> Information war combatants have certainly pursued regime change: there is reasonable suspicion that they succeeded in a few cases

I disagree with those ideas. Until now they look like made-up excuses for problems that have local origin, not external origin.

By claiming that these problems are external we do not only create a division and misunderstanding in the local politics.

We also create a non-existing virtual enemy that will cost a lot of resources. And this might be the actual goal of this article: to get military funding for these projects.

On the other hand there are companies and political organisations directly working to promote a certain idea, and to attack opposing ideas. This is independent of origin of country. These groups can be easily identified as they try to even forbid those ideas, and avoid reasonable public discussions. Discussions that can actually settle the disputes or even give better understanding of the underlying problems.

Certain big companies do not want that. Because their funding and income are directly related to how much products or shit they can sell the public. Criticism of those organisations is usually stopped by buying out media, even science media. And by paying expert to come up with certain conclusions.

The political organisations, or even political agencies try to implement a certain policy. Those are actually two different groups, but the agencies often like to support certain political organisation.
They want to create an "enemy" from everyone that does not support their political idea. This does not matter on what side of politics you are. From: "They are gonna take our guns and freedom" to "all white men are racists".

The general idea is to create an enemy based on fear. The article also does it a bit similar. It is something that I rather step away from, because it does not really identify the problem.

The political groups that create "enemies" to promote certain ideas, just need to talk with each other. Putting internet barriers between them does not help. Both sides are humans. Opposing people talking with each other, in a friendly way, can even create friendships.

Then we have the last group. Agencies that want to support certain political groups to push certain political policies. There are a lot of them, even within a country. The oil-companies want to downplay climate problems. The military wants to push for more wars, maybe for strategic reasons. The CIA wants to push for regime changes, maybe to install their puppet. The Israelis want to stop discussions about Palestine. The Russians want to keep Crimea. But there are much more agencies. Even Billionaires that do their own little policies, like Soros publicly sponsoring immigration.

Each of these agencies have their own goals, and we like to defend against them. Is each agency really working for our interest or for their own? In a democracy we like to choose and have full information.

So the problem is not separated by state. Blockage of information will even prevent us from seeing what is really going on. It will even allow for increased corruption.

If you look what is really going into the problems that are reported, it is unfair politics, and the lack of good unbiased information.