Progress in Russia’s invasion of the sovereign territory of Ukraine is commonly measured in terms of land control. This metric does not paint the whole picture. The war has spilled over into the quasi-boundaryless digital realm where contests over the meaning and nature of the conflict rage. These conflagrations over issues of meaning are strategically significant; their outcome could mean the difference between winning in the court of public opinion, thereby obtaining much needed global support—or not. In what follows here, I unfold a framework for understanding Ukraine today by focusing on the ethics of meaning making.

Interrogating Meaning

Meaning is an elusive, tricky thing; it is not static, nor is it fully inherent in the thing itself. Meaning may be ascribed, it may also slide, elide, and recede. People's everyday experiences bear out the centrality as well as the complexity of making sense of their lives. Individuals may attach different meanings to the same object or event. These things are as true at a societal level as at an individual one. They are true of the past, present, and future—the meaning of events may change over time. Meaning is often contextual. Events and the meaning that human beings ascribe to them are separate things. In the context of human relations, meaning is not inherent in the thing itself. The distance between the thing itself, such as a historical event, and its meaning creates possibility—here I am drawing primarily on the work of French philosopher Paul Ricoeur and his claim to the power of narrative to create and reshape a new “world” of meaning.[1] Meaning can be changed, which is both a hopeful and frightening reality.

The stakes over meaning-making come to the fore in relation to war in especially insistent ways.[2] Here these considerations have very practical import. The extremity of war raises the stakes of meaning making, and maybe even of meaning itself. War is saturated with meaning. Societies tell corporate stories about the wars they undertake to come to terms with these destructive episodes before, during, and after they occur.[3] These dynamics show how nation-states shape their war narratives, who in society has the power to make them, and the complicated relationship between official and culturally-produced narratives. For those engaged in promulgating war, the use of narrative as a martial tool raises further ethical questions precisely because not all meaning is equal. And it is precisely the uneven weight of some narratives that makes understanding the ethics of meaning-making so crucially important. Meaning may be misapplied, misjudged, misconstrued, and fabricated. Narratives about war exist at a national level, both officially and unofficially, as well as at personal levels. These narratives may be used to justify going to war, for staying the course in war, and as a sense-making explanation after war—each with significant ethical implications. I want to increase our recognition that meaning making is relevant to warfare because of its inherently ethical components. Meaning making is an ethical endeavor through its provision of a telos or goal to martial efforts; it may also be deployed in ethical or unethical manners throughout all phases of war.

First, consider the context within which meaning making is most often deployed in relation to war: nation-states. Societies, according to Aristotle, exist to support the mutual flourishing of their members.[4] Nation-states guide citizens toward flourishing both implicitly and explicitly through casting a vision of what this good life should be, and acting toward this telos. Even the creation of what we know as nations is an exercise in narrative meaning creation (as in Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities wherein the nation is an imagined political community).[5] This is also the realm of the ethical (ethikos). Societal, ethical and political moves give meaning to war as pretexts or justifications for war, support during the conflict, and to make sense of war in its aftermath.

Ethics and Meaning in War

Ethical moves here are significant at several levels. First, societal meaning making defines the ethical telos for military action as what is the most meaningful end and that which defines and justifies right action. This telos may be framed according to any number of ethical frameworks. A Utilitarian telos might seek the most good for the most people; a Deontological approach would seek to situate military intervention within rules that provide a framework for ethical action. Each describes a process of valuation and how ethical meaning is made in the context of national political ends. Just War theory can also become a meaning-making framework describing ethical action where, for instance, jus ad bellum considerations enable assessment of the meaningfulness of certain actions in the context of an ethical framework. Secondly, meaning making is an ethical consideration in the conduct of war, particularly in ethical motivation for jus in bello considerations. The dictum—“He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how”—displays a connection between meaning and the will to fight in the midst of the lived realities of war.[6] Finally, meaning making is a vital aspect of memorializing after the cessation of hostilities.

Nation-states have leveraged meaning making as a tool in relation to the wars they wage. The invasion of Iraq in 2003, Russia’s so-called special military operation in Ukraine, and post-9/11 Afghanistan each showcase different uses of meaning in war. Most relevantly, they illuminate possible uses for meaning making in the current and future context of the war in Ukraine.

A clear official narrative around justification for war showcased the ethics of meaning making in the U.S. and coalition forces’ invasion of Iraq in 2003. The need for intervention in Iraq centered on the presence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The meaning making around jus ad bellum reasoning was clearly framed as an ethical imperative. What became clear is that this narrative tarnished as war went on, putting military ends (from strategic to tactical) in jeopardy. Waning public support, falling troop morale (affecting fighting effectiveness), and increasing insurgent opposition all were tied to initial totalizing meaning-making efforts that backfired when cracks appeared in their foundation. The official narrative in support of the war effort quickly unraveled, with implications that brought into question the ability of the military to promulgate the war successfully—with ethical ramifications all along the way.

Russia’s recent special military operation in Ukraine also highlights potential strengths and pitfalls of meaning-making narratives in support of war.[7] Putin laid the groundwork for the invasion through his July 2021 essay, “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” which was distributed to all Russian soldiers.[8] The totalitarian regime pushed its own meaning, attempting to maintain an often-counterfactual narrative through limiting population exposure to other narratives and powerfully shutting down dissidents. Societies have always told themselves stories about the wars they fight, but today the speed and reach of digital technology makes it even easier for them to create totalizing narratives. At one level, this strategy worked on Russia’s internal population. It took its toll, however, in ethical contradictions and ultimately in bodies. As Russian soldiers came face to face with the realities of these deceptions, experienced through staunch Ukrainian resistance to their self-proclaimed liberators, the breakdown of meaning had significant consequences on the battlefield—lack of will to fight, insubordination, desertion, and ultimately combat ineffectiveness. Meaning taps into deep sources of motivation; its absence is demoralizing. The limited success of Russia’s strategy was an attempted recapitulation of strategies that were effective in World War II.[9] If a nation-state has enough people to sacrifice, enough brutality, and enough grit, it may be possible to wear down opponents over time. It does so, however, only by downplaying the role of meaning as an inherent motivator through overlaying it with the more basic need for survival at any cost. Fear is the overwhelming motivator here, with meaning being set aside.

Russia’s efforts are being studied carefully. China is evaluating Russia’s successes and failures in Ukraine for its own possible conflict in Taiwan. A Reuters analysis of published Chinese articles on the conflict notes a paper that advocates for preemptive information warfare to blunt the effects of public criticism through censoring social media and “promot[ing] the construction of cognitive confrontation platforms.”[10] On the other hand, Ukraine’s ability to galvanize support for its cause through meaning curation has paid huge dividends in tangible global support and troop morale. Ukrainians work to undermine Russian meaning in a variety of ways, even through creating their own grassroots magazines. “‘The entire Putin regime rests on the myth that Europe hates Russia and nothing good awaits a person outside,’ says creative director and editor-in-chief of Telegraf  Maria Azovtseva. ‘We decided to create our own weapon—an art book about the imminent death of the Putin myth.’”[11]

Meaning can be a powerful motivator, but it can change over time. Post-9/11 American intervention in Afghanistan provides an excellent case study in the use of meaning making in war across time and phases of war. 9/11 itself set the context for strong meaning making and initial justification for the war—one that the entire nation quickly got behind. The meaning provided by this justification for war waxed and waned over the twenty years that followed, sometimes overshadowed by other narratives like Iraq, and at times losing effectiveness. This meaning was overall durable, however, until it was shattered by a series of events. The withdrawal of U.S. and coalition forces in 2021 was not only an event unto itself, but in its aftermath left a wake of loss of meaning, potentially tainting the perceived goodness and meaning of the entirety of the war. This represented a prospective loss of meaning for society as a whole, but most significantly for individual service members, many of whom repeated a common refrain: “Was it worth it?” This change of meaning is often experienced as intensely personal.

Meaning Making’s Costs, Complications, and Potential

The interplay of societal and individual narratives in these examples displays the push and pull of nation-states’ attempts to secure societal flourishing through war and the sacrifices these efforts place on members of society—particularly warriors. The cost of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is most poignant in relation to lives lost or maimed, on all sides. Societal meaning making can attempt to lessen the effects of these sacrifices, or at least to make them seem worth the ethical vision of the stated telos. Nation-states can distort the basis of this meaning, or rigidly push meaning on their subjects, but both approaches risk shattering the meaning upon which a war is predicated in the first place. In the absence of an adequate societal meaning-making narrative, the burden of meaning making in the face of war can fall on the individual. In eras where national meaning making is deficient, such as in the Global War on Terror (GWOT) era, the onus of meaning making is passed to the individual. This, in the end, is a burden too heavy for any individual to carry fully.[12]

Meaning making at the national level is complicated by the interplay of official and non-official cultural narratives. In the Ukraine conflict, and particularly in relation to the digital realm, it becomes increasingly difficult to separate the two. Hackers, social media pundits, and even foreign tech companies become embroiled in what the conflict means, how it is perceived, and therefore also ultimately how it plays out. Official and non-official cultural narratives are often different, and may even conflict; even when difficult to disentangle, their effects are profound.

These meaning-making processes are not automatic, nor are they undertaken by nameless, faceless actors; they also have very real implications for the U.S. military. While this meaning making may take place at broad strategic levels, military leaders and service members take part in this process at all levels of war. Much has been made, for example, of the strategic corporal whose actions can have strategic effects in war.[13] Consider also the military specialties of Civil Affairs and Public Affairs officers—each devoted in their own way to efforts to shape narratives concerning war.

The expansive and significant effects that changes in meaning can have on the outcomes of war suggest that attention to this factor should be taken seriously by civilian political leaders and military service members. Recent events in Ukraine highlight this significance clearly. Service members, and especially senior leaders, must recognize that these dynamics of meaning making are at play in war, understand at a basic level how their roles may interface with meaning-making efforts, and where appropriate produce effects on meaning making. Meaning making is a skill of active reference at two levels: internally to the formation as a tool of leadership to extend influence, enhance esprit de corps, and sustain the will to fight; and externally as a means of shaping tactical, operational, and strategic effects. Each is ethically-fraught in its own way.

Individuals and nation-states have misused meaning-making tools throughout history; even the well-meaning use of spurious meaning-making projects on behalf of a supposed noble goal can ultimately be destructive. Militaries, and the nation-states they defend, must learn the importance of the ethical use of meaning making from examples such as these. Meaning making is vital to national defense. In the context of the Ukraine conflict and wars of the future, meaning making may be one of the preeminent domains of conflict. Without significant gains in this realm, Ukrainian forces would be substantially less resourced to contend with a Russian military that possesses much greater capital in other domains. The conflict’s perceived meaning, not only the events themselves, has made all the difference in the world.

Nathan H. White is a U.S. Army Reserve officer who currently serves in leadership roles in academia and public service. This review essay reflects his own views and not necessarily those of the U.S. Army, the U.S. Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

The Strategy Bridge is read, respected, and referenced across the worldwide national security community—in conversation, education, and professional and academic discourse.

Thank you for being a part of The Strategy Bridge community. Together, we can #BuildTheBridge.

Header Image: Man Painting, Tallinn, Estonia 2018 (Ethan Hu).

Notes:

[1] Paul Ricoeur, “The hermeneutical function of distanciation,” in From Text to Action: Essays in Hermeneutics, II, trans. K. Blamey and J. Thompson (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1991), 75–88.

[2] Chris Hedge’s War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning (New York, NY: Public Affairs, 2002) provides a not-so-subtle assessment of this reality.

[3] Nigel Hunt traces the societal impulse to memorialize in the aftermath of war in Memory, War, and Trauma (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010).

[4] Aristotle, Politics, I.2, 1252b30; III.9, 1280a32-3.

[5] Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, 2nd edition (London, UK: Verso, 2006). Anderson is more concerned with simultaneous experience than the telos of nation-states, but his insights are nonetheless useful in this context.

[6] Viktor Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1959) is here providing a loose translation of Friedrich Nietzsche’s original dictum found in his Twilight of the Idols, or How to Philosophize with a Hammer (1889). See also: Ben Connable et al. Will to Fight: Returning to the Human Fundamentals of War (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2019), https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10040.html.

[7] Patrick Wintour, “The revenge of history in Ukraine: Year of war has shaken up world order,” The Guardian, December 26, 2022, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/26/ukraine-war-revenge-of-history-how-geopolitics-shaping-conflict.

[8] Wintour, “Revenge.”

[9] George Packer, “This is Not 1943: How Putin twists the history of World War II,” The Atlantic, February 3, 2023, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/02/putin-stalingrad-russia-ukraine-war-nazi-germany-propaganda/672934/.

[10] Eduardo Baptista and Greg Torode, “Studying Ukraine war, China’s military minds fret over US missiles, Starlink,” Reuters, March 7, 2023, https://www.reuters.com/world/studying-ukraine-war-chinas-military-minds-fret-over-us-missiles-starlink-2023-03-08/.

[11] Steven Watson, “‘We created our own weapon’: the anti-invasion magazines defying Putin in Ukraine,” The Guardian, April 27, 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/27/magazines-art-photography-war-ukraine-russia

[12] The individual memoir, concomitantly, has become the preeminent literary genre of GWOT.

[13] One need look no further than the recent alleged actions of Airman 1st Class Jack Teixeira.