← Back to Insights

Module: Strategic Communication (StratCom)

By SAUFEX Consortium • 23 January 2026

[screen 1]

Foreign adversaries spread disinformation about democratic institutions. Coordinated campaigns undermine social cohesion. Hostile narratives poison public discourse.

Individual fact-checks aren’t sufficient - coordinated strategic communication is necessary. Understanding StratCom approaches reveals how governments and institutions defend the information environment.

[screen 2]

What Is Strategic Communication?

StratCom is coordinated, purposeful institutional communication:

Definition: Deliberate, coordinated communication by governments or organizations to achieve specific objectives

Characteristics:

  • Multiple coordinated messages
  • Multi-channel approach
  • Targeted audiences
  • Sustained campaigns (not one-off)
  • Integration with policy actions
  • Measurement and adaptation

Contrast with:

  • Ad-hoc responses
  • Individual corrections
  • Uncoordinated messaging

StratCom is systematic, not reactive.

[screen 3]

Why StratCom Matters for FIMI

FIMI operations require coordinated responses:

FIMI characteristics demanding StratCom:

  • Coordinated multi-platform campaigns
  • Sustained operations over time
  • State resources and sophistication
  • Strategic objectives
  • Adaptive tactics

StratCom responses:

  • Coordinated counter-messaging
  • Attribution and exposure
  • Narrative alternatives
  • Audience resilience building
  • Integration with sanctions/policy

Individual debunks insufficient against coordinated state campaigns.

[screen 4]

EU East StratCom Task Force

Model case of institutional StratCom:

Established: 2015, response to Russian disinformation around Ukraine

Structure: European External Action Service unit

Activities:

  • EUvsDisinfo database of disinformation cases
  • Weekly disinformation reviews
  • Positive communication about EU to Eastern Partnership countries
  • Support for independent media
  • Media literacy initiatives
  • Coordinating EU member state responses

Impact:

  • Thousands of documented disinformation cases
  • Increased awareness of FIMI tactics
  • Model for other regional StratCom efforts

Demonstrates institutional StratCom in practice.

[screen 5]

Strategic Communication Components

Effective StratCom integrates multiple elements:

1. Monitoring: Continuous information environment observation

2. Analysis: Understanding adversary narratives and tactics

3. Attribution: Identifying and exposing perpetrators

4. Message development: Crafting effective counter-messages

5. Dissemination: Multi-channel delivery

6. Amplification: Partnerships for reach

7. Measurement: Tracking effectiveness

8. Adaptation: Adjusting based on results

9. Policy integration: Aligning communication with actions

Comprehensive approach, not just messaging.

[screen 6]

Target Audience Analysis

Effective StratCom requires knowing your audience:

Segmentation:

  • Demographics (age, location, education)
  • Psychographics (values, beliefs, fears)
  • Information consumption patterns
  • Vulnerability to specific narratives
  • Receptiveness to counter-messages

Audience types:

  • Committed opponents (low priority)
  • Persuadables (highest priority)
  • Supporters needing reinforcement
  • Neutral/unaware needing information

Targeting: Different messages for different segments

One-size-fits-all messaging fails.

[screen 7]

Message Development Principles

Crafting effective strategic messages:

Clarity: Simple, understandable core message

Credibility: Evidence-based, from trusted sources

Consistency: Coordinated across channels and time

Repetition: Key messages repeated (varied phrasing)

Emotional resonance: Engaging values and emotions appropriately

Actionability: Clear implications or calls to action

Cultural appropriateness: Tailored to audience context

Testing: Pre-testing messages with target audiences

Good StratCom messages are carefully crafted, not improvised.

[screen 8]

Proactive vs. Reactive StratCom

Two modes with different purposes:

Reactive StratCom:

  • Responding to adversary narratives
  • Crisis communication
  • Damage control
  • Necessary but playing defense

Proactive StratCom:

  • Setting agenda, not just responding
  • Positive narrative promotion
  • Prebunking anticipated narratives
  • Building long-term resilience
  • Playing offense

Balance: Effective StratCom does both

  • React when necessary
  • But emphasis on proactive

Initiative advantages attacker; proactive StratCom regains initiative.

[screen 9]

Attribution as StratCom

Exposing operations as counter-messaging:

Attribution value:

  • Reveals coordination and inauthenticity
  • Discredits exposed accounts/outlets
  • Deters future operations (increases cost)
  • Enables policy responses (sanctions)
  • Inoculates audiences

Examples:

  • US intelligence declassification about Russian interference
  • Facebook/Twitter network removals with attribution
  • EUvsDisinfo documentation of Russian disinformation
  • Bellingcat investigations attributing operations

Challenge: Attribution requires intelligence, evidence

Effect: Exposure reduces effectiveness even without belief change

Sunlight as disinfectant.

[screen 10]

Multi-Channel Coordination

StratCom leverages multiple platforms:

Channels:

  • Social media platforms
  • Traditional media (press, TV, radio)
  • Government websites and publications
  • Partnerships with civil society
  • Educational institutions
  • Direct communication (speeches, statements)

Coordination:

  • Consistent messages across channels
  • Channel-appropriate formatting
  • Timing synchronization
  • Reinforcement through repetition

Reach: Different audiences on different channels

Comprehensive coverage requires multi-channel approach.

[screen 11]

Integration with Policy Actions

Communication without action lacks credibility:

Policy-StratCom alignment:

  • StratCom explains and justifies policies
  • Policies demonstrate commitment, backing messaging
  • Sanctions against FIMI actors reinforce attribution
  • Legislation signals seriousness
  • International coordination shows unity

Examples:

  • EU sanctions on Russian media outlets + communication about disinformation
  • Platform regulation (DSA) + transparency requirements
  • Funding for independent media + messaging about media freedom

Principle: Walk the talk - actions validate words

Disconnect between messaging and policy undermines credibility.

[screen 12]

Public Diplomacy vs. StratCom

Related but distinct:

Public diplomacy:

  • Long-term relationship building
  • Cultural exchanges
  • Positive image promotion
  • Broad audience engagement

Strategic communication:

  • Specific objectives (often countering threats)
  • Targeted messaging
  • Campaign-based
  • More tactical

Overlap: Both involve international communication, perception shaping

Distinction: StratCom more focused on countering adversary narratives

StratCom often operates within broader public diplomacy frameworks.

[screen 13]

Case Study: Countering COVID-19 Misinformation

StratCom applied to pandemic:

Challenge: Coordinated misinformation about pandemic, vaccines

StratCom responses:

  • WHO/government coordinated messaging
  • Regular briefings and information campaigns
  • Partnership with social media platforms
  • Fact-checking programs
  • Prebunking campaigns (Go Viral game)
  • Myth-busting content
  • Trusted messenger programs (doctors, community leaders)

Lessons:

  • Coordination essential at scale
  • Multiple channels needed
  • Trust-building crucial
  • Sustained effort required

Not perfect, but demonstrated StratCom principles.

[screen 14]

Measuring StratCom Effectiveness

How to know if StratCom works:

Metrics:

  • Audience reach and engagement
  • Message penetration (awareness, recall)
  • Attitude change in target audiences
  • Behavior change (sharing, participation)
  • Adversary narrative prevalence reduction
  • Media coverage sentiment
  • Policy impact

Challenges:

  • Attribution problems (many factors influence opinions)
  • Long time horizons
  • Counterfactual uncertainty
  • Qualitative dimensions

Approach: Mixed methods (surveys, social media analysis, qualitative assessment)

Imperfect measurement better than none.

[screen 15]

Ethical Considerations

Government StratCom raises ethical questions:

Transparency vs. effectiveness:

  • Open about government messaging?
  • Covert influence operations problematic
  • But: Some tactics require discretion

Domestic vs. foreign:

  • StratCom targeting foreign audiences less controversial
  • Domestic StratCom risks propaganda accusations
  • Lines blur in digital environment

Truth commitment:

  • Democratic StratCom must be truthful
  • Using deception undermines credibility and values

Pluralism respect:

  • StratCom shouldn’t suppress legitimate debate
  • Focus on demonstrably false claims, not contested opinions

Accountability:

  • Who oversees StratCom activities?
  • Democratic oversight necessary

[screen 16]

Partnering with Non-Governmental Actors

Government StratCom works with civil society:

Partnerships:

  • Fact-checkers: Independent verification
  • Media organizations: Amplification and credibility
  • Academia: Research and expertise
  • Civil society: Grassroots reach and trust
  • Private sector: Technology and platforms

Value:

  • Credibility: Non-governmental voices often more trusted
  • Reach: Broader audience access
  • Independence: Perceived objectivity
  • Expertise: Specialized knowledge

Caution: Maintaining partner independence while coordinating

Ecosystem approach more effective than government alone.

[screen 17]

Adversary Adaptation

StratCom faces evolving opposition:

Adversary responses:

  • Accusing StratCom of propaganda
  • Mimicking StratCom language
  • Creating fake fact-checking sites
  • Exploiting transparency for intelligence
  • Adapting tactics to evade detection
  • Targeting StratCom credibility

Counter-adaptation:

  • Continuous monitoring of adversary tactics
  • Updating approaches
  • Maintaining credibility through truthfulness
  • Transparency about methods
  • Resilience through multiple approaches

Arms race dynamic requires continuous adaptation.

[screen 18]

Building StratCom Capacity

How institutions develop StratCom capabilities:

Organizational:

  • Dedicated units/task forces
  • Cross-agency coordination mechanisms
  • Clear mandate and authority
  • Adequate resources

Personnel:

  • Communication professionals
  • Regional/cultural expertise
  • Data analysis capabilities
  • Creative content producers

Systems:

  • Monitoring and analysis tools
  • Rapid response protocols
  • Measurement frameworks
  • Knowledge management

Partnerships:

  • Interagency coordination
  • International cooperation
  • Civil society engagement

Continuous: Training, learning, adaptation

StratCom capability is infrastructure for democratic resilience.

All Insights