Leftists generally speaking know that there is always some kind of awful bombing going on in the world. We know that there are drone strikes and flybys, we’ve read about the children who grow up afraid of a clear sky.
Yemen is actually a great example. Yemen is something that I see discussed almost exclusively in leftist circles, and Saudi Arabia’s use of US-manufactured bombs against civilian populations in Yemen is one of the things that leftists have been yelling about for most of a decade. So on an abstract level, if you were a leftist and you saw that graphic, you probably felt two things:
1) Superiority: “I *DID* know, at least in a general and abstract way, about the other people getting hit with airstrikes yesterday. I *HAVE* talked about US imperialism in Somalia; god, does anyone remember when the military was getting all high and mighty about Somali pirates who were the result of a political environment the US helped to create? I remember! And we’re still bombing them! And nobody cares! And Biden just said he’s not going to do anything to get justice for Khashoggi so we know he’s just going to keep selling arms to Saudi Arabia! Fuck! I’m going to share this so that other people remember too, because I didn’t forget but I know my aunt Tilly on FaceBook wasn’t talking about Syrian refugees last week like she’s talking about Ukranian refugees this week.”
2) Guilt: “Oh god, I was so wrapped up in what was going on in Ukraine that I *didn’t* hear about the 37 airstrikes in Yemen in the last two days [that may or may not have actually happened in the timeframe described] or hear about Israel firing on Damascus. The eurocentrist media has an excuse but I don’t, is this because of pro-white bias? Am I more concerned about what’s happening in Ukraine than Somalia because the refugees are blonde, just like the reporters are saying? That’s horrible! I’d better share this as a reminder to myself and to other people who maybe got caught up in the eurocentrism. It’s important to remember that war everywhere is bad, this isn’t especially bad just because it’s white people on the TV.”
I think this is actually a really interesting weaponization of identity politics. The graphic is suggesting that if *RIGHT NOW* you care more about an invasion that is creating literally millions of refugees overnight then you’re forgetting about all the people around the globe who are suffering. It’s why redfish is also responsible for one of the supercuts of journalists talking about white, blonde refugees. Those journalists absolutely said those things, and those things are repugnant, but you want to make sure you’re not repugnant in the same way as the journalists in the clip so you share the clip, or the map with the other drone strikes, instead of possibly investing too much time into talking about Ukraine specifically. If you’re talking about Ukraine specifically, you’re not condemning war everywhere.
Anyway. This is your reminder that if an infographic or a video clip or an article makes you immediately feel rage or guilt or frustration it was probably *specifically constructed* to get you to feel that way so that you would share or react without taking a moment to think about the information being presented to you.
Also: this is a chaotic time. If you are sharing any news or information you ensure that it has at leastone (though preferably all three) of the following visible somewhere on the post:
A clear source that you are familiar with
A date
A link
If a post sharing purported information about an ongoing crisis doesn’t have any of those things, don’t share it. If you want to share it and it doesn’t have any of those things, go find those things for yourself before you hit the reblog button.
It *DOES* take a hell of a lot more effort to use social media when you’re doing those things, but it also limits the reach of mis/disinformation and will help you personally to get better at recognizing when a clickbait headline is supposed to short-circuit your thought process or when an infographic is trying to prey on your guilt instead of your rational understanding of the world.
Thank you for this post. I think this should be a lesson to all of us on how not to be fooled by Russian disinformation. For anyone still wondering why the Redfish map is misleading, here’s what I wrote on another post about this, and I want to add it here as well.
I want to talk about what specifically is misleading about the Redfish map. Here it is:
First of all, the map puts concrete numbers on the other countries, but in Ukraine it just says “dozens.” I don’t know what the real number of airstrikes was in Ukraine during the 48 hour period that this was talking about, but it was almost certainly higher than “dozens,” given that Russia has been conducting airstrikes across the entire country indiscriminately every day and night… The vagueness of “dozens” is a red flag.
The second misleading thing about this map is that it’s decided to limit itself to the last 48 hours, and leaves out the fact that Russia has also been conducting airstrikes in Syria recently.
The third misleading thing is of course that these other countries are not trying to annex the territories they’re attacking. Russia istrying to annex Ukraine. And I want to be clear that I am totally against all of these airstrikes, and no matter the purported reason for conducting them, they are wrong. But acting like these other countries’ airstrikes are comparable with Russia’s is not accurate; Russia is trying to annex Ukraine anddestroy its statehood.
The fourth misleading thing about this map is that it focuses on airstrikes at all. Russia has of course been conducting airstrikes in Ukraine, but it has also fired hundreds of missiles at cities, and has an invasion force of moving in on the ground.
To be clear, we should absolutely condemn airstrikes in Somalia, Yemen and Syria. But we’ve got to be careful of misleading graphics like these. “Condemn war everywhere” is a sentiment that a lot of people can get behind, but then they won’t dig any deeper to see if the map is actually misleading.
Ultimately, this map is not really designed to criticize war everywhere; it’s designed to make the situation in Ukraine seem like it’s not a big deal.
Edit: What I didn’t notice before, somehow, and I’m really shocked I didn’t see it until now, is that the area highlighted as Ukraine does not include Crimea. That’s a huge red flag too.
I’ve been really frustrated to see people I was following reposting Kremlin propaganda. Some of you are under the impression that propaganda is only obvious stuff like “Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is completely justified” and so you think you can’t fall prey to it. But a lot of disinformation and propaganda about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is less overt than that.
So here are some examples of Kremlin propaganda that I have seen being spread around and shared uncritically by people who should really know better:
1) The idea that NATO is responsible for the war in Ukraine or the idea that Ukraine itself is responsible for Russia’s invasion.
Russia invaded Ukraine—I don’t know why I should have to spell this out, but the country literally sending soldiers, tanks and missiles into a neighboring country is the one that is at fault for the war, and that country is Russia. In addition, the narrative that NATO expansion caused the current conflict ignores the agency of Eastern European countries; it is Ukraineand other Eastern European countries that have sought to join NATO, not the other way around. And why shouldn’t they? Russia’s aggression against Ukraine illustrates exactly why many countries have sought to join NATO in the first place. I’m not saying that NATO cannot be criticized (for instance, NATO has bombed countries in the Middle East). But it is inaccurate to claim that NATO caused the current conflict. As for the idea that Ukraine is to blame for the war, that is also patently false: before Russia invaded, it built up over 100,000 troops on its side of the border. Ukraine did not do the same.
2) The idea that Ukraine is a right-wing state governed by Neo-Nazis.
Propaganda will often take a small grain of truth and completely blow it out of proportion. There areNeo-Nazis in Ukraine, like there unfortunately are in most European countries. But they are not in power—Zelenskyy’s government is not far right, and he is certainly not a Neo-Nazi; he is a Jew who lost family members in the Holocaust. Putin has pushed the lie that Ukraine is led by Neo-Nazis to justify his invasion, probably in part to garner support among Russians who feel proud of the Soviet Union’s victory against Nazi Germany. But, obviously, Ukraine is not Nazi Germany. And the very existenceof far-right groups in Ukraine cannot justify Russia’s invasion and the subsequent loss of life. People who are spreading the idea that Ukraine is led by the far right/Neo-Nazis are doing Putin’s work for him.
3) The idea that the Ukrainian government represses Russian speakers and the idea that Russian speakers should be part of Russia.
Ukraine does not oppress Russian speakers, as Putin has claimed. Many Ukrainians are bilingual, and Zelenskyy himself is a native Russian speaker. There have been efforts to popularize the Ukrainian language in recent years—attempting to reverse the effects of the Soviet Union’s systematic eradication of Ukrainian language and culture—but that is not the same thing as oppressing Russian speakers, although the Kremlin has tried to frame it as such. In addition, it is absurd to claim that just because there are Russian speakers in Ukraine, they should be part of Russia. Should all English-speaking countries be subsumed back into the British Empire? Should all Spanish-speaking countries become part of Spain? The answer is obviously no.
4) The idea that there are “no good guys” in the war.
I’ve seen a lot of people spreading the idea that Russia’s invasion is wrong, but Ukraine’s government is bad too (often using the other pieces of Kremlin propaganda about Ukraine as evidence). This is bothsidesism at its worst. The narrative that there are “no good guys” seeks to draw attention awayfrom Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, its killing of innocent civilians and children, its blatant violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and self-determination, etc. and instead frame the conflict as something in which both sides are equally bad, somehow.
But the idea of “no good guys” in the Russia-Ukraine war places some of the blame on Putin, so how could that be Kremlin propaganda, you ask? This brings me to another important point:
If you think something isn’t Kremlin propaganda because it does criticize Putin, you don’t understand how Kremlin propaganda works.
Kremlin propaganda that is aimed to influence Western audiences can and doescriticize Putin and Russia so that it can slip under your radar. You have to ask yourself: who benefits from the narrative that there are “no good guys”? The Kremlin benefits. Because that narrative is designed to reduce sympathy for Ukraine and to reduce people’s desire to help Ukraine. Kremlin propaganda isn’t going to necessarily try to convince people living in Western countries to support Putin. But it isgoing to try to convince you to notsupport Ukraine.
Always fact check. Always ask yourself: who benefits from this narrative?
