Foreign Malign Influence (FMI) operations are reshaping nuclear deterrence discourse through coordinated narrative campaigns designed to legitimize doctrinal shifts by China and Russia. These narratives portray lowered nuclear thresholds and joint defense posture as logical, defensive responses to U.S. and NATO activities—obscuring escalation risks while blurring lines between deterrence and provocation. Fueled by state-controlled and proxy media ecosystems, FMI efforts are reframing U.S. nuclear policy as destabilizing, Western arms control as hypocritical, and China-Russia collaboration as peaceful multilateralism.
Russian and Chinese FMIs have mastered a dual-pronged strategy—legitimize their nuclear assertiveness and demonize U.S. defensive posture. These campaigns saturate digital environments with charged yet seemingly balanced messaging to promote both highly inflammatory and seemingly innocuous political messaging side by side. FMIs evoke historical grievances and exploit intra-alliance fractures, especially in Europe and Southeast Asia, to veil state narratives and erode U.S. credibility.
Failing to track these strategic risks creates an international diplomatic framework where echo chambers and targeted populations have an outsized impact on nuclear thresholds. By targeting populations directly affected by ongoing territorial disputes (viz., Taiwan and the hot conflict in Ukraine), FMI legitimize not only the use of deadly force but the potential justification of a nuclear first strike to protect national interests. FMI narrative campaigns seek to reduce the blowback from both international and domestic audiences in the case of a tactical nuclear deployment. With reduced retribution from voting blocs, FMI aligned with, for example, Russian interests, will have increased the appetite for limited nuclear strikes and lowered the threshold for conflict between nuclear states.
While interdicting FMI strategic messaging may be difficult, bringing public awareness to FMI NARINT campaigns can critically counteract the potential for US audiences to aid Russian strategic initiatives. Unabated, FMI can influence audiences to condemn US sanctions against the "victim" Russia or oppose defensive NATO posturing due to the supposedly "inflammatory" nature of such moves. These narrative attacks pose a direct threat to the credibility of U.S. nuclear deterrence by painting American security commitments as provocative or unreliable. As adversaries amplify stories of U.S. weakness, moral culpability, or ongoing disorganization and internal conflict (due to the democratic process), allies may begin to doubt the U.S. willingness to uphold extended deterrence commitments—particularly in Europe and East Asia. This narrative erosion could encourage allied nations to hedge through independent nuclear capabilities or reduced cooperation on sanctions or joint exercises, fragmenting the longstanding consensus behind the nonproliferation regime.
What to Watch:
Expect sustained amplification of U.S. nuclear deployments as destabilizing forces, particularly in conjunction with diplomatic events (e.g., NATO summits, AUKUS milestones, arms treaty negotiations). Watch for narrative spikes around the deployment of defense technology (THAAD, Aegis Ashore, space-based assets) and domestic U.S. political controversies, especially those casting doubt on allied cohesion or arms control consistency.
EdgeTheory tracked narratives from FMI, identifying Russia-aligned sources comprising the majority of amplifiers on Nuclear Doctrine narrative items. FMIs are defined as sources, accounts, or individuals promoting narratives online that align with malign goals of foreign entities, primarily aligned with Russian or Chinese interests. By compiling thousands of articles, posts, and social media items, EdgeTheory analytic tools identified the following primary influence strategies from prominent FMIs.
Screenshot of geospatial narrative origins (red) and targets (yellow) from EdgeTheory brief on “China-Russia Nuclear Doctrine”
These FMI strategies correlate to narratives that target vulnerable populations for disinformation campaigns and psychological warfare. Strategies often amplify narratives suggesting that the U.S. challenges the global order and creates disequilibrium.
Summary of narrative strategies categorizing most amplified sources in EdgeTheory Briefs
Russian and Chinese sources amplify the narrative spread, exposing an increase in anti-Western hostility and a shift toward global multilateralism linked to increasing national security and diplomatic concerns.
TASS and Global Times (China) are the main sources of Russian and Chinese narrative strategy, generating original content and republishing aligned sources to reinforce ideations of their status in the Global Order and anti-Western narratives. Their amplification rates expose a unified initiative to shape global opinion and leverage international nuclear doctrine.
These narratives flow through Russia-based channels and align with strategies used by other pro-Russian sources.
FMIs, led by TASS and South China Morning Post, frame Russia as calculated and cautious due to expansion of US defence and nuclear capabilities increasing under Trump. Top FMIs frame Russia’s nuclear doctrine in a defensive light, leveraging wording such as Russia’s goal of “emphasizing strategic stability and deterrence.” The Russian International Affairs Council even “advocates for continued arms control” in response to Western escalation. These sources seek to legitimize Russia’s actions by portraying them as a justified paragon of innocence responding to other world powers disrupting a multilateral global order.
Russia amplifies its claims by leveraging US escalation and Western betrayal of non-proliferation treaties (i.e. France). EdgeTheory briefs identified Glasgow and London as hubs of these narrative attacks.
Screenshot from EdgeTheory Brief on China-Russia Nuclear Doctrine with narrative sources (yellow) and targets (red)
EdgeTheory’s brief on China-Russia Nuclear Doctrine labels Russia’s nuclear strategic decisions as reactions to US and NATO moves, reinforcing narratives that normalize nuclear options and raise escalation risks in Europe and Asia. EdgeTheory briefs indicate this strategy is employed across Europe, India, and Asia. This framing technique is an attempt to portray Russia as a defensively minded country, thereby increasing regime and military strategy legitimacy and improving Russia’s diplomatic and defense opportunities.
EdgeTheory brief on China-Russia Nuclear doctrine with highlighted FMI tactics
Russia uses “neutral and cautious tones” to seemingly provide balanced analysis. This article from the Russian International Affairs Council frames the recent decision to lower Russia’s nuclear threshold as a response to the Ukraine conflict and Trump’s election.
While Russian decision makers could have raised the nuclear threshold to signal goodwill, FMI have instead promoted a contradictory stance where Russia is both an advocate for “continued arms control” and is justified in lowering its nuclear threshold. This dual advocacy for increased and reduced nuclear restraint enables FMI to selectively appeal to vulnerable audiences by unilaterally demonizing Russia’s strategic competitors.
Image from Russian International Affairs Council establishing newfound nuclear doctrine
This emphasis on the Ukraine conflict and election of Donald Trump is particularly effective in promoting anti-Western sentiment because it draws attention to the growing disparity between the US and other countries. The shift in U.S. foreign policy is framed as a threat to Russian interests. The Russian International Affairs Council states that Russia is enacting “doctrinal shift from nuclear deterrence to nuclear intimidation”. This article describes Russia as a retaliatory and defensive nuclear power with the ability to influence other countries' nuclear capabilities. This high Russian ideology places the Ukraine conflict as a proxy war between Russia, NATO, and the greater Western hemisphere.
Pro-Russian narratives are portrayed by FMI as protecting Russian interests, maintaining regional power, international governance, and as a protector of traditional non-western influence within the current global order.
Image from EdgeTheory comparing Russian sources charged language
This information campaign allows Russian narratives to exploit and deepen divisions within NATO, particularly by amplifying existing differences among Western allies regarding nuclear policy. These narratives were posted in English and use language such as “lower the threshold for nuclear response”, “prioritizing security of allies”, and “protecting sovereignty [by] expanding the list of threats” to express a peaceful defensive posture.
Other Foreign Malign Influencers (FMI) reinforce this narrative strategy by portraying Russia’s decision to lower its nuclear threshold as a legitimate policy choice. They frame the concentration of final decision-making authority in President Putin as a safeguard against potential coups or efforts by military factions seeking escalation. However, this centralization of power ultimately increases—rather than reduces—strategic risk, highlighting a key framing technique employed by these FMI. These narratives are amplified through articles and social media posts that are word for word the same then published by multiple by state run sources such as TASS or Sputnik.
Image from user Sputnik’s Weibo account highlighting a Russian shift in nuclear doctrine published on January 3rd, 2025
This weibo post from Russian source “Sputnik” highlights the framing of Russia’s decision to lower the nuclear threshold as “an extreme measure to defend the state regime. The post also uses charged language to describe Washington as “extremely worried about such developments.”
Image from Weibo user “The Paper” post about Russian nuclear doctrine
Another post from Weibo user “The Paper” discusses Russia’s newfound decision to possibly use nuclear weapons when faced with conventional weapons. This was posted by a Chinese source with increased focus on Russia’s lowered nuclear threshold when facing conventional threats.
EdgeTheory NARINT brief highlights FMI explanation
China’s South China Morning Post advances this framing by aligning with Russia’s claims and emphasizing how U.S. missile defense and submarine deployments across the Indo-Pacific threaten regional stability. Articles argue that China’s modernization is “inevitable” in the face of Western aggression. Russia and China jointly portray arms control collapse as triggered by the West—absolving themselves of fault and reframing treaty violations as justified, preemptive actions. These narratives use charged language such as “US obsession with absolute security” or “escalation of arms race and militarization of space with space-based weaponry as a key concern.”
Image of Twitter Post from SCMP on US & Russia clash on Nuclear Doctrine
This post links to an article which sought to prevent US supremacy in an orbital arms race. The article highlights heightened tensions between China, Russia, and the US concerning the golden dome and other types of possible weaponry.
Image of Youtube video from CNN News 18 highlighting Russia’s Nuclear Perspective
This video from CNN News 18 is an interview of Putin via Reuters. In the video, Putin claims that he hopes not to use nuclear weapons but that Ukraine and other Western sources are provoking them to change their nuclear strategy for protection of their nation.
Image from EdgeTheory briefs comparing language in SCMP articles
EdgeTheory briefs found strong amplification of this narrative in Southeast Asia, India, France, Serbia, and Washington with message saturation rising sharply after Trump’s NATO criticism and Macron’s nuclear autonomy speech. TASS and SCMP seek to exploit Western tensions, positioning themselves as neutral observers of Western double standards. Our brief highlights how this framing is used to degrade trust in U.S. alliances while increasing perceived legitimacy of Russian and Chinese nuclear postures.
Screenshot from EdgeTheory Brief on TASS narrative sources from Moscow (yellow) and targets such as France, Serbia, and Washington (red)
These narratives allow Russia and China to blur the lines between escalation and deterrence—positioning nuclear readiness a measure of peace preservation, not aggression. Targeting UN voting blocs and BRICS members, FMI reframes changes to nuclear doctrine as multilateral, defensive adaptations to U.S. aggression.
FMIs portray U.S. forward deployment of nuclear assets and refusal to engage in arms control regimes as evidence of hegemonic aggression that undermines global stability. Chinese and Russian state-backed sources frame missile defense deployments, such as THAAD in South Korea and Aegis Ashore systems in Eastern Europe, as attempts to achieve “absolute security” at the expense of strategic balance. These systems are often depicted not as defensive, but as offensive enablers that escalate tensions and provoke countermeasures.
Chinese sources in particular emphasize the position that US defensive measures directly contribute to international tensions. The May 9 “Joint Statement of the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation on Global Strategic Stability” claimed that the proposed “Golden Dome” defense missile system “wholly negates the core principle that offensive and defensive strategic weapons are inseparable—a principle essential to global strategic stability.” By promoting this military doctrine, FMI positioned the US in a double bind where improving defense incites conflict and reducing defensive spending increases vulnerability, both options creating military risks.
China’s Xinhua News Source has amplified critiques labeling U.S. missile defense architecture as a cover for a nuclear first-strike capability. This messaging has been coordinated across Twitter and Telegram; these deployments focus largely on narratives of Western betrayal of Cold War-era arms control norms. However, China’s expansion of its nuclear arsenal has been a point of contention between the West and China. The article states “The so-called concerns expressed by the United States and Japan about China’s nuclear policy are completely divorced from reality and are malicious false narratives. China adheres to a no-first-use nuclear policy, commits not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states and nuclear-weapon-free zones, and has always maintained its nuclear capabilities at the minimum level required for national security. China does not participate in any form of arms race."
Image of Xinhua article in EdgeTheory article
This narrative frequently intersects with criticism of U.S. nuclear sharing agreements with NATO, which FMIs label as "nuclear colonialism." Russian spokespeople have repeatedly cited nuclear sharing with non-nuclear states as violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In 2023, TASS wrote articles framing U.S. nuclear posture as "reckless and escalatory," particularly after discussions of deploying new tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.
The South China Morning Post and regional outlets such as The Jakarta Post echoed these themes, often through guest commentary and op-eds warning that U.S. refusal to ratify arms control treaties—such as the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) or a proposed Space Arms Ban—signals bad-faith engagement.
Image from the Jakarta Post on ASEAN’s view of AUKUS’
These narratives are part of a broader effort to delegitimize U.S. strategic intentions and promote a vision of multipolar arms governance. By aligning themselves rhetorically with international law and nonproliferation ideals, FMIs position China and Russia as stable alternatives to U.S. militarism—ignoring their own expansions in space and nuclear posturing.
FMI leverages skewed historical events to amplify this narrative especially utilizing social media for amplification. Top Items identified by EdgeTheory briefs sorted by amplifications are dominated by social media (X and Facebook).
Image from EdgeTheory Brief Highlighting Social Media Amplification
The Anadolu Agency has over 710 narrative amplifications publications with an average of 23.7 per day. The account has 240,000 followers with 310,000 posts with a focus on middle eastern politics and news. This source serves as an amplification to Russia’s revised nuclear doctrine.
The CounterCurrents account originates from India. Meanwhile the CounterCurrents account amplifies 304 different narratives with an average of 10 per day. The account has 8,000+ followers and 49,000 posts. This source provides perspective on European nuclear doctrine and talks on potentially sparking tensions with Russia.
It is important to note that both China and Russia-aligned sources leverage historical perspectives to assert contemporary accusations that promote national interests. Across most amplified items, sources consistently promote narratives that frame Russia and China as deeply cooperative and historically successful nuclear powers, occasionally also utilizing sarcasm, as identified by EdgeTheory incitement measurements.
Image from EdgeTheory brief providing current and historical context on nuclear doctrine
Filtering for the most inflammatory posts, EdgeTheory identified that these items are perpetuated via traditional digital messaging using blogs, publications, and RSS feeds. So while posts with the most reach are perpetuated through social media, the most inflammatory posts tend to remain on traditional news service sites, indicating persistent echo chambers for more radical propositions.
EdgeTheory brief comparing incitement
EdgeTheory has identified multiple inflammatory narratives that are also amplified by secondary sources. The first narrative is that the West’s increased security measures have forced other countries to respond with the lowering of the nuclear threshold. Russian sources specifically equate the West with Ukraine. EdgeTheory’s real-time narrative classifiers note that these narratives are factually inaccurate with varying degrees.
Regarding nuclear non-proliferation agreements, Iran stands the most to lose in the information domain, since it has not yet achieved its first nuclear arsenal. Leveraging public opinion to at least tangentially approve of dual use infrastructure development with international corporations could be accomplished through coordinated narrative campaigns that resonate with voters, eventually influencing politicians to take an easier stance on Iran. For this reason, we see Iran as the focal point of narratives originating discussion on the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty. These narratives characterize the US in violation of such treaties and as a source of global aggression while Iran is peacefully enriching uranium for national security.
Image from EdgeTheory brief highlighting Iran’s nuclear doctrine
This framing reinforces skepticism among Global South audiences, particularly in Southeast Asia and Africa, where postcolonial narratives are intertwined with opposition to perceived Western double standards. These sources show significant alignment of these themes during the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and the Conference on Disarmament, where China and Russia pushed for alternative security architectures free from U.S. influence.
FMIs position themselves as defenders of global strategic balance by reframing nuclear postures through anti-Western, anti-militarist narratives. Russian, Chinese, and aligned sources emphasize their commitment to peace and nonproliferation while painting U.S. actions—such as missile deployments and treaty withdrawals—as provocations that threaten global stability. Through speeches, diplomatic statements, and widespread social media amplification, these influencers present themselves as responsible stewards of security against a destabilizing, hegemonic West. This narrative construction often includes appeals to multipolarity, regional sovereignty, and the decolonization of global order.
Image of article from Ministry of Foreign Affairs from The People’s Republic of China
Recently, Russia and China released a joint statement claiming that the current post-cold war world order has created heightened security and strategic challenges that create “escalation to the point of potential direct military conflict… thereby increasing the risk of nuclear conflict.” FMIs exploit Indo-Pacific skepticism toward AUKUS and QUAD (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, which includes Australia, India, Japan, and the United States), promoting narratives that U.S. engagement causes instability. FMI source Fulcrum expands on this discourse and asserts that “(The Quad/AUKUS) could trigger a regional arms race with fears that ASEAN would be undermined.” They maintain that US and Western involvement could ultimately destabilize the Indo-Pacific and cause further nuclear escalation and confrontation.
Image from Fulcrum article writing about QUAD and AUKUS
The South China Morning Post (SCMP) reinforces these claims with localized op-eds from Malaysian and Indonesian analysts warning that AUKUS “pushes the region toward a nuclear crisis.” FMIs use these regional voices to give the illusion of broad-based grassroots resistance. SCMP, although not state-owned, increasingly serves as a “moderate amplifier” of Chinese-aligned critiques.
Image from op-ed article from SCMP on AUKUS and Australia's nuclear submarines
Narratives focus on freedom of navigation provocations, environmental hazards, and sovereignty violations, arguing that U.S. military infrastructure weakens ASEAN’s neutrality. This theme aims to corrode U.S. standing in Southeast Asia by reframing alliances as colonial remnants. Russia and China present themselves as “non-interventionist” alternatives, selectively ignoring their own territorial or maritime aggressions.
EdgeTheory briefs tracked these sources across 120 days, identifying consistent amplification of articles related to promoting Chinese and Russian nuclear policies.
Image from EdgeTheory Brief comparing amplification consistency
The intensifying convergence of Chinese and Russian nuclear narratives reflects a coordinated Foreign Malign Influence (FMI) campaign designed to erode Western authority and normalize doctrinal shifts that lower the threshold for nuclear engagement. These efforts are not merely about shaping perception—they are attempts to undermine the global nonproliferation regime by reframing aggressive postures as defensive necessities and painting U.S. policies as the source of instability.
EdgeTheory has identified four key narrative strategies driving this campaign: framing U.S. nuclear deployments as destabilizing, portraying China and Russia as guardians of global stability, discrediting Western arms control efforts as hypocritical, and exploiting regional tensions to justify nuclear escalation. These narratives are synchronized across state media, diplomatic messaging, and digital ecosystems—then amplified through aligned influencers and third-party outlets. The result is a coordinated rhetorical framework that erodes U.S. credibility, clouds the moral clarity surrounding deterrence, and weakens nonproliferation norms in volatile regions like Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, and the Indo-Pacific.
Narrative intelligence enables early detection and “prebunking” of these influence efforts. EdgeTheory’s Console empowers analysts to expose the transnational scaffolding behind malign messaging and track how these narratives evolve across UN blocs, BRICS-aligned states, and contested diplomatic spaces. As cognitive competition intensifies, narrative intelligence is a critical tool for defending foreign policy priorities, preserving strategic clarity, and protecting the integrity of global nonproliferation efforts.
positioning, EdgeTheory empowers national security leaders to anticipate narrative escalations, understand regional vulnerabilities, and deploy strategic messaging that reinforces U.S. deterrence while countering disinformation.
