The battle of narratives in modern conflict

Personal electronic devices have become a battleground in conflict and competition (photo via Parley Policy)

---

Throughout history, warring parties have fought to control not only territory but also the hearts and minds of populations. In modern warfare, this struggle often manifests as a battle of narratives—competing stories that seek to define the meaning of a conflict, to justify actions, and to influence domestic and international audiences. Today’s information environment, shaped by digital technologies and social media, has blurred boundaries between truth and lies, further enabling governments and non‑state actors to weaponize narratives on a global scale. Understanding the dimensions of this battle is crucial because narrative warfare influences public support, diplomatic alignment, recruitment, and the morale of both combatants and civilians alike.

This piece examines the background of narrative warfare, the modern context that has empowered it, and real‑world situations that demonstrate how narratives become weapons in today’s armed conflicts. It offers examples from the Russia-Ukraine War to illustrate the depth and complexity of this information battleground. 

Understanding the battle of narratives

The employment of information power to achieve effects in conflict is nothing new—states have long used propaganda to mobilize support and demonize enemies. The battle of narratives, however, differs from traditional propaganda because it encompasses competing interpretations of events that must resonate within an audience’s identity and worldview; in other words, it is not simply telling audiences what to think, but how to rationalize it within their own minds. Analysts describe narrative warfare as a struggle “to undermine an opponent’s civilization, identity, and will by generating complexity, confusion, and social schisms.” Weaponized narratives function as a part of what is now termed military information support operations (more commonly known as “psychological operations” or “PSYOPs”), and they can support kinetic military actions or serve as strategic alternatives to the use of force. By influencing the information space, actors can erode an adversary’s ability to act effectively even without deploying forces.

Narrative warfare takes advantage of how humans process information. Narratives link events with values and identities; they tap into confirmation bias, as well as ingroup/outgroup dynamics and fear, making audiences more likely to accept them. Weaponized narratives often use emotionally charged language, conspiracy theories and historical myths to elicit strong reactions. The goal is not to convince through rational argument but to prompt audiences to make meaning out of events in a way that aligns with the storyteller’s strategic objectives.

Complicating matters is that there is an ethical asymmetry to this narrative warfare. Many actors, particularly autocratic ones, deal almost exclusively in fictionalized stories, deploying bots and trolls, and silencing opponents through censorship. For example, the Russian government will sponsor bot farms aimed at manipulating the information space while its own criminal code punishes dissemination of “false information” about military operations and the “discrediting” of its armed forces.  Meanwhile, governments constrained by ethics and the rule of law cannot adopt the same playbook without inherently eroding the values they defend. These constrained actors must develop truthful, real‑time narratives that provide meaning and counter disinformation. The mere presentation of facts has become insufficient–weaponized narratives shape meaning to events, so counter‑narratives must also employ deliberate steps to do the same.

A pro-Russian bot farm discovered in Ukraine, August 2022 (photo via Ukraine’s Ministry of Internal Affairs; Mvs.gov.ua)

Digital age narratives and memetic warfare

The digital age has transformed how narratives are created, disseminated, and consumed. Several factors have intensified these narrative battles in recent years:

• Digitalization and social media: Digital platforms allow instant dissemination of messages to global audiences. They blur the line between producers and consumers of information, and the same algorithmic feeds that are designed to entice increased usage have inadvertently created echo chambers and opportunities for exploitation. This has both incentivized and reinforced sensationalism and click‑driven content over rigorous sourcing, undermining Habermasian ideals of public reasoning. Automated and AI‑enhanced techniques can generate and amplify disinformation.

• Information overload and post‑factualism: The sheer volume and speed of information online lead people to retreat into simplified narratives that provide emotional certainty. This environment can inoculate communities against counterarguments while fostering fragmentation, making societies more vulnerable to weaponized narratives.

  
  

• Breakdown of shared institutions: The erosion of professional journalism and shared sources of truth means that competing narratives encounter less scrutiny. As the influence of professional journalism declines, rumors and conspiracies spread unchecked, further fragmenting the public sphere. Adversaries exploit these dynamics to plant and amplify narratives that manipulate the biases that exist within these divided target audiences.

• Memes as weaponized narratives: Memes—brief, often humorous digital images or phrases—have become potent tools in the battle of narratives. The 2022 Russia–Ukraine war has illustrated memetic warfare, where Ukrainian civilians and supporters created memes mocking Russian forces and celebrating resistance. Memes are effective because they deliver simple, digestible content that foster emotional resonance and psychological persuasion. They can boost morale, generate solidarity, and even influence international opinion. Observers propose that militaries integrate memetic tactics into psychological operations—for example, establishing a “Meme Warfare Center” to coordinate this kind of messaging.

The original “Fellas” posted on 19 May 2022 that inspired a memetic symbol of international support to Ukraine’s resistance against the Russian invasion (images via X/Twitter user @Kama_Kamilia)

Lines of effort in the battle of narratives

Narrative warfare advances along multiple, overlapping lines of effort. By making these explicit, it is possible to see more clearly how states and non-state actors weaponize stories to reinforce their strategies and weaken their adversaries.

Shaping narrative “truths”

At the core of narrative conflict is the struggle to define perceived realities. Leaders and institutions frame events in ways that justify military action, delegitimize opposition, or create moral urgency. During the Vietnam War, U.S. officials spoke of containing communism as an existential struggle, while the Viet Cong cast themselves as liberation fighters. More recently, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was couched in terms of “denazification” and “protection of Russian speakers”—narratives designed to legitimize aggression and obscure violations of international laws, rules, and norms.

Cultivating support

In conflict, states and armed groups seek to mobilize support from domestic populations, allies, and international observers. Narratives are essential in this effort, as they shape audiences’ understanding of what the conflict is about and who is worthy of support. Ukraine’s strategic communications after 2022 provide a compelling example: President Volodymyr Zelensky’s daily addresses, appeals to parliaments worldwide, and savvy use of digital media cultivated not only domestic resilience but also sustained Western military and economic backing. 

Controlling volume and access

Narrative dominance often hinges on who gets heard and who is silenced. Some governments go heavy on information control, such as China’s use of censorship, firewalls, and state-run media to amplify preferred narratives while muting dissent. In wartime, states may also restrict journalist access or flood the information space with their own messaging to drown out competing voices. Meanwhile, other parties to conflict may work to penetrate or circumvent such measures to reach target audiences with counternarratives. Thus, control over access to platforms, bandwidth, and airtime becomes a key effort in the battle of narratives.

Undermining opposing narratives

Beyond broadcasting their own stories, actors aim to dismantle the credibility of their adversaries. This can take the form of sowing doubt, spreading conspiracy theories, or branding independent media outlets as “fake news.” Russia’s steady efforts to portray foreign media as hypocritical or biased exemplify this tactic. The goal is less about persuasion and more about eroding trust in alternative accounts.

Countering adversarial narratives

Finally, there is the active defense against disinformation and propaganda. Some parties to conflict will develop fact-checking organizations, digital literacy campaigns, and open-source intelligence (OSINT) initiatives to contest falsehoods. They publish “correct-the-record” information, disseminate fact-driven reports, and employ transparency to counter an adversary’s mis-/dis-information. Ukraine’s rapid exposure of Russian fabrications since February 2022—sometimes with humor and memes—has demonstrated the agility required to blunt hostile messaging. The most powerful example of this came following Russian claims that President Zelensky had fled the country immediately after the initiation of the “special military operation”—a point that Zelensky countered with nothing more than a selfie video in the early morning hours on the streets of Kyiv.

President Volodymyr Zelensky broadcasts himself with members of his cabinet in the streets of the Kyiv on the morning of 26 February 2022 after Russian claims that they had fled the country (photo via X/Twitter user @nexta_tv)

Tools and tactics in narrative warfare

Within the lines of effort in the battle of narratives, there are several tools and tactics that actors can employ. 

Multi‑level narratives and exploiting vulnerabilities

A narrative strategy operates at several levels. Researchers propose meta‑narratives that convey overarching values (e.g., defending democracy), strategic narratives that link actions to goals (e.g., protecting civilians), and tactical narratives for specific audiences. Developing such layered messaging allows militaries to exploit adversarial vulnerabilities. In Russia’s case, vulnerabilities include contested spheres of influence, poor military performance, demographic decline, and environmental challenges. Narratives that highlight these weaknesses serve to undermine Russian morale and international standing.

Bots, trolls, and fake accounts

Authoritarian actors often deploy bots and trolls to flood the information environment with supportive messages and harass critics. These accounts amplify narratives and create the illusion of widespread support. They also engage in astroturfing, artificially generating grassroots appearances. Actors restricted by norms and law must rely on transparent communication and credible messengers.

Memes and viral content

Memes, videos and viral posts travel rapidly across platforms, making them ideal for shaping perceptions. Both state and non‑state actors invest in memetic warfare to influence younger audiences. A Brookings Institute report noted that memes provide simple messages that can track with battlefield milestones, offering psychological dividends. For example, memes mocking Russian supply lines during the invasion of Ukraine resonated widely, shaping international perceptions of Russian weakness.

Censorship and legal controls

Autocratic regimes often criminalize dissent to enforce narrative dominance. Russia’s laws against “discrediting” its military criminalise any alternative account of the invasion, showing how law enforcement becomes an instrument of narrative warfare.

When images of a Ukrainian farmer towing away disabled Russian tanks went viral, memes such as the one above served as mockeries of Russian supply lines (photo via Parley Policy)

Competing Narratives in an Existential War for Ukraine

From the outset of the full scale invasion, Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has continuously illustrated the lines of effort and digital evolution of the battle of narratives. In the months leading to the February 2022 invasion, the Kremlin and pro‑Kremlin media deployed false and misleading narratives to justify aggression. The Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab analysed over 350 fact‑checks and thousands of articles to build a timeline of narratives leading up to the war. Key narratives included:

1. “Russia seeks peace while Ukraine escalates”: Russian officials framed themselves as forced into war by Ukrainian aggression and Western provocation. This narrative cast Russia’s invasion as a defensive act.

2. “Ukraine is a puppet of the West”: Articles claimed that Ukraine lacked sovereignty and served U.S. interests. This de-legitimized Ukrainian authorities and implied that any negotiations must involve Washington.

3. “The West is creating tensions”: Narratives blamed NATO expansion and Western sanctions for the crisis, positioning Russia as responding to external encirclement.

4. “Russia has a moral obligation to protect Russian speakers”: The Kremlin evoked historical myths of a unified “Rus’” and alleged persecution of Russian-speaking populations.

President Vladimir Putin labeled the invasion a “special military operation,” framing it as an act of “demilitarization and denazification” of Ukraine. By referencing World War II and accusations of Nazism, Putin sought to imbue the war with moral righteousness and historical inevitability. Russia’s legislature amended the criminal code to penalize any deviation from this narrative, ensuring compliance through repression.

Ukrainian officials and civil society responded with their own narratives. Memes became a tool to boost morale and cultivate international sympathy; viral posts compared Ukrainian President Zelensky to heroic pop‑culture figures and lampooned Russian incompetence. These memes created a sense of solidarity and “shared struggle.” Ukrainian narratives emphasized national sovereignty, democratic values and the defense of a European future.

International narratives also framed the conflict. Ukraine’s supporters described it as a struggle between democracy and autocracy, highlighting Ukrainian resilience and portraying the invasion as an unprovoked violation of the rules‑based order. Conversely, in parts of the so-called Global South, pro‑Russian narratives gained traction. Detector Media’s survey across eleven countries found that hostility toward NATO and the perception of Russia as a counterweight to Western hegemony created a favorable environment for Russian messaging. Local media in Argentina, Brazil and elsewhere uncritically quoted Russian officials and framed Ukraine as a pawn in a U.S.–Russia confrontation.

This battle of narratives has spread into the ceasefire negotiation process, where the core debate centers on readiness for peace. Both sides accuse the other of obstructing progress: Ukraine points to Russia’s continued attacks on civilian population centers as evidence of Kremlin bad faith, while the Kremlin repeatedly argues that the Zelensky administration is the primary obstacle. How these narratives evolve during ceasefire deliberations will be critical in shaping domestic and international support for any outcome.

Conclusion

The battle of narratives is a central dimension of modern warfare. It influences not only public perceptions but also diplomatic alignments, recruitment, morale, and the outcome of conflicts. The digital age has magnified the importance of narratives by creating fragmented information spaces and providing tools for rapid amplification. Effective engagement in narrative warfare requires understanding the psychological dynamics of storytelling, the technological platforms that carry messages, and the ethical constraints that many parties elect to observe. By developing multi‑level, truthful narratives that resonate with audiences and exploit adversaries’ weaknesses, these actors can counter disinformation and uphold the values they champion. 

Ultimately, as philosopher Miguel de Unamuno observed, winning a war requires not only conquering territory but also convincing hearts and minds. The battle of narratives will remain pivotal in conflicts of the twenty‑first century, demanding continued attention from military strategists, policymakers, and citizens alike.

---

Mariia Hirniak is an international relations analyst currently completing graduate studies at the International University of Japan. Her research interests include ontological security, strategic culture, and foreign policy behavior of states in crisis situations. She also studies the role of collective memory, narratives, and identity in shaping international policy, as well as the application of OSINT and digital humanitarian analytics in documenting war crimes and post-conflict reconstruction.

Cable No 53_The battle of narratives in modern conflict.pdf

Download PDF • 13.07MB