AI Detection of Russian Information Ops: A Field Guide

A single “accidental” sighting in a Georgetown restaurant helped kick off a political media storm in the U.S.—and it didn’t require a fake document, a forged email, or a bot army.

That’s the part most teams miss about modern information operations: the payload isn’t always a lie. Sometimes it’s a carefully timed disclosure that exploits a target’s existing assumptions, incentives, and grudges. The story Glenn Corn recounts from January 2018—when senior Russian intelligence officials visited Washington for counterterrorism talks, then the visit “leaked” into the press—reads like a case study in how to turn normal diplomacy into domestic chaos.

This matters for anyone building or buying AI in defense and national security capabilities. The operational lesson isn’t “watch for deepfakes.” It’s “watch for engineered ambiguity.” AI is uniquely good at spotting the fingerprints of that ambiguity at scale—if you design the system around how influence campaigns actually work.

The real tactic: weaponizing a true event

The core move in the 2018 episode is simple: take a real, sensitive event (intelligence diplomacy), then inject it into a polarized information environment in a way that invites hostile interpretation.

Corn’s account describes how both sides agreed there would be no public statements and no organized media coverage. Yet a Russian journalist “happened” to be nearby, “happened” to see the SVR chief, and stories appeared soon after. The reporting then accreted additional claims—such as the GRU director being present—that Corn says were false.

Here’s what’s strategically interesting: even if the initial “leak” contains no direct fabrication, it still functions as an information operation because it:

• Selects what the public learns (and when)
• Frames a normal engagement as suspicious
• Exploits an existing political narrative to maximize emotional reaction
• Invites others to add speculation, distortion, or outright falsehoods

A modern influence campaign doesn’t need you to believe a lie. It needs you to share a suspicion.

For defense and intelligence leaders, the takeaway is operational: ground truth isn’t enough. If you can’t detect hostile framing and amplification early, you end up fighting a narrative after it’s already hardened.

Why these operations scale so well in late 2025

The environment is even more favorable to influence operations now than it was in 2018. Not because people suddenly became gullible, but because the information supply chain became faster and more fragmented.

The “incentives layer” is the vulnerability

Influence actors repeatedly exploit three incentives:

1. Speed beats accuracy in breaking-news competition
2. Outrage travels farther than nuance on social platforms
3. Partisan confirmation earns engagement and loyalty

Russian-style information operations are effective because they are often low-cost and probability-driven. You don’t need to control every outlet. You need to trigger a reaction from a subset of the ecosystem, and let the rest of the system do the distribution for you.

The hybrid threat blend

By late 2025, most national security teams treat information operations as part of a broader hybrid threat portfolio alongside cyber intrusions, sabotage, and coercive diplomacy. The connective tissue is narrative: explain away your actions, blame the other side, and undermine institutional trust.

AI can help precisely because it can connect dots across channels—news, social, messaging apps, and open web—faster than humans can triage.

What AI can detect that humans usually miss

AI isn’t valuable here because it “knows truth.” It’s valuable because it can spot patterns of coordination and manipulation across a noisy landscape.

1) Narrative emergence and “sudden consensus” detection

A classic signature is when a cluster of accounts and outlets converge rapidly on the same framing.

AI systems can track:

• New phrase adoption (“secret meeting,” “spy chief,” “sanctions,” etc.)
• Semantically similar headlines appearing within tight time windows
• The pivot from straight reporting to insinuation (“sources suggest,” “could imply”)

A practical method is topic clustering + time-series anomaly detection: if a narrative goes from near-zero to widespread repetition in hours, that spike is triage-worthy.

2) Cross-platform amplification mapping

Most organizations still monitor platforms in silos. Influence campaigns don’t operate that way.

AI can build propagation graphs that show:

• Where the narrative first appeared
• Which nodes (accounts, pages, outlets) acted as amplifiers
• Which communities are being targeted (by language, location signals, interest clusters)

This is how you distinguish “viral because newsworthy” from “viral because pushed.”

3) Attribution signals without overclaiming attribution

Attribution is hard and often classified. But you can still detect tradecraft-like behaviors.

AI can surface indicators such as:

• Repeated use of the same content templates
• Account creation bursts prior to a narrative push
• Coordinated posting rhythms (minute-level synchronization)
• Reuse of the same obscure “fact” across multiple outlets

Done well, your system doesn’t say “this is Russia.” It says: “This is coordinated influence behavior consistent with prior operations.” That’s enough to trigger containment.

4) Engineered ambiguity detection

Corn’s account hints at an important point: an operation may begin with a true event, then allow misinformation to bloom downstream.

AI can flag ambiguity tactics by identifying:

• The shift from verifiable facts to speculative claims
• The introduction of “missing pieces” that invite conspiracy filling
• Rapid spread of unverifiable additions (e.g., an extra official supposedly present)

This is where large language models, used carefully, can help summarize claim chains: what was stated, what was implied, and what later articles treated as established.

The response playbook: AI-enabled mitigation that actually works

Detection without response is just doomscrolling with better dashboards. The teams that handle information operations well pair AI monitoring with a disciplined response loop.

Establish “narrative ROE” (rules of engagement)

You need a pre-approved decision matrix that answers:

• What do we acknowledge publicly?
• What do we refuse to validate?
• What do we correct immediately with evidence?
• When do we escalate to platform trust & safety channels?

If the first time you debate this is during a spike, you’ve already lost time.

Build a rapid “truth release” capability

When the facts are on your side, speed matters. In the 2018 scenario, one reason the leak stung was that the public lacked context: interagency coordination, purpose of the meetings, and precedent.

A modern countermeasure is a structured disclosure kit ready to deploy:

• A timeline (what happened, when)
• What was authorized and by whom (at the appropriate classification level)
• What didn’t happen (explicitly stated)
• A short FAQ for journalists and stakeholders

AI helps by generating draft Q&A, monitoring what questions people are asking, and tracking which misconceptions are spreading.

Use “pre-bunking” for predictable angles

If a sensitive engagement is scheduled, assume it can be weaponized. Pre-bunking isn’t propaganda; it’s preparation.

Examples:

• Brief key committees and oversight bodies early
• Prepare neutral language for why engagement occurs (e.g., counterterrorism deconfliction)
• Socialize precedents (this has happened in prior administrations)

AI helps identify likely attack frames based on past cycles and current domestic tensions.

How to deploy AI for information operations without making things worse

AI can reduce risk—or create new risk—depending on governance. I’ve found three guardrails separate mature programs from performative ones.

1) Treat AI outputs as intelligence leads, not verdicts

The right workflow is: AI flags → analyst validates → decision authority acts.

If your comms team starts rebutting AI-generated “findings” without human verification, you’ll eventually amplify a false claim yourself.

2) Keep the model grounded in evidence you can cite internally

Influence response often becomes a credibility contest. Your internal tooling should preserve provenance:

• Screenshots or archived copies of source posts
• Timestamps and diffusion paths
• Which claims are confirmed, disputed, or unknown

That record matters later for oversight, audits, and lessons learned.

3) Measure what matters: time-to-detection and belief persistence

Most organizations track vanity metrics (mentions, impressions). Better metrics include:

• MTTD (Mean Time to Detect) a narrative spike
• MTTR (Mean Time to Respond) with validated context
• Persistence of false belief in targeted communities (surveying or proxy signals)
• Cost imposed on adversary (burned accounts, disrupted channels)

If your AI program can’t show improved MTTD and MTTR over a quarter, it’s not operational yet.

People also ask: “Isn’t this just media noise?”

No. Media noise is random. An information operation is purposeful friction inserted into a society’s decision-making.

The 2018 episode demonstrates how an adversary can exploit domestic polarization by catalyzing suspicion around routine statecraft. You don’t need to invent scandals; you create an information environment where scandals are the default interpretation.

For defense and national security teams, the mission is straightforward: detect coordinated narrative manipulation early, reduce ambiguity fast, and protect institutional trust without overreacting.

Where this fits in the AI in Defense & National Security series

This series often focuses on sensors, cyber defense, and intelligence analysis. Information operations sit at the intersection of all three. They’re an attack on the decision layer—command judgment, public consent, and alliance cohesion.

AI won’t replace human discernment, but it can dramatically improve the one thing influence operators count on: your delay. The faster you see the narrative forming, the more options you have—quiet clarification, proactive transparency, targeted disruption, or simply refusing to feed the fire.

If you’re building resilience against Russian-style information operations, the question to ask your team this quarter is not “Can we detect deepfakes?” It’s: “Can we detect engineered ambiguity and coordinated amplification before it sets the agenda?”

---

If your organization is evaluating AI for disinformation detection, influence monitoring, or hybrid threat response, consider running a short pilot focused on time-to-detection and cross-platform propagation mapping. The difference between a dashboard and a capability is a tested response loop.