Trolling on X takes a new and sinister turn, Ian Proud writes.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

On 18 July I made a post on social media platform X in response to a BBC report entitled ‘Kill Russians, win points: is Ukraine’s new drone scheme gamifying war?’ It produced a spectacularly dark backlash from the Ukrainian bot community.

The BBC report explored a Ukrainian military scheme in which its soldiers could claim points for kills by First Person View (FPV) drones and use those points to buy the most preferred military technology in an ‘Amazon for war’.

While Paul Adams, the BBC diplomatic correspondent, touches briefly on the moral challenges that this scheme presents, he was clearly impressed.

‘The e-points scheme is typical of the way Ukraine has fought this war: creative, out-of-the-box thinking designed to make the most of the country’s innovative skills and minimise the effect of its numerical disadvantage.’

‘Points for kills. Amazon for war. To some ears, it might all sound brutal, even callous. But this is war and Ukraine is determined to hold on. By fighting as effectively, and efficiently as it can.’

Every day, military personnel on both sides of the conflict are killed by drones and other military technologies. That is why I have consistently called for the war in Ukraine to be ended through diplomatic means and is why I continue to do so.

The problem I had with the article was its heading – about killing Ukrainians using drones – was accompanied by a photograph of a soldier (one might presume, Russian) with his back turned to the First Person View on screen, and with his hands in the air, suggesting surrender. I found this juxtaposition, on UK state-owned media, deeply troubling.

One might easily gain the impression by the headline and the photograph combined that the soldier’s fate was death. And if that was so, then that would constitute a war crime.

Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion” is a war crime in international armed conflicts

One cannot know the fate of the soldier and whether he is killed or taken prisoner. And the article goes on to point out that Ukrainian soldiers can claim higher points for encouraging a Russian soldier to surrender, though does not point out how this would be possible with an armed drone

It is certainly the habit of the western media to churn out clickbait headlines in a bid to maintain waning public appetite for a war that Ukraine is losing and which Europe is funding at enormous expense.

However, it sets a dangerous precedent if the UK state-owned broadcaster is producing articles that infer war crimes are taking place and implicitly endorse the means of that happening.

I therefore included in my post a poll which asked people to vote on:

Do you want the BBC through its reporting implicitly to endorse war crimes and show images purporting to or giving the impression of the circumstances leading up to a war crime taking place?

I don’t have a huge X following, but my post garnered 20,000 votes over three days with over 90% of those who voted responding ‘no’, specifically that appearing to endorse war crimes in media reporting was wrong.

As I didn’t mention a specific country, some people argued that the allegation might also be levelled at BBC reporting of IDF atrocities in Gaza.

However, today my post was seized on by very-obviously-Ukrainian bots flinging all sorts of insults in my direction, such that I have spent a decent period of time today blocking and reporting offensive content on my feed.

Such insults included being an asset of the KGB, being a Putin apologist, sucking Russian dicks and being a paedophile who uses of teenage Russian prostitutes.

I was also added to a large number of ‘Lists’ that X members keep, such as ‘nazi whore cowards’ and ‘Russian propagandists’.

All very annoying and intended to discredit me en masse. Some made more troubling comments that can only be interpreted as threats of causing me harm.

Many made more generalised comments about how any Russian solider in Ukraine should deserve such a fate and so on.

However, this was not the most sinister aspect of the response to my post.

In addition to voting that the BBC should not implicitly endorse war crimes, the other option was to vote for: ‘Please endorse war crimes’.

As I write this piece, 332 people in total have voted in the poll, of which 193 have voted in favour of the BBC endorsing war crimes through its reporting of Ukraine. That’s right, 58% of, one assumes, mostly Ukrainian or Ukraine-supporting voters, endorses the BBC endorsing war crimes, in this context committed by Ukraine. Rather than delete the post, I have kept the poll running and am completely confident that the percentage will be nudging 70% in the morning, if not higher.

Herein the central truth of this and all wars; that they generate intense hatred of the other. That hatred fires the bloodlust that drives war crimes in any theatre of conflict. No war is free of war crimes. British, French, American, Russian and, yes, Ukrainian, service personnel have been documented as having committed war crimes, together with those of many other countries.

War reduces humanity to the darkest depths of depravity in which the most unconscionable acts are justified on the basis of defeating the hated other. Forgive me if for believing that the BBC should not be glorifying that, even if implicitly.

I would far sooner they were pushing for a negotiated settlement to this terrible war.