The channel broadcast a 10-minute segment of the pre-recorded interview during its Thursday evening news, while publishing the full hour-long exchange online.

Ukraine’s ambassador to France, Vadym Omelchenko, questioned the decision on social media, asking why a “war criminal” had been given airtime.

Researcher Etienne Marcuz described the interview as “disgraceful,” saying a senior official from an opposing power had been allowed to present his narrative without sufficient challenge.

Russia specialist Dimitri Minic called the broadcast “catastrophic,” warning that Moscow treats information as a central instrument in its confrontation with Western states.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said he regretted that Lavrov had been able to “calmly roll out his propaganda,” rejecting claims made during the interview that Russia was upholding international law.

“No, Russia is not defending international law not in Iran, nor in Ukraine, nor anywhere else,” Barrot said, citing incidents including civilian killings in Bucha and the destruction of Mariupol in 2022.

During the broadcast, Lavrov defended Moscow’s actions in Ukraine, asserting that Russian forces did not target civilians and framing Russia’s actions as consistent with international law.

He also criticized U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran, saying they violated international norms.Presenter Lea Salame noted during the exchange that French journalists had documented civilian casualties in Ukraine.

The controversy comes as diplomatic efforts led by the United States to resolve the conflict in Ukraine have been complicated by escalating tensions in the Middle East.

The clock has now been set to 85 seconds before midnight, marking the closest position since its creation in 1947. Scientists behind the initiative say the shift reflects a convergence of escalating risks that humanity has failed to contain through diplomacy, cooperation and responsible governance.

The Doomsday Clock, maintained by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, serves as a metaphorical measure of how close the world is to self-inflicted annihilation. Midnight represents global catastrophe, and each adjustment signals scientists’ assessment of existential threats facing humanity.

This year’s decision highlights aggressive behaviour by major nuclear powers, including the United States, Russia and China. Ongoing wars, nuclear brinkmanship and the erosion of arms control agreements have sharply increased the likelihood of miscalculation or escalation.

The conflict in Ukraine remains a central concern, with nuclear-armed Russia continuing its military campaign and repeatedly invoking nuclear capabilities. Scientists say the prolonged war has normalized the presence of nuclear threats in conventional conflicts.

Tensions in the Middle East have also contributed to the clock’s movement, as regional instability risks drawing in nuclear-armed states or triggering wider confrontation. Scientists warn that unresolved conflicts create fertile ground for unintended escalation.

Another major factor is the weakening of nuclear arms control frameworks. The impending expiration of the New START treaty between the United States and Russia has raised alarms among experts, as it is the last remaining agreement limiting deployed nuclear warheads between the two powers.

Scientists say the lack of progress on renewing or replacing arms control agreements has left the global nuclear order increasingly fragile. The possibility of a renewed era of nuclear weapons testing has further heightened concern.

Beyond nuclear dangers, artificial intelligence has emerged as a growing risk. Scientists warn that unregulated integration of AI into military systems could accelerate decision-making beyond human control, increasing the chance of accidental conflict.

AI’s role in spreading disinformation and deepening political polarization was also cited as a destabilizing force. Experts say false narratives can undermine democratic institutions, fuel conflict and weaken international cooperation.

Climate change continues to be a persistent and compounding threat. Scientists argue that worsening climate impacts strain global systems, intensify resource competition and increase the likelihood of political instability and conflict.

The clock’s adjustment also reflects frustration with what scientists describe as a global failure of leadership. They argue that nationalism, authoritarianism and zero-sum geopolitics are replacing cooperation at a time when shared solutions are urgently needed.

The Doomsday Clock has been moved closer to midnight three times in the past four years, underscoring a trend of worsening global conditions rather than improvement. Scientists say little progress has been made to reduce existential risks.

Experts point to rising military confrontations in Asia, including tensions around Taiwan and the Korean Peninsula, as additional flashpoints with global implications.

The growing competition among major powers has undermined trust and reduced the willingness to engage in meaningful arms reduction or confidence-building measures.

Scientists also expressed concern over domestic attacks on science, media and academic institutions in several countries, warning that weakening truth-based systems erodes the ability to respond effectively to global threats.

Journalists and researchers involved in the announcement stressed that information warfare and disinformation pose a crisis of their own, distorting public understanding of risks and delaying action.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded by scientists involved in the Manhattan Project, including Albert Einstein and J. Robert Oppenheimer, to warn the public about nuclear dangers after World War Two.

Their message remains consistent decades later: humanity possesses the tools to destroy itself, but also the knowledge to prevent catastrophe if leaders choose cooperation over confrontation.

Scientists urge immediate action to reduce nuclear risks, regulate emerging technologies, address climate change and rebuild international trust before the clock moves even closer to midnight.

and CNSS

On 18 November 2025, while presenting the 2026 budget in Ankara’s parliament, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan once again raised the Kashmir issue, urging international intervention and dialogue under global oversight. The statement sparked little surprise not because it was benign, but because it fits a familiar pattern.

Over the past decade, Turkey has consistently used major global platforms, from the UN General Assembly to the OIC to national parliamentary debates, to position itself as a defender of Muslim causes worldwide, with Kashmir serving as a recurring rhetorical centerpiece.

Fidan’s remark was not an impulsive comment on a routine parliamentary day. It was another installment in Ankara’s long game of narrative diplomacy; a strategic campaign to shape how conflicts are perceived worldwide through emotional, identity-based framing rather than balanced geopolitical reasoning.

Soft Power and Narrative Warfare: A defining feature of Turkey’s foreign policy under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been the deployment of soft power instruments: universities, think-tanks, diaspora groups, cultural bodies, and civil-society platforms, to construct and amplify narratives sympathetic to Ankara’s ideological and geopolitical positions.

These platforms allow Turkey to frame complex conflicts such as through simplified moral binaries: oppressed versus oppressor, victim versus aggressor, without any reference to state-sponsored terrorism.

Indeed, reports by independent fact-checkers such as DFRAC identified media organisations based in Turkey (and in Gulf-region media-ecosystems including Qatar) as active participants in anti-India disinformation efforts: suggesting that this campaign extends well beyond South Asia and aims to shape perceptions among Muslim audiences globally.

Turkey is now being described as ‘the new Dubai’ for anti-India influence operations, indicating that as Gulf states tightened their cooperation with India, Ankara repositioned itself as a hub for media, NGO-sponsored, and diaspora-led narrative outreach targeting Indian Muslims and the broader Muslim world.

This narrative strategy has been particularly visible in Turkey’s activism on Kashmir. Conferences, public lectures, solidarity campaigns, and academic delegations in events hosted by Istanbul university, Institute for Strategic Thinking (SDE) and Ankara-based thinktank ESAM have frequently depicted Kashmir not as a multifaceted political and security challenge but as a humanitarian catastrophe demanding global intervention.

Such narratives often mirror Pakistan’s long-standing line, while omitting crucial realities: cross-border terrorism, Pakistan-sponsored insurgency, and decades of targeted violence against civilians and security forces.

A Narrative Vacuum Waiting to Be Filled: A core factor enabling the spread of these narratives is the limited global understanding of India’s internal security landscape including Kashmir and left-wing extremism. In the absence of nuanced knowledge, simplified and emotive accounts travel faster and take deeper root.

Soft-power messaging thrives on precisely this gap; as American political scientist (late) Joseph Nye observed, “power is the ability to get others to want what you want.” In today’s world, what others believe is often more consequential than what is objectively verifiable.

By mobilizing academic and civil-society voices as independent moral arbiters, Turkey gains plausible deniability, allowing state-aligned narratives to be projected through apparently neutral channels. When repeated across respected international platforms, these positions accumulate what political scientists call normative legitimacy; the power to define what is seen as “just,” “acceptable,” or “morally right.”

Once embedded, such perceptions can influence diplomatic decisions, resolutions in multilateral bodies, and broader public opinion.

Why does It Matter for India and India’s Options?

India cannot afford complacency. External narratives have domestic consequences when they shape expectations, policy environments, and diplomatic costs. Allowing another state to repeatedly frame Kashmir as an international dispute rather than an internal constitutional question risks legitimizing external interference in India’s sovereign domain.

Moreover, narrative asymmetry creates a structural disadvantage when one side dominates the language of morality and human rights, the other risks being cast defensively, forced to justify rather than articulate. Emotional rhetoric consistently outpaces empirical analysis, and global politics increasingly rewards speed, sentiment, and symbolism.

This is not about silencing criticism; democracies must welcome scrutiny. But critique must be grounded in full context, not curated fragments that erase terrorism, glorify violence, or recast insurgents as liberators. A debate divorced from reality becomes political theatre rather than principled engagement.

The answer is not reactionary counter-propaganda. It is strategic narrative engagement: building credible visibility in global academic and diplomatic spaces, fostering research partnerships, investing in international outreach, and supporting evidence-based scholarship. India must tell its story with clarity, not defensively, but assertively, through transparent, well-structured public diplomacy.

India must also insist on transparency regarding funding and affiliations in international think tanks and civil-society organizations participating in discourse on South Asian conflicts. Legitimacy cannot be built upon undisclosed interests.

Conclusion

In an age where perception competes with reality, narrative power has become a strategic asset. Words can move resolutions, shift alliances, and determine how conflicts are judged before facts are even examined. When a budget-session remark in Ankara becomes global talking-point ammunition, it signals that narrative warfare is no longer peripheral: it is geopolitical statecraft.

India cannot allow others to define its story. If we do not articulate our truth with coherence, evidence, and confidence, we risk being defined by those whose agendas are anything but impartial. The choice before India is clear: shape the narrative or be shaped by it.

Centre for National Security Studies (CNSS) is a well-known thinktank in the area of National Security Studies, under Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Bangalore (India).

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

The new battlefield is not only in Gaza or southern Lebanon or the Red Sea—it is in the human mind.

In the fog of war, there was once clarity. Now, even the fog is fabricated.

Few voices carry the gravitas of Aimen Dean — a man who has lived across the fault lines of war, finance, faith, and espionage. From the jihadist battlefields of Nangarhar to the polished boardrooms of global banking, and from the roar of Iraqi Scud missiles in Khobar to the intricate corridors of MI6, Dean has seen the anatomy of conflict from all angles. And yet, as he confesses in a searing reflection on today’s geopolitical chaos, he has “never encountered anything quite like the post-October 7 world.”

That day—October 7, 2023—marked the launch of Hamas’s surprise attack on southern Israel, igniting one of the most ferocious and emotionally charged wars in the modern Middle East. But what concerns Dean even more than the rockets and rubble is the war on truth that followed.

“Emotion has not just trumped reason,” Dean writes. “It has obliterated it.”

From the Trenches to Twitter

Dean’s journey is not abstract. He is not an academic pontificating from afar. He has walked where others write. His mother’s anguish in war-torn southern Lebanon, his own experiences as a young radical turned MI6 asset, and his later roles as a financial advisor and geopolitical analyst, offer a rare panoramic view of how narratives are weaponized.

In his previous encounters with war—whether in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Yemen—Dean says there was always some degree of clarity. One could discern the agendas, the actors, and eventually the consequences. There were lies, yes, but also enough context and experience to “slice through the disinformation.”

But since October 7, he observes, the informational ecosystem itself has collapsed. Social media, once hailed as a democratizer of voices, now amplifies tribalism. Hashtags replace history. Slogans drown out nuance. What used to be propaganda, Dean warns, has evolved into performance art.

The Age of the Algorithm

The new battlefield is not only in Gaza or southern Lebanon or the Red Sea—it is in the human mind. According to Dean, most people have been “drafted” into this battlefield without knowing it.

This is no longer just about pro-Israel or pro-Palestine stances. It’s about how easily global audiences are manipulated into cheering for narratives without interrogating them. “What used to be journalism is now tribalism,” Dean remarks. “What used to be analysis is now algorithm.”

The algorithm—a word synonymous with social media manipulation—has replaced inquiry with impulse. Platforms now reward emotional outrage, not intellectual depth. Truth becomes the casualty, and the casualty count is rising.

The Noise Filter: Survival in the Age of Misinformation

Dean introduces a concept he calls the “noise filter.” It’s not born of cynicism, he stresses, but of survival—a mental shield forged through years of discerning patterns, lies, motives, and inconsistencies. It is a skill that enables one to see the real enemy—not the one dictated by groupthink or online tribalism.

And herein lies perhaps his most powerful insight: “Being a good analyst doesn’t mean staying neutral. That’s a myth. It means choosing sides wisely. Not all devils are equal.”

This stands in stark contrast to the popular—and sometimes cowardly—mantra of neutrality that permeates Western institutions and media, often under the guise of “balanced reporting.” Dean argues that neutrality in the face of blatant propaganda or aggression is not objectivity—it’s abdication.

A Crisis of Moral Discernment

Dean’s post is not just a lament; it’s a warning. The world is experiencing a crisis of moral discernment, accelerated by disinformation, emotional manipulation, and a digital culture that prizes identity over integrity.

The “loudest lie wins,” he notes, a chilling reminder of how far removed modern political discourse has become from facts. Many people no longer seek truth but affirmation. And when every corner of the internet offers custom-made truth, the very concept of objective reality becomes endangered.

For a man who has interrogated extremists, foiled plots, and navigated the underworld of global terrorism, this new reality—this collapse of truth—feels more threatening than any bomb or bullet.

Final Front: The Battle for the Mind

We often speak of kinetic warfare, of missile strikes and armed resistance. But Dean reminds us that the ultimate battle is for the mind. The frontlines have shifted from deserts to data centers, from refugee camps to recommendation algorithms.

In this war, no one is untouched. And those who fail to build their own noise filter will find one built for them—by regimes, influencers, bots, and ideologues—all charging a steep price: your soul.

This is the battlefield of our age. And as Aimen Dean makes painfully clear, truth is not only the first casualty—it’s now on life support.

In an era where information flows faster than ever, the battle for truth and clarity has become more crucial. Recently, French Prime Minister François Bayrou revealed concerning findings that place France at the forefront of foreign disinformation campaigns within the European Union. According to an EU diplomatic report, France, following Ukraine, became the second-most targeted country in Europe for such campaigns, with 152 incidents recorded between 2023 and 2024. This stark revelation underscores the growing vulnerability of democratic societies to external interference, and it raises important questions about how nations like France can defend their democratic processes in an increasingly digital world.

The Nature of the Threat

Disinformation, as we know, is the deliberate spread of false or misleading information with the intent to deceive, manipulate, or destabilize public opinion. With the rapid spread of social media and online platforms, foreign actors now have powerful tools at their disposal to shape narratives, sow division, and create confusion. In France, these campaigns have been described as multifaceted and relentless, involving a mix of fake news, conspiracy theories, and targeted online harassment.

Bayrou’s comments came shortly after the EU published its report highlighting the rise in such attacks across Europe. While many countries have been subject to these malicious campaigns, France’s position as a leading democratic nation with a significant global influence makes it a prime target. The Prime Minister’s statement is part of a broader acknowledgment by European leaders that the threat of foreign disinformation is not only real but increasingly sophisticated.

The Motives Behind Disinformation

The report’s findings suggest that foreign disinformation efforts targeting France are driven by several key motives, with geopolitical and ideological interests at their core. In many instances, foreign powers seek to disrupt France’s political stability, undermine trust in its institutions, and influence public opinion on critical issues like elections, foreign policy, and security matters. The 2024 French presidential elections, for example, could have been a key target for these disinformation campaigns, as foreign actors sought to influence voter behavior and deepen societal divisions.

Bayrou also pointed out that disinformation campaigns often coincide with times of crisis, when people are most vulnerable to misinformation. The COVID-19 pandemic, the economic fallout from global tensions, and the ongoing debates about climate change have all served as fertile ground for disinformation. In such times, individuals may find it harder to discern fact from fiction, making them more susceptible to false narratives designed to sway opinions or incite unrest.

Moreover, France’s position within the European Union and its involvement in NATO make it a key player on the global stage, a position that undoubtedly attracts the attention of hostile foreign entities seeking to weaken the EU’s cohesion and stability.

The Impact of Disinformation

The consequences of these foreign disinformation campaigns are far-reaching. Disinformation not only undermines public trust in government institutions but also fosters division among citizens. It creates an environment where people become skeptical of the media, their political leaders, and even each other. This breakdown in trust can lead to widespread cynicism, social unrest, and even violence, as witnessed in various parts of the world in recent years.

The 2017 French presidential election, for example, was marred by attempts to spread disinformation that sought to discredit candidates and manipulate public sentiment. While many of these efforts were thwarted by French authorities and media organizations, the very presence of such campaigns revealed the vulnerabilities that exist within democratic systems.

In the longer term, the erosion of trust in the political process can have grave consequences for democracy itself. If citizens no longer believe in the integrity of their electoral processes, their commitment to the system will weaken, leaving the door open for more insidious forms of influence and manipulation.

The Fight Against Disinformation

In response to the growing threat of foreign disinformation, France and the EU have been ramping up their efforts to combat these malicious campaigns. The French government has introduced a series of legislative measures aimed at curbing the spread of fake news, including laws that target online platforms and social media companies to increase accountability for the content they host. These initiatives are part of broader EU efforts, which include the European Commission’s “Digital Services Act,” designed to tackle harmful content online, and the “Counter-Disinformation Toolbox,” a set of guidelines aimed at helping member states identify and counter foreign disinformation.

In addition to these legal and policy measures, there is an increasing focus on media literacy and public awareness. The government, in collaboration with tech companies and civil society organizations, has been working to equip citizens with the tools they need to recognize and resist disinformation. By teaching critical thinking skills and encouraging skepticism toward dubious sources, these initiatives hope to inoculate the public against the harm caused by false information.

A Call for International Cooperation

Prime Minister Bayrou’s statement also highlights the need for international cooperation in the fight against disinformation. While national efforts are essential, the global nature of the internet means that disinformation campaigns are often launched across borders, making them difficult to contain. France’s efforts to counter these threats will be most effective when shared with allies, whether within the EU, NATO, or through international organizations like the United Nations.

The fight against disinformation, therefore, is not just a national challenge for France but a collective responsibility for the democratic world. Only through collaboration, transparency, and shared commitment to defending the truth can we hope to mitigate the long-term effects of foreign interference on our societies.

Moving Ahead

The growing threat of foreign disinformation campaigns against France is a warning sign for democracies everywhere. As technology evolves and external actors become more adept at exploiting the digital landscape, it will be crucial for governments, institutions, and citizens to stay vigilant and united in their defense of truth and democratic integrity. In these challenging times, the battle for facts is as important as any political or military conflict. And for France, as well as the rest of the European Union, the fight is just beginning.

In contrast, Russia continues to maintain a time-tested rapport with India

As the dust settles on yet another tense standoff between India and Pakistan, a wave of introspection has swept across India’s strategic and civil circles. From geopolitical alignments to domestic cohesion, the conflict has laid bare uncomfortable truths, prompting many in India to reassess both alliances and national priorities.

One of the starkest revelations has been the geopolitical reality of international loyalties. Despite diplomatic pleasantries and economic ties, Turkey, China, and even the United States appear to consistently position themselves favorably toward Pakistan in times of heightened tensions. For India, this has raised pressing questions about the reliability of its global partnerships, especially when diplomatic neutrality could mean indirect support for hostile narratives or platforms.

In contrast, Russia continues to maintain a time-tested rapport with India, providing a semblance of consistency in an otherwise fluid global arena. While Russia navigates its own complex global relationships, its stance during South Asian crises often reflects a strategic inclination toward New Delhi—an anchor India appears increasingly dependent on.

Beyond diplomacy, the conflict has once again exposed India’s chronic weakness in information warfare. As narratives around the conflict played out across global media, India’s digital diplomacy and media engagement seemed sluggish. Pakistan’s ability to frame its position more compellingly on international platforms left many in India questioning the effectiveness of their country’s strategic communications machinery.

Adding to this frustration is the perceived silence of influential Indian voices—notably from Bollywood, elite athletes, and prominent non-resident Indians in the corporate world. During moments of national crisis, these figures often choose a neutral or muted stance, citing professional boundaries. Critics argue that their silence stands in contrast to their massive influence and the need for soft power mobilization during geopolitical flashpoints.

Yet, amidst external disillusionment and internal criticism, one aspect remains clear: in moments of war or national threat, India stands united. Across states, religions, and political ideologies, there emerges a sense of collective identity and resilience. The surge in public solidarity during conflict is a testament to the depth of national consciousness that still binds the country.

However, concerns over international financial institutions have also intensified. Observers argue that bailouts and financial packages, particularly to economically unstable states with militant linkages, risk indirectly funding destabilizing activities. While not officially acknowledged, the perception that financial support can be misappropriated is gaining traction in Indian public discourse.

The recent episode has forced India into a mirror. It reflects a nation with immense potential and unity, but also with vulnerabilities—diplomatic, informational, and strategic—that demand urgent attention. If anything, the lessons from the conflict point not just to threats from without, but also to gaps within that India must address to navigate an increasingly complex global order.