<p>This paper focuses on the media strategies of Russia and Ukraine, both currently at war, and examines the future of violence and media studies in the 21st century. It also examines the strategic use of alternative media and its potential.</p><p>At the core of Putin’s diplomacy is Aleksandr Dugin’s "Neo-Eurasianism," Russia’s power bloc concept that resists globalism. This vision has been supported by "hybrid warfare," which combines a military approach with non-military approaches such as cyber-attacks and psychological warfare through disinformation. The non-military approach in "hybrid warfare" not only functions as a tool to turn a blind eye to Russia’s monopoly on violence. Deep fakes and bots have now become a "weapon" in political or military conflicts. What is particularly noteworthy is that these attacks exploit the weaknesses of the idea of liberal democracy in the West.</p><p>On the other hand, Zelensky’s media strategy brings a sense that media and reality are connected to the ground, because of his effective use of social media and a Ukrainian political satire comedy television series Servant of the People that a high school teacher acted by Zelensky is unexpectedly elected President of Ukraine. In this context, it seems that social media has become a "weapon" that functions as a place to raise questions about the war in a "social" way.</p><p>However, war is a struggle between nations, and the visual aspects of war are controlled in various ways. If we frame the war through the media in terms of a simple dichotomy of Russia versus Ukraine, we will make a huge mistake. Rather, what is important is to question the violence of the war itself. Therefore, this paper examines the media and the practice of nonviolence. In doing so, I argued that the future of media studies depends on how we respond to the truth, or so-called "Parresia," in a situation where everything is monitored, controlled, selected, and/or erased as noise.</p>