The new front in great power competition is not cyber or space, but cognition. Beijing and Moscow are systematically weaponizing perception – deploying artificial intelligence, disinformation, and psychological operations to erode trust in institutions, fracture alliances, and weaken democratic resolve from within.

Chinese strategists increasingly view the human brain as the decisive battlespace of the 21st century: empowering the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and aligned actors to operationalize cognitive warfare (the systematic targeting of human perception, trust, and decision-making).

Summary

Recent reports from allies such as Japan’s National Institute for Defense Studies (NIDS) and analyses from RAND, NDU, and others show how China is building the doctrine, technical capability, and operational playbooks to exploit vulnerabilities at scale. These range from AI-enabled propaganda, deepfake campaigns, and microtargeting of individuals to longer-term efforts at reshaping perception and undermining trust in democratic institutions.

Meanwhile, real-world cases (such as the BBC’s exposure of a Russian network in Moldova) demonstrate how adversaries weaponize cognitive vulnerabilities to disrupt elections and sow division. Collectively, this literature reveals an asymmetry: while adversaries integrate cognitive warfare into their doctrine, the U.S. and allies still lack a unified strategy.

Why It Matters

• Strategic Asymmetry: Adversaries like China and Russia embrace cognitive warfare as a central doctrine, while Western responses remain fragmented.
• Civilizational Vulnerability: Democracies are inherently exposed due to open information ecosystems, polarized societies, and algorithmic dependence.
• Operational Blind Spots: Western militaries risk preparing for yesterday’s wars (focusing on physical readiness) while adversaries hack the cognitive infrastructure of minds.

As Defense One argued, the first step is definitional clarity: without a shared framework for “cognitive warfare,” defensive measures will remain ad hoc.

What is “Cognitive Warfare”? Definitions and Conceptual Framing

The term “cognitive warfare” (sometimes “cognitive domain operations” or “cognitive domain warfare”) refers to conflict focused on shaping, manipulating, or degrading adversary cognition (perceptions, beliefs, decisionmaking, sense of reality, and willingness to act) rather than (or in addition to) purely kinetic or cyber means. It can overlap with information warfare, psychological operations, influence operations, disinformation campaigns, and neuro-psychological techniques.

A few conceptual clarifications from the literature:

• In The Ins and Outs of Cognitive Warfare (NDU/INSS), the authors propose that cognitive warfare spans biological, psychological, and socio-economic dimensions, and influence can be exerted “inside-out” (directly on neurocognitive processes), “outside-in” (by shaping environments, symbols, narratives), or in combination. Institute for National Strategic Studies
• The U.S. Army’s MadSciBlog frames China’s cognitive warfare as a zero-sum struggle for reality, where “facts become lies and reality is created by machines crunching big data.” Mad Scientist Laboratory
• Hung et al. (2022), in How China’s Cognitive Warfare Works, categorize Chinese cognitive operations into modes like military intimidation, bilateral exchanges, religious/cultural influence, and symbolic manipulation. OUP Academic
• NIDS’ China’s Quest for Control of the Cognitive Domain and Gray Zone Situations (2023) treats the cognitive domain as overlapping with “gray zone” conflict (non-kinetic coercion, influence campaigns, and information operations).

In sum, cognitive warfare is about targeting human minds (belief, perception, decision, morale) often via stealthy, incremental influence vectors, amplified by digital technology (AI, social media, algorithmic tailoring, control of information flows).

Key Points

• PLA Doctrine: Seizing the Mind
  The PLA frames the “cognitive domain” as a decisive front. The CASI study describes Beijing’s ambition to “win without fighting” by eroding adversary morale and legitimacy.
• Integration with Gray Zone Operations
  Japan’s NIDS report shows how cognitive warfare is blended with cyber, information, and economic coercion to achieve cumulative effects.
• Emerging Technology Enablers
  The RAND report highlights PLA exploration of neuroscience, brain science, AI, and data analytics to enhance psychological warfare.
• Shaping Reality
  The U.S. Army’s MadSci Blog describes how the CCP seeks to blur fact and fiction, using algorithms to create adaptive realities.
• Proof of Concept in Moldova
  The BBC investigation uncovered a paid propaganda network that aimed to delegitimize Moldova’s elections – a clear real-world application of cognitive operations.
• U.S. Awareness Gap
  Analysts such as Elsa Kania have long warned that cognitive warfare is not futuristic but already operationalized. Yet institutional responses remain slow.

Case Studies in Russian Cognitive Conflict Strategy

The Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, October 6, 2025, from the Institute for the Study of War highlights how Moscow sustains pressure on multiple Ukrainian fronts through attritional tactics, probing attacks, and combined arms supported by drones and electronic warfare. While lacking decisive breakthroughs, Russia’s strategy is to stretch Ukraine’s defenses, preserve freedom of maneuver, and reinforce narratives of momentum and resolve.

Meanwhile, Recorded Future’s CopyCop Deepens Its Playbook with New Websites and Targets details how the Russian-linked CopyCop (Storm-1516) network has scaled its covert influence operations. Since early 2025, it has launched over 200 deceptive websites impersonating media outlets and political groups across multiple countries, using deepfakes, fabricated interviews, and AI-generated content to manipulate discourse. The campaign now spans languages from Ukrainian to Swahili, showing how Russia operationalizes cognitive warfare globally by embedding false narratives into the information ecosystem.

What Next?

• Escalation via AI: As generative AI tools proliferate, expect an exponential scaling of deepfake-enabled influence campaigns.
• Election Interference: Moldova is a preview; U.S. and allied elections are likely targets of precision cognitive operations.
• Civil-Military Divide: Without an integrated whole-of-society defense, military resilience alone will fail to counter population-level influence operations.
• Doctrinal Convergence: NATO and allies may move toward recognizing the “cognitive domain” as a formal battlespace, akin to cyber and space.

Recommendations from the Reports and Real-World Cases

• Define the Domain: Adopt shared definitions and doctrine for “cognitive warfare” across U.S. and allied institutions.
• Build Resilience: Integrate media literacy, critical thinking, and mental resilience into military and civilian training.
• Inoculate Populations: Develop public inoculation campaigns against disinformation, leveraging lessons from psychology and behavioral science.
• Integrate Across Domains: Treat cognitive defense as inseparable from cyber, space, and information ops.
• Red-Team Continuously: Run adversary-style cognitive ops simulations to test vulnerabilities in elections, military morale, and civil trust.

Additional OODA Loop Resources

• Cognitive Warfare in Cyberspace: A Brief Look at China, Russia, and the United States: Explores how China, Russia, and the U.S. conceptualize and deploy cognitive warfare in cyberspace, comparing strategies and implications for national security.
• Cognitive Infrastructure Worldwide is Under Attack in “the Worst Cognitive Warfare Conditions since WWII”: Frames the current global environment as the most intense period of cognitive warfare since World War II, emphasizing the fragility of democratic information systems.
• A Failure of Imagination and Cognitive Biases: Where is the Truly Innovative Public/Private Partnership to Deliver Humanitarian Aid in Gaza?: Argues that cognitive biases and institutional inertia hinder innovative solutions for delivering humanitarian aid in complex conflict zones like Gaza.
• Information Warfare, Social Engineering, and Ransomware: A Global Situational Awareness and Threat Vector Survey: Provides a survey of global cyber and influence threats, analyzing how ransomware and social engineering intersect with broader information warfare campaigns.
• Biotechnology in Warfare and Battle – and the Human Body as a Warfighting Domain: Examines biotechnology as both an enabler and target in warfare, arguing that the human body itself is emerging as a contested warfighting domain.
• The Flood of Illicit Fentanyl Erodes U.S. Social Integrity and Cognitive Infrastructure: Connects the fentanyl crisis to national security, framing it as an assault on America’s cognitive infrastructure and social resilience.
• The Digital Forensic Research Lab on Narrative Warfare and the Invasion of Ukraine: Highlights DFRLab’s analysis of Russian narrative warfare around the invasion of Ukraine, underscoring how stories are weaponized alongside kinetic operations.
• The OODA Loop, Information Warfare, the Ukrainian Defense and the Collapse of the Russian Army: Explains how Ukraine’s agile information operations and OODA-style decision cycles have outpaced Russian military rigidity, contributing to battlefield failures.
• July 2025 OODA Network Meeting: Navigating the Evolving Cybersecurity and Geopolitical Landscape: Summarizes key insights from OODA Network members on emerging cybersecurity threats and geopolitical risks in mid-2025.
• Unlocking Intelligence Analyst Excellence: New Frontiers in Neuroscience for Cognitive Performance: Explores advances in neuroscience and their application to intelligence analysis, focusing on tools to boost cognitive performance and resilience.

A Deeper Dive

Key Reports and Sources

• Battlefield Cyber: How China and Russia Are Undermining Our Democracy and National Security (Michael McLaughlin, Steve Soble, Charles Durant, Gary Longsine, Dave Schroeder, Isaac Stone Fish, Gordon Crovitz, 2022)
  Explores how adversaries use cyber and cognitive operations to target Western democratic institutions, information systems, and public opinion.
• China’s Quest for Control of the Cognitive Domain and Gray Zone Situations (National Institute for Defense Studies, Japan, 2023)
  A comprehensive Japanese defense study on how China integrates cognitive operations with gray-zone coercion and influence campaigns.
• Chinese Next-Generation Psychological Warfare: The Military Applications of Emerging Technologies and Implications for the United States (RAND, 2023)
  Analyzes PLA thinking about emerging technologies (AI, big data, neuroscience) in psychological and cognitive warfare.
• Minds at War: China’s Pursuit of Military Advantage through Altered Cognition and Behavior (Elsa Kania, Prism / NDU Press, 2019)
  Foundational analysis of PLA interest in cognition, decision-making, and human-machine integration in future conflict.
• How China Wins the Cognitive Domain (China Aerospace Studies Institute, Air University, 2023)
  Examines Chinese doctrinal framing of the cognitive domain as a decisive battlespace.
• The “Ins” and “Outs” of Cognitive Warfare: What’s the Next Move (National Defense University / INSS, 2025)
  Frames cognitive warfare as spanning biological, psychological, and socio-economic layers, and calls for an updated U.S. doctrine.
• Cognitive Warfare: China’s Effort to Ensure Information Advantage (U.S. Army Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin, ~2022)
  Highlights PLA approaches to weaponizing neuroscience, exploiting biases, and distinguishing cognitive warfare from traditional information ops.
• China’s Chilling Cognitive Warfare Plans (The Diplomat, 2024)
  Overview of PLA plans for AI-enabled influence operations, deepfakes, and public-opinion warfare.
• How China’s Cognitive Warfare Works (Journal of Global Security Studies, 2022)
  Breaks Chinese cognitive operations into categories such as military intimidation, cultural manipulation, and symbolic influence.
• Challenging Reality: Chinese Cognitive Warfare and the Fight to Hack Your Brain (U.S. Army TRADOC MadSciBlog, 2021)
  Discusses PLA ambitions to use technology and data to “hack reality” and undermine decision-making.
• China is Waging Cognitive Warfare. Fighting Back Starts by Defining It (Defense One, 2025)
  A call for the U.S. to define, recognize, and counter cognitive warfare as a distinct domain.
• BBC Investigation: Paid Network Spreading Russian Propaganda in Moldova (BBC, 2024)
  Exposes a covert influence operation paying Moldovan citizens to spread Russian propaganda and question election legitimacy, illustrating real-world cognitive operations in action.