In modern conflicts, propaganda often operates beneath the radar of obvious manipulation, shaping perceptions through subtle techniques that drift from information to interpretation. One common method is reframing events so that responsibility becomes diffuse rather than attributable. Reporters, experts, and social media voices may all contribute to a shared vocabulary that normalizes damage as consequences of a larger struggle, rather than crimes committed by particular actors. The audience is invited to feel empathy for suffering in general, not for specific victims who demand accountability. This diffusion makes it harder for observers to distinguish between direct perpetrators and legitimate defenders, producing moral ambiguity where it did not exist before.
Another core tactic is the selective use of imagery and statistics designed to evoke similar emotional responses from opposing sides’ audiences. Images of ruined neighborhoods can be paired with narratives about deprivation or resistance, even when a canny reader can identify an asymmetry of intent. By presenting competing harms as equivalent, propagandists imply a universal victimhood that transcends context and intention. The effect is to erode trust in conventional political categories—citizens versus rulers, combatants versus civilians—so that ethical judgments become provisional and contested rather than decisive. Over time, this uncertainty becomes a shield for shifting blame and avoiding accountability.
Emotive frames replace factual scrutiny with shared sentiments
Linguistic camouflage is a staple of moral equivalence campaigns. Phrases like “suffering on all sides” or “both peoples have endured hardship” minimize the moral clarity of aggression, invasion, or destruction. The aim is not to present a balanced picture, but to construct a feel of parity where no true balance exists. Perpetrators gain cover under the umbrella of shared pain, while victims are asked to concede ground to geopolitical complexity rather than insist on justice. This rhetorical environment makes public discourse about war crimes seem like a stalemate in which every action is equally regrettable, thus undermining principled condemnation and international condemnation when appropriate.
Media organizations may contribute by adopting neutral tones that appear even-handed, even when one side bears clear responsibility. The nuance of context, such as casualty patterns, strategic aims, and the legality of actions under international law, can be intentionally flattened. By mirroring competing narratives without interrogating their ethical weight, journalism risks becoming a platform for equivalence rather than a watchdog for truth. The audience receives a sense that truth is negotiable, and that moral judgments should be delayed until a mysterious, post-conflict consensus emerges. In such climates, accountability fades, and the public debate devolves into a perpetual stalemate.
Narrative framing requires ritualized inoculation against contradiction
Propaganda thrives on emotional contagion, pushing audiences to align with a side because they feel the other side lacks humanity. Graphic depictions of suffering are not simply informative; they are moral arguments that bypass evidence and invite visceral responses. When both sides are portrayed as equally suffering, the distinction between aggressor and victim can vanish from the conversation. Citizens may respond not with policy analysis but with solidarity that ignores accountability, enabling harmful actions to appear as legitimate responses to fear, provocation, or existential threat. The persistence of this approach reshapes public expectations around justice, safety, and the moral order of international relations.
Social media amplifies these dynamics through rapid, unvetted amplification and echo chambers. Algorithms favor content that elicits strong feelings, so moral equivalence clips circulate widely, often without context. The result is a feedback loop: viewers adopt the narrative, share it, and then demand that leaders adopt similar stances, fearing domestic backlash if they appear biased. This creates a political environment where nuance is a liability and simplicity is an asset. As complexity is reduced to two rival camps, the space for constructive diplomacy narrows, and the possibility of restraint, de-escalation, or accountability diminishes.
Accountability gets displaced onto impersonal forces and abstractions
A sophisticated propaganda program treats contradictions as threats to collective identity, not as legitimate analytical questions. When a claim is challenged, the response is often to reframe it as an attack on the community or on shared values. This tactic discourages scrutiny of specific actions and instead invites a broad defense of the group. By casting dissent as disloyalty, propaganda discourages critical examination of who started a conflict, who ended it, and who suffers the consequences. In this climate, moral judgments become loyalty tests, and the public sphere operates with a bias toward unity over truth.
Producers of propaganda also exploit historical grievances to solidify moral equivalence. Past injustices are recalled selectively to justify current harms, blurring lines between retribution and retaliation. The narrative suggests that all sides have equally legitimate grievances, or that historical wrongs condemn any attempt to hold present actors to account. The tactic works through a ritual of storytelling that links distant trauma to contemporary actions, creating a sense that accountability would erase the very identities that communities claim to defend. The result is a slower, more arduous pursuit of justice, hampered by legitimized excuses for inaction and impunity.
Practical implications for public discourse and policy
Another mechanism is the abstraction of war into a set of impersonal forces—fate, destiny, or the inevitability of history. When audiences hear that “the cycle of violence must continue,” they are invited to accept ongoing harm as an inexorable trend rather than a series of choices by particular leaders. This de-personalization deflects responsibility and makes sanctions, investigations, or legal actions seem impractical or unjustified. By turning human beings into abstractions, propagandists obscure who authorized, funded, or carried out violent acts, while still claiming the moral high ground of protecting civilians. The clarity of accountability dissolves into a fog of inevitability.
The media environment further compounds this by design: competing narratives are treated as equally valid, regardless of evidentiary support. When authorities claim that both sides are victims of aggression, journalists may find it prudent to present competing claims with symmetrical emphasis, even if one claim rests on verified facts and the other on dubious sources. The audience internalizes a standard of fairness that demands equal weight for assertions that are not equally substantiated. The asymmetry of truth becomes a casualty of proceduralist impartiality, and justice is postponed while the cycle of retellings continues unabated.
The consequences extend beyond discourse to policy choices, where moral equivalence can constrain decisive action. Governments facing asymmetric aggression may fear alienating international audiences if they emphasize the victim’s suffering while ignoring or downplaying the aggressor’s violations. Civil society organizations, pressed to appear balanced, risk losing moral clarity about crimes such as collective punishment, illegal annexations, or targeting of civilians. When moral arguments are diffused, sanctions and accountability mechanisms may be diluted or delayed. The public, lulled by the rhetoric of parity, becomes less vigilant about human rights violations and more susceptible to the suggestion that all parties are equally culpable, undermining the pursuit of justice.
Long-term resilience against these tactics requires critical media literacy, targeted fact-checking, and explicit moral categorization. Citizens must be trained to distinguish between strategic narratives and verifiable actions, to demand evidence about who bears responsibility for harm, and to resist attempts to equate suffering with justification. Institutions should promote transparent accountability processes, prioritizing clear attribution of responsibility while acknowledging legitimate grievances where they exist. By reinforcing standards for evidence, context, and proportionality, societies can preserve ethical clarity without sacrificing the compassion necessary to respond to human suffering in crises.
