Cognitive warfare in the new context of geopolitical rivalry between great powers
Contribution made by Pierre-Emmanuel Thomann to the
V International Conference, Tangible and Intangible Impact of Information and Communication in the Digital Age, (Khanty-Mansiysk, Russian Federation, 6-8 June 2023) in the framework of the UNESCO Information for All Programme and XIV International IT Forum
« Cognitive warfare is the meeting of cyberpsychology, weaponization of neurosciences and cyberinfluence for the provoked alteration of the perception of the world and its rational analysis in humans, military, political or other actors and decision-makers, for the purpose of influencing their decision or action, for strategic superiority at all levels of intervention concerning individual or collective natural intelligence, such as artificial or augmented intelligence in hybrid systems. »[1]
Introduction
This contribution aims to make a provisional diagnosis on the emergence of the concept of cognitive warfare, assist in reducing the gap between the pace of development in the field of Cognitive warfare and related technologies and the ability of the society to comprehend the changing reality, and to propose recommendations to contribute to the accomplishment of international and national policies in the field of building the information society and knowledge societies for better global geopolitical balance and stability and better human control of its destiny.
Cognitive warfare – definition
Cognitive warfare is the most advanced form of manipulation to date, allowing the behaviour of an individual or a group of individuals to be influenced with the aim of gaining a tactical or strategic advantage. In this field of action, the human brain becomes the theatre of operations. The objective is to influence not only what the target individuals think, but also how they think, and ultimately how they act. Cognitive warfare is necessarily associated with other forms and areas of action to reach the target brain(s), such as cyber warfare and information warfare. In its conceptualisation, cognitive warfare also integrates an essential part that has seen recent developments: cognitive neuroscience. By facilitating the understanding of the brain’s mechanisms, the way it integrates and processes different categories of information, neuroscience will make it possible to optimise the use of other warfare(s), notably information warfare.[2]
Whether individual or collective, cognition corresponds to the set of processes that the brain mobilise to know the world, to make decisions in accordance with a desired action (for a project, a political/geopolitical objective..). « Two worlds are articulated, the brains and machines, expressing or expressed by thoughts and programmes. The meeting of natural intelligence and artificial intelligence is at the centre of a debate that today forces us to conceive war as an action of hybrid intelligence. Technological interfaces, augmented decision making, control of human error or the overcoming of programme limits, human-system integration, the autonomy of actors aided by digital technology or that of machines enriched by thought are the main technical chapters of what is already cognitive warfare. » [3]
Cognitive Warfare Attacks are specified, structured, organised for the transformation or distortion of the thinking of decision-makers such as operational people, members of a professional or social category, military personnel in an army, or even more broadly the citizens of a region, a country or a group of countries. The objectives are multiple and differ according to the strategy: territorial conquest (e.g. border regions, peninsulas, island groups), influence (elections, population unrest), disruption of public services (administrations, hospitals, emergency services, sanitation, water or energy) or transport (airspace, maritime imbalances, etc.), information intrusion (involuntary disclosure, publication of passwords, etc.), etc.[4]
Cognitive warfare: or how to exploit information technologies (augmented by AI) to make soldiers, technicians and engineers, decision-makers and politicians, have a false representation of the world… and profit from it? Knowing that some people use this for warlike purposes to lead their victims into error, how can we protect ourselves from it?[5]
« The instruments of information warfare, along with the addition of “neuro-weapons”adds to future technological perspectives, suggesting that the cognitive field will be one of tomorrow’s battlefields. This perspective is further strengthened in by the rapid advances of NBICs (Nanotechnology,Biotechnology, InformationTechnology and Cognitive Sciences) and the under-standing of the brain.) »[6]
Cognitive warfare integrates nanotechnology, biotechnology, computer and cognitive sciences (NBIC) to develop psychosocial engineering. It goes beyond controlling the flow of information; it seeks to manipulate or control the way people react to that information. François du Cluzel has defined cognitive warfare as « the art of using technologies to alter the cognition of human targets, most often without their knowledge and consent ».[7]
The emergence of the concept of « cognitive warfare » (CW) (François du Cluzel, 2020)[8], adds a third combat dimension on a battlefield: cognitive dimension is added to the informational and physical dimensions. As a result, we have now different geopolitical spaces of competition like land, maritime, air, cybernetic, spatial and cognitive domains. The « Human » might be considered as the sixth domain of operations (the five other : air, land, sea, space and cyber). From this perspective, cognitive war, thanks to scientific progress in nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (NBIC), combined with Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, and the increasing dependence on digital space by populations (internet, social networks), is targeting the brain of humans within populations. Cognitive warfare goes beyond information warfare since its objective is not to influence what people think but the way they think. It has the potential to transform a whole nation into a colony from a third state, or to disrupt a whole nation and its territory. With the emergence of the cyberspace theatre with the use of internet, the confrontation of narratives and antagonist ideas between rivals powers or terrorist groups though artificial intelligence (AI) tools to change the way people think is permanent with no time and space limit as it takes place at different global, regional, national, local scales.
The report for NATO on Cognitive warfare stresses that
“Well, the Human Domain is the one defining us as individuals and structuring our societies. It has its own specific complexity compared to other domains, because of the large number of sciences it’s based upon. I’ll list just a few and, trust me, these are those our adversaries are focusing on to identify our centers of gravity, our vulnerabilities. We’re talking political science, history, geography, biology, cognitive science, business studies, medicine and health, psychology, demography, economics, environmental studies, information sciences, international studies, law, linguistics, management, media studies, philosophy, voting systems, public administration, international politics, international relations, religious studies, education, sociology, arts and culture …
They’re all part of the large multidisciplinary approach that must be included in any multi-domain strategy worth its salt. And that’s the real challenge. If you chicken out, you’ll soon be irrelevant”
Cognitive warfare is associated with strategic MUAI
We can consider that there is a strategic level of malicious use of artificial intelligence (MUAI) where AI can be used as a geopolitical weapon to destabilise the system of international relations, change the geopolitical hierarchy and implement new imperialist agendas and projects, using tools to control populations through cognitive warfare, ‘digital colonisation’, global monopoly or hegemony over AI technology and clouds (AI fuel), extraterritorial data laws (digital imperialism), AI-designed programmes to control territory and the battlefield (Boulanger 2020, 2016)[9], with the development of AI-designed geospatial intelligence (GEOINT ).
Therefore, cognitive warfare, when AI tools are used to act in this area, can be associated with strategic MUAI and must be understood and examined in the context of its influence on a population living in a territory. In a strategic context, MUAI is de facto a combination of threats to a population and its territory (infrastructure, geographical and human environment).
The control of populations goes hand in hand with the destabilisation of human communities and nations in their current form. While there is nothing new about this threat, there is a new intensity and speed of these destabilising tendencies, due to the blurring of war and peace, the non-explicit aspect of these strategies of conquest and digital imperialism, according to the strategic aspect of the malicious use of artificial intelligence (MUAI), which are not easily taken into account by politicians, nor integrated into the collective consciousness of populations.
Brain/population and territory control
The new target of geopolitics, the brain itself, will be combined with control of the territory. Human beings live on territory and are organized in communities, with a specific history. Therefore populations, especially constituted as nations, cannot be separated from their geographical environment, that is their territory or geographical proximity, or more remote territories on which they depend for access to energy, markets, or protect their security, but also their collective historical representations. There is no nation without a territory and the interconnection between the internal and external challenges are more and more the feature of today’s geopolitical configuration. As a result, strategic MUAI (malicious use of artificial intelligence) has to be understood and examined in the context of its influence on a population, living on a territory. The MUAI in a strategic context is de facto a combination of threats to a population and its territory (infrastructures, geographical and human environment).
Cognitive warfare in the new context of geopolitical rivalry between great powers
In a period of growing rivalry between the great powers, there is an increasing level of conflict in human communities but also between states. It is in this context that the concept of Cognitive Warfare emerges, as a weapon of conquest for state or private actors seeking to position themselves decisively in the global power hierarchy and to win a decisive victory in a low or high intensity interstate conflict, or to gain decisive influence over a territory and its population. Cognitive warfare is seen as the third dimension on the battlefield after the physical and informational dimensions and inaugurates a new space of geopolitical competition, beyond the land, maritime, air, cybernetic and spatial domains. In a conflict, the future information warfare will start from the cognitive domain first, to take advantage of the political/ diplomatic strategic initiative, but it will also end in the cognitive realm (François du Cluzel, 2020)
The objective of cognitive warfare is to seize control of human beings (military and civilians), organisations, nations, but also of ideas, psychology, especially behavioural, thoughts, as well as the environment. From this point of view, cognitive warfare, which targets people’s brains, can be very powerful through the use of artificial intelligence and, in geopolitical terms, it is a war of rival ideologies over territory.
The dangers of cognitive warfare
The emergence of antagonistic geopolitical blocs at global level
NATO’s collective awareness of the increased importance of this form of conflict is gradually taking hold. The NATO Warsaw Summit in 2016 saw the recognition of the cyber operational domain, and the challenges of hybrid warfare were highlighted in the Summit communiqué, but seen primarily through the prism of cyber and special operations modes of action. The recent NATO Summit communiqué, held on 14 June 2021, marks a real turning point. For the first time, China and Russia are mentioned prominently for their disinformation actions, reflecting the Allies’ growing interest in these new hybrid challenges.
Since EU considers itself as complementary to NATO, the danger is that EU member states will be sucked into the great power geopolitical confrontation according to NATO priorities (Exclusive Euro-atlantist ideology) the « West against Russia and China ». This is reducing the aim of EU for strategic autonomy. Instead of promoting cooperation at global level with all states and nations to face the threats of MUAI and Cognitive warfare, EU mmeber stats risk being aligned on NATO specific interests and objectives.
Although it has been mentioned in a fragmented way, no systemic analysis has been conducted of the ability of the EU to position itself regarding the geopolitical challenges posed by Cognitive Warfare, digitalization and AI, and particularly concerning MUAI and the threats to IPS in the context of greater power rivalries and the diversity of views of EU member states towards the strategic aims of the European project. The EU has also stressed the danger of political polarization through MUAI (European Parliament, 2019)[10]; however, if the EU promotes an obsolete model of development and is engaged in exclusive alliances against the emergence of multipolarity, there is a risk that this might in itself promote geopolitical polarization.
The EU is embedded in the mainstream geopolitical configuration as a sub-element of the US and NATO geopolitical priorities regarding AI-engineered global informational and cognitive warfare (Chessen, 2017)[11] against China and Russia. The European parliament has stressed that if “AI in the field of defence is essential for ensuring European strategic autonomy in capability and operational areas it recognises the role of NATO in promoting Euro-Atlantic security and calls for cooperation within NATO for the establishment of common standards and interoperability of AI systems in defence; stresses that the transatlantic relationship is important for the preservation of shared values and for countering future and emerging threats”(European Parliament, 2020)[12].
The undemocratic control of populations
This new area was the theme of NATO’s Fall 2021 Innovation Challenge, hosted by Canada, and is projected as a core element of NATO’s next concept for June 2022
While the focus was on when Western populations are under cognitive attack and how they can defend themselves, the Ottawa Citizen[13] reported that the Canadian military conducted information warfare against its own population during the COVID-19 pandemic, testing propaganda tactics against Canadian civilians.
The use of cognitive warfare techniques augmented by the use of artificial intelligence can be directed against an adversary but also allies, as well as by governments towards their own people, under the pretext of fighting an external threat.
A generalisation of cognitive warfare can be seen as a pandora’s box for the control of the populations of states, locked and enrolled in a situation of permanent conflict between antagonistic blocs, instead of seeking diplomatic solutions, moderation, balance, non-alignment. For a state or an alliance of states, which have mastered the whole range of tools and are capable of acting in all spaces, there is a great risk of their being tempted to extend their space-time imperialism thanks to cognitive warfare married to artificial intelligence as a weapon of conquest. The result is an increase in global geopolitical fragmentation, a very profound destabilisation of international relations, and an increase in power inequalities.
Faced with the challenge of the potential generalisation of cognitive warfare, different nations and individuals are challenged to retain their sovereignty of thought, and ultimately control of their destiny.
War under the threshold, hybrid war,
It is useful to cite August Cole, Hervé Le Guyader NATO’s 6th Domain and reported in the report on Cognitive warfare.: “Today’s progresses in nanotechnology, biotech nology, information technology and cognitive science (NBIC), boosted by the seemingly unstoppable march of a triumphant troika made of Artificial Intelligence, Big Data and civilisational“ digital addiction” have created a much more ominous prospect: an embedded fifth column, where everyone, unbeknownst to him or her, is behaving ac[1]cording to the plans of one of our competitors.”[14]
Regarding the cognitive warfare promoted by experts close to NATO, the European Union and its population, composed of member states and individual nations, are challenged to maintain control over their destiny and their sovereignty of thought.
This means that in the current framework of great power rivalry, in particular the US with NATO against Russia and China, liberals versus illiberals, individuals or segments of the population are designated as a fifth column because they do not share the objective of maintaining the promotion and supremacy of the NATO liberal and exclusive Euro-Atlanticist model. The result is a threat to the free choice of the European peoples, under the pretext of fighting against the so-called illiberal powers that do not share the vision of a unipolar world. This approach is the pandora’s box for the control of the populations of the member states of the Atlantic alliance, locked up and enrolled in a situation of permanent conflict between antagonistic blocs, instead of seeking to play moderation, balance, non-alignment. the use of cognitive warfare techniques augmented by the use of artificial intelligence are then directed against its allies and by governments against their own people, under the pretext of fighting against an external threat.
Conclusion
With the use of cognitive warfare, which can be categorised as a tool for the strategic MUAI, all nations, but also NATO and EU member states and their population of are challenged to retain control of their destiny, their sovereignty of thought.
The control of populations goes hand in hand with the destabilisation of human communities, of nations, in their present form. While there is nothing new about this threat, there is a new intensity and speed to these destabilising tendencies, due to the blurring of war and peace, the non-explicit aspect of these strategies of conquest and digital imperialism, according to the strategic mode of the malicious use of artificial intelligence (MUAI), which are not easily taken into account by politicians, nor integrated into the collective consciousness of populations.
In this geopolitical rivalry on a global scale, the areas of confrontation are multiple, as is the expansion of the factors of power of conquest.
For a state or an alliance of states, which have mastered the whole range of tools and are capable of acting in all spaces, there is a great risk of their being tempted to extend their space-time imperialism thanks to artificial intelligence as a weapon of conquest. The result is an increase in global geopolitical fragmentation, a very profound destabilisation of international relations, and an increase in power inequalities.
These different offensives are not mutually exclusive but reinforce each other, and the control of populations is carried out in parallel with the control of territory, rivalries are exacerbated in the different spaces, land, air, sea, space, cyberspace, human brain, space-time of artificial intelligence. This increase in rivalry can lead to an increase in extremes, because if one of the protagonists, States or alliances, considers that its vital interests are at stake and its very existence is endangered in the face of the overwhelming superiority of the opponent in terms of mastery of artificial intelligence used as a weapon of total supremacy, the State can provoke a war or preventive action with all the means at its disposal, such as classic weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.
Recommendations
As the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) currently considers cognitive warfare as the sixth battlefield in which war is played out in people’s brains and human behaviour is the target, the development of Cognitive Warfare is in reality a militarization of the brain.[15]
The weak international regulation of cyberspace allows governments and non-state actors to use ICTs with few legal or ethical limits. The Cambridge Analytica scandal is proof of this. While the International Committee of the Red Cross, the UN Independent Expert Groups[, the authors of the two Tallinn Manuals (with a third one planned) and the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, have asserted that international law (IL) applies in the cyber context, there is no specific hard law agreement and the main challenge is to establish how the IL is applied.
Since Neuroscience is not subject to any rules of international law, ( a neuroweapon that attacks the brain is neither a biological nor a bioweapon (it is urgent for International organizations like UNESCO, to raise awareness and promote new regulation of this new weaponization of Neuroscience, in support of Cognitive warfare developments.
The existing United Nations treaties – the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) – do not contain any provisions for neuroweapons. All emerging trends were not covered, which means that some weapons can only be regulated after they have been put into service.[16]
International cooperation based on inclusiveness, respect and reciprocity will be better achieved with a stronger geopolitical balance on AI between global actors such as the US, China, Russia and the EU member states, and also between smaller states. International actors should therefore place more emphasis on questions regarding geopolitical balance and data sovereignty to counter threats to IPS from MUAI. It should also focus more on the different consequences that it could face regarding strategic MUAI, such as the implications for the EU of Cognitive Warfare and the development of GEOINT that goes beyond tactical MUAI.
Strong bilateral or smaller coalitions should be created for cooperation between voluntary actors who would agree to pool the necessary resources and skills in order to crate awareness of dangers of Cognitive Warfare, and ensure their independence and their future digital sovereignty, and to avoid being sucked into the US-China confrontation.
The EU should refrain from aligning itself with potential new and emerging exclusive alliances as a result of the increasing confrontation between the US, China and Russia, but should instead promote strategic autonomy and sovereignty, and cooperation on an inclusive basis.
Questions of power and sovereignty should also be geared towards a more socially cohesive and innovation-oriented model of development and a better combination of multipolarity and multilateralism (a better accepted multipolarity is the condition of reinforced multilateralism) for the whole world.
International cooperation is also necessary (under UN/UNESCO coordination) on forward-looking threat assessments, including the mapping of the AI threat landscape associated with Cognitive Warfare and global cooperation in building projects using AI to counter MUAI. An international research center, on the risk of MUAI and its threat to IPS could be promoted with voluntary states, and should not be based on a restrictive membership reflecting the emergence of geopolitical blocs (such as an “alliance of democracies”).
References
André Lanata, Général d’Armée Aérienne, Commandeur suprême transformation de l’OTAN, Préface ‒ par le Commandant suprême allié Transformation (SACT) de l’OTAN, La guerre cognitique, journée d’études sous la direction scientifique de Bernard Claverie, Baptiste Prébot et François du Cluzel, 21 juin 2021; https://www.innovationhub-act.org/
Bernard Claverie, François Du Cluzel, Le Cognitive warfare et l’Avènementdu concept de guerre cognitique, La guerre cognitique, journée d’études sous la direction scientifique de Bernard Claverie, Baptiste Prébot et François du Cluzel, 21 juin 2021; https://www.innovationhub-act.org/ .
Boulanger P (2020) La géographie, reine des batailles. Perrin, Ministère des armées, 322 p.
Chessen M (2017) The Madcom future: How artificial intelligence will enhance computational propaganda, reprogram human culture, and threaten democracy… and what can be done about it. Atlantic Council. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/the-madcom-future/.
du Cluzel. F. Cognitive Warfare, a Battle for the Brain. NATOACT. Norfolk, Virginia. USA., 2020
du Cluzel, F Cognitive Warfare, Innovation Hub, sponsored by ACT (Allied Command Transformation) of NATO, November 2020, 45 p.
European Parliament (2019) Polarisation and the use of technology in political campaigns and communication. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_STU(2019)634414.
European Parliament (2020) Framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, European Parliament Resolution of 20 October 2020 with recommendations to the Commission on a framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies (2020/2012(INL). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0275_EN.html. Accessed 16 Nov 2021
Guerre cognitive : l’OTAN prépare une guerre pour s’emparer de l’esprit des gens, https://www.geopolitika.ru/fr/article/guerre-cognitive-lotan-prepare-une-guerre?fbclid=IwAR2LrW728aelf3WgF5-QgWnsvB-c7mcvvLqO-KbNKepmBQyxqneWbWDoVOs
Norton B. Behind NATO’s ‘cognitive warfare’: ‘Battle for your brain’ waged by Western militaries, October 8, 2021, https://thegrayzone.com/2021/10/08/nato-cognitive-warfare-brain/
La guerre cognitique, journée d’études sous la direction scientifique de Bernard Claverie, Baptiste Prébot et François du Cluzel, 21 juin 2021; https://www.innovationhub-act.org/ .
NATO, NATO Innovation Challenge Fall 2021 – Countering Cognitive Warfare, Oct 8, 2021, https://www.act.nato.int/articles/innovation-challenge-2021-2-countering-cognitive-warfare
Pinard Legry O. , Neurosciences et sciences cognitives : comment se préparer à la guerre des cerveaux, Revue Défense Nationale 2022/HS3 (N° Hors-série), pages 58 à 76
[1] La guerre cognitique, journée d’études sous la direction scientifique de Bernard Claverie, Baptiste Prébot et François du Cluzel, 21 juin 2021; https://www.innovationhub-act.org/
[2] André Lanata, Général d’Armée Aérienne, Commandeur suprême transformation de l’OTAN, Préface ‒ par le Commandant suprême allié Transformation (SACT) de l’OTAN, La guerre cognitique, journée d’études sous la direction scientifique de Bernard Claverie, Baptiste Prébot et François du Cluzel, 21 juin 2021; https://www.innovationhub-act.org/ .
[3] La guerre cognitique, journée d’études sous la direction scientifique de Bernard Claverie, Baptiste Prébot et François du Cluzel, 21 juin 2021; https://www.innovationhub-act.org/ .
[4] Bernard Claverie, François Du Cluzel, Le Cognitive warfare et l’Avènementdu concept de guerre cognitique, La guerre cognitique, journée d’études sous la direction scientifique de Bernard Claverie, Baptiste Prébot et François du Cluzel, 21 juin 2021; https://www.innovationhub-act.org/ .
[5] Ibis
[6] Francois du Cluzel, Cognitive Warfare, Innovation Hub, sponsored by ACT (Allied Command Transformation) of NATO, November 2020, 45 p.
[7] Francois du Cluzel. Cognitive Warfare, a Battle for the Brain. NATOACT. Norfolk, Virginia. USA., 2020
[8] Francois du Cluzel, Cognitive Warfare, Innovation Hub, sponsored by ACT (Allied Command Transformation) of NATO, November 2020, 45 p.
[9] Boulanger P (2020) La géographie, reine des batailles. Perrin, Ministère des armées, 322 p.
[10] European Parliament (2019) Polarisation and the use of technology in political campaigns and communication. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_STU(2019)634414.
[11] Chessen M (2017) The Madcom future: How artificial intelligence will enhance computational propaganda, reprogram human culture, and threaten democracy… and what can be done about it. Atlantic Council. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/the-madcom-future/.
[12] European Parliament (2020) Framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, European Parliament Resolution of 20 October 2020 with recommendations to the Commission on a framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies (2020/2012(INL). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0275_EN.html.
[13] Ottawa Citizen. Military leaders saw pandemic as unique opportunity to test propaganda techniques on Canadians, Forces report says. September 21, 2021.
[14] Norton B. Behind NATO’s ‘cognitive warfare’: ‘Battle for your brain’ waged by Western militaries, October 8, 2021, https://thegrayzone.com/2021/10/08/nato-cognitive-warfare-brain/
[15] https://www.aixhumanitaire.org/single-post/la-guerre-cognitive-et-la-militarisation-de-l-opinion-publique
[16] Francois du Cluzel. Cognitive Warfare, a Battle for the Brain. NATOACT. Norfolk, Virginia. USA., 2020
