12/28/2025

Author: Olena Gorduz

From the first days of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, Mariupol emerged not only as a strategic military objective but also as a central target of a coordinated information warfare operation. While the city experienced sustained bombardment and a rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation, a parallel struggle unfolded in the informational domain. Russian state-controlled media, official agencies, and affiliated online networks disseminated a consistent set of narratives portraying events in Mariupol through a carefully constructed interpretative framework. Claims that the city was being “liberated,” that Ukrainian forces were using civilians as human shields, and that Russia was conducting a humanitarian mission did not merely accompany military actions. They shaped how The Mariupol case, observed in real time under conditions of extreme information restriction, illustrates how information warfare operates as an integral component of modern conflict.

The information operation surrounding Mariupol followed a sequential narrative logic in which specific messages were activated in alignment with developments on the battlefield. Rather than persuading through factual accuracy, the campaign aimed to establish interpretative dominance by framing legitimacy, responsibility, and moral judgement at an early stage. Once these frames were consolidated, alternative interpretations faced structural resistance regardless of evidentiary strength. This article advances a phased understanding of information warfare, arguing that narrative sequencing is a critical determinant of effectiveness. The Mariupol case demonstrates that early narrative dominance constrains both domestic dissent and international responses, transforming information warfare into a force multiplier rather than a secondary instrument. Phases of Narrative Construction

Phase I: Legitimisation of the Invasion

In the initial phase, Russia’s military actions were framed as a “liberation” mission aimed at protecting civilians and restoring order. Ukrainian authorities and armed forces were portrayed as illegitimate and extremist, while Russian forces were presented as humanitarian actors. This framing established a rigid binary moral structure that delegitimised Ukrainian resistance and pre-emptively weakened international criticism. By narrowing the interpretative space at an early stage, the narrative reduced diplomatic manoeuvrability and shifted debate from responsibility to competing moral claims.

Phase II: Humanitarian Blame Shift

As civilian suffering intensified, narratives shifted toward assigning responsibility for humanitarian consequences to Ukraine. Claims that Ukrainian forces were obstructing evacuations or deliberately endangering civilians became central. Images of destruction were incorporated into the narrative but selectively framed to obscure accountability for civilian casualties and infrastructure damage. Civilian suffering was instrumentalised to reinforce the propaganda framework, fragmenting humanitarian discourse and complicating external accountability efforts.

Phase III: Reconstruction and “Peaceful Life”

Following the occupation of Mariupol, information efforts increasingly focused on reconstruction, aid distribution, and the restoration of everyday life. Media coverage highlighted repaired infrastructure and resumed public services as indicators of effective governance. This phase symbolically closed the conflict by reframing destruction as a temporary disruption resolved through Russian intervention, normalising occupation and consolidating earlier claims of legitimacy.

Several mechanisms ensured the durability and effectiveness of these narratives. Framing played a central role by selectively emphasising certain elements while excluding others, thereby shaping perceptions of responsibility and legitimacy. In Mariupol, this was evident in the persistent portrayal of the Azov Regiment exclusively as a “neo-Nazi formation,” a framing that eliminated interpretative ambiguity and enforced a binary moral judgement. Emotional amplification further reinforced narrative dominance. Fear, anger, pity, and indignation were embedded into media messages through emotionally charged language and imagery. Once emotional responses became dominant, critical evaluation rapidly declined. Repetition functioned as the final consolidating mechanism. Identical narratives were reiterated across television, online outlets, and social media platforms, generating a sense of informational inevitability that marginalised alternative accounts and normalised the imposed frame.

The Mariupol case demonstrates that information warfare operates as a strategic force multiplier capable of shaping political constraints long before formal diplomatic responses are formulated. By establishing narrative dominance at an early stage, aggressor states can delay accountability mechanisms, fragment international consensus, and reduce the effectiveness of humanitarian pressure. This suggests, rather than conclusively proves, that for Western security institutions, the key lesson is that reactive counter-disinformation measures are structurally insufficient once interpretative frames have consolidated. Effective responses require early detection of narrative sequencing, cross-platform coordination, and rapid attribution of responsibility before emotionally charged narratives achieve dominance. The European Union’s response during the Mariupol siege reveals a persistent gap between analytical awareness and operational implementation. Although monitoring mechanisms exist, delayed activation limited their political impact. Strengthening information resilience therefore requires integrating real-time narrative analysis into early-warning and crisis-response frameworks, particularly in conflicts characterised by high civilian exposure and restricted access to independent information.

The information campaign surrounding Mariupol reveals how contemporary warfare unfolds simultaneously on physical and cognitive fronts. Through structured narrative sequencing, emotional manipulation, and sustained repetition, Russian information actors reshaped perceptions of the conflict and obscured accountability for mass civilian harm. Mariupol should therefore be understood not as an exceptional case but as a prototype of future conflicts in which control over perception becomes as decisive as control over territory. Strengthening information resilience must be treated as a core requirement of contemporary international security policy.