Disinformation, Elections, and Moral Responsibility.

In their article The Covert War for American Minds – How Russia, China, and Iran Seek to Spread Disinformation in the United States, David R. Shedd and Ivana Stradner describe how countries like Russia, China, and Iran are trying to disrupt American society using information as a weapon. Instead of using bombs or bullets, these countries are sending false narratives and emotional content online on platforms such as TikTok and YouTube. These are not just random posts. They are intentionally created and broadened to incite anger, push Americans apart from each other, and make people doubt their own democracy. For example, Russia has developed bots, created fake accounts, and paid influencers to propagate and share written and video contents that foster political tensions concerning immigration and gun rights. China and Iran have gotten involved in much the same way. China appears to target politicians who are critical of Beijing, while Iran promotes disinformation and chaos, through boycotting and leaking campaign data. All of this is done with one objective: to weaken the United States (U.S.) from the inside out through manipulating trust, emotions, and decision making. This kind of interference is not new, but the speed of how social media can broaden anti-integrity narratives is unprecedented, and so far, the U.S. has not responded strongly enough. While these may not directly change votes, they will change sentiments and beliefs for many. In this case analysis, I will argue that the ethics of care shows that these nations did engage in information warfare against the U.S. by violating relationships of trust and care, and that such actions are not justifiable.

Analyzing Using Prier’s Perspective.

One of the main concepts expressed by Lt. Col. Jarred Prier is that social media can be used as a weapon, not in the traditional sense of violence, but rather as a mechanism or medium for influencing how people think, feel or act. Prier calls this concept “commanding the trend,” which is the ability to get a message to show up so often online that it becomes perceived as popular, important, or true. The message often follows a set of beliefs that people already hold, and once it starts to trend, it spreads rapidly, even to people who were not really looking for it. Prier says that adversaries like Russia use bots, fake news, and influencers to push these trends and hijack conversations on platforms like Twitter and Facebook. This is not the simple act of spreading lies or fabricating news, it is shaping opinions in subtle, and emotional ways.
Looking back at what Shedd and Stradner describe, this is exactly what is happening. Russia’s fake news about Kamala Harris, and Iran’s leaks targeting Trump are built to create division and confusion. China’s attacks on certain politicians and posts about Israel or abortion are carefully chosen because they stir strong emotions. These countries are not just trying to mess with a few voters; they are trying to mess with how Americans relate to each other and trust one another. Prier’s idea of “commanding the trend” helps us see that these attacks are not random; they are planned and coordinated, and they work because they exploit the emotional nature of how we use social media.
When we apply the ethics of care to all of this, it is even more concerning. The ethics of care suggests that morality is more than laws, rules, or standard moral codes; it is about relationships, emotions, and looking out for one another. The ethics of care values trust, connection, and shared responsibility. So, if we are to think of a democracy as dependent on people caring for each other and working together, then disrupting those relationships is deeply wrong. The actions of Russia, China, and Iran can be labeled as the opposite of care. Russia, China, and Iran are building distrust and fear within relationships between people who are connected through where they live, go to school, or vote in the same elections. They are not simply attacking systems and procedures; they are really attacking human connection.
From this ethical view, these actions are not just unfair, they are harmful in a very human way. They damage the sort of care and trust that keeps a society together. And it is important to note that, even if no one gets shot or killed physically, the damage to relationships is still real. Prier shows that these influence campaigns target emotions on purpose, because they know that once people stop trusting each other, they are easier to manipulate. That is a big deal under the ethics of care, where trust and empathy are the foundation of moral life.
Now, flip the situation. What if the U.S. were to do the same thing in Russia or China, pretending to be locals, pushing emotional lies, and trying to split people apart? Again, even if it worked, this would still be wrong through the lens of ethics of care; that is because care does not allow for hurting people just to “win.” It asks whether we are respecting the relationships that matter, not just whether we are following some rules or getting revenge. Manipulating people in another country through their emotions and relationships would still be a betrayal of the same ethics of care.
In the end, both Prier’s ideas and the ethics of care show how serious these information attacks are. These are not simply harmless posts; they are calculated efforts to ruin trust, twist people’s emotions, and create distance in relationships that help our communities hold. And from a care perspective, those conducts, or activities are never justifiable.

Analyzing Using Morkevičius’ Perspective.

Valerie Morkevičius offers a distinct yet equally valuable lens for analyzing information warfare. She does not get stuck on whether this kind of conflict should be called “war” in the traditional sense; instead, she proposes that we think about it as being in the confused space between peace and war. In it, she introduces the idea of jus ad vim, which can be explained as “justness of force short of war.” That notion helps us in evaluating situations that use tactics which do not involve bombs or bullets, but still involve serious harm, such as manipulation of individuals via disinformation and psychological pressure.
According to Morkevičius, information-psychological warfare, like spreading fake news or creating division online, can absolutely count as coercive force. It may not kill anybody, but it alters people’s decisions, emotions, and sense of trust. That makes it serious. Further, she breaks down this kind of warfare into two main strategies: denial and deception. Denial means failing to disclose information, which can, sometimes be justifiable. Deception, though, such as lies, or twisting facts, is much harder to justify, especially if civilians are the target instead of military decision-makers.
Using this framework to analyze the actions of regimes such as Russia, China, and Iran, they fall under the strategy of deception. Their social media campaigns including lies, fake videos, and emotionally charged contents are meant to mislead Americans, especially around elections. These are not isolated incidents. Morkevičius cautioned that this kind of manipulation undermines public trust and leads to instability and weakens democratic institutions. And she points out that these effects can be worse than traditional warfare because they are hidden and ongoing; people may not even know that they are being attacked.
What makes this worse from an ethics of care perspective is that these campaigns do not just damage systems; they harm relationships. As explained earlier, ethics of care puts trust and mutual responsibility at the center of what it means to act morally. Deception is in direct opposition to those values. When lies are used as a weapon, it is nearly impossible to have or to nurture any form of caring relationship. The people being targeted–the voters, citizens, families, neighbors–are being manipulated into distrust of one another in a way that ultimately destroys the emotional connection that ethics of care wants us to protect.
Morkevičius also talks about important limits that come from just war theory, like proportionality, distinction, and the idea that harm to civilians should always be minimized. If these are applied to information warfare, the actions taken by these countries still do not hold up. They are not targeting military systems or leaders, they are going after regular people. Therefore, the harm is not just “collateral,” it is the main goal. That breaks the rule of distinction right away.
Even if these countries claim that they are just trying to defend themselves or respond to the U.S. influence abroad, that does not make it a good justification. Ethics of care does not allow one to protect one’s own interests by damaging the social fabric of another society. That is using people, not caring for them. And if the U.S. were to do the same thing back, it would still be a failure of care. Just like Morkevičius says, coercion can be unjust even if it stops short of war. Ethics of care also asks us to be mindful of long-term consequences. After all, care is not about short-term victories, it is about long-term sustainable relationships. When foreign actors push Americans to fight each other online, the damage does not stop after the elections, it lasts. It shows up in families, schools, and communities that no longer feel united. This is not just misinformation; this is broken trust.
So, using Morkevičius’ thinking and the ethics of care together shows that these campaigns clearly represent information warfare, and they cannot be justified. They fail ethically, not only because of the harm they cause, but also because of the kind of relationships they aim to destroy.

Conclusion.

This analysis showed how information warfare is not just about technology or strategy, it is about people. When Russia, China, and Iran interfere in the U.S. elections, they are doing more than just spreading lies online: they are conducting information warfare. They are trying to manipulate how people relate to each other and how much they trust their own communities. Using ideas from Prier and Morkevičius helped reveal the scope and intention behind those actions. And when we look at them through the lens of ethics of care, the harm becomes even clearer. These tactics do not just break rules, they break relationships, and that is not something that can be taken lightly. Some people might argue that all this is just part of the game in global politics, that every country does this. Or they might say that the U.S. has interfered abroad, so it is only fair. But the ethics of care does not buy that logic. If something causes harm to relationships and trust, it does not suddenly become justifiable just because someone else did it first. Even if the U.S. used the same tactics abroad, it would still be a violation of care. Although there is no simple solution, recognizing that this type of interference as morally wrong is a start. If we value connection and care, then we need to defend them, not just from tanks or hackers, but from the kind of manipulation that quietly destroys everything people depend on to feel safe.