
In short, the Russian media are shaping discourse on ways to 'ease tensions' with Ukraine. To that end, the media have significantly reduced its aggressive content, virtually eliminating the 2014 labels it used to apply to the Ukrainian government, such as “Ukrainian fascists,” “punishers,” and “banderovtsi” [Ukrainian nationalists].
Throughout the year, at closed-door conferences held at Russian military academies and round tables, military and political experts discussed Moscow’s ways out of the war foisted upon Kyiv and searched for acceptable scenarios for Ukraine. It’s not surprising that their outcomes are not made public, although open discussions also take place alongside the closed ones. Among them are such forums as “Current Issues of Security in Southern Russia,” “Measuring a Social and Political World: Russia-Ukraine-Novorossiya,” “War or Peace?” etc.In recent months, the so-called 'post-conflict resolution' has become the leitmotif in the Kremlin’s discourse.
It’s become customary to invite former Ukrainian officials (e.g. Vitaliy Zakharchenko, Ukraine's Minister of Internal Affairs, and Mykola Azarov, Prime Minister of Ukraine) to these forums as consultants, who know well about the subtleties of Ukrainian politics, diplomacy, and economy. High-ranking Ukrainian oligarchs who fled the country are also used by Moscow as a serious information-political resource. In this way, the Russian government is trying to develop a new arsenal of non-military influence on Ukraine’s political situation - new “keys” for Ukraine, in other words. Some Russian experts believe that these actions are aimed to violate the subjectivity of Ukraine’s development, consolidate domestic tensions, replace the ruling elites, and support the opposition leaders who are ready to be managed from the outside.Their common and distinctive feature is finding ways to preserve informational influence in a new non-military format.
In its essence, the doctrine of “managed chaos,” adopted by Russian intelligence services as a critical component of contemporary war theory, coupled with Russia’s new geopolitical principles, turned into a guide to subvert the Ukrainian government.
When it became clear that Russia failed to defeat Ukraine in the hybrid war, it was decided to create a “manual” political resource among pro-Russian Ukrainians. In summer and fall 2014, Moscow began to emphasize a humanitarian aspect to resolving the conflict, and Russian services started organizing a Ukrainian humanitarian arsenal. Among the formed organizations dealing with humanitarian issues in eastern Ukraine were the Committee of Public Support of Residents of south-eastern Ukraine initiated by the Russian Federation Council and the Refugee Union of Ukraine supported by the State Duma. There was also an attempt to create a pro-Russian political platform out of Ukrainian officials, mainly former members of the Party of Regions, through V. Oliynyk’s parliamentary group For Peace and Stability. In the early stages of the Russian aggression in Ukraine, experts observed a surge in political activity among Ukrainian diaspora leaders in Russia. Bogdan Bezpalko, a leader of the Russian NGO the Federal Natural Cultural Autonomy “Ukrainians in Russia,” has become perhaps the most popular “Ukrainian” in the Russian media. He condemned the Ukrainian government, thus attuning the opinion of the Ukrainian diaspora to the opinion of the Russian government. There is a growing number of skeptics among military experts who are inclined to view Ukraine’s Anti-Terrorist Operation only as a military threat. There is no denying that military activity with heavy weapons has recently escalated along the contact line. Therefore, it seems logical for military experts to talk about the beginning of a new phase of military operations in the Donbas. The increasing military and civilian casualties obviously compel experts to reach such a conclusion. However, one should look beyond that. The Russian forces seek to achieve information objectives. The main task of the Russian leadership is to impose a protracted war on Ukraine, which over time would:Public opinion leaders among the ruling elite, the opposition, and religious organizations are seen as the key channels of influence.
- exhaust Ukraine’s treasury;
- prevent the restoration of the economy;
- encourage the Ukrainians to accept admissibility of federalism;
- divide the Ukrainian society;
- create the myth of the invincibility of the Russian army;
- fuel public distrust in Ukraine’s military-political leadership;
- reduce people’s patriotism.

Viacheslav Husarov is an information security expert at the Kyiv Center for Military-Political Research of the Information Resistance group. He is a Reserve Colonel who served as a deputy head of a structural unit at the Main Directorate of Intelligence of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, leading a psychological operations division within a Ukrainian contingent in Iraq.