SHAPE Mons

Search our content

Home  /  Newsroom  /  Insights  /  The Changing Role of Social Networks in Conflicts

The Changing Role of Social Networks in Conflicts


In today's world, information warfare has changed from being a mere auxiliary component of military strategy to establishing itself as a fully-fledged dimension of conflict. Modern media, and particularly social networks, have become indispensable tools for shaping global public opinion, building consensus and influencing political and military outcomes. Warring parties increasingly use these digital platforms as strategic weapons, capable of manipulating narratives, spreading propaganda and mobilising international support.  

Since the early 2000s, social networks have emerged and proliferated as new channels of communication, radically revolutionising the communication landscape and the way people connect and interact. These platforms have become integral to all aspects of modern life, including armed conflicts and popular uprisings; indeed, these have changed so significantly they are now often referred to as "Wars 2.0." Social media is an exceptionally effective tool, owing to the low access costs and the rapid dissemination of information to broad audiences. It has expanded the number of citizens able to access information and made communication both easier and faster. 

How has this influenced armed conflicts and crisis situations? The first instance where the influence of social media became clear was the Arab Spring. Beginning in 2011 across several countries in the Middle East and North Africa, it encompassed uprisings and popular protest movements aimed at overthrowing the ruling regimes.  

Digital means of communication had such a profound impact that some scholars have referred to this period as the “Social Network Revolution.” Indeed, the protests gained widespread resonance and engaged vast portions of the population, thanks to social networks like Twitter and Facebook, which became tools for aggregation and organising demonstrations. Looking beyond how social networks were used on an organisational level, their role in spreading the protests was equally critical: the sharing of images, videos and information by protesters—using social networks to circumvent censorship more easily than before—managed to draw global attention to what was happening.  

In Egypt, the movement began after the police tortured and killed Khaled Said for posting a video exposing two police officers involved in a drug deal. This led to the creation of a Facebook group called “We Are All Khaled Said,” initially managed anonymously by Wael Ghonim, a Google executive for the Arab region. Ghonim emerged as a central figure in the revolution that toppled Mubarak and topped Time magazine’s list of the most influential people of 2011. His Facebook group rapidly grew to 400,000 members, eventually reaching 2 million within six months. Twitter also played a pivotal role in amplifying Wael Ghonim’s influence: in Egypt, tweets using topics linked to the protests surged to 80,000—four times the average traffic of the period—coinciding with his release, after being arrested. It became evident that social media was a powerful force, contributing to the collapse of regimes that had endured for over thirty years in some countries and to the weakening of governments across the Middle East and North Africa.  

The Arab Spring was the first true example of a crisis being heavily influenced by the use of social networks, but it is not the only one. The information-spreading and aggregation functions are also evident in other conflicts: from the war in the Donbas, which began in Ukraine in 2014, to the more recent full-scale invasion in 2022, where the use of social media has proven to be crucial. 

The conflict in Ukraine has highlighted how social media has become a strategic weapon that is as powerful as the traditional weapons found on a battlefield. Since the full-scale Russian invasion began in February 2022, platforms like Twitter, Telegram and TikTok have been used to mobilise public opinion, spread propaganda and coordinate both military and civilian action. 

On one side, the Ukrainian government, under President Volodymyr Zelensky, has leveraged social networks to garner international support, using real-time messages that have helped bring the suffering of Ukrainians into the world's gaze.  One distinctive feature of this information war is the active involvement of citizens, who have shared direct testimonies, videos of attacks and images of the devastation. This has had an enormous impact on the global narrative, making it impossible to ignore the conflict or completely distort the facts. 

On the other side, Russia has escalated its disinformation operations, seeking to manipulate global perceptions of the conflict by using targeted propaganda campaigns. A well-executed disinformation strategy can distort consensus at both local and international levels. For example, by exploiting biases and dissent, it can drive the growing polarisation of public opinion on global events, with social groups more likely to embrace rhetoric that aligns with their beliefs. 

The Ukraine crisis has also seen cyber warfare become a key component of the conflict, with hacker attacks on both sides trying to destabilise critical infrastructure and spread digital chaos. 

These factors make the conflict in Ukraine a prime example of how, in the 21st century, war is fought not only on the ground but also online.  Indeed, social networks may, in part, positively influence some clashes, but since these means are hard to control, they can also be used for less noble purposes.  The aggregation function is often exploited by terrorist groups to identify new recruits and spread their message. Turning to the dissemination function, the fact that any user can publish any kind of information at will, and that such information is therefore difficult to verify, leads to the problem of fake news, which is now widespread and difficult to combat. Fake news is often deliberately spread to try to create confusion and manipulate public opinion in one direction or another; sometimes governments themselves use this kind of propaganda, and the goal might even be to try to create conflict.  Taking the Russia-Ukraine conflict as an example, the Kremlin has launched an extensive disinformation campaign in regions such as South America and Africa in order to increase the already existing discontent in such regions with Western powers. 

Even outside of conflict, controlling social media has become a hot topic in basically every country on the planet in order to have more control over information.  Brazil repeatedly blocked access to social media, until the most recent shutdown of X in August 2024, later lifted in October.  A Brazilian judge had suspended X, the platform previously known as Twitter, on August 30, accusing it of failing to comply with an order to remove accounts suspected of spreading disinformation, many of them linked to Brazil's far-right. 

The most powerful example of control and censorship of social media and the internet in general is China's Great Firewall. The term Great Firewall, ironically inspired by the Great Wall of China, was coined in a 1997 article in Wired magazine and later adopted by the international media, including the Chinese media. This term refers to the Golden Shield Project, a network censorship and surveillance system operated by the People's Republic of China's Ministry of Public Security. The project aims to block access to any data from abroad considered potentially unfavourable. It is the world's most complex internet censorship and control system, blocking access to major western websites and social networks such as Google, Facebook, YouTube, etc. and replacing them with Chinese equivalents. Control of the Internet is crucial for the Chinese government, both to prevent disinformation and to counter any content that could undermine the country's political stability. 

A well-known remark by President Deng Xiaoping, made in the early 1980s, captures this idea: “If you open the windows, fresh air comes in, but so do flies.” Here, "flies" means all those sensitive issues that might come from the West, from violent images to ideas about democracy that have the potential to contaminate minds and turn people away from the path of the Chinese Communist Party. China's censorship model is also providing inspiration for Russia's efforts to control information during the current conflict. 

Today, Western countries are increasingly required to counter disinformation campaigns propagated in cyberspace by organisations that are difficult to link to state actors. The aim of these campaigns is to destabilise society from within and to undermine democratic principles, which have already been severely challenged by a major crisis of values in recent decades. In contrast to censorship and information control, democratic countries seek to counter disinformation campaigns by spreading the truth, in line with their values. This is an asymmetric conflict, pitting real news against the sensationalism of false information. However, the battle turns out to be an unequal one—trying to refute fake news with fact-checking alone. People who have become radicalised rarely turn back; in many cases, efforts to disprove information only end up reinforcing their beliefs. 

Confirmation bias1  results in the emergence of echo chambers, i.e. groups of people who form communities of interest with shared beliefs and goals. In echo chambers, individual opinions are not discussed, but rather reinforced and polarised. Discordant information is often simply ignored. Thus, fact-checking has major limitations. People try to fight fake news by saying "I have the truth: here it is", but it is unlikely it will work. It is important to realise that fake news is only the tip of the iceberg. The real damage comes from segregation into groups, into narratives that do not 'talk' to each other. Consequently, one of the challenges for the West in countering these cognitive threats in the future will be to focus on education as a priority. 

Education is a vital tool in the fight against disinformation, as it develops the critical thinking and analytical skills needed to assess the reliability of sources. Teaching people how to recognise bias and verify information helps create knowledgeable citizens who are less easy to manipulate. A well-informed society is more robust, able to defend itself against fake news and contribute more responsibly to public debate. However, education is a defence strategy that delivers results in the long term, and only in the future will we know which of the programmes implemented by various countries ultimately proved to be the most effective.

1. Each of us enjoys agreeing with people who agree with us, and we tend to avoid individuals or groups that make us feel uncomfortable. This is what psychologist B.F. Skinner (1953) referred to as “cognitive dissonance.” This is a preferential mode of behaviour that leads to confirmation bias, or the act of referencing only the perspectives that feed into our pre-existing views

Story by 2nd Lieutenant ITA Army Marianna DAPOTO  

Address

NRDC-ITA
Via per Busto Arsizio, 20
21058 Solbiate Olona (VA) Italy

Media Operations

Public Affairs Office
Tel: +39 0331 345111
Fax: +39 0331345124