• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

War Propaganda Tactics

Anna Morelli's Ten Principles of War Propaganda

Frank Visser / ChatGPT-3.5

Me to ChatGPT:

• Please comment on these ten principles of war propaganda, as outlined by historian Anne Morelli.[1]

Follow-up questions:

Anne Morelli

• Please apply these principles to the current Russo-Ukrainian war.
• You primarily gave the Ukrainian perpective. Now do the same from a Russian perspective.
• The so called information war is effectively a propaganda war in this context. Who is winning this war?
• It seems to be a general psychological principle that each of the warring parties thinks itself to be on the right side of history.
• In war times this groupthink seems unavoidable. How can it be transcended in times of peace?
• Those who argue for peace in times of war are usually accused of playing in the hands of the aggressor. How can this dilemma be avoided?
• In the case of the Russo-Ukrainian war, the two Minsk agreements of 2014 and 2015 tried to realize these goals, but unfortunately failed. Again, both parties blamed the other for it.
• What would this conflict look like if we would abandon all war propaganda? What are the deeper issues involved?
• Is it more realistic to think that wars like this end only when one of the two parties has been exhausted?

ChatGPT:

The principles you've outlined appear to be a summary of some common tactics often used in war propaganda. These tactics are not universally applicable, but they have been employed by various parties in different conflicts throughout history. War propaganda is typically designed to manipulate public opinion and justify a country's involvement in a war. It often involves framing the conflict in a way that portrays one's own side as righteous and the enemy as evil or responsible for the conflict. Let's briefly discuss each of these principles:

We don't want war, we are only defending ourselves:

This principle seeks to paint one's own side as the victim and portrays the conflict as an act of self-defense rather than aggression.

Our adversary is solely responsible for this war:

Blaming the enemy for starting the war is a common tactic to absolve one's own side of responsibility.

Our adversary's leader is inherently evil and resembles the devil:

This principle aims to dehumanize the enemy's leadership and make them appear as pure evil.

We are defending a noble cause, not our particular interests:

Propaganda often emphasizes the moral or noble reasons for going to war, rather than acknowledging any self-interest or economic motivations.

The enemy is purposefully committing atrocities; if we are making mistakes this happens without intention:

This principle portrays the enemy as intentionally committing atrocities while downplaying any mistakes or atrocities committed by one's own side as accidental.

The enemy makes use of illegal weapons:

Accusing the enemy of using illegal weapons can further vilify them and garner international support.

We suffer few losses, the enemy's losses are considerable:

Highlighting the imbalance in casualties can bolster the perception of strength and resolve on one's own side.

Recognized intellectuals and artists support our cause:

Citing support from respected figures can lend credibility to the propaganda message.

Our cause is sacred:

Presenting the war as a holy or sacred mission can invoke strong emotional responses and support from religious groups.

Whoever casts doubt on our propaganda helps the enemy and is a traitor:

Labeling dissenters or critics as traitors or enemy sympathizers can discourage opposition and create a sense of unity.

It's important to note that these principles are not necessarily accurate representations of the truth and are often used to manipulate public opinion during times of conflict. War propaganda can be highly effective in shaping public perception and rallying support for a cause, but it should be critically examined and questioned to avoid falling victim to its manipulative tactics.[2]

Please apply these principles to the current Russo-Ukrainian war.

As of my last knowledge update in January 2022[3], I cannot provide real-time information or analysis on current events, including the Russo-Ukrainian war. However, I can provide a general understanding of how such principles of war propaganda might be applied to a conflict like the Russo-Ukrainian war, based on common tactics used in past conflicts. Please note that the situation may have evolved since then, and the application of these principles may vary depending on the perspective of different parties involved in the conflict.

We don't want war, we are only defending ourselves:

In this case, Ukraine might emphasize that it did not provoke the conflict and that it is defending its sovereignty against Russian aggression.

Our adversary is solely responsible for this war:

Ukraine and its allies may frame Russia as the aggressor, blaming it for instigating the conflict by annexing Crimea and supporting separatist movements in Eastern Ukraine.

Our adversary's leader is inherently evil and resembles the devil:

This principle could manifest in portrayals of Russian President Vladimir Putin as a malevolent figure responsible for the conflict.

We are defending a noble cause, not our particular interests:

Ukraine may emphasize its struggle for democracy, self-determination, and territorial integrity as noble causes worth defending.

The enemy is purposefully committing atrocities; if we are making mistakes this happens without intention:

Both sides in the conflict may accuse each other of committing atrocities, with each side downplaying its own actions and emphasizing the other's wrongdoing.

The enemy makes use of illegal weapons:

Accusations of illegal weapons use, such as the alleged use of banned cluster munitions, may be made to vilify the opposing side.

We suffer few losses, the enemy's losses are considerable:

Both sides may highlight the human toll of the conflict, with each side trying to portray itself as suffering less and being more resilient.

Recognized intellectuals and artists support our cause:

Ukraine may seek international support and cite endorsements from prominent figures in the arts, academia, or politics.

Our cause is sacred:

Ukraine may frame its fight as a struggle for freedom and self-determination, invoking historical or cultural narratives to make the cause seem sacred.

Whoever casts doubt on our propaganda helps the enemy and is a traitor:

Dissenters or those who question the official narrative may be portrayed as unpatriotic or as aiding the enemy's cause.

Keep in mind that war propaganda is often employed by multiple sides in a conflict, and different narratives may emerge depending on one's perspective. Additionally, the situation may have changed significantly since my last update, so it is essential to seek up-to-date and balanced sources of information to understand the current status of the Russo-Ukrainian war and the narratives being put forth by the involved parties.

You primarily gave the Ukrainian perpective. Now do the same from a Russian perspective.

Certainly, I can provide a perspective from the Russian side, keeping in mind that this is a hypothetical application of the principles of war propaganda and may not reflect the full range of views within Russia or the complexities of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict.

We don't want war, we are only defending ourselves:

Russia might argue that it took action in Ukraine to protect Russian-speaking populations and interests in Eastern Ukraine, portraying its involvement as a defensive measure.

Our adversary is solely responsible for this war:

Russian propaganda may emphasize that Ukraine's government and military initiated hostilities in Eastern Ukraine, framing them as the main aggressors.

Our adversary's leader is inherently evil and resembles the devil:

Ukrainian leaders, especially during the conflict, may be depicted as corrupt, Western puppets, or nationalists who pose a threat to Russian-speaking populations.

We are defending a noble cause, not our particular interests:

Russia might argue that it is defending the rights and interests of ethnic Russians in Ukraine and countering what it perceives as Western interference in the region.

The enemy makes use of illegal weapons:

Russia could allege that Ukraine uses banned weaponry or indiscriminate shelling in the conflict, portraying them as violators of international law.

The enemy is purposefully committing atrocities; if we are making mistakes this happens without intention:

Russian propaganda may accuse Ukrainian forces of committing human rights abuses against Russian-speaking civilians in Eastern Ukraine, while downplaying any mistakes made by Russian-backed separatist groups.

We suffer few losses, the enemy's losses are considerable:

Russian propaganda may highlight the losses and suffering of Ukrainian forces to demonstrate the effectiveness of Russian-backed groups and the resilience of Russian-backed separatists.

Recognized intellectuals and artists support our cause:

Russia may highlight endorsements from international figures sympathetic to its perspective, including academics, artists, or politicians who argue for a negotiated settlement or a different approach to the conflict.

Our cause is sacred:

Russian propaganda could frame its actions as necessary to protect Russian culture, language, and interests in Ukraine, drawing on historical and cultural ties between the two countries.

Whoever casts doubt on our propaganda helps the enemy and is a traitor:

Dissenters or those who question Russia's official narrative may be portrayed as traitors to the Russian cause or as agents of Western influence.

Again, it's important to emphasize that this perspective represents a hypothetical application of war propaganda principles from the Russian side. Public opinion and narratives surrounding the Russo-Ukrainian conflict are complex and vary widely both within and outside of Russia. Seeking diverse and credible sources of information is essential for gaining a more complete understanding of the situation.

The so called information war is effectively a propaganda war in this context. Who is winning this war?

Determining the winner of the information or propaganda war in the context of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict is a complex and subjective matter. The "winner" can vary depending on the specific audience, region, and timeframe under consideration. Here are some factors to consider:

Audience Perspective: The effectiveness of information or propaganda campaigns often depends on the audience they are targeting. Different audiences may be exposed to and influenced by different sources of information. What one group considers effective propaganda, another group might see as biased or unconvincing.

International Perception: The international community plays a significant role in shaping the narrative of the conflict. Different countries and international organizations may have varying degrees of influence on public opinion, diplomatic efforts, and sanctions.

Long-Term vs. Short-Term: The impact of information warfare can also vary over time. In the short term, one side may gain a temporary advantage, while in the long term, the truth or evolving events on the ground may influence perceptions.

Media Landscape: The media landscape and freedom of the press in different countries play a crucial role in shaping public opinion. In some countries, state-controlled media may dominate the narrative, while in others, a more diverse media landscape allows for a variety of perspectives to be heard.

Social Media and Online Disinformation: The use of social media and online disinformation campaigns can complicate the information war. These platforms enable rapid dissemination of information and misinformation, making it challenging to control the narrative.

Impact on Policy: Ultimately, the effectiveness of information or propaganda campaigns may be measured by their impact on policy decisions, public opinion, and the behavior of involved parties. It's difficult to assess this impact definitively.

Changing Dynamics: The information war is ongoing and can evolve rapidly. Tactics and narratives may change over time in response to events on the ground and developments in international relations.

It's important to approach any information or propaganda war with a critical and discerning eye, seeking multiple sources of information and considering various perspectives. The winner of such a war may not be determined by a clear victory but by the ability to shape perceptions, influence policy decisions, and achieve strategic objectives over time.

It seems to be a general psychological principle that each of the warring parties thinks itself to be on the right side of history.

You're correct that in many conflicts, each warring party tends to believe that it is on the right side of history and that its cause is just. This psychological phenomenon is often referred to as "moral justification" or "moral self-righteousness." It's a common cognitive bias where individuals and groups tend to view their own actions and beliefs as morally superior or justified, while viewing the actions and beliefs of others, especially those on the opposing side, as morally flawed or unjust.

Several factors contribute to this phenomenon:

Confirmation Bias: People often seek out information and interpret events in ways that confirm their preexisting beliefs and values. This can lead to a reinforcement of their perception of moral superiority.

In-Group Bias: People tend to favor their own group (in this case, their own nation, community, or side in a conflict) over outsiders. They perceive their in-group as virtuous and deserving of support.

Cognitive Dissonance Reduction: When individuals or groups engage in actions that may be morally questionable or harmful, they may rationalize those actions to reduce cognitive dissonance. This rationalization can lead to a heightened belief in the moral rightness of their cause.

Historical Perspective: People often view their own actions in the context of historical narratives that portray their side as the defender of justice or as victims of aggression.

Emotional Investment: The emotional investment in a cause or conflict can also contribute to the perception of moral superiority. When people are emotionally committed to a particular viewpoint, they are more likely to see themselves as morally right.

It's important to recognize that this bias exists in various conflicts around the world, and it can make it challenging to find common ground and peaceful resolutions. Understanding this bias can be a step toward promoting empathy and dialogue between conflicting parties. Recognizing that multiple perspectives exist and that people on both sides genuinely believe in the rightness of their cause is essential for conflict resolution and reconciliation efforts.

In war times this groupthink seems unavoidable. How can it be transcended in times of peace?

Transcending groupthink and fostering a more open and empathetic mindset is indeed challenging during times of conflict, but it becomes essential for building lasting peace and reconciliation. Here are some strategies that can help facilitate this transition during times of peace:

Education and Awareness: Promote education and awareness programs that teach critical thinking, media literacy, and conflict resolution skills. Encourage individuals to question their own biases and preconceptions.

Cross-Cultural Experiences: Facilitate exchanges, cultural immersion programs, and people-to-people interactions between different groups, especially those with historical conflicts. Personal interactions can humanize "the other" and reduce stereotypes.

Dialogue and Mediation: Promote structured dialogue and mediation processes that bring together individuals from conflicting groups to discuss their grievances, share their experiences, and seek common ground.

Truth and Reconciliation Commissions: Establish truth and reconciliation commissions to address past atrocities, acknowledge historical injustices, and promote healing and forgiveness. These commissions can help address grievances and build a shared understanding of history.

Interfaith and Intercommunity Initiatives: Support interfaith and intercommunity initiatives that encourage religious and cultural leaders to promote tolerance, respect, and coexistence among different groups.

Civil Society Engagement: Encourage civil society organizations, including NGOs, to play a role in peacebuilding efforts. These organizations can facilitate grassroots initiatives, promote human rights, and provide spaces for dialogue.

Media Responsibility: Encourage responsible and balanced journalism that avoids sensationalism, stereotypes, and divisive narratives. Support media outlets that promote peace and reconciliation.

Political Will: Seek political leadership committed to peace and reconciliation. Leaders can set the tone for a society's approach to conflict resolution and peacebuilding.

International Mediation and Support: Engage international organizations and countries in mediating conflicts and supporting post-conflict peacebuilding efforts. International mediation can bring impartiality and resources to the process.

Psychological Support: Provide psychological support and counseling for individuals and communities affected by conflict, including veterans and survivors. Healing emotional wounds is crucial for moving forward.

Public Awareness Campaigns: Launch public awareness campaigns that promote messages of peace, tolerance, and unity. Use various media and communication channels to reach a broad audience.

Youth Engagement: Engage young people in peacebuilding activities, education, and leadership roles. Youth can be powerful agents of change and advocates for peace.

Transcending groupthink during times of peace requires a concerted effort from multiple stakeholders, including governments, civil society, educators, and community leaders. It is a long-term process that involves changing attitudes, fostering empathy, and building bridges between communities that may have been divided by conflict. Patience, persistence, and a commitment to a shared vision of peace are essential for success.

Those who argue for peace in times of war are usually accused of playing in the hands of the aggressor. How can this dilemma be avoided?

The dilemma of being accused of playing into the hands of an aggressor when advocating for peace during wartime is indeed a complex one. This situation often arises when people are concerned that peace efforts may be perceived as concessions or weakness, emboldening the aggressor. To navigate this dilemma, consider the following strategies:

Emphasize a Just and Durable Peace: When advocating for peace, stress the importance of achieving a just and durable peace that addresses the root causes of the conflict. Highlight that peace negotiations aim to resolve underlying issues rather than capitulating to the aggressor's demands.

Engage in Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution: Emphasize that pursuing peace is a diplomatic and conflict resolution strategy, not a sign of surrender. Peace talks and negotiations can provide an opportunity to find common ground and explore peaceful solutions.

Involve Neutral Mediators: Enlist the involvement of neutral third-party mediators or international organizations with a history of successful conflict resolution. Neutral mediators can help build trust between the conflicting parties and facilitate negotiations.

Maintain Solidarity: While advocating for peace, maintain solidarity with those who are directly affected by the conflict, including victims and their families. Express empathy and support for their suffering while emphasizing the need for a peaceful resolution.

Highlight Humanitarian Concerns: Stress the humanitarian consequences of the conflict, such as civilian casualties, displacement, and suffering. Advocate for the protection of civilians and the delivery of humanitarian aid to those in need.

Engage with International Partners: Collaborate with international partners who share a commitment to peace and stability. Building a coalition of nations or organizations can strengthen the message of peace and encourage the aggressor to consider peaceful options.

Promote Inclusive Dialogue: Advocate for inclusive peace talks that involve all relevant stakeholders, including marginalized groups, civil society, and women. Inclusive dialogue can lead to more comprehensive and lasting peace agreements.

Communicate Clear Objectives: Clearly communicate the objectives of peace efforts, such as the restoration of sovereignty, protection of human rights, and the establishment of a stable and inclusive government. This helps counter accusations of appeasement.

Address Security Concerns: Address the legitimate security concerns of all parties involved. Demonstrating a commitment to security and stability can alleviate fears of insecurity that may hinder peace talks.

Public Awareness and Education: Conduct public awareness campaigns and educational initiatives to inform the public about the complexities of the conflict, the potential benefits of peace, and the importance of diplomacy.

Seek Input from Experts: Consult with conflict resolution experts, diplomats, and scholars to develop strategies and proposals that balance the pursuit of peace with security concerns.

Maintain Pragmatism: Acknowledge that peace negotiations may require compromises, but emphasize the importance of balancing concessions with safeguards to protect against further aggression.

Ultimately, finding a balance between advocating for peace and addressing concerns about playing into the aggressor's hands requires careful diplomacy, clear communication, and a commitment to principles of justice and human rights. It's important to recognize that the pursuit of peace is not synonymous with capitulation and that peace negotiations aim to resolve conflicts in a way that benefits all parties involved and promotes long-term stability.

In the case of the Russo-Ukrainian war, the two Minsk agreements of 2014 and 2015 tried to realize these goals, but unfortunately failed. Again, both parties blamed the other for it.

The Minsk agreements of 2014 and 2015, often referred to as Minsk I and Minsk II, were indeed attempts to achieve a peaceful resolution to the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, particularly in Eastern Ukraine where pro-Russian separatist groups were fighting Ukrainian government forces. These agreements were brokered by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and involved representatives from Ukraine, Russia, and the separatist groups.

Unfortunately, both agreements faced significant challenges and ultimately failed to bring about a lasting and comprehensive peace. There are several reasons for their failure:

Lack of Trust: There was a fundamental lack of trust between the parties involved. The conflict had already caused significant casualties and displacement, which made it difficult for the parties to trust each other's intentions.

Implementation Issues: Both sides accused each other of failing to implement key provisions of the agreements, such as the withdrawal of heavy weapons, the release of prisoners, and the establishment of a ceasefire.

Territorial Disputes: The status of Crimea and the territory controlled by separatist groups in Eastern Ukraine remained unresolved, and these were significant points of contention.

Political and Public Opposition: Political leaders and public opinion on both sides faced opposition to the agreements. In Ukraine, there were concerns that the agreements could be seen as capitulation to Russia, while in Russia, some saw them as insufficient to protect Russian-speaking populations in Eastern Ukraine.

International Involvement: The involvement of external actors, including Russia and Western countries, complicated the negotiation process and led to geopolitical tensions.

Changing Dynamics: The situation on the ground continued to evolve, with sporadic fighting and shifting control of territory, which made it challenging to maintain a ceasefire and implement agreed-upon measures.

Complexity of the Conflict: The conflict was multidimensional, involving political, ethnic, and historical factors, making it difficult to address all the underlying issues comprehensively.

Despite these challenges and failures, the Minsk agreements have not been completely abandoned, and diplomatic efforts continue. Negotiations and peace talks remain a part of the ongoing efforts to resolve the conflict. It's a complex and protracted conflict, and achieving a lasting peace requires continued international engagement, diplomatic initiatives, and efforts to build trust among the parties involved.

Ultimately, the Russo-Ukrainian conflict underscores the difficulties in resolving conflicts where there is a lack of trust, deeply entrenched positions, and a complex web of political and historical factors.

What would this conflict look like if we would abandon all war propaganda? What are the deeper issues involved?

If we were to completely abandon all war propaganda in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict and focus on understanding the deeper issues involved, the situation would likely look different. Here are some of the key underlying issues and complexities of the conflict:

Territorial Disputes: One of the central issues is the question of territorial control. Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine have created disputes over borders and sovereignty. Addressing these territorial disputes would be a fundamental step toward resolution.

Ethnic and Cultural Divides: The conflict has exacerbated existing ethnic and cultural divides within Ukraine. Eastern Ukraine has a significant Russian-speaking population, while Western Ukraine has closer historical and cultural ties to Europe. Bridging these divides and ensuring the rights of all Ukrainians is crucial.

Economic and Political Factors: Economic disparities and political corruption have contributed to the grievances of many Ukrainians. Addressing economic inequality and implementing political reforms are essential for long-term stability.

International Geopolitics: The conflict has been influenced by broader international geopolitics. Russia's desire to maintain influence in its near abroad, NATO expansion, and European integration are all factors that have played a role.

Humanitarian Concerns: The conflict has resulted in a humanitarian crisis, with thousands of people killed and many more displaced from their homes. Ensuring the well-being of civilians and addressing their needs is a critical humanitarian issue.

Historical Narratives: Different historical narratives and interpretations of past events, including World War II and the Soviet era, have contributed to the conflict. Addressing these historical grievances and promoting a shared understanding of history is important.

Mistrust: There is deep mistrust between the parties involved, including Ukraine, Russia, and the separatist groups. Rebuilding trust and confidence is a complex and delicate process.

Negotiation Process: The negotiation process itself has been challenging, with previous agreements (Minsk I and Minsk II) facing difficulties in implementation and a lack of trust.

Security Concerns: Ensuring the security of all parties, including the withdrawal of foreign fighters and heavy weapons, is a key component of any peace agreement.

Human Rights and Rule of Law: Ensuring human rights, the rule of law, and accountability for human rights abuses is essential for justice and reconciliation.

Abandoning war propaganda and focusing on these deeper issues would require a commitment to diplomacy, negotiation, and conflict resolution. It would involve sustained efforts to address the grievances of all parties involved, promote reconciliation, and build a more inclusive and stable future for Ukraine and the region.

While achieving a lasting peace in such a complex conflict is challenging, addressing these underlying issues is essential for progress. International support, mediation, and a genuine commitment to peace by all parties are key factors in finding a resolution to the Russo-Ukrainian conflict.

Is it more realistic to think that wars like this end only when one of the two parties has been exhausted?

It is not uncommon for protracted conflicts like the Russo-Ukrainian war to eventually end when one of the parties involved becomes exhausted, either militarily, economically, or politically. However, this is not the only way conflicts can end, and it's important to recognize that there are multiple pathways to conflict resolution. The outcome of a conflict can depend on various factors, including the parties' strategic goals, external pressures, and the availability of diplomatic solutions. Here are some possible scenarios for how conflicts like this can end:

Military Exhaustion: In some cases, conflicts may end when one of the warring parties becomes militarily exhausted, unable to sustain the costs of the conflict, or faces significant battlefield losses. This can lead to a ceasefire, a negotiated settlement, or even a unilateral withdrawal.

Diplomatic Negotiation: Conflict resolution can also occur through diplomatic negotiations, where the parties involved, with the assistance of mediators or international organizations, agree to a peace settlement. This settlement may involve compromises and concessions on both sides.

External Pressure: International pressure from the global community, including sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and condemnation, can influence the behavior of the parties involved. This pressure can be a catalyst for seeking a peaceful resolution.

Change in Leadership: A change in leadership within one or both of the warring parties can sometimes lead to a shift in policy or a willingness to engage in peace talks.

Conflict Transformation: In some cases, conflicts may evolve into less violent forms, such as protracted negotiations, ceasefire agreements, or power-sharing arrangements, without a clear military victory or defeat.

Shift in Public Opinion: Public opinion within the warring parties can also play a role in conflict resolution. Growing public fatigue or disillusionment with the war can pressure leaders to seek peaceful solutions.

International Mediation: The involvement of skilled mediators or third-party facilitators can help bridge gaps between the parties and find common ground for a settlement.

Humanitarian Concerns: A humanitarian crisis resulting from the conflict, including civilian casualties and displacement, can increase international pressure to seek a resolution.

Economic Factors: Economic pressures, including the impact of sanctions, trade disruptions, and resource constraints, can influence the parties' willingness to continue the conflict.

Regional Dynamics: The role of neighboring countries and regional powers can influence the course of a conflict. Regional actors may have a stake in seeking a resolution to mitigate instability in their own region.

It's important to note that each conflict is unique, and the specific circumstances surrounding it will shape the resolution process. While wars can indeed end when one party becomes exhausted, many conflicts ultimately conclude through a combination of factors, including negotiation, diplomacy, external pressures, and changing circumstances. The goal is often to find a peaceful and sustainable solution that addresses the underlying issues and grievances.

Notes

[1] "The Basic Principles of War Propaganda", Wikipedia

[2] See for an application of these principles to US foreign policy: William H. Douglas, "The Ten Basic Principles of War Propaganda", thelatterdayliberator.com, February 27, 2021

[3] I have reverted back to ChatGPT-3.5 for the moment, since the real-time online access of ChatGPT-4 provided by Bing provides low quality sources. ChatGPT-3.5 has no knowledge about what happened after January 2022, but its statements are still relevant to the current war.