Lessons Learned on Cognitive Warfare

Cognitive warfare today represents one of the most significant dimensions of contemporary strategic confrontation. It is not just about the dissemination of information or propaganda in the traditional sense, but aims to directly influence perceptions, beliefs, emotions, and decision-making processes of individuals, social groups, and political and military leaderships.

In this context, communication is no longer an accessory element of political or military action, but a structural component of competition. Every political or military activity, to be effective, must include planning that encompasses not only operational objectives and tools of employment, but also a clear communication architecture, based on threat analysis and context analysis.

Communication as a decisive factor in political or military activities

One of the main lessons learned in modern competition scenarios is that the success or failure of a political or military activity also depends on the ability to plan and conduct an adequate communication plan.

When such a plan is lacking, or conceived in a residual manner, the actor exposes themselves to various vulnerabilities: loss of control over the narrative, inability to anticipate adversary communication lines, difficulty in maintaining internal and external consensus, exposure to delegitimization and manipulation campaigns.

An effective communication plan should contain at least two essential dimensions: threat analysis and context analysis.

Threat analysis: anticipating adversary communication lines

In the cognitive domain, threat analysis cannot be limited to kinetic or technological aspects. It must also include possible actions and activities of adversary communication lines.

This means identifying in advance:

• the hostile narratives that could be activated;
• the divisive themes that the adversary might exploit;
• the most suitable informative channels for message dissemination;
• the amplifying subjects, formal or informal, capable of multiplying its impact;
• the techniques of disinformation, emotional manipulation, and context distortion.

Without this analysis, every political or military activity risks being accompanied by the adversary's narrative superiority, which can shape the perception of events even before the facts are understood in their reality.

Cognitive warfare, in fact, does not act only on the information level, but on how information is interpreted. For this reason, anticipating adversary communication moves becomes an integral part of strategic planning.

Context analysis: understanding the informational environment

The second pillar is context analysis, that is, the informational environment in which the political or military action develops.

Every message operates within an ecosystem composed of cultural, social, media, technological, and psychological factors. Not knowing this environment means not understanding how a message will be received, distorted, amplified, or rejected.

Context analysis should therefore include:

• the political and social framework of reference;
• the level of trust in institutions;
• the sensitivity of public opinion regarding certain topics;
• the role of traditional media and digital platforms;
• the presence of social or identity fractures exploitable by hostile actors;
• the speed and direction of information circulation.

In a saturated, interconnected, and polarized environment, it is not enough to communicate: it is necessary to understand where you communicate, to whom, with what codes, and against what forms of interference.

The weight of the international scenario

Every political or military activity also takes place within an international scenario that influences languages, perceptions, and expectations.

Even when the action is localized, the global context exerts a direct influence on the cognitive environment. Communication models that have emerged in major powers or international crises tend to spread, becoming implicit references even in other theaters.

As observed in international public and journalistic debate, the attitude of international actors has had a significant impact on the global communication scenario, contributing to strengthening styles based on polarization, extreme simplification, delegitimization of traditional sources, and strong emotionalization of public discourse. This type of approach has generally affected the international informational climate, making the boundary between political communication, strategic narrative, and perceptual manipulation more fragile.

Therefore, the analysis of the environment cannot be only local or national: it must also include the drag effect generated by international dynamics.

Cognitive warfare and strategic vulnerability

The main vulnerability in contemporary political or military activities arises from the fact that communication is often still considered as a support to action, while it is part of the action itself.

Cognitive warfare exploits this underestimation. It strikes beliefs, fuels doubts, alters the perception of legitimacy, fragments consensus, exacerbates oppositions, and produces decision paralysis.

It is not necessary for the adversary to impose a complete lie. It is sufficient that they manage to:

• decontextualize real facts;
• select partial elements;
• amplify emotionally sensitive content;
• instill distrust;
• occupy the cognitive space more quickly.

In this sense, every political or military activity can be compromised not only by operational errors, but by insufficient preparation of the informational and cognitive domain.

Lessons learned

From observing contemporary scenarios, some fundamental lessons emerge.

The first is that communication must be planned from the beginning as an integrated strategic function, and not as a subsequent or merely reactive activity.

The second is that every plan must contain a clear threat analysis, aimed at understanding how the adversary might act on the level of narratives, disinformation, and psychological pressure.

The third is that context analysis is as decisive as knowing the adversary, because every message lives within an environment that conditions its effects, limits, and possible distortions.

The fourth is that the international context increasingly influences local dynamics, requiring a broad, multilevel, and continuous reading of the communication environment.

Conclusions

The most important lesson is that, in contemporary political or military activities, it is not enough to prepare means, procedures, and operational capabilities. It is also necessary to plan the cognitive domain.

An adequate communication plan must contain both threat analysis, that is, possible actions and activities of adversary communication lines, and context analysis, understood as a deep understanding of the informational, political, and social environment in which the action develops.

Only in this way is it possible to reduce vulnerability, maintain narrative initiative, and prevent the adversary from turning communication advantage into strategic advantage.