Dr. Abhishek Kumar Darbey, Associate Fellow, spoke on “An Overview of China’s Cognitive Warfare Capabilities” at the Monday Morning Meeting. The session was chaired by Dr. M.S. Prathibha, Associate Fellow and was followed by insightful remarks by the Director General MP-IDSA, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy and other scholars.

Executive Summary

Research about cognitive warfare is increasing in China. Through cognitive operations, China aims to control brains of the target population primarily by means of digital platforms, thereby influencing the decision making of the target country. As China aims to increase its diplomatic clout and geopolitical standing, Chinese military scholars are vigorously researching on means and ways to develop cognitive warfare capabilities. Given the increasing applications of non-kinetic warfare in contemporary times, China is building its cognitive operation capabilities considering it as the highest form of non-kinetic warfare. Taiwan and Hong Kong remain two important testing grounds of China’s cognitive warfare capabilities.

Detailed Report

The session began with brief introductory remarks by Dr. Prathibha. She noted that Chinese researchers and academics for a longtime have been interested in warfare capabilities in the cognitive domain that can be used in warfare and have been closely studying the United States’ (US) cognitive warfare capabilities since the 1990s. Highlighting that cognitive warfare is often confused with information warfare and psychological warfare, she contended that both China and the US make a distinction among these concepts and apply them accordingly. Cognitive warfare is primarily understood as attempts to affect the cognition of the enemy and make them take actions that are not in their interests.

Dr. Darbey’s presentation consisted of two parts. In the first part he explained the concept of cognitive warfare. He noted information, cyber, and psychological warfare are subsets of cognitive warfare. For instance, information warfare is the attack and destruction of the adversary’s information system and gaining advantage over the enemy’s information system. On the other hand, cyberwarfare deals with attacks on the physical network of a particular organization to disrupt their activities. However, cognitive warfare targets the brain and combines cyber, information, psychological and social engineering capabilities of mind that alter the adversary’s cognitive process and exploit their mental biases.

Elaborating on the difference, Dr. Darbey noted that the key difference between cognitive, information and psychological warfare is that unlike the other forms of warfare, cognitive warfare operates on weaponisation of neuroscience that intends to control the brain through environmental stimulation. Also, cyber and information technologies make cognitive warfare very fast and powerful. He highlighted that subjects such as philosophy, psychology, anthropology, artificial intelligence, nano technology, biotechnology and information technology are part of cognitive science.

He observed that the initiator decides the plan and strategy about cognitive warfare according to the interest and goal they want to achieve. Accordingly, there are three kinds of cognitive warfare; First is the strategic cognitive warfare which is a long-term systematic influence operation carried out on the cognition of the targeted group to subvert or control the politico-economic system, military power or ideological orientation of a country. The second is campaign cognitive warfare which is undertaken for a medium time period, targeting the social cognition of the population to primarily disrupt the social solidarity of the enemy country. Finally, there is tactical cognitive warfare which is a short-term attack on the target population to mislead and manipulate political views. Further, the implementation of cognitive warfare is a five-step process; first is intelligence collection, second is target analysis, third is decision-making, fourth is information design and the last is evaluation.

Moving to the second part of his presentation, that is, China’s cognitive warfare capabilities, Dr. Darbey contended that this is a new domain for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and its capabilities are at a nascent stage compared to that of the other major powers like the US and Russia. He argued that the PLA intends to use  cognitive warfare as an invisible hand to control the opponent’s will as Chinese researchers talk about four tactics to control the adversary’s mind, that is, perception manipulation, changing the historical memory and imposing new values on the target population, changing the line of thought and finally deconstructing symbols and challenging identity. Also, it is noteworthy that while earlier writings in PLA focussed on using cognitive warfare capabilities only to affect adversaries’ decision-making during war, present scholarship has turned towards discussing ways to utilise cognitive warfare capabilities in peacetime.

With regard to the theoretical basis of China’s cognitive warfare, Dr. Darbey noted that it is based on Sun Tzu’s Art of War and I Ching: Book of Changes. These two texts have been the basis of the ‘Three Warfare Doctrine’ adopted by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2005. Notably, the doctrine mentions cognitive warfare. Further, in 2010 when the document was revisited, the amended version instructed that the PLA members will have to train in three warfares, that is, develop a discursive power where the CCP will have the power to influence the target audience, control narratives and improve one’s own version of facts.

Elaborating on PLA’s approach to cognitive warfare, he observed that Chinese military scholars contend that PLA’s offensive potential is greater than originally assessed. At present PLA has been using intimidation and disinformation as part of its cognitive warfare and key PLA units directly under the Central Military Commission including PLA Information Support Force are responsible for cognitive warfare operations. Similarly, within the government, the State Security Department, Taiwan Affairs Office and Ministry of Foreign Affairs are responsible for cognitive warfare.

Dr. Darbey concluded his presentation by stating that China’s cognitive warfare projects are still in the initial stages as Beijing is in the process of developing its ‘Network Information System’ by means of its newly established PLA Information Support Force (PLA ISF) which will be able to acquire, transmit and assess massive amounts of data required to conduct cognitive warfare. Further, as Beijing aims to expand its domain of cognitive warfare, the study of metaverse will play a key role in strengthening China’s cognitive warfare capabilities.

Following the presentation, Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy, Director-General, MP-IDSA, observed that cognitive warfare has been employed for generations and is becoming increasingly relevant in the present era, characterized by a world that has imploded, globalized, and interconnected through unparalleled data flows. As we progress towards artificial intelligence, the complexity will continue to escalate. Referring to Japan’s cognitive warfare against its own citizens, he contended that it remains one of the most exemplary instances of cognitive warfare, perpetrated not by an adversary but by one’s own system. Amb. Chinoy noted that America also used cognitive warfare against China to bring about change in their political system. He concluded his remarks by highlighting that currently a lot of cognitive warfare is at play, especially as being witnessed in the Ukraine and Gaza War.

Q & A Session

As the floor was opened for questions scholars queried about the possible parameters that are used to assess the success and failure of cognitive influence operations in Hong Kong and Taiwan; lessons China was adopting from the Ukraine war and how technology controls could affect China’s cognitive warfare capabilities. Scholars also queried about the difference between cognitive and psychological warfare, means to identify cognitive warfare and counter measures that can be used to combat such operations.

Report was prepared by Dr. Mayuri Banerjee, Research Analyst, MP-IDSA.