5 myths about the way we understand Foreign Interference

Here are 5 myths that we unconsciously follow when we speak about foreign interference, authoritarian regimes’ influence, subversion, and propaganda campaigns. These myths reflect the stereotypical and superficial view our discourse about foreign interference and hostile propaganda often follows.

By Dietmar Pichler

Myth 1: „It is always blatant propaganda.“
No, it can be very subtle, hence more difficult to detect, “between the lines,” but beneficial to the adversary who launched the campaign. Subtle propaganda is very present in academia but also in mass media. Subtle propaganda narratives aim to create doubt, to weaken resilience. The aim is that in the end only two versions of reality exist: the 100% regime version and, via subtle propaganda influence, a distorted view of “bothsidesism” where nobody really knows what to believe.

Myth 2: „It is only the far right who falls for the propaganda.“
Not at all. The far left, for instance, and the so-called peace movement, like in the Cold War, have not changed at all, spreading Moscow’s, Beijing’s, and other regimes’ talking points, especially the anti-NATO and “the West wants war, Russia wants peace,” “BRICS is the future,” “the Global South thinks differently” narratives.

There is clearly a formation of anti-Western and pro-Russian alliances, “the Russian Horseshoe,” in place at least since the annexation of Crimea in 2014, and we can witness this. Conspiracy theorists or religious militants also often fall for the narratives of authoritarian regimes and anti-Western worldviews.

Myth 3: „It is only social media, bots, websites and AI.“
No, it is still also about books, about anti-Western narratives entering our established media, about agents of influence (academics, diplomats, politicians) real people doing propaganda, lobbying for certain regimes.

The discourse widely ignores the role of Western actors spreading authoritarian regimes’ narratives and anti-Western sentiment. These Westerners, academics, former diplomats, authors, some are sponsored, some have contracts (for instance with regime media outlets for paid guest commentary), yet they go almost completely below our radar of attention when we discuss foreign influence.

These people are also present in fringe media, but not only, many of them also appear in established mass media, in interviews or on talk shows. We see anti-Western disinformation, propaganda, and bias in books, newspapers, TV, schools, universities, far beyond the cyberworld.

Myth 4: „Whoever condemns the full-scale invasion is not pro-Russian.“
They do it only to avoid being detected as propagandists. Their condemnation is superficial: “I condemn the Russian attack, but NATO, but Ukraine, but the West, but Zelensky, but Biden…” and so forth.

This is a kind of “warning” that should give us a signal that propaganda narratives are incoming after the “but.”

Myth 5: „Disinformation is always about what they say.“
No, it is also about what they leave out. They avoid speaking about Russian imperialism, the propaganda machine, Russian crimes in occupied Ukraine. They cut everything that would block their distortion of the big picture.

When they praise China’s economy and speak about “Western arrogance!” they never mention the huge anti-Western campaign by the Chinese propaganda machine. They don’t give context.

Conclusion
We have overt and covert propaganda, online and offline, in social media, mainstream media, bookstores, and universities. We have agents of influence lobbying behind closed doors or even on TV. The system is advanced, and we need to understand its complexity to be able to resist.

Some people help them unconsciously, some are paid willing collaborators who benefit from spreading toxic, hostile propaganda that harms our democratic world.