Cognitive Warfare

The New Battlefield of the Mind

In the twenty-first century, conflict has expanded far beyond guns, borders, and physical terrain. Strategic competition increasingly targets how people think, decide, and assign trust. This shift has given rise to what military planners and scholars describe as cognitive warfare, a form of contest that operates not on the battlefield, but within the human mind.

Cognitive warfare represents the contemporary convergence of psychological operations, information influence campaigns, and strategic communication, designed to gain advantage by shaping perception, belief, and decision-making processes (2). Rather than focusing solely on the dissemination of information, cognitive warfare seeks to influence the cognitive mechanisms through which information is interpreted and acted upon.

This article examines how cognitive warfare differs from traditional information operations, why it has become central to modern strategic thinking, and what its rise means for societies, institutions, and democratic systems.

Defining Cognitive Warfare

One of the clearest contemporary definitions of cognitive warfare comes from NATO’s Allied Command Transformation (ACT). NATO defines cognitive warfare as “activities conducted in synchronization with other instruments of power, to affect attitudes and behaviours by influencing, protecting, or disrupting individual, group, or population-level cognition, to gain an advantage over an adversary” (2).

This definition marks a departure from earlier forms of propaganda or misinformation. Cognitive warfare is not primarily concerned with what people think, but how they think. It targets attention, memory, trust, reasoning, and emotional processing, shaping the frameworks through which individuals interpret reality (1).

NATO further conceptualises the human brain as both a target and a weapon, an operational environment in which adversaries contest mental models, belief systems, and collective narratives rather than physical territory alone (1). In this sense, cognitive warfare represents an escalation from message-based influence to cognition-based competition.

From Psychological Operations to Cognitive Domain Competition

Cognitive warfare has deep historical roots. Psychological warfare, propaganda, and political warfare have long been used to influence morale, public opinion, and political stability. During the Cold War, strategic communication and psychological operations played a central role in shaping perceptions across ideological divides, often without direct military confrontation (6).

What distinguishes contemporary cognitive warfare is its systematic integration of digital technology, data analytics, and networked communications. Rather than delivering discrete messages, modern cognitive operations aim to shape the entire informational ecosystem in which beliefs are formed and decisions are made (6).

Where classic propaganda focused on mass audiences, cognitive warfare leverages personalisation, feedback loops, and adaptive messaging. Social media platforms, algorithmic recommendation systems, and machine-learning tools allow influence efforts to evolve in real time, responding to how individuals engage with content and reinforcing cognitive patterns over extended periods (6).

Mechanisms of Cognitive Warfare

Cognitive warfare employs a range of mechanisms that extend beyond traditional information operations.

1.         Disinformation and Misinformation

Targeted falsehoods, misleading narratives, and plausibly deniable influence campaigns remain core components of cognitive warfare. Digital platforms have dramatically increased the speed, scale, and precision of these efforts, allowing coordinated campaigns to distort perceptions around elections, public health, or armed conflict (3).

2.         Algorithmic Amplification

Engagement-driven algorithms used by social media platforms can unintentionally amplify manipulative or emotionally charged content. Adversaries can exploit these systems to reinforce specific narratives, deepen polarisation, and create self-reinforcing information environments that shape group cognition over time (6).

3.         Emotional Triggering and Cognitive Bias Exploitation

Human cognition relies on heuristics and biases to process complexity. Cognitive warfare exploits these biases by triggering emotional responses that bypass analytical reasoning. Content designed to provoke fear, outrage, or identity-based reactions spreads more readily and shapes group sentiment in ways that are difficult to counter with factual correction alone (6).

4.         Trust Erosion

Rather than persuading audiences of a single narrative, cognitive warfare often seeks to undermine trust itself. By seeding doubt about institutions, media, science, or governance, adversaries weaken societal cohesion and decision-making resilience. Once trust erodes, societies become more vulnerable to sustained manipulation (2).

5.         Data-Driven Personalisation

Advances in data analytics and artificial intelligence enable highly granular targeting. Messaging can be tailored to resonate with specific cognitive profiles, cultural contexts, or emotional states, increasing effectiveness while remaining difficult to detect through broad counter-messaging strategies (6).

Contemporary Examples

Several state actors are frequently cited in discussions of cognitive warfare.

Russia’s influence operations illustrate how cognitive effects can accompany kinetic action. Alongside military activity, information campaigns have sought to shape perceptions of legitimacy, responsibility, and intent, while fragmenting international consensus and domestic cohesion within targeted societies (3).

Chinese strategic thinking increasingly frames influence and perception management as integral to long-term competition. Analyses of Chinese doctrine describe “cognitive domain operations” that seek to shape values, narratives, and elite decision-making structures as part of holistic national strategy, often below the threshold of armed conflict (7).

These cases highlight that cognitive warfare is not limited to wartime. Its tools are frequently deployed in grey zones, complicating attribution and challenging existing legal and normative frameworks (4).

Ethical and Legal Challenges

The rise of cognitive warfare raises significant ethical and legal questions. When does influence cross into coercion? How should democratic societies balance freedom of expression with protection against manipulation? What responsibilities do technology platforms bear?

Cognitive warfare blurs the boundary between military and civilian domains. Unlike kinetic force, which is regulated by established international law, cognitive influence often operates in areas where norms and legal frameworks remain underdeveloped (4). This ambiguity raises concerns not only about adversarial use, but also about defensive or counter-influence activities undertaken by states and institutions.

Defence, Resilience, and the Cognitive Domain

Recognising these challenges, NATO ACT has placed increasing emphasis on cognitive resilience. Its Cognitive Warfare Concept focuses on protecting decision-making processes, safeguarding public trust, and integrating cognitive considerations into defence planning (5).

Resilience-oriented approaches include public education on manipulation tactics, digital literacy initiatives, cross-sector coordination between governments, media, and technology platforms, and the development of tools to detect coordinated influence activity (5). These efforts reflect a shift from reactive counter-messaging to proactive cognitive defence.

Conclusion

As technology continues to evolve, cognitive warfare is likely to become more adaptive, personalised, and accessible. Artificial intelligence, immersive environments, and advanced analytics will further blur the line between influence and manipulation, and between civilian and military domains.

At its core, cognitive warfare underscores a defining reality of the information age: perception shapes behaviour, and behaviour shapes outcomes. Understanding how cognition becomes a contested space is essential not only for military planners, but for anyone concerned with governance, security, and decision-making in an increasingly networked world.

---

Also By Us:

---

References

1. NATO Allied Command Transformation. (n.d.). Cognitive warfare. https://www.act.nato.int/activities/cognitive-warfare/

2. NATO Allied Command Transformation. (2023, April 5). Cognitive warfare: Strengthening and defending the mind. https://www.act.nato.int/article/cognitive-warfare-strengthening-and-defending-the-mind/

3. Small Wars Journal. (2026, January 16). Cognitive warfare. https://smallwarsjournal.com/2026/01/16/cognitive-warfare/

4. NATO Allied Command Transformation. (2023, May 9). Cognitive warfare: Beyond military information support operations. https://www.act.nato.int/article/cognitive-warfare-beyond-military-information-support-operations/

5. NATO Allied Command Transformation. (2024, July 3). ACT develops the cognitive warfare concept to combat disinformation and defend against “cognitive warfare”. https://www.act.nato.int/article/cogwar-concept/

6. Cognitive warfare in historical perspective: From Cold War psychological operations to AI-driven information campaigns. (2025). Preprints.org. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202512.1596/v1

7. Jamestown Foundation. (n.d.). Cognitive domain operations: The PLA’s new holistic concept for influence operations. https://jamestown.org/cognitive-domain-operations-the-plas-new-holistic-concept-for-influence-operations/