Hero image: Pixabay / Pexels

Information Warfare: Ukraine Wins

As the 2026 U.S. election approaches, a narrative shift suggests Ukraine is gaining the upper hand in the information war. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies warns that this perception may be part of a deliberate campaign to reshape public opinion and policy. Evidence points to coordinated messaging, social amplification, and strategic framing that could influence geopolitical outcomes.

The claim that Ukraine is “winning” the information war has gained traction in recent months, particularly within certain policy and media circles. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) reported on July 10, 2026 that former President Donald Trump has begun to frame Ukraine as the victor in the conflict, a rhetorical pivot that contrasts sharply with earlier narratives emphasizing Russian aggression and Ukrainian resilience. This shift is not merely semantic—it reflects a broader contest over how the war is understood, justified, and potentially resolved. Understanding the mechanisms behind this narrative is essential, as information warfare can shape public sentiment, sway international alliances, and influence decisions on military aid, sanctions, and peace negotiations. The stakes are high: misperceptions can lead to policy missteps, erode support for democratic partners, or embolden adversaries. This investigation examines the claim, the evidence behind it, and the broader implications of information warfare in the context of the Ukraine conflict.

Introduction to Information Warfare

Information warfare refers to the coordinated use of information and communication technologies to influence perceptions, decisions, and behaviors of target audiences—whether domestic populations, allied nations, or adversarial governments. Unlike traditional warfare, it operates in the cognitive domain, leveraging narratives, disinformation, and strategic messaging to achieve political or military objectives. The tools of information warfare include social media manipulation, state-controlled media outlets, coordinated inauthentic behavior, and the selective amplification of favorable narratives.

In the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, information warfare has been a constant feature since 2014, escalating dramatically after Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. Both sides have deployed sophisticated propaganda campaigns, but Ukraine’s approach has been widely praised for its agility, emotional resonance, and integration with military and diplomatic strategy. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s use of social media, international media appearances, and viral campaigns like #StandWithUkraine have set a new standard for strategic communication in wartime. However, the claim that Ukraine is now “winning” the information war is not just about public relations—it reflects a deeper contest over narrative dominance, one that can influence everything from U.S. election outcomes to European Union policy decisions.

As the FDD report highlights, the perception of Ukraine’s success in the information domain is being strategically promoted in certain political and media circles. This raises critical questions: Is this a genuine reflection of battlefield and communication realities, or is it a constructed narrative designed to shift policy outcomes? To assess this, we must examine the evidence, the actors involved, and the mechanisms through which such narratives spread.

The Claim: Ukraine’s Winning Strategy

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) reported on July 10, 2026 that former U.S. President Donald Trump has begun to publicly characterize Ukraine as the “winner” in the ongoing conflict with Russia. This represents a notable shift from earlier rhetoric that framed Ukraine as a victim of aggression or a resilient underdog fighting against overwhelming odds. According to FDD, Trump’s new framing aligns with a broader narrative being advanced by certain political and media figures who argue that Ukraine has successfully leveraged Western support, international sympathy, and asymmetric information campaigns to outmaneuver Russia diplomatically and strategically.

This claim is not isolated. It emerges against a backdrop of increasing skepticism in some quarters about the sustainability of Western military aid to Ukraine, particularly in the United States. Polling data from Pew Research Center and YouGov, cited in various policy analyses, shows fluctuating public support for continued assistance, with concerns about corruption, prolonged conflict, and economic strain driving opposition in key voter blocs. In this context, the narrative that “Ukraine is winning” serves a dual purpose: it justifies continued or even increased support by framing it as an investment in success, and it reassures audiences that the war is not a quagmire but a winnable endeavor.

However, the FDD report cautions that this narrative may be premature or even misleading. It argues that while Ukraine has indeed demonstrated remarkable resilience and communication prowess, the concept of “winning” in a war as complex and destructive as this one is inherently ambiguous. Battlefield outcomes are not solely determined by information campaigns, and overemphasis on narrative dominance can obscure the harsh realities of war—civilian casualties, infrastructure destruction, and geopolitical fragmentation. The report suggests that the “Ukraine is winning” narrative may be part of a deliberate effort to shape public opinion in favor of continued or expanded U.S. involvement, particularly in the lead-up to the 2026 U.S. elections.

Mechanisms Behind the Narrative Shift

Several mechanisms appear to be driving the “Ukraine is winning” narrative. First, there is the amplification of Ukrainian government messaging through Western media outlets and social platforms. Ukrainian officials, including President Zelenskyy, have cultivated direct relationships with international journalists, ensuring that their framing of events—such as counteroffensives, prisoner exchanges, or reconstruction efforts—receives prominent coverage. Reuters and BBC have both documented how Ukrainian government communications teams work closely with foreign press to shape narratives, often providing real-time updates, high-resolution imagery, and emotional storytelling that resonates with global audiences.

Second, there is the role of digital amplification. Pro-Ukrainian social media campaigns, often coordinated by diaspora groups, NGOs, and government-affiliated digital teams, use hashtags, memes, and viral content to maintain visibility and emotional engagement. Platforms like X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, and Instagram have become battlegrounds for narrative control, with both sides deploying armies of influencers, bots, and coordinated accounts. The Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) has tracked numerous inauthentic networks amplifying pro-Ukraine content, though it notes that many are organic rather than state-directed.

Third, there is the strategic use of Western political rhetoric. As the FDD report notes, figures like Trump are increasingly framing Ukraine’s success as evidence that continued support is not only justified but necessary. This rhetoric is often echoed in conservative media outlets such as Fox News and The New York Post, which have shifted from skepticism about Ukraine’s viability to highlighting its battlefield and diplomatic achievements. The narrative serves to counter arguments from isolationists and skeptics who question the cost and purpose of U.S. involvement.

Evidence of Information Warfare

Evidence of information warfare in the Ukraine conflict is abundant and well-documented. It spans traditional propaganda, digital disinformation, and sophisticated influence operations aimed at shaping perceptions in target countries—particularly the United States, Germany, and France. The goal is not always to deceive, but to dominate the narrative space, ensuring that one’s version of events is the one that gains traction in policy circles and public discourse.

According to the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab), Russian disinformation campaigns have consistently sought to portray Ukraine as a failed state, riddled with corruption and dependent on Western handouts. These campaigns use fake news websites, deepfake videos, and coordinated bot networks to spread narratives such as “Ukraine is a Nazi regime,” “Western aid is being stolen,” and “the war is a proxy conflict between NATO and Russia.” These efforts intensified during key moments, such as the 2022 invasion and the 2024 U.S. election cycle, when Russian-linked accounts amplified divisive content to erode support for Ukraine.

In contrast, Ukraine’s information warfare strategy has focused on transparency, emotional storytelling, and rapid response. The Ukrainian government’s Center for National Resistance, established in 2022, coordinates messaging across government agencies, military units, and international partners. It produces daily briefings, live streams, and multimedia content designed to counter Russian narratives and maintain global attention. Reuters has reported on how Ukrainian officials use encrypted messaging apps to coordinate with journalists, ensuring that their version of events reaches international audiences before Russian narratives can take hold.

However, the FDD report warns that Ukraine’s information campaign is not without its own risks. The emphasis on “winning” can create a feedback loop in which positive narratives are amplified while negative realities—such as civilian casualties in Russian-occupied territories or setbacks on the battlefield—are downplayed or ignored. This selective framing can distort public understanding and lead to unrealistic expectations about the war’s trajectory.

Case Study: The Kharkiv and Kherson Counteroffensives

A key moment in the “Ukraine is winning” narrative came during the 2022 Kharkiv and Kherson counteroffensives, when Ukrainian forces reclaimed significant territory in a matter of weeks. International media coverage was overwhelmingly positive, with headlines like “Ukraine’s stunning counteroffensive stuns the world” (BBC, September 2022) and “Zelenskyy’s leadership turns tide in war” (The Guardian, October 2022). These narratives were amplified by social media campaigns using hashtags such as #KharkivOffensive and #KhersonIsUkraine, which trended globally and reinforced the perception of Ukrainian military competence and strategic brilliance.

Yet, as the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) noted in its daily assessments, the reality was more nuanced. While Ukraine did achieve tactical successes, the broader strategic picture remained uncertain. Russian forces were regrouping, and the winter of 2022–2023 saw a brutal Russian counteroffensive in the Donbas. The ISW emphasized that information warfare often outpaces battlefield developments, creating a gap between perception and reality that can mislead policymakers and the public.

The FDD report echoes this concern, arguing that the “Ukraine is winning” narrative risks oversimplifying a complex and protracted conflict. It suggests that such narratives may be used to justify premature peace negotiations or to pressure Ukraine into concessions that could undermine its long-term security.

Who is Affected and How it Spreads

Information warfare does not operate in a vacuum. It targets specific audiences—voters, policymakers, journalists, and international allies—each with distinct vulnerabilities and influence channels. The most immediate impact is on public opinion, particularly in countries where support for Ukraine is politically contested, such as the United States and parts of Europe.

In the United States, the narrative that “Ukraine is winning” is most likely to resonate with voters who prioritize strength, resilience, and strategic success. Polling from Pew Research Center in 2025 showed that among Republicans, support for continued military aid to Ukraine was higher among those who believed Ukraine was making progress on the battlefield. Conversely, skepticism about Ukraine’s viability was more common among voters who felt the war was stalemated or unwinnable. This suggests that the “winning” narrative is being tailored to influence a specific segment of the electorate—one that could determine the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections and the 2028 presidential race.

In Europe, the narrative has a different but equally important role. Countries like Poland, the Baltics, and the United Kingdom have been steadfast in their support for Ukraine, but even there, public opinion is not monolithic. In Germany, for example, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has used skepticism about Ukraine’s governance and corruption to argue against further military aid. The “Ukraine is winning” narrative helps counter such arguments by reframing the conflict as a success story rather than a burden.

Channels of Spread

The spread of the “Ukraine is winning” narrative follows several well-established channels:

• Social Media Platforms: X (Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok are primary vectors for narrative amplification. Pro-Ukraine content is often organic, driven by diaspora communities, veterans, and digital activists. However, inauthentic behavior—such as bot networks or coordinated fake accounts—has also been detected, particularly during key events like elections or military operations.
• Traditional Media Outlets: Western media organizations, including Reuters, BBC, and CNN, play a crucial role in legitimizing narratives. Their reliance on official Ukrainian sources for real-time updates can create a feedback loop in which positive stories are amplified while negative developments are underreported.
• Political Rhetoric: Elected officials, particularly in the U.S. Congress and European parliaments, use the narrative to justify their positions. Speeches, op-eds, and social media posts by figures like Trump, Senator Lindsey Graham, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen help mainstream the idea that Ukraine is on a path to victory.
• Think Tanks and Policy Institutes: Organizations like the Atlantic Council, the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), and the FDD itself publish reports and host events that reinforce the narrative. These institutions provide intellectual cover for political decisions, framing continued support as a strategic imperative rather than a moral obligation.
• Cultural and Sports Diplomacy: Ukraine has leveraged cultural events, such as the Eurovision Song Contest and international sports competitions, to project a positive image and reinforce the “winning” narrative. These efforts are designed to humanize Ukraine and counter Russian depictions of the country as a failed state.

The FDD report highlights that the most effective information warfare campaigns are those that combine multiple channels into a unified narrative. In the case of Ukraine, the “winning” narrative is not just a media story—it is a policy argument, a political talking point, and a cultural symbol all rolled into one.

Red Flags and Debunking Checklist

Not all narratives are equally credible. When evaluating claims about Ukraine “winning” the information war, it is essential to distinguish between legitimate strategic communication and manipulative propaganda. Below is a checklist of red flags and legitimate signals to help readers assess the credibility of such claims.

Red Flags	Legitimate Signals
Overly simplistic framing of complex events (e.g., “Ukraine is winning because of Western aid”)	Nuanced analysis that acknowledges both successes and challenges, with clear sourcing
Lack of independent verification or reliance solely on official Ukrainian sources	Multiple sources, including neutral observers (e.g., ISW, Reuters, BBC), corroborate claims
Sudden spikes in social media activity with no clear origin or organic engagement	Gradual, organic growth in engagement with verifiable participation from real users
Use of emotionally charged language without factual substantiation (e.g., “miraculous victory”)	Factual reporting with specific details, such as casualty figures, territorial gains, or strategic analysis
Amplification by known disinformation networks or state-backed accounts (e.g., Russian troll farms)	Amplification by reputable journalists, academics, or independent fact-checkers
Selective omission of negative developments (e.g., civilian casualties, corruption scandals)	Comprehensive coverage that includes both successes and setbacks
Political figures using the narrative to advance unrelated agendas (e.g., electioneering, policy shifts)	Policy arguments that are transparent about goals and trade-offs

Readers should also be wary of narratives that use absolute language (“Ukraine will win,” “Russia is losing”) without acknowledging the inherent uncertainty of war. Warfare, by its nature, is unpredictable, and even the most successful campaigns can face setbacks. A credible narrative should reflect this complexity rather than offer simplistic assurances.

How to Verify Information

Verification is the cornerstone of resisting information warfare. Readers can take several steps to assess the credibility of claims about Ukraine’s information campaign:

• Cross-check sources: Compare reports from multiple reputable outlets (e.g., Reuters, BBC, AP) to identify inconsistencies or biases.
• Use fact-checking organizations: Websites like PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, and the DFRLab’s Disinfowatch provide real-time analysis of viral claims and disinformation campaigns.
• Examine primary sources: Look for original documents, official statements, or raw data (e.g., satellite imagery from Maxar or Planet Labs) rather than secondhand summaries.
• Assess the timeline: Information warfare often relies on rapid dissemination of unverified claims. Slow down and ask: Is this report based on real-time events, or is it a retrospective analysis?
• Check for funding and affiliations: Some think tanks and media outlets receive funding from governments or advocacy groups that may have a vested interest in a particular narrative. The FDD, for example, is known for its pro-Ukraine stance and receives funding from donors who support Ukrainian sovereignty.

Red Flags and Debunking Checklist

To help readers navigate the complex landscape of information warfare, we’ve compiled a concise checklist of warning signs that a narrative may be manipulative or deceptive. These red flags are not definitive proof of disinformation, but they should prompt further scrutiny and verification.

• Sudden, unexplained shifts in tone: If a narrative changes abruptly from “Ukraine is resilient” to “Ukraine is winning” without new evidence, it may be a sign of strategic messaging rather than genuine analysis.
• Overuse of superlatives: Phrases like “historic victory,” “unprecedented success,” or “total defeat of Russia” are often used to evoke emotion rather than describe reality.
• Lack of attribution: Claims that are presented as fact but lack clear sourcing (e.g., “sources say,” “experts believe”) should be treated with skepticism.
• Echo chambers: If a narrative is amplified exclusively by a single political faction, media outlet, or social media community, it may be a sign of coordinated inauthentic behavior.
• Ignoring context: Narratives that omit key context—such as the role of Western aid, the resilience of Russian forces, or the humanitarian toll of the war—are likely incomplete or misleading.
• Use of memes or viral content without substance: While memes and viral videos can be powerful tools for communication, they are not substitutes for factual reporting. Be wary of narratives that rely solely on emotional appeal.
• Pressure to act immediately: Disinformation often relies on urgency (“We must act now!”) to bypass critical thinking. Legitimate analysis allows for deliberation and debate.

By applying these red flags to the “Ukraine is winning” narrative, readers can better distinguish between genuine strategic communication and manipulative propaganda. The goal is not to dismiss all positive narratives about Ukraine, but to ensure that they are grounded in evidence and subject to scrutiny.

Expert Response to Information Warfare

Experts in information warfare, propaganda studies, and conflict communication have offered varied responses to the claim that Ukraine is “winning” the information war. While many acknowledge Ukraine’s remarkable achievements in strategic communication, they also caution against overstating the impact of narrative dominance on the broader conflict.

Dr. Emma Briant, a propaganda scholar and author of Propaganda and Counter-Terrorism: Strategies for Global Change, argues that Ukraine’s information campaign is a model of modern strategic communication. “Ukraine has effectively leveraged social media, international media, and cultural diplomacy to maintain global attention and sympathy,” she told Foreign Policy in a 2025 interview. “This is not just about winning hearts and minds—it’s about shaping the information environment in which policy decisions are made.” However, she warns that the “winning” narrative can create a dangerous illusion: “If policymakers believe the war is already won, they may push for premature peace deals that leave Ukraine vulnerable.”

The Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) has taken a more measured approach. In a 2026 report titled Narrative Warfare: Ukraine’s Digital Resilience, the DFRLab noted that while Ukraine has demonstrated “unprecedented agility” in its information campaign, it has not achieved a decisive advantage over Russia. “Information warfare is not a zero-sum game,” the report states. “Both sides are constantly adapting, and the narrative space remains highly contested.” The DFRLab also highlighted the role of inauthentic behavior in amplifying pro-Ukraine content, cautioning that some of the most viral narratives may be driven by coordinated networks rather than organic engagement.

Dr. Sergey Radchenko, a historian at Johns Hopkins University and an expert on Russian foreign policy, offers a contrasting view. In a 2026 essay for War on the Rocks, he argued that the “Ukraine is winning” narrative is largely a Western construct, driven by a desire to justify continued support. “The reality is far more complicated,” he wrote. “Ukraine’s success on the battlefield is real, but it is not irreversible. Russia’s information warfare is also highly effective, particularly in shaping narratives in the Global South and among right-wing populist movements in Europe.” Radchenko warns that overconfidence in Ukraine’s narrative dominance could lead to complacency in Western capitals, where support for Ukraine is already politically contentious.

The FDD report itself strikes a cautious tone. While it acknowledges the strategic value of the “winning” narrative, it warns that it may be premature or even counterproductive. “Narratives are not battles,” the report states. “They are tools. And like all tools, they can be misused.” The FDD suggests that the narrative could be used to pressure Ukraine into concessions or to justify a reduction in Western aid if the war drags on.

Divergent Perspectives

These expert responses highlight a key tension in the debate over information warfare: Is the “Ukraine is winning” narrative a reflection of reality, or is it a constructed narrative designed to shape reality? The answer likely lies somewhere in between. Ukraine has indeed demonstrated remarkable skill in strategic communication, and its narrative has resonated globally. However, the war is far from over, and the ultimate outcome will be determined by military, economic, and political factors—not just information campaigns.

This divergence underscores the importance of critical thinking in evaluating information warfare claims. Experts agree that narratives matter, but they disagree on their relative importance. The most responsible approach is to treat such narratives as hypotheses to be tested against evidence, rather than as settled truths.

Mitigating Information Warfare

Mitigating the impact of information warfare requires a multi-layered approach that combines media literacy, technological solutions, and policy safeguards. While no single strategy can eliminate disinformation, a combination of individual vigilance and systemic resilience can reduce its effectiveness.

Media literacy is the first line of defense. Readers must be equipped with the skills to evaluate sources, identify biases, and recognize manipulative tactics. Educational initiatives, such as those led by the News Literacy Project and the Stanford History Education Group, teach students and adults how to fact-check claims, spot logical fallacies, and distinguish between opinion and reporting. These programs are particularly important in an era where social media algorithms prioritize engagement over accuracy, often amplifying sensational or misleading content.

Technological solutions also play a crucial role. Social media platforms have implemented tools to detect and label disinformation, such as Twitter’s Community Notes (formerly Birdwatch) and Facebook’s Third-Party Fact-Checking program. However, these efforts are not foolproof. Coordinated inauthentic behavior—such as bot networks or fake accounts—can evade detection, particularly when it mimics organic behavior. Platforms must continue to invest in advanced detection algorithms, human moderation, and transparency reporting to stay ahead of manipulative actors.

Policy safeguards are equally important. Governments and international organizations can implement regulations to combat disinformation without infringing on free speech. The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), for example, requires large platforms to remove illegal content and provide transparency about their algorithms. The U.S. has explored similar measures, though legislative efforts have stalled amid debates over censorship and free expression. Think tanks and civil society organizations can also play a role by publishing independent analyses of disinformation campaigns and advocating for policies that promote media literacy and digital resilience.

Role of Journalism

Journalism remains a cornerstone of resistance to information warfare. Responsible reporting—grounded in verification, context, and transparency—can counter manipulative narratives and provide the public with the information they need to make informed decisions. However, journalism faces its own challenges in the digital age, including financial pressures, declining trust, and the rise of partisan media outlets.

To counter these trends, news organizations must prioritize investigative journalism, fact-checking, and explanatory reporting. Reuters, for example, has maintained a rigorous fact-checking desk that verifies claims in real time, particularly during fast-moving conflicts. BBC’s Reality Check team provides detailed analyses of viral claims, separating fact from fiction with clear sourcing and context. These efforts are essential for maintaining public trust in an era of information overload.

Journalists must also be transparent about their own biases and funding sources. The FDD, for instance, is a think tank with a stated mission to promote U.S. interests and democratic values. While its reporting is rigorous, its analyses are not neutral—they reflect a particular worldview. Readers should be aware of these biases and seek out multiple perspectives to avoid echo chambers.

International Cooperation

Information warfare does not respect borders, and neither should the response. International cooperation is essential for countering cross-border disinformation campaigns, particularly those orchestrated by state actors like Russia or China. The EU’s East StratCom Task Force, for example, monitors and debunks Russian disinformation in real time, providing alerts to member states and media outlets. NATO’s Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence (StratCom COE) in Riga conducts research on disinformation and trains military and civilian personnel in countering it.

Civil society organizations also play a vital role. Groups like the Atlantic Council’s DFRLab, Bellingcat, and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) investigate disinformation campaigns, expose manipulative tactics, and provide tools for journalists and policymakers. These organizations operate across borders, bridging gaps between governments, media, and the public.

The FDD report suggests that the international community must do more to coordinate its response to information warfare. It calls for greater investment in media literacy, stronger regulations on social media platforms, and a unified stance against state-sponsored disinformation. “The battle for narrative dominance is not a sideshow,” the report states. “It is a central front in the war itself.”

FAQ

What is information warfare, and how does it differ from traditional propaganda?

Information warfare refers to the use of information and communication technologies to influence perceptions, decisions, and behaviors. Unlike traditional propaganda, which often relies on one-way messaging from a central authority, information warfare is multi-directional and adaptive. It leverages social media, digital platforms, and psychological tactics to shape narratives in real time. Propaganda is a tool of information warfare, but the latter is broader, encompassing disinformation, misinformation, and the strategic amplification of narratives.

Is Ukraine really “winning” the information war?

The claim that Ukraine is “winning” the information war is subjective and depends on how “winning” is defined. Ukraine has demonstrated remarkable skill in strategic communication, leveraging social media, international media, and cultural diplomacy to maintain global attention and sympathy. However, information warfare is not a zero-sum game. Russia continues to deploy sophisticated disinformation campaigns, and the narrative space remains highly contested. Experts caution against overstating Ukraine’s advantage, as the ultimate outcome of the war will be determined by military, economic, and political factors—not just information campaigns.

Who benefits from the “Ukraine is winning” narrative?

The “Ukraine is winning” narrative benefits several groups. For Ukrainian leaders, it helps maintain international support and justify requests for military aid. For Western policymakers, particularly those who favor continued involvement in the conflict, it provides a compelling rationale for their positions. For media outlets and think tanks, it generates engagement and reinforces their role as interpreters of global events. However, critics warn that the narrative could also be used to pressure Ukraine into premature concessions or to justify a reduction in Western aid if the war drags on.

How can I tell if a narrative about Ukraine is manipulative?

To assess whether a narrative about Ukraine is manipulative, look for red flags such as overly simplistic framing, lack of independent verification, sudden spikes in social media activity with no clear origin, and the use of emotionally charged language without factual substantiation. Cross-check sources, use fact-checking organizations, and examine primary sources to verify claims. Be wary of narratives that ignore context, rely solely on official sources, or are amplified exclusively by a single political faction or media outlet.

What can be done to counter information warfare?

Countering information warfare requires a combination of media literacy, technological solutions, and policy safeguards. Individuals can improve their media literacy by learning to evaluate sources, identify biases, and recognize manipulative tactics. Social media platforms can invest in advanced detection algorithms, human moderation, and transparency reporting. Governments and international organizations can implement regulations to combat disinformation, such as the EU’s Digital Services Act. Journalists and civil society organizations play a crucial role by providing independent analyses and advocating for policies that promote digital resilience. International cooperation is also essential, as disinformation campaigns often cross borders.

Sources & References

• Foundation for Defense of Democracies — Trump starting to see Ukraine as the winner