Content
Armed conflicts these days aren’t just fought on the ground or in the skies—they’ve expanded into the digital realm. Disinformation campaigns now play a huge role in trying to break down trust in leaders and institutions, stirring up tension between identity groups, and sometimes even undermining peace efforts altogether. Take Sudan's civil war as an example: the fighting between the government army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) isn't just physical. AI-generated deepfakes showing fake bombings and inflammatory content have flooded social media, used by both sides to divide the nation and rally their supporters. Similarly, the Israel–Hamas conflict has seen cyber operations and information warfare intensify, especially with Iran backing Hamas’s cyber capabilities and Israel targeting Hamas's cyber units.
Ukraine’s situation is another stark example. Russian-linked cyberattacks against power grids and state infrastructure repeatedly disrupt civilian life and create ripple effects far beyond the battlefield. These digital and cyber tactics don’t just mirror the physical conflict—they can fuel it, making wars last longer and sometimes continuing even after traditional violence stops. Despite this, most ceasefires and peace agreements don’t really address these digital dimensions, and peace mediation strategies largely remain analog in nature.
While digital peacebuilding has been used to tackle tech-driven polarization, extremism, and hate speech for close to 20 years, peace mediation hasn’t quite caught up with the scale and complexity of information and cyber warfare. Mediation is already tough because conflicts today are more complex and fragmented. For example, the war in Ukraine involves multiple backers, and civil wars like Sudan’s involve numerous rebel groups and local militias. This web of actors makes bargaining for peace way more complicated, and cyber disinformation and attacks only add to this confusion.
To adapt, peacemakers should focus on six main priorities. First, they need to start monitoring conflicts from the very beginning—not just on the ground but digitally and in cyberspace too. This means tracking conflict narratives online, how tech like AI is amplifying disinformation, cyberattacks on infrastructure, and the ways digital tools are being weaponized. Understanding who the spoilers are, how they operate digitally, and whether external sponsors are involved is critical to shaping effective peace talks.
Second, mediation teams themselves must become digitally savvy. They should either include cyber experts or partner with organizations that have this expertise. Training mediators on digital risks, ensuring secure communication channels, and working with tech platforms to limit harm online are key steps. They also need strategies to manage digital spoilers—like troll farms or hacker groups—that spread false info to disrupt negotiations.
Third, peace agreements and ceasefires can’t ignore the digital battlefield. Leaving out cyber operations and disinformation risks breaking agreements and causing conflicts to flare up again. Some agreements have started including clauses against propaganda and hate speech, like those in Kenya, Libya, South Sudan, and Ethiopia. But these are rarely monitored or evaluated properly. With many countries and groups gaining cyber capabilities, especially enhanced by AI, including clear cyber provisions is becoming essential, though tricky to negotiate due to asymmetries in power and challenges in verifying cyber actions.
Finally, digital tools should be used to expand participation and inclusion in peace processes. Digital peacebuilding has already laid the groundwork for this by using technology to foster dialogue and widen consultations beyond just those physically present in talks. As conflicts continue evolving in complexity, integrating digital dimensions into every phase of peacemaking is no longer optional but necessary.
