[Editor’s Note: Army Mad Scientist welcomes T2COM G2 analyst, Mr. Dorsel “Flip” Boyer as today’s guest blogger. Mr. Boyer expertly lays out how our adversaries view cognitive warfare, the emerging technologies impacting its transformation, and how the U.S. can respond! — Enjoy!]
Cognitive Warfare – The Human Mind is the Decisive Terrain of Future Conflicts
Both Russia and China acknowledge human cognition as key features of warfare. Russia acknowledges cognitive warfare, while China maintains cognition as a separate domain. By contrast the United States has only recently begun to view the implications of cognitive warfare as separate from information operations.Technology is rapidly evolving beyond traditional information operations – fusing artificial intelligence, big data, and neuroscience. Russia and China are executing continuous, tailored cognitive campaigns designed to shape operational environments before a single shot is fired while the United States works to define the scope of cognitive warfare.
Frontlines of the Cognitive Domain:
- The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) focuses on “intelligentized warfare” to achieve “command of the mind” as the primary military objectives by manipulating adversary decision-making.
- Russian state-aligned media conglomerates and proxy networks continue to execute synchronized, multi-generational disinformation campaigns designed to undermine societal cohesion and fracture allied cohesion below the threshold of armed conflict.
These developments highlight a disturbing strategic asymmetry: while Western military models often treat information and psychological operations as efforts supporting kinetic objectives, near-peer adversaries are operationalizing the cognitive domain as a decisive theater of warfare.
Currently framed as “propaganda” or “information operations,” the evolution of cognitive warfare raises fundamental questions about whether existing U.S. Army doctrine, organization, and training can withstand the dual-use capacity of emerging technological tools. This fusion of big data analytics, artificial intelligence (AI), and neurocognitive sciences enables the creation, dissemination, and concealment of highly tailored psychological manipulations that can target specific leaders, formations, and societal demographics.
Both Russian and Chinese doctrine illustrates that cognitive warfare has progressed beyond the broad-based, mass-broadcast propaganda that has historically been observed. Advances in behavioral prediction, micro-targeted influence, and synthetic media generation (e.g., deepfakes) provide avenues of influence unthinkable a decade ago. These advances underscore the reality that the human mind is no longer a target for influence but should be treated as a war-fighting domain. Advanced cognitive warfare provides our adversaries with ‘Critical macro maneuver space whose access or control is vital to the freedom of action and superiority required by the mission.’ – which is a theoretical definition of a military domain.
These developments highlight three primary insights about the operational environment:
- adversaries conceptualize cognitive warfare as a means to achieve strategic victory potentially without conventional conflict.
- tactical and strategic exploitation of cognitive vulnerabilities will increasingly be enabled by technological convergence, allowing for unprecedented speed and precision.
- adversaries view cognitive competition as a perpetual, steady-state campaign.
Dealing with Cognitive Realities and De-limiting Traditional Doctrine
Data science and behavioral psychology have rapidly evolved since the dawn of the information age. Advanced computational models and ubiquitous data collection allow precise cognitive targeting that would have been previously impossible. Current tools and techniques enable adversaries to:
1) rapid synthesis of personalized disinformation created from machine enabled analysis of digital footprints
2) algorithmic manipulation of information environments
3) lower technical barriers for proxy actors to execute sophisticated psychological warfare.
Existing Western military frameworks often lack steady-state operational mechanisms for identifying or countering continuous cognitive campaigns. While information operations are integrated into tactical and operational planning, they are frequently treated as episodic for defined effects rather than continuous defensive and offensive measures. Western organizations often segregate cyber, psychological operations, and public affairs. This die-integration creates friction that malign actors readily exploit.
Addressing this operational asymmetry requires adaptation across the DOTMLPF-P framework to incorporate proactive measures against cognitive threats. This modernization may involve several core elements:
- A clarified definition of the Cognitive Domain (Doctrine): Doctrine requires revision to recognize the cognitive sphere as an independent domain of warfare, parallel to land, air, sea, space, and cyber. Integrating cognitive security as a steady-state Phase 0 operation limits an adversary’s ability to shape the operational environment.
- Persistent Organizational Structures (Organization & Personnel): Transitioning from ad-hoc information task forces to persistent, dedicated organizational structures may present new opportunities to monitor and counter ad
versary cognitive campaigns. These organizations might include data scientists, cognitive psychologists, and cultural analysts in addition to traditional Cyber, PSYOPs, and Public Affairs professionals. - Technologically Advanced Materiel Solutions (Materiel): Countering AI-driven cognitive attacks requires the acquisition and deployment of advanced detection tools. Suites must be capable of identifying synthetic media, algorithmic manipulation, and coordinated inauthentic behavior in real-time.
- Evolving Training and Leadership Models (Training & Leadership): Preparing the force for a contested cognitive domain will necessitate updating training to include realistic simulations of targeted cognitive attacks. Building cognitive resilience in commanders and Soldiers is critical for decision-making integrity under persistent psychological pressure.
The operational implications of addressing this asymmetry include:
- Decision Advantage: Adapting to the cognitive domain fortifies decision-making by reducing ambiguity generated by adversary disinformation.
- Force Protection: These adaptations help ensure that military formations are shielded from micro-targeted psychological subversion, preserving morale, unit cohesion, and overall readiness.
- Allied Interoperability: Harmonized cognitive defense standards facilitate intelligence sharing, joint narrative planning, and coalition resilience against wedge-driving operations.
- Strategic Deterrence: Demonstrating a robust capability to defend the cognitive domain and counter-manipulate adversary perceptions signals readiness.
Conclusion
The doctrine of Russia and China illustrates that threats are no longer confined to physical domains or overt kinetic delivery systems. The convergence of AI, big data, and behavioral science underscores vulnerabilities that traditional information operations frameworks were not designed to manage. Adversaries are actively executing perpetual campaigns to win cognitive war before physical conflict begins. Failure to address this strategic asymmetry risks undermining the U.S. Army’s human and leader advantage, which is founded in human perception and reasoning allowing adversaries to secure strategic objectives unchallenged. To protect national and allied interests, adapting the Army to be as agile and sophisticated as the cognitive threats defining the emerging battlespace preserves one of the United States’ most significant advantages.
If you enjoyed this post, check out the T2COM G-2’s Operational Environment Enterprise web page, brimming with authoritative information on the Operational Environment and how our adversaries fight.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog post do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of War, Department of the Army, or the U.S. Army Transformation and Training Command (T2COM).
