How Ukraine’s Frontline Tactics Are Teaching Europe to Fight Disinformation

Brussels forum: why Ukraine’s experience matters now

At a two-day forum in Brussels, officials and experts came together to talk about something most people still think of as online noise: disinformation. What made the conversation different was who was leading much of it. Ukrainian practitioners — people who have built systems to protect their country during a full-scale war — argued that their tools and habits can help Europe as a whole resist attacks on its democratic life.

The tone was practical rather than alarmist. Speakers described clear, repeatable steps for spotting false narratives, disrupting hostile media campaigns, and keeping citizens informed during crises. That matters because Europe is not immune to sustained influence operations. The forum’s message was simple: lessons developed under fire in Kyiv are now useful for governments, newsrooms and tech platforms across the bloc.

Who gathered in Brussels — organizers, delegations and aims

The event drew a mix of people who shape public life: EU policymakers, national security officials, digital and public-safety experts, civil-society leaders and representatives from major tech platforms. Several Ukrainian officials and civil-society heads attended to share direct experience. Organizers framed the forum as a workshop to move from story and warning to concrete policy steps.

Sessions ranged from quick demonstrations of monitoring tools to panels on legal and ethical limits. Delegations came with an eye to action: many countries want to import practical playbooks rather than abstract doctrine. The forum’s stated aim was to translate Ukraine’s emergency practices into peacetime resilience measures for democratic societies, especially ahead of elections and other moments when false narratives tend to spike.

Ukraine’s counter-disinformation playbook: tactics, tech and institutions

Speakers from Ukraine described a layered approach. On the technology side, teams use constant monitoring — automated scanning of social platforms and traditional media — to spot suspicious trends early. That early warning feeds rapid fact-checking units and “strike teams” that coordinate responses across government agencies, public broadcasters and volunteer networks.

On the human side, Ukraine has invested in training for local journalists, community leaders and civil-society groups so they can recognize and push back on false stories in their languages and regions. Cultural projects — from film and arts funding to public history campaigns — were highlighted as long-term defenses that make communities less receptive to divisive narratives.

Institutionally, Kyiv has pushed for clear roles and fast decision chains: who issues official clarifications, who labels content as false, and how to escalate legal steps when necessary. Forum participants pointed to cases where a quick, unified message slowed or reversed a damaging story before it took root. Those examples are persuasive because they are mostly about speed, coordination and trust, not only tech wizardry.

Policy pathways: turning battlefield practice into EU measures

Adapting these practices across the EU is not automatic. Several policy routes came up repeatedly. First, creating dedicated response hubs at EU level that can share real-time data and help national authorities act faster. Second, funding capacity-building for smaller member states and civil-society groups so they can run monitoring and local counter-messaging.

Speakers also flagged legal tensions. Any model that boosts state capacity to counter disinformation must avoid giving governments unchecked power to label or remove speech. That calls for narrow rules, judicial oversight, and transparency requirements for takedowns. Practical gaps were clear too: many countries lack multilingual monitoring, public broadcasters are under-resourced, and cross-border data sharing remains legally and technically awkward.

What this means for media, platforms and civil society

The forum made plain that governments cannot do this work alone. Media outlets and tech platforms are central players. Platforms can make it easier to trace and slow viral falsehoods. Newsrooms can prioritize verification and clearer sourcing. Civil-society groups, especially at the local level, turn broad messages into trusted information for communities.

At the same time, attendees warned about risks. Well-meaning state tools can become blunt instruments if oversight is weak. There is a real danger of chilling legitimate debate or of governments using “disinformation” as a pretext to silence critics. Safeguards — independent audits, transparent criteria and strong legal checks — were presented as essential safeguards.

Next steps: commitments, pilots and what to watch

By the forum’s end, participants sketched concrete next steps rather than grand statements. Proposals on the table included pilot response hubs in several EU capitals, targeted funding for multilingual monitoring projects, and joint training programs for journalists and civil-society actors. Officials also said they would map existing legal frameworks to identify where new rules or clarifications are needed.

Watch for three signals in the months ahead: whether EU bodies and member states actually set up the promised pilots, whether funding is directed to local partners rather than only to central agencies, and whether new rules include firm oversight measures. If those elements line up, Europe could begin to adopt a pragmatic, rights-respecting version of tactics that Ukraine has refined under severe pressure. If not, the lessons may stay anecdote rather than policy.