Armed conflict no longer unfolds solely on the battlefield. It is fought fiercely along digital frontlines—from disinformation campaigns that aim to erode public trust in leaders and institutions, exacerbate tensions among identity groups, and sometimes undermine peace to cyberattacks that disrupt or destroy critical systems. In Sudan’s civil war between the army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), AI-generated deepfakes have flooded the information space, including fabricated footage of bombings and incendiary content as both sides seek to divide the country and mobilize supporters. In the Israel–Hamas conflict, both sides have incorporated cyber operations and information warfare, dynamics intensified by Iran’s support for Hamas’s cyber capabilities and Israel’s bombing of Hamas’s cyber command. In Ukraine, Russian or Russian-linked cyber operations targeting the power grid and state infrastructure have repeatedly paralyzed civilian life.

The digital and cyber dimensions of war no longer mirror conflict—they can escalate and prolong it, potentially even after violence has stopped. Yet few ceasefires or peace agreements explicitly acknowledge these dimensions of conflict, and peacemaking remains largely analog. While peace practitioners have used digital peacebuilding to respond to the impact of technology on polarization, violent extremism, and hate speech for nearly two decades, peace mediation has been slower to account for the challenges of information and cyberwarfare.

Peace mediation already faces significant challenges as conflicts have become increasingly complex and fragmented. Interstate wars, notably in Ukraine, have drawn in multiple backers. At the same time, civil wars are often internationalized and involve several rebel groups and a proliferation of local militias, as in Sudan. Bargaining for peace frequently requires tackling webs of conflict rather than mediating two-party disputes. Disinformation campaigns and cyber operations only exacerbate this complexity.

To adapt to this digital era of conflict, peacemakers could consider six priorities based on emerging practice and theory.

1. When Conflict Begins, Start Monitoring Its Cyber and Digital Dimensions

Conflict analysis needs to account for the physical, digital, and cyber domains. This includes digital monitoring of conflict narratives and how conflict parties weaponize information and communication technologies (ICTs), including through disinformation campaigns. It requires attention to cyberattacks—on infrastructure, information systems, and digital governance—and how AI expands and scales both cyber and information warfare.

Analysis should consider how the digital and cyber domains exacerbate factors known to prolong conflicts or complicate peace talks. For instance, identifying potential spoilers to mediation and how they use social media to undermine peace efforts. Technical investigations can also determine whether external sponsors are providing cyber capabilities to conflict actors and whether cyber mercenaries operate independently, as part of criminal networks, or with state backing. Early mapping of these ecosystems enables mediators to understand the breadth of conflict dynamics and escalation risks, identify the narratives driving participation, and design ceasefires or peace agreements that explicitly account for the digital and cyber dimensions of conflict.

2. Build Digital-Ready Mediation Teams and Manage Digital Spoilers

Mediation teams need digital and cyber competencies. Whether through partnerships with specialized organizations or by integrating specialists directly, mediation teams need the capacity to proactively respond to digital conflict assessments and cyber risks. Key steps include digital-risk training for mediators, secure communications, and coordination with tech platforms to reduce online harms targeting negotiators or communities in conflict zones.

Teams should be prepared to address digital spoilers and cyber mercenaries—such as troll farms and proxy hackers—who may use amplification tactics, including fake or automated accounts, to spread divisive narratives and manipulate perceptions of the negotiations. Responses may include joint public clarifications with negotiating parties and coordinated efforts to counter harmful narratives online.

3. Include and Monitor Cyber and Digital Provisions in Ceasefires and Peace Agreements

When cyber operations, information warfare, and disinformation feature in a conflict, omitting these dynamics from a ceasefire or peace agreement can undermine implementation and create risks of conflict re-escalation. The quality of peace experienced by citizens may also be diminished if disinformation undermines institutions or distorts reality, and cyberattacks deny them basic services. Researchers have demonstrated the risks of overlooking cyber components and proposed ways to integrate them into agreements.

There are several examples of ceasefires that include provisions to restrict hostile propaganda and hate speech and promote responsible media behavior. This includes agreements in Kenya (2008), Libya (2020), South Sudan (2017), and Ethiopia (2022). Yet none of these provisions have been systematically monitored or evaluated to assess their effects on promoting cooperation between conflict parties. Ideas to improve digital inclusion are emerging. A joint report by Build Up, the UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA), and the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD) outlines options for monitoring social media clauses through incident tracking and joint verification.

While integrating limits on cyber operations into ceasefires and long-term settlements remains untested, the importance of such provisions will only increase. Approximately 50 countries possess or are developing offensive cyber capabilities, which AI is likely to enhance. Non-state armed groups are also developing more limited cyber capabilities and, at times, operate with state backers. In Ukraine, where cyberattacks have severely impacted infrastructure and civilians—with ripple effects across Europe—cyber provisions are crucial for any truce or negotiated outcome. However, reaching agreements on cyber dimensions will likely be challenging to negotiate, particularly when parties have asymmetric capabilities. Monitoring also presents attribution and verification challenges, which can be partially mitigated through early cyber analysis to understand patterns and players.

4. Use Digital Tools to Widen Inclusion

Digital peacebuilding practitioners have laid a foundation for using technology for dialogue and inclusion. Gradually, mediators are adopting digital strategies to broaden consultations beyond those physically present. In 2020, the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) engaged over 1,000 young people in a digital dialogue on the security, economic, and political situation, gathering perspectives that informed other tracks. Similar strategies have been adopted in Yemen and Iraq and in other fragile contexts following spikes in political unrest.

AI-assisted consultations and virtual dialogues can help mediators reach excluded groups—including women, youth, and displaced communities—enabling broader participation despite barriers of geography, insecurity, or social norms. Yet these approaches face challenges, including limited digital literacy and access, weak cyber-safety protections, and Internet shutdowns used as war tactics, as seen in Ethiopia’s Tigray region. The most effective strategies are hybrid models that account for context-specific technology uses, anticipate the risk of interference, and maximize face-to-face interaction. AI tools can also help analyze narratives and insights drawn from digital and direct consultations.

5. Prevent Conflict and Advance Digital Agreements

There is growing evidence that digital agreements can help prevent conflict by promoting responsible online behavior, including during elections. The Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue has pioneered digital codes of conduct among political parties and election stakeholders in Indonesia, Thailand, Kosovo, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. As local peace agreements proliferate and comprehensive peace agreements become increasingly challenging, integrating digital elements into subnational pacts is a crucial area for mediation attention. In central Nigeria, for instance, HD brokered a digital peace agreement among three ethnic communities to curb online hate speech, violent imagery, and misinformation fueling ethno-religious violence while mobilizing youth and community networks to promote digital peace messaging.

Mediators and diplomats may also consider tackling cyber or digital interference by external actors, which risks destabilizing fragile countries recovering from conflict or uprisings. After the fall of the Assad regime in Syria in December 2024, information campaigns linked to Russia, Iran, and other actors ramped up, reviving old narratives to delegitimize the transition and its leaders. These included claims that opposition groups were Israeli proxies—a charge most notably leveled against Ahmed al-Sharaa, the leader of the transitional government and former commander of the Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) rebel group. Researchers also highlighted the nature of sectarian-based disinformation targeting Syria’s minorities, including fabricated stories of women’s enslavement and attacks on religious sites, exacerbating distrust between communities and fueling fear.

6. Create New Partnerships and Invest in Peace

While the need for peacemaking and peacebuilding that responds to technological advances is growing, global development assistance for peace work in conflict-affected and fragile contexts has rapidly declined. Sustained support and potential private sector partnerships are needed to integrate diverse skills and address the rising threat of armed conflict. The technology sector and proponents of “ethical AI” can and should support peace, whether by issuing grants to nonprofits, adopting corporate social responsibility strategies, lending talent for projects, or investing in social enterprises.

Yet technology is not a panacea; it cannot replace trust or resolve trauma and grievances. If conflict resolution were a software problem, Bill Gates would already be a Nobel laureate. Peace processes require persistence and long-term commitments from external supporters. Technology and AI can broaden citizen engagement, strengthen digital conflict analysis, and enhance accountability by helping monitor ceasefires and peace agreements. The task ahead is to ensure that peacemaking keeps pace with the digital and cyber environments where conflicts now unfold.