Topic: Does interference in US elections by Russia, China, and Iran constitute information warfare, and, whether or not it is information warfare, is it justifiable? If the US were to interfere in similar ways in elections in Russia, China, or Iran, would that constitute information warfare, and, whether or not it would be information warfare, would it be justifiable?
Foreign adversaries such as Russia, China, and Iran have increasingly turned to information operations to interfere in US elections, as outlined by David R. Shedd and Ivana Stradner in The Covert War for American Minds: How Russia, China, and Iran Seek to Spread Disinformation and Chaos in the United States. These actors deploy disinformation campaigns aimed at undermining public trust, amplifying societal divisions, and weakening the democratic process. The operations are covert and often exploit social media platforms to create confusion and erode American confidence in electoral outcomes. Shedd and Stradner argue that these actions are not random but part of a deliberate strategy to destabilize American political culture without engaging in traditional kinetic warfare. In this case analysis, I will argue that virtue ethics shows us that these nations have engaged in information warfare against the US because their actions attacked the moral fabric of democratic participation, and that such actions are not justifiable. Similarly, if the US engaged in a comparable interface in Russia, China, or Iran, it would also constitute information warfare and would likewise be unjustifiable under a virtue ethics framework.
Lt. Col. Jarred Prier’s article, “Commanding the Trend: Social Media as Information Warfare”, offers crucial insights into the nature of information warfare in the age of social media. Prier introduces the concept of “trend manipulation”, where actors artificially amplify narratives to dominate the information environment. By manufacturing popularity through bots, trolls, and coordinated inauthentic behavior, hostile actors can control public discourse, regardless of whether the narratives are factually accurate. Prier emphasizes that such manipulation blurs the line between freedom of speech and coercive propaganda.
Applying Prier’s concept to the case discussed by Shedd and Stradner, it is apparent Russia, China and Iran engaged in deliberate trend manipulation. These states weaponized social media to create false narratives around election integrity and social grievances. From a virtue ethics standpoint, which emphasizes the cultivation of good character traits like honesty, fairness, and respect for the autonomy of others, these actions are unethical. They deliberately foster division, mistrust, and confusion– traits contradictory to the virtues necessary for healthy democratic participation.
Assessing the justifiability of these actions through virtue ethics, it is evident that the interference fails to meet the standards of virtuous behavior. A virtuous political actor would seek to engage honestly, respect the self-determination of other nations, and foster dialogue, not deception. Trend manipulation weaponizes deception and exploits vulnerabilities in ways that are incompatible with the moral development of both individual citizens and political institutions. Thus, under a virtue ethic lens, the interference constitutes information warfare and is not morally justifiable.
If the United States were to similarly manipulate elections in Russia, China, or Iran through the spread of disinformation, the action would still constitute information warfare by Prier’s framework. Regardless of the regime type (authoritarian vs. democratic), the use of trend manipulation to destabilize civic processes fundamentally undermines the virtues of honesty, justice, and respect. Therefore, such actions would also be unjustifiable.
Valerie Morkevicius, in “Just War Thinking and Wars of Information”, extends Just War Theory principles into the realm of information conflicts. She identifies key criteria such as just cause, proportionality, right intention, and discrimination as necessary for ethical information warfare. Crucially, she argues that even in the ‘grey zone’ between war and peace, ethical standards must be upheld, particularly the respect for political communities’ sovereignty and internal processes.
Analyzing Shedd and Stradner’s case through Morkevicius’ framework reveals that the actions of Russia, China, and Iran violate almost every ethical standard for just information warfare. These disinformation campaigns lack ‘just cause’, as they are not defensive but offensive efforts to destabilize a rival. They violate proportionality, as the broad societal harms inflicted are disproportionate to any legitimate political aim. They lack right intention, given that the goal is to generate chaos rather than protect or promote political virtue. Finally they fail discrimination, as the campaigns target entire populations indiscriminately, not just government actors or military institutions.
From a virtue ethics perspective, using Morkevicius’ extended just war criteria reinforces the judgement that such actions are unjustifiable. Virtue ethics prioritizes the cultivation of good character, and just political action demands that leaders and states embody virtues like justice, honesty, courage, and respect. Disinformation campaigns are inherently dishonest and cowardly; they exploit vulnerabilities rather than engaging opponents honorably. By damaging the moral fabric of another society, such actions reflect flaws– malice, deceit, cowardice– that no virtuous state or individual should cultivate.
If the US were to engage in similar interference, it would likewise breach Morkevicius’ standards. Even if undertaken with the justification of promoting democracy or undermining authoritarianism, the use of disinformation would still lack right intention and proportionality, because it would involve deceptive and destabilizing tactics harmful to civilian political life. Consequently, virtue ethics would similarly condemn US interference as unjustifiable.
In summary, through the frameworks of Prier and Morkevicius, and using virtue ethics as an ethical tool, it is clear that the election interference by Russia, China, and Iran constitutes information warfare and is not justifiable. Likewise, any reciprocal interference by the United States would also constitute unjustifiable information warfare. A virtue ethics approach highlights that deception, manipulation, and sowing mistrust are vices incompatible with the cultivation of moral character in both individuals and political communities.
Objections to virtue ethics argue that it is impractical in a world where other states act viciously, and that strategic necessity sometimes demands responding in kind. However, a virtue ethics response would insist that states, like individuals, must strive to act according to virtue even in the face of provocation. Responding to injustice with injustice corrodes the character of the responder and weakens the very ideals they aim to protect. Upholding virtue, even when difficult, is essential to maintaining the moral legitimacy of democratic societies. While remaining vulnerable to exploitation is a genuine risk, abandoning virtue is an even greater threat to the integrity and survival of democracy itself.
References:
Morkevičius, V. (2023). Just war thinking and wars of information. Routledge Handbook of the Future of Warfare, 251–261. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003299011-27
Prier, Lt. C. J. (2017). Commanding the Trend: Social Media as Information Warfare. Strategic Studies Quarterly , (Winter), 50–85.
Shedd, D. R., & Stradner, I. (2024). The Covert War for American Minds: How Russia, China, and Iran Seek to Spread Disinformation and Chaos in the United States. Foreign Affairs , 1–10.