America Can Learn About Russian Disinformation From Europe

In 2014, United States officials encountered a new form of Kremlin disinformation in Ukraine. As men streamed into the country’s south, blatant falsehoods over anything from the history of World War II to weapon-system deployments spread across the Internet and the airwaves. 

Propagandists disguised as professors, activists, and journalists sowed confusion about what was actually happening on the ground: soldiers bearing no flag had occupied strategic territory in eastern Ukraine

Intelligence collectors supplied propagandists with tapped calls and hacked emails containing compromising language, and the Kremlin leaked all of this to the media at key moments.

US officials engaged in an aggressive campaign to build a global understanding of what was actually happening in Ukraine, and united Western allies in a chorus of condemnation. As a result, the West backed a sanctions regime that, remarkably, remains intact. But over time, with a peace process theoretically underway and the situation cooling, the State Department’s focus on counter-influence campaigns waned, and the unit leading the charge dissolved. 

Two years later, disinformation campaigns using very similar tactics targeted the US electorate in the run-up to the 2016 vote, spreading so-called “fake news” and encouraging divisiveness in an effort to influence the election and American democracy itself.

As with the propaganda around Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in 2009, but even more so of the foreign interference around the Brexit vote in 2016, and, of course, of Ukraine in 2014, the United States has failed to maintain its guard.

Northeast Europeans, by virtue of their location, experience, and foresight, have come to understand how to build resistance to disinformation: organising campaigns to raise awareness of the problem; educating to resist propaganda; and coordinating across government agencies, civil society, and the media. 

Theoretically, these tactics are replicable in America in the current midterm election season.

Historically, the countries of northeast Europe have contended with more than their fair share of disinformation. 

“We all thought in Poland that 300 years of partitioning and 50 years of communism made us immune to propaganda, not only Russian propaganda, but any kind of disinformation aiming at influencing the behavior of larger parts of society,” Jan Hofmokl, an official with Poland’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, explained. 

“However, we have to admit it: We were caught off guard, and it took some time before we were able to admit there is a problem. Because there clearly is one.”

Academic research around disinformation isn’t new, but our empirical understanding of how to cope with the tactic remains limited. Northeastern University’s Briony Swire-Thompson researches the cognitive psychology behind disinformation effectiveness. 

“It is important to let the public know as soon as possible where the information comes from,” she explained. “This is because when deciding on whether information is true or false, people place a great deal of weight on the source of information.”

NATO strategist Elina Lange-Ionatamishvili is worried about extremely realistic audio-video editing, as did Geir Hågen Karlsen, director of Strategic Communication and Psychological Operations at the Norwegian Defense University College. 

“In the future we will have to deal with Troll Factory 2.0: human trolls replaced by advanced bots and a few operatives,” and also “artificial intelligence, algorithms like natural language generation, manipulation of speech, imagery, and soon also video, higher speed, and most importantly, more sophisticated manipulation,” he said.    

In Estonia, even some technology experts advise against focusing too closely on technology. In the spring of 2017, Liisa Past, the chief research officer at the Cyber Security Branch of the Estonian Information System Authority, attended a meeting on i-Voting, Estonia’s remote voting system. The gathering focused on technology to protect the electoral process from cyber-attacks. But Past felt her colleagues ignored non-technological, human vulnerabilities. “First I got scared,” she said, “then I got reasonably loud.” An attack on the vote-counting system itself was possible, she explained to her colleagues, but expensive. 

More realistic attacks would target the candidates and the parties, who lacked the technical expertise of the government, and the “news or information space layer,” sowing doubt and confusion among the electorate without needing to hack secure systems.

Finland made a concerted effort to educate its military officers, civilian officials, and journalists on the social science behind disinformation, in order to more thoroughly process influence campaigns and determine how to respond effectively. The government didn’t pursue purely technical solutions or quick fixes, but rather delved into the empirical evidence behind human vulnerability to disinformation. This allowed officials to confront the complexity of the problem and devise more thoughtful responses. This, too, is possible in America.

The Baltic experience can also inform what not to do. “First, the West should not submit to the temptation to shoot from the hip and engage in counter-propaganda,” Latvia’s Mellakauls said. Poland’s Hofmokl agreed: “We should be all afraid that we will end up in a dystopian world where propaganda is being fought by more propaganda.”

Unfortunately, many advantages that northeast European countries have in the war against disinformation may not exist in the United States. Their ability to implement whole-of-government solutions relatively easily is enviable, but challenging for a country as large and diverse as America. 

Perhaps the most important potential import from Northeastern Europe is an awareness of what is at stake. In the long run, the contest of narratives is about core postwar values such as multilateralism, individual rights, and the rule of law. 

“If we are serious about defending Western values, now is the time,” instructed Lithuania’s Foreign Minister Linas Linkevičius. Disinformation is a “very efficient weapon to demotivate people, to create doubt in leadership … the vacuum is never empty, but is filled by populism or nationalism or radicalism … we are just starting to realise this is real.”

Defense One

You Might Also Read: 

The Internet Is No Place For Elections:

Defensive Measures: Estonia Will Store  Citizens’ Data In The UK:

How A Cyber Attack Transformed Estonia:

 

« Cybercrime: Under-Reporting Gives Hackers A Green Light
Chinese Hackers Steal Naval Warfare Secrets »

Directory of Suppliers

Darktrace

Darktrace

Darktrace’s Enterprise Immune System is capable of detecting and responding to emerging cyber-threats, from within the network.

Phoenix Datacom Limited

Phoenix Datacom Limited

Phoenix Datacom is a provider of solutions and professional services to improve the performance & security of data centres, networks and applications.

Council of European Professional Informatics Societies (CEPIS)

Council of European Professional Informatics Societies (CEPIS)

CEPIS is the representative body of national informatics associations throughout Europe and represent over 450,000 ICT and informatics professionals in 32 countries.

Nuix

Nuix

Nuix specialise in extracting knowledge from unstructured data. Applications include Digital Forensics, Cybersecurity Intelligence, Information Governance, eDiscovery.

Seclore

Seclore

Seclore is the most advanced, secure, and automated Enterprise Digital Rights Management (EDRM) solution available.

ServerChoice

ServerChoice

ServerChoice are UK-based secure hosting specialists, providing Cloud Solutions, Colocation and Connectivity.

Minerva Labs

Minerva Labs

Minerva’s patent pending solution keeps malware in a constant sleep state before it can infiltrate your network and cause any damage.

Openminded (OPMD)

Openminded (OPMD)

Openminded is a French security and network services company.

Giesecke & Devrient (G&D)

Giesecke & Devrient (G&D)

G&D develops, produces, and markets products and solutions for payment, secure communication, and identity management.

FortConsult

FortConsult

With the backing of one of the world’s largest IT security consultant teams, we have the broadest and deepest IT security experience in Scandinavia.

Athena Dynamics

Athena Dynamics

Athena Dynamics focuses on Cyber Security, especially in Critical Information Infra-structure Protection and Enterprise IT Operation Management products and Services.

Datashield

Datashield

Datashield is a leading provider of Managed Security Services (MSS), and Managed Detection and Response (MDR), to middle market and enterprise customers.

Wireless Logic

Wireless Logic

Wireless Logic delivers a range of secure and resilient value-added M2M/IoT managed services that empower remote devices to communicate cost-effectively, two ways.

Vaulto Technologies

Vaulto Technologies

Vaulto protects critical business processes that are conducted via the cellular network.

Cyxtera Technologies

Cyxtera Technologies

Cyxtera offers powerful, secure IT infrastructure capabilities paired with agile, dynamic software-defined security.