According to a threat scenario published by the Finnish Defence Research Agency in August 2026, Finland’s willingness to defend itself could weaken dramatically if growing societal inequality and declining trust coincide with external security threats. Undermining societal trust is one of the key objectives of hostile information influence activities. As societies become increasingly digital, information influence has emerged as a critical national security issue. Strengthening society’s resilience against such threats should be a priority for Finland’s next government.
During SuomiAreena 2026, Finland’s leading public debate forum, Gofore hosted a panel discussion exploring the growing impact of information influence activities and cognitive warfare. The discussion brought together Markus Asikainen, Head of Defence and Security at Gofore, Lieutenant Colonel Maria Keinonen, cyber educator and Doctor of Military Sciences at the National Defence University, and Miriam Hautala, doctoral researcher at the University of Jyväskylä. The discussion was moderated by Katri Makkonen.
Key takeaways from the discussion
- Recognising information influence activities is not solely the responsibility of individuals, authorities, or the media. It is a challenge for society as a whole.
- As the digital environment evolves rapidly, preserving societal resilience and trust requires both strong media literacy and broad collaboration across sectors.
- Disagreement is a natural part of democratic societies. The situation becomes dangerous when we no longer tolerate those who think differently or challenge our own views. When hatred and violence replace constructive debate, cognitive influence has succeeded.
The full panel discussion recording is available here (in Finnish).
Disagreement is a natural part of democratic societies. The situation becomes dangerous when we no longer tolerate those who think differently or challenge our own views.
The human mind has become a new arena of modern conflict
Efforts to influence public opinion and shape perceptions are nothing new. However, technological advances have transformed the scale, speed and precision of these activities. Hostile information influence is often a long-term endeavour aimed at shaping how people think and eroding trust in institutions, decision-makers and democratic processes.
“When discussing defence, attention often focuses on equipment, borders and critical infrastructure. Increasingly, however, security is also built in a harder-to-define domain: people’s minds and the digital environments where opinions, trust and shared understandings of reality are formed,” says Markus Asikainen.
The principles on which digital societies are built, including access to information, open dialogue and trust, are being challenged in new ways. As a result, every one of us is more exposed to attempts to influence our perceptions and behaviour. Information influence and hybrid threats can increasingly be described as the invisible front line of defence.
The principles on which digital societies are built, including access to information, open dialogue and trust, are being challenged in new ways.
Societal trust is critical infrastructure
The effectiveness of information influence activities stems from their cumulative and cognitively demanding impact. False information, AI-generated voice manipulation and deepfake content make it increasingly difficult to distinguish fact from fiction.
“Information influence does not appear on radar screens or at physical borders, yet it can undermine trust, decision-making and societal resilience from within, often gradually and unnoticed,” explains Maria Keinonen.
The issue extends far beyond the spread of misinformation.
Why does the distortion of reality matter from a national defence perspective?
“It is essential to understand that hostile hybrid influence operations are conducted over years or even decades. Their purpose is to weaken the structures and functioning of the targeted society,” Asikainen notes.
Making information awareness a core civic skill
When enough people adopt a particular narrative, the consequences can be seen in public opinion, trust in authorities, electoral behaviour and even the willingness to defend the country.
“At its most extreme, we may reach a point where the very concept of truth loses significance. If everyone appears to be lying, it no longer matters who is actually telling the truth,” Keinonen summarises.
Protecting the human mind is an essential part of digital resilience and Finland’s comprehensive security. Preparing for information influence should not be limited to times of crisis. It must become part of everyday digital life and a fundamental civic capability.
Protecting the human mind is an essential part of digital resilience and Finland’s comprehensive security.
Disagreement itself is not a threat to societal trust. The real risk emerges when differences of opinion prevent people from tolerating one another or working together.
Miriam Hautala elaborates:
“It is essential to recognise that attempts are constantly being made to influence us. Democratic societies are built on pluralism, constructive disagreement and critical discussion. Vulnerability arises when these open conversations are deliberately distorted through the amplification of fear, anger and suspicion, gradually eroding the foundations of shared trust.”
According to Keinonen, healthy scepticism often begins with a moment of reflection:
“At an individual level, resilience against information influence requires media literacy, source criticism and an understanding of our own cognitive biases and emotional responses. Purely rational decision-making is an illusion. Emotions shape how we interpret information. A strong emotional reaction may be a sign that someone is trying to influence you. That is precisely when it is worth slowing down and asking: why am I thinking, reacting or feeling this way?”
“At an individual level, resilience against information influence requires media literacy, source criticism and an understanding of our own cognitive biases and emotional responses.
Finland needs a strategy for information defence
At the heart of a resilient society lies not only the ability to recover from disruptions, but above all the ability to ensure the continuity of critical services and functions in all circumstances. Societal resilience is not built solely through technology. It also depends on whether people feel safe and continue to share a common understanding of reality.
While governments and public authorities play a vital role in countering information influence activities, every citizen also has a responsibility in the digital environment. Simply making influence attempts visible strengthens society’s ability to resist them.
Markus Asikainen concludes:
“Finland’s security culture must be developed and led more consciously than today. Information defence cannot remain the responsibility of a single authority or project. It needs to be integrated into the design of society’s digital structures and supported through collaboration across administrative boundaries. It also requires an ambitious vision for Finland’s preparedness and information management. From my perspective, this is one of the key defence priorities for Finland’s next government. Inspiration could be taken from Sweden, where societal resilience has its own dedicated agency. Finland may benefit from a similar approach.”
“Strengthening Finland’s security culture through more conscious leadership is one of the most important defence tasks facing the country’s next government.”
Key concepts
Information influence activities are actions intended to shape perceptions, opinions or behaviour by producing, modifying or restricting access to information. Such activities may be carried out by state or non-state actors, organisations, networks or individuals, either independently or on behalf of another actor.
Cognitive influence, often discussed in the context of cognitive warfare, refers to actions aimed at shaping attitudes and behaviour alongside other instruments of power. These activities may involve influencing, protecting or disrupting individuals and communities.
How can high-trust societies thrive in the digital age?
Gofore has examined the foundations of societal trust in a digital society as we move towards an era of agentic AI. To build a situational snapshot of digital trust, we interviewed 15 leading digitalisation executives and experts.
The study identified five trust tensions that weaken the formation of societal trust and, in turn, the human sustainability of digital societies and public services. At the same time, these tensions represent some of the most important societal and digitalisation debates that have yet to receive sufficient attention.
