Narrative Warfare has long been about controlling or shaping the perception of reality by influencing the stories people believe. However, a related but distinct approach, which we can term Socratic Warfare, involves using the Socratic method—critical questioning, dialectical reasoning, and the relentless pursuit of truth—to guide or reshape worldviews and narratives. Unlike Narrative Warfare, which can sometimes manipulate or obscure facts to sway opinions, Socratic Warfare focuses on uncovering truth through inquiry, leading opponents and audiences to reach conclusions based on reasoned dialogue.

In the context of modern geopolitics, particularly in the Ukraine conflict, Russia’s approach can be analyzed through the lens of this Socratic Warfare concept. Russia, while often criticized for using disinformation tactics, has also effectively employed strategies that leverage questioning, selective fact disclosure, and forcing adversaries into uncomfortable contradictions—tactics that are reminiscent of the Socratic method.

The Socratic Method as a Framework for Warfare

Socrates, the classical Greek philosopher, used dialogue to expose contradictions in the thinking of his opponents, helping them arrive at a clearer understanding of truth. His method, based on asking pointed, probing questions, aimed to dismantle flawed arguments, not by asserting a counter-narrative, but by guiding interlocutors toward truth through self-reflection. Socratic Warfare, as an extension of this, would employ strategic questioning and fact-based dialogue to destabilize opposing narratives. The goal is not to control the entire narrative directly but to force the opponent to question their own worldview, ultimately weakening their stance.

Key Components of Socratic Warfare:

  1. Strategic Questioning: Rather than asserting an alternative worldview outright, Socratic Warfare asks probing, fact-based questions that highlight inconsistencies in the opponent’s narrative. These questions are designed to make the opponent or the audience reflect on contradictions or gaps in the prevailing narrative.

  2. Exposure through Facts: While Narrative Warfare might involve selective disclosure or distortion of facts, Socratic Warfare uses truth and verifiable information to challenge falsehoods. The focus is on presenting undeniable facts that force a reevaluation of the existing worldview without needing to replace it with a new one immediately.

  3. Revealing Contradictions: Like Socratic questioning, which exposed contradictions in an opponent’s argument, Socratic Warfare highlights inconsistencies between the opponent’s narrative and observable facts, undermining their credibility.

  4. Leading by Inquiry: Instead of directly telling the audience what to think, this strategy encourages the audience or the opponent to arrive at conclusions independently by questioning the assumptions or claims underlying their narrative.

Russia’s Strategy through the Lens of Socratic Warfare

Russia’s approach in Ukraine, particularly in countering NATO’s narrative, can be viewed as incorporating elements of Socratic Warfare. Russia has not always sought to present a fully developed counter-narrative to NATO’s claims but has used selective questioning and exposure of contradictions to destabilize NATO’s message.

1. Strategic Questioning of NATO’s Role:

Russia frequently questions the West’s narrative by asking pointed questions about NATO’s involvement in Ukraine. Instead of asserting a comprehensive counter-narrative, Russia has strategically posed questions like: “Is NATO really acting in Ukraine’s best interest, or is it pursuing its own geopolitical goals?” These questions cast doubt on the Western narrative without Russia needing to fully articulate an alternative story.

This aligns with the Socratic method, where asking a powerful question can shift the audience’s perspective. By forcing NATO to answer uncomfortable questions about its intentions, Russia uses inquiry as a means to challenge NATO’s credibility.

2. Exposing Contradictions Between Western Rhetoric and Reality:

Russia has also exposed factual contradictions in NATO’s statements about Ukraine. For example, while NATO projected confidence in Ukraine’s ability to repel Russian advances, Russia highlighted military setbacks and logistical failures that contradicted the optimistic tone of Western messaging. By drawing attention to these facts, Russia forces audiences to question the validity of NATO’s narrative.

This tactic follows Socratic principles by using truth and fact to expose inconsistencies, allowing Russia to undermine NATO’s narrative without needing to develop a comprehensive counter-message.

3. Leveraging the Power of Facts:

Russia has effectively used undeniable facts to create cognitive dissonance within NATO’s narrative. For example, by pointing to Ukrainian corruption scandals or divisions within the Ukrainian government, Russia has made it difficult for NATO to present Ukraine as a united, democratic front. By simply revealing these facts, Russia doesn’t need to replace NATO’s narrative with its own—it only needs to plant doubt and force a reevaluation.

This is the essence of Socratic Warfare: using facts to make audiences or adversaries question their assumptions, leading them to a new understanding through reflection.

The Strengths and Limitations of Socratic Warfare

Socratic Warfare is a powerful tool for dismantling an opponent’s narrative, particularly when that narrative is built on weak or contradictory foundations. It allows for the gradual erosion of credibility without the need for direct confrontation. By guiding audiences toward truth rather than pushing an alternate story, it avoids the polarization that can occur in direct narrative clashes.

However, Socratic Warfare has its limitations:

  • It requires patience: The Socratic method is a slow process. It requires time for audiences to internalize questions and contradictions, meaning it may not yield immediate results.
  • It depends on truth: While Narrative Warfare can manipulate facts or create false perceptions, Socratic Warfare is bound by the need to be factually correct. It loses effectiveness if the facts being presented are themselves incorrect or manipulated.
  • It can be destabilizing: By focusing on dismantling existing narratives without offering a comprehensive alternative, it can leave audiences in a state of uncertainty, which might not always be beneficial, particularly in conflict situations where clear messaging is required.

Applying Socratic Warfare to NATO’s Response

In response to Russia’s use of Socratic Warfare, NATO could adopt similar tactics by posing its own strategic questions to expose contradictions in Russia’s messaging. NATO could, for example, ask: “If Russia’s intervention in Ukraine is truly about security, why are so many neighboring countries now seeking to join NATO?” This type of questioning would force Russia to confront the dissonance between its stated objectives and the observable consequences of its actions.

NATO could also focus on revealing facts about Russia’s internal challenges—economic difficulties, political dissent, or the human cost of the war—while avoiding direct narrative competition. This would allow NATO to erode Russia’s credibility by leading audiences to question the Russian state’s version of events through fact-based inquiry.

Conclusion

Socratic Warfare provides a powerful framework for understanding how truth-based questioning can serve as a strategic tool in modern conflict. By focusing on exposing contradictions, forcing reflection, and guiding audiences to reach their own conclusions, it offers a way to counter Narrative Warfare without becoming embroiled in a battle of competing worldviews. Russia’s use of elements of this approach in Ukraine—selective fact disclosure, strategic questioning, and highlighting contradictions—demonstrates its potential effectiveness. Moving forward, both NATO and other actors could consider adopting a Socratic Warfare approach to rebuild trust, ensure credibility, and guide public opinion through dialogue and truth.