#FactCheck - Viral Post of Gautam Adani’s Public Arrest Found to Be AI-Generated

Over the last decade, battlefields have percolated from mountains, deserts, jungles, seas, and the skies into the invisible networks of code and cables. Cyberwarfare is no longer a distant possibility but today’s reality. The cyberattacks of Estonia in 2007, the crippling of Iran’s nuclear program by the Stuxnet virus, the SolarWinds and Colonial Pipeline breaches in recent years have proved one thing: that nations can now paralyze economies and infrastructures without firing a bullet.  Cyber operations now fall beyond the traditional threshold of war, allowing aggressors to exploit the grey zone where full-scale retaliation may be unlikely. 

At the same time, this ambiguity has also given rise to the concept of cyber deterrence. It is a concept that has been borrowed from the nuclear strategies during the Cold War era and has been adapted to the digital age. At the core, cyber deterrence seeks to alter the adversary’s cost-benefit calculation that makes attacks either too costly or pointless to pursue. While power blocs like the US, Russia, and China continue to build up their cyber arsenals, smaller nations can hold unique advantages, most importantly in terms of their resilience, if not firepower.   

‍

Understanding the concept of Cyber Deterrence

‍

Deterrence, in its classic sense, is about preventing action through the fear of consequences. It usually manifests in four mechanisms as follows:

• Punishment by threatening to impose costs on attackers, whether by counter-attacks, economic sanctions, or even conventional forces. 
• Denial of attacks by making them futile through hardened defences, and ensuring the systems to resist, recover, and continue to function. 
• Entanglement by leveraging interdependence in trade, finance, and technology to make attacks costly for both attackers and defenders. 
• Norms can also help shape behaviour by stigmatizing reckless cyber actions by imposing reputational costs that can exceed any gains. 

However, great powers have always emphasized the importance of punishment as a tool to showcase their power by employing offensive cyber arsenals to instill psychological pressure on their rivals. Yet in cyberspace, punishment has inherent flaws. 

‍

The Advantage of Asymmetry 

‍

For small states,  smaller geographical size can be utilised as a benefit. Three advantages of this exist, such as:

• With fewer critical infrastructures to protect,  resources can be concentrated. For example, Denmark, with a modest population of $40 million cyber budget, is considered to be among the most cyber-secure nations, despite receiving billions of US spending.  
• Smaller bureaucracies enable faster response. The centralised cyber command of Singapore allows it to ensure a rapid coordination between the government and the private sector. 
• Smaller countries with lesser populations can foster a higher public awareness and participation in cyber hygiene by amplifying national resilience.  

In short, defending a small digital fortress can be easier than securing a sprawling empire of interconnected systems. 

‍

Lessons from Estonia and Singapore 

‍

The 2007 crisis of Estonia remains a case study of cyber resilience. Although its government, bank, and media were targeted in offline mode, Estonia emerged stronger by investing heavily in cyber defense mechanisms. Another effort in this case stood was with the hosting of NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence to build one of the world’s most resilient e-governance models. 

Singapore is another case. Where, recognising its vulnerability as a global financial hub, it has adopted a defense-centric deterrence strategy by focusing on redundancy, cyber education, and international partnership rather than offensive capacity. These approaches can also showcase that deterrence is not always about scaring attackers with retaliation, it is about making the attacks meaningless.  

‍

Cyber deterrence and Asymmetric Warfare

‍

Cyber conflict is understood through the lens of asymmetric warfare, where weaker actors exploit the unconventional and stronger foes. As guerrillas get outmanoeuvred by superpowers in Vietnam or Afghanistan, small states hold the capability to frustrate the cyber giants by turning their size into a shield. The essence of asymmetric cyber defence also lies in three principles, which can be mentioned as; 

• Resilience over retaliation by ensuring a rapid recovery to neutralise the goals of the attackers. 
• Undertaking smart investments focusing on limited budgets over critical assets, not sprawling infrastructures. 
• Leveraging norms to shape the international opinions to stigmatize the aggressors and increase the reputational costs. 

This also helps to transform the levels of cyber deterrence into a game of endurance rather than escalating it into a domain where small states can excel. 

There remain challenges as well, as attribution problems persist, the smaller nations still depend on foreign technology, which the adversaries have sought to exploit. Issues over the shortage of talent have plagued the small states, as cyber professionals have migrated to get lucrative jobs abroad. Moreover, building deterrence capability through norms requires active multilateral cooperation, which may not be possible for all small nations to sustain. 

Conclusion

‍

Cyberwarfare represents a new frontier of asymmetric conflict where size does not guarantee safety or supremacy. Great powers have often dominated the offensive cyber arsenals, where small states have carved their own path towards security by focusing on defence, resilience, and international collaboration. The examples of Singapore and Estonia demonstrate the fact that the small size of a state can be its identity of a hidden strength in capabilities like cyberspace, allowing nimbleness, concentration of resources and societal cohesion. In the long run, cyber deterrence for small states will not rest on fearsome retaliation but on making attacks futile and recovery inevitable. 

‍

References

‍

• https://bluegoatcyber.com/blog/asymmetric-warfare/
• https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2268&context=jss
• https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rising-tide-cyberwarfare-battle-between-superpowers-hussain/ 
• https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1243&context=gpis_etds
• https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=141708
• https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1243&context=gpis_etds 

Executive Summary:
‍

Amid the ongoing war involving the United States, Israel, and Iran, a video clip circulating on social media claims to show Iran unveiling a drone resembling the US B-2 stealth bomber. In the viral clip, an aircraft-like object can be seen emerging from a cave before taking off. Several users are sharing the video with the claim that Iran has deployed a B-2-style drone in the conflict.

However, research by the CyberPeace found that the viral video is not real and was generated using artificial intelligence. While the United States has reportedly used B-2 stealth bombers in strikes against Iran during the conflict, the viral clip does not show an actual Iranian drone.

‍

Claim

‍

X user “Muslim_Voice_Space” posted the video on March 3, 2026, claiming that Iran had rolled out a drone resembling the B-2 bomber for use in the war.
‍

• https://x.com/MuslimVoicespac/status/2028548418751369577?s=20 
• https://perma.cc/PL4S-J3D4 

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the claim, we first closely examined the viral video. In the opening moments of the clip, the wing of the alleged drone appears to hit the side of the cave while exiting. Despite the apparent collision, the aircraft continues flying smoothly without any visible damage. This unusual detail raised doubts about the authenticity of the footage.

We then analyzed the video using the AI detection tool Hive Moderation, which flagged the clip as likely AI-generated.

‍

‍

Further analysis using the Sightengine AI detection tool also suggested that the video was artificially created. The tool estimated a 75% probability that the footage was generated using AI. It also indicated a 70% likelihood that the clip may have been created using Sora, an AI video-generation tool.
‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

The viral video claiming to show an Iranian drone resembling the US B-2 stealth bomber emerging from a cave is not authentic. Analysis indicates that the clip was created using AI tools and is being misleadingly shared in the context of the ongoing conflict.

‍

Introduction

In the labyrinthine corridors of the digital age, where information zips across the globe with the ferocity of a tempest, the truth often finds itself ensnared in a web of deception. It is within this intricate tapestry of reality and falsehood that we find ourselves examining two distinct yet equally compelling cases of misinformation, each a testament to the pervasive challenges that beset our interconnected world.

Case 1: The Deceptive Video: Originating in Malaysia, Misattributed to Indian Railway Development

A misleading video claiming to showcase Indian railway construction has been debunked as footage from Malaysia's East Coast Rail Link (ECRL). Fact-checking efforts by India TV traced the video's origin to Malaysia, revealing deceptive captions in Tamil and Hindi. The video was initially posted on Twitter on January 9, 2024, announcing the commencement of track-laying for Malaysia's East Coast Railway. Further investigation reveals the ECRL as a joint venture between Malaysia and China, involving the laying of tracks along the east coast, challenging assertions of Indian railway development. The ECRL's track-laying initiative, initiated in December 2023, is part of China's Belt and Road initiative, covering 665 kilometers across states like Kelantan, Terengganu, Pahang, and Selangor, with a completion target set for 2025.

The video in question, a digital chameleon, had its origins not in the bustling landscapes of India but within the verdant bounds of Malaysia. Specifically, it was a scene captured from the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) project, a monumental joint venture between Malaysia and China, unfurling across 665 kilometers of Malaysian terrain. This ambitious endeavor, part of the grand Belt and Road initiative, is a testament to the collaborative spirit that defines our era, with tracks stretching from Kelantan to Selangor, and a completion horizon set for the year 2025.

The unveiling of this grand project was graced by none other than Malaysia’s King Sultan Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah, in Pahang, underscoring the strategic alliance with China and the infrastructural significance of the ECRL. Yet, despite the clarity of its origins, the video found itself cloaked in a narrative of Indian development, a falsehood that spread like wildfire across the digital savannah.

Through the meticulous application of keyframe analysis and reverse image searches, the truth was laid bare. Reports from reputable sources such as the Associated Press and the Global Times, featuring the very same machinery, corroborated the video's true lineage. This revelation not only highlighted the ECRL's geopolitical import but also served as a clarion call for the critical role of fact-checking in an era where misinformation proliferates with reckless abandon.

Case 2: Kerala's Incident: Investigating Fake Narratives

Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has registered 53 cases related to spreading fake narratives on social media to incite communal sentiments following the blasts at a Christian religious gathering in October 2023. Vijayan said cases have been registered against online news portals, editors, and Malayalam television channels. The state police chief has issued directions to monitor social media to stop fake news spread and take appropriate actions.

In a different corner of the world, the serene backdrop of Kerala was shattered by an event that would ripple through the fabric of its society. The Kalamassery blast, a tragic occurrence at a Christian religious gathering, claimed the lives of eight individuals and left over fifty wounded. In the wake of this calamity, a man named Dominic Martin surrendered, claiming responsibility for the heinous act.

Yet, as the investigation unfolded, a different kind of violence emerged—one that was waged not with explosives but with words. A barrage of fake narratives began to circulate through social media, igniting communal tensions and distorting the narrative of the incident. The Kerala Chief Minister, Pinarayi Vijayan, informed the Assembly that 53 cases had been registered across the state, targeting individuals and entities that had fanned the flames of discord through their digital utterances.

The Kerala police, vigilant guardians of truth, embarked on a digital crusade to quell the spread of these communally instigative messages. With a particular concentration of cases in Malappuram district, the authorities worked tirelessly to dismantle the network of fake profiles that propagated religious hatred. Social media platforms were directed to assist in this endeavor, revealing the IP addresses of the culprits and enabling the cyber cell divisions to take decisive action.

In the aftermath of the blasts, the Chief Minister and the state police chief ordered special instructions to monitor social media platforms for content that could spark communal uproar. Cyber patrolling became the order of the day, as a 20-member probe team was constituted to  deeply investigate the incident. 

Conclusion

These two cases, disparate in their nature and geography, converge on a singular point: the fragility of truth in the digital age. They highlight the imperative for vigilance and the pursuit of accuracy in a world where misinformation can spread like wildfire. As we navigate this intricate cyberscape, it is imperative to be mindful of the power of fact-checking and the importance of media literacy, for they are the light that guides us through the fog of falsehoods to the shores of veracity. 

These narratives are not merely stories of deception thwarted; they are a call to action, a reminder of our collective responsibility to safeguard the integrity of our shared reality. Let us, therefore, remain steadfast in our quest for the truth, for it is only through such diligence that we can hope to preserve the sanctity of our discourse and the cohesion of our societies.

References:

1. https://www.indiatvnews.com/fact-check/fact-check-misleading-video-claims-malaysian-rail-project-indian-truth-ecrl-india-railway-development-pm-modi-2024-01-29-914282
2. https://sahilonline.org/kalamasserry-blast-53-cases-registered-across-kerala-for-spreading-fake-news

‍