From Screen to Battlefield: Constructing the Image of the Enemy on Russian Television
- Res Publica
- 60 minutes ago
- 5 min read
As recently as early 2014, 66% of Russians had a positive attitude toward Ukraine and Ukrainians, but within a year, Kremlin propaganda managed to turn that support into hostility. Propastop introduces Alona Shestopalova’s book, which illustrates—through the example of two major Russian TV channels—how a brotherly nation was turned into a mortal enemy.
Alona Shestopalova / source Propastop
Alona Shestopalova „From screens to battlefields. Tracing the construction of enemies on Russian television“.
The provocative title of the book immediately grabs attention. The cover image is just as striking—if not more so: a man is sitting and watching TV, behind which unfolds a harrowing view of ruined buildings and smoke rising into the sky.
But what is he watching on TV? The screen is blank. This image illustrates the central idea of the book: what kind of media must people consume to develop an imagined or real enemy?
In the foreword, it is explained that the book discusses the media’s power to “enrich” the information space with content that reflects certain interests. Ukrainian author Alona Shestopalova claims—and proves—that TV channels RT and Channel One “enriched” not only the Russian but also the European information space.
One of their goals was to publish news portraying Ukraine and Ukrainians as enemies. One might think that such propaganda only began shortly before Russia’s full-scale invasion, but Shestopalova’s research shows it dates back to the time of Euromaidan (2013).
Portraying someone or something as an enemy is achieved through consistent hostile communication. The chapters preceding the analysis of Russian news (pp. 93–102) provide context for explaining why Russia’s hostility toward the Ukrainian state and people is persistent. The author herself notes that this is the least she can do for the reader—describe the preconditions of the current confrontation.
The author’s style is easy to read and her expression clear, so the theories and analyses contained between the covers should not discourage anyone.
Portraying the enemy
Since From Screens to Battlefields is a continuation of Shestopalova’s doctoral dissertation, the book also provides theoretical background and explains the theory of constructivism. At its core lies the idea that there is no single reality that is understood the same way by everyone. The same information, when combined with different personal experiences, can lead to different attitudes or worldviews.
For a news consumer to develop a hostile attitude toward someone or something, they must first be presented with information that conveys such hostility. This must then be followed by consistent communication justifying why that person or thing is an enemy—using misleading information or outright lies if necessary.
Similar patterns can be observed in Russia’s communication toward Western countries, including Estonia, which makes the issue raised in the book particularly relevant to us.
Alona Shestopalova presents her research in Tallinn. Source: ICDS
Who is the “contemporary enemy”?
At least for me, the discovery in this book was the concept of the “contemporary enemy”—someone who both can and wants to cause harm. As an example of this concept, the author cites states that possess nuclear weapons and are hostile toward the Western world.
The author also focuses on social groups—more specifically, so-called in-groups and out-groups, or “us and them.”
Some studies (p. 20) explain that the mere act of dividing people into groups can, to some extent, foster hostile attitudes. Others—those who, through the “right” kind of communication, become enemies—bring with them various warning signs. This threat, like the enemy itself, can be real or imagined, but its construction is always real.
In autocratic countries, in-groups hold special significance because they help foster group identity and create values that replace an individual’s personal identity (p. 53). Can you guess what the next step is?
Correct: the glorification of the in-group and the labeling of the out-group as a potential enemy.Essentially, the process of constructing an enemy is a progression from the idea “this group is different from us” to “this group is our mortal enemy” (p. 56).
In-depth analysis of Russian TV content
Media outlets act as intermediaries not only for news but also for hostile communication. Media and media literacy experts teach that a news item is a journalistic text that is neutral and objective—but the author asks, what does objectivity really mean?
Over time, we’ve gone through several cycles of development—from the era when printed news was always considered credible to the emergence of photographic art. A photo captured reality just as it was—do you still remember that? It’s no longer that simple. With the spread of television, the gap between reality and its perception grew even wider. News began to move faster, and with it came bias, perceptual errors, and fabrications.
Imagined reality began increasingly to replace “real” reality, and once again, communication played the main role in this shift. As I read, I came to the conclusion that both portrayal (by others) and perception (by the individual) distort reality. Hostile communication lays the foundation for hostile attitudes—but later, people themselves begin to approach certain topics with prejudice or hostility.
Alona Shestopalova analyzed how large a share of Russian television news in 2013–2014 was devoted to Ukraine-related topics. The foundation of the book is a thorough study of two Russian channels, supplemented by nearly 50 pages (!) of source references.
The analysis found that this share ranged from zero to 90 percent. Of course, those years were eventful in Ukraine, but there was no clear cause-and-effect relationship—because Perviy Kanal and RT covered these events not only as they happened but also long afterward.
A surprising observation was that RT, which operated in Europe and the U.S., involved more experts to validate certain narratives, whereas Perviy Kanal didn’t need experts for its domestic audience.
Russian channels consistently portrayed Russia and its leaders positively, while Ukrainian leaders were depicted negatively. If Ukraine held the top spot, then who came second? That’s right—leaders of the Western world.
How is the image of a strategic enemy created?
I would answer: when such content reaches its target audience and leaves a mark. The author provides a striking example—statistics show that in January 2014, 66 percent of Russians had a positive attitude toward Ukraine and Ukrainians. By February 2015, that number was 64 percent—but this time, that many Russians viewed Ukraine negatively. This drastic shift occurred within a year through the use of “effective” communication.
Several communication techniques (p. 155) create a pattern that can be observed. For instance, a negative stereotype is used in news coverage to describe a group, and that stereotype is then used to divert attention or create prejudice. The group is labeled, and later those labels are used repeatedly to refer to them.
News reports often include heavily biased historical references, creating links between multiple historical events that are meant to explain the situation being covered more convincingly.
In constructing news, the principle of whataboutism is applied—where, instead of answering a critical question, a counter-question is posed back to the one asking. This technique is used, for example, to justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Hostile out-groups are dehumanized, making them easier to hate and reject. False cause-and-effect relationships are created—for instance, claiming that Crimea was annexed as a result of Euromaidan (2013), rather than as a consequence of Russia’s military actions.
Does it seem unrealistic? Or, on the contrary—does it sound familiar? I believe every reader will form their own connections with each topic and chapter, because this book draws you in just as effectively as a work of fiction.
By Kateryna Botnar. Article first time published on Propastop web page. Prepared for publication by volunteers from the Res Publica - The Center for Civil Resistance.
Comments