Johanna Cilano and Maria Isabel Puerta Riera *

@Latinoamérica21

In Latin America, positions that openly support or minimize criticism of the Kremlin’s agenda are in good health. The main political support for the Russian invasion in the region are the regimes in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

The Ukrainian army is resisting Russian attempts to encircle Bakhmut, the epicenter of the war

The governments of Chile, Argentina and Mexico were initially reluctant to signal their rejection of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and advocated a peaceful solution. Recently, Mexico and Colombia proposed a negotiated solution to the conflict. This – as expected – caused an immediate rejection by the Ukrainian government. In the case of Mexico, the position neutrality of the executive authorities is contrary to the actions of condemning the invasion, which were promoted and signed by their representatives before the United Nations (UN).

“Pacifist” position

After the electoral victories of Gustavo Petr and Luis Inácio Lula da Silva, a certain “pacifist” attitude became common. Behind the generic condemnations of the Russian invasion is what Armando Chaguaceda defined as calculated ambiguity.

war and empires

I don’t pay Russia

Although Petro has a respectful attitude towards the sovereignty of the people, he has also shown ambivalence at a time when a firm stance against attacks on Ukraine’s sovereignty is expected. For his part, Lula continues Brazil’s stance of “neutrality” adopted by Jair Bolsonaro’s government, recently agreeing to oppose arms transfers to Ukraine and strongly condemn Russian aggression (as does Bolsonaro). This, of course, was interpreted as tacit support for Vladimir Putin.

Various Latin American media — close to the Kremlin’s communication platform — still are important allies to position the Russian version. The justifications that Putin makes through his unofficial spokespeople in the Russian media are revealing connection and contribution of allied media in Latin America Moscow’s manipulation strategy.

After the start of the war, the main argument that was presented was the danger of the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in view of the possible entry of Ukraine into this organization. Later it gave way to other justifications. Some of them, although they may seem absurd (such as denazification), did not cease to be a part communication construction replicated through the American continent. We observed how framing The news coincides with that of official Russian spokesmen, although this is not reality. The problem remains that the Latin American public is unaware of the nature and intent of what is being sold to them as news.

“Why does the US demand that China does not supply arms to Russia when it sells them to Taiwan?”: Beijing’s defiant response to Washington over the war in Ukraine

Latin American public

Russian influence deepened in Latin America. It also has the support of the Chinese and Iranian media, which have supported it positioning of the Kremlin narrative. This was instrumental in reducing the loss of reach due to the suspensions of RT and its affiliates in some media spaces. Among the official Latin American media that repeat the matrix of their Russian colleagues are Telesur and Latin Press.

As the DFRLab of the Atlantic Council pointed out, RT en Español is among the top five media with the highest positioning on the networks. On the other hand, the official Chinese media Xinhua is in the second place of the most consulted media on Facebook. RT is still one of the most frequently consulted media on Twitterafter Infobae and Earthand the sixth on Facebook.

What these indicators show us is the consumption and legitimization of propaganda machines among an audience that does not distinguish between the ownership and agenda of the media or the nature and intent of the message it receives. That is why it is important to know that in Latin America there are media and the public who — without being allies of the Kremlin — repeat his speeches.

Narratives in networks

On the other hand, social networks in the region are a privileged space for expansion pro-Russian conflict narratives Faced with the impact of RT’s broadcast decline on traditional platforms, as well as audience preferences.

There is also a tendency to perceive the contents of these narratives as credible. This, in view of the decrease in the coverage of the war in the Western media and in the local news. The strategy followed by RT and related media for content positioning, as well as the use of innovative methods, fresh faces and local journalists who are critical of the governments in power, seems to favor this trend.

In this situation, the Latin American media is torn between “neutral” coverage or one that can be interpreted as solidarity with one of the conflicting blocs. This could be the argument behind the justification for the scant coverage of the Mexican media where the context of domestic violence or the “neutrality” of the Mexican government itself simplifies the need to invest resources in the task from other countries and media with a larger infrastructure. I can assume, among them, the media associated with to one of the parties in the conflict, such as RT in the region.

Latin America, fertile ground for the Kremlin?

One of the most common elements in the Kremlin’s narrative, and part of the explanation for its acceptance in Latin America, has to do with anti-imperialism that condemns the hegemonic presence of the United States in the region. From this “anti-imperialist” perspective, support for the Russian invasion of the region and the popularity of media perceived as counter-hegemonic is interpreted as a logical reaction, even when it represents a contradiction.

The convergence of these ambiguous positions of governments and the conscious or deliberate cooperation in the dissemination of positions by the media and the public make Latin America today a fertile ground for Kremlin discourse. (OR)

*Text originally published in Political Dialogue

Johanna Cilano is a lawyer and political scientist. Doctorate in History and Regional Studies, FLACSO-Mexico. Member of the National System of Researchers of Mexico and postdoctoral student at ENES/UNAM (León, Mexico).

María Isabel Puerta Riera is visiting professor of political science at Valencia College (Orlando, Florida). Doctor of Social Sciences from the University of Carabobo (Venezuela). Secretary of the Venezuelan Studies Section of the Latin American Studies Association (LASA).