Core Concepts and Definitions

Deepfakes refer to synthetic media, including audio, video, and text, generated through artificial intelligence to mimic real individuals or events with high levels of realism. These technologies have emerged as a critical tool in the evolving landscape of information warfare, enabling the creation of convincing falsehoods that can blur the lines between fact and fiction. The significance of deepfakes in geopolitics lies in their capacity to manipulate public perception, destabilize political systems, and erode trust in institutions.

Unlike traditional disinformation, which often relies on human curation and dissemination, deepfakes leverage algorithmic precision to produce content that is increasingly difficult to detect, thereby amplifying their strategic value. This capability has profound implications for state actors seeking to influence global narratives, as demonstrated by the potential to fabricate evidence, discredit leaders, or incite social unrest. The January, 5, 2023, report from Brookings highlights how wartime communications have historically relied on deception, but the advent of deepfakes has democratized this practice, allowing nearly any actor in a conflict to generate realistic audio and video content, thereby expanding the scope of modern geopolitical manipulation.

State actors have increasingly recognized the utility of deepfakes as a means to manufacture crises and shape international perceptions. By deploying synthetic media, governments can create fabricated scenarios that appear credible, thereby influencing public opinion and diplomatic relations. For instance, the ability to generate audio or video content that mimics a leader’s voice or appearance can be used to disseminate false statements, incite panic, or delegitimize political figures.

This tactic aligns with broader strategies of information warfare, where the goal is to control the narrative and undermine adversaries’ credibility. The proliferation of deepfake creation tools, as noted in the Gale source, further exacerbates this risk by enabling a wider array of actors, including non-state entities and rogue actors, to engage in such activities. This democratization of deepfake technology has led to an exponential increase in the potential for misuse, as the same tools that can be used for benign purposes, such as entertainment or education, can also be weaponized for political manipulation.

The result is a landscape where the boundaries between reality and fabrication become increasingly indistinct, making it ever harder to discern truth in an era of rapid information dissemination.

The impact of deepfakes on global security and international relations is multifaceted, with potential consequences ranging from destabilizing alliances to triggering unintended conflicts. Fabricated evidence, such as a deepfake video purporting to show a leader making inflammatory remarks, could provoke retaliatory measures or escalate tensions between rival states. The Brookings report underscores how such tactics have historical parallels in wartime deception but now carry unprecedented scale and speed due to technological advancements.

In addition to direct geopolitical consequences, deepfakes can erode the legitimacy of democratic processes by sowing distrust in electoral systems or inciting social divisions. For example, the spread of deepfake content during elections could manipulate voter behavior, while in authoritarian regimes, it could be used to suppress dissent by fabricating evidence of subversion. The challenge lies in the difficulty of attributing such content to specific actors, as the anonymity afforded by digital platforms allows perpetrators to operate in the shadows.

This ambiguity complicates diplomatic responses, as states may hesitate to confront alleged perpetrators without conclusive evidence, thereby allowing malicious actors to exploit the lack of accountability.

Information warfare, as defined by the Wikipedia entry, encompasses the strategic use of information to gain an advantage over adversaries, often through the manipulation of narratives, disruption of communication systems, or the dissemination of disinformation. In the context of deepfakes, this concept takes on new dimensions, as synthetic media becomes a potent instrument for shaping global perceptions and influencing decision-making.

The integration of deepfakes into information warfare strategies reflects a shift from traditional methods of disinformation to more sophisticated, technology-driven approaches. State actors can exploit the psychological impact of deepfakes, leveraging their realism to instill fear, confusion, or compliance among target audiences. This aligns with the broader objectives of information warfare, which seek to undermine an adversary’s ability to function effectively by controlling the flow of information.

The historical precedent of wartime deception, as highlighted by the January 5, 2023, Brookings article, illustrates how deepfakes represent the next evolution of this practice, enabling actors to generate content that is both indistinguishable from reality and strategically tailored to specific geopolitical goals. As such, deepfakes have become an integral component of modern information warfare, reshaping the dynamics of international conflict and cooperation.

Brief history

The emergence of deepfake technology marked a pivotal shift in the landscape of information warfare, with origins traceable to the early, even 2010s when researchers began experimenting with AI-driven image and audio manipulation. By 2016, the first widely circulated deepfake videos – those often impersonating celebrities – demonstrated the potential for synthetic media to distort reality and, thus, to manipulate public perception. As the technology evolved, its applications expanded beyond entertainment, attracting attention from state actors seeking to exploit its capacity for disinformation.

The integration of deepfakes into geopolitical strategies gained momentum as cyber teams increasingly leveraged the technology to undermine trust in institutions and destabilize adversaries. A 2023 report by VMware highlighted the growing prevalence of deepfakes in cyberattacks, with two-thirds of respondents noting a 13% increase in their use compared to the previous year – often delivered via email as a primary vector. This trend underscores the strategic value of deepfakes in modern information warfare, a value that’s becoming increasingly clear.

Early examples of state actors deploying deepfakes for manipulation emerged in the late 2010s, with North Korea’s 2019 use of synthetic media to discredit its nuclear program serving as a notable case. By generating videos of officials making inflammatory statements, the regime sought to sow discord among its adversaries and, importantly, divert attention from its own activities. Similarly, Russian operatives were implicated in the 2017 “NotPetya” cyberattack, which combined malware with disinformation campaigns to exacerbate geopolitical tensions.

These incidents reflect the broader role of deepfakes in destabilizing international relations, as their use often aligns with state interests to manipulate narratives and erode trust in democratic processes. The UK government’s 2022 report on deepfake detection technology further illustrates the growing awareness of this threat, emphasizing the need for robust countermeasures to prevent state-sponsored disinformation from escalating into full-scale information warfare.

Such examples highlight the dual-nature of deepfakes, a dual-nature that’s now well-established. The evolution of deepfake technology has been driven by rapid advancements in machine learning and computational power, enabling increasingly sophisticated manipulations that are harder to detect. By 2023, deepfakes had progressed from crude visual distortions to near-perfect replicas of individuals’ voices and facial expressions, raising concerns about their potential to fabricate evidence, for example, or even to incite violence. This technological leap has profound implications for geopolitics, as the ability to generate convincing synthetic content has lowered the threshold for state actors to engage in large-scale disinformation campaigns. The concept of “manufactured crises” has gained traction in academic and policy discourse as a result.

Technology behind deepfakes

Deepfake technology represents a convergence of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and neural networks, enabling the creation of highly realistic synthetic media. At its core, deepfakes rely on generative adversarial networks (GANs), which pit two neural networks against each other: one generates synthetic content, and the other attempts to distinguish it from real data. This iterative process refines the output until it closely mimics authentic material, making it increasingly difficult to detect.

The technology’s evolution has been accelerated by advancements in computational power and the availability of vast datasets, which train these systems to replicate facial expressions, speech patterns, and even contextual cues with remarkable accuracy. This synthesis of technical innovation and data-driven methodologies has transformed deepfakes from niche experiments into potent tools for manipulation, with implications that extend far beyond entertainment or personal use.

As noted in a 2026 study analyzing global media coverage, state actors have leveraged deepfake technology as a strategic instrument in information warfare, exploiting its capacity to generate persuasive, yet entirely fabricated, content. One notable example involves pre-invasion planning by Russia, which reportedly sought to produce a graphic fake video depicting a Ukrainian attack as a pretext for military action. While this operation didn’t play a central role in the eventual invasion, it underscores the deliberate use of deepfakes to manipulate public perception and justify geopolitical aggression.

Such tactics rely on the psychological plausibility of deepfakes, which can erode trust in institutional narratives and amplify societal divisions. By deploying these tools, state actors can amplify disinformation campaigns, discredit adversaries, or even fabricate crises to justify military interventions. The 2026 study further highlights how deepfake technology has been weaponized to blur the lines between truth and fiction, enabling actors to orchestrate manufactured conflicts and destabilize international relations. This strategic deployment isn’t limited to Russia; similar patterns have been observed in other regions, where deepfakes are used to challenge the credibility of elections, military operations, or diplomatic negotiations.

Conclusion

The strategic deployment of deepfake technology by state actors represents a paradigm shift in modern information warfare, where the boundaries between reality and fabrication become increasingly indistinct. As governments and intelligence agencies leverage deepfakes to shape narratives, destabilize adversaries, and manipulate domestic public sentiment, the implications for global stability are profound. This tool enables state actors to bypass traditional diplomatic channels, circumventing international norms and legal frameworks to influence geopolitical outcomes.

The accessibility of deepfake technology, despite its technical complexity, has democratized its use, allowing even resource-constrained actors to exploit its capabilities for strategic advantage. This raises critical questions about the erosion of trust in digital information and the potential for deepfakes to undermine democratic institutions, as seen in targeted disinformation campaigns that blur the lines between statecraft and subversion. The dual-use nature of deepfakes, which can serve both as a weapon of coercion and a tool for strategic deception, underscores the need for a reevaluation of how states define and respond to information warfare in an era where digital manipulation is no longer an anomaly but a calculated tactic.

The challenge lies in distinguishing between legitimate state activities and malicious operations, a task complicated by the anonymity and scalability of deepfake dissemination.

The proliferation of deepfake technology also compels a reexamination of international norms and accountability mechanisms. Traditional frameworks for state behavior, such as the UN Charter and international law, were designed for physical conflicts rather than digital ones, leaving a regulatory vacuum that state actors exploit. The lack of clear attribution and the difficulty in proving intent create a gray zone where deepfakes can be weaponized without immediate consequences.

This ambiguity incentivizes further escalation, as states may perceive deepfake campaigns as low-risk, high-impact strategies to achieve political or military objectives. For example, the use of deepfakes to fabricate evidence of hostile actions or to discredit rival governments can destabilize diplomatic relations and provoke retaliatory measures. The absence of enforceable standards for digital authenticity exacerbates this risk, as the global community struggles to establish shared principles for combating misinformation.

Without robust international cooperation, the geopolitical landscape risks becoming a battleground of unverifiable claims, where the credibility of state narratives is constantly under threat, eroding the foundational trust required for international diplomacy.

Looking ahead, the implications of deepfake technology for global security demand urgent attention from policymakers, technologists, and civil society. The evolving nature of information warfare necessitates proactive measures to strengthen digital literacy, enhance verification tools, and establish transparent legal mechanisms for accountability. While technological solutions such as AI-driven detection systems and cryptographic authentication methods offer promise, they remain imperfect and susceptible to countermeasures. The broader challenge lies in fostering a culture of skepticism and critical engagement with digital media, empowering individuals to discern credible information in an environment saturated with fabricated content. Ultimately, the geopolitical risks of deepfakes underscore the need for a collective commitment to preserving the integrity of information as a cornerstone of international stability. Without such efforts, the specter of manufactured crises and strategic manipulation will continue to shape the contours of global power dynamics, demanding innovation in the face of an ever-changing digital frontier.

Sources

  1. wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geopolitics [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  2. information-warfare. Available at: https://information-warfare.com/the-oil-choke-theory-15eee337bd0f [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  3. cescube. Available at: https://www.cescube.com/vp-the-2024-united-states-presidential-election-dynamics-candidates-and-implications [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  4. en.wikipedia.org. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_warfare [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  5. grokipedia.com. Available at: https://grokipedia.com/page/Information_warfare [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  6. journals.indexcopernicus.com. Available at: https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/api/file/viewByFileId/453717.pdf [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  7. voxukraine.org. Available at: https://voxukraine.org/en/your-attention-is-a-battlefield-how-information-overload-becomes-a-weapon [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  8. gov.uk. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/deepfake-detection-technology/deepfake-detection-technology [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  9. deepfakecheck.io. Available at: https://deepfakecheck.io/ [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  10. zerogpt.com. Available at: https://www.zerogpt.com/ai-image-detector [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  11. realitydefender.com. Available at: https://www.realitydefender.com/ [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  12. grokipedia.com. Available at: https://grokipedia.com/page/First_Report_on_the_Public_Credit [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  13. publicfirst.co.uk. Available at: https://www.publicfirst.co.uk/ [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  14. publicfirstlaw.org. Available at: https://www.publicfirstlaw.org/ [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  15. w3.org. Available at: https://www.w3.org/news/2026/first-public-working-drafts-for-the-linked-web-storage-lws-1-0-authentication-suite/ [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  16. bilt.online. Available at: https://bilt.online/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Deepfake-Policy-Brief-Ma-.pdf [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  17. linkedin.com. Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/emergence-deepfakes-technical-basis-documented-harms-detection-olang-y2n3f [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  18. spectrum.ieee.org. Available at: https://spectrum.ieee.org/will-deepfakes-detection-be-ready-for-2020 [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  19. asianinstituteofresearch.org. Available at: https://www.asianinstituteofresearch.org/lhqrarchives/deepfake-technology-in-india-and-world:-foreboding-and-forbidding [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  20. researchgate.net. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381781396_The_Impact_of_Deepfakes_on_Elections_and_Methods_of_Combating_Disinformation_in_the_Virtual_World [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  21. eprints.qut.edu.au. Available at: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/207369/2/The_Rise_of_Deepfakes_ePrints_.pdf [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  22. akitra.com. Available at: https://akitra.com/blog/the-impact-of-deepfakes-on-personal-and-national-security/ [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  23. mishcon.com. Available at: https://www.mishcon.com/news/the-impact-of-deepfakes-on-the-uk-general-election [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  24. auditgeo.co. Available at: https://auditgeo.co/blog/the-impact-of-deepfakes-on-brand-reputation-and-geo [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  25. unric.org. Available at: https://unric.org/en/artificial-intelligence-what-are-deepfakes/ [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  26. gov.uk. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/deepfakes-and-media-literacy/deepfakes-and-media-literacy [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  27. link.springer.com. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42454-024-00054-8 [Accessed: 15 May 2026].
  28. journals.sagepub.com. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14614448241253138 [Accessed: 15 May 2026].