The “Ghost of Kyiv” and the Fog of War
Hours after Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022, a video began circulating on social media of a Ukrainian MIG-29 fighter jet flying over the country. Accompanying these videos were claims that the fighter’s pilot had shot down more than five planes within two days, thus becoming the first fighter ace in Europe since WWII. In the next few hours, this fighter supposedly shot down even more Russian planes. Soon, he had gained the nickname “Ghost of Kyiv”, and served as a major morale boost for the Ukrainian army in the face of the ostensibly stronger Russian forces. As Ukrainians continued to halt the Russian advance, this fighter became a symbol of the country’s resistance. Even on March 10th, pro-Ukrainian twitter updated the Ghost’s kill count and posted supposed pictures of him online. The only problem is – the story was fake. Probably.
The postmodern war, partially defined as it is by widespread utilisation of social media, has intensified one of the core axioms recognised by military forces for centuries: the fog of war. In essence, the term refers to the confusion that accompanies war; as Clausewitz writes, “War is the realm of uncertainty; three quarters of the factors [in war]…are wrapped in a fog of greater or lesser uncertainty.” As civilians have rapidly increased their ability to acquire knowledge of conflicts – from TV reports of the Iraq War to social media of today – this fog now applies more clearly to non-military individuals. If one opens Twitter and searches for “Ukraine”, millions of results will appear, including pictures, videos, and supposed testimony from the front line. The issue is, despite this wealth of information, the “factors” Clausewitz refers to are still obscured and misunderstood. Anyone from the actual Ukrainian Army to a 16-year-old in Canada can make claims about Ukraine, and once a claim is repeated by the right people – Western news outlets, well-respected politicians, etc. – it is nearly impossible to stop it from spreading. This is not fake news, per se (at least not always), or even information warfare. It is simply the fog of war. In such a context of uncertainty, unverified claims, published by people with all kinds of motivations, spread like wildfire.
This, of course, is where the fabled “Ghost of Kyiv” fits in. The reality is that those videos spread around were from a video game, and pictures shared that supposedly depicted them were quickly debunked as old photos. It is possible he exists, but it seems unlikely. Additionally, it is hard to believe that the pilot has shot down 49 Russian planes as Kyiv Post claimed on March 10th. According to excellent open-source research, which has been tracking equipment losses in the conflict since day 1, the Russians have only lost seven aircraft total. It would be fairly hard to hide the remains of 42 others. But that has not stopped people from posting about him. One could argue this myth serves a greater good, as it has created high morale amongst Ukrainian soldiers. But at the same time, it is important for outside observers to be smart about accepting claims in such an uncertain and confusing period.
The “Ghost of Kyiv” is not the only piece of hard-to-verify information that has circulated around social media. The Ukrainian government has regularly updated its list of “Russian losses” that clearly have no basis in fact. It is worth emphasising, of course, that no country is honest about their or their enemy’s losses in war time. This is part of the fog of war – how can you determine the number of enemy soldiers dead or tanks destroyed while a conflict is ongoing? – but it is still important to recognise. Additionally, claims that a captured Russian pilot was involved in bombing Syria based on a picture of another pilot standing next to Putin and Assad were debunked by facial recognition technology. The two pictures look similar enough that it is very possible the claim was spread unknowingly and in good faith. But again, it provides an example of the fog of war applying to people simply trying to understand the conflict. This is especially true as these claims have continued to spread despite very reputable organisations, such as Bellingcat, debunking them.
None of this focus on Ukrainian mis/disinformation is intended to suggest the Russians are trustworthy. They obviously are not. However, Russian false information is quickly rejected both by Western media and the public at large, and Russian media outlets have been banned from various platforms. As a result, it is much harder for their claims to catch on and become “Ghost of Kyiv”-level myths. The trouble is not about the public – myself included – being able to reject claims coming from a Twitter account without a profile picture or RT News. Rather, it is knowing that most claims, even those promoted by very reputable media outlets or journalists, should be taken with a grain of salt during wartime. Ukraine is not the first country to benefit from this uncertainty, and will not be the last. The fog of war has been a real military problem for almost as long as war has existed, but now people millions of miles away are feeling its effects.
This war in Ukraine is a real humanitarian crisis on the level of which Europe has not seen since the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Keeping up to date with what is happening in the conflict is valuable and especially necessary if one wants to provide support and aid for the Ukrainian people. But recognising the fog of war is just as important as trying to track the Russian military’s every move, or identifying the new cluster missile Russia has just utilised. As the war moves into its third week – with no real end in sight – those who care about the conflict should be vigilant in their search for the truth on the ground but also remain careful about what they read. Many questions, such as those of losses, frontlines, and war aims, will likely not be truly answered for months, if not longer. Sometimes, the most valuable piece of information is knowing what you do not know.
Image courtesy of 1st Lt. Danielle Dixon via Wikimedia, ©2015, some rights reserved.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.
