Emergence of the age of information warfare

The terms “Cold War”, “New Cold War”, and “cognitive warfare” have gained significant prominence in contemporary discourse. In a fragmented world, regional hegemony is emerging, leading to the division of organized groups into ideologically driven factions. Today, the global landscape is largely characterized by a confrontation between the camp of Western democratic ideals and that of centralized power, shaping the fundamental dynamics of the future. Although various political forces are at play, they do not singularly dominate the global political narrative, and more often than not such influences go unnoticed, writes ANBOUND Founder Kung Chan.

“Influence warfare” here is defined as a virtual conflict designed to subvert and transform specific political forces, social environments, or nations. Like conventional warfare, it involves significant subversion and change, justifying the term “warfare” here. This conflict requires a structured and organized approach, distinguishing it from disorganized groups. Its implications extend beyond individual countries, affecting global dynamics. Primarily conducted on virtual platforms, it may also involve coordination with military or intelligence operations. Ultimately, the manipulation and control of influence serve as the core tools in this type of warfare, clarifying its definition and significance.

Influence warfare has emerged primarily due to the growing challenges of traditional warfare, driven by three main factors. First, the presence of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear arms, creates a fear of mutual destruction that can destabilize centralized governments; the more centralized the authority, the higher the risk of paralysis. Second, technological advancements have given some countries overwhelming advantages, allowing for preemptive planning and execution of decisive victories in the event of conflict. Third, the digital landscape, especially the role of social media and uninterrupted internet access during conflicts like the current war in Ukraine, provides conditions ripe for influence warfare. Humans are inherently susceptible to external influences, which means that while confrontations between different factions will continue, they are increasingly manifesting as virtual influence conflicts. Although influence warfare can achieve goals of subversion and change, it often takes longer and incurs lower costs and damages compared to traditional methods.

The definitions of a related concept “cognitive warfare”, are often rigid, based on the outdated assumption that humans can develop fixed forms of cognition. In reality, people’s understanding is continually evolving; there is no absolute state of being “brainwashed,” nor do thoughts remain static. All cognition is temporary and susceptible to change, influenced by context and timing. What is often labeled as public opinion warfare is essentially a form of propaganda warfare. This traditional approach may be effective when the target group’s cognitive awareness is low, but it loses potency as awareness increases. Similarly, the concept of information warfare is broad and somewhat vague, as all communication involves information. This definition requires refinement to adequately capture the complexities of cognitive warfare.

A more effective definition of “influence warfare” should focus on the continuous process of “target-tool-operation-result”, rather than merely highlighting specific nodes or surface-level interactions. This approach captures the essence of warfare, where the primary targets are political forces and nations, the tools are means of virtual communication, and the operations involve controlling and manipulating influence to achieve the desired outcomes of subversion and transformation. This process-oriented definition provides a clearer approach to understanding influence warfare.

Crucially, influence warfare is largely distinct from traditional military conflict. Major military powers often become subjects of influence, manipulated rather than acting as agents. In contrast, influence warfare is closely tied to intellectual groups. Those with a strong, engaged intellectual community capable of developing reliable theories and information through effective communication are more likely to succeed in this arena.

A notable example of influence warfare is the U.S. presidential election, which serves as a political battleground. The established electoral rules facilitate observation, providing a framework for social experiments. In the 2024 U.S. presidential election, the Democratic Party is seen shaping media narratives to influence public opinion against Donald Trump, often resulting in a lack of positive coverage for him. Simultaneously, Trump utilizes social media to counter this narrative and generate favorable influence. Voters, along with certain intellectual groups, actively participate in this influence contest, shaping their positions on candidates. Given that influence warfare can yield both successes and failures, it is aptly characterized as a war, with its outcomes reflected in the election results.

Even during active military conflicts, influence warfare continues to play a crucial role by shaping public sentiment and determining support for military leaders and their decisions. For instance, the level of support for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during the conflict significantly impacts the war’s outcome. Influence warfare represents a new dimension of conflict in today’s world, incorporating various cultural elements such as speeches, rumors, narratives, commentaries, publications, philosophy, religion, music, and film. These cultural components are strategically developed and utilized as tools in influence warfare, impacting global peace, stability, and prosperity.

The concept of the Cold War has become more and more obsolete, and the likelihood of a conventional hot war seems low in many cases. Under such circumstances, influence warfare is increasingly relevant and significant.

Share this article: