A classic example of cognitive warfare is the concept called „reflexive control” – a refined technique by Russia over many decades. This involves shaping the adversary’s perceptions to one’s own benefit without them realizing they have been manipulated. Although it can cause casualties, no rule defines this type of warfare.
Imagine waking up to news that a new deadly strain of flu has appeared in your city. Health officials downplay it, but social networks are flooded with contradictory claims by „medical experts” debating its origin and severity.
Hospitals are full of patients showing flu-like symptoms, hindering others from receiving medical care and ultimately leading to deaths.
Gradually, it turns out that a foreign adversary orchestrated this panic by spreading false information, such as the strain having a very high mortality rate.
This is cognitive warfare (cog war), a hybrid war in which the mental domain is used on the battlefield or in hostile attacks in countries not involved in conflicts but can be destabilized by hidden state actors. However, even though it causes casualties, no rule defines this as an act of war, writes The Conversation.
The objective of cognitive warfare
A classic example of cognitive warfare is the concept called "reflexive control" - a refined technique by Russia over many decades. This involves shaping the adversary's perceptions to one's own benefit without them realizing they have been manipulated.
In the context of the conflict in Ukraine, this has included narratives about Moscow's historical claims over Ukrainian territory and portraying the West as morally decadent.
Cognitive warfare aims to gain an advantage over an adversary by targeting attitudes and behaviors at the individual, group, or population level. It is designed to alter perceptions of reality, turning "shaping human cognition" into a critical domain of warfare. Therefore, it is a weapon used in a geopolitical battle, unfolding through interactions between human minds, not physical entities.
As it can be conducted without the physical damages regulated by current laws of classic warfare, cognitive warfare exists in a legal gray area. But this does not mean it cannot incite violence based on false information or cause bodily harm and deaths through side effects.
The battle of minds is fought with unseen weapons
The idea that war is essentially a mental battle, where cognitive manipulation is central, echoes the Chinese strategist Sun Tzu (5th century BC), the author of the book "The Art of War." Today, the online realm is the main arena for such operations.
The digital revolution has allowed increasingly personalized content to influence biases mapped through our digital footprint, known as "microtargeting."
Artificial intelligence can even offer targeted content without taking any photographs or recording any videos. All that is needed is a well-crafted artificial intelligence request supporting the narrative and predefined objectives of malicious actors, while covertly misleading the public.
Such disinformation campaigns increasingly affect the human physical aspect. The cited publication provides some notable examples:
- In the war in Ukraine, we see accusations that Ukrainian authorities were intentionally hiding or inciting the creation of cholera outbreaks. Accusations regarding US-supported biological weapons laboratories were also part of justifications for Russia's large-scale invasion.
- During the Covid pandemic, false information led to deaths when people refused protective measures or used harmful remedies to treat themselves. Some pandemic narratives were fueled as part of a geopolitical confrontation.
While the United States engaged in covert informational operations, state-linked actors from Russia and China coordinated campaigns using AI-generated social media personas and microtargeting to shape opinions at community and individual levels, underscores The Conversation.
Conventional laws of war assume that physical force, such as bombs and bullets, are the main concern, leaving cognitive warfare in a legal gray zone.
Is psychological manipulation an "armed attack" justifying self-defense under the UN Charter? Currently, there is no clear answer.
But a state actor could use health disinformation to cause mass casualties in another country without officially triggering a war.
Similar discrepancies exist in situations where war, as traditionally seen, is actually ongoing, such as in Ukraine. Here, cognitive warfare can blur the line between military-generated psychological operations (within war strategies) and prohibited manipulation.
How Can We Defend Ourselves in Cognitive Warfare
First and foremost, we need to rethink what "threats" mean in modern conflicts. The UN Charter already prohibits "threats or use of force" against other nations, but this locks us into a mindset based on physical threats. When a foreign power floods the media with false medical alerts meant to create panic, does it not threaten the country as effectively as an invasion or military blockade?
Although this issue was recognized as early as 2017 by expert groups that developed the Tallinn Manual on Cyber Warfare (Rule 70), current legal provisions have not been adapted to the evolving context.
Secondly, we must acknowledge that psychological harm is real damage. When we think of war wounds, we imagine physical injuries. However, post-traumatic stress disorder has long been recognized as a legitimate war injury - so the effects on mental health from cognitive warfare operations should also be addressed.
Finally, traditional laws of war may not be sufficient - we should seek solutions within human rights frameworks.
These already include protecting freedom of thought, freedom of opinion, and prohibitions against war propaganda to shield the population from cognitive attacks. States have an obligation to uphold these rights both domestically and abroad.
Using increasingly sophisticated tactics and technologies to manipulate understanding and emotions represents one of the most insidious threats to human autonomy in our time. Only by adapting legal frameworks to this challenge can we promote societal resilience and equip future generations to face the crises and conflicts of tomorrow, concludes the publication.
T.D.