Cognitive warfare: the battle for the human mind in the digital age
Rossana Gemeli Roncato Carloto
Abstract: Cognitive warfare has emerged as a new domain of contemporary conflict, where the human mind itself becomes the primary battlefield. Beyond conventional weapons, today’s wars involve psychological operations, information manipulation, disinformation, and digital narratives. This article analyses how NATO, the European Union and the United Nations, frame cognitive warfare as a systemic threat to security, democracy, human rights and peace. Drawing on cases such as the war in Ukraine and the influence of social media on public perception, it argues that narrative dominance has become as decisive as territorial control.
Introduction: From Hybrid Wars to Cognitive Conflicts
In On War (Book I, p. 10), Carl von Clausewitz already anticipated what today would be described as cognitive warfare when he argued that true victory entails the destruction of both the enemy’s physical and psychic forces. In his view, war was not merely a clash of armies, but a contest of wills — a struggle for moral dominance as much as for territorial control.
In the twenty-first century, this insight has become literal. Battles are no longer fought only on physical frontlines but unfold across hybrid domains that combine military, technological, informational, economic, and psychological instruments. Modern conflicts integrate cyber operations, disinformation campaigns, narrative manipulation, and diplomatic pressure, blurring the boundaries between war and peace. As a result, controlling minds and information has become as decisive as controlling territory.
The so-called “invisible war” is thus waged not through kinetic attacks, but through mental and cognitive influence. As Mustafa Mert (2023, p. 34) observes, “from algorithmic news feeds to emotional headlines, every input you receive is a potential weapon.”
2. Defining Cognitive Warfare
According to Bernard Claverie and François du Cluzel (2023), cognitive warfare has emerged as a distinct domain of modern conflict, complementing traditional military environments — land, sea, air, space, and cyber. It operates globally through digital connectivity and targets human intelligence at both individual and collective levels. Cognitive attacks are designed to distort thought processes across society — from leaders and military personnel to entire populations — pursuing objectives such as territorial control, electoral influence, social destabilisation, and information theft.
As Maj. Joseph D. Levin (2025) explains, the public dissemination of battlefield information through digital and social media has become an effective instrument of perception management, shaping outcomes across all levels of conflict. He describes cognitive warfare as “an essential component of modern strategy,” one that requires “tailoring messages to diverse global audiences” and “timing counternarratives for key points in conflicts” (Military Review, 2025, p. 22).
This method is employed even by low-resourced actors, showing that strategic influence no longer depends on vast economic or military power but on the ability to shape narratives and perceptions at scale.
3. Information, Disinformation, and the Weaponisation of Perception
Cognitive warfare integrates the full spectrum of information operations, merging operational psychology and neuroscience with cyber and influence strategies. It bridges previously distinct domains — PSYOPS (psychological operations) and cyber operations — to shape human cognition and collective behaviour. Within this domain, troll farms and automated networks (bots, sock puppets, fake profiles) exploit digital algorithms and emotional triggers to manipulate public perception, erode trust, and polarise societies.
As Maj. Joseph D. Levin (2025, p. 20) observed, cognitive warfare has the power to turn friendly populations away from cooperating with military forces and to amplify hostility through disinformation campaigns. This demonstrates how perception management, when left unaddressed, can strategically weaken cooperation, destabilise institutions, and redefine the balance of power without direct military confrontation.
As Ion Mihai Pacepa (2013, p. 69) noted, disinformation differs from misinformation: it is “a deliberate tool of intelligence designed to grant a Western, non-governmental legitimacy to state lies.” This logic persists today. According to the Oxford Dictionaries (2016), “post-truth” describes a context where objective facts are less influential than appeals to emotion and belief. D’Ancona (2017, p. 21) expands on this, showing how the erosion of truth created fertile ground for cognitive manipulation — an essential cultural precondition for twenty-first-century information warfare.
A striking example can be found in the information ecosystem surrounding the Russia–Ukraine conflict, where competing narratives — both state-sponsored and crowd-sourced — seek not only to justify actions but to shape moral legitimacy itself. In such scenarios, the battle for perception becomes as consequential as the battle for territory.
4. Global Perspectives: NATO, the EU, and the UN in the Battle of Narratives
NATO formally defines cognitive warfare as the weaponisation of the human mind, targeting rationality itself and exploiting vulnerabilities (NATO Allied Command Transformation, Cognitive Warfare, 2023). It warns that such attacks blur the line between civilian and military domains, as seen in Russian disinformation campaigns that sought to portray Ukraine as culpable through fake news and perception manipulation.
The European Union has progressively institutionalised its approach to information manipulation within the framework of hybrid threats. As early as 2015, the European Council recognised the growing impact of disinformation campaigns — particularly those originating from Russia — and requested the High Representative to develop a coordinated response. This led to the creation of the East Strategic Communication Task Force and, later, the Hybrid Fusion Cell within the European External Action Service (EEAS), acting as the central hub for analysing hybrid threats. The EU also established the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats in Helsinki, which promotes best practices and operational cooperation with NATO. Disinformation, often combined with cyberattacks and network intrusions, has been identified as a core component of hybrid warfare. EU reports document systematic Russian influence operations related to the war in Syria, the downing of flight MH-17, the Salisbury chemical attack, and several European elections — demonstrating how cognitive manipulation has become a strategic tool to divide societies and erode democratic resilience (European Commission and High Representative, Joint Communication on Countering Hybrid Threats, 2016; Council of the European Union, Action Plan against Disinformation, 2018).
By contrast, the United Nations approaches the issue through the concept of information integrity. The UN Secretary-General’s Policy Brief on Information Integrity on Digital Platforms (2023) warns that social media–enabled disinformation and hate speech have “caused real harm on a global scale,” threatening democracy, human rights, and scientific truth (A/75/982,para. 26 p.3).
As Levin (2025) observes, Ukraine’s success in dominating the public narrative proved decisive in the early stages of the Russian invasion. Through President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s deliberate and charismatic information campaign, Ukraine mobilised domestic resistance, sustained international solidarity, and turned communication itself into a strategic weapon. This transformation turned Ukraine into a symbol of democratic resilience. In contrast, Russian operations weaponised disinformation to destabilise societies and erode cognitive trust. (p.24)
Ultimately, cognitive warfare reveals that the most decisive battlefield of the 21st century is the human mind. The manipulation of perception and emotion, whether through state or non-state actors, constitutes not only a military challenge but a civilisational one — one that demands resilience, ethical governance, and international cooperation.
5. Conclusion: Defending Minds in the Age of Influence
Cognitive warfare exposes the fragility of modern societies, where control over perception can determine the outcome of conflicts as much as military strength. As demonstrated by NATO, the United Nations, and the European Union, the manipulation of cognition and information has evolved from a tactical tool into a systemic threat — eroding trust, polarising societies, and endangering democracy itself.
In this invisible battlefield, resilience depends not only on technological safeguards but also on education, transparency, and the cultivation of critical thinking. As Immanuel Kant urged, “Dare to think!” (Sapere aude!) — the motto of Enlightenment. Having the courage to use one’s own understanding is, today, an act of resistance against manipulation and disinformation.
For the Armed Forces, understanding and addressing the cognitive dimension has become a strategic necessity. Defence institutions must develop doctrines, training, and operational frameworks that integrate psychological resilience, ethical communication, and digital literacy — ensuring that soldiers and citizens alike can resist manipulation and preserve rational decision-making under pressure.
However, cognitive warfare also carries a moral risk: it can undermine the legitimacy of the very armed and peacekeeping forces it involves. When disinformation and narrative manipulation distort public perception, even missions grounded in humanitarian or stabilisation objectives may lose societal support. In this sense, the cognitive domain does not merely reshape strategy — it challenges the very foundations of trust that sustain international security efforts.
As Hannah Arendt warned, evil often arises from the refusal to think. In an age where information itself has been weaponised, critical thought becomes not only a moral duty but also a form of defence — the most fundamental shield on the cognitive battlefield.
References
Arendt, Hannah. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: Viking Press, 1963.
Claverie, Bernard, and François du Cluzel. 2023. The Cognitive Warfare Concept. Norfolk, VA: NATO Allied Command Transformation, Innovation Hub. https://www.act.nato.int/activities/cognitive-warfare/.
Council of the European Union. 2018. Action Plan against Disinformation. Brussels: Council of the European Union. https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15512-2018-INIT/en/pdf.
D’Ancona, Matthew. 2017. Post-Truth: The New War on Truth and How to Fight Back. London: Ebury Press.
European Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. 2016. Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council: Countering Hybrid Threats — A European Union Response (JOIN/2016/018 final). Brussels: European Commission. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=JOIN%3A2016%3A18%3AFIN.
Hybrid Centre of Excellence (Hybrid CoE). 2022. Cognitive Resilience: Countering Cognitive Warfare in Hybrid Threats. Helsinki: Hybrid CoE. https://www.hybridcoe.fi/publications/.
Kant, Immanuel. “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” Berlinische Monatsschrift (December 1784).
Levin, Maj. Joseph D. 2025. “Lessons on Public-Facing Information Operations in Current Conflicts.” Military Review (March–April): 21–24. Fort Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army Combined Arms Center.
Mert, Mustafa. 2023. Cognitive Warfare: How to Protect Your Mind in the Age of Influence. Vol. 6 of Focus & Discipline Series. Kindle Edition.
NATO Allied Command Transformation. 2023. Cognitive Warfare. Norfolk, VA: NATO ACT. https://www.act.nato.int/activities/cognitive-warfare/.
Oxford Dictionaries. 2016. “Word of the Year 2016: Post-truth.” Oxford University Press. https://languages.oup.com/word-of-the-year/2016/.
Pacepa, Ion Mihai, and Ronald J. Rychlak. 2013. Disinformation: Former Spy Chief Reveals Secret Strategies for Undermining Freedom, Attacking Religion, and Promoting Terrorism. Washington, DC: WND Books.
United Nations. 2023. Policy Brief on Information Integrity on Digital Platforms. New York: United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/digital-cooperation/information-integrity.
About the Author
Rossana Gemeli Roncato Carloto: Brazilian-Italian interdisciplinary researcher with a Master’s in Law (UFMS, 2024) focused on Human Rights, and postgraduate training in international relations, international and constitutional law, conflict resolution and negotiation, history of war, digital and public law. Her research covers the right to peace, IHL, international and environmental law, digitalized warfare, and defense. She works in Portuguese, Italian, English, Spanish, German, and French.
Cognitive warfare: the battle for the human mind in the digital age was originally published in Mundorama on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.