'Skrepy' is spread in political discourse phrase launched by Putin in 2012. Skrepy signifies the values that may bind Russians together. But we have to recognize that nobody properly knows what does skrepy really means. Therefore, skrepy is a meta-political phenomenon, that does not exist in reality, but acts as a simulacrum the use of which has an ideological focus.
This is what Mr. Putin said about skrepy:
"It hurts me today to talk about this, but I must say this. Today, Russian society is experiencing a clear deficit of moral bonds (skrepy)"
According to Putin the need for skrepy is lack of things, that at all times has made Russians stronger, things we have always been proud of. So, it is assumed that skrepy includes a wide range of social and cultural phenomena, the adoption of which makes the nation a united.
The dissemination of this concept in the near-political reality is typical for the post-Ukrainian period (2014, 2015, ...). Thus, the appeal to the bonds was conditioned by the propaganda aims of the government. You know today Russia face a wide range of external and internal political difficulties, which, according to logic, should reduce the rating of the current authorities. Accordingly, the search for ideological mechanisms to substantiate current problems while removing responsibility from the authorities themselves was an objective task. It should be noted that the authorities' plan was implemented quite successfully, as a result of which the degree of internal insanity in society was significantly elevated. The authorities managed to shift the focus of mass consciousness from internal problems to external problems. It was much more difficult for an average person to understand the meaning of this shift due to the fact that both information alternatives and the lack of information were actually inaccessible for a wide range of Russians.
The internal information blockade has indeed proved successful: official information channels still maintain a high level of confidence on the part of the population. While informal info channels experience proliferation difficulties, are banned and destroyed by the authorities, or do not have the ability to distribute information as effectively as TV broadcasting.
In addition, in this political game, the Kremlin successfully uses disinformation aimed at the opposition. I do not mean the absence of facts and criticism in the broadcast. Everything is perfectly clear with it: no one of opposition-friendly citizens trusts TV. What I mean is a successful use of anonymous and fundamentally unverifiable sources and information channels. Main opposition info channels have shifted to anonymous networks that are difficult to access for formal oversight bodies. Most important channels work in Telegram, YouTube, etc. Using the impossibility of checking sources in such networks, the Kremlin successfully uses them, since nominally such sources are perceived as independent, although in reality they can broadcast propaganda information, misinformation or solve the problems of pro-Kremlin political technologists.
Today, we totally reach the reality of Russian post-modern. The information we have is absolutely distrustful. The things noticed in info-messages live in meta-reality, and everything can be subjected to a double interpretation. The degree of absurdity became so high and obvious that the political life in Russia became similar to the theater of the absurd. No one knows what really happens and what exactly does single facts mean. The information gap between the supreme power and citizens has reached incredible limits, and I must say that we are not even sure that disinformation comes directly from the administration.
I guess all of you face the same problem in the political life of your countries. The USA's political actors use the concept of 'interference of Russian hackers'. The last election company in the US was also extremely absurd. So, what do you think about interpretation and disinformation in modern world?