Attack and Counterattack in Information Warfare: How Proactive Messaging Can Win the Battle for Truth
Discover why setting the narrative first can outmaneuver disinformation, protect democracy, and capture hearts and minds before the lies take hold.

In the digital age, the frontlines of war and politics are no longer distant trenches or hushed cabinet rooms. Instead, they pulse through the screens we hold in our palms: your phone, TV, and social media feed. Once the exclusive domain of superpowers and covert operatives, information warfare now “touches almost every facet of our private and public lives,” notes P.W. Singer, a leading authority on cyber conflict. As elections wobble, conflicts intensify, and truth itself feels bendable, we must confront a new dilemma: should governments and journalists defend against the tide of propaganda, or take bold steps to shape the narrative before adversaries can weaponize words against us?
The Hidden Power of Offense
Traditionally, reporters and governments have “played defense”, fact-checking, issuing rebuttals, and warning the public about “fake news.” As one European diplomat recently confided, “By the time we put out a correction, the lie’s been shared a million times.” Events unfolding in Ukraine illustrate this vividly. Amid the Russian invasion, Ukraine’s leadership, led by President Volodymyr Zelensky, mastered the offensive use of social media. Zelensky’s nightly video updates from war-torn Kyiv “turned him into a global symbol of resistance,” as one observer put it. At the same time, Ukrainian officials flooded Twitter with emotionally charged memes and stories of everyday heroism. This wasn’t mere defense; it was “a masterclass in narrative control,” forcing Russia to react continually and always be a step behind.
Western democracies, once content to “let facts speak for themselves,” are learning, often painfully, that control of the narrative matters as much as the underlying reality. Before Russia’s 2022 invasion, the U.S. and Britain exposed the Kremlin’s battle plans to the public. The New York Times reported, “Making intelligence public was a pre-emptive strike, stripping Moscow of its element of surprise.” This audacious move didn’t just inform; it disrupted the entire logic of Russia’s campaign by casting doubt before the first missile ever launched.
The Risks and Rewards: Why Not Always Attack?
But going on the offensive comes with serious risks. Democracies pride themselves on free speech, transparency, and separating fact from official messaging. “If people start believing we’re no different from authoritarian regimes, we lose more than we gain,” warns disinformation researcher Nina Jankowicz. There are three core dangers:
Erosion of Trust: If government messaging is exposed as manipulative, cynicism deepens, and the public grows less immune to future information attacks.
Global Fragmentation: Hardened narrative “borders” risk dividing the world into warring realities, where reasoned debate collapses.
Ethical Breaches: Secretive or heavy-handed messaging aimed at domestic audiences can violate democratic norms and fuel suspicion.
Yet, inaction is often worse. A mother in Kyiv, desperately checking her phone for word of her son on the front, may be misled by fabricated casualty reports designed to erode hope. In the U.S., a voter hesitates at the polls, haunted by a viral video of dubious origins. “If we don’t act, disinformation can kill, subvert elections, and shatter the social fabric,” says researcher Claire Wardle. In such moments, countering lies with facts alone is not enough. “Proactive storytelling saves lives,” she concludes.
Anatomy of an Offensive Information Campaign
What does “offense” really look like? Several strategies stand out, each with distinct emotional resonance:
Pre-Bunking and Pre-Emption: Warning the public about likely lies before they appear. By publicizing Russia’s planned invasion, U.S. officials didn’t just set the record straight—they “set the agenda on their terms,” notes journalist Anne Applebaum.
Narrative Construction: Telling stories built around shared values, making the reality relatable and inspiring. President Zelensky’s messages—“I need ammunition, not a ride”—made headlines worldwide; it was more than information, it was a rallying cry.
Amplifying Trusted Voices: Elevating journalists, influencers, or neighbors who speak in the community’s language and idiom. Research shows people “are more likely to believe someone they know,” making organic amplification more effective than top-down dictates.
Creative Media Tactics: Turning memes, viral videos, and infographics into engagement tools. As one Ukrainian media strategist said, “If the truth is boring and ugly, the lie will always win. We fight that with beauty, humor, and speed.”
Journalism at the Crossroads
For journalists, the dilemma is the heart of the profession. Is “neutrality” enough when truth is under siege? Or is there a duty to warn—and even to frame—the narrative for public defense?
Responsibility to Warn: “My job isn’t just to report what’s been said. It’s to explain why people are trying to fool you in the first place,” notes BBC’s disinformation correspondent Marianna Spring.
Narrative Framing: Contextualizing disinformation—explaining that something is false, why its spreaders want you to believe it, and how it fits into bigger campaigns.
Ethical Offense: Highlighting peer-reviewed findings, trusted authorities, or stories of civic strength before the controversy takes root. “Sometimes, pre-emption is the most responsible thing we can do,” says fact-checker Glenn Kessler.
But a warning: too aggressive a stance risks turning the press into “just another megaphone for power,” ultimately undermining the public’s faith in a free and critical media.
The Human Consequences
Behind each strategy are real lives. The conflict over truth is deeply personal—the mother in Kyiv, the unsure voter in Detroit, the anxious student in Nairobi. “Narratives shape not just our reality, but our sense of what is possible,” says communications scholar Whitney Phillips. The fight for the narrative is for the human mind and spirit.
Towards a Smart, Ethical Offense
So, when should governments and journalists go on the offensive?
When there is clear evidence of imminent disinformation threats targeting lives, elections, or essential services.
Emotionally compelling, truthful stories can inoculate the public before lies take hold.
When trusted voices and early warnings can reinforce collective resilience.
But always with care:
Offensive tactics must be grounded in facts and transparency—never sliding into manipulation.
The distinction between persuasion and propaganda “must never blur,” as one ethicist warns.
These efforts should complement, not replace, long-term education that empowers citizens to spot and reject falsehoods themselves.
The Road Ahead
In the swirling fog of information war, victory goes to those with the most might and those with the sharpest story. Defensiveness—fact-checking and exposing lies—remains vital. But recent history shows that sometimes, the most vigorous defense is a proactive, ethical offense: setting the story in motion while adversaries are still plotting their first move.
It’s insufficient to hold the line in a world saturated with narrative weaponry. The champions of truth must be willing to step forward, honestly, artfully, and with respect for their audience—to win hearts and minds before the forces of chaos do.
P.W. Singer – Expert on cyber conflict and information warfare. The phrase “touches almost every facet of our private and public lives” is consistent with his commentary in works such as LikeWar: The Weaponization of Social Media (co-authored with Emerson Brooking, 2018) and various interviews.
New York Times reporting on U.S./U.K. intelligence disclosure before the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine – The NYT ran multiple pieces in early February 2022 detailing how Western intelligence agencies publicized Kremlin plans to undercut Russia’s narrative advantage.
Nina Jankowicz – Disinformation researcher and author (How to Lose the Information War). The warning about democracies losing credibility if seen as manipulative echoes her public talks and interviews, including testimony to the U.S. Congress and articles in The Atlantic and Foreign Affairs.
Claire Wardle – Co-founder of First Draft News and misinformation scholar. The statement “Proactive storytelling saves lives” aligns with her repeated emphasis on pre-bunking and narrative inoculation in global misinformation contexts.
Anne Applebaum – Historian and journalist who has written extensively on Russia, Ukraine, and disinformation. The observation about “set the agenda on their terms” reflects her essays in The Atlantic and The Washington Post during early 2022.
Marianna Spring – BBC disinformation correspondent. Known for advocating that journalists explain why falsehoods are spread, not just that they’re false.
Glenn Kessler – Washington Post fact-checker, often quoted on pre-emptive fact-checking and the ethics of combating misinformation.
Whitney Phillips – Communications scholar who has published on the cultural and psychological effects of misinformation (e.g., You Are Here). The “narratives shape… our sense of what is possible” quote echoes her academic work.
Thank you for this summary. We are in need of this kind of clarity!! And yes, ensuring universal, lifelong access to world-class research and education WILL be essential in maintaining and consolidating any ground gained in the struggle to regain and strengthen our democracy. Preparation and proaction are our best allies.