The Discursive Affects of the Russian-Ukrainian War: Propaganda and Racism

Photograph by Zowy Voeten / Getty

In his chapter, “Trauma is as Trauma Does” in the book Critical Trauma Studies: Understanding Violence, Conflict, and Memory in Everyday Life, the scholar Maurice Stevens rethinks how we approach trauma studies. The traditional mode of trauma studies conceives of trauma as a disrupting action upon a subject which interrupts or breaks the subject. This trauma is then described in an official history and “managed” into a narrative, as if humans could somehow control the uncontrollable and unpredictable harm we might face. Stevens, instead of thinking of trauma as a description of harm, proposes that trauma is a creating action. Trauma produces a new subject, as the subject who experienced the trauma is now shaped by this event and cannot return to a pre-trauma state. Most importantly, trauma produces affect, which is later managed and disbursed by economies of affect and information. Stevens signals that this effect is powerful and often functions as an ideological state apparatus, which we will see in our discussion of Ukraine.

Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, the mainstream American news has been fervently obsessed with covering the conflict. The affect managed by these news organizations, otherwise known as economies of affect and information, are dangerous in two senses: 1.) it functions as a propaganda machine for U.S. state interests and 2.) has advanced racist discourses over what it means to be “European” or “civilized”.

First, in an interview with Jeremy Scahill of The Intercept, linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky spoke of the conflict. Chomsky plainly states that “There are two ways for a war to end: One way is for one side or the other to be basically destroyed. And the Russians are not going to be destroyed. So that means one way is for the Ukraine to be destroyed. The other way is some negotiated settlement.” Although the Ukrainians have managed to defend themselves from Russia for six months, the global super power seems unlikely to lose the conflict according to Chomsky and other intellectuals. The international goal therefore, according to Chomsky, should be to prevent the destruction of Ukraine, which can only be done through negotiations. Zelensky himself on the second day of the conflict told CNN, "I think that we have to use any format, any chance in order to have a possibility of negotiating, possibility of talking to Putin…We have always insisted on negotiations. We have always offered dialogue, offered solutions for peace. And I want everyone to hear me now, especially in Moscow. It's time to meet. Time to talk. It is time to restore territorial integrity and justice for Ukraine." This is not a radical thought, though it deeply contrasts the narrative distributed in mainstream news cycles.

Despite Zelensky´s calls for negotiations and that of other organizations like the United States Institute for Peace, the affect of this trauma has been primarily that of, as Chomsky quotes Chas Freeman, fighting “to the last Ukrainian.” This unwavering support for an unnegotiated war against the Russians is interesting, and one can see that in the way the conflict is reported. Talk of persecuting Putin for war crimes, images of Ukrainian soldiers hugging children, images of Zelensky heroically alongside his men, all conjure a type of nationalistic response stateside, and these images compared with our historical tension and our nationalistic propensity to dislike Russia as Sophie Pinkman pointed out in an interview with Jacobin, definitely creates a narrative. Pinkman explained: “Americans-- and especially liberal Americans, especially after the Donald Trump--Russiagate years-- have been trained to almost obsessively hate Russia and to Putin in particular as a global supervillian. They're very prepared to be on the side of whoever is not Putin.” In this way, the images pushed and the reporting of mainstream journalism here in the States has certainly painted the villainy of Russia and the victimization of Ukraine without much nuance or historical context. Uncoincidentally), the discourse of the news stations favors the United States´ interest in geopolitics, which is the weakening of Russian power.

That is not to say that Putin, or other world leaders, shouldn't be charged for war crimes, or that the war is at all justified. Of course, it's not. And it is not my intention to criticize the incredible solidarity and courage that the Ukrainians have demonstrated fighting this war. It is only to say, that this trauma and the way it has been packaged here in the States has created a discourse about the villainy of Russia that lacks nuance, and primarily provides a narrative that supports U.S. government's interests. Nor do I ascertain that Chomsky is unequivocally correct. He has been criticized for his position (see “Open Letter to Noam Chomsky (and Other Like-Minded Intellectuals) on the Russia-Ukraine War”).

Russian protestors against the war, many of whom have been jailed for said activity, Russian citizens with no link to the war who have suffered under sanctions, full transcripts (not just the inspirational nationalistic bits) of Zelensky´s speeches, nuanced commentary from geopolitical experts, and historical context seems to be empty from the discursive affect which has been circulated from the coverage here in the states. It is important to ask ourselves: Why and for what end?

Additionally, the affect circulated by economies of affect and information here in the U.S. and across Europe have been flagrantly racist, which furthers a dangerous discourse of what it means to be civilized. For example, at the beginning of the war a reporter in CBS News said: “But this isn't a place, with all due respect like Iraq or Afghanistan, that has seen conflict raging for decades. You know, this is a relatively civilized, relatively European--I have to choose those words carefully too-- city where you wouldn't expect that.” A reporter for Al Jazeera reported: “These are prosperous middle class people. These are not obviously refugees trying to get away from the Middle East.” And there are plenty more examples. WION, an Indian news network, has compiled a list of similar rhetoric in Western reporting which I recommend.

This rhetorical language certainly has an affect. The comparison with the Middle East is particularly striking. As Nick Mulder and Sophie Pinkham point out, the political violence and war that has occurred in the Middle East in the last year is not exceptionally different from the war being raged in Ukraine. However, the reaction of economies of affect and information have been different. The racist rhetoric that has been seen in some reporting and the discrepancy between the amount and quality of reporting on Middle Eastern conflict and the Ukrainian-Russian conflict, demonstrates the importance of white “civilized” suffering and the hate, or at the very least, the lack of interest towards those who suffer from conflict in the “Global South,”, namely the Middle East.

The constant coverage of the Ukrainian crisis and the rallying of popular support here in the U.S. contrasts deeply with how we as a country and our economies of information and affect have reacted to, or plainly ignored, conflict in Palestine, Israel, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and countless other countries dispersed throughout the “Global South”. In this discourse, created by the trauma of the Ukrainian conflict, there exists strong societal assumptions by the West: “Prosperous people, middle class people, white people, and civilized people don't deserve to suffer in war.” However, I would argue that no one inherently deserves to suffer in war, regardless of ethnicity, social class, religion, or any other factors. When the media reports that “civilized people”, which is already an inherently racist and ethnocentric ideology, should not suffer under these conditions, we must inquire about what peoples/groups are not included in the discourse, and why.

I think we need to remain critical of the affect of the Russian-Ukrainian war that is being circulated, as we must be with any information we consume. As Stevens poignantly states, “This work, the work of critically examining trauma, requires that we keep one eye on what trauma does, while keeping another on how it does, for whom, and with what consequences (36)”. It has not been my intention in this article to outline a solution or make any statement upon the actual war and culpability, rather, I hope that through my reflection I have demonstrated our need to critically think about the affect that is produced and circulated in the United States about the Ukrainian-Russian war and furthermore, any other sort of traumas.

Works Cited:

Cole, Devan. “Zelensky: 'I'm Ready for Negotiations' with Putin, but If They Fail, It Could Mean 'a Third World War'.” CNN, Cable News Network, 20 Mar. 2022, https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/20/politics/zelensky-putin-ukraine-negotiations-war-cnntv/index.html.

Denvir, Daniel. “Why Did Putin Decide to Invade Ukraine?” Jacobin, 2022, https://jacobin.com/2022/03/russia-ukraine-putin-invasion-sanctions-ceasefire-interview.

“Gravitas: Western Media's Racist Reportage on Ukrainian Refugees.” Performance by Palki Sharma, YouTube, YouTube, 28 Feb. 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBRwmTVVKQk.

Kukharskyy, Bohdan, et al. “Open Letter to Noam Chomsky (and Other like-Minded Intellectuals) on the Russia-Ukraine War .” e-Flux, e-Flux, 23 May 2022, https://www.e-flux.com/notes/470005/open-letter-to-noam-chomsky-and-other-like-minded-intellectuals-on-the-russia-ukraine-war.

Scahill, Jeremy. “Noam Chomsky and Jeremy Scahill on the Russia-Ukraine War, the Media, Propaganda, and Accountability.” The Intercept, The Intercept, 14 Apr. 2022, https://theintercept.com/2022/04/14/russia-ukraine-noam-chomsky-jeremy-scahill/.

Voeten, Zowy. “Image of a Newstand Showing Various Front Page Stories from the Russian-Ukrainian War.” A Mediated View of the War in Ukraine, The New Yorker, 2 Mar. 2022, A Mediated View of the War in Ukraine.