The recently reignited conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia is largely being fought with drones – but verifiable facts and figures about successes and losses are hard to come by. The situation is similar in the digital theater of war, which is raging with a lot of false information and propaganda, especially on social media.
On October 7, the Cyber Policy Center (ICPC) of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute published an analysis of Twitter activity surrounding the fighting that broke out between Azerbaijan and Armenia at the end of September (the fiercest since 1994). The focus is on the keyboard-based battle for interpretative sovereignty and international credibility. The aim of the research piece is to observe and document part of the early dynamics of information warfare, which is taking place in parallel to the local conflict on the ground. It also aims to create a basis for further, more comprehensive research on IW.
This report mentions a large number of Twitter accounts that support both sides in engaging in politicized hashtags related to the conflict. The findings point to coordinated activity on a large scale. While much of this is likely authentic, the analysis also found a significant amount of suspicious and possibly inauthentic behavior, “fake news” in other words. Many activities take place in the context of long-standing information campaigns on both sides and with protagonists who have in some cases been known for a long time. However, in addition to actors directly from the two warring parties, actors far outside the geographical scope of the conflict also appear to be involved. Echoing Turkey and Pakistan’s support for Azerbaijan, Turkish and Pakistani accounts, some of which are likely fake, have also participated in English-language battles online. On the other hand, Indian accounts have been pushing back hashtags like #IndiaStandsWithArmenia. Other interesting activities include the involvement of Twitter accounts of US celebrities, including Kim Kardashian and her partner Kanye West, apparently to enlist their support for Armenia, as well as the targeting of international media outlets such as the BBC.
According to the ICPC, one thing seems indisputable: part of this “shadow battle” is undoubtedly authentic. Many people around the world have strong opinions about what is happening on the ground, a personal connection to these areas and to this conflict, and are constantly participating in the debate online. However, distinguishing between real people and inauthentic, so-called “bot accounts”, is a challenge that should not be underestimated. Emerging or flaring crises and conflicts can lead to real users – who, because of their real name or because of relatives in the war zone – behave in unusual ways or differently than usual, which now makes the distinction even more complicated. However, it is likely that there is a certain amount of fake activity on both sides of the conflict, including in the official channels of both governments – the latter certainly also on purpose (for example, photos are posted from other countries or pictures of weapons systems that are not even in use on the ground).
However, the ICPC researchers did not attempt a comprehensive analysis (which would have required more time and more resources), nor did they attempt to fact-check content – i.e. whether an S-300 air defense system was actually hit by a BR-2 drone. One especially needs to be quick here and try to capture data before the evidence is lost to media forensics due to Twitter content moderation. In addition, the report focuses mainly on activity in English. However, similar activity is actually taking place in a variety of other – primarily regionally spoken – languages. It is also noted that the report is in no way intended to undermine the legitimacy of authentic social media conversations and debates, which take place hundreds of times and understandably on all sides of the conflict.
One example, which is once again the subject of heated debate and controversy, is the fact that in Azerbaijan – despite denials after the shooting down of an Armenian Su-25 (with Slovakian maintenance instructions on it) – now on satellite photos from October 3 Turkish F-16s were documented after all. But does this mean that they also took part in the battle?
Videos such as the one above are currently being published by both parties to the conflict, but their authenticity can only be verified in the rarest of cases. A collection of such videos can be found here can be found here.
