That's true but I think it's disingenuous to say that countering enemy propaganda must also be propaganda. It doesn't have to be.

Nobody is forcing you to call it anything—you could just as easily call it "marketing" or "news". Anyway, "fact" is a convenient fantasy in most cases when you actually mean "strong belief grounded in sources you trust".

Words are all the same or meaningless and there is no truth or facts? Thanks for imparting some wisdom comrade.

I think that "strong belief grounded in degrees of trust" is a much more powerful concept than "fact" in practice, not to mention one that's much more difficult to attack from a theory of knowledge perspective especially in a post-Wittgenstein world, but I understand why this is such a controversial concept when there's such a focus on folks actively undermining this.