider how this footage will be saved. According to some, every social media post will be preserved forever. While there will be questions in the future about who has this footage, that is a topic for another day.

Future historians will be able to see the fighting in these short videos, which is something that was not possible with previous conflicts. The American Civil War was also first documented with photos, while the First World War had some footage captured with motion pictures cameras. Now, not only is the conflict in Ukraine the first war on social media, but it’s the first war that has been recorded with smartphones. It will likely be the largest smartphone-based war, with millions of hours worth of content.

This would allow war crimes to have better documentation, as well as historic moments being preserved and not falling into the realm of legend.

Debies-Carl said that historians might have more information from the conflict than others and may be able to tell an objective and more complete story than those who rely on limited recording and interviews. The information available to war crime attorneys will be similar. It will also be crucial to understand the sociology and causes of conflict through propaganda. This all goes back to your original question. To be able distinguish good from bad information, we will need to have the ability to recognize them. It is certain that conspiracy theorists, as well mystery-mongers, will be able to use a lot of this information. There will also be positive opportunities.

Debies-Carl also warned that because so much footage could be out there, it may also present opportunities for it to be manipulated – as we’ve already seen. We will soon have difficulty determining which footage is genuine when the ‘deep fakes are better and more widely distributed. We will use the lessons learned now from dealing with the flood of questionable video clips as a guide for our greater challenges ahead.

Vilnius (Lituania)
SME
 — 

Olesya Krivtsova thinks it’s because she was neither the first, nor the last, to criticize the war in Ukraine that she scared Russian authorities as much as she did.

SME was told that her posts on social media were not particularly problematic or outlandish. This is in line with the experiences of many students at universities across the country. She believes that this is the beginning of her problems: her peers threw her under the bus and made her a mockery.

Now in Lithuania and on Moscow’s list of most wanted criminals, the softly spoken, slight 20-year-old from Russia’s northwestern Arkhangelsk region makes for an unlikely villain. Russian authorities appeared to have chosen her from the beginning for severe punishment and particular zeal.

According to OVD-Info, a Russian human rights media group, most of the 447 Russians prosecuted for anti-war activity since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine last year have been charged with “disseminating false information.” But Krivtsova was placed under house arrest in January, and banned from using the internet on the far more serious charges of discrediting the Russian army and justifying terrorism. OVD Info reports that 49 individuals have been accused of discrediting Russia’s army, and thirty for supporting terrorism.

These charges stem from an Instagram story that she shared about the Crimean Bridge blast in October. It also criticised Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and made a supposedly critical repost on the war in a chat with students on Russian social media VK.

If not for the brutality she endured, her voice could have been kept low, she stated.

“I think they really regretted it. No one expected that the case would grow so much that the resonance would be so huge,” Krivtsova said of the Russian authorities. SME first reported on her charges in January. Other international media outlets also covered the story.

Russia significantly increased its restrictions on freedom speech and opposition during the conflict in Ukraine. Days after Putin launched the full-scale invasion, his government adopted a law criminalizing the dissemination of what it called “deliberately false” information about the Russian armed forces, with a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison. Putin has recently signed laws to expand those regulations to include volunteers as well as mercenaries in the fight against Ukraine.

Krivtsova can now speak loudly if she likes.

“The question is, am I happy to be here?” she asks from her cramped, dusty, Soviet-era apartment on the outskirts of the Lithuanian capital. “I don’t know, there are two sides to a coin. To some degree I feel I am lucky to be in Vilnius and no longer living where they wanted to put me in jail for the words I spoke.”

She said that February was the turning point for her, as she celebrated her 20th anniversary with her mom, her husband and her little sister. As she went to get coffee with her husband, she was also arrested. She said that the charges this time were fabricated and difficult to escape. Krivtsova claimed that after being falsely accused, she tried to book Russian bus tickets. Krivtsova explained that she realized she faced years in a prison colony, and was forced to flee.

“It was the FSB who forged the court evidence,” Krivtsova alleged, referring to Russia’s security service.

“My lawyer, my mom and I were poring over documents after what happened, gathering evidence to show it wasn’t me who did it, but nobody cared,” she said. “I realized they would all cover each other’s backs because Russia is a police state, and I think this is what made me leave, because I was facing my main trial, but my evidence was not being considered there, either.”

According to her, she took off at night and traveled for several days in car to reach a border that she never dreamed of crossing. Krivtsova said that life is hard, despite having gained freedom.

“I lost a lot and went through a lot,” she said, perched on one of the three rickety chairs that constitute the threadbare apartment furnishings. “Not least, my mother’s tears at the idea of my situation. I lost [left behind]My grandfather, father, and grandmother. This is a huge price for anyone.”

Krivtsova stated, with her typical earnest, but still quiet seriousness that she needs a vacuum to clean her house, on a practical note. And that’s just the start of it.

After leaving behind only a backpack, she is now in need of clothes and a phone to help her enroll at a university. For fear that her phone would be traced, she had to give up her older one.

Krivtsova took off the electronic bracelet around her ankle before crossing the border. Luckily for her, “its GPS, like so much other Russian hardware, didn’t function properly,” she said, with a mischievous smile.

Krivtsova claimed that she also gained many things as she crossed over the Russian border. The thought of her newly won freedom of expression made Krivtsova’s demeanour lighter.

“Of course, I’m already using my voice,” she said, sitting up slightly taller.

“I have already created another Instagram channel, in which I continue to publish posts. I think it’s now my daily job to discredit the Russian army because the Russian army is committing crimes on the territory of Ukraine.”

And she has no doubt that, back in Moscow, they’ll be listening. After all, that’s why she’s here, she said, “and that’s why the authorities are afraid, because words are the most terrible weapon now.”

On Monday night, Twitter users were confused when it became clear that Tesla-related tweets had been liked. This strange alert was displayed on the platform. Instantly, users started to speculateBecause Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO, was recently appointed CEO of Twitter, and has a thin skin, this warning was necessary. But there’s a simpler explanation than Musk trying to protect the brand of his electric car company.

Brad Munchen shared a tweet from China Daily English Language, owned by the Chinese Communist Party.

“Imagine the head of the China Passenger Car Association saying this about your company,” Munchen tweetedWith a screenshot that highlights a quote by Cui Dongshu (secretary-general, China Passenger Car Association).

According to the China Daily article, Tesla is facing the serious problem of having a limited product range. Its inability to react to Chinese consumer preferences has resulted in a passive position for Tesla, which can rely only on few options, like price reductions, to remain competitive.

Anyone who tries to like the tweet is met with a warning that reads, “Help keep Twitter a place for reliable info. Find out more before liking this Tweet.” I’ve circled the warning that pops up in the tweet below.

But the reason for the warning isn’t Musk’s well-documented sensitivity around criticism of his various brands, believe it or not. Any attempt to follow a tweet originating from Russia or China, will result in the warning. You can also try it.

Hua Chunying (China Foreign Ministry Spokesperson) often tweets links from Xinhua, a Chinese media outlet. But if you try to like any of those tweets, you’ll receive the same warning.

You can still enjoy the tweets, but you will need to first read the warning.

Anyone trying to click on a Russian State Media outlet tweet will also be warned. Sputnik News. But the warning doesn’t appear for state-backed media outlets that are considered allies of the U.S., including Germany’s DW news outlet.

Curiously, we know from texts made public in the trial between Twitter’s former board and Elon Musk that the billionaire doesn’t actually have a personal problem with state-run news out of other countries.

In tweets between Musk, who’s identified as “self” in the court documents, and Antonio Gracias, the former head of Tesla, the billionaire says that he actually finds Russia Today to be entertaining.

“EU passed a law banning Russia Today and several other Russian news sources. We have been told to block their IP address,” Musk texted on March 5, 2022, according to court documents.

“Actually, I find their news quite entertaining,” Musk says in another text message to Gracias.

“Lot of bullshit, but some good points too,” Musk wrote in a follow-up.

Musk, who’s notorious for breaking many of Twitter’s unspoken etiquette rules, has previously received criticism for being too cozy with both Russia and the Chinese Communist Party, two U.S. adversaries in the New Cold War. For instance, Musk was praised by Beijing politicians when he said that Taiwan should be controlled by the Communists.

But even if Musk has gotten criticism, he’s still kept Twitter’s warning on state-backed news outlets as part of the platform. That is, if he’s even aware that Twitter is still giving a warning about tweets to state-owned media outlets in China and Russia. Because if there’s one thing we know for certain about Musk’s purchase of Twitter: He didn’t really know what he was buying when he offered to take the company private. Many surprises have occurred, to put it mildly.

Users in Russia won’t be able to use Twitter even though Elon Musk restored thousands of accounts. Moscow blocked Twitter access in February as part of its wider effort to stop the spread of information after it invaded Ukraine unprovoked.

NetBlocks is a digital advocacy organization that monitors Internet outages. It first reported that service had been restricted days after Russia invaded.

In retaliation to Russia’s attempt to restrict state-owned media, Russia also blocked Facebook access. In response to Russia’s invasion, Facebook and Instagram took down the news sites Russia Today (RT), and Sputnik (EU) from the sister platform Instagram. This action received an immediate response by Russia’s communication regulator which blocked the services.

These restrictions can be circumvented by a virtual personal network (VPN), but most users still have difficulty accessing the services.

Roger Entner (Recon Analytics), a social media analyst and technology expert, said that Russia needs to dictate the story of Ukraine’s war.

Entner stated that Russia isn’t interested in allowing the truth to be revealed through Twitter and any other social media network Russia doesn’t control, which could disturb the false narrative.

Blocking is not happening

Now more than nine months later, it is unlikely that access to the social media platforms will be restored – even as State Duma member Anton Tkachev (of the New People party) had called upon Andrei Lipov, head of the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media within the Russian government, to consider lifting the restrictions on Twitter.

The Russian telecom watchdog responded that “there are no grounds to unblock the mentioned resource”, according to Tass state media outlet.

Moscow could have reasoned that Ukraine’s war didn’t go as planned, and therefore decided to keep social media under wraps. Particularly since platforms such Twitter were heavily used in the Arab Spring’s 2011 campaign for communication.

It is possible that the Kremlin sees microblogging as an opportunity to promote dissent.

This is not surprising. “Twitter has been used for opposition to authoritarian regimes, and Putin is wary of it,” stated Dr. Matthew Schmidt (director of the International Affairs Program at Yale University and senior consultant at Blue-Ink Global).

Schmidt said, “It’s also an important source of truthful news regarding the war,” Schmidt added. It followed the Chinese example and set up entire alternative services that it controlled content such as VK. Telegram and Twitter feed each other, driving each other’s content in a feedback loop.

Russian President Vladimir Putin may have difficulty controlling the narrative if they have access to social media. The Russian leader announced already that he would not host his annual end-of the-year press conference. Experts suggest that this is because he does not want to be confronted with hard questions on the war.

Twitter also offered virtually a play-by-play virtual replay of Russia’s losses in Ukraine.

Schmidt said that “You can see the posts of every tank destroyed and each helicopter shot down and, more importantly, the videos of Russian soldiers responding to the war. Their conditions and the sense of government abandonment.” The totality of all these messages points to the core of Kremlin domestic propaganda, and they are all available on Twitter.

A Russian military base located hundreds of kilometers from the Ukrainian border was the scene of an explosion in the morning hours of Monday. Engels-2, one of Russia’s largest airbases and home to the 21st & 184th Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiments, has been used to launch many of the Kremlin’s air strikes against Ukraine. The base also has bombers belonging to Moscow’s nuclear trio.

Many videos of explosions were shared widely on social media. They are often captioned using speculation, rather than concrete facts.

Dmitry Peskov (Kremlin press secretary) responded to questions from the media, saying that he didn’t possess such information. While I saw the reports in media, I do not have any specific information. Sorry, I cannot comment. You should contact the defense ministry.

Baza on Russian Telegram, which frequently posts information regarding the government and military of Russia, confirmed the news about the explosions. According to reports on the social media platform, a drone was found on the base’s runway – which suggests that Ukraine may have carried out a raid on the military facility.

An unknown drone attacked an airport in Saratov. Baza said that two people sustained injuries. According to preliminary information, an unidentified aircraft struck the runway at the local airport on December 5. Due to this, 2 aircraft were destroyed. 2 people sustained injuries and were taken into the hospital.

Are Synchronized Attacks Possible?

An explosion took place at Dyagilevo, near Ryazan. It was a small city located less than 150 miles away from Moscow. The explosion was reported to have involved a fuel truck. It is thought that both acts were synchronized acts sabotage.

At this time, nothing has been confirmed.

It is notable, however, that news reports of explosions are common and there is some speculation that it may be the result of an attack from Ukraine. Even though Moscow may have imposed restrictions on media outlets, it highlights the fact that information is flowing freely in today’s social media age.

It is quite an improvement on how news was managed in Soviet times.

“Prior Gorbachev’s glasnost” (i.e. Alexander Hill, a professor of military history at Calgary University explained that the Soviet Union would have likely been sparing in information under such circumstances before mid-1986.

Social media has enabled anyone in Ukraine or Russia to offer nearly instantaneous reports in a way previously not possible – making it even harder for any regime to conceal that such explosions occurred.

Roger Entner, a technology analyst at Recon Analytics and a social media pundit said that smartphones have made social media recording easy. While dictatorships attempt to suppress and change the truth, it is still out there. The truth is faster when all of us are interconnected.

Let’s find out the Facts

The truth can travel around the globe in an instant. As quickly as misinformation spreads on social media, so can the truth.

“Please remember the bother that initial and inaccurate reports can cause – as the recent case of the probably Ukrainian air defense missile hitting Poland confirms,” added Hill, who specializes in Soviet military and political history.

Two people were killed by a Ukrainian missile last month when it crashed into Poland. Initial media reports did not reflect this. Even though news agencies did correct their reporting, social media rarely updates its coverage. This allows speculation to quickly become fact even when it’s wrong.

It is easy to share the news via social media in a hurry, but without verifying facts. There are many questions you should ask, such as if drones were used and their launch location.

For now, speculation – not actual facts – is what is making the rounds online.

“Russia will come out with more – but it is only reasonable that they find out exactly what might have happened first,” said Hill. “However, let’s face it – the Ukrainian side is hardly open with information either.”

Keep in mind that wars are won by the first casualty.