by Ron Raskin
What exactly does Information Warfare mean?
We live in a time when almost everyone knows about information warfare, but most people don’t fully understand what it really is or how to deal with it now and in the future. This post aims to clarify the topic.
So, what are information warfare and cognitive warfare? According to Wikipedia: “ Information warfare is the manipulation of information trusted by a target without the target’s awareness so that the target will make decisions against their interest but in the interest of the one conducting information warfare“. This concept includes two main ideas:
- Using disinformation in regular warfare (e.g., disrupting communication)—a perspective often associated with NATO/Western approaches (not the focus of this post).
- Spreading false narratives and fake news to influence public opinion—a practice rooted in Russia’s “information warfare theory.”
On a smaller scale, information warfare can simply be called propaganda. The more advanced form, which manipulates people on a deeper psychological and emotional level to shape not just what they think but how they think, is known as cognitive warfare. The most extreme version, targeting small groups or individuals, is often called brainwashing.
Personally, I usually use “propaganda” to describe domestic manipulations and “information warfare” to describe international manipulations, sometimes using “brainwashing” as a general term. I do this without distinguishing the focus, scope, or methods, as they all aim to achieve a similar goal: influencing how people think and make decisions—just as most of us likely do.
Information warfare and propaganda are everywhere, even in major media outlets. These outlets often support certain political groups, either locally or internationally, using similar tactics. To put it politely, we usually call this “media bias.” Media bias is understandable because there’s no such thing as absolute truth—everyone has some level of bias. However, when this bias is deliberately planned rather than natural, it is essentially the same as propaganda and information warfare.
How did we get here?
Information warfare isn’t new—it dates back to ancient Greece, where Sophistry introduced techniques like logical fallacies, emotional appeals, and rhetorical tricks. Its evolution has followed advancements in communication technology. Newspapers, radio, and television gave rise to domestic propaganda, with Nazi Germany and Stalin’s USSR being key examples. The internet and social media took information warfare to the next level, expanding its reach from national to international.
Today, you don’t always need tanks to win a battle—you can use people’s own senses, like their eyes and ears, to influence and control populations.
Here are some common methods of information warfare:
- Fake news: Spreading outright lies.
- Biased information: Omitting key facts, focusing on favorable details, using positive terms instead of accurate ones, and employing rhetorical tricks.
- Narratives: Crafting engaging stories with cause-and-effect explanations that evoke emotions and persuade audiences.
- Media elements: Using images, slogans, music, or videos to stir emotions, either by glorifying a “good” side or undermining a “bad” side.
Modern information warfare has been around for a couple of decades, emerging with the rise of the internet and social media. However, it became a serious issue in the last 10 years, starting with Russia’s campaign following the 2014 Crimea intervention (The Anatomy of Russian Information Warfare) and its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. elections.
In response, Western democracies began taking steps to address the problem:
- 2015: Europe created the StratCom Task Force to combat disinformation from external actors.
- 2018: The EU launched the Rapid Alert System to share information on disinformation campaigns and coordinate responses.
- 2018: The Digital Services Act was passed, requiring large online platforms to tackle disinformation by removing harmful content, increasing transparency, and reducing the spread of false narratives through algorithms.
- 2020: The EU introduced the European Democracy Action Plan, which supports activities to strengthen democracy, including funding fact-checking initiatives, protecting journalists, and imposing sanctions on those responsible for large-scale disinformation campaigns.
The EU has also taken steps to improve media literacy among its citizens and promote fact-checking platforms.
The U.S. took its first step in defending against information warfare back in 1938:
- 1938: The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). This law requires certain individuals working on behalf of foreign entities to publicly disclose their activities, financial transactions, and ties to these entities.
- 2011: The Global Engagement Center (GEC) was established to “recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts” (source: U.S. State Department).
Like the EU, the U.S. has also launched programs aimed at raising public awareness and improving media literacy to better equip citizens against disinformation.
In summary, Western democracies are trying to defend themselves through efforts to uncover and debunk disinformation, improve media literacy, and impose sanctions on offenders. However, these measures often fall short. Debunking disinformation rarely reaches the majority of citizens, media literacy programs have limited impact, and sanctions are only effective in exceptional cases.
Meanwhile, launching counter-information campaigns against totalitarian regimes is challenging. These regimes isolate their citizens from external influence, and all domestic media is tightly controlled.
This raises a critical question: what can democracies do to strengthen their position in this ongoing information warfare?
Where do we go from here?
Like any war, information warfare has two sides: defense and attack.
Defensive Side
Beyond current measures, it makes sense to incorporate technologies like AI to help the public fact-check information, break down narratives, expose logical fallacies, and simplify complex issues. AI is unbiased—it has no emotions, no political interests. When used wisely (though AI itself comes with risks), it can play a key role in countering misinformation and neutralizing attacks in the information space.
Offensive Side
For Western democracies, the main challenge is breaking through the information barriers set by autocratic regimes like Russia, China, and Iran. To achieve this, affordable, compact, and widely available hardware that can receive satellite signals is essential. Starlink is a good start, but broader measures are needed. This includes updating international regulations, as current laws (like ITU rulings) often restrict satellite internet in repressive regimes. For example, in 2023, the ITU sided with Iran to block SpaceX’s Starlink service.
A new, dedicated body for Western democracies could oversee information warfare and legislate against nations deemed threats. This organization would effectively declare and manage “information wars” in a structured way.
Access alone isn’t enough—information must also be relevant to its audience. Here, AI could again play a critical role by tailoring content for specific regions and populations.
Summary
The world teeters on the edge of a potential World War III. Western democracies must prepare, and their best strategy is to win in the information space, avoiding full-scale physical warfare.