The concept
Disinfolklore has a diplomatic cousin worth naming: strategic hypocrisy — the deliberate cultivation of ambiguity as a tool of power. Where ordinary hypocrisy is the failure to live up to one’s stated principles, strategic hypocrisy is the deliberate engineering of an arrangement that is precisely neither one thing nor its opposite, so that power can move freely through the resulting gap. The ambiguity is not a side-effect. The ambiguity is the product.
The textbook case is the formula the British Empire used for Tibet in the first half of the twentieth century: “Chinese suzerainty, Tibetan autonomy.” Neither sovereignty nor independence. A status that gave London plausible legal cover for whatever it next chose to do, and gave Beijing and Lhasa plausible cover for whatever they next chose to claim. No party could be pinned to a falsifiable position, and the ambiguity itself became a movable resource that the strongest player could exploit. (The contemporary academic vocabulary for this comes from Dibyesh Anand, Hindu Nationalism in India and the Politics of Fear and related work; the pattern is much older than the term.)
Examples in Russia’s playbook
Once you have the concept, you start to see strategic hypocrisy everywhere in Russia’s twenty-first-century operations:
- “Little Green Men” in Crimea (2014). Soldiers in unmarked uniforms whose state affiliation was deliberately ambiguous, so that no NATO trigger condition could be unambiguously met. (See Little Green Men.)
- The self-declared “Folk’s Republics” in Donbas (2014-2022). Neither quite states nor quite not-states, so that Russian command of the war could be denied while Russian command of the war was being exercised.
- “Humanitarian convoys.” Lorries that were neither quite aid nor quite military supply, so that interception triggered a moral charge against the interceptor and non-interception delivered the cargo.
- “Ceasefires” consisting of nightly barrages. A signed truce that was neither honoured nor renounced, so that Russia could demand that Ukraine respect a peace it was simultaneously violating.
- The Istanbul Peace Talks. A negotiating position that was neither quite a real proposal nor quite a non-proposal, so that the appearance of a peace process could be activated as a diplomatic instrument whenever Western opinion needed slowing down.
- Trump’s just kidding defence. A statement that is neither quite a claim nor quite a non-claim, so that the speaker can keep both the credit if the audience likes it and the deniability if they don’t.
In every case, the ambiguity is the asset. The party that can sustain the ambiguity longest gets to choose, retroactively, which interpretation was the real one — usually after the situation has moved on and the choice no longer carries any cost.
Why this matters for Disinfolklore
Disinfolklore is what strategic hypocrisy becomes when the propagation apparatus is social media rather than imperial dispatches. Same mechanism, faster clock, wider reach.
The diplomatic cousin operated on the timescales of imperial communication: weeks for a despatch to travel, months for a parliament to react, years for a status to harden into precedent. Disinfolklore operates on the timescales of the algorithmic feed: seconds for a meme to land, hours for the framing to harden, days for the alternative interpretations to become socially impossible to articulate. The structural move — cultivate the ambiguity, exploit the gap, move freely through the zone where responsibility cannot be assigned — is identical. Only the clock has changed.
This is why diplomats trained in the classical era are often the best early-warning indicators for Disinfolklore. They have already encountered the move. They recognise it immediately when they see it operating at memetic speed.
What strategic hypocrisy reveals about adjudication
Strategic hypocrisy poses a problem for any honest adjudication system. You cannot adjudicate a position the speaker has refused to commit to. The standard counter-disinformation move — pin the speaker to a claim, then refute the claim — fails because the speaker has not made a claim. They have produced a zone, and the zone is the entire payload.
The Disinfolklore method’s response is to adjudicate the zone rather than the claim. The Code of Positive Trolls does not require the troll to commit to a falsifiable proposition. It asks whether what is happening is generous, right, mana-clear, patient, mindful, and insightful. A “ceasefire” that is neither a ceasefire nor a refusal of a ceasefire fails the Right test (it is not what it claims to be), the Patience test (it is engineering urgency for the other side while running out the clock for itself), and the Insight test (it cannot survive any honest description of what it actually is). The zone collapses under all three filters even though the speaker never made a claim that could be refuted on its own terms.
That is why the Code is the right instrument for a strategic-hypocrisy world. It does not need the troll to assert anything. It only needs to ask whether the operation is what it pretends to be.
Footnote on the academic vocabulary
The word “hypocrisy” is doing a lot of work in this term and it is worth being precise about it. The strategic hypocrite is not failing to live up to a value they sincerely hold; they are operating the value as a screen. The literature in International Relations sometimes calls this “organised hypocrisy” (Krasner, 1999, on sovereignty), and Stephen Hopgood and others have explored its operation in human-rights regimes. In all cases the analytical move is the same: distinguish the value as performed from the value as held, and recognise that the performance can be more strategically useful than the holding ever was. Disinfolklore inherits the move and amplifies it through the memetic distribution layer.
← Previous: Peace Signals: The Third Greatest Troll | Back to War Magic | Next: Spectacle →