Putin’s military strategy ‘at the whim’ of Russian military bloggers
The war in Ukraine has been raging for more than eight years, with no end in sight. The conflict has claimed over 13,000 lives, displaced millions of people, and destabilized the region. But what is driving Russia’s involvement in this war? And who is influencing its military decisions?
According to Kateryna Stepanenko, a researcher at the Institute for the Study of War, Russia’s military strategy in Ukraine is not only determined by the Kremlin, but also by a network of pro-war bloggers who have access to the front lines and the Russian troops. These bloggers, known as “voyenkory” in Russian, have extreme anti-Ukrainian and anti-Western views, and often claim to have specialist military knowledge. They publish reports, videos, and photos from the war zone, attracting millions of followers on social media platforms such as Telegram, YouTube, and VKontakte.
Stepanenko argues that these bloggers are not just independent observers, but also active participants and influencers of the war. Some of them are embedded with the Russian forces, and some even fight alongside them. They also have direct or indirect links to the Russian government, military, and intelligence agencies, and sometimes receive funding and support from them. They act as a propaganda tool, spreading misinformation and disinformation, and shaping public opinion in Russia and abroad. They also serve as a feedback mechanism, providing information and criticism to the Russian military command, and sometimes even affecting its decisions.
For example, Stepanenko cites the case of Vladlen Tatarsky, a prominent war blogger who died in an explosion in St Petersburg in April 2023. Tatarsky, who used the pseudonym Maxim Fomin, was one of the first voyenkory to report from the occupied Ukrainian city of Donetsk in 2014. He had close ties to the Russian military and intelligence, and was allegedly involved in several covert operations in Ukraine. He was also known for his harsh criticism of the Russian military leadership, accusing them of incompetence, corruption, and betrayal. He claimed to have access to classified information, and often leaked it to his followers.
Stepanenko suggests that Tatarsky’s death was not an accident, but a targeted assassination by the Russian security services, who wanted to silence him and send a message to other war bloggers. She says that Tatarsky’s case illustrates the complex and contradictory relationship between the voyenkory and the Russian state. On the one hand, they are useful assets, who provide valuable information, propaganda, and mobilization. On the other hand, they are potential threats, who challenge the official narrative, expose the flaws and failures of the military operation, and pressure the political leadership to escalate the war.
Stepanenko concludes that the role of the voyenkory in the war in Ukraine is unprecedented and unprecedented. She says that they are not only a new phenomenon of war reporting, but also a new factor of war making. She warns that their influence on Russia’s military strategy is dangerous and unpredictable, and that their actions could have serious consequences for the security and stability of the region and the world.
