The Role of Deepfakes in Modern Global Conflicts The rise of artificial intelligence has introduced new dimensions to international conflict, particularly through the use of deepfakes. As generative AI tools turn into more accessible, state and non-state actors are increasingly leveraging synthetic media to influence perceptions, spread disinformation, and conduct cognitive warfare. Understanding how deepfakes function in modern conflicts is essential for policymakers, military planners, and the public alike. Deepfakes as Tools in Information Warfare Modern conflicts extend beyond physical battlefields into the realm of information warfare, where deepfakes play a growing role. According to Yudho Giri Sucahyo, Head of the Cyber Studies Center at the Police Science College of the Indonesian National Police Education and Training Institute, deepfakes are used to shape public emotions, perceptions, and opinions during conflicts. He notes that manipulative content such as fake speeches and engineered attack videos has become an effective propaganda tool for influencing public sentiment. While the use of deepfake videos has increased, especially on social media, it has not yet fully surpassed traditional disinformation methods like edited texts and images. Sucahyo attributes the growing prevalence of deepfakes online to advancements in generative AI technology. Impact on Public Trust and Perception One of the most significant dangers of deepfakes in conflict settings is their potential to erode public trust in information. Sucahyo warns that widespread exposure to convincing false content can lead to a situation where the public can no longer distinguish between real and fabricated media. This erosion of trust undermines societal cohesion and complicates efforts to respond to actual crises. In Indonesia, efforts to improve digital literacy through the Ministry of Communication and Information have been hindered by geographic challenges and the country’s large population, resulting in uneven public awareness of deepfake threats. Military Interest and Ethical Considerations The use of deepfakes is not limited to adversarial actors. Reporting by Sam Biddle in The Intercept revealed that the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) is actively exploring deepfake capabilities for influencing foreign audiences. Biddle’s article, based on a publicly available USSOCOM procurement document, confirmed that the U.S. Military is examining the technology for potential use in information operations. This development raises ethical and legal questions, particularly given past U.S. Government warnings about the dangers of deepfakes to democratic societies. Analysts note that while USSOCOM’s interest reflects its role as a technological innovator within the Department of Defense, the military must carefully weigh the potential advantages of deepfakes against their well-documented risks, including deception, escalation, and unintended consequences. Frameworks for Responsible Use To address these concerns, experts have proposed frameworks for evaluating the ethical and legal use of machine-manipulated media in armed conflict. Such frameworks aim to guide military forces in determining when and how deepfakes might be employed responsibly, considering factors like proportionality, distinction, and adherence to international humanitarian law. These discussions emphasize the need for transparency, accountability, and clear policy guidelines as deepfake technology continues to evolve. Conclusion Deepfakes have emerged as a significant tool in modern global conflicts, capable of influencing perceptions, spreading disinformation, and challenging the integrity of information ecosystems. While their current use remains supplementary to older forms of propaganda, rapid advancements in AI suggest their role will likely grow. Addressing the challenges posed by deepfakes requires coordinated efforts in digital literacy, technological detection, policy development, and international cooperation to mitigate harm while preserving legitimate uses of AI in communication and defense.
50