In recent years, especially since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, cognitive warfare has become a buzzword in the media, sparking extensive discussions. In different contexts, cognitive warfare is often replaced by terms such as information warfare, propaganda warfare, and psychological warfare, with no unified understanding among people. Many Western countries have quietly implemented cognitive warfare at the practical level. Importantly, they have also used cognitive warfare as a smear tactic, projecting it onto other nations. With the continuous emergence of new information technologies, the "basic framework" of cognitive warfare is also undergoing changes.

The media is the primary carrier, and the public opinion arena is the main battlefield. Currently, there is no strictly unified concept of cognitive warfare among countries around the world. Different countries and organizations have proposed various interpretations. NATO believes that cognitive warfare includes activities synchronized with other power tools, aiming to influence, protect, or disrupt the cognition of individuals, groups, or the masses to affect their attitudes and behaviors, thereby gaining an advantage over the opponent. Cognitive warfare seeks to alter perceptions of reality, with human cognition shaping a critical area of war. Broadly speaking, cognitive warfare is a form of struggle designed to change the way a target population thinks and, in turn, alter their behavior. More concretely, cognitive warfare involves actions in the cognitive domain to influence the target group's observations, judgments, and decisions on specific issues, events, or situations, deepening their divisions, lowering morale, and undermining the opponent's planning and organizational capabilities.

Cognitive warfare is related to, yet distinct from, traditional forms of propaganda warfare, psychological warfare, and legal warfare. In a sense, cognitive warfare is an extension and synthesis of propaganda warfare, psychological warfare, and legal warfare. Propaganda warfare is a crucial component of cognitive warfare, but the scope of cognitive operations is broader; it not only alters the opponent's cognition through propaganda and media but also influences their cognition through other means. Psychological warfare is also a significant component of cognitive warfare; specific psychological tactics can change the target audience's perception of particular events, thereby significantly affecting the operational capabilities of combatants. The implementation of cognitive warfare may be organized, meticulously planned, or it may be spontaneous and conscious, driven by shared values, interests, and ideologies. These organized cognitive warfare efforts can complement spontaneous and conscious cognitive warfare actions.

The public opinion arena is the main battlefield of cognitive warfare. Media are important channels that influence cognition, making media-based cognitive warfare the most common form. This includes not only traditional media but also online media, social media, and so on. Since media are crucial channels for cognition and primary carriers of information, attacks on media platforms become an important component of cognitive warfare. For example, after the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, many Western countries banned Russia's "RT" and "Sputnik News Agency" from broadcasting or operating locally, citing the need to "block Russia's information dissemination and public opinion offensive in the West." Of course, cognitive warfare is not limited to media; it also involves other means of obtaining information. For instance, communication systems can transmit and receive information, making communication tools natural carriers of cognitive operations.

Cognitive warfare is often associated with disinformation. The key disinformation is an important means to mislead the opponent. We can see that in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Israel-Palestine conflict, the information released by the opposing sides is often contradictory, and there is certainly at least one side that is spreading false information. In the narrative of Western media, it is always the adversary that is conducting covert cognitive warfare. The West regards many activities of Russian media as information warfare aimed at spreading disinformation. On Wikipedia, there is even a dedicated entry titled "Russian Information Warfare Against Ukraine." This narrative has made cognitive warfare, like intelligence warfare, an unsavory secret activity, shrouded in a "dirty coat." Therefore, exaggerating the cognitive warfare of the opponent has also become a part of cognitive warfare. However, during the process of cognitive warfare, it is not advisable to frequently spread unreliable and untrustworthy news, especially obvious fake news or easily refutable news. Otherwise, the target group will gradually become "immune," reducing the effectiveness of cognitive warfare and even achieving the opposite effect.

Cognitive warfare revolves more around the truth. The most fundamental aspect of conducting cognitive warfare is to actively set agendas, promptly disclose factual truths, expose the enemy's crimes, and prevent the spread of rumors detrimental to oneself. In the Israel-Palestine conflict, both sides engaged in cognitive competition. The Palestinian side, including countries and organizations that sympathize with and support the Palestinian people, released a large number of videos and images from the conflict zone in Gaza, revealing the factual truth. This reinforced and solidified the external perception of Israel causing massive humanitarian disasters, garnering widespread sympathy for the Palestinian side from the world. Even Israel's allies, at least in public opinion, criticized Israel's actions. This exerted some pressure on Israel and the United States, forcing the U.S., which supports Israel, to impose restrictions on Israel. Without such positive dissemination, the suffering of the Palestinians would be difficult for the outside world to know, and Israel would act even more recklessly.

With the continuous emergence of new information technologies, the "basic foundation" of cognitive warfare is also changing. In the era of informationization, algorithms prevail over tactics in cognitive warfare. During the Russia-Ukraine conflict, various information favorable to Ukraine widely appeared on Western internet platforms, including social media and Facebook. Accounts supporting the Ukrainian military were more active, with numerous reports of Ukrainian military achievements circulating online, such as drones destroying Russian tanks and Ukrainian missiles destroying Russian air defense missiles. With the support of Western media, Ukraine even launched a series of "deification campaigns," elevating some Western weapons to a divine status. In contrast, videos and messages about Russian military achievements were relatively scarce. One reason is that Russia itself released fewer relevant videos, and another reason is that official Russian media accounts and accounts sympathetic or supportive of Russia were suppressed and blocked.

Artificial intelligence will also have a significant impact on cognitive warfare, particularly generative artificial intelligence. For instance, AI technology can now generate large amounts of text, images, and especially videos. It can also modify real videos to create deepfake videos. Currently, it is becoming increasingly difficult for us to discern deepfake content. Deepfake videos targeting important figures such as national leaders and military leaders, when used at specific stages of operations and combined with other measures, could yield unexpected effects. For example, during a military strike by Country A against Country B, causing internal chaos, releasing a deepfake video of the B's leader claiming to be in a third country or calling on its citizens to cease resistance, along with interference in local networks and television systems, could greatly influence the public perception in Country B. This would undermine the morale of Country B, accelerate the collapse of its resistance, and lead to further social disorder. Additionally, by infiltrating and influencing such large AI models through certain technologies, making their responses on important issues carry certain biases, could also affect public perception. When the public heavily relies on these models to understand the outside world, they possess the potential to sway public perception. This point should be particularly noted.