Welcome to the psychological warfare blog!

I was the leading figure of the spiritual and psychological warfare for 18 years. This is a website that is ran by your donations!

Psychological warfare articles!

1) A Psychoanalytic Interpretation of Current Events



In light of my recent invitation to address the public on the subjects of hate, anti-Semitism, and politics, I found myself contemplating what contributions I could make to the ongoing discourse in the media. The present study seeks to investigate the existence of a unique psychological factor that is important yet underrecognized.


After a considerable amount of time, the response was received from a colleague who informed a group of individuals interested in peace that we are not specialists in military warfare. This assertion is indeed accurate. However, the prospect of a psychological military alternative was a thought-provoking one. It is imperative to determine whether we are indeed authorities in the domain of psychological warfare. It is hypothesized that this is the case.


Psychological warfare has been utilized since antiquity in both war and peace. Examples of psychological warfare include advertising, alternative facts, brainwashing, changing "hearts and minds," dehumanizing, propaganda, and subliminal persuasion.


Conversely, within the domain of psychiatry, the prevailing expert-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) employs a technique known as reframing, which aims to modify erroneous cognitions and facilitate healing. The more traditional Freudian theory of unconscious psychological conflict can be conceptualized as internalized psychological warfare between representatives of the self and others that must be resolved. In essence, the phenomenon of psychological warfare manifests in a myriad of forms, including the therapeutic relationship, political conflict, and war.


Some large-scale variants of psychological warfare have been characterized as the dissemination of psychological messages with the intent to demoralize enemies or opponents and to bolster the morale of one's own group. One may also consider the historical precedent set by the use of cats by the Persians against the Egyptians in 525 BC, a conflict in which the Egyptians refrained from inflicting harm upon the cats due to religious beliefs. During the 19th century, anthropologists were incorporated into military forces with the objective of enhancing comprehension of opposing entities. Edward Bernay, a nephew of Sigmund Freud, employed a combination of his uncle's psychoanalytic theories and public relations strategies to assist the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in orchestrating a successful coup in Guatemala during the 1950s. According to a recent publication on the subject of psychological warfare, such anecdotes possess the capacity to wield significant psychological influence.


It is widely accepted that the psychological aspects of warfare represent a significant domain of concern.

One may posit that parochial altruism can be defined as the act of posing a rhetorical question to another, such as, "Are you with us or against us, for good or evil?"
It is evident that there are certain sacred values that are not easily compromised, such as those associated with the Holy Land.
The psychological implications of trauma and victimhood, particularly the notion that the past is never truly "past" from a psychological perspective, are significant considerations in this context.

The notion of peaceful competition encompasses the potential for elements of psychological warfare. This phenomenon is exemplified by contemporary discourse surrounding the cultural battles that are often referred to as "culture wars." Individuals and nations that are not directly involved in the conflict can also exert influence over the psychological warfare.


Richard Carmona, former Surgeon General, published an article in The Hill on August 31, 2024, titled "American Stockholm Syndrome: When politics becomes psychological warfare."² He then proceeded to discuss the psychological techniques that had been used on unsuspecting citizens to capture their allegiance. He now describes how that has evolved into a new variant of Stockholm syndrome, which is characterized by the phenomenon in which a hostage identifies with their captors. This variant is characterized by the propagation of misinformation and disinformation through various online and other media channels. The phenomenon of echo chambers serves to reinforce the process and content of information sharing within these groups.


Misinformation has been shown to influence psychological mechanisms such as confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. This phenomenon has the potential to undermine the very foundations of democratic discourse, which is predicated on a shared understanding and a collective commitment to truth and reality.


In order to circumvent or mitigate armed conflicts, it is imperative for leaders to employ a strategy that encompasses a cessation of hostilities, an aspiration for peace, and an acknowledgement of each side's inherent humanity, rights, and traumas. This approach, predicated on the premise of non-violent resistance, necessitates a consensus among leaders that military victory is not the optimal objective. In the context of maintaining peace, it is imperative to prioritize media literacy. Technology companies must assume greater responsibility for the content they disseminate. There is a need for increased dialogue and empathy among all stakeholders. Moreover, influencers must demonstrate a commitment to truth and transparency in their online content.


Psychiatricians, by virtue of their training and expertise, can be considered among the peace-seeking influencers in this field. Concomitantly, it is imperative to fortify ourselves against the insidious influence of external psychological warfare, which often manifests as an inclination to take sides without engaging in a thorough introspection to discern the underlying truths.


It is imperative to ascertain the victor in the ongoing political race and international war. What is your opinion on the matter? It is imperative to acknowledge that while one side may emerge victorious in a military or political context, this does not necessarily translate into success in the propaganda war, or vice versa.

2) True Coercion

Historically, the exploitation of an adversary's mental and emotional state of mind has been an integral component of the human experience. In order to employ a play on the time-honored adage that knowledge is pivotal to achieving victory in warfare, the art of deliberately sowing deception has been comprehended by numerous individuals and is being put into practice by an even greater number. The deliberate dissemination of false information with the intention of deceiving, disorienting, and demoralizing opponents has been a fundamental aspect of warfare throughout history. This strategy aims to weaken the enemy's resolve, compel surrender, and ultimately, force submission. A thorough examination of the subject can be found in Adam Elkus's contribution, "Continuing Relevance of Military Denial and Deception," which elucidates these points with remarkable clarity.

However, contemporary descendants of this practice have not only maintained the use of classical illustrations; they have also adapted their delivery systems to the contemporary battlefield. Recent "memos of submission" have been disseminated through various channels, including mass media, radio broadcasts, and the long-standing practice of discreet communication among influential individuals. During the First World War, the leaflet—the most widely used form of PSYOPS that is still in use today—was developed and disseminated on a significant scale.[ii] This particular form of stratagem, which was both easy to read and delivered from the skies, was employed by both the Allied and Axis forces with the objective of demoralizing the enemy and, if not achieving complete desertion, at least creating a significant psychological impact. Examples of strategic messaging included leaflets that stated German prisoners of war (POWs) would receive the same rations as the American doughboy, with detailed depictions of tinned fruit and fresh bread, as well as coffee and sweets. To facilitate a more profound comprehension of the portrayal, "verifiable" operations were employed, according to certain accounts. These operations included the staging of local "retreats," which led to the uncovering of a substantial quantity of US provisions for the opposing side.

Nevertheless, it was during the Second World War that many innovations, including PSYOPS, truly garnered the Henry Ford flavor of mass production. Though initially hesitant, theater commanders ultimately resorted to employing US psy-warriors. This marked the inaugural instance of electronic platforms being utilized in a comprehensive manner, and American PSYOPS, encompassing mobile broadcasting and mobile printing presses, swiftly emerged as the latest instruments deployed against the adversary.

However, in the wars that followed, US operators deviated from this effective trend when engaging Asian adversaries. This phenomenon was most acutely experienced in the rice paddies of Vietnam, which suffered significant losses due to the conflict. The absence of coordination and the considerable duplication of effort, in addition to the literally billions of leaflets that were disseminated, culminated in a strategic defeat. While tactical PSYOPS endeavored to reinforce impressions of communist atrocities committed against innocents, the depiction of napalmed children running alongside disfigured American troopers on television would become the definitive (even if unintended) means by which "hearts and minds" would be won.

While the United States demonstrated competence in tactical aspects of these psychological warfare campaigns, a comprehensive evaluation reveals that it faltered significantly on the strategic level. This shortcoming can be attributed to two primary factors: cultural ignorance and unanticipated influences, such as the influence of television, which were not adequately addressed.

The question of whether PSYOPS can be considered a form of propaganda remains a subject of debate.
Nevertheless, in the aftermath of 9/11, a range of psychological themes have emerged, encompassing those who perished on that tragic day and those who have subsequently fallen in the wars that ensued. Firstly, even the most formidable military force is subject to inherent limitations, a fact that is further compounded by the need to consider the patronage of the most powerful entities, such as the United States and the Western world. Secondly, conventional deterrence theories are both too restrictive and too simplistic to be applicable to the context of warfare against extremist groups. Consequently, alternative methods of persuasion have been explored, with the objective of establishing the psychological underpinnings necessary for sustained success.

It is unfortunate, but the phenomenon of information fratricide appears to be a pervasive concern for all parties involved in this intellectual endeavor. Despite the prevalence of truthful information in conventional PSYOPS, the occasional deliberate dissemination of false information (or propaganda) as part of a psychological exploitation strategy can have unintended consequences. It is not surprising that such potential "blowbacks" have fueled the ongoing definitional debate surrounding PSYOPS, particularly in comparison to other public affairs practices. Seasoned psy-warriors have recently articulated their concern regarding the confusion of disinformation (propaganda) with more efficacious modes of influence, namely reliable facts.[vi] For adherents of this school, it is precisely trust from the target audience that facilitates the successful shaping of people's perceptions. The proponents of this view posit that the credibility of the source is a prerequisite for the establishment of such trust.

This state of affairs is further complicated by the fact that PSYOPS and other forms of mental maneuver have been branded as everything from influence operations, perception management, military information support operations (MISO), and perhaps worst of all, "strategic communication." The incessant debate surrounding the nature of PSYOPS or propaganda has served only to obfuscate the fundamental issue at hand.

In order to maintain concentration and address spatial limitations, PSYOPS in this article will primarily adhere to operations in which selected information is utilized to influence human perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors in combat environments. While an overarching definition may appear to encompass both truth-based operations and deceitful propaganda, resulting in a comparison between the two, the argument presented here is that, in general, the distinction may not be of consequence. The utilization of both factual and fictional elements in psychological warfare has been observed in historical conflicts, with a notable emphasis on military applications in recent times. Regardless of the label assigned, whether it is "PSYOPS," "propaganda," "MISO," or another, the dissemination of misinformation and the reinforcement of truth are likely to occur in tandem when attempting to influence specific viewers. This ongoing debate regarding branding may, at best, merely serve to present a more amiable facade to a practice that evidently aims to influence individuals' perceptions through the judicious application of messaging, irrespective of its veracity.

Despite the ongoing debate among psy-ops personnel regarding the appropriate timing and methods for the deployment of false information, the existence of such ambiguous legal parameters is unlikely to serve as a significant validation for this practice.

The potential is evident, yet the execution remains challenging.
It must be noted, however, that this is not to suggest that PSYOPS should be considered worthless or that leaflets are as useless as "supplies of toilet paper for the adversary."[vii] In fact, triumphant PSYOPS have been manufactured and efficiently dispersed not only by Western proponents but also, ironically, by those who oppose the Western ideal. A notable example is Somali clan leader Mohammad Aideed, who utilized PSYOPS to achieve victory in the information war during the Battle of Blackhawk Down, despite sustaining more than 15 times the number of US casualties. Aideed's strategic use of satellite and radio transmissions, which bounced off city walls and thus were difficult to pinpoint, was undoubtedly a demonstration of his understanding of public relations.However well intentioned and courageous the humanitarian mission may have been, the broadcasts of US troops being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu undeniably accelerated the US withdrawal. A parallel can be drawn between Ayatollah Khomeini's overthrow of the Shah, which was facilitated by a cassette tape, and the use of psychological subversion as a tool of warfare. The strategic combination of structural circumstances—namely, an oppressive regime—and sophisticated means of communication, meticulously designed to target a vulnerable audience, is a feat that any professional in the field of psychological warfare would aspire to attain.

Even when considering radical groups—the fashionable threat of the present age, often unrestrained by moral boundaries—advocates of this inexact art forever contend that "PSYOPS is still, in essence, more moral than conventional military methods."[x] Given that modern democracies have placed a high value on reducing expense whenever possible, an emphasis on winning wars at a discounted price (be it human or material) is undoubtedly an advantage, rather than a disadvantage, to PSYOPS enthusiasts. In this regard, proponents of psywar have persistently posited that these games offer two distinct features that are not present in other games. The initial observation to be made is that there is a high probability of the development of a weapons system that is non-lethal and, as a result, politically correct. Secondly, it has

been posited that the potential force-multiplying and internationally accessible no-boots-on-the-ground option is generally executed in a cost-effective manner. In comparison with multi-billion dollar platforms that may or may not achieve their objectives, PSYOPS (with its pamphlets, radios, human agents, and other resources) is, by most measures, reasonably priced.

Beyond the facilitation of low-cost delivery through the Internet, the most significant contributions of this enigmatic tool are its speed and anonymity. In the contemporary era, the dissemination of online phenomena has become expeditious, and financial contagions have demonstrated a remarkable capacity to traverse international boundaries with alacrity. The capacity of psychological products to accompany this informational web, in an instant and undetectable manner, is undoubtedly simple to perceive. Indeed, it could be argued that, given the extensive mass-media coverage that is currently available, a significant portion of the necessary groundwork has already been laid. For proponents of psychology, the key is to "piggyback" on existing concepts, as articulated by a PSYOPS specialist. [xi]

It is imperative for military personnel to explore the uninterrupted and seemingly inexhaustible tabloid markets in order to capitalize on their potential and effectively neutralize our adversaries. In the contemporary era, characterized by an elevated standard of success, primarily within the Western world, such allurements hold particular appeal. The narrative surrounding the battle often supersedes the actual conflict itself.

This subject is always of interest.


If human beings had not been so complex, psychological warfare might have appeared to be the panacea for this never-ending search for the right ingredients. The appeal of employing ideas in lieu of bullets to subjugate dissenters would undoubtedly be enticing for any politician averse to risk. It is unfortunate that such blueprints were not available, as this would have potentially altered the course of the unfinished and unsatisfactory developments of Projects 'Iraq' and 'Afghanistan.' The recent bombings in Iraq, following nearly nine years of US investment, and the ongoing violence in Afghanistan, have undoubtedly demonstrated the limitations of Western charm.

A survey of historical episodes reveals the presence of these limits, which are not difficult to identify. A seminal study of PSYOPS in the Pacific Theater during WWII can be found in Allison Gilmore's brilliant research. In this seminal piece, it is patently clear that, of the four main psychological themes used during the War (Enlightenment, Subversive, Divisive, and Despair), Despair proved the most valuable. For Gilmore, these efforts at enlightenment merely served to provide the Japanese with a more precise understanding of the Allied capabilities. Conversely, subversive propaganda met with limited success initially but demonstrated its value only as the war progressed in favor of the Allies, a phenomenon that was also observed in divisive campaigns. However, the Japanese concept of despair, which is characterized by its association with Japanese misery and anguish, was the one message that resonated profoundly with the Allies. According to Gilmore, such gains were not attributable to the distinctiveness of the PSYOPS theme, but rather to its psychological reinforcement of the other applications of pain.[xii] In summary, fundamental Japanese realities (such as economic hardships and a ceaseless rain of incendiary bombs) constituted the foundations that allowed for the successful planting of psychological notions.

The objective of this study is to assess the degree of progress achieved.
Notwithstanding this secondary and more supportive role, the most significant challenge for PSYOPS may persist in its own evaluation. As expected, commanders have acknowledged a dearth of precise measurements, resulting in the dissemination of uninspiring communications due to insufficient data. If PYSOPS proponents have endorsed the assessment of the tenor of sermons in mosques, the street behavior of the locals (obscene gestures toward US troops, amount of anti-American graffiti, etc.), and trends (either upward or downward) in the number of intelligence tips from the populace, critics have been equally adamant in pointing out the impossibility of knowing whether it was the PSYOPS itself or something unrelated that caused the desired outcome.

Attempts at attitudinal research, such as target audience analysis or ethnographic investigation, have also been pursued with varying degrees of success.[xiii] Based on the conviction that counterinsurgencies would ultimately be won through the cultivation of popular support, Human Terrain Teams (HTTs) have been utilized by US forces with the objective of providing commanders with a comprehensive understanding of the societal and psychological dynamics within target populations. In order to provide soldiers with a more nuanced understanding of the local populace's thought processes and behaviors, a variety of specialized teams have been assembled. These teams consist of anthropologists, sociologists, political scientists, and other experts. They have utilized a range of resources, including databases of local leaders and tribes, as well as catalogues of economic and social problems in a given area. The objective of these efforts is to provide soldiers with a more comprehensive perspective on the local inhabitants' thought processes and behaviors, as well as the underlying factors that influence them.[xiv]

The question of whether enhanced comprehension can result in the development of superior psychological products remains largely unresolved. In contrast to the stability of urban features or topography, the human psyche has remained an elusive and dynamic target for military intervention, both in terms of identification and manipulation. Even the most fervent proponents of psywar, such as Ron Schleifer, have acknowledged the limitations of classical PSYOPS in confronting suicidal enemies, a phenomenon that has gained prominence in recent times. A considerable portion of this phenomenon can be ascribed to the principles of PSYOPS, which presuppose that adversaries will endeavor to survive. Nevertheless, such unrelenting predicaments do lend credence to the question of how one might effectively combat or dissuade an individual who is already determined to die.

In light of the aforementioned considerations, it can be concluded that the psychological tactics employed in such observations are only effective when there is a firmly established credibility and success of more conventional methods in the minds of the public.

The following conclusion is hereby presented:


While coercion is generally defined as a strategy to persuade an opponent to alter their behavior, the concept of beauty is subjective and subject to interpretation. The intent of the coercer is of lesser significance than the perception of the coerced. It is important to note that the consequences of coercive strategies are challenging to evaluate and predict.

The ongoing discourse surrounding the viability of the "shaping" of minds is likely to persist. The absence of reliable classifications and measurements is a cause for concern, as it may have a negative impact on future operators. It is plausible that mass desertion and surrender of enemy combatants, or even changes in people's perceptions, cannot be accurately predicted or controlled. At a minimum, they could be considered an unplanned dividend of PSYOPS. This unintended consequence, comprising both positive and negative aspects, may represent the optimal approach when actively attempting to modify public opinion.

It appears that, at present, the domain of effective "storytelling" is more closely associated with novelists than with military personnel.


3) World War II Psyche Warfare


The application of psychological warfare during World War II

One of the most potent facets of warfare pertains to the utilization of psychological manipulation. However, what factors contribute to the efficacy of this mode of warfare? The potency of psychological warfare lies in its capacity to evade detection and resist its effects. In this video log, Dr. Jeff Logue expounds on the role of psychological warfare in World War II, highlighting the strategies employed by the Axis and Allied Powers to target the morale of soldiers.



One of the most potent facets of warfare pertains to the utilization of psychological manipulation. While the brutality and violence of warfare are often widely recognized, the psychological warfare component of conflict is frequently overlooked. The Second World War provides a salient example of the employment of psychological warfare to target the morale and sentiment of numerous soldiers. The most compelling means of dissemination was through the dissemination of leaflets by bomber planes. The objective of these communications was to diminish the motivation and enthusiasm of the soldiers. For instance, certain leaflets depicted scenes of marital infidelity, a theme that undoubtedly resonates with the profound sense of insecurity experienced by numerous soldiers. The potency of psychological warfare lies in its capacity to evade detection and resist repression. Psychological warfare is a deliberate and systematic effort to manipulate the psyche of an adversary, aiming to exploit their vulnerabilities and desires to achieve specific objectives. Psychological warfare is defined as "the systematic process of influencing the will and directing the actions of people in enemy and enemy-occupied territories according to the needs of a higher strategy." The employment of propaganda against the opponent's vulnerabilities gave rise to a novel concept in warfare: psychological warfare, which is now recognized as the fourth arm of warfare. This emerging domain necessitates dedicated research, strategic development, and proactive action to counter the enemy. War is frequently regarded as a mechanical approach to human affairs, predicated on the development of a powerful and efficient war machine. Psychological warfare aims to subvert the war machine by targeting individuals within the system, thereby undermining political ideologies through personal motivations. Psychological warfare is a deliberate and systematic effort to destabilize adversaries by exploiting their vulnerabilities and taking advantage of their personal characteristics in a scientific manner. Emotions that are frequently regarded as the most abhorrent and exposed aspects of human nature, such as fear, hate, deceit, pain, humiliation, and loneliness, are methodically exploited until the adversary is sufficiently demoralized to cease resistance. The advent of World War II signaled the onset of a novel paradigm of warfare. The traditional conception of war as a contest of arms and military might has been rendered obsolete. This shift in conditions precipitated an acute psychological and emotional upheaval among both the populace and the military personnel. During the war, the Axis and Allied powers engaged in a substantial use of propaganda, with the aim of psychological manipulation of the respective populations. It was soon discovered that such forms of persuasion could be just as effective against the enemy. Drawing from the historical example of Adolf Hitler, the United Kingdom initiated a mission to transform its propaganda, employing it on an unprecedented scale. The United Kingdom advanced the scientific study of psychological warfare through meticulous research into the psychological vulnerabilities of the human mind. The notion of military psychology was not a novel concept during World War II. During the First and Second World Wars, the British government enlisted the expertise of numerous psychologists to conduct research, testing, and experimentation. These efforts were aimed at determining the selection, placement, and training of soldiers. Notably, this marked the inaugural instance in which the scientific principles of psychology were employed to undermine enemy combatants while concurrently fortifying the morale and resilience of its own military personnel. During the period of World War II, there was a concomitant rise in the awareness of the cultural influences on human behavior and their role in shaping individual motivations. A considerable number of psychologists contend that World War II played a pivotal role in the emergence of social and cultural psychology as a legitimate scientific discipline. Prior to the war, the majority of social psychology was considered philosophical in nature. At the onset of the psychological warfare campaign, governments initiated the active recruitment of psychologists to participate in the planning and testing phases. Consequently, a novel approach to systematic field research came to the fore. While Adolf Hitler overtly and enthusiastically engaged psychologists in his war effort, the British were less inclined to acknowledge that they, too, were employing such illegitimate techniques for their own campaign. Throughout the war, the term "psychological warfare" was avoided, and instead, the term "political warfare" was preferred. Consequently, they maintained a high degree of confidentiality regarding the psychologist they did employ, primarily relying on the United States to conduct the majority of the psychological research necessary for their psy-war campaign. Psychological warfare techniques entail the analysis of long-term psychological strengths and weaknesses of both individuals and societies to ascertain their most vulnerable points. At the individual level, this is accomplished through the implementation of personality psychology and combat psychiatry, with the objective of identifying psychological phenomena applicable to the development of psychological weapons. Two primary research questions have been identified. Firstly, the potential for the manipulation of individual fears must be examined. Secondly, the question of how the stresses of war can be systematically increased is of particular interest. Combat psychiatry is the branch of psychiatry that focuses on the psychological effects of warfare on the individual. As some of you may be aware, there are five factors that pose a threat to individual survival. Initially, the sensation experienced is one of discomfort. Subsequently, the subjects experienced sensations of coldness, hunger, and thirst. Fourthly, the phenomenon of fatigue must be considered. Subsequently, the subjects reported experiencing feelings of boredom and loneliness. The strategic employment of these factors by psychological warfare aims to prioritize the infliction of suffering over the ultimate outcome of death. The psychological reaction pattern that characterizes the typical experience in combat can be delineated as follows. Initially, an apprehensive enthusiasm is evident. The troops are reported to be enthusiastic about the prospect of engaging in combat. The team's enthusiasm is palpable. However, a modicum of anxiety and apprehension is experienced prior to the commencement of the contest. However, they are overall enthusiastic about participating in the conflict. At the onset of hostilities, the subjects undergo a phenomenon that has been termed "resignation." This condition is characterized by a persistent state of depression. It is not difficult to imagine that the experiences of combat and battle begin to take a toll on them. Despite experiencing symptoms of depression, they are able to effectively engage in the established war routine. However, as the cumulative impact of prolonged exposure to combat environments takes its toll, the soldiers begin to exhibit a state of "anxious apprehension." It is precisely at this juncture that they are most susceptible to emotional distress and psychological vulnerability. Anxious apprehension is typified by a sense of overwhelming loneliness. To further illustrate this point, one may envision oneself in a field setting. The player character finds themselves in a state of combat. The subject is geographically distant from their peers. The subject is located 1,000 miles from their family. It is evident that the elements that are typically recognized are not present in this context. The environment is entirely dissimilar, as is the country. It has been observed that individuals are communicating in a language other than the one typically used. In many cases, this constitutes the individual's inaugural experience with combat. The aforementioned factors often resulted in a state of emotional distress among troops, characterized by feelings of overwhelmingness and loneliness, which frequently led to a diminution in appetite. This phenomenon is widely recognized as a hallmark symptom of major depressive disorder. In many cases, this is accompanied by a sense of guilt, often associated with the taking of a life. A significant proportion of the military personnel were of the Christian faith. Their upbringing was characterized by an emphasis on the Ten Commandments. The act of murder is ethically and morally reprehensible. Therefore, they were compelled to confront the notion of taking the life of an individual who, at times, bore a striking resemblance to them. Subjects experience a sense of culpability for their decision to depart from their family members who remain in their place of origin. The subject is the act of abandoning a spouse. The act of relinquishing parental responsibilities, entrusting the care of offspring to another party, and departing from their familial unit. The decision to either leave aging parents or to leave the farm where they were previously employed and contributing to their family's

well-being can be a challenging one. The subject experiences a sense of guilt associated with surviving an attack in which many of their friends were killed. This phenomenon is often referred to as "survivor guilt." This phenomenon is often accompanied by a sense of overwhelming loneliness, anorexia, and guilt. Additionally, there is a notable decline in group identification. As troops become engrossed in the conflict, battle, and combat, they frequently begin to question the purpose of the war effort. A significant portion of the propaganda, particularly that which was audible as I exited the premises, appeared to be aimed at fostering a sense of uncertainty and skepticism. The question of whether this is a worthwhile endeavor is a valid one. The fundamental question that guides this inquiry is the purpose of our existence. This frequently results in the withdrawal of physical and emotional investment. It is reasonable to assume that, following the loss of numerous friends, comrades, and acquaintances in combat, there is a tendency to question the value of emotional investment in others. The psychological warfare employed by the United States involves the coordinated utilization of all available means to undermine the will of the adversary and dismantle their support network from allies. During World War II, psychological warfare was broadly categorized into three distinct classifications, which were interdependent. The approach encompassed three distinct phases: strategic, tactical, and consolidation. Strategic propaganda was disseminated to enemy populations in occupied countries, with the dual objective of weakening the adversary's resolve to resist and maintaining the morale of Allied supporters over an extended period. The dissemination of tactical or combat propaganda against enemy forces in the forward areas was a deliberate strategy aimed at achieving specific, short-term objectives. Propaganda aimed at civilians in recently occupied rear areas was a key component of the consolidation strategy, with the objective of ensuring their sustained cooperation. The United States employed specific armaments in their PSYOPs. The instruments of psychological warfare were the media of the civilian population, in the forms of film, print, or audio. During World War II, the armed forces primarily relied on the printed leaflet, newspaper, and news sheet as instruments of propaganda. The Allied Powers disseminated a total of 8 billion leaflets worldwide, either by air or by artillery shell. Furthermore, the Allies employed motion pictures, still photographs, and broadcasted radio programs to influence the home fronts of the enemy. At the tactical level, the United States implemented radio propaganda programs along the front lines and utilized loudspeakers and megaphones. It is evident that nearly every campaign in the Pacific theater witnessed the employment of some form of psychological warfare, waged by either a civilian population or a military agency. The Japanese approach to psychological warfare was modeled on the campaigns conducted by the British during World War I and the Germans during World War II. Indeed, the Germans established a branch of their propaganda ministry within Japan, thereby initiating a close collaboration in psychological warfare between the two Axis powers. Consequently, a striking parallelism emerged between the propaganda themes employed by these two entities. The Japanese employed a three-pronged approach in their PSYOPs. Firstly, a strategic propaganda campaign was initiated, targeting the home fronts of political leadership and the status of Western powers in Asia. Indeed, a number of researchers have posited that the Japanese invasion of China was a strategic maneuver intended to provoke the Western powers in that region. Secondly, there is the matter of operational and tactical propaganda. These acts were directed against the military forces of the Western powers. A notable example of this phenomenon is the bombing of Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. This was not merely a psychological warfare approach or tactic on the part of the Japanese to demoralize the United States. The Japanese anticipated an easy victory and a swift surrender, believing that the Allies would acquiesce to their demands. However, it can be argued that this decision constituted one of the most significant missteps by the Japanese during the course of World War II. The attack on Pearl Harbor served as a catalyst, rousing the United States from its slumber and inciting profound ire and a desire for retribution within the American populace. This fervor subsequently fueled the Pacific campaign, which disseminated throughout the Pacific Islands and culminated in the deployment of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Japanese psychological warfare operations encompassed a range of tactics, including broadcasts by Radio Tokyo, particularly those presented by Tokyo Rose and The Zero Hour, which were audible as I exited the building today. Additionally, the dissemination of propaganda leaflets was a significant component of these operations. Radio Tokyo was known for its frequent broadcasts of contemporary American music. The musical style encompasses jazz, big band, bebop, and jitterbug. Music by renowned composers such as Tommy Dorsey, Glenn Miller, and Bing Crosby was already being played on Axis radio stations prior to the dissemination of these musical works by Allied broadcasters. However, the US Navy's familiarity with Tokyo Rose led to a unique approach: enemy broadcasts were diverted to the ship's sound system for the sake of entertainment and to facilitate the dissemination of domestic popular music. The Japanese tactical psychological warfare campaign directed at US troops was ultimately deemed to be an utter failure. Dr. Robert J. Bunker, an esteemed author and researcher in the field, has made the following observation: "There is no precedent for such an extensive listenership resulting in such limited outcomes." As I conclude today's discourse, it is imperative to address the true subject of psychological warfare: the individual. The subject's voice was audible as the author emerged from the room. Iva Toguri, who is more commonly known by her stage name Tokyo Rose, was born in Los Angeles, California, on July 4, 1916. Following her graduation from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) with aspirations of becoming a physician, she traveled to Japan to visit her ailing aunt and was subsequently stranded in the country after the attack on Pearl Harbor. She completed her undergraduate studies in 1941. Subsequent to being compelled to renounce her US citizenship, she refused on two occasions and was consequently left to starve and fend for herself in a foreign country. Toguri subsequently secured employment in radio broadcasting, where she was invited to host The Zero Hour, a program that combined propaganda and entertainment for US soldiers. Her selection for this role was influenced by her American accent, which was considered a distinctive and appealing feature. She embodies the quintessence of the American experience, much like the individuals present today. She proceeded to recite a script composed by two British prisoners of war, who had entrusted it to her. The use of sarcasm and satire by the Allies served to bolster the morale of US troops more effectively than it did to demoralize them. Subsequent to the war, she was repatriated to the United States and convicted of treason. She was incarcerated for a period of six years. Subsequently, in 1976, President Gerald Ford pardoned Iva Toguri. She was shrouded in a profound stigma due to her association with Tokyo Rose until her demise at the age of 90 in 2006.



4) 12 Psychological Warfare Strategies



The following is a list of twelve psychological warfare strategies that have been employed throughout history:
Throughout history, militaries have employed a variety of psychological warfare strategies to entice enemies into traps without the need for physical force.


In the context of warfare, the term "psychological warfare" refers to the employment of tactics intended to diminish an opponent's morale and resolve to engage in combat. These tactics may encompass methods of instilling fear and intimidation, employing deception, and utilizing surprise. Militaries have historically employed psychological warfare strategies to gain a competitive edge over adversaries, enabling them to achieve more with less risk to their soldiers' lives and valuable armaments. Furthermore, psychological warfare can be utilized during peacetime to coerce rivals into postponing or relinquishing military intervention. This study will examine the historical evolution of psychological warfare, from its ancient origins to its modern applications. It will explore how military entities have utilized psychological tactics to gain superior advantages over adversaries, even in situations where they possessed inferior military strength. In the contemporary military context, psychological warfare, or "psyops," has emerged as a prevalent instrument in modern military strategy.


The initial psychological operations of antiquity: the employment of war elephants.


Elephants are regarded as one of the most intimidating creatures on the planet due to their imposing stature as the tallest terrestrial animal. The integration of body armor and blades or spikes into tusks can result in a formidable battle beast. The utilization of these animals in military contexts has been documented in Africa and India, where both African and Asian elephants have been incorporated into military forces. In India, the employment of war elephants was a common military strategy, with these elephants often constituting entire corps within the military forces. While not indestructible, elephants were capable of easily displacing individual soldiers by swinging their massive heads. It is noteworthy that equines were often intimidated by larger elephants and could refuse to engage in battle when confronted with them.


5) Turning Minds Into Battlegrounds


It is challenging to engage in the act of writing about a war while it is ongoing. This phenomenon is particularly salient in the absence of tangible evidence, such as craters in the ground or the sighting of missiles overhead. The impact of such psychological trauma is challenging to quantify or substantiate through empirical evidence. The onset of my research on this book in mid-2020 coincided with a global pandemic, which precipitated an unprecedented deluge of propaganda. The magnitude and complexity of this propaganda was unlike anything I had previously encountered. As a friend of mine lay dying of a case of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) on a ventilator, President Donald Trump claimed that the disease could be cured with light and deworming medication for horses. In the aftermath of George Floyd's death at the hands of police, a proliferation of disinformation concerning the Black Lives Matter movement became evident on social media platforms. This disinformation, disseminated by anonymous accounts, falsely attributed responsibility for acts of violence to the protest movement. A conspiracy theory from 2016, which alleged that pizza-eating pedophiles had radicalized a significant number of right-wing extremists, played a role in the events that transpired. Specifically, the conspiracy theory motivated a considerable number of these extremists to join the crowds that stormed the Capitol in an attempt to assassinate the vice president and overturn the 2020 presidential election. Concurrently, the media itself began to deteriorate. In a matter of months, tech billionaire Elon Musk transformed Twitter, once a pivotal component of America's digital public sphere, into a platform that disseminates right-wing propaganda. OpenAI, the organization that developed the ChatGPT application, cautioned that its creation could potentially lead to disastrous consequences. Subsequently, OpenAI provided financial support to a studio that aimed to assist newspapers in adopting ChatGPT to substitute for journalists.

With each perceived understanding of the situation, subsequent developments would invariably provoke a state of existential crisis. The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has had far-reaching consequences, including the termination of the universal access to legal abortion that many individuals had previously taken for granted throughout their lives. The insinuation of anti-trans ideology into public policy prompted the compilation of lists of states in which my associates and I faced restrictions on our basic rights and liberties. These restrictions included limitations on access to bathroom facilities, health care services, and public speaking without risk of arrest for perceived gender expression. The situation was not only alarming; it was also illogical. At approximately the same time, a member of the Air Force National Guard who had made public statements expressing racist views disclosed classified United States intelligence regarding the Ukraine War on a Discord server dedicated to the Minecraft gaming platform. The sensation evoked was akin to being in a war zone, or perhaps observing a satirical depiction of such a setting, anticipating the subsequent detonation of a bomb.

In the face of these challenges, I sought solace in the act of writing, utilizing it as a means to process and make sense of the tumultuous emotions. It became evident that the necessity of the moment was to cease living in the immediate and to cease experiencing the dread. A more profound contextual analysis of the events transpiring in the United States was imperative. The present author turned to history for answers, conducting research on American ideological conflicts of the past two hundred years—ranging from formal military psychological operations to messy domestic culture wars—with the objective of finding precedents that would explain why the democracy was devolving into what felt like madness. As a science journalist, I experienced frustration due to the absence of scientific instruments and objective measures that I could utilize to substantiate the claim that individuals' lives were being adversely impacted by verbal and conceptual influences. However, as a fiction writer, I recognized that alternative methods existed for accessing veracity, for interpreting a world characterized by absurdity and chaos. It was imperative that I recount a narrative.

Aliens and Psychic Wars


The skyline of Stanford University is dominated by a red-tipped tower. The edifice, which is shaped like a missile, is situated within an area characterized by low-slung Spanish colonial architecture and tree-shaded sidewalks. It is part of the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, a conservative think tank founded in 1919 by Herbert Hoover. The initial visit occurred on a windy fall day in 2021, during the brief period between the Delta and Omicron waves of the pandemic when the Bay Area was experiencing an uptick in activity. The destination was a sunken courtyard at the base of the tower, which led to a basement-level floor entirely occupied by the Hoover Institution Archives. The archive is a popular destination for scholars, heads of state, and policy experts from around the globe. These individuals come to the archive to study its extensive collection of documents related to propaganda and psychological warfare.

In order to gain entry to the archive, it was necessary to pass through two security checkpoints. The first was designed to verify the subject's identity and to ascertain the status of their vaccinations. The second was intended to ensure that the subject was in possession of only a computer, a telephone, and a pencil. The Hoover Institution Library & Archives has established a set of regulations regarding the conduct and attire of visitors. Backpacks, sweaters with pockets, and permanent markers are strictly prohibited within the premises. In the event that I wished to document my findings, the librarian informed me that I was at liberty to utilize the official yellow Hoover Institution paper. Prior to exiting the security checkpoint, a staff member photographed me and generated a unique "reader card" ID. In the event that I were to leave the premises to use the restroom or procure lunch, I would be required to present my card to re-enter. The ambience of the space evoked a blend of characteristics reminiscent of an intelligence agency and a museum.

The purpose of this investigation was to sift through the personal papers of an odd military intelligence expert named Paul Linebarger. Linebarger wrote a handbook called Psychological Warfare for the US Army in the late 1940s that came to define modern psychological operations in the United States. Despite the fact that he is not widely known by name, his book remains a recommended text at Fort Liberty, where Special Operations soldiers are trained to influence and deceive their enemies. Upon arriving at my designated workspace and donning protective gloves, I proceeded to unbox the initial archival collection of the subject's documents. This action revealed a series of diaries and photographs with a provenance dating back to the 19th century. The moment I set these materials down, I found myself immersed in a mystery spanning the Cold War era. As with numerous intelligence experts, Linebarger engaged in espionage, yet his clandestine activities did not involve the sort of covert operations one might anticipate. Conversely, their utilization was exclusively for the purpose of narrating tales. The author published the work under the pseudonym "Felix C." Forrest's literary fiction, which focused on the lives of women, was characterized by one reviewer as "like pages from a psychiatrist's notebook." Under the name Carmichael Smith, he authored a Cold War spy novel entitled Atomsk. As Cordwainer Smith, he wrote numerous science fiction stories and novels that led to his cult status in the 1950s and '60s.

A comprehensive review of the subject's personal diaries, classified research documents, and critically acclaimed stories about a ruthless future space empire known as the Instrumentality was conducted. The subject's grade school notebooks, which were devoted to the study of Chinese, were acquired in conjunction with classified documents pertaining to the adult Linebarger's deployment during World War II. These documents were obtained from the diplomat father's station in China. He pursued studies in psychology and political subterfuge with equal fervor. In one folder, an unpublished book was found, entitled "Ethical Dianetics," authored under the name Carmichael Smith. This book proposed a radical system of "mutual emotional aid." A separate report delineated a strategy for the United States to clandestinely promote "passive resistance" in China against communism during the Cold War. During World War II, he maintained a journal of keen observations from his travels. A portion of the photographs focused on the impact of the war on the various countries that the subject visited, ranging from those in Asia to those in Africa. However, a significant number of the photographs were of a more arresting nature. In 1943, while passing through Sudan, he documented his observations, noting that "At [Al Fashir], U.S. officers were particularly intrigued by the sight of women engaged in construction work." He demonstrated a keen awareness of the cultural dissimilarities that evoke curiosity and, at times, outrage. Nonetheless, the majority of his published oeuvre was fiction, as opposed to treatises such as Psychological Warfare.

The question arises as to why the author chose to write about fantastical wars in outer space when he had so much to say about wars on Earth. As I delved deeper into Linebarger's oeuvre, it became evident that his proficiency in science

fiction writing played a pivotal role in his success with military psychological operations. Propaganda, in essence, is a narrative employed to garner support from allies and dissuade adversaries. The degree to which a narrative is compelling and emotionally engaging is directly correlated with the amount of interest it generates in its audience. Linebarger's philosophy was predicated on the notion that the judicious use of language possessed a potency that surpassed that of military force. In the United States Army and at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, he instructed two generations of soldiers in the art of storytelling, focusing on its application in a manner that served the interests of the United States. His objective was not to coerce individuals into compliance through the use of slogans and threats. He employed a nuanced and rational approach, interwoven with elements of entertainment, to persuade his audiences to align with the United States. Linebarger employed a variety of strategies to engage with audiences, including the incorporation of his ideas into science fiction narratives and the dissemination of his research through classified reports.

While ensconced in the serene environs of the Hoover Institution Library & Archives, my gaze would intermittently rise to observe my fellow researchers attired in their customary academic attire, or the unkempt denim garments of indigent graduate students. In the open-air courtyard, a gentle breeze ruffled the meticulously groomed trees. A sense of insulation from external influences, accompanied by a sense of security, was experienced momentarily, reminiscent of the meditative state often encountered within academic institutions.

However, the safety of the subjects was not guaranteed.

The collective sentiment within the chamber and beyond was one of disquiet, as the nation's persistent psychological struggles manifested themselves in the domains of the economy, healthcare, education, the judicial system, and government at all levels. All parties involved experienced an elevated physiological response consistent with the fight-or-flight response. As my knowledge expanded, I found myself increasingly convinced that storytelling was the primary culprit. In a 2022 episode of the book-centric podcast Print Run, literary agents Laura Zats and Erik Hane observed that while it is common to describe a story as "feel-good," individuals rarely acknowledge the existence of "feel-bad" stories that have the capacity to emotionally wound us. It is evident that the efficacy of a narrative in fostering positive emotions, such as elation or enlightenment, does not necessarily imply an inverse effect on the reader's emotional state. That is to say, a story can also engender feelings of discontent or perplexity. Should the aforementioned narrative possess the capacity to modify an individual's conduct, whether in the context of electoral participation or in the public sphere, it can be regarded as a potent instrument of influence.

In contemporary United States society, the term "psywar" has become virtually synonymous with the concept of "culture war." This phenomenon can be likened to the circumstances that transpired in the 1990s, when federal programs rendered it both inexpensive and expedient for police departments to procure unused military equipment, including semiautomatic weapons and tanks. Weapons designed for deployment in combat zones are now being utilized in suburban areas within the United States. Peter Pomerantsev, author of This Is Not Propaganda, has noted that military influence operations have become intertwined with civilian conflicts, resulting in a deluge of disinformation and deception, coined as "fake news" and "information warfare." The utilization of psychological operations (Psyops) in the context of domestic conflicts among Americans serves to obfuscate the distinction between what is considered appropriate in such situations and what is deemed acceptable in the context of combat against a foreign adversary.

As a science journalist and fiction author, I have dedicated my professional life to exploring the intersection between hard realities and the fantasies we entertain about them. The phenomenon of psychological warfare and the cultural discord that characterizes contemporary society are intricately intertwined at this nexus. Linebarger's seminal work posits that effective propaganda invariably incorporates a modicum of veracity, citing actual events and historical narratives. However, these elements are meticulously decontextualized, relocated to an imaginary terrain populated by dichotomous, mythical figures: the virtuous and the malevolent. This phenomenon is the underlying cause of the profound emotional response it elicits.

Corresponding Segment


The transition of psychological warfare from the realm of military conflict to the domain of political engagement.
A comparison of PSYOP methodologies
The concept of psychological warfare lacks a definitive origin story. By the time of the composition of the Chinese classic The Art of War, likely 2,500 years ago, the practice had already become widely established and intricate. The Art of War, often ascribed to a philosopher and military general named Sun Tzu or Master Sun, describes tactics such as deception and distraction. In the contemporary era, these might be termed disinformation, propaganda, or special operations. The Art of War is chiefly concerned with the psychological strategies that a competent leader should employ to avert violence. These strategies encompass a range of diplomatic and surreptitious tactics. Linebarger, who spent part of his childhood in China and was a scholar of Chinese history, adopted this as his own credo while codifying the art of modern psychological warfare. He counseled his students and fellow military officers to employ psywar to avert bloodshed.

It is imperative to acknowledge that a primary objective of psychological warfare is to inflict harm upon the adversary. Otherwise, the act of engaging in verbal exchange does not constitute a strike, but rather a mere exchange of words. Psychological operations (Psyops) are defined as the deliberate use of propaganda, disinformation, and other forms of influence to manipulate public opinion and behavior, often without direct confrontation. These operations aim to create emotional distress, social disruption, and a state of psychological warfare without the need for physical conflict. There are numerous methods to accomplish this objective, and operatives have refined their tactics over time.

The fledgling United States was the beneficiary of a novel insight regarding the psychological dimension of warfare, namely, that the dissemination of confusion could be utilized as a form of disinformation. This notion emerged from a growing awareness that European wars were characterized by a heightened degree of chaos and unpredictability. Carl von Clausewitz, in the first volume of his influential 1832 series On War, described battles in which commanders were trapped in "a fog of greater or lesser uncertainty." The author posits that commanders frequently find themselves compelled to make critical life-or-death decisions in a fleeting instant, often operating with insufficient intelligence regarding the broader conflict or the state of their own forces. Subsequent commentators, such as Colonel Lonsdale Hale, drawing upon Clausewitz's theories, began to characterize this phenomenon as "the fog of war." The military swiftly recognized that uncertainty and chaos could also be strategically exploited. In situations where an adversary is confronted with a plethora of discordant accounts of events, they become susceptible to manipulation. The public has lost confidence in traditional news outlets, yet there is an acute need for information. A skilled propagandist can assume this role, disseminating misleading information to target audiences, instigating discord among fellow citizens, or persuading them to acquiesce to external forces.

Although the United States employed irregular, or unconventional, warfare strategies during the Revolutionary War and the nineteenth-century Indian Wars, there was no formal designation for these types of operations. The establishment of the Psychologic Subsection of the US War Department's Intelligence Division did not occur until the onset of World War I. In 1918, under the leadership of Captain Heber Blankenhorn and his deputy, the journalist Walter Lippmann, the division was renamed the Propaganda Section. The Propaganda Section was responsible for the production of millions of leaflets, disseminated from the air in a tactic referred to as "text bombing," with the objective of undermining the morale of German troops. The Intelligence Division was also entrusted with the responsibility of censoring news media, constituting an additional misinformation strategy. At that time, the terms "propaganda" and "psychological operations" were used interchangeably, but this practice would soon change.

In the aftermath of World War I, the term "psychological operations" (PSYOPs) came to be more closely associated with military activities, while the concept of propaganda evolved to encompass a more ambiguous and elusive set of practices. Edward Bernays, a prominent figure in the field of advertising, engaged in covert operations for the United States government. In his 1928 publication, entitled Propaganda, Bernays advanced the notion that the term "propaganda" carries an "unpleasant connotation," suggesting that it is merely a "mechanism by which ideas are disseminated on a large scale." The following is a list of the most recent publications on the subject: This is an organized effort to disseminate a specific belief or doctrine. For Bernays and his numerous adherents,

propaganda constituted an integral component of quotidian communication, no more remarkable than an iPhone advertisement or the op-ed section of the New York Times. The term "propaganda" can be applied to a wide range of ideas disseminated through mass media. Lippmann, who had observed military propaganda firsthand during the war, expressed a divergent perspective. He advanced the notion that propaganda wielded a greater degree of coercion compared to journalism or advertising. This disagreement among experts continues to this day, which is why so much political propaganda goes unchecked—­it exists in a gray area between psyops and advertising.

It was not until the advent of World War II that the military began to formally recognize the importance of psychological warfare, leading to the establishment of the Army's Office of War Information, within which Linebarger was employed. Consequently, numerous informal practices were formally adopted as military doctrine. The military has a strong predilection for acronyms, leading to the expeditious adoption of "PSYOP" in military documents, and the term "PSYWAR" was subsequently coined to denote "psychological warfare." In contemporary times, the Army has rebranded PSYOP as MISO, or military information support operations. According to an Army teaching manual for MISO soldiers from 2014, the MISO program is designed to target foreign audiences with the objective of eliciting behaviors that are favorable to U.S. national objectives. The Army's 8th Psychological Operations Group characterizes its mandate in more visceral terms on its website: "Masters of influence. Experts in deception." In this text, the term "PSYOP" will be utilized exclusively within the context of military doctrine, as the term was originally employed. For the purpose of referring to a broad range of irregular combat actions aimed at destabilizing a foreign power, lowercase letters will be used to denote "psyops" and "psywar."

The following text is an example of a PSYWAR that is characteristic of the American experience.
The present study will initiate an investigation into the psychological warfare that has been employed by the United States. In this nation, psychological operations have invariably been intertwined with the evolving media industry. The text will introduce the reader to Cold War propagandists who engaged in literary pursuits on the side, as well as a representative from the Jazz Age who specialized in psychological operations. An examination of the historical antecedents reveals that the nineteenth-century Indian Wars gave rise to a distinctive American paradigm for psychological operations, characterized by the integration of military action with media misrepresentations. The United States engaged in armed conflict with numerous Indigenous nations, employing both military force and the dissemination of disinformation regarding Indigenous communities through various media, including fiction, newspapers, and local histories. The military's initial expectations were confounded by the emergence of Indigenous nations in the West who countered with their own psychological campaigns, such as the Ghost Dance movement. This counteraction subsequently inspired a new form of activism that endures to the present day.

Military psychological operations (psyops) exist on a continuum with advertising and popular media. This triad of influence mechanisms collectively persuades and coerces individuals to modify their behaviors on a large scale. During my research for this book, I had the opportunity to enroll in a course taught by a PSYOP instructor in the Army. This instructor imparted to me the importance of generating psychological "products" tailored to specific "target audiences," a process that draws parallels with the methodologies employed in advertising campaigns. His lessons have provided a valuable framework for understanding the psychological underpinnings of one of the most significant and controversial intellectual debates of the twenty-first century: the explosion of online advertising. In the period preceding the 2016 presidential election, Russian operatives utilized Facebook to disseminate content to over 126 million Americans, employing highly targeted advertisements, articles, and memes. The objective of the aforementioned actors was to engender chaos, akin to the concept of the fog of war, with the additional aim of discouraging Black individuals from exercising their right to vote. The present campaign did not conclude with Trump's election. This phenomenon is ongoing. An examination will be conducted to determine the manner in which digital psywar has incorporated novel tactics and is effecting a transformation in the manner in which individuals utilize social media.

In the subsequent section, an investigation will be conducted to determine the origins of psychological weapons within the discourse and strategies employed by culture warriors. Culture wars are not waged by a state authority in the same manner as psychological wars; however, they often serve the interests of a government or another powerful institution, such as a church or corporation. In certain instances, combatants may be affiliated with political movements. However, the individuals participating in these campaigns predominantly perceive themselves as being on a mission to uphold truth or to articulate their perspective in an unadorned manner. It is imperative to acknowledge the contributors' potential unknowingness of their role in perpetuating a systemic cultural assault. Cultural operations are not limited to a specific set of sources; they can be deployed by a wide array of entities, including entertainment media, educational institutions, scientific journals, and public policy entities. However, all of these entities share a common objective: the incitement of emotional responses directed towards a specific adversary.

There are three psychological weapons that combatants often transfer into culture war: scapegoating, deception, and violent threats. The distinction between an open, democratic public debate and a psychological attack is determined by the presence of these weapons. In the context of a militarized culture war, combatants employ scapegoating tactics, targeting specific groups of Americans and portraying them as foreign adversaries. These culture warriors then employ a rhetoric rife with falsehoods, leveraging threats of violence or imprisonment to coerce their adversaries. The following discussion will examine the manner in which the transfer of weapons transpired within the context of several of the most significant culture wars that have transpired over the past century with regard to American identity. The discussion will focus on conflicts surrounding issues of race and intelligence, disputes within school boards concerning the inclusion of LGBT students, and activist campaigns aimed at the suppression of feminist narratives. In each instance, the so-called "culture warriors" target specific groups of Americans, such as Black individuals or transgender adolescents, inundating them with psychological operations (PsyOps) materials as if they were adversaries of the state.

A salient issue in contemporary American society is the alarming trend of individuals engaging in direct, confrontational discourse, often characterized by the use of emotionally charged narratives that are intended to inflict harm upon the opposition. This phenomenon, often referred to as "weaponized storytelling," has become a pervasive form of communication, with individuals resorting to the dissemination of these narratives as a means of expressing their views and achieving their goals. However, the capacity to decommission these weapons rests with the human race. The final section of the book addresses the pathway to peace. The question that must be posed is how to institute a ceasefire in the context of cognitive warfare. The initial edition of Linebarger's book, entitled Psychological Warfare, concludes with a manifesto emphasizing the significance of psychological disarmament. He believed that the purpose of psyops was to end war, not to ignite an infinite series of culture wars that would grind the nation to a halt. His ideas resonated with the political philosophies of prominent scholars of the Cold War era, such as Jürgen Habermas and Herbert Marcuse. These scholars contended that the global community was required to reconstruct a fractured public sphere. Linebarger's perspective on the erosion of the public sphere is noteworthy. He argued that this shared cultural realm, where Americans engage in exchange of ideas, narration, and the establishment of consensus through democratic elections, had been undermined by years of disinformation and violent manipulation. In order to initiate the reconstruction process, Linebarger proposed the implementation of several key strategies, including the allocation of resources to public education, the facilitation of national border openness, and the endorsement of a robust and independent free press. It is difficult to envision a career military man, who has demonstrated an unwavering allegiance to the United States government throughout his life, penning such sentiments at this juncture. To be more precise, it is challenging to envision his perspective being given due consideration. In the contemporary era, a notable segment of America's political and media elites have adopted a confrontational stance on cultural issues, seeking to instigate widespread disorder and implement stringent border control measures.

Nevertheless, a countervailing narrative persists, offering an alternative perspective. A close examination reveals its ubiquity, suggesting pragmatic and salutary methodologies for transcending perpetual hostilities and attaining a moment of respite. The term "healthy"

is crucial in this context, as the recovery from psywar necessitates a form of collective therapy. The instigation of psychological and cultural discord is an intentional strategy to inflict trauma. According to Judith Herman, a Harvard-based psychologist and author of Trauma and Recovery, it is essential to acknowledge the past before progressing. This underscores the significance of historical receipts, which are accurate accounts of our nation's past, in the context of psychological disarmament. We will have the privilege of meeting with an anthropologist, as well as Coquille tribal chief Jason Younker. Younker's youthful adventures with a Xerox machine in the dusty basement of the National Archives in Washington, DC, played a pivotal role in the restoration of his tribe's lost claims to land in southwest Oregon. He and his team have unearthed documents that have initiated a reconciliation process whose ramifications are being widely felt throughout the Pacific Northwest.

In order to achieve psychological disarmament, it is necessary to reconsider the role of stories in our lives and, more importantly, to modify our behavior in response to the stories we hear. This phenomenon is particularly salient in the context of our interactions with online media, which is replete with viral misinformation. The question arises, therefore, of how to differentiate between those sources that are reliable and those that are not. We will hear from experts such as Alex Stamos, former head of the Stanford Internet Observatory, who contributed to a national report on the dissemination of online disinformation regarding voting. He and his colleagues propose the implementation of moderation systems that address influence operations in a manner analogous to the filtering of email spam. These systems aim to eliminate the propaganda and misinformation, thereby facilitating the identification of authentic information. In contrast, other researchers, including Safiya Umoja Noble, author of Algorithms of Oppression, advocate for a "slow media" approach, which involves deliberate and critical consumption of media, involving analysis and verification of its accuracy before unquestioningly accepting it.

A pervasive anxiety has emerged in the United States, accompanied, at times, by a concomitant hope that individuals will emulate the content they consume. This assertion is supported by the position of policymakers, who contend that exposure to violent games during childhood may contribute to the development of violent behavior in later life, including school shootings. This phenomenon is a source of concern for right-wing pundits, who express apprehension that exposure to transgender characters in young adult literature may incite transgender identity in adolescents. In the United States, the lines between fiction and politics are often blurred, and vice versa. Consequently, it proves challenging for us to establish a public sphere wherein we can reach a consensus regarding the veracity of information, as opposed to identifying which narrative we favor. This predicament ultimately reinvigorates the fundamental role of storytelling in this context. As asserted by journalist Nesrine Malik in We Need New Stories, culture wars have inundated the public sphere with narratives predicated on "consensual dishonesty," or fabrications rooted in a collective mythical past. One method of extricating oneself from the confines of this prison house of mythology is to seek narratives that describe plausible democratic futures based on justice and repair. The exploration of "applied science fiction" as a literary genre will be conducted. This form of storytelling is characterized by its ability to offer constructive solutions to the challenges presented by dystopian visions, as opposed to merely observing the consequences of these challenges. The concepts derived from these narratives have the potential to influence public policy, a process that can be conceptualized as a form of applied science fiction. Policies are conceptualizations of potential future outcomes, representing efforts to transform reality through the imaginative construction of alternative realities.

The narratives we craft with words, images, and theatrics serve a dual purpose. In periods of peace, these vessels can serve merely as a form of entertainment. In periods of conflict, they have the potential to inflict significant harm, including the destruction of lives and the destabilization of nations. However, it is imperative to recognize that warfare cannot, and must not, persist indefinitely. This book is a narrative that details the transformation of a nation, the United States, into a setting characterized by bloodshed and conflict. It also explores the potential for individuals to disarm and collaboratively construct a more equitable and prosperous society.


6) Modern Era


"I Want to Live": Psychological warfare in the modern era


On the evening of August 6, 2024, the smartphones of Russian soldiers in Kursk Oblast exhibited messages that denounced "the flames of war unleashed by Putin" and the "senseless bloodbath in Ukraine." These messages further lamented the "flames of war" that "have spread to the Kursk region." The group issued a call to Russian troops, urging them to "extinguish this fire" by "voluntarily surrendering" through the "I Want to Live" project. On that very day, Ukraine had initiated an offensive in the region, thereby marking a substantial shift in the Russia-Ukraine War. In a strategic shift, Ukrainian forces have advanced beyond their national borders, launching strikes on Russian territory with the objective of creating instability among Russian troops. The messages received by Russian soldiers on that day constituted a critical component of this effort, which Ukraine continues to wage.

The products of the "I Want to Live" project, a Ukrainian psychological operation (PSYOP) initiated in September 2022, embody Ukraine's strategic decision to employ twenty-first-century technology to fortify its kinetic campaign. By replacing conventional Public Affairs (PA) methods with mobile technology and social media, Ukraine is now able to reach enemy combatants through the smartphones in their hands. The objective of this approach is to instill fear, sow confusion, and promote surrender. In a broader context, Ukraine's "I Want to Live" initiative exemplifies the evolution of warfare, where confrontations transcend traditional physical boundaries and digital domains emerge as pivotal arenas for shaping perceptions and influencing outcomes. However, this approach also introduces new challenges and ethical considerations that underscore the complexity of PSYOPs in modern conflicts.

The following essay will explore the evolution of psychological operations (PSYOPs).
Psychological Operations (PSYOPs) are activities planned during times of conflict that use communication methods and other means to influence the perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors of target audiences in order to achieve political and military objectives. These operations have the capacity to be directed at enemy forces, civilian populations, or other approved audiences with the objective of weakening an enemy's will, strengthening support from allies, and gaining cooperation from undecided groups.


Psychological operations (PSYOPs) have evolved significantly over the last three decades of conflict. Conventional methods, exemplified by the dissemination of leaflets over Iraqi positions during the 1991 Gulf War, have been superseded by more sophisticated digital strategies. A notable illustration of this phenomenon is Israel's utilization of short message services (SMS) since 2009 to alert civilians during times of conflict and to gather intelligence regarding Palestinian militants. Russia's deployment of Leer-3 Electronic Warfare (EW) systems in Ukraine in 2014 serves as a pertinent example. These systems were utilized to intercept and manipulate mobile communications, with the objective of undermining the morale of Ukrainian troops and causing confusion among their relatives. Ukraine's "I Want to Live" initiative exemplifies the cutting-edge utilization of digital platforms to directly engage enemy combatants.

Project Overview and Goals


The "I Want to Live" project, operating under the auspices of Ukraine's Main Intelligence Directorate (HUR), aims to persuade Russian military personnel in Ukraine to surrender voluntarily. The initiative's objective is threefold: to weaken the Russian military leadership, erode the morale of Russian troops, and promote surrender as a safe and legitimate option. The project's title encapsulates its primary message: for military personnel seeking to avoid further combat, surrender presents a viable alternative.

The program is designed to ensure that detainees are treated in accordance with international standards, including those established by the Geneva Conventions. The project's website offers comprehensive guidance on surrender procedures, legal counsel, and information regarding potential asylum options. Russian soldiers can access these resources through a range of secure channels, including dedicated hotlines, encrypted communications, and QR codes embedded in social media posts. The project's integrated approach, which combines several distinct features (see below), maximizes its reach and effectiveness.

The following are practical instructions and individualized outreach.
The "I Want to Live" project, a technological initiative developed by Ukraine, represents a significant advancement in the field of PYSOPs. It capitalizes on the pervasive use of smartphones and acknowledges their role as a direct conduit to individual soldiers. In contrast to Israel's utilization of standard or GSM phones and SMS capabilities, which can be characterized as a broadcast strategy aimed at reaching a significant population, Ukraine has adopted a more advanced cellular technology to establish direct and bidirectional communication with potential defectors and soldiers intending to surrender. The project has been met with considerable success, as evidenced by the significant number of visits to its website, hochuzhit.com. By January 2024, the project had received over 48 million visits, primarily from within Russia.

The project has also marked a shift from earlier, less targeted methods of psychological operations by directly engaging soldiers rather than relying on the "shotgun" strategy of leaflet drops or mass SMS campaigns. This shift is a result of the evolution of cellular technology. Ukrainian psychologists and analysts concentrate on one-on-one communication with Russian personnel, providing practical instructions on how to surrender safely. The objective of these efforts is to persuade Russian soldiers to abandon their weapons and surrender to Ukrainian forces. This individualized outreach, facilitated by smartphones and their pervasiveness, is integral to the project's success. It offers soldiers a direct, personal channel through which to plan their surrender.

Video Testimonials


Ukraine's strategy is particularly noteworthy for its use of personal video testimonials from surrendered Russian soldiers and prisoners of war (POWs) to alter enemy perceptions about Ukraine. For instance, in one testimonial, a Russian soldier who had surrendered to Ukrainian forces discussed how the Ukrainians provided him and other soldiers with water and cigarettes, despite their expectations of a different attitude. By disseminating such accounts on social media, the project not only challenges Russian soldiers' preconceptions of Ukrainian forces but also exploits the platforms' ease of dissemination, relying on third parties to re-share the messages and thus reach a wider audience.

Operational Coordination


The strategic integration of military intelligence with operational elements is exemplified by the "I Want to Live" initiative, which highlights the Ukrainian military's exceptional degree of coordination. The previously mentioned recorded interviews of captured Russian POWs, who often express disappointment in their leadership, are strategically disseminated through social media to influence enemy morale and undermine Russian command in contested areas. The project has also proactively engaged Russian villagers in Kursk Oblast, encouraging them to report on "Kadyrov's gangs." As Ukrainian forces advanced, the project adapted its messaging in real-time, warning Russian units of potential encirclement and abandonment by their commanders. The strategic synchronization of precise, targeted communication with military operations exemplifies the project's tactical impact on enemy forces in critical regions.

The utilization of internal tensions within Russian military forces is a strategic approach that has been employed to exert influence over the nation's armed forces.
A substantial component of the project's messaging strategy capitalizes on reported tensions within Russian forces, particularly between Chechen units known as Kadyrovtsy and regular Russian military personnel. The term "Kadyrovtsy" refers to units that are under the direct control of Ramzan Kadyrov, the head of the Chechen Republic within the Russian Federation. For instance, in response to the criticism voiced by Chechen commander Apti Alaudinov regarding the surrendering of young Russian conscripts in Kursk Oblast, Ukraine, through the "I Want to Live" project, the "I Want to Live" initiative undertook efforts to draw attention to the perceived disparities between the conditions experienced by Chechen and Russian soldiers. To further exacerbate the existing divisions within the Russian ranks, a "I Want to Live" message was disseminated, highlighting the contrast between the apparent freedom with which Kadyrov's militants operate and the tragic loss of life of young conscripts. Apti attributes the conflict to the actions of his mother, yet his own son refuses to engage in combat. The necessity of the individual's involvement is therefore paramount. To die for them?" Another message that garnered considerable attention on Telegram (1,626,117 views and 4,540 reposts as of August 15, 2024) addressed and illustrated the surrender of "more than a hundred Russian soldiers," asserting that it was "understandable" and "difficult to engage in military operations when one is commanded by tyrants and embezzlers and one's flanks are 'protected' by Kadyrov's bandits who abandon everything and everyone merely to avoid being captured themselves." The project utilizes customized messages and targeted communication strategies

to undermine trust within the Russian military, thereby achieving its overarching objective of promoting surrender and eroding troop cohesion.

The utilization of metrics as a means to facilitate adaptation.
"I Want to Live" also exemplifies a dynamic approach to psychological operations. By monitoring key metrics such as message spread, surrender requests, and civilian inquiries about mobilization, the project can adjust its messaging to respond to developments and shifts in Russian public sentiment on the battlefield. Consequently, it has been capable of refining its strategies based on data throughout the conflict in Kursk Oblast.

The following statement from the project team underscores the value of this metrics-driven approach (see also Figure 1): "A mere week has elapsed since the commencement of hostilities in the Kursk region, and there has been a precipitous surge of approximately one-third in the number of applications to 'I Want to Live.'" To date, the total number of requests received through all channels stands at nearly 40,000, including those submitted via the hotline, Telegram, WhatsApp, and chatbot. We have been approached by both active-duty servicemen of the Russian army seeking voluntary surrender and civilians apprehensive about the prospect of a new wave of mobilization and unwilling to become expendable assets for Russian commanders." This message underscores the project's capacity to engage both military personnel and concerned civilians, leveraging social media not only to disseminate information regarding conflict dynamics but also to weaken enemy confidence, morale, and security, thereby maximizing Ukraine's strategic advantage.

The analysis of surrender requests facilitates the project's capacity to be both responsive, i.e., adapting to immediate battlefield conditions, and proactive, i.e., anticipating future shifts in the conflict. For instance, in scenarios where surrender requests exhibit a marked increase following military engagements, the project has the capacity to adapt its communication strategy, targeting units within the Russian military that are particularly susceptible to psychological distress. This approach seeks to leverage the heightened anxieties surrounding encirclement and abandonment, thereby creating an environment conducive to the project's objectives. In a similar vein, civilian inquiries concerning mobilization empower the project to influence public opinion, thereby positioning itself as a reliable source of information in the face of mounting uncertainty.

The project has had an immediate and substantial impact, with over 300 Russian surrenders and more than 26,000 individual applications as of June 2024. By late August 2024, the substantial number of young Russian conscripts who had surrendered had exerted sufficient pressure on the Kremlin to facilitate the first prisoner exchange since the commencement of Ukraine's Kursk incursion. The long-term ramifications of the "I Want to Live" initiative on Russian military morale and general public sentiment may prove to be of even greater significance. By systematically eroding the credibility of Russian commanders and proffering a discernible alternative to the continuation of hostilities, the initiative is contributing to the erosion of military cohesion and civilian support for the war, thereby potentially engendering enduring divisions within Russian society and its armed forces.

Ethical Considerations


Notwithstanding their advantages, Ukraine's use of such psychological tactics, particularly interviews with prisoners of war, raises significant legal and ethical questions. According to Article 13 of the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War (Geneva Convention III), prisoners of war (POWs) are entitled to protection from "insults and public curiosity." Consequently, there is a degree of contention surrounding the question of whether the dissemination of POW interviews via social media platforms constitutes exposure to insults and public curiosity, thereby violating this provision. Concurrently, there is a question as to whether prisoners of war (POWs) can genuinely consent to these interviews while in captivity. This could assuage concerns regarding an alleged failure on Ukraine's part to protect these soldiers. Furthermore, the assessment of coercion—whether explicit or implicit—is challenging, and the project's utilization of video testimonials gives rise to concerns regarding potential exploitation, even in instances where POWs appear to be willing participants.

The project's promotion of videos featuring Ukrainian celebrities, such as Yarmak, a prominent rapper, engaging in discourse with a captured Russian soldier, could be construed as a exploitation of Russian prisoners of war (POWs) by highlighting the latter's vulnerability for the purpose of showcasing admiration for Ukrainian figures and infringing upon their rights and dignity. This is primarily driven by a strategic desire to exert influence and achieve broad appeal. Consequently, while such tactics may serve the objective of undermining Russian morale, they must be balanced against the potential harm to the individuals involved. This encompasses conducting meticulous legal and ethical analyses of proposed tactics prior to their implementation in a media environment where persuasion and coercion can become indistinguishable. In light of the extensive reach of these videos, it is imperative to consider the potential for retaliatory actions against the POWs upon their return to Russia.

The Broader Impact on Modern Warfare

While it is currently a novel phenomenon, "I Want to Live" exemplifies a more general shift in modern warfare. This shift is characterized by the influence of digital technologies and data-driven strategies, which are shaping military outcomes and extending conflict beyond physical battlefields into the digital domains of information and perception. This phenomenon, frequently referred to as "participatory warfare," serves to obfuscate the distinction between combatants and civilians. The film combines footage of prisoners of war (POWs), messaging about internal Russian army divisions, and reports of alleged mistreatment by Russian commanders. This approach engages both military personnel and civilians, including families of POWs. The convergence of technology and intelligence services has enabled the realization of ambitious projects, such as "I Want to Live." This development marks a significant evolution in traditional intelligence cycles, which are now becoming more participatory. In these models, diverse actors, including celebrities and prisoners of war, are utilized to persuade enemy forces to surrender. For policymakers and strategists, this integration of information warfare with conventional operations underscores the necessity to closely monitor and methodically contemplate legal and ethical boundaries in contemporary conflict.


7) Systematic Review


A Methodical Examination of Cognitive and Psychological Warfare


Abstract:In the contemporary era, the human mind has emerged as the pivotal theater of warfare, where cognitive warfare has come to the fore as an unrivaled domain that demands recognition. The People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation have incorporated cognitive warfare and related strategies into their operations. However, the concept and application of cognitive warfare remain ambiguous in academic discourse and Western military doctrines.

Problem statement: The following inquiry is posited: How ought the concept of cognitive warfare be defined from a psychological perspective in order to facilitate adaptation to the evolving landscape of modern combat?

The question thus arises: It is imperative for nations and international alliances to adjust their doctrines to establish a uniform and comprehensive definitory landscape. Concurrently, these entities must educate and train staff in the proper terminology to ensure interoperability and intelligibility.



Cognitive Warfare: The Pinnacle of Modern Warfare


In the course of the past century, the human psyche has emerged as a paramount factor in military operations. In the contemporary era of warfare, cognitive warfare and the associated endeavor to attain cognitive superiority have emerged as pivotal elements on the modern battlefield. This strategic approach entails the deliberate modification of the cognitive processes of a target population through the utilization of information as a medium to influence their thought processes and, consequently, their behavioral responses.

A retrospective analysis reveals that the concepts of cognitive warfare, cognitive superiority, and their associated terminology continue to be subjects of evolving discourse within academic and military circles. It was not until 2017 that the U.S. Department of Defense formally acknowledged human cognitive attributes (knowledge, understanding, beliefs, and world views) as one of three dimensions of the Information Environment (IE). Subsequently, scholars increasingly incorporated "Cognitive Warfare" and "Cognitive Superiority" into their academic and military works. NATO also became actively engaged with these terms in 2021, following their inaugural scientific meeting regarding cognitive warfare. A universally accepted definition for the term "cognitive warfare" remains elusive, which poses a significant obstacle to achieving a comprehensive understanding of, and effectively working with, this concept and its associated terminology.

The concepts of cognitive warfare, cognitive superiority, and their associated terminology are still in a state of development in academic and military discourse.

The significance of cognitive warfare is also evident when viewed through a historical lens. As early as 2070 BC, Chinese military strategists acknowledged the pivotal role of psychology in military strategy. This phenomenon has been referred to as the "war of attacking the heart." From a contemporary standpoint, Sun Tzu is regarded as one of the most seminal Chinese military strategists.[11] In his book The Art of War, Sun Tzu provides profound insights that remain relevant and are arguably even more crucial in modern warfare.[12], [13], [14], [15] He is quoted as saying, "All warfare is based on deception."[16]

These historical insights trace the traditional origins of cognitive warfare, encompassed within the broader framework of "Psychological Warfare." The initial academic emergence of these ideas is documented in 1920, with J.F.C. Fuller being recognized as the primary source. In his analysis of the First World War, Fuller coined the term "psychological warfare." He further predicted a transformative shift, envisioning a future where conventional methods of warfare might be supplanted by a form of warfare purely psychological in nature. In this hypothetical scenario, conventional weapons and battlefield confrontations would be supplanted by a novel form of warfare. This warfare would not aim to employ arms or seize territories, but rather to manipulate the human intellect and disrupt the moral and spiritual foundations of a nation through the influence wielded by another to ultimately ensure triumph with minimal losses.The term "Psychological Warfare" has been employed in various ways since its initial academic introduction by Fuller in 1920. At present, the terms "psychological warfare" and "cognitive warfare" remain closely interconnected, demanding precise and distinctive definitions to facilitate coherent comprehension and focused research endeavors. This conceptual ambiguity poses a significant challenge in achieving a comprehensive understanding of cognitive warfare and its associated terminologies.

Therefore, it is imperative to ascertain whether cognitive warfare can be regarded as the evolutionary successor to the historical concept of psychological warfare. The advent of modern techniques, propelled by technological advancements such as social media, has precipitated a paradigm shift in conventional methodologies, including leaflet distribution. A thorough examination of the definitions reveals a significant degree of overlap, thereby facilitating the consolidation of these terms into the overarching concept of cognitive warfare. Furthermore, it is imperative to examine the potential incorporation of terms such as "psychological operations" and "information warfare" within the overarching conceptualization of "cognitive warfare." This inquiry seeks to elucidate the role of these specific operational actions as distinct manifestations of broader cognitive warfare strategies.

The advent of modern techniques, propelled by technological advancements such as social media, has precipitated a paradigm shift in conventional methodologies, including leaflet distribution.

The following databases were utilized for literature searches:


Inclusion Criteria

The document must address one of the following themes:

The following themes have been identified: civil-military, political-military, historic-military, and state-military.
The document must contain one of the following keywords: A plethora of modern warfare terminology exists, including but not limited to: psychological warfare, cybercognitive warfare, information warfare, hybrid warfare, digital warfare, cyber warfare, psychological operations, information operations, and propaganda.
The document must be a scientific publication or a military/government document.
The document must be written in either the English or German language.
It is imperative that the complete text be made available.
Exclusion Criteria
The present study is a clinical study.
The following studies are associated with CBRN: bioterrorism, nuclear, or chemical.
The field of traditional warfare studies is predicated on the principle of kinetic force.
The employment of cognitive electronic warfare strategies has emerged as a significant development in contemporary warfare.

The following flowchart delineates the systematic review process.

The following is a set of descriptive definitions of cognitive warfare.

Lasswell's model of communications provides a useful framework for comparing the definitions of cognitive and psychological warfare because it offers a well-defined pathway for understanding communication. The communicator determines the content of the message, the medium through which it is conveyed, the receiver of the message, and the effect that the message produces. The model was expanded to include an additional component, the when, which refers to the state of warfare. This addition was made to elucidate the contextual conditions under which cognitive warfare strategies are employed and to enhance the model's applicability to cognitive warfare. In this paper, the six core elements, inclusive of the added state factor, are posited to represent the key components of the communication process.

The model developed by Laswell was selected for its simplicity, transparency, and adaptability, rendering it especially well-suited for a comprehensive comparative analysis of definitions. In accordance with this model, essential aspects of cognitive warfare were distilled, thereby serving as the foundational elements of the comprehensive definition of cognitive warfare.[18]

The identity of the individual in question is as follows: the Communicator.

The specific identity of the communicator in cognitive warfare remains elusive. These measures can be initiated by virtually anyone due to technological advancements and the widespread availability of technology, which can have a broad spectrum of potential consequences (e.g., the dissemination of unverified facts or data, the use of false identities, the distortion of information through decontextualization, etc.). Nevertheless, the primary focus should be on military personnel or state actors. In three analyzed papers, the communicator is referred to as either an attacking state/non-state actor or an influence group.

The specific identity of the communicator in cognitive warfare remains elusive.

The following inquiry is posed: What message is being conveyed?
The message generally comprises a comprehensive strategy involving the utilization and distribution of information, which encompasses information operations and manipulated

information such as misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda. These methods primarily fall under the category of non-kinetic actions, meaning they do not involve physical impacts such as artillery fire or bullets. However, they can complement or integrate with kinetic measures to compel or strengthen cognitive and behavioral alterations.[19]

Which medium will be used?

The dissemination of cognitive warfare measures is predominantly facilitated by technological means, encompassing a variety of online platforms (e.g., the internet, social media networks) and offline channels (e.g., television broadcasts, radio, leaflets, and word of mouth).

The recipient of the aforementioned message is hereby identified as the "Receiver."

The target audience of cognitive warfare measures remains largely undefined. These measures have the potential to encompass a broad spectrum of recipients within society, including specific groups or individuals, entire nations, opposing parties, or enemy forces in general.

The inquiry pertains to the specific effect that is being investigated.


The objective of cognitive warfare measures is to attain specific outcomes by affecting various cognitive processes, including perceptions, values, beliefs, culture, and knowledge. This influence on cognitive processes serves as a crucial precursor to the ultimate objective of altering or disrupting the target audience's behavior. It is important to note that these changes or disruptions in behavior may pertain to decision-making, public opinion, situational awareness, and trust. The desired effect is predicated on the realization of predetermined objectives and/or the attainment of an advantage over an adversary.

The objective of cognitive warfare measures is to attain specific outcomes by affecting various cognitive processes, including perceptions, values, beliefs, culture, and knowledge.

The temporal element in question is designated as "State."
The implementation of cognitive warfare measures is not constrained by any specific temporal framework. These instruments can be utilized in both peaceful and combat situations, offering versatility in operational scope. In the subsequent analysis, a definition of cognitive warfare is proposed following the extraction of key elements of cognitive warfare.

Cognitive warfare is defined as the deliberate dissemination of information, utilizing both digital and analog mediums, orchestrated by unidentified actors to destabilize and influence the cognitive processes and behaviors of unspecified recipients in times of conflict and peace.

The following is a set of descriptive definitions of psychological warfare.


In examining the concept of psychological warfare, Lasswell's Model of Communication was similarly employed to underscore key definitional components.

The identity of the individual in question is as follows:
The Communicator


The majority of publications concerning psychological warfare do not offer a precise definition of the term "communicator." However, in four studies, the communicator is explicitly identified as a nation or state.

The following inquiry is posed: What message is being conveyed?


The overarching techniques constituting Psychological Warfare encompass various communication strategies, including tactics such as deception, both overt and covert news dissemination, propagation of rumors, rational publicity, the deterrence of will, and emotional influence.As indicated by studies demonstrating the effectiveness of deliberate manipulation of information, the utilization of propaganda, psychological operations, disinformation, and information denial is a key component of the aforementioned methods. The overarching objective of these methods is to psychologically destabilize and polarize the target population.

Which medium will be used?


Conventionally, psychological warfare measures are predominantly disseminated through offline mediums, including leaflets, loudspeakers, radio broadcasts, television, and other mediated methods, or political action. At present, social media and internet communication are also increasingly being used to distribute psychological warfare measures (e.g., mass media publications, policy, and corresponding internet media policy; modern communication technology), mainly due to the rapid advancements in media technology.

The proliferation of social media and internet communication has also led to a significant increase in the dissemination of psychological warfare measures. This phenomenon is primarily attributable to the rapid advancements in media technology.

The recipient of the aforementioned message is hereby identified as the "Receiver."


The intended recipients of psychological warfare measures are primarily designated as 'the enemy.' However, as is the case with cognitive warfare, the target audience is often unclear. This suggests that individuals across various societal strata, including leaders, decision-makers, nations, opposing factions, neutral states, the global community, and governmental entities, all have the potential to be targeted recipients of these measures.


Moreover, it is noteworthy that there have been reports of the employment of psychological warfare measures directed towards the troops and domestic populations of communicators themselves. [46]

The inquiry pertains to the specific effect that is being investigated.


The effects desired in the context of psychological warfare bear a resemblance to those of cognitive warfare. Three central effects were identified:

The following are methods of influencing the enemy's cognitive processes: emotions, judgments, thoughts, opinions, attitudes, reasoning, values, beliefs, perceptions, morale, personal insecurity, destabilization, and polarization. The promotion of distrust is also included in this category.
Influencing the enemy's behavior (e.g., decision-making, complacency, surrender, dissent within ranks, reducing the authority of the government, shaping public opinion, etc.)[47]
The influence on one's own cognitive processes and behaviors is evident in a variety of ways, including the cultivation of morale within one's own faction, the promotion of resistance, and the acquisition of sympathy and support.
In essence, these effects are designed to achieve a predetermined objective or military advantage, whether it pertains to national interests, political agendas, or military operations, as deemed beneficial to the nation engaging in the act of aggression. This course of action would serve to reinforce current policies, propel military or national objectives forward, and potentially engender favorable conditions.

The temporal element in question is designated as "State."
It is a common practice among authors to situate the employment of psychological warfare measures within the context of wartime scenarios. However, it should be noted that these measures are not exclusively confined to military contexts. It is also noteworthy that these measures are frequently implemented during peacetime.

The employment of psychological warfare measures is frequently situated within the context of wartime scenarios; however, these measures are not exclusively confined to such contexts.

According to Lasswell's Model of Communication, the key components of psychological warfare can be extracted. A definition of psychological warfare is then proposed.

Psychological warfare is defined as the deliberate utilization of communication strategies, encompassing both online and offline mediums, orchestrated by predominantly anonymous actors to manipulate and destabilize primarily unspecified recipients, both in times of warfare and peace.

A comparative analysis of the two descriptive definitions reveals significant overlap.
By employing Lasswell's communication model to isolate the essential components from both definitions and formulating descriptive definitions, comparisons between them become feasible.


A comparative analysis of cognitive warfare and psychological warfare is warranted, with the objective of understanding the fundamental mechanisms that underpin these two distinct forms of warfare. To that end, this study employs Lasswell's model of communication as a methodological framework, with the aim of elucidating the underlying principles that govern the dynamics of these two complex and multifaceted phenomena.
An examination of the aforementioned table reveals a substantial convergence between the two definitions. The primary distinctions are evident in the specific terminology employed. For instance, within the "What (Message)" component, the term "information" has gained prominence, particularly with the advent of technology and media, especially social media. Previously, the term "communications" was more frequently employed to describe this phenomenon. In a similar vein, disparities in the distribution of measures (medium) are apparent. In its earlier origins, psychological warfare relied more on offline distribution methods due to the absence of today's wide-reaching technology. In contrast, the pervasive impact and extensive reach of online measures in the contemporary era has effectively rendered offline measures almost obsolete. This transition can be attributed to the advancements in technology and the evolving circumstances.

When considering the "Receiver" component, the extracted information of both cognitive and psychological warfare closely resemble each other, with the minor distinction that psychological warfare definitions more frequently frame the receiver as an "enemy" compared to cognitive warfare definitions. This discrepancy can be attributed to temporal and policy distinctions, as nations tend to exercise caution in designating their opponents as "enemies" and their military operations as "wars," primarily

due to the terms' legal and political consequences. These implications also underlie the rationale for excluding one's population or troops as target audiences in cognitive warfare approaches, although many definitions include this factor.

Upon examination of the "Receiver" component, it is evident that the extracted information pertaining to both cognitive and psychological warfare exhibit a high degree of similarity.

Therefore, following the extraction of essential components, it becomes evident that both concepts are nearly identical. The salient differences herein underscore the impact of technological advancements, which have greatly expanded the range of potential attacks, often rendering them undetectable or difficult to attribute to a specific communicator in the contemporary world. Consequently, cognitive warfare should be recognized as the evolution and modernization of psychological warfare. Consequently, it is imperative to address and utilize this term in a consistent manner within modern literature, thereby eliminating ambiguity surrounding the terminology. As articulated by Yun & Kim in their publication:

"Cognitive warfare is a more expansive concept of psychological warfare. Psychological warfare is defined as a series of actions intended to manipulate the psychology of human actors by influencing their perceptions, thoughts, and feelings. The concept of cognitive warfare has evolved to encompass not only psychological warfare, but also the strategic occupation of human cognition with the ultimate aim of influencing human behavior.

The present study explores the integration of associated measures under the rubric of "cognitive warfare."


Psychological Operations


The initial use of the term "psychological operation" is attributed to U.S. Navy Captain (later Rear Admiral) Ellis M. Zacharis, who employed it to expedite Japan's surrender. Subsequently, in 2010, the U.S. Secretary of Defense substituted the term "psychological operation" with the term "Military Information Support Operations," due to the perceived negative connotations associated with the former. These operations, whether referred to as "psychological operations" or "Military Information Support Operations," are defined as follows:

The Department of Defense (DoD) has outlined a series of deliberate initiatives aimed at disseminating selected information and indicators to foreign audiences. These initiatives are designed to influence a range of factors, including emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately, the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The objective of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behaviors that are favorable to the originators' objectives.

Psychological operations can be further differentiated regarding the source of information in white, grey, and black products.

The term "white" is employed to denote activities that are overtly endorsed and funded by the government of the respective nation.
[…] to engage in "grey" activities, which entail the dissemination of information originally promulgated by the U.S. government to third parties.
Black propaganda, which entailed attributing the dissemination of false information to an opposing entity, was a prominent feature of the discourse during this period.
This differentiation enables Bernal et al. (2021) to delineate between psychological operations and cognitive warfare. The assertion is made that cognitive warfare predominantly involves gray products, as white and black products are either "too transparent or too risky to be reliable methods of affecting public opinion." Additionally, they observe a "certain element of deniability inherent to cognitive warfare that is lost in white products and endangered in black products." While this technical distinction remains valid, it should be noted that technological advancements, such as social media, have amplified the effectiveness of grey products. This phenomenon engenders a state of perplexity concerning the identity of the communicator or the provenance of the information, thereby diminishing the efficacy or worth of utilizing white and black products. Furthermore, an increasing number of non-state actors and influence groups are employing cognitive warfare measures, which often serve to exacerbate the confusion by disseminating information in a manner that is not readily identifiable as either accurate or inaccurate.

The employment of cognitive warfare measures by non-state actors and influence groups has led to a state of perplexity, exacerbated by the dissemination of information that lacks clarity or definitive provenance.

Furthermore, Bernal et al. differentiate these terms based on the target audience. It has been observed that "PsyOps has rarely dealt with large sections of the public. The focus on military or subversive activity in PsyOps contrasts with the objective of cognitive warfare tactics, which predominantly target civilian social infrastructure and government. While this statement aligns with the notion that psychological operations frequently portray the receiver as an "enemy," drawing parallels to military conflicts, it is noteworthy that multiple definitions of psychological operations explicitly include friendly and neutral audiences within their designated target demographics.

A thorough review of the definitions of psychological operations, along with a consideration of pertinent counterarguments, reveals that the term "psychological operations" can be incorporated into a comprehensive taxonomy under the construct of cognitive warfare.

The term "Cognitive Warfare" is an umbrella term that has been employed to describe the fundamental elements of contemporary psychological operations (PsyOp) and Military Information Support Operations (MISO). It also encompasses political warfare, "Hearts and Minds," and propaganda.


Information Warfare


The notion of information warfare shares a common origin with that of psychological warfare. Doctrinally, both emerged from the analysis of the First World War by the British historian J. F. C. Fuller in 1920. The term "information warfare," initially referring to a "special type of intelligence special operations," was adopted by the U.S. in 1966. Subsequent to that period, the term and its synonyms, including "Information Psychological" and "Informational Influence," have been utilized with frequency in global literature, military doctrines, and conceptual frameworks.

In contemporary and retrospective analyses, the predominant utilization of the term "information warfare" can be ascribed to the Russian military. At the beginning of the new millennium, the Russian military commenced the differentiation between the Information Technical and the Information Psychological forms of conflict in the information space.

Information technology has become inextricably linked with the contemporary notion of cyberwarfare.

As stated in the report, the following are examples of military technology: "technical intelligence devices, means and measures for protecting information, super-high-frequency weapons, radio-electronic countermeasures, electromagnetic impulse weapons, and special software and hardware."
Information Psychological is defined as a combination of psychological warfare and information warfare.
In contrast, Information Psychological has been linked to the use of mass media and the employment of "nonlethal weapons, psychotronic tools, and special pharmaceuticals."
However, this distinction has gradually dissipated within the Russian military's operational and instructional framework. Since 2010, there has been a shift towards the generalisation of both terms under the umbrella term of "information warfare":
"[...]In contemporary times, warfare has evolved to a state where armed conflict is no longer declared, and, once initiated, does not proceed according to a familiar template. The term "information warfare" is used to describe an activity that is conducted in both wartime and peacetime. The objective of this warfare is to secure "national policy objectives" through the influence on an opponent's information system and "psychic conditions." This influence is achieved through the promulgation of disinformation, societal and situational manipulation, the control of crises, propaganda efforts directed at effecting "conversion, separation, demoralization, desertion, captivity," lobbying, and blackmail.The following assertion is made:
This assertion was further reinforced in a pivotal address by Valery Gerasimov, the Russian general and chief of the general staff. He comprehended that hybrid warfare had become a predominant feature of contemporary conflict. The efficacy of conventional kinetic methods was being surpassed by "nonmilitary means of achieving political and strategic objectives," which encompassed "political, economic, informational, humanitarian, and other nonmilitary measures—applied in coordination with the protest potential of the population."[49]

The significance and complexity of Russian information warfare have been further accentuated by other scholars, including Bolton (2021), who have contributed to a more profound comprehension of Russian information warfare doctrine by identifying its fundamental components and objectives.

"[…] Russia envisions additional objectives in line with information-psychological warfare. The initial facet is characterized by deep penetration and "reflexive control." This involves the strategic interjection or highlighting of "necessary reasons and motives to the target system," the distortion of facts, or the imposition of emotional impressions on those involved in policymaking to influence the approach to decision-making. The second is the establishment of "permissive environments" in which discourse or debate lines

favorable to Moscow permeate a targeted society. Consequently, the employment of information warfare has the potential to erode societal resilience, thereby augmenting Moscow's "relative strength within a conventional zero-sum paradigm." It is important to note that this phenomenon is not confined to periods of armed conflict or the preparation for military engagement. The actions of Russia, specifically their interference in the United States' electoral process, fall squarely within the scope of this definition.
In summary, the Russian doctrines offer significant insight regarding the objectives, targets, and strategies of information warfare.

Nevertheless, a more contemporary definition, derived from Russian doctrine, delineates information warfare (or operations) as "the deliberate utilization of information to empower the user to attain their political, economic, military, or other objectives...conducted perpetually, in peacetime, during periods of threat, and in wartime...by employing all extant forces, software, and hardware capabilities to impinge upon the opponent's information capabilities and safeguard our own against analogous actions by the opponent."

In contrast to the Russian framework for information warfare, the U.S. perspective differs significantly from the broader definitions of information warfare and the conceptualizations of adversary nations, such as Russia.[51]

The present Department of Defense (DoD) designation for military information warfare is "Information Operations" (IO). The Department of Defense (DOD) has defined information operations as actions undertaken during periods of crisis or conflict to influence adversarial information while safeguarding one's own information systems to attain or advance specific objectives. The primary objective of IO is to disrupt or influence an adversary's decision-making process."[52]

The United States military considers information warfare, or specifically information operations, to be its foundational principle, comprising five operational domains:

Army IO doctrine, in conjunction with joint doctrine, delineates IO as the integrated utilization of the core competencies of EW (electronic warfare), CNO (computer network operations), PSYOP (psychological operations), military deception, and OPSEC (operational security) in concert with other specified supporting and associated activities (e.g., civil affairs, PA, Combat Camera, and, when pertinent, combat operations). The overarching objective of IO synchronisation is to inform, influence, deter, degrade, deny, or disrupt adversarial human and automated decision making while protecting our own."[53]

Concurrently, the concept of information warfare is articulated within the framework of Chinese military doctrine. Information warfare is defined as "a kind of war and war pattern," while information warfare is defined as "a kind of operation or operational pattern." This distinction is reinforced by the Chinese doctrine's assertion that information warfare is not confined to periods of conflict or crisis but is an ongoing phenomenon. In summary, the components of Chinese information warfare can be succinctly encapsulated in the following definition:

Information warfare is defined as the struggle for control of information resources that transpires on both the physical and mental planes of existence. Its actions and activities occur throughout the entire spectrum of political-military (peacetime, crisis, and wartime) proceedings. Furthermore, the inherent capacity of these activities extends to offensive and defensive capabilities, which, when utilized, effectively influence an adversary's determination and capacity to initiate and maintain conflict."[54]

In addition to the aforementioned national doctrines, the following definition of information warfare can be proposed:

Information warfare is defined as actions focused on the destabilization or manipulation of a state's or society's core information networks with the aim to influence its ability and will to project power. It also encompasses efforts to counter similar attacks by an opposing entity or state.

The Chinese and Russian military concepts of information warfare, as well as the general definitions of information warfare, closely align with the previously established definition of cognitive warfare. These two categories share common components, such as the utilization of information, the targeting of a predominantly unspecified yet predetermined audience across the entire spectrum, and the absence of restrictions based on time. These components are designed to influence cognitive and behavioral processes, thereby achieving specific objectives.

In addition, scholars such as Reding & Wells and Hung & Hung have presented challenges to the United States' conceptualization of information warfare. The argument is made that cognitive warfare should be regarded as an extension or generalisation of information warfare rather than as a component of it. This perspective asserts that cognitive warfare reaches beyond the battlefield, focusing not explicitly on media control but brain control. Horban identifies key components of psychological warfare and concludes that central ideas associated with psychological warfare, such as mass manipulation and the influence of cognitive processes and behaviors, are present in information warfare.[56]

These findings imply that the concept of information warfare or information operations can be conceptualized as a component of cognitive warfare, thereby facilitating its integration within a more comprehensive operational framework.

The following conclusion is hereby presented:
The concept of cognitive warfare can be traced back to the term psychological warfare, which itself has a long history. This phenomenon can be demonstrated through a comparative analysis of multiple descriptive definitions of the terms, as outlined in Lasswell's communication model. Consequently, a psychological definition of both cognitive warfare and psychological warfare could be derived. Furthermore, the terms "psychological operations" and "information warfare" are also considered to be subsumed under the term "cognitive warfare."

The concept of cognitive warfare can be traced back to the term psychological warfare, which has a long history in military strategy.


Conceptual Framework of Cognitive Warfare and Associated Terms.
A precise definition and coherent utilization of constructs are foundational prerequisites for research and practical applications. Distinct and generally accepted definitions facilitate the accumulation of research findings that can mutually reinforce one another and prevent semantic ambiguities in discussions, developments, and operational implementations. Consequently, forthcoming policy and military documents must establish a coherent taxonomy for the terms under consideration to ensure semantic alignment among policymakers, military personnel, and scholars.

Dr. Fabio Ibrahim is currently employed as a research associate officer at Helmut-Schmidt University in Hamburg, Germany. His research interests include military psychology, psychometrics, and social network analysis. He collaborates with the special forces of the German Armed Forces and the police in the domains of aptitude diagnostics and stress management. He is motivated to disseminate psychological scientific findings in the form of personnel development measures, with the objective of enhancing the performance of individuals and organizations.

Steffen Rhode is a commissioned officer in the German Armed Forces who obtained his Bachelor of Science degree in psychology in 2022. He is currently enrolled in a master's program and interning at NATO. The present article is intended to serve as a component of the author's master's thesis.

Dr. Monika Daseking is a professor of educational psychology at the Helmut-Schmidt University of the German Armed Forces in Hamburg. Professor Daseking's primary research focus is the development of educational-psychological tests, intelligence tests and intelligence diagnostics, learning disorders, executive functions and ADHD, and moral development in adolescence. In addition to her work as a university professor, Prof. Daseking serves as the dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at Helmut-Schmidt University.


8) Ethical Implications


An Examination of the Ethical Implications of Psychological Warfare

ABSTRACT

The advent of the twenty-first century witnessed a plethora of transformations in the manner in which warfare was being waged. In addition to military engagements at sea, in the air, and on land, a new domain of warfare has emerged: psychological warfare, or psywar. This emerging tactic has proven to be a remarkably potent military instrument. The advent of psychological warfare in the early years of the current century can be attributed to the paradigm shift in information and communication technologies, marked by the proliferation of the Internet, instantaneous global communications, smartphones, and social media. These channels have transformed into arenas for warfare, where influential actors exert their influence over leaders, militaries, and entire populations. Historically, democracies have been reticent about employing psychological warfare for a number of reasons. However, in recent years, they have been unable to ignore its existence and have increasingly been making use of it. However, in contrast with other forms of warfare for which there are international ethical rules, there is no ethical regulation of psychological warfare. This article assesses the challenges and dilemmas facing democratic countries in their use of psychological warfare and, for the first time, offers proposals for ethical rules toward that end by way of an Israeli test case: the long-term use of psychological warfare by the Israel Defense Forces.

The following keywords are associated with the present document:

The ethical, psychological, and sociopolitical dimensions of warfare and democracy in the IDF.

This article is preceded by another article.


The subsequent article will address the following topic:

The following text constitutes an introduction to the subject of democracies, dictatorships, and psychological warfare.


The contemporary geopolitical landscape, characterized by post-modern wars and the profound rejection of the legitimacy of using force against uninvolved civilians, necessitates a reevaluation of military force deployment.Footnote1 The recent campaigns undertaken by the Israel Defense Force (IDF) against asymmetrical hybrid foes and terror organizations exemplify the complexity of determining the appropriate response to the threat posed by military forces. Since the dawn of warfare studies, the psychological warfare dimension, or the use of its previous appellation, "propaganda,"Footnote2, has been regarded as a vital element in combat. Consequently, military leaders and their respective armed forces have been compelled to enhance their psychological operations (psyop) capabilities.

The conceptualization of psychological warfare is subject to variation across military entities and historical periods. Derived from a sociological context, a very broad definition was posited by Jacques Ellul in the late 1950s in light of the Communist and Nazi regimes that he had experienced. According to Ellul, propaganda can be defined as "a manipulation for the purpose of changing idea or opinions, of making individuals 'believe' some idea or fact, and finally of making them adhere to some doctrine – all matters of the mind." At the time, propaganda was conceived as a tool to persuade, influence decisions, and foster unwavering adherence to a particular truth. Nevertheless, Ellul's definition has become outdated. Contemporary propaganda has shifted from a mere modification of ideas to a primary objective of provoking specific actions. Its primary function is no longer to promote adherence to a doctrine; rather, it is designed to engender an irrational adherence to a process of action in the individual. It is no longer a method for transforming one's opinion; rather, it has been developed to engender an active and mythical belief."Footnote3 The Americans who felt uneasy because of Goebbels's World War II legacy changed the label propaganda to psychological operations (PSYOPS) and began using that term during the Vietnam War. For the purpose of this article, the present author has opted to employ the contemporary United States Army definition of psychological warfare:

A series of meticulously orchestrated operations were devised to strategically disseminate a curated selection of information and indicators to international audiences. The primary objective of this initiative was to exert a profound influence on the emotional landscape, the underlying motivations, the rational thought processes, and, in essence, the collective actions of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The objective of Psychological Operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behaviors that are favorable to the originator's objectives.

The primary function of psyop is to provide a foundation for domestic support of a war, to diminish the support of enemy populations for the war, and to stimulate the international community to endorse one's war aims and impede such support for one's adversaries.

Psyop has been employed by military forces since the inception of warfare. It is even referenced in the Bible, for example, in the case of Rabshakeh, the representative of the king of Assyria, who was leading his army's siege of Jerusalem (2 Kings 18:18-37). In a similar vein, the following examples can be cited: Sun Tzu in China during the fifth century BCE and Herodotus in ancient Greece. However, it was only in the aftermath of World War I that liberal democracies began to interrogate the ethical implications of psyop utilization. Arthur Ponsonby, a prominent figure among the doubters, vehemently opposed the British Government's efforts to manipulate public opinion to advance its war aims, particularly its attempts to encourage enlistment. It has been posited that the reservations were a reaction to the enormous loss of life during the war.Footnote 5In contrast, in Germany after the war, the opposite direction was taken by Hitler, who believed that Germany's collapse in the war was due to effective British use of propaganda. In Mein Kampf, he articulated his perspective with remarkable clarity.Footnote6 Concurrently, following the Communist revolution in Russia, the nascent regime persisted in its endeavor to fortify its propaganda apparatus, thereby ensuring the sustainability of its governance.

Since the conclusion of World War II, governments and militaries have engaged in a continuous endeavor to identify a term that adequately encapsulates a nation's psychological operations (Psyops) without being associated with the methods characteristic of totalitarian regimes, which predominated during the most oppressive periods of the twentieth century. Therefore, the United Kingdom employed the term "political warfare" at the onset of World War II. Subsequently, this term was modified to "psychological warfare" with the establishment of the joint SHAEF command. At the onset of the Vietnam War, the term "psychological operations" was coined to denote concise, targeted exercises in persuasion. With the advent of the digital age, there has been an increase in ideological confusion regarding information operations, strategic knowledge, and image. Concurrent with the rise of the politically correct movement, the term "Military Information Support Operations" (MISO) emerged, which has since come to be known as "psyop."

Concurrently, within the United States, endeavors were underway to impose limitations on psywar through legislative measures, as evidenced by the enactment of the Mundt Smith Law in 1948.Footnote8 During the Korean War (1950–1953), the Communist Bloc initiated a novel approach to the conflict. Recognizing the substantial disparity in global influence between the two blocs, the Communists initiated a series of campaigns aimed at diminishing international support for the United States and strengthening the anti-Cold War movement. The Americans were uncertain about how to use the propaganda tool, of which some elements went underground, that is to say, to the CIA, which was quickly set up based on the OSS, and which established the gigantic United States Information Agency (USIA), to distribute propaganda to the Eastern Bloc.Footnote9 During the Vietnam War, the agency was geared toward raising international support for the fight against Communism.

The Korean War marked a transition from conventional warfare between militaries to a new form of conflict characterized by guerrilla warfare. This approach was initially developed by Mao Zedong and subsequently refined by the North Vietnamese General Giap. This transformation in warfare has been variously described by numerous labels, including revolutionary warfare, military operations other than war (MOOTW), low-intensity conflict (LIC), and hybrid war, among others. The underlying themes of this conflict included protracted struggles, the indistinct boundaries between military forces and civilians, substantial casualties, and a significant degree of psywar.

The North Vietnamese, who possessed considerably more limited resources, impeded the American effort to garner support by inciting opposition to the war within the United States. The deaths of civilians resulting from US raids and bombings were publicized, while the loss of life among their own forces was not disclosed.Footnote10In addition, the organization facilitated visits by prominent figures, including actress Jane Fonda, to North Vietnam. There, she observed the war's destruction, which prompted a shift in public discourse, leading to discussions concerning patriotism and morality. In essence, the inquiry pertains to the extent of allegiance exhibited by citizens who harbor divergent political views from those of their government, a sentiment that was capitalized upon by the adversary to achieve victory.Footnote11 Concurrently, the United States Army's inadequate treatment of media personnel, in conjunction with the proliferation of individualism, precipitated a rift between the military and journalists, who harbored distrust towards the Army's communications.Footnote12In a similar vein, the competition among media outlets to win the public's favor and financial support resulted in a misrepresentation of a military defeat in the war. This misrepresentation was perpetuated by media reports, despite the military's actual situation on the ground, which was quite the opposite.

Consequently, revolutionary psywar was directed at two fronts. The objective of the home front is twofold: to persuade domestic citizens and to garner international support. Historically, the enemy has sought to diminish support for its adversaries. In accordance with Mao's doctrine, upon the attainment of these objectives, the transition to conventional warfare against the adversary was deemed permissible. Consequently, psywar accentuated the enemy's cruelty, the injustices of its actions, and the horrors of war it had perpetrated. Frequent revolutionary warfare has been known to deliberately inflict harm upon the population with the aim of demonstrating the horrors of war as experienced by the revolutionary forces.

President Reagan effectively terminated a long-standing Western tradition concerning the use of psychological warfare. During the Second World War, democratic nations developed psychological warfare (psywar) systems. However, upon the war's conclusion, these nations dismantled their psywar systems, necessitating the reestablishment of these systems in the subsequent war (e.g., the United States Office of War Information, which was disbanded and reestablished at the onset of the Korean War, is a prime example).Footnote13 Some psywar capabilities were transferred to the United States secret services. Conversely, within authoritarian regimes, the psywar systems underwent expansion and fortification with each war. It was only subsequent to President Reagan's inauguration that a shift in the American approach to psywar became evident. The US Army received directives to reconfigure the military psywar doctrine, rather than dismantling it.

The application of psychological warfare by the State of Israel
The ideological confusion surrounding the term "psychological warfare" in Western armies is also evident in Israel, which considers itself a liberal democracy in a region where most regimes are authoritarian. Until the conclusion of the nineteenth century, the term "propaganda" was utilized in Hebrew. However, at the close of that century, it underwent replacement by the term "taamula," which signifies the act of exerting effort to achieve a particular objective. According to the explanation in a twentieth-century Hebrew-English dictionary, the word is defined as "agitation."Footnote 14

In the 1920s, the Zionist activist Nachum Sokolov coined the term "hasbara," derived from the root "to explain," which continues to be utilized in its original sense. At the conclusion of the War of Independence in early 1949, the utilization of the term "taamula" was discontinued as a tool, with the exception of its application during elections. Consequently, a subsequent organizational arrangement was devised, which also entailed the formulation of a new terminological framework. The term "taamula" was initially used to refer to the propaganda efforts of Arab states against Israel. Subsequently, the term "psywar" emerged as a specific designation for the IDF and the Mossad. In contrast, the term "hasbara" came to be associated with the Foreign Ministry.Footnote15

Israeli propaganda has been the subject of significant criticism within the Jewish world, particularly in the aftermath of the Six-Day War in 1967. Critics have noted the apologetic messages conveyed by Israel, particularly in foreign policy contexts. They contend that the practice of apologetics in Israel began with the adoption of the term "hasbara," which implies an act of apology and a solicitation of sympathy. Moreover, internal political constraints were present. Specifically, Israel did not possess a television apparatus until 1967, and the government exercised total control over radio broadcasting. Additionally, there was a deficiency in Israeli cultural understanding of the target audience abroad.

In 1977, the IDF established a unit dedicated to the implementation of psywar, designated as "Intelligence Warfare." The term's ambiguity served as an initial phase in a protracted and convoluted process, wherein the unit underwent repeated closures and reopenings, each subsequent closure accompanied by a different set of security justifications, and each reopening under a different nomenclature.Footnote 16In the 1990s, the term "psywar" was relinquished in favor of "consciousness," a term, ironically, derived from the Marxist lexicon.Footnote 17The term "persuasion" was subsequently adopted, with the phrase "burning into the consciousness," a term potentially influenced by the technological capabilities of the era, which referred to the process of burning a disc. The term was in use for approximately a decade and a half, but it was ultimately supplanted by the new term, "legitimacy," which also conveys a high degree of focus. The underlying logic was that IDF operations were to be executed with the objective of garnering international approval for Israeli actions from various nations and international organizations. The prevailing contemporary terminology for such endeavors is "influence campaigns," a term that, while perhaps not yet definitive, offers a concise and current understanding of the broader military activities in question. It is important to note that these campaigns are not merely attempts to disseminate information, but rather sophisticated and multifaceted efforts to influence perceptions and behaviors through a variety of means. In this sense, the term "propaganda" is generally avoided, as it is perceived as a more simplistic and direct form of communication that lacks the nuance and complexity inherent in these sophisticated campaigns.

The following paper will examine the use of psywar in the Israel-Arab dispute.
In the Arab world, the term "harb el nafsieh" has historically served as the prevailing designation for psychological warfare, signifying the engagement in warfare against the mind. In the late 1960s, the Palestinians initiated the implementation of the doctrine of revolutionary struggle. Their travels took them to Algiers, Cuba, and Vietnam, where they produced a series of guidebooks under titles such as The Cuban Example and The Algerian Example. It was General Giap who instructed the leaders of the PLO in revolutionary warfare against Israel during their visits to Vietnam. The influence of Vietnam can still be perceived in the present day.

Following its expulsion from Jordan to Lebanon in September 1970, the PLO strategically positioned its artillery in the heart of refugee camps in Beirut, located in the southern part of the city, and directed it toward Israel. In response, Israel initiated a counteroffensive, targeting the sources of the shelling. The organization expeditiously extended an invitation to journalists, seeking to amplify the perceived horrors of the conflict. The Hamas tunnels, which were discovered in 2016, bear a striking resemblance to the Vietcong tunnels. The Gaza border fence incidents of 2018–2029, during which Hamas enticed young people to demonstrate or to breach the fence, created a situation in which IDF snipers fired upon those who did so, resulting in injuries. Hamas then presented the wounded demonstrators as victims of Israeli barbarity.Footnote18

In the aftermath of the Six-Day War in June 1967, the Palestinians recognized the ineffectiveness of their previous strategy of relying on Arab armies and recognized the necessity of exploring alternative avenues for achieving their national aspirations. Yasser Arafat, the then-head of the PLO, unveiled a novel strategy to achieve Palestinian aspirations. This strategy entailed the cultivation of a demographic advantage over the Jewish population in Israel and the utilization of psychological warfare to overwhelm both the IDF and Israeli society. The extent to which Palestinian demographics will determine the eventual outcome of the Israeli–Palestinian dispute has been a subject of academic debate for many years (see Ettinger vs. De la Pergola, Footnote 19). However, when it comes to Palestinian psywar, it can be clearly stated that the Palestinians have effectively defeated Israel for years. The PLO, an organization previously associated with terrorism and international violence, has undergone a rebranding effort to present itself as a peace-seeking entity, positioning itself as the underdog in the conflict with Israel. In the contemporary era, the body has attained international recognition, operates over 100 embassies worldwide, holds the status of observer at the United Nations, and receives unparalleled attention from global media outlets. This heightened exposure has culminated in the formation of a de facto state, the Palestinian Authority, which has its own media channels. The question thus arises as to what factors have contributed to their success. The Palestinian psychological warfare strategy employed a well-established principle, namely the transition from asset to liability. In essence, it is imperative to persuade the adversary to relinquish its gains, as the ongoing occupation of the Territories will inevitably result in significant losses. The actual control of these territories will lead to Israel losing its democratic and Jewish character, the world's sympathy, and ultimately, its extinction.

These accomplishments were achieved over the course of five decades, with the initiation of two uprisings (the Intifadas) and the persuasion of Israel to carry out two voluntary withdrawals (the first as part of the Oslo Accords signed in 1994 and the second as part of the unilateral Israeli action in the Disengagement Program carried out in 2006). Israeli efforts to discredit Arafat and portray him as a duplicitous figure proved unsuccessful. Arafat's rhetoric, delivered in both Arabic and English, exemplified a contradictory stance, appealing to his supporters for the destruction of Israel while simultaneously appealing to the international community and Israel for peace.Footnote20

The following discourse will address the challenges that a democratic nation encounters, as well as the use of psywar in such a context.
Israel, in contrast, was left with a democratic, liberal tradition that constrained psychological warfare. However, its enemies, including the PLO, Hamas, and Hezbollah, continued to practice this tactic incessantly. Democratic countries encounter a variety of pertinent challenges.

Initially, the challenge lies in maintaining credibility when disseminating messages. This is primarily due to the fact that, at certain times, it is possible to present only a portion of the truth. Democratic nations subscribe to the principle that government has an obligation to apprise its citizens of the prevailing circumstances, provided that there is no threat to national security. The government's frequent use of psywar against the state's citizens is perceived as a threat to the democratic foundations, as it is indicative of a government that is not transparent with its citizens and is likely to mislead the general public.

Secondly, psywar in the Western world draws public awareness to controversial subjects, such as propaganda, brainwashing, and demagoguery, which have historically been the province of dictators and despots who head dictatorial regimes. The act of engaging in any form of activity, irrespective of its content, is perceived as inherently negative and is automatically deemed unacceptable.

A further constraint encountered by democracies in their psychological warfare against terrorist organizations pertains to the necessity of upholding certain values, including human dignity. For instance, a pivotal component of PSYOPS, as previously delineated, pertains to the exhibition of casualties and purported atrocities perpetrated by opposing forces. While the Palestinians frequently employ this tactic, the Israeli side significantly underestimates its value and utilizes it only in instances that incur substantial criticism. For instance, during a suicide attack on Bus 32A in Jerusalem on June 18, 2002, 19 people were murdered and 74 injured. During the reporting on the attack, photographs of Israeli bodies were published for the first time, albeit with their identities obscured.

The issue resurfaced with particular force in the context of the shooting and stabbing attack that transpired on November 18, 2014, during the morning prayer in a synagogue located in the Har Nof neighborhood of Jerusalem. In a tragic incident, six individuals—five worshipers and a police officer—lost their lives, and seven others sustained injuries in the attack. The attack was perpetrated by two Palestinian terrorists residing in the Jebel Mukhabar neighborhood in East Jerusalem. In the aftermath of the attack, the Government Press Office disseminated photographs of the scene and the bodies of the deceased, though the identities of the individuals remained concealed.

In both cases, Israeli society expressed profound dismay upon witnessing the presentation of the bodies in the media and their subsequent exploitation to depict the horror that transpired. Some observers perceived this as a cynical exploitation of the victims of terrorism, while others asserted that the display of the deceased was an affront to their dignity, that of their families, and the sensibilities of the public.

It is acknowledged that there is a long-standing preference for the use of violent physical means in warfare, and there is a lack of awareness regarding the effectiveness and success of psywar. Consequently, the allocation of resources for psywar is low in the order of priorities during both war and peace.

Furthermore, in contrast to totalitarian states, democratic countries tend to exhibit a degree of skepticism regarding the politicization of psywar. The working relationships between psywar officers and senior members of the political echelon are constrained by the potential for entanglement in political disputes. In order to forestall the possibility of such occurrences, psywar officers are obligated to guarantee that their contributions to the advancement of national objectives are endorsed by a comprehensive consensus. They must ensure that their actions do not become a means to advance a political agenda or the interests of politicians. Furthermore, they are required to ascertain that the assistance offered is predicated on reliable data available to psywar warriors. Finally, they are duty-bound to ensure that they are not drawn into manipulative uses of intelligence data.

A similar apprehension has been expressed in democratic countries, where there is a concern that the objectivity of intelligence officers may be compromised. Engaging in psychological warfare may result in a shift of focus from their primary objectives, potentially leading to a form of bias. It is probable that they will become captivated by notions and their capacity to shape reality, which poses a threat to their professional integrity and their dedication to providing precise, dependable information to decision-makers and policy implementers. The restraint of psywar poses a significant challenge due to its elusive definition and quantification. In contrast to other forms of attack, the complexity of measuring psywar is characterized by its indirect and often covert nature. The quantification of psywar is not straightforward, as it cannot be measured in the same manner as physical attacks. The amount of explosives used, the extent of the expected impact, and the degree of collateral damage are not directly applicable metrics for psywar. It is imperative to acknowledge that persuading the military commander to surrender or relocate his forces without impeding the ongoing hostilities is a more ethical course of action, even if this is achieved through manipulative means, as opposed to taking the life of an enemy combatant.

Israel, akin to other democracies, confronts a myriad of challenges in its endeavor to employ psywar. To address these challenges, it is recommended that practitioners adhere to the principles outlined in the IDF Code of Ethics, particularly emphasizing the value of restraining power.

The present study explores the role of IDF professional ethics in the context of moderating psychological warfare.
The IDF Code of Ethics was first established in 1994. The document, entitled "The Spirit of the IDF," is divided into four sections.

The initial section constitutes the introduction, which delineates the IDF's mission within the context of Israel's democratic society. It further elucidates the fundamental commitment of the army to the state, while introducing the overarching framework within which this commitment is actualized.

The second section of the document analyzes the four sources of the document—namely, the IDF's fighting heritage, the tradition of the State of Israel based on its democratic principles, laws, and institutions, the Jewish tradition, and universal moral values. This section also delineates the nature of the document and its function.

The third section delineates the core values of the IDF, which in turn serve as the foundational principles for several additional major principles outlined in the document. These additional major principles include the safeguarding of the nation and all of its people, love of and loyalty to the country, and respect for human dignity.

The final section of the text presents a list of ten ethical values that are incumbent upon all individuals serving in the IDF.

Despite the IDF's extensive engagement with the ethical regulation of its various activities, there remains a conspicuous absence of regulatory measures pertaining to the restraint of psychological warfare capabilities.

The following proposal is hereby submitted for consideration: that government bodies and external companies acting on its behalf should exercise restraint with regard to the use of psywar.

In the IDF, as in many other armies in democracies around the world, engagement in psywar is one of its primary efforts. The objective is to influence the grasp of reality of target audiences, including the enemy (its leaders, military personnel, terror activists, and civilians), Israeli society, and others that are not directly involved in the issues, with the aim of helping to achieve the army's tasks in peacetime and in times of crisis, emergency, and war.

In light of the mounting concern surrounding the efforts to influence its target audiences, the IDF is compelled to delineate the practical implementation of its values for its psywarriors. One of the most significant challenges confronting the psywar establishment is the limitation of its own power. In contrast to the predictability of kinetic attacks, where the direct and indirect consequences are often evident in advance, the prediction of psywar is challenging. However, it is imperative to deliberate on the various ramifications and establish the necessary regulations to limit the exercise of power.

In light of the aforementioned points, the following regulations are hereby proposed:

The soldier who is tasked with psychological warfare operations directed at countries with which Israel is not currently

engaged in armed conflict will limit his activity to psychological warfare efforts whose purpose is to harm the enemy.

The soldier who is tasked with countering negative psywar campaigns is expected to restrict his operations to those that are intended to harm a specific individual or group residing outside of Israel. This group is defined as an enemy or a hostile party, or one who has a significant connection with an enemy or a hostile party.

The soldier engaged in psywar and deception operations is obligated to refrain from causing harm to Israeli citizens to the greatest extent possible. In instances where harm to Israeli citizens is unavoidable due to operational necessity, the soldier is expected to minimize such harm.

The soldier engaged in psychological warfare operations utilizes the available tools solely for the execution of his assigned task, and only to the extent required.

Moreover, in contrast to its numerous other operations, the IDF should leverage external civilian companies that possess a range of technological capabilities, which are likely to facilitate its psywar efforts.

Therefore, it is imperative that superior officers play an active role in the regulation of these companies' power and activities. This involvement is crucial for ensuring that these companies operate in an ethical manner. The proposed solution entails the limitation of these companies' operations and their subjection to specific ethical standards. Consequently, it is recommended that the external entity be prohibited from disseminating its operations or utilizing them for the following purposes:

The dissemination of rhetoric that is characterized by racial prejudice or anti-Semitic sentiment, as well as the incitement of animosity toward the State of Israel and the Jewish population, constitutes a form of messaging that is deemed to be in violation of the established principles of academic freedom and censorship.

Messages that promote terror.

Messaging that justifies blood libels against an identified or other background.

The act of provoking or inciting individuals to commit acts of physical violence is a form of expression that has been widely discredited by scholars and researchers in various fields.

The promotion of criminal activities, including murder, sexual crimes, pedophilia, theft, and drug use, is a matter of concern.

The company is committed to refraining from any actions that primarily aim to instill fear among the civilian population.

The outsource company will only carry out the aforementioned actions if it has received prior approval from the responsible IDF party.

The external entity will not engage in behaviors that could be perceived as intimidation, humiliation, blackmail, or threats of any kind.

The external entity shall exercise discretion over its operations and refrain from disseminating or leveraging information that has not been substantiated by the IDF Chief of Staff. It is imperative to note that the entity in question will refrain from publicizing or exploiting its operations in any manner that pertains to bodies and persons within the defense establishment, strategic capabilities, defense activity, and operational planning.

The outsource company is only permitted to engage in activities that include content bearing the official signature of an Israeli governmental body, contingent upon the prior approval of the relevant IDF authority.

The following section presents a summary and conclusions.


A democratic state is incapable of relinquishing the utilization of psywar in its endeavors to safeguard its citizens and to counteract threats to its existence. In the course of history, numerous democracies—including Israel—have exhibited ambivalence regarding the necessity and moral justification of employing psychological warfare (PsyWar). With the proliferation of social media and global communications, many militaries have initiated an escalation in their utilization of PsyWar as a legitimate weapon. Israel has restricted its psychological warfare activities to a disproportionate degree because it did not possess ethical principles that would delineate the necessary boundaries. To date, Israel has been the only nation to impose self-imposed restrictions on its use of psywar, while its surrounding enemies – nations and terrorist organizations – have utilized it without any limitations or restraint.

It is therefore imperative to establish a set of ethical guidelines for psychological warfare, ensuring its implementation is commensurate with the gravity of the situation. It is posited that other democracies and militaries may benefit from observing the Israeli precedent outlined herein and, in accordance with the proposed guidelines, conducting their operations against nations under tyrannical governance or engaging in a righteous and imperative campaign against terrorist entities. The increasing use of psywar necessitates a reevaluation of established practices and the integration of the principle of restraint in the use of power by various military entities and their external suppliers. This integration aims to ensure the proportional, rational, and appropriate use of psywar, thereby preventing its exploitation for malevolent purposes.


9) The Art of Psychological Warfare

"It is imperative to employ extreme subtlety, even to the point of formlessness. It is imperative to maintain an aura of profound enigma, extending even to the realm of silence. This ability confers upon the user the capacity to exert a significant degree of influence over the trajectory of their opponent's fate.

The field of battle is traditionally divided into three categories: luck, teams, and prediction. Given that luck is largely outside the purview of the player, this guide does not address it. The effectiveness of a team is determined by two factors: the preparation before the battle begins (for instance, Curse Snorlax is generally more effective than Curse Registeel or special attacking Snorlax) and the team's matchup with the opponent's (if a team lacks a counter for one of the opponent's Pokemon, it is at a significant disadvantage). The third common category is prediction. This phenomenon manifests during the course of the battle. The question remains as to whether they will transition to Heracross or maintain their use of Zapdos. The decision regarding whether to counter with Salamence or to leave my Blissey in is a critical one. "Prediction" is one of the most nuanced aspects of Pokémon battling, and it is a significant component that would render the Pokémon game impossible to "solve" by a computer program.

The pinnacle of military prowess is the subjugation of enemy armies without the necessity of direct confrontation.

This guide addresses the psychological warfare component of prediction, a facet that is frequently disregarded and seldom utilized. This phenomenon primarily manifests during battle, though it may not always be observed. However, a master of the mind game can utilize Pokemon that facilitate this process, thereby enhancing its efficacy.

The importance of understanding one's opponent and oneself is underscored by the ancient Chinese proverb, "Know thy enemy and know thyself, and your victory will not stand in doubt in 100 battles."

The initial and most critical component of any psychological attack on one's opponent is the estimation of both their skill level and their estimation of one's own. In the event that an individual is engaged in a confrontation with an opponent who is relatively inexperienced and who holds the belief that the other party is a highly skilled combatant, a mere display of prediction can often result in the opponent's behavior becoming erratic. In one particular encounter, I found myself unable to inflict any damage on my opponent's Pokémon, a feat that was accomplished by maintaining constant switching throughout the battle. However, I managed to maintain a strategic advantage by anticipating his maneuvers and avoiding the expected pattern of switching. Instead of adhering to a rigid, predictable cycle of switching, he opted to deploy his Gengar, a move that ultimately proved to be a miscalculation. This strategic decision allowed me to capitalize on the situation, transitioning to a Steelix. When I inquired about this behavior (Gengar was employing a wall strategy against my Hariyama), he clarified that his objective was to "get you out of my head."

Prior to this juncture, the game was considered a draw. By demonstrating both the ability to maintain a lead and the capacity for infinite patience to achieve victory, I compelled my opponent to attempt action to break the stall, despite the fact that doing so was not advantageous.

"A military operation is predicated on the principle of deception. Despite your evident competence, your actions and demeanor might suggest a lack of confidence. Despite their apparent effectiveness, they seem to be ineffective."
In the event that an individual is engaged in a contest with an opponent who possesses a high level of skill, yet is under the impression that the competitor lacks proficiency, this information can be utilized to one's advantage. Such individuals are susceptible to sacrificial strategies, as they lack the foresight to anticipate future battle scenarios, as their opponents believe them to be lacking in strategic vision. It is not uncommon for players to attempt a 6-0 on an opponent, or some other unconventional strategy, if they believe it will be effective. The following assertion is made: "Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance." The employment of surprise tactics has been demonstrated to be an effective strategy in combat situations, particularly in situations involving surprise attacks. A person who perceives another to be significantly inferior is likely to prioritize their own strategies, even if that entails permitting the other to establish their own without opposition.

In the event that an individual is engaged in combat with an opponent who possesses not only proficiency in the relevant domain, but also harbors the belief that the other party is similarly adept, it is often advantageous to adopt a strategy that is characterized by a high degree of transparency, at least under circumstances where the competitive environment is sufficiently defined. They will perceive traps where none exist and "overpredict" one's moves. In the event that the opposition is of a substandard caliber and there is a mutual acknowledgment of one's aptitudes, the opponent's actions can be readily anticipated. They will either swiftly succumb or, upon recognizing one's proficiency, adopt the initial perspective, resulting in the former outcome.

In the context of warfare, it is imperative to identify and address the enemy's strategic approach as a primary concern.
However, the question remains: How does one effectively accomplish this objective? The objective is to determine the most effective methods of compelling an adversary to act in accordance with one's desires. The most straightforward and expeditious approach entails direct communication with the adversary. This is the most challenging aspect of deceiving one's opponents, and it requires extensive practice to master. Determining the appropriate approach to deception can be expedited by the analysis of responses and battle results.

To illustrate, consider a scenario in which my Choice Band Heracross and a low-health Pokemon are pitted against a Swampert and a Choice Band Salamence, both of which are approximately half health. In this scenario, Heracross would be the superior choice. In certain interpersonal scenarios, the most effective response is the provision of factual information (e.g., articulating the intended course of action, which may be perceived as a deliberate misrepresentation by the interlocutor). Conversely, in other situations, the most beneficial response may be a mere expression of contemplation, such as "Hmm..." Heracross, let us proceed!" In the event that an individual perceives that their opponent has strategically manipulated their mindset, a potential course of action would be to refrain from speaking and resort to a coin toss to determine an outcome. However, it is strongly advised against this approach, as it effectively conveys a sense of inferiority, thereby suggesting a probable loss. The assumption that an opponent will inevitably emerge victorious can be considered a strategic miscalculation, as it signifies a premature acceptance of defeat.

Nevertheless, a curious method of deceiving others involves the assertion that the tossing of a coin is being performed. The strategy employed is as follows: in the event of a heads-up, an attack will be initiated; in the event of a tails-up, a switch will be executed. It is probable that they will then elect to undertake the action with the least risk, a course of action that one can capitalize on. It is important to note that there is no legal requirement to be truthful in the chat regarding one's actions.

In the example previously cited from the RBY/GSC battle, the following actions were taken: the posing of trite inquiries. The act of posing a question to another person, in this case to my nemesis, serves to establish a sense of superiority on my part. This is facilitated by the fact that I am often able to look up the answer to the question I pose, even though I am not always aware of the answer beforehand. If one assumes the role of a novice, one will be treated accordingly. In this particular instance, deliberately erroneous predictions can be beneficial, as they mitigate the sensation of incompetence. At the opportune moment, launch a surprise attack on the enemy with a strategy that they did not anticipate and, consequently, did not prepare for.

As posited by Sun Tzu in his seminal work The Art of War, "Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."
What role can your team play in addressing these challenges? The optimal strategy entails the utilization of Jirachi in conjunction with Protect, Wish, Doom Desire, and supplementary maneuvers, such as Body Slam, which has been observed to inflict 60% paralysis on the opponent, thereby impeding their ability to establish their position. The strategic employment of Doom Desire, Wish, and then Protect in a single turn has been demonstrated to achieve a multifaceted outcome, including the infliction of damage on the opponent, the nullification of its offensive maneuver, and self-healing, all within the same turn. This phenomenon engenders a sense of invincibility, irrespective of the set's actual effectiveness. This strategy is most effective against players who perceive the user to be superior, but occasionally incorporate a Body Slam to incapacitate the opponent. Even seasoned players can encounter situations where they feel outmatched by the brick wall effect, which systematically paralyzes their team, instilling fears, albeit unwarranted, of being overwhelmed by a slow opponent, such as Ursaring or Marowak. However, this is not necessary.

A total of eight points are allocated for Doom Desire, a duration that exceeds expectations.

This concept is analogous to the previously mentioned scenario in which a player employed a strategy of Exploding Gengar on Steelix. The team's defensive strategy, which involved Hariyama, Starmie, and Steelix, along with the use of Rest, Recover, and smart switching, effectively created an illusion of invincibility. Conversely, Gengar employed a defensive strategy that effectively neutralized both Hariyama and Steelix. However, it should be noted that the primary focus of Gengar's team was on offensive capabilities, rather than on stalling. This does not imply that my opponent could not engage in stalling tactics; rather, it suggests that he would not. The team was constructed under the assumption that the player would be participating in fast-paced, offensive games, a hypothesis that was predicated on the presence of Pokemon such as Gengar. The game's transition from an offensive to a defensive mindset was a significant challenge for him, as he found it difficult to shift his perspective from prioritizing the swift completion of Pokémon to considering the long-term implications of his actions. Consequently, he failed to recognize that half of my remaining Pokémon were incapable of engaging with his Gengar, prompting him to resort to a desperate tactic (Exploding Gengar, with the objective of capturing Hariyama or Starmie) in an attempt to alter the course of the game and revert to a style of play with which he was more familiar.

"When torrential water propels boulders, it is due to the fluid's momentum. The precise moment at which a hawk strikes and dismembers its prey is determined by the temporal nuances of its behavior."

However, in the majority of battles, these factors become secondary. The most critical element of this form of combat is conditioning. However, it is imperative to recognize that achieving this objective necessitates the establishment of a robust team foundation and the cultivation of a fundamental capacity for anticipating the actions of opponents. The prevailing opinion among scholars is that an element of unpredictability is conducive to success in combat. This assertion is, in general, erroneous. Unpredictability, in and of itself, is not a sufficient strategy for winning a battle. Furthermore, if it lacks a clearly defined purpose, it can be considered an ineffective tactic, akin to the noise that precedes a inevitable defeat. A true master of psychological warfare will be predictable as long as is necessary.

However, it is imperative to avoid being misled by this statement. While unpredictability can be beneficial, it should be exercised with moderation. It is imperative to create the illusion of predictability, while simultaneously maintaining an element of surprise, to ensure the optimal timing for the execution of the unexpected action. The crux of the matter is the consideration of both large-scale thinking and the temporal element. In the context of strategic thinking, unpredictability can be a valuable asset because it complicates the opponent's predictability, increasing the cognitive demands on the opponent. If an individual's expectations are limited to a specific task or activity, the individual will demonstrate a strong defense of that particular task or activity. It is imperative to appear predictable, thereby conditioning them to believe that one will continue to act in a consistent manner. However, in reality, one is strategically awaiting the opportune moment to unleash an unforeseen calamity that will utterly devastate their team.

Sirlin articulated this perspective eloquently in his discourse on conditioning: In this context, the insights of Sun Tzu become particularly salient. The employment of Rose's low strong move constitutes a strategy that encompasses both the anticipation of victory prior to engagement and the ability to exercise patience during the course of combat. The low strong punch is a substandard strike with limited range; however, it possesses a remarkable ability to outpace competing attacks in terms of priority. The instrument's rapid operation is evident in its ability to execute multiple low strongs in succession with minimal intermission.

"A consequence of my low strongs is that they establish a 'baseline expectation' of my subsequent actions. The roundhouse maneuver executed after the 17th low strong is a technically challenging technique. It is reasonable to hypothesize that the 18th low would be of a greater magnitude than the 17th low. It should be noted that a more devious approach was employed, whereby the 18th low strong was executed, followed by the low roundhouse kick.
It has been demonstrated that establishing a clear expectation of action is preferable to fostering an atmosphere of uncertainty. This phenomenon can be attributed to the inherent unpredictability of an uncertain opponent. It is possible to ascertain the actions of others if one is aware of their intentions. Subsequently, a decisive maneuver is executed at a opportune moment, ensuring a decisive victory. To illustrate, if an individual's Heracross employs the Focus Punch technique, yet its Weezing counterpart anticipates this maneuver and responds with the Sludge Bomb strategy, the outcome is predicated on the interplay between prediction and response. It is evident that a strategic alteration in approach is necessitated in this scenario, as the opponent is at liberty to persist in the utilization of the Sludge Bomb technique with apparent impunity, a consequence that is attributable to the presence of the Choice Banded ability. He has been conditioned to believe that I am a very cautious competitor, as my professional philosophy is to predict only when prediction is required. The Jirachi has been utilized, and the Sludge Bomb maneuver has proven to be an effective strategy for transitioning into new positions. It is evident that the decision to deploy Heracross is not a strategic one, as it is ill-advised to leave in such a vulnerable Pokémon. Given that my opponent is not cognizant of my deficiencies, the prospect of my deployment in Heracross is not a factor in his calculus. Consequently, he opts to counter with Jirachi and Snorlax, utilizing the Earthquake move.


10) Battle For Ukraine


The present study will examine the role of psychological warfare in the context of the armed conflict in Ukraine.

The dissemination of false information and the manipulation of public opinion via social media platforms have been demonstrated to engender confusion, foment hostilities, and amplify atrocities on a global scale.



The present study will examine the role of social media and the internet in the context of contemporary society.


The eighth item is listed here.


In the 21st century, warfare has evolved to encompass not only physical aspects but also psychological dimensions, with a significant portion of this warfare taking place in the online realm.

A substantial body of research has documented the emergence of coordinated online disinformation campaigns by political entities in at least 70 countries in recent years. A notable example is Russia, which has launched more than 30 attacks on elections worldwide since 2016 (2019 Global Inventory of Organised Social Media Manipulation (PDF, 6.05MB), University of Oxford; Hacking Democracies, Australian Strategic Policy Institute, 2019).

Peter W. Singer, PhD, a professor of practice at the School of Politics and Global Studies at Arizona State University, has observed the tangible impact of information operations on a variety of phenomena, ranging from the emergence of extremist groups such as ISIS to the rise of far-right organizations in the United States, which reached a peak on January 6. The phenomenon of the infodemic has been identified as a contributing factor to the exacerbated severity of the pandemic.

The phenomenon of online disinformation has been associated with mass killings around the world, including in countries such as Myanmar and India.

However, propagandists are not merely addressing an open audience. Psychologists, in conjunction with experts in political science, computer science, and national security, are mounting a counteroffensive. This process begins with a comprehensive understanding of how misinformation (and disinformation, a subset of misinformation designed to deceive) operates, as well as the mechanisms that can be employed to rectify it. This scientific understanding is now informing strategic resistance in Russia, Ukraine, and beyond.

[Related: Psychologists combat Russian disinformation]

According to Stephan Lewandowsky, PhD, a professor of psychology at the University of Bristol who studies misinformation at the societal level, "The Ukrainians are fighting a 21st-century war, which is half on the internet." The efficacy of the novel approach is indisputable, as it has effectively countered Russian endeavors to reinterpret historical events.


The objective of this study is to ascertain the veracity of the subject matter in question.
The dissemination of false information during wartime is not a novel phenomenon; rather, it constitutes a fundamental element of the strategic repertoire employed by belligerents. Leaders frequently engage in the inflation or fabrication of information, ranging from military strength to alleged atrocities, with the intent to confuse opponents or bolster domestic morale. Ukraine, too, has been accused of disseminating potentially false wartime narratives.

However, with the proliferation of social media, propaganda has become a far more potent instrument, capable of reaching an unprecedented scale. This has led to its exploitation to garner support for genocides and other violations of human rights, including those perpetrated against the Uyghur population in China, the Rohingya in Myanmar, and Muslim populations in India. Singer's seminal contribution to the field of political science was the conceptualization of the term "LikeWar," which he coined to describe the growing role of online media in political conflicts.

Singer, a strategist and senior fellow at the nonpartisan public policy institute New America, has defined "cyber war" as the hacking of networks. He has defined "LikeWar" as its "evil twin": the hacking of people on those networks through their likes, shares, and sometimes lies.

For an extended period, the Russian Federation has been engaged in a social engineering operation, often referred to as a "LikeWar," against a significant portion of the global population. The Kremlin has been observed to employ well-established psychological manipulation strategies through social and online media, including the denigration of outgroups and the dissemination of rapid-fire falsehoods, according to research by Jon Roozenbeek, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in psychology at the University of Cambridge. His research focuses on mis- and disinformation, as well as media discourse in Ukraine.

Roozenbeek's research documented the Kremlin's efforts to incite animosity among various groups toward Ukrainians and the Ukrainian government during the takeover of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in eastern Ukraine. This tactic has been associated with heightened social media engagement, as evidenced by studies such as "Media and Identity in Wartime Donbas, 2014–2017" (University of Cambridge, 2019) and "Rathje, S., et al., PNAS, Vol. 118, No. 26, 2021).

Vladimir Putin, the former President of the Russian Federation, has employed a variety of strategies in his political career, many of which have proven to be highly effective. One such strategy, which Rozenbeek has termed "gish gallop" or "rapid-fire lying," was notably utilized by Putin in the aftermath of the Malaysian Airlines disaster in 2014. The Kremlin's persistent dissemination of falsehoods, including assertions that the incident was a Ukrainian attack, that all passengers were deceased prior to takeoff, and that the pilot deliberately crashed the aircraft, is employed to disseminate confusion and disillusionment.

Lewandowsky has stated that the information in question is rife with falsehoods that are not consistent with one another. The assertion is made that the aforementioned parties are uttering a wide array of statements with the intent of fortifying the belief that it is impossible to ascertain the truth.

According to Tin Nguyen, a research associate at the National Counterterrorism, Innovation, Technology, and Education Center, as well as a doctoral candidate in industrial-organizational psychology at Penn State University, the Russian leader employs specific leadership strategies and aggressive tactics to justify violence. For instance, Putin's strategic approach involves portraying Ukraine and Western nations as malevolent and unethical, while communicating in terms of power dynamics. If Russia is merely a victim of exploitation by other world powers, the country may have a justification for revenge.

Such claims may be readily dismissed by Westerners; however, many Russian citizens have lacked access to reliable counter information due to the restrictions on independent and social media in the country, according to Nguyen. Furthermore, the subjects have been repeatedly exposed to these falsehoods for an extended period, a phenomenon that psychologists have demonstrated can enhance the persuasiveness of disinformation.

Nguyen's analysis suggests that the contemporary communication environment is only one factor influencing the Russian people's perception of the war. The long-term influence of past communication on current thinking is also a crucial factor.

The objective of this text is to preempt propaganda.

By design, mis- and disinformation have been shown to be more infectious and incendiary than factual information, which makes them particularly useful in wartime.

Research has demonstrated that, subsequent to undergoing a fact-checking process, information that has been determined to be false disseminates at a more rapid rate on social media than information that has been determined to be true—a phenomenon that is fueled by human actors, not automated software processes (Vosoughi, S., et al., Science, Vol. 359, No. 6380, 2018). Misinformation has been shown to rely on moral-emotional language, increasing the probability of its dissemination, particularly within ideological groups.

Once misinformation takes hold, it can be difficult to rectify. Psychologists have demonstrated that prebunking, defined as the proactive dissemination of information intended to rectify false or misleading narratives, is more efficacious than debunking falsehoods in a subsequent context (Lewandowsky, S., et al., The Debunking Handbook 2020). Personal and emotional appeals, in lieu of a mere fact-check, have been shown to be beneficial.

Despite Russia's historical dominance in the information domain, foreign leaders are increasingly demonstrating a resilience in their response. In anticipation of the February invasion, Ukrainian officials systematically documented Russia's military buildup using satellite imagery, thereby thwarting Moscow's attempts to disseminate disinformation. Furthermore, the evidence obtained by these journalists revealed that

the "emergency meetings" orchestrated by Putin were, in fact, prerecorded. This revelation was precipitated by the discrepancy between the reported time of one official's wristwatch and the actual time of the meetings, as revealed by the journalists' research. The United States also disseminated intelligence regarding Russian movements in advance, with the objective of precluding Putin from exerting control over the narrative surrounding the war.

Singer posits that preempting Russian propaganda confers a dual advantage, both strategic and psychological. This approach compels the Kremlin to react rather than initiate action, thereby relinquishing its dominance in shaping the narrative.

Furthermore, social media platforms are implementing more stringent measures to restrict the dissemination of Russian disinformation, as evidenced by Nguyen's observations. Twitter is implementing a labeling system for Russian state-sponsored media, while Meta is implementing a demotion system for such posts. In addition, Reddit has restricted access to the subreddit r/Russia, and TikTok has imposed limitations on livestreams and uploads from Russia.

At the individual level, the same strategies that have been demonstrated to be effective in avoiding misinformation on other topics can also serve to protect against psychological warfare. Singer and his colleagues have termed this phenomenon "cyber citizenship," which they define as a combination of digital literacy, responsible behavior, and awareness of the threat of online manipulation.

As posited by the speaker, the possession of a triad of competencies—namely, the capacity to discern Russian disinformation, the ability to unravel antivaxxer conspiracy theories, and the aptitude for recognizing when an individual is attempting to convince others of the notion that extraterrestrial beings were responsible for the construction of the pyramids—enables one to effectively counteract manipulation.