Patterns of Influence and the Defense of Liberal Democracy: Reflections of an Amateur OSINT Analyst

I approach these questions not just as an intelligence analysis enthusiast, but as a citizen of a democratic country and a staunch believer in Western liberal democracy who has grown increasingly uneasy about the information environment we now inhabit. The more I observe contemporary media and political discourse, the more it feels as though the West is fighting an asymmetric struggle - one in which its own openness, pluralism, and commitment to free expression are being systematically exploited by anti-Western powers that do not share those values.

From an amateur OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) analyst’s perspective, what matters most is not legal proof but pattern recognition. Courts require hard evidence; intelligence analysis works with probabilities, incentives, and behavioral consistency. When commentators repeatedly frame global events in ways that consistently absolve authoritarian regimes while portraying Western democracies as uniquely malevolent, this asymmetry itself becomes meaningful data. Selective universalism - demanding human rights only when it suits a particular geopolitical narrative - is not an accident. It is a feature.

Figures like Scott Ritter illustrate this dynamic well. His commentary on international affairs, particularly regarding Russia and Ukraine, is not merely critical of the West but strikingly one-sided. Counter-arguments are dismissed as propaganda, while authoritarian narratives are treated as sober realism. Whether Ritter is motivated by ideology, resentment, or financial incentives is ultimately less important than the functional outcome: his messaging reliably serves the interests of a hostile power. From an intelligence standpoint, that makes him useful, regardless of intent.

The same logic applies to high-profile commentators on the populist right such as Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens. Their anti-system posture resonates with domestic audiences who feel alienated by elites, yet the narratives they advance often converge neatly with Russian or Iranian messaging. When these narratives slide into antisemitic tropes or conspiratorial frameworks, the red flags multiply. These are not marginal details; they are classic components of influence operations designed to polarize societies and erode trust in democratic institutions.

On the left, similar patterns appear in different ideological clothing. George Galloway’s long-standing collaboration with Russian and Iranian state broadcasters moved him beyond mere alignment into open participation in foreign propaganda ecosystems. In such cases, the label “paid mouthpiece” is not polemical but descriptive. It reflects a professional relationship that leaves little room for claims of editorial independence.

More contested figures, such as Mehdi Hasan, occupy a greyer zone. His background within Qatari-funded media structures and the perception that his current platforms remain embedded in that ecosystem cannot be legally proven to amount to direction or control. Yet intelligence analysis does not operate on legal thresholds. It asks whether funding, platform access, and narrative outcomes systematically align with the strategic interests of a foreign state. When they do, skepticism is not paranoia; it is prudence.

The contrast with journalists like Rageh Omaar is therefore instructive. His decision to leave Al Jazeera when he perceived it transforming into a more overt instrument of state propaganda signals agency and resistance to structural capture. From an analytical perspective, departures like this matter as much as affiliations. They demonstrate that individuals still have choices - and that those choices carry moral and professional weight.

What troubles me most, as a believer in liberal democracy, is that many talented journalists and intellectuals have made the opposite choice. Lured by higher salaries, global reach, and personal brand-building opportunities, they remain within state-aligned media systems even as editorial independence erodes. Over time, adaptation becomes normalization, and normalization becomes complicity. The short-term rewards may be substantial, but the long-term cost is credibility. Once a journalist is widely perceived as a mercenary for foreign narratives, trust rarely returns.

These dynamics are no longer confined to media alone. Western university campuses have become fertile ground for influence operations as well. Authoritarian states and ideological movements invest heavily in academic partnerships, funding programs, student organizations, and “cultural exchanges” that subtly shape discourse. Legitimate criticism of Western policies is encouraged - often rightly - but it is selectively framed to delegitimize liberal democracy itself while excusing or romanticizing authoritarian alternatives. In environments that prize openness and moral idealism, such influence is remarkably easy to exert and difficult to challenge without accusations of censorship or intolerance.

As a citizen, this alarms me. Liberal democracy is not perfect, but it is uniquely capable of self-correction. Its greatest weakness is also its greatest strength: openness. Anti-Western powers understand this and weaponize it. They exploit free speech protections, academic freedom, and media pluralism to amplify narratives designed to fragment societies from within.

What, then, can be done without betraying democratic values? First, transparency must be non-negotiable. Funding sources for media platforms, influencers, academic programs, and NGOs should be clearly disclosed. Sunlight does not silence speech, but it allows citizens to evaluate it more critically. Second, media literacy must be treated as a core civic skill. Citizens should be taught not what to think, but how influence works - how narratives travel, how incentives shape messaging, and how emotional manipulation functions. Third, democratic states must invest in their own information resilience, supporting independent journalism and academic research that is rigorous, pluralistic, and genuinely autonomous.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we must abandon the comforting illusion that influence operations only matter when they are illegal. The battlefield today is not the courtroom but the public mind. From an intelligence perspective, patterns that repeatedly converge are rarely coincidental. From a democratic perspective, ignoring those patterns out of fear of appearing illiberal is itself a dangerous form of complacency.

I remain convinced that Western liberal democracy is worth defending - not because it is flawless, but because it allows for dissent without fear and correction without collapse. Recognizing how anti-Western powers exploit its openness is not a betrayal of those values. It is a necessary step in preserving them.