Defending Democracy: Why We Must Treat the Information Space as Strategic Terrain

In a recent article on SWI Swiss Info, Switzerland’s Federal Councillor for Defence, Martin Pfister, warned that foreign influence activities, especially from Russian sources, the Swiss information space with the aim of undermining trust in democratic institutions and dividing society. He pointed to coordinated campaigns, including widespread dissemination of misleading content, and stressed the essential role that trustworthy media and media literacy play in countering these threats.

According to the article, the best-known Russian outlets, Russia Today and Pravda, publish between 800 and 900 articles per month in Switzerland, most of which qualify as disinformation. This is not isolated to Switzerland: across Europe, governments and multi-national organizations are recognizing that hybrid threats, blending cyber, information, and influence operations, are increasing in frequency and sophistication.

False claims about Swiss neutrality are circulating internationally. "Is Switzerland still neutral?" People ask Google this question 14,000 times a month (outside Switzerland and in English).  Source: SWI Swiss Info

We often treat information threats as communication risks — matters for PR, marketing, or compliance teams. The Defence Minister’s framing elevates them to strategic security risks. Disinformation campaigns do not merely disrupt narratives; they can degrade institutional trust, fracture societal cohesion, and ultimately weaken democratic legitimacy. That makes the information environment a governance issue, not just a tactical concern.

Unlike traditional cyber threats, influence operations exploit beliefs and perceptions. They leverage social media amplification, tailored messaging and, increasingly, generative technologies, meaning that defensive postures must blend technical, cultural, and organizational responses.

• Risk taxonomy adjustment: Treat influence operations as a business-critical threat vector alongside cyberattacks and geopolitical risk assessments.

• Strategic governance ownership: Information risk must be integrated into enterprise risk frameworks and overseen at board or executive levels, not siloed in communications.

• Cross-functional coordination: Security, communications, compliance, and public affairs teams must jointly plan for detection, response, and public messaging coherence.

• Investment in resilience: Supporting high-quality journalism, community media literacy, and transparent internal communication mechanisms strengthens systemic resilience.

• Scenario planning: Regular tabletop exercises should incorporate hybrid threat scenarios that involve narrative manipulation, social polarization, and brand trust erosion.

In a world where influence campaigns cross borders as readily as data packets, defending your organization’s mission is not just about firewalls and patching. It is about safeguarding trust in your institution, in your communications, and in the shared narratives that hold markets and societies together. Leaders who elevate information risk to the strategic agenda will be better prepared for the hybrid challenges shaping 2026 and beyond.