Summertime reading fun: Russian Disinformation!
As summer is now in full swing, I thought I’d take this opportunity to pass along some recommendations for light, refreshing summer reading—the kind of thing that’s perfect for the beach or pool, and is best consumed with a tiny umbrella-festooned libation.

First, I’ve been reading with interest the excellent, comprehensive report on Russian disinformation called “Blurring the Truth: Disinformation in Southeast Europe.” I’ve been especially interested in the chapter on Moldova, since I will be serving a Fulbright Scholarship there beginning in September. It talks about sources of disinformation (Russia, mainly) and disinformation themes. These are:

1. Transnistria and thus Russia’s military presence on the territory of the Republic of Moldova. Narratives are promoted that claim that if Moldova asks for a withdrawal of troops, that might lead to war and Moldova will become a battlefield.

2. Ethnic conflict between Romanians and Russians. Russian narratives promote the view that (Moldovan) President Maia Sandu cooperates only with Romania and will be against Russia, even if she has demonstrated so far that she is ready to cooperate with both sides.

3. NATO means war: Russian narratives promote the view that if Moldova joins NATO, then any neutrality is automatically canceled and war almost inevitable.

4. Anti-LGBT propaganda: Russian narratives promote the view that if Moldova follows the path of liberal EU policy, then “homosexual propaganda” will automatically turn Moldovan children into homosexuals.

5. Russia is good, Europe is bad. As the majority of Moldovans were raised during the Soviet period, views such as: “I lived in the USSR for more than half of my life and Moldova owes the few things it has to the Soviet Union. All the factories were built during the Soviet era. All scientists were educated during the Soviet era, while nothing good came out of Europe.” Thus, Russian narratives promote a clear dichotomy between Russia, the Soviet Union and “the West.”  

Second, I’ve been reading an enlightening report titled, “How Selective Reporting Shapes Inferences about Conflict.” The authors analyze reporting about the conflict in Crimea (pre-2022 invasion). Their study shows “that actor-specific reporting bias can yield estimates with vastly different implications for conflict resolution. Ukrainian sources predict frequent unilateral escalation by rebels, pro-Russian rebel sources predict unilateral escalation by government troops, while outside sources predict that transgressions by either side should be quite rare. Experimental evidence suggests that news consumers tend to support intervention against whichever side is shown to be committing the violence.” 

While the data studied here is about Crimea coverage in 2014, I believe the findings are applicable to the current Ukraine-Russia war.

Enjoy!