The terms "cold war", "new cold war, "covert war," and "cognitive warfare" have become increasingly prominent. Regional hegemony is on the rise in a world marked by fragmentation, and organized camps with rigid barriers have splintered into ideologically driven factions. Currently, the global landscape primarily features a confrontation between the camp of Western democratic ideology and that of centralized power, which outlines the fundamental dynamics of the future world. While various political forces exist, their influence does not constitute the dominant political narrative globally, and their trends can largely be overlooked.
I define "influence warfare" as a virtual conflict that uses influence to subvert and transform specific political forces, social environments, or nations. Several key points are important in this definition. First, it involves subversion and change, similar to the outcomes of war, thus justifying the use of the term "warfare" here. Second, as warfare, it requires organization and action. Hence, it is not a disorganized group but a structured entity. Third, its scope is broad, with significant effects and implications extending beyond any country. Fourth, this conflict primarily unfolds on virtual platforms, although it may sometimes require coordination with actual military or intelligence operations. Finally, the control and manipulation of influence serve as the primary tools in this type of warfare. Understanding these characteristics clarifies the concept of influence warfare and the rationale behind this definition.
There are three primary reasons for the emergence of influence warfare, with the main decisive factor being the increasing difficulty of old-school, traditional warfare. Four key points explain this trend. First, weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear arms, ensure mutual destruction, instilling absolute fear in centralized governments. This fear can undermine their core stability. The more centralized the government, the greater the risk of paralysis or failure. Second, technological advancements mean that some countries possess overwhelming technological advantages. If war breaks out, achieving a decisive victory can be preemptively planned and executed with relative ease. Third, the digital landscape fosters conditions for virtualization. The prevalence of social media and the uninterrupted operation of the Internet, as happens during the current war in Ukraine, create an environment conducive to influence warfare. Finally, humans are inherently creatures prone to external, dynamic influences. Consequently, confrontations between different camps will persist, but these conflicts will increasingly manifest as influence warfare conducted through virtual means. While influence warfare can accomplish goals of subversion, change, and achieving victory, it may take longer to achieve and involve comparatively lower costs and damages.
War remains a central focus of geopolitical study, and our understanding of it continues to evolve. One of the most significant shifts is in how we define war itself.
There is no consensus in the academic community on the definition of "cognitive warfare". Oliver Backes and Andrew Swab (2019) of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard Kennedy School define cognitive warfare as a strategy "altering through information means how a target population thinks, and through that, how they act". Alonso Bernal et al. (2020) of Johns Hopkins University define cognitive warfare as "the weaponization of public opinion, by an external entity, for the purpose of (1) influencing public and governmental policy and (2) destabilizing public institutions". Professor Lin Cheng-jung of the National Defense and Security Research in Taiwan said that the term cognitive warfare first came from a report of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which defined it as a new competitive field that goes beyond the traditional land, sea, and air spaces. It is "an unconventional way of warfare that uses psychological biases and reflexive thinking to manipulate human thinking through technological networks, causing changes in thinking and thus having a negative impact". Meanwhile, U.S. Major General Robert H. Scales, summarized NATO's new combat philosophy that "victory will be defined more in terms of capturing the psycho-cultural rather than the geographical high ground". Professor Liang Xiaobo of the National University of Defense Technology of the Chinese People's Liberation Army believes that cognitive warfare is an important form of public opinion propaganda, psychological persuasion, and ideological struggle based on modern theories and science to gain the initiative in people's thoughts, beliefs, and values.
As can be seen in these examples, the definitions of "cognitive warfare" tend to be relatively rigid. One outdated assumption is that humans can develop fixed forms of cognition. In reality, people's understanding is constantly evolving; there is no true state of being "brainwashed", nor that the thoughts will always remain static. All cognition is temporary and subject to change, influenced by means and timing. The so-called public opinion warfare is essentially a propaganda warfare. This traditional definition may work effectively when the target group's cognitive awareness is low, but it becomes less effective as their awareness increases. Similarly, the concept of information warfare is broad and somewhat vague, as all communication involves information. This definition needs refinement to capture the complexities involved.
A more effective definition of "influence warfare" should be based on the continuous process of "target-tool-operation-result", rather than focusing on specific nodes or surface-level interactions (e.g., simply stating that they are fighting). It encompasses the nature of war, where the primary targets are political forces and nations, the tools are means of virtual communication, the operations involve controlling and manipulating influence, and the desired results aim to subvert and transform these targets. This process-oriented definition provides a more rational approach to understanding influence warfare.
It is important to note that influence warfare is largely distinct from traditional military conflict. The military "big players" are often the subjects of influence warfare, subjected to manipulation rather than being the agents of influence themselves. In contrast, influence warfare is closely tied to intellectual groups. The side that possesses a strong and engaged intellectual community that can develop reliable theories and information through communication has a greater likelihood of succeeding in the influence war.
A prime example of influence warfare is the U.S. presidential election, itself a political battleground. The established election rules make it particularly conducive to observation, providing a scientific lens for social experiments.
In the 2024 U.S. presidential election, we can see how the Democratic Party manipulates media narratives to create public opinion that is largely unfavorable to Donald Trump. This manipulation can be so extensive that it effectively blocks positive coverage of him. Concurrently, Trump attempts to counter this narrative through social media, striving to generate favorable influence. Voters, along with some intellectual groups, become participants in this war of influence, ultimately shaping their positions on whom to support or oppose. Because influence warfare can result in both successes and failures, it is aptly termed a war. The observable outcome of this conflict is reflected in the results of the U.S. election.
Even in the midst of an active hot war, the influence warfare continues to play a crucial role, as it shapes public sentiment and determines the support for military leaders and their decisions. For instance, the level of support for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during the conflict significantly influences the war's outcome. Thus, influence warfare is a new type of warfare in today's world, incorporating various cultural elements such as speeches, rumors, narratives, commentaries, publishing, philosophy, religion, music, and film. These cultural components are strategically crafted and wielded as weapons in the influence warfare, capable of striking with the precision of a missile, ultimately impacting global peace, stability, and prosperity.
The concept of the Cold War has become outdated, and the likelihood of a traditional hot war seems low. In this context, influence warfare is increasingly relevant and significant.
