Russia is engaged in a disinformation war — whether we like it or not, or respond or not. Can it be called a war if only one side is in it? The United States is in it, to a degree. But our effort is half-hearted, at best.

I have written a piece on this subject, appearing on the homepage today: here. On the Corner, I’d like to amplify a bit.

Daniel Fried is a retired U.S. diplomat, a onetime ambassador to Poland, for instance. About social-media platforms, he has said, “They don’t care about political concerns. They’re not interested in war. But war is interested in them.” (Here he is adapting Trotsky, of course.)

You Might Like

To one of his rallies last month, President Trump said, “I like Putin, he likes me.” That is no doubt true. But does Putin like you and me, or any other American citizen?

Thomas Kent quotes Ambassador Fried in his new book, Striking Back: Overt and Covert Options to Combat Russian Disinformation. Kent is a former president of RFE/RL (our combination of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty). I did a Q&A podcast with him, here. I also did a podcast with Jamie Fly, another past president of RFE/RL. That podcast is here. Recently, Fly gave testimony before Congress on Russian disinformation.

It is a very important topic.

The Kremlin has been at this game for a long time, of course. The Soviet Union established an agency for disinformation in 1923. A disinformation war is one of the practices that carried over from the Soviet Union to contemporary Russia — particularly with the ex–KGB colonel in charge.

My critics — left-wing and right-wing — often tell me, “Russia is not the Soviet Union, you know!” Oh, I know. But does the Kremlin? Often they don’t act like it.

Let me pause for a quick note on the difference between “misinformation” and “disinformation.” In today’s piece, I write,

“Misinformation” is an innocent mistake: You report that Mr. Smith lives on Elm Street when he in fact lives on Maple Street. On learning of this error, you correct it. “Disinformation” is not innocent. It is a lie, intended to achieve a political end.

One of the Soviet Union’s great disinformation successes was its AIDS hoax: the claim that this virus was concocted by the U.S. government in a Maryland laboratory for the purpose of decimating black people, gay people, intravenous-drug users, and other “undesirables.” It’s amazing how many Americans believed that. I wrote about it in a column last year, here. The Soviets concocted a lie that lingers to this day.

You know how it began? With a single plant in an Indian newspaper (the Patriot). It built from there — paper to paper, until Spike Lee and other celebrities were trumpeting it. Today, of course, communication is lightning fast.

Have some Jonathan Swift: “Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect.”

In 2020, Kremlin disinformation artists have another virus to play with. They say that COVID-19 is an American bioweapon. That U.S. soldiers, serving in NATO units, are infecting local populations with it. That Bill Gates is behind it all. Etc.

One great question about the disinformation war is, Should the United States, and other democracies, fight back, seriously? Should we counter the lies and promote democratic values, over authoritarian ones? There are objections to fighting back, which I address in my piece. Here, I would like to quote Tom Kent:

. . . while Western companies never relent in defending their brands and market share, Western democracies took for granted after the Cold War that political liberty had become the world’s natural condition. Efforts to campaign for democracy abroad, and to teach civic consciousness at home, declined in what policymakers increasingly saw as a post-conflict world.

I often think of what Radek Sikorski told me, in a podcast a couple of years ago. (He is the Polish statesman, politician, writer, and journalist, who, in a different age, worked for National Review.) He said that democratic values have to be argued for, constantly. Generation after generation. New people are born — up for grabs — and older people have to be reminded.

Anti-democrats never rest. They never let up, in trying to achieve the world they want. If only democrats were half as energetic . . .

In our Q&A, Tom Kent said that Russia is the disinformation champion, yes — the state that is best, and most persistent, at this dark, destructive art. But anyone can play the game now. Software is increasingly available. You can make bots, doctor photos — the works. Private companies will do your disinformation for you. They even have customer-support lines.

How do you like that?

Last month, Christopher Wray, the FBI director, gave some testimony before Congress. Asked about the Kremlin and its machinations, Wray said, “We certainly have seen very active, very active efforts by the Russians to influence our election in 2020.” They are doing what they can to “sow divisiveness and discord.” Wray also spoke about how to navigate the media — what to consume.

I am often asking people about this: What do you read? What do you watch? What do you listen to? What’s your media diet? I put this question, or these questions, to both Tom Kent and Jamie Fly.

I’ll quote a little from the latter’s congressional testimony: “Information is more accessible than ever, yet access to unbiased, objective information is increasingly difficult to obtain.” Well observed.

And here is Director Wray, also before Congress: “I would encourage people to be critical thinkers, and to get their news from a variety of sources and make up their own mind, and be a skeptical, discerning electorate — which is what I think is the best defense against malign foreign influence.”

Anyway, to be continued, of course (whether we like it or not). My piece on disinformation, once more, can be found here.