Modern Warfare has expanded beyond land, sea, and air to include cyber, space, and the information environment, altering the geography of battle. Conflicts such as the Russia-Ukraine war and the Gaza-Israel confrontation illustrate how fake digital narratives shaped by visual media impact global perception, diplomatic pressure and even battlefield outcomes. The rise of open-source intelligence (OSINT) and the democratization of satellite imagery access have made visual data a powerful yet precarious tool. While soldiers continue to operate on battlefields, a parallel war now unfolds across the digital terrain. Modern conflicts are no longer defined solely by firepower; they are shaped by information, perception, and control of the electromagnetic spectrum. The internet and social media have emerged as extensions of the battlespace, where operations are influenced by real-time narratives, disinformation campaigns, and psychological operations.
Visual Media as a Weapon: Between Perception and Deception
One of the most frequently employed assets in this information environment is visual intelligence, satellite imagery, UAV surveillance footage, and electro-optical reconnaissance. These products are often disseminated to support or refute operational claims. However, their tactical value is undermined when manipulated, misinterpreted, or decontextualized methods are routinely exploited in adversarial Military Deception (MILDEC) campaigns. Such techniques are designed to obscure troop movement, fabricate battle damage, or provoke miscalculated responses from friendly forces. Despite these risks, visual media remains a potent tool for influence. It cuts through language barriers and reaches wide audiences quickly. But what is often labelled as “geospatial intelligence” in public discourse is frequently nothing more than raw imagery. True Geospatial Intelligence (GEOINT), as practiced within Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) frameworks, involves structured analysis synchronizing satellite data, UAV feeds, sensor fusion, and ground truth validation to extract operationally relevant insights. It includes target recognition, BDA (Battle Damage Assessment), and spatiotemporal analysis, all processed under OPSEC (Operational Security) constraints.
In an era where electronic warfare, deepfakes, and information operations blur the line between perception and reality, the need for robust image authentication has become a battlefield necessity. This article proposes a doctrinally aligned, technically sound approach integrating AI-powered object detection, secure metadata tagging, blockchain-based integrity verification, and multi-sensor ISR corroboration. This approach transforms raw visual feeds into validated intelligence, enabling command decision loops to function with greater confidence and speed. Ultimately, geospatial communication is more than just imagery; it’s a communication asset. When validated and deployed correctly, it serves as a frontline countermeasure against MILDEC, enhances situational awareness, and supports decision superiority at all levels of command. In today’s digital battlespace, the clarity of visual truth can shape operations as decisively as any kinetic strike.
Background
Visual data plays a foundational role in strategic communications, ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance), and psychological operations. Traditional image analysis in military intelligence involves photointerpretation, object tagging, and cross-referencing with known intelligence databases. However, with civilian access to commercial satellite services such as Maxar, Planet, and Sentinel Hub, the interpretation burden is shifting towards general users, journalists, and policymakers. The major challenges include image manipulation through cropping, re-timestamping, or AI-based editing; loss of metadata, where many images lose EXIF data during sharing; and confirmation bias, where users interpret visuals based on existing beliefs.
In the context of MILDEC, adversaries actively exploit these weaknesses to generate plausible but false visual content. Disinformation campaigns often rely on fabricated satellite imagery, falsified battle damage assessments, or staged visuals disseminated via social media to mislead enemy forces and global observers. As the line between real-time reconnaissance and real-time deception blurs, the strategic value of validated geospatial communication grows exponentially. Recent developments in AI, blockchain, and multi-sensor integration have led to tools for image provenance validation. Projects like Amber Video, Microsoft’s Project Origin, and the Content Authenticity Initiative (CAI) are early steps toward mainstream media verification.
Problematization
While OSINT analysts and defense strategists utilize visual data, there is a growing risk that unverified imagery could mislead public discourse or strategic assessments. In the digital battlespace, MILDEC exploits this vulnerability by distributing content designed to provoke emotional responses, misdirect enemy attention, or fabricate tactical victories. The gap lies in the lack of automated image authentication systems, the absence of cross-source verification protocols for satellite data, and the limited public understanding of how to assess image credibility. This article seeks to propose a scalable technical framework grounded in target acquisition validation protocols, blue-force tracking verification, and situational awareness architecture to validate visual evidence within national security and public communication domains, positioning geospatial communication as a frontline tool against MILDEC.
Proposed Framework: The Visual Intelligence Validation Pipeline (VIVP)
The Visual Intelligence Validation Pipeline is designed to ensure that satellite or drone imagery used in conflict analysis can be reliably authenticated, contextualized, and interpreted. It consists of six components that form a sequential workflow. The process begins with image collection, involving inputs from trusted sources such as satellite services, UAVs, and sensor networks. This is followed by metadata analysis, where Exchangeable Image File Format (EXIF) data is reviewed, timestamps are verified, and GPS tags are checked. The next step is AI-based object recognition, where vehicles, infrastructure damage, or troop movements are identified. Cross-verification is then carried out by comparing the imagery with historical images or data from alternate sensors like thermal imaging. MILDEC, a visual security solution, uses blockchain anchoring and hash-based timestamping to ensure picture uniqueness. Analysts and AI systems use contextual narrative to better comprehend data within operational or strategic contexts, hence increasing operational intelligence and discouraging visual MILDEC efforts.
Visual Claims in Conflict Zones in the Russia-Ukraine War
In March 2022, images emerged allegedly showing mass civilian casualties in Bucha, Ukraine. While Western media published satellite photos to substantiate war crimes, Russia dismissed them as fabrications. Applying the VIVP to this case provides a clear illustration of its utility. The image source was a Maxar satellite feed. Metadata checks confirmed that the timestamps and weather patterns aligned with other available data. AI-based object recognition models tagged the presence of civilian vehicles and bodies. Cross-verification was achieved through drone video and ground photos. Although blockchain anchoring was not yet in practice, its hypothetical application would have proved the image unchanged since capture. Finally, a narrative was constructed highlighting key evidence with associated confidence scores.
Fig. 1: Bucha Killings: Satellite Images Contradict Russian Claims
Gaps in Implementation
Despite the promise of the proposed framework, several barriers remain. Resolution limits in commercial satellite imagery often prevent precise analysis. Adversarial AI tools can generate deepfakes that mimic real visual features, further complicating authentication. Data access remains a concern, as national security protocols restrict the availability of high-resolution satellite feeds. Additionally, real-time AI analysis and blockchain verification demand computational resources that may not be universally accessible. Future research should focus on developing lightweight, open-source toolkits that fulfil MIL-STD requirements, including sensor fusion, supporting force protection systems, and investing in high-assurance systems for journalists, NGOs, and defence agencies.
Ensuring Truth in the Fog of Visual War
As the information domain becomes a critical theatre of war, supported by real-time ISR feeds, electronic warfare countermeasures, and command decision loops, the ability to verify visual evidence is no longer optional. It is a communications imperative. This study has proposed a technical framework the VIVP, to authenticate, analyze, and contextualize image-based data in national security scenarios. Promoting public geospatial literacy and investing in scalable verification technologies can assist in fighting MILDEC methods by combating disinformation and assuring truth in the digital battlespace.
References:
- Sharpe, J., Trichas ,Markos, & and Terrill, D. (2025). Culture: A sixth domain and the introduction of the ‘C6ISRT’ framework. Defence Studies, 25(1), 22–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2024.2397520
- Katikar, H. (2024, August). (PDF) Digital Battlefields Russia-Ukraine Conflict-The Role of Social Media in Modern Warfare, Propaganda and Disinformation. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382996466_Digital_Battlefields_Russia-Ukraine_Conflict-The_Role_of_Social_Media_in_Modern_Warfare_Propaganda_and_Disinformation
- Pikner, S. (2021, April). Leveraging Multi-Domain Military Deception to Expose the Enemy in 2035. Army University Press. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/March-April-2021/Pikner-Military-Deception/
- Rajagopalan, R. P., & Patil, S. (Eds.). (2024). Future warfare and critical technologies: Evolving tactics and strategies. Observer Research Foundation. https://www.orfonline.org/public/uploads/posts/pdf/20240212113627.pdf
- R. Ramsey, C. (2024). Ivy Intelligence (IVI) Large-Scale Combat Operations Targeting (Semi Annual Online Collection No. PB-34-25-1; Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin). https://mipb.ikn.army.mil/media/x0tndvfd/janjune25_online-collection_6a.pdf
- Pfaf, A. (2025). THE WEAPONIZATION OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE THE NEXT STAGE OF TERRORISM AND WARFARE. Centre of Excellence Defence Against Terrorism (COE-DAT). https://www.tmmm.tsk.tr/publication/researches/21-TheWeaponizationofAI-TheNextStageofTerrorismandWarfare.pdf
- Awati, R., & Sheldon, R. (2024, October 17). What is image metadata and how is it used? | Definition from TechTarget. WhatIs. https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/image-metadata
- M. Clark, R. (2019). Deception Counterdeception And Counterintelligence [PDF] [4sfu8rqd7gk0]. https://vdoc.pub/documents/deception-counterdeception-and-counterintelligence-4sfu8rqd7gk0
- BBC Monitoring, (2022, April 4). Bucha killings: Satellite image of bodies site contradicts Russian claims. https://www.bbc.com/news/60981238
- OnGeo Intelligence, (2025, April 16). When Satellite Images Lie: The Rise of Deepfake Geography. https://ongeo-intelligence.com/blog/when-satellite-images-lie-the-rise-of-deepfake-geography