Having witnessed French history from its 1789 Revolution to the defeat of Napoleon, Prussian general and military theorist Clausewitz would write that “to overcome your enemy, you must match your effort against the strength of his will”. Thousands of years prior, the Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu claimed that “if you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.” Though these two statements span centuries, both suggest that conflict is not merely shaped by material factors such as resources, but is equally driven by non-material elements like determination and resolve.
Today, this is evident as conflict is no longer exclusively fought by kinetic means, with nations now seeking primacy over the mind. This phenomenon is better known as cognitive warfare. Defined by NATO Chief Scientist Steen Søndergaard, cognitive warfare is the use of all knowledge, strategies, and technologies to impact human behaviour through cognition, with the end goal of manipulation. As NATO’s Allied Command Transformation (ACT) — the body leading the Alliance’s military adaptation and readiness efforts — holds, “the brain is both the target and the weapon in the fight for superiority”.
While conflict is often analyzed by evaluating material factors like geography, resources, and institutional alliances, cognitive warfare is an emerging domain that NATO should not overlook. This becomes clear when considering cognitive warfare’s growing capacity to alter decision-making and public sentiment as a path to mental domination. Thus, to effectively maintain peace and security through the 21st Century, NATO would benefit from the continued integration of cognitive elements into its operations and responses to conflict.
The Battlefield as a Contest for Brains
Developing a response to cognitive warfare is critical within the battlefield where the potential exists to alter the decision-making process of military personnel. As Dr. James Girodono cautions, emerging innovations including artificial intelligence and neurotechnologies allow for capacity manipulation by targeting the nervous system and hence, cognitive capabilities, mental state, and decision-making. Conversely, cognitive tools can be employed defensively to develop the mental resilience of one’s own troops to safeguard against distress and demoralization.
For example, China has begun investing in wearable technology that simulates high-stress environments, fortifying soldiers’ endurance and improving conflict readiness. The People’s Liberation Army has also emphasized the significance of “mental domination”, viewing the cognitive domain of “decision-making through reasoning” as critical. Meanwhile, the United States is assessing the mood, attention, and focus of service members through its Cognitive Monitoring Program to ensure the optimization of its personnel. The Pentagon’s usage of Oura Smart Rings allows for the withdrawal of personnel based on cognitive markers (e.g. fatigue).
Given the persistent use of cognitive tools and neurotechnology on the battlefield by both NATO members and adversaries, it is evident that cognitive warfare is no longer a distant possibility, but an emerging reality. As states deepen their ability to influence the emotions, stress, memory, and will of troops, this suggests that conflict will increasingly be affected by how control of such variables can be employed on the battlefield.
Divide and Conquer: Manipulation of the Masses
Outside the battlefield, cognitive warfare also presents complexities for NATO given its ability to exploit the emotions, rationality, and perceptions held by civilians. On a societal level, Dr. Girodono notes that cognitive warfare can be employed to undermine shared narratives and values, resulting in societal division and a fracturing of cohesion. This can be observed in instances where states manipulate narratives to shape public sentiment that can be used to justify violence. Notably, NATO has identified Russia as a “primary opponent on the cognitive battlefield” through its attempts to erode trust in democratic institutions and NATO. This is evidenced by Russian influence ops that have portrayed NATO forces as illegitimate and claimed that Ukraine’s government has committed genocide against the Russian-speaking population in the Donbas region prior to its 2014 annexation of Crimea.
This constitutes a serious threat, considering how emotions including fear, anger, and hope can bypass rational thinking. These tactics actively render individuals vulnerable to cognitive attacks designed to legitimize otherwise unwarranted violence. Hence, by targeting ordinary individuals, adversaries like Russia can foster societal resentment against institutions like NATO over time. Consequently, cognitive warfare warrants NATO’s continued attention granted its potential to alter trust and stability in non-combat settings.
Winning the Mind Game
Given its capacity to alter decision-making on the individual and societal level, it is clear that the cognitive dimension to combat must not be a passive afterthought but an active consideration of NATO’s when responding to security threats.
From a strategic perspective, NATO could benefit from explicitly integrating cognitive factors into multi-domain operations (MDOs). According to NATO, MDOs are “synchronized activities” which enable the Alliance to “build an advantage” through “collaboration with various stakeholders”. While the five areas of operation currently include the sea, land, air, cyberspace, and outer space, human cognition emerges as another domain that also holds vast potential. This could involve collaboration with neuroscientists and cognitive psychologists. Indeed, the ACT Innovation Hub has begun establishing a sixth domain – the Human Domain – to better understand the emergence of cognitive warfare. In developing explicitly defined tactics and know-how, NATO can better position itself to respond to threats against its legitimacy while protecting the efficacy of its Members’ personnel.
Yet, when cultivating its response, NATO should consider three key pillars: proactivity, context management, and ethics:
Firstly, to ensure that NATO is able to dismantle narratives aimed at eroding its legitimacy, it must be able to anticipate and predict when they rise. While NATO has developed key initiatives like Setting the Record Straight, which debunks false narratives perpetuated by Russia regarding Ukraine, such an effort is highly reactive. By anticipating what message is likely to arise and who will be impacted, NATO members can develop well-informed populations that are less vulnerable to sown panic, fear, and distrust.
Secondly, NATO must also develop responses that account for the context in which cognitive warfare unfolds. As NATO’s Chief Scientist has underscored, science and technology are needed to understand both the neurological mechanisms of decision-making alongside the social, cultural, and political contexts that shape behavior. This matters insofar as tactics that exploit social divisions and cultivate distrust are highly dependent on the society and culture they operate within.
Finally, NATO must balance its innovation with ethical considerations, particularly in relation to the development, testing, and use of technology aimed at altering cognition. UNESCO has already posited the importance of safety and ethics, given the potential for neurotechnologies to conflict with autonomy and mental privacy. Hence, in keeping with its commitment to safeguard freedom and individual liberty, NATO must balance ethics alongside proactiveness and contextual consideration.
While technologies capable of influencing the human brain may only be recent innovations, cognition has long shaped the nature of conflict. With the potential to be employed both on the battlefield and within societies, the emergence of cognitive warfare has signaled to NATO that conflicts are not merely decided through territory or capital, but equally, minds. Hence, NATO must act to safeguard the reasoning, resolve, and will of its populations. After all, as Clausewitz famously coined, war is but “an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will.”
Photo: “Silhouette against swirling golden light” by Janmesh Shah via Pexels for free use.
Disclaimer: Any views or opinions expressed in articles are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the NATO Association of Canada.
