CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 14Misinformation and Its ImpactsEuropean and Russian Geopolitical Military StrategiesSpam and Phishing Detection

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Russian propaganda on social media during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine

Open access
Geissler, Dominique, Bär, Dominik, Pröllochs, Nicolas, Feuerriegel, Stefan·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2211.04154arXiv 2211.04154
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was accompanied by practices of information warfare, yet existing evidence is largely anecdotal while large-scale empirical evidence is lacking. Here, we analyze the spread of pro-Russian support on social media. For this, we collected N = 349,455 messages from Twitter with pro-Russian support. Our findings suggest that pro-Russian messages received ~251,000 retweets and thereby reached around 14.4 million users. We further provide evidence that bots played a disproportionate role in the dissemination of pro-Russian messages and amplified its proliferation in early-stage diffusion. Countries that abstained from voting on the United Nations Resolution ES-11/1 such as India, South Africa, and Pakistan showed pronounced activity of bots. Overall, 20.28% of the spreaders are classified as bots, most of which were created at the beginning of the invasion. Together, our findings suggest the presence of a large-scale Russian propaganda campaign on social media and highlight the new threats to society that originate from it. Our results also suggest that curbing bots may be an effective strategy to mitigate such campaigns.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2211.04154

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Russian-aligned propaganda reached significant audiences, with one corpus of approximately 349,000 pro-Russian messages garnering 251,000 retweets and an approximate reach of 14.4 million users in early 2022.

    “one corpus of approximately 349,000 pro-Russian messages garnering 251,000 retweets and an approximate reach of 14.4 million users in early 2022, amplified in part by automated bot networks (Geissler et al., 2022).”

    From An Analytical Framework of Contemporary Hybrid Warfare: Lessons Learned from the Russia–Ukraine War (2026) · cites this paper as Geissler et al., 2022

  • Analyses of social media activity during the invasion have shown that approximately 349,000 pro-Russian messages received roughly 251,000 retweets and reached around 14.4 million users, demonstrating the extensive reach of propaganda and its potential impact on public attitudes.

    “Analyses of social media activity during the invasion have shown that approximately 349,000 pro-Russian messages received roughly 251,000 retweets and reached around 14.4 million users, demonstrating the extensive reach of propaganda and its potential impact on public attitudes (Geissler et al., 2022).”

    From An Analytical Framework of Contemporary Hybrid Warfare: Lessons Learned from the Russia–Ukraine War (2026) · cites this paper as Geissler et al., 2022

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. [8]Sloane, W. Putin cracks down on media. British Journalism Review 33, 19–22 (2022).
  2. Network Analysis and Mining 12, 80 (2022).
  3. [12]Golovchenko, Y. Measuring the scope of pro-Kremlin disinformation on Twitter. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 7, 176 (2020).
  4. [15]Ratkiewicz, J. et al. Detecting and tracking political abuse in social media. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 5, 297–304 (2011).
  5. [16]Bail, C. A. et al. Assessing the Russian Internet Research Agency's impact on the political attitudes and behaviors of American Twitter users in late 2017. Proceedings of the National
  6. [19]Doroshenko, L. & Lukito, J. Trollfare: Russia's disinformation campaign during military conflict in Ukraine. International Journal of Communication 15, 4662–4689 (2021).
  7. The 2016 Russian interference Twitter campaign. IEEE/ACM International Conference on
  8. [23]Luceri, L., Giordano, S. & Ferrara, E. Detecting troll behavior via inverse reinforcement learning: A case study of Russian trolls in the 2016 US election. Proceedings of the Interna- tional AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 14, 417–427 (2020).
  9. [26]Arif, A., Stewart, L. G. & Starbird, K. Acting the part: Examining information operations within #BlackLivesMatter discourse. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interac- tion 2, 1–27 (2018).
  10. Communications 14, 62 (2023).
  11. [28]Grčar, M., Cherepnalkoski, D., Mozetič, I. & Kralj Novak, P. Stance and influence of Twitter users regarding the Brexit referendum. Computational Social Networks 4, 6 (2017).
  12. The International Journal of Press/Politics 25, 357–389 (2020).
  13. [31]Twitter. Update on Twitter's review of the 2016 US election (31 January 2018). URL https:
  14. [32]Ferrara, E., Varol, O., Davis, C., Menczer, F. & Flammini, A. The rise of social bots. Com- munications of the ACM 59, 96–104 (2016).
  15. [33]Chen, W., Pacheco, D., Yang, K.-C. & Menczer, F. Neutral bots probe political bias on social media. Nature Communications 12, 5580 (2021).
  16. [34]Stella, M., Ferrara, E. & de Domenico, M. Bots increase exposure to negative and inflamma- tory content in online social systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115, 12435–12440 (2018).
  17. [35]Caldarelli, G., de Nicola, R., Del Vigna, F., Petrocchi, M. & Saracco, F. The role of bot squads in the political propaganda on Twitter. Communications Physics 3, 81 (2020).
  18. [37]Badawy, A., Lerman, K. & Ferrara, E. Who falls for online political manipulation? Com- panion Proceedings of The World Wide Web Conference 162–168 (2019).
  19. [46]Broniatowski, D. A. et al. Weaponized health communication: Twitter bots and russian trolls amplify the vaccine debate. American Journal of Public Health 108, 1378–1384 (2018). https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2021/11/15/news-on-twitter-consumed-by-most-users-and-trusted-by-many/ https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2021/11/15/news-on-twitter-consumed-by-most-users-and-trusted-by-many/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/242606/number-of-active-twitter-users-in-selected-countries/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/242606/number-of-active-twitter-users-in-selected-countries/ https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/twitter-api https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/05/14/russia-is-swaying-twitter-users-outside-the-west-to-its-side?utm_medium=social-media.content.np&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=editorial-social&utm_content=discovery.content https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/05/14/russia-is-swaying-twitter-users-outside-the-west-to-its-side?utm_medium=social-media.content.np&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=editorial-social&utm_content=discovery.content https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/05/14/russia-is-swaying-twitter-users-outside-the-west-to-its-side?utm_medium=social-media.content.np&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=editorial-social&utm_content=discovery.content https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/05/14/russia-is-swaying-twitter-users-outside-the-west-to-its-side?utm_medium=social-media.content.np&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=editorial-social&utm_content=discovery.content https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-61351342 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-61351342 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/russian-propaganda-zelensky-information-war/629475/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/russian-propaganda-zelensky-information-war/629475/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/russian-propaganda-zelensky-information-war/629475/
  20. Conference on Web and Social Media 11, 280–289 (2017).
  21. Conference on Information and Knowledge Management 2725–2732 (2020).
  22. [50]Yang, K.-C., Ferrara, E. & Menczer, F. Botometer 101: social bot practicum for computa- tional social scientists. Journal of Computational Social Science 5, 1511–1528 (2022).
  23. [57]Hagberg, A. A., Schult, D. A. & Swart, P. J. Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX. Proceedings of the Python in Science Conference 11–15 (2008). https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/04/09/bots-in-the-twittersphere/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/04/09/bots-in-the-twittersphere/ https://github.com/IUNetSci/botometer-python https://botsentinel.com https://geocoder.readthedocs.io https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=OSMPythonTools&oldid=2150829 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=OSMPythonTools&oldid=2150829 https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/twitter-api/users/follows/api-reference/get-users-id-followers https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/twitter-api/users/follows/api-reference/get-users-id-followers https://geopandas.org/en/stable/
  24. [58]Bastian, M., Heymann, S. & & Jacomy, M. Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 3(1), 361–362 (2009).
  25. [66]Jowett, G. & O'Donnell, V. Chapter 1: What is propaganda, and how does it differ from persuasion? In Propaganda & persuasion (SAGE, Los Angeles, 2012).
  26. [67]Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. & Rand, D. G. Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 147, 1865–1880 (2018). https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2022-south-africa https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2022-south-africa https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2022-nigeria https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2022-nigeria https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2022-pakistan https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2022-pakistan https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-russia-disinformation-propaganda/
  27. [69]Linvill, D. L. & Warren, P. L. Engaging with others: How the IRA coordinated information operation made friends. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review (2022).
  28. [70]Suárez-Serrato, P., Roberts, M. E., Davis, C. & Menczer, F. On the influence of social bots in online protests. International Conference on Social Informatics 10047, 269–278 (2016).
  29. [71]Bär, D., Pröllochs, N. & Feuerriegel, S. New threats to society from free-speech social media platforms. Communications of the ACM (2023).
  30. [76]Naumzik, C. & Feuerriegel, S. Detecting false rumors from retweet dynamics on social media. Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2798–2809 (2022).
  31. [77]Geissler, D. & Feuerriegel, S. Analyzing the strategy of propaganda using inverse reinforce- ment learning: Evidence from the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. arXiv:2307.12788 · arXiv
  32. [78]Maarouf, A., Bär, D., Geissler, D. & Feuerriegel, S. HQP: A human-annotated dataset for detecting online propaganda. arXiv:2304.14931 (2023). · arXiv
  33. [81]Ducci, F., Kraus, M. & Feuerriegel, S. Cascade-LSTM: A tree-structured neural classifier for detecting misinformation cascades. The ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 2666–2676 (2020).
  34. #IStandWithUkraine: The interaction of bots and humans in discussion of the Russia/Ukraine war. International Conference on Social Informatics (2022).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Geissler, D., Bär, D., Pröllochs, N., & Feuerriegel, S.
Affiliations
  • Munich Center for Machine Learning (DE)
  • Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen (DE)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2211.04154
arXiv
2211.04154
OpenAlex
W4308671128
Cited by
14
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › European and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
Keywords
Russian propaganda, Russian invasion of Ukraine, information warfare, social bots, Twitter, retweets, disinformation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review