Realpolitik, fake news, and sociopathic dictators are nothing new. They date back more than two millennia. In their time, the social mechanisms and technology of the day were employed. Ancient Rome’s Emperor Augustus is but one example. The word realpolitik, invented in Germany in the mid-nineteenth century, describes the application of diplomacy and force in the pursuit of selfish state interests. Count Otto von Bismarck, the “Iron Chancellor,” was another master of ruthless realpolitik.

Fake news is modern slang for purposeful disinformation spread as real news. Fake news makes claims that the maker knows to be false, but intentionally packages and distributes to seem genuine, to serve their political and military purposes. English-language fake news, used as wartime propaganda, was already commonplace by the time of the English Civil War (1642–1651). It also vexed the American founding fathers during the American Revolution (1775–1781).

Sociopathic dictators have a serious psychological disorder characterized by constant deceitful manipulation and a complete lack of regard for other people. When a very ambitious and successful sociopath rises to be head of state, taking control of national armies and arsenals and even nuclear weapons, the results can be devastating.

Infamous examples of twentieth-century dictators who practiced realpolitik, propagated fake news, and were sociopaths include Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Mao Zedong. Between them, their amoral aggression and complete disregard for lives caused the deaths of tens of millions.

Understanding these three historical and contemporary phenomena is essential for America to effectively address national security concerns. Acting together, realpolitik, fake news, and sociopathy shape adversary strategic behavior and work to the United States’ serious detriment. During the nuclear age and the social media era, the risks due to this “trinary weapon” skyrocketed.

Coping with these clear and present dangers calls for a nuanced and multidisciplinary, multiagency approach to deterrence and defense. This approach needs to go well beyond traditional military strategy that focuses on applying force while maintaining secrecy. Three lines of effort are important to help mitigate the above-mentioned trinary aspects of coercive statecraft.

First, multilateral engagement is important for combating the ill effects of enemy realpolitik. Just as in World War I, World War II, and the Cold War, collective international efforts by like-minded democracies are vital to resisting expansionist tyranny. Further strengthening multilateral frameworks and alliances, to address common security challenges and deter adversarial behavior, is a useful approach. Important examples include expanding NATO and rationalizing its burden sharing. Expanding AUKUS, a trilateral security partnership between Australia, the UK, and the US, to include Japan and other Asia-Pacific allies, such as South Korea and Canada, is another option.

Second, strategic communication and information resilience is important. These hybrid-warfare, offensive and defensive weapons need further development by the United States. Clear and consistent messaging is indispensable to effectively convey America’s values and goals and to counteract bad-actor manipulation. This can help immunize allies against falling for adversary disinformation and protect victims of repression from enemy brainwashing.

To this end, enhancing resilience against fake news requires expansion within the United States. This can be done using media literacy programs, non-partisan fact-checking mechanisms, and widespread public awareness campaigns. Any information warfare efforts the US employs to target adversary populations needs to meet high legal and ethical standards. It must also be tempered by stark realism about the utility of disinformation. In short, unconstrained free speech requires an informed public.

Third, psychological profiling techniques, now standard practice in law enforcement, need further development to identify and mitigate the influence of sociopathic dictators in shaping strategic events. Such hyper-threatening individuals could, perhaps, be identified mid-career, before rising to lead nations. Overt and covert efforts to remediate or interdict the rise of such dangerously pathological persons is a tricky matter, but one the Pentagon, State Department, and Central Intelligence Agency should not neglect. This line of effort can adapt and extend approaches refined since September 11, 2001, to better understand and short circuit mental processes behind progressive radicalization leading to violent terrorism.

These lines of effort need more urgent furthering on a truly whole-of-nation basis. Government officials and private-sector executives can turn their efforts to developing the required capabilities. Social media companies are already expert at manipulating Americans. Perhaps it is time their efforts are employed for the nation rather than against it.

By addressing these new-old challenges head-on and implementing effective countering strategies, America can enhance its defense against the realpolitik and disinformation employed by sociopathic dictators. By doing so, the United States and its allies safely navigate the complexities of modern geopolitics and growing three body problem.

Aaron Holland is an Analyst at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies. Joe Buff is a risk-mitigation actuary researching modern nuclear deterrence and arms control. The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own.

Realpolitik and Fake News Complicate Nuclear Deterrence was originally published on Global Security Review.

Emblematic of Trump, despite warnings from various journalism watchdog groups that the global trend of his phrase may have restrictive and even deadly consequences – witness the suspected execution of columnist Jamal Khashoggi by the Saudi government, as well as the more recent anonymous delivery of a pipe bomb to CNN’s New York offices – the president seems to be taking the micro-narcissist view of the problem.  He expresses pride that a phrase he coined is gaining popularity around the world instead of focusing on the likelihood that his incessant criticism may likely be contributing to crackdowns by autocratic governments on freedom of expression and the press globally.

Ever resilient against criticism, if also ironically hyper-sensitive, Trump has ignored the United States’ precipitous fall to 45^th place in the World Press Freedom Index because of his anti-news media rhetoric. And while it cannot be proven as causal, there does seem to be a strong inverse correlation between this decline and the increase around the globe of arrests and the physical harassment of journalists.

The strongest sign that “fake news” is more than a passing political fad is the disturbing example of a world leader within the cradle of democracy giving in to the temptation of using it as a weapon.  France’s Emmanuel Macron succeeded in passing a law which takes effect within three months of a general election and allows for emergency governmental action to block ‘manipulative and misleading information’ within 48 hours of it being brought before a judge.

What so disturbed Macron was his sense of being the target during 2017 of a vicious and fallacious disinformation campaign by political opponents.  Sound familiar?

There is no doubt that France feels confident that it has crafted a rational ‘golden middle’ path through the fake news debate by limiting the time frame in which the law can be utilized (strictly before general elections) and by requiring the potential target of government action to be brought before the judiciary for formal legal approval.  But the reality is that this French initiative could create its own unintended consequences, as it no longer allows isolates press restrictions to the realm of dictators.  Indeed, Macron’s move has given flexibility to stable democracies to do similar undemocratic things.

Meantime, what of those nation states that might be defined as decidedly less democratic – perhaps as autocratic or semi-autocratic?  How are they dealing with “fake news”?  Here’s a quick world tour:

• Belarus: passed media laws that permit the government to prosecute people who spread ‘false information online.’ The laws spread further into allowing the government to potentially block websites deemed in violation.
• Brazil: the Federal Police announced the creation of a special task force to identify, locate, and punish authors of fake news.
• Cambodia: in the weeks leading up to the country’s national elections, the government passed measures that gave it the right to block websites and other forms of media it deemed a ‘danger to national security.’
• Croatia: similar to a move pursued in Germany, Croatian officials passed a law meant to stop the spread of hate speech and misinformation on social media platforms.
• Egypt: the government now openly regulates any social media accounts that have large followings in order to make sure misinformation is not spread throughout the country.
• Indonesia: a newly-formed National Cyber and Encryption Agency was tasked to help intelligence and police agencies combat online disinformation and social media hoaxes.
• Kenya: the national government passed laws criminalizing 17 different forms of online activity.
• Russia: despite being the most common target of countries around the world that criticize states trying to foment fake news, it didn’t stop Russia from introducing its own domestic legislation against disinformation.
• Tanzania: the government, growing ever more concerned about the pervasiveness of online misinformation, has levied several possible legal initiatives that would constrict and/or punish online publishers.

While this list is by no means exhaustive, it suggests a general global trend:  governments are actively attempting to regulate, monitor, limit, and restrict citizen impact within online social/political participation.

Through it all, there never seems to be any explicit attempt to define and describe fake news. Keeping terms amorphous and ambiguous allows governments to advantageously use the slippery slope approach to opposition forces: “If you are against me I will just make sure the arguments you make are deemed fake news.”

Indeed, many if not most of the initiatives do not seem to be motivated by a desire to improve the quality of news and resource information for the public. Instead, they are structured to simply provide greater obstacles and legal roadblocks to grassroots organizations that are unwilling to be in lockstep with central authorities. The bottom line: Many of these fake news policies are really just poorly masked proposals to prevent a more significant and healthy development of civil society in nations that are in desperate need of such development.

Finally, it is not a coincidence that in every case, regardless of political system or regime, there is no mention or discussion of repercussions and consequences on the governments or their officials if they are found guilty of spreading fake news themselves – perhaps because governments have been issuing fake news – we used to call it propaganda – for ages.

If you accept all this to be true, then you are left with one very disturbing political conclusion about these fake news initiatives: they are not efforts to improve the quality of political dialogue but ultimately to shut down that dialogue altogether.

When governments seem intent to weaponize alleged fake news and use it to bludgeon opponents and opposition, then the ultimate political consequence is the crippling of public oversight, citizen criticism, and grassroots activism.

Which leads us back to the United States and President Trump.  Many here seem to view President Trump’s tirades against fake news with bemusement, yet a lack of real concern due to their enduring faith in the institutions of American democracy and its innate principles safeguarding freedom of the press, association, and expression. That is all well and good.  But many of the governments around the world, clearly inspired by Trumpian rhetoric, are not beholden to our check-and-balance structural limitations.  As such, their efforts do not bolster the quality of their politics but serve only to solidify their power.

The Unintended Consequences of Fake News was originally published on Global Security Review.