Author
Listed:
- Iryna Tsareva
- Olga Maksymenko
- Rita Kalko
Abstract
The purpose of the article is to determine the philosophical aspect of the current state of information warfare. The set goal determined the solution of the following tasks: 1) to substantiate the expediency of using the terms information warfare and information warfare discourse; 2) to improve the definition of information warfare; 3) to analyse the threats and reasons for Ukraineʼs insufficient response to information attacks by the russian federation. The reliability of the obtaining results and conclusions was ensured by the use of linguistic methods: the functional and stylistic method (to distinguish the semantic and constructive elements in the structure of information warfare texts); semantic and differential analysis (to trace changes, to distinguish the semantics of language units). Analysis of the narratives’content aspect is an important tool for decision-making and strategy development after the invasion of an aggressor country. The study of narratives allows us to identify the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches and methods and to formulate recommendations for success in the further restoration and protection of territorial sovereignty. Highlighting the true picture changes societyʼs perception and builds support for countermeasures. The prevalence of positivism in Ukraineʼs domestic and foreign information field is complicated and often depends on political interests and context. Positivism can be traced in media clichés and narratives, including the description of Ukraine as a strong adversary, a reliable partner, and a supporter of democratic values. Negativism was found in the transmission of anti-russian narratives and in the portrayal of the terrorist country
Suggested Citation
Iryna Tsareva & Olga Maksymenko & Rita Kalko, 2024.
"Philosophical aspect of information warfare,"
Philosophy, Economics and Law Review Articles, Philosophy, Economics and Law Review, vol. 4(1), pages 57-66, September.
Handle:
RePEc:cxt:phelrj:v:4:y:2024:i:1:p:57-66
DOI: https://doi.org/10.63341/2786-491X-2024-1-57-66
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cxt:phelrj:v:4:y:2024:i:1:p:57-66. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Philosophy, Economics and Law Review (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://phelr.com.ua/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.