1. Executive Summary

The character of strategic competition has evolved significantly, positioning human cognition as a primary operational theater alongside the physical, maritime, aerospace, and cyber domains¹. Within this environment, state and non-state actors aim to structurally alter how target populations and military personnel perceive reality, process information, and execute decisions². This report examines the concept of cognitive superiority, defined as the capacity to maintain a sustained comparative advantage in decision-making under adversarial pressure⁴.

Operating at the intersection of military strategy, national intelligence, and psychological science, cognitive warfare deliberately exploits the neurocognitive architectures that govern human orientation and judgment⁵. Adversaries leverage agentic artificial intelligence (aAI), immersive virtual reality environments (VREs), biometric surveillance, and synthetic media to execute continuous, adaptive campaigns⁴. These campaigns are designed to degrade decision tempo, induce orientation divergence, and foster action misalignment across both acute and chronic temporal horizons⁴.

Countering these threats requires a transition from traditional information security to systemic cognitive resilience⁸. This involves treating the cognitive domain as critical infrastructure⁵, implementing structured doctrinal adaptations such as the Countering Cognitive Warfare (CCW) Training 2.0 framework, and embedding procedural cognitive checkpoints into command-and-staff operations⁸. By integrating real-time intelligence analytics with psychological inoculation, defending organizations can preserve their decision-centric operational loops and maintain cognitive superiority in contested environments⁸.

2. Defining Cognitive Superiority and Cognitive Warfare

2.1. Doctrinal Evolution and the Shift to Decision-Centric Competition

The conceptualization of the human mind as an operational domain has historical roots, yet its codification in modern military doctrine is a recent development. The term “cognitive warfare” first appeared prominently in a 1996 thesis by Dahl at the United States Air University, where it was presented as an analytical tool within command and control warfare (C2W) to understand stressors hampering decision-making¹¹. The concept gained significant traction during the 2017 Department of Defense Intelligence Information System (DoDIIS) conference, where the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency characterized fifth-generation warfare as “cognitive warfare,” emphasizing the imperative of winning the information and decision space before or during a conflict⁶. Subsequently, NATO’s Allied Command Transformation initiated analytical work in 2020, leading to the 2021 Warfighting Capstone Concept’s emphasis on “cognitive superiority” and finalized doctrinal frameworks in 2025¹.

Modern conflict models identify the human mind as both the target and the weapon¹. Cognitive warfare represents a deliberate expansion of conflict, focusing on the systemic weakening of an adversary’s capacity to orient and act². It is functionally defined as an adaptive contest over human decision-making, where actors synchronize military and non-military instruments to shape or disrupt perception, interpretation, and judgment over time². Unlike traditional psychological operations (PSYOPS) or information operations (IO) that often seek to persuade audiences or control the flow of data, cognitive warfare aims directly at the mechanisms of decision¹.

Cognitive superiority is the condition achieved when an actor maintains a sustained comparative advantage within this domain². It requires the capacity to excel in understanding the operating environment—gathering deeper, broader intelligence—and applying more effective, rapid decision-making than the adversary². Success is not measured by the reach of a message, but by the extent to which operations translate into degraded adversarial judgment, delayed reaction times, and the protection of friendly cognitive processes⁷.

2.2. Delineation from Adjacent Domains

Cognitive warfare is frequently conflated with cyber and information warfare, yet clear analytical boundaries exist that distinguish it from adjacent operations in the information environment (OIE)².

Domain	Primary Target	Operational Objective	Evaluative Metric
Cyber Warfare	Digital infrastructure, hardware, and networks1.	Disruption of data storage, transmission, and system integrity2.	Network downtime, data exfiltration volume, system compromise2.
Information Warfare	The information environment and media landscape1.	Control of information flow, restriction of access, narrative dominance1.	Message reach, audience engagement, narrative penetration1.
Cognitive Warfare	Input-output relationships in neural systems and human cognition1.	Disruption of the decision-making cycle (OODA loop) and orientation parameters1.	Decision latency, orientation divergence, action misalignment1.

Cyber and information capabilities function as enablers or delivery vectors for cognitive effects². For example, compromised platforms (cyber) can amplify deceptive narratives (information) to induce hesitation in command staff (cognitive)².

3. The Theoretical Architecture of Decision Advantage

3.1. The Multi-Horizon Cognitive OODA Framework

To operationalize the study of cognitive superiority, military and intelligence analysts utilize the Multi-Horizon Cognitive Observe-Orient-Decide-Act (OODA) Framework². Grounded in Colonel John Boyd’s original decision cycle, this model treats cognitive conflict as a sustained attacker-defender interaction rather than a unidirectional broadcast².

An attacker attempts to insert friction into every stage of the defender’s OODA loop, while the defender applies protective capacities to maintain operational tempo:

• Observe: The attacker aims to shape what the target notices through selective exposure, deception, and information saturation, forcing the target to allocate cognitive resources to irrelevant or manipulated data. Concurrently, the defender utilizes observation protection to preserve accurate credibility judgments².
• Orient: The attacker introduces framing biases, identity cues, and emotional priming to distort the target’s sensemaking and interpretation of reality. The defender counters with orientation protection to preserve sound causal narratives².
• Decide: By flooding the environment with contradictory narratives, the attacker induces hesitation, confusion, and overreliance on cognitive heuristics (mental shortcuts), degrading judgment quality. The defender works to preserve decision confidence under stress².
• Act: The culmination of degraded observation, orientation, and decision results in premature action, strategic paralysis, or operations misaligned with the defender’s actual objectives. The defender aims to preserve execution fidelity².

3.2. Acute Disruption versus Chronic Conditioning

The framework evaluates cognitive effects across two distinct temporal horizons, which must be measured differently to assess true cognitive superiority².

Acute, or short-horizon, effects manifest within minutes to days. These are observable as immediate degradations of OODA loop performance⁴. Examples include delayed situational awareness convergence, slowed decision tempo, and operational pauses during a crisis². Acute disruptions exploit real-time processing vulnerabilities, shaping immediate perceptions and eliciting misaligned actions before verification processes can conclude².

Conversely, chronic, or long-horizon, effects accumulate over weeks, months, or years². Chronic operations aim to erode institutional trust, polarize cultural identity, and normalize false beliefs². The strategic utility of chronic conditioning is that it “re-parameterizes” the target’s baseline psychological state¹⁵. It alters how targets observe, orient, and decide before a crisis even begins⁷. When an acute event occurs, the target’s OODA loop is already structurally compromised by these persistent shifts in trust calibration and interpretive priors, raising the baseline difficulty of rapid orientation and response⁷.

3.3. Evaluative Metrics for Decision Advantage

To evaluate cognitive superiority, intelligence analysts move away from unidirectional, engagement-based metrics—such as message exposure, reach, or sentiment indicators—and utilize comparative performance indicators centered on decision integrity². These metrics quantify the friction introduced into a command structure:

• Decision Latency: The time or speed required for an organization to make and execute decisions under pressure².
• Orientation Divergence: The degree of internal misalignment, confusion, or contested interpretation among decision-makers regarding a shared situation².
• Action Misalignment: Instances where a defending entity executes actions contrary to its strategic interests due to adversarial manipulation².
• Attribution Discipline and Verification Tempo: The speed and accuracy of correctly identifying an attacker, alongside how quickly incoming information can be verified².
• Amplification Velocity and Adaptation Speed: The speed at which an attacker can generate and pivot narrative variants compared to the defender’s capacity to detect, clear, and synchronize counter-framing².

A theoretical case study detailing these metrics involves a fictional partner nation termed “Norland,” where an adversary sought to derail a logistics agreement². The analysis concluded that the attacker achieved cognitive superiority not by converting the beliefs of the population, but through asymmetric cost imposition². The attacker generated rapid narrative variants and reseeded them after takedowns at a low marginal cost⁵. Concurrently, the defender was burdened with the high operational costs of verification, internal alignment, public communication, and consequence management⁵. This structural asymmetry allowed the attacker to sustain pressure across the observe-orient-decide stages significantly longer than the defender could maintain high-tempo mitigation, resulting in slowed decision tempo, orientation divergence among staff, and misaligned operational pauses².

4. Psychological Mechanisms and Neurocognitive Exploitation

Achieving cognitive superiority relies on integrating deeply understood psychological principles with scalable technologies. The target is the input-output processing mechanism of the human nervous system, aiming to manipulate perception before cognitive bandwidth allows for rational assessment².

4.1. The Integration of Emotion and Cognition

A core psychological vector in cognitive warfare is the manipulation of emotion. Historical cognitive science occasionally viewed emotion as a limitation or obstacle to rationality, treating the mind purely as an information-processing device⁶. However, neuroscientific research—supported by figures such as Joseph LeDoux and studies on the amygdala and hippocampus by Antoine Bechara—demonstrates that emotion is inextricably linked to cognition⁶.

Rational decision-making is biologically impossible without emotional input⁶. Emotions function as a necessary neurological triage mechanism, allowing individuals to navigate uncertainty, evaluate stimuli, and prioritize competing, sometimes mutually exclusive, values based on how they align with survival or operational goals⁶. Emotions adjust the perception of probability and risk, heavily influencing attention and memory encoding⁶.

To compromise an adversary’s decision-making apparatus, attackers systematically manipulate the emotional states integral to that process⁶. By engineering content that triggers fear, anger, or outrage, adversaries bypass rational inhibition³. Neurologically, emotionally charged stimuli travel faster through processing centers, provoking impulsive sharing and immediate orientation divergence before the target has the time to empirically assess the information³.

4.2. Embodied Cognition and the Interoceptive Model

The theory of embodied cognition posits that cognitive processes are fundamentally dependent upon the physical body’s perceptual and motor interactions with the environment⁶. Rejecting traditional brain-centric computationalism, this framework suggests that human reasoning, memory, and language are anchored in bodily experiences⁶. A significant portion of communication relies on subconscious, nonverbal signals such as eye gaze, facial expressions, and posture⁶. Embodied cognition is frequently categorized into the “Four Es”: Embodied, Embedded, Enactive, and Extended cognition⁶.

Cognitive attackers exploit embodied cognition through the deployment of Virtual Reality Environments (VREs)⁶. Under the emotional processing theory established by Foa and Kozak, dysfunctional fear operates as a memory network comprising information about a stimulus, the fear response, and propositions of meaning⁶. VREs simulate complex, multimodal scenarios (combining visual, acoustic, and vestibular stimuli) that directly activate the perceptual pathways of the brain, bypassing top-down conceptual inputs⁶.

The efficacy of VREs relies on two psychological phenomena:

• Presence: The psychological illusion of non-mediation. According to Seth et al.’s interoceptive predictive coding model, presence is achieved when the brain successfully suppresses the mismatch between predicted interoceptive (internal emotional) states and actual physiological states, leading the user to feel they are genuinely inside the environment⁶.
• Embodiment: The sensation that a virtual avatar is the user’s actual physical body⁶.

When presence and embodiment are achieved, malicious actors can execute influence techniques that trigger intense emotional responses far exceeding the capabilities of traditional media⁶. For example, VREs can be hacked to plant synthetic, simulated encounters—termed authenticity spoofing—where avatars mimic organic interactions using calculated gestures, voice tones, and pupil dilations designed to spread panic or demoralization among deployed forces⁶.

4.3. Facial Mimicry and Subconscious Influence

A highly documented psychological vulnerability leveraged in cognitive warfare is similarity-based attraction and facial mimicry⁶. Evolutionary psychology indicates that humans have evolved to preferentially favor those who look similar to them, utilizing facial similarity as a subconscious proxy for genetic relatedness (kin recognition)⁶.

Studies conducted by researchers at Stanford University (Bailenson, Iyengar, Yee, and Collins) demonstrated the extreme efficacy of this vulnerability in political and strategic contexts⁶. Through multiple experiments using national representative samples during the 2004 and 2006 U.S. elections, researchers subtly altered photographs of political candidates (e.g., Charlie Crist, Jim Davis, George W. Bush, John Kerry) to blend them with the facial features of the viewing voter⁶.

The findings revealed that if up to 40% of the voter’s facial features were morphed into the candidate’s face, the voter remained entirely unaware of the manipulation⁶. Despite this lack of conscious awareness, the voter became significantly more favorably disposed toward the candidate, resulting in measurable shifts in preference (up to a 20% shift in voting preferences)⁶. The study noted that this effect was particularly strong for unfamiliar candidates where strong partisan ties or explicit policy proximity were absent⁶. In immersive digital domains and cognitive warfare scenarios, this technique can be applied dynamically at scale, altering the perceived faces of avatars, leaders, or communicators to subconsciously build trust and lower the target’s cognitive defenses⁶.

4.4. Perceptual Illusions and Cognitive Stress

In addition to emotional manipulation, cognitive warfare directly attacks visual and spatial processing using perceptual illusions⁶. Techniques include the use of reversible and bistable figures (such as the “duck-rabbit” illusion), where the brain is structurally unable to perceive both forms of an image simultaneously⁶. Forcing a voluntary mental shift from one interpretation to another requires cognitive energy, inducing fatigue⁶. Hermann Grid illusions and orientation-based distortions are similarly used to exploit gaps in visual processing, forcing cognitive stress upon targets to predictably degrade mental acuity, disrupt causal attribution, and inhibit a target’s ability to take action through indecision and cognitive overload⁶.

5. Technological Execution and Intelligence Operations

The scale, precision, and speed required to maintain cognitive superiority are facilitated by the integration of biometric tracking, autonomous algorithms, and the exploitation of critical cognitive infrastructure⁴.

5.1. Biometric Data Harvesting in Immersive Environments

Immersive technologies and modern smart sensors collect continuous streams of biometric data, allowing adversaries to map a target’s real-time emotional and cognitive state⁶. China has reportedly developed an “Intelligent Psychological Monitoring System,” utilizing smart sensor bracelets to record facial information, emotional changes, and psychological states to determine the combat status of soldiers¹³.

The integration of multiple biometric vectors provides deep intelligence on internal psychological states:

Biometric Vector	Measurement Target	Exploitation and Intelligence Value
Pupillometry (Pupil Dilation)	Irrepressible expansion of the pupils.	Correlates heavily with physiological arousal, indicating interior mental states, hidden biases, or undisclosed interest6.
Eye Tracking	Visual gaze path.	Identifies specific visual salience; maps exactly what captures and holds a target’s cognitive attention6.
Electromyography (EMG)	Facial muscle tension and activity.	Detects micro-expressions, accurately predicting underlying emotions (anger, fear, contempt, disgust) before they can be consciously masked6.
Galvanic Skin Response (GSR)	Electrical resistance of the skin.	Measures the raw intensity of the emotion being experienced, providing a verifiable metric of physiological stress6.
Electroencephalography (EEG)	Brain wave activity.	Assesses attentiveness, cognitive load, and distraction levels, verifying if a target is actively processing information6.

By merging these streams, cognitive attackers construct detailed psychological profiles and create dynamic feedback loops⁶. The biometric data acts as real-time intelligence, allowing systems to dynamically adjust virtual stimuli to maximize manipulative impact and verify if the target’s cognitive state has been successfully altered, blurring the line between persuasion and explicit behavioral control⁶.

5.2. Autonomous Narrative Warfare via Agentic AI

Strategic competition increasingly relies on Agentic AI (aAI)—systems capable of planning, remembering, using tools, and functioning with autonomy to conduct influence operations⁵. Standard generative AI models rely heavily on transformer architectures, responding to specific prompts, but agentic systems represent a step change in operational capacity⁵. While traditional information operations relied on human-directed messaging cycles involving planning, dissemination, assessment, and revision, aAI conducts these functions simultaneously and recursively⁵.

Intelligence operations utilize AI-based signals analysis, sentiment analytics, and social mapping to conduct behavioral forecasting⁵. Agentic systems map these social environments and synthesize detailed cognitive profiles of communities by micro-segmenting populations for psychographic targeting⁵. They generate adaptive, persuasive narratives calibrated to specific psychological predispositions, rapidly amplifying these across networks⁴. By operating at computational speed, aAI achieves an amplification velocity that shapes what is salient in the information environment long before defending human analysts can coordinate a response, effectively transferring an asymmetric operational burden onto the defender². The integration of “deepfakes” and synthetic media further destabilizes the environment by diluting truth as a referential concept, exploiting confirmation bias, and driving hostility toward out-groups¹⁶.

5.3. The Defense Metaverse as an Operational Domain

To harness technological advantages and train forces, military planners are developing a “defense metaverse”⁶. While standard simulators like SIMNET have existed since the 1980s, a fully realized defense metaverse connects disparate virtual worlds through an open architecture prioritizing interoperability⁶. This environment supports continuous, portable professional military education (PME), replacing episodic classroom activities⁶. It allows warfighters to seamlessly train in highly realistic synthetic spaces, experiencing the fog and friction of combat to build teamwork and resilience⁶. Furthermore, it creates a “cycle of research,” where findings from wargames inform modeling and live experiments without manual human effort, streamlining acquisitions and identifying maverick leaders uniquely suited for future conflicts⁶.

6. Countermeasures, Cognitive Defense, and Resilience

Defending against cognitive warfare and maintaining cognitive superiority requires shifting from a purely technological defense posture (such as cybersecurity) to one grounded in structural cognitive resilience⁸. This involves whole-of-society involvement, transparent institutional coordination, and specialized doctrinal implementations¹².

6.1. Institutional Protection and Critical Cognitive Infrastructure

A foundational countermeasure is the formal integration of cognitive security into national defense planning⁴. Policy frameworks must classify artificial intelligence, data centers, and information ecosystems as “critical cognitive infrastructure”⁵. Much like physical power grids or water supplies, cognitive infrastructure requires mandatory risk management programs, reporting obligations, and structural protection to ensure that cross-border data flows do not create vulnerabilities⁹.

NATO doctrines, including the 2022 Strategic Concept, emphasize that sub-threshold cognitive interference is designed to erode public trust and complicate the Alliance’s ability to demonstrate resolve without risking military escalation¹². Traditional deterrence mechanisms, such as NATO’s Article 5, were designed for overt, kinetic aggression by identifiable actors¹². Prolonged cognitive interference undermines strategic coherence by fragmenting political will, meaning deterrence in this domain depends heavily on transparency, media literacy, and coordinated information exchange among allies¹².

6.2. Operationalizing Resilience through CCW Training 2.0

Mere awareness of cognitive threats is insufficient; resilience must be systematically integrated into military decision-making⁸. The Countering Cognitive Warfare (CCW) Training 2.0 framework provides a structured pedagogical architecture to operationalize this resilience within professional military education⁸.

The program utilizes scenario-based training, prominently featuring “Operation Broken Signal,” an exercise developed to stress-test leadership under conditions of extreme uncertainty, time pressure, and adversarial influence⁸. Trainees process staggered social media feeds and simulated communications to assess narrative coherence and evaluate intended effects⁸. The training operates through five progressive phases:

1. Awareness Phase: Introduction to cognitive biases, emotional triggers, and digital information dynamics⁸.
2. Analytical Phase: Examination of cognitive attacks and manipulation mechanisms using structured case studies⁸.
3. Procedural Integration Phase: Embedding standardized reflection mechanisms into formal planning processes⁸.
4. Applied Phase: Stress-testing reflective judgment in command-and-staff simulations against staggered, hostile data feeds⁸.
5. Transfer Phase: Consolidating protocols into permanent individual leadership practices⁸.

6.3. Cognitive Checkpoints and Validation Heuristics

The core tactical defense mechanism taught in CCW 2.0 is the “Cognitive Checkpoint.” These are mandatory, structured reflection pauses embedded into the standard military command and assessment process⁸. Traditional intelligence validation loops heavily emphasize verifying the authenticity of data, but often fail to address the cognitive interpretation of that data⁸. Checkpoints close this gap by forcing officers to actively interrogate assumptions, explore alternative interpretations, and identify biases such as peer pressure or herd mentality⁸.

A primary heuristic utilized during these checkpoints is “Cui bono?” (Who benefits?)⁸. To prevent this heuristic from inadvertently reinforcing pre-existing confirmation bias, it is embedded in a strict validation matrix⁸. Decision-makers must formally identify multiple potential beneficiaries (including indirect actors), distinguish intentional initiators from opportunistic beneficiaries, consider non-intentional explanations, and actively seek disconfirming evidence before finalizing an operational assessment⁸.

6.4. Emotional and Behavioral State Control (EBSC) and OSINT Fusion

On an intelligence level, maintaining cognitive superiority requires early warning systems capable of analyzing the information environment to detect cognitive interference¹⁷. Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) fusion cells provide persistent situational awareness by identifying algorithmic coordination signals and message toxicity in near-real-time¹⁷.

A sophisticated defensive application is the use of Emotional and Behavioral State Control (EBSC)¹⁸. Defense analysts utilize cognitive neuroscience and AI to map the distribution of emotional states within a target population¹⁸.

• Input Emotion Analysis Layer: This foundational layer ingests natural language from open digital communication channels (forums, social networks, video-sharing sites, Telegram)¹⁸.
• Classification and Labeling: It extracts keywords, classifies emotions according to discrete models (joy, fear, anger, hope), tracks narrative clusters (e.g., “energy costs are rising”), and assigns cognitive warfare labels indicating bot likelihood or misinformation content¹⁸.
• Transformation: By establishing the community’s dynamic emotional map, defending institutions can design structured, multimodal narratives and symbolic framing aimed at positively reconfiguring collective emotions without coercion, thereby fortifying societal resilience against external manipulation¹⁸.

6.5. Defending the Critical Cognitive Infrastructure

Defending deployed forces requires protecting the technical systems that enable sense-making. Cognitive security faces direct threats from both data alteration and noise flooding, which target the decision-making systems of Western organizations to provoke errors¹⁹. Highly Reliable Organizations (HROs) demonstrating resilience against sense-making collapse prioritize data-centric security measures, ensuring sensitive information circulates under strict organizational control²⁰. Crisis-prone organizations, conversely, suffer from excessive opinion polarization and oversimplified situation grids²⁰. Modern defense requires accepting a paradigm where networks are assumed to be already invaded, necessitating behavioral adaptations from users and continuous systemic audits to prevent the collapse of internal meaning-making structures²⁰.

7. Conclusion

Cognitive superiority is not characterized by the total elimination of adversarial messaging, nor does it require absolute control over a population’s beliefs. Rather, it is the maintenance of uncompromised, high-tempo decision-making capacities in the face of continuous psychological and technological interference. As adversaries leverage advanced neurobiological insights, immersive environments, and autonomous AI to fracture attention and manipulate the emotional prerequisites of human reasoning, passive defense mechanisms are rendered obsolete. Achieving superiority requires treating the mind as a contested domain, classifying the algorithms that mediate reality as critical infrastructure, and systematically embedding cognitive verification protocols directly into institutional command structures.

Master Summary Table

Domain of Analysis	Key Mechanisms & Strategies	Evaluative Metrics & Objectives
Theoretical Framework	Multi-Horizon Cognitive OODA Loop. Targets the Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act phases over Acute (short-term) and Chronic (long-term) horizons2.	Decision latency, orientation divergence, action misalignment, attribution discipline, asymmetric cost imposition2.
Psychological Execution	Exploitation of cognitive biases, semantic uncertainty, and attention saturation. Manipulation of emotion as an integral component of rationality3.	Elicitation of fear/anger to bypass rational inhibition; alteration of trust calibration and interpretive priors3.
Technological Execution	Agentic AI (aAI), immersive Virtual Reality Environments (VREs), authenticity spoofing, facial mimicry, and biometric harvesting (pupillometry, EMG, GSR)4.	Amplification velocity, construction of dynamic bio-cognitive feedback loops, execution of highly individualized influence strategies4.
Countermeasures & Defense	Countering Cognitive Warfare (CCW) Training 2.0. Implementation of mandatory “Cognitive Checkpoints” and the Cui bono validation heuristic8.	Preservation of OODA loop integrity; mitigation of cognitive biases during intelligence evaluation; rapid recovery times8.
Strategic/Institutional Posture	Designation of AI as Critical Cognitive Infrastructure. OSINT fusion for persistent situational awareness. Emotional and Behavioral State Control (EBSC)9.	Active tracking of message toxicity/bot coordination; real-time mapping and positive reconfiguration of collective emotional states18.

---

Please share the link on Facebook, Forums, with colleagues, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email us in**@*********ps.com. If you’d like to request a report or order a reprint, please click here for the corresponding page to open in new tab.

---

Sources Used

1. NATO’s Concept of Cognitive Warfare – Puolustusvoimat, https://puolustusvoimat.fi/documents/1951253/2815786/PVTUTKL_Tutkimuskatsaus_2026-2_Kaarkoski_en.pdf/d9b617e8-5e00-2fdf-84c9-730b1a9abd9e?t=1772545283130
2. Cognitive warfare and the Nordic threat landscape – Telenor Group, https://www.telenor.com/who-we-are/our-companies/nordics/digitalsecurity/2025/cognitive-warfare-and-the-nordic-threat-landscape/
3. Cognitive Warfare: The Case for Disaggregation – CSS ETH Zürich, https://css.ethz.ch/en/center/CSS-news/2026/06/kognitive-kriegsfuehrung-plaedoyer-fuer-eine-entbuendelung.html
4. Defining Cognitive Warfare: A NDAA Mandate Response – Small Wars Journal, https://smallwarsjournal.com/2026/05/05/defining-cognitive-warfare/
5. Autonomous Narrative Warfare: Engaging Agentic AI Within the Cognitive Battlespace – HSToday, https://www.hstoday.us/subject-matter-areas/narrative-strategy/autonomous-narrative-warfare-engaging-agentic-ai-within-the-cognitive-battlespace/
6. Future Challenges to Cognitive Superiority – Irregular Warfare Center, https://irregularwarfarecenter.org/publications/perspectives/future-challenges-to-cognitive-superiority/
7. Cognitive Warfare: Definition, Framework, and Case Study – arXiv, https://arxiv.org/html/2603.05222v1
8. Bias Vs. Bots: Training Officers For Cognitive Warfare – The Defence Horizon Journal, https://tdhj.org/blog/post/training-officers-cognitive-warfare/
9. EXPERT REACTION: Albanese announces Office of AI – Scimex, https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/expert-reaction-albo-announces-office-of-ai
10. Cognitive Warfare 2026: NATO’s Chief Scientist Report as Sentinel Call for Operational Readiness > Institute for National Strategic Studies > View Publications, https://inss.ndu.edu/Research-and-Commentary/View-Publications/Article/4371195/cognitive-warfare-2026-natos-chief-scientist-report-as-sentinel-call-for-operat/
11. Definitional ambiguity in cognitive warfare: a critical and systematic conceptual review through ideal-type analysis – Frontiers, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/big-data/articles/10.3389/fdata.2026.1762571/full
12. NATO’s Strategic Recalibration in the Cognitive Era – EST, https://esthinktank.com/2026/06/11/natos-strategic-recalibration-in-the-cognitive-era/
13. Cognitive Warfare – NATO’s ACT, https://www.act.nato.int/activities/cognitive-warfare/
14. NATO in its multidomain operations: Reflections on cognitive superiority – IIHS, https://www.iihs.hr/Portals/0/Gallery/ZSF2024/ZSF2024%20-%2002-003-Vira%20Ratsiborynska.pdf?ver=2024-10-27-141600-000
15. Cognitive Warfare: Definition, Framework, and Case Study – arXiv, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.05222
16. Cognitive Warfare: Securing Hearts and Minds – Information Integrity Lab – University of Ottawa, https://infolab.uottawa.ca/common/Uploaded%20files/PDI%20files/InfoLab%20-%20Cognitive%20Warfare,%20Securing%20Hearts%20and%20Minds.pdf
17. NATO-aligned Cognitive Warfare Defense: How Semantic Visions Supports Cognitive Superiority, Resilience, and Decision Advantage, https://www.semantic-visions.com/insights/nato-aligned-cognitive-warfare-defense
18. Emotionally based strategic communications as a new tool in defensive cognitive warfare – PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12920201/
19. Cognitive Security: Facing Cognitive Operations in Hybrid Warfare1 – Semantic Scholar, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c01a/01d3564b138b0ab019ac16ef7a7c7f24703f.pdf
20. (PDF) Cognitive Security: Facing Cognitive Operations in Hybrid Warfare1 – ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371702591_Cognitive_Security_Facing_Cognitive_Operations_in_Hybrid_Warfare1

Executive Summary

The strategic environment has seen a shift toward the cognitive domain, where the manipulation of information serves as a mechanism to subdue an adversary. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has integrated cognitive warfare into its military doctrine, targeting the Republic of China (Taiwan) through sustained foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI). The objective is to fracture societal cohesion, degrade trust in democratic institutions, and erode the population’s will to resist. In response, Taiwan has cultivated an adaptive, multi-dimensional defense posture that integrates civil society, government administration, and national security infrastructure.

This report provides an interdisciplinary analysis—synthesizing military strategy, national intelligence collection, and psychological assessment—of Taiwan’s societal defense architecture, codified as the “POWER” model. Developed by researchers at Doublethink Lab and international election specialists, the POWER model defines a framework that is Purpose-driven, Organic, Whole-society, Evolving, and Remit-bound¹. The analysis investigates the specific mechanisms of this model, ranging from governmental protocols like the “2-2-2 principle” to grassroots open-source intelligence operations targeting coordinated inauthentic behavior. Furthermore, the report assesses how the PRC has adapted to Taiwan’s defenses, shifting from easily detectable content farms to decentralized “resonator” networks, leveraging artificial intelligence for synthetic media, and exploiting demographic vulnerabilities through short-form video algorithms and local infrastructure lures.

1. The Strategic Framework of Cognitive Warfare

To evaluate Taiwan’s defensive posture, it is necessary to establish the operational doctrine of the adversary. From a military and intelligence perspective, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) views the cognitive domain as a distinct battlespace, equal in strategic importance to land, sea, air, space, and cyber domains². Chinese military strategists assert that future conflicts will be “wars of cognition” aimed at achieving supremacy over human perception².

1.1 Systems Destruction and the Human Node

The cornerstone of current PLA doctrine is “systems destruction warfare,” an operational concept that seeks to paralyze an enemy’s operational system rather than annihilate its physical forces³. Within this doctrine, the human mind is identified as a critical node. By targeting cognitive processing, the adversary aims to induce mental disarray, alter decision-making paradigms, and sever the psychological linkage between the civilian population, the military, and the state’s leadership³. The ultimate strategic objective is to incapacitate and dismantle vital functions, wherein the target population is manipulated into capitulation or internal fragmentation before kinetic hostilities commence³. This involves the application of targeted messages to gain a positional advantage in the cognitive domain, effectively making the mind of every citizen a battleground³.

1.2 Psychological Objectives and Target Demographics

Psychological assessments of PRC influence operations indicate that they rarely aim to definitively convince the populace of a single verifiable lie. Instead, the strategy relies on the proliferation of contradictory narratives to exhaust the population’s cognitive bandwidth, fostering cynicism, apathy, and political alienation⁵. Intelligence analysts point out that the main target of information manipulation in Taiwan is the approximately 20 percent of the population that considers itself politically neutral⁷. This demographic is often undecided on whether to support military resistance or advocate for surrender in the event of an invasion⁷.

A primary psychological tactic deployed against this cohort is the promotion of “America Skepticism” (疑美論)⁷. This involves systematically degrading trust in international alliances by promoting narratives that portray foreign partners as unreliable or motivated solely by economic extraction. Specific narratives include claims that the United States intends to “hollow out” Taiwan’s semiconductor industry by forcing companies like Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) to build factories abroad, or that the U.S. would ultimately refuse to send troops to aid Taiwan during a conflict⁵. By exploiting existing domestic grievances—such as food safety controversies, vaccine procurement debates, and energy policy—the adversary widens the partisan divide and weakens the psychological resolve to maintain political autonomy⁹.

1.3 Asymmetric Military Defense and Civil Integration

Recognizing the conventional superiority of the PLA, Taiwan’s military analysts have advocated for an asymmetric strategy known as the Overall Defense Concept (ODC)¹². This doctrine transitions the military from a posture based on concentration and fixed defenses to one relying on dispersal, mobility, and denial¹². The objective is to deny the PLA the air and sea superiority required for a triphibious invasion by deploying a large quantity of mobile, accurate, and lethal systems¹².

However, military deterrence is intrinsically linked to societal resilience. To prevent the psychological collapse sought by adversary cognitive operations, Taiwan has initiated an “All-Out National Defense” realignment plan¹⁴. This involves a structural shift in force posture, including the reinstatement of a one-year mandatory military service term, significant wage increases for conscripts, and an overhaul of the reserve system to function as a territorial garrison force capable of urban and rural defense¹⁴. Drawing lessons from the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Taiwanese strategists recognize that demonstrating a credible, society-wide will to fight is a necessary component to counter the adversary’s narrative of inevitable unification¹⁵.

2. The Taiwan POWER Model: Definition and Components

In the face of sustained cognitive warfare, Taiwan has developed a decentralized defense mechanism. Researchers at Doublethink Lab, in collaboration with election integrity experts, categorized the core components of this societal defense under the acronym “POWER”¹. The model does not represent a top-down, rigidly commanded military strategy; rather, it describes the emergent properties of a resilient democratic society under continuous threat¹⁷.

2.1 Purpose-Driven

Strategic discipline among Taiwanese democratic actors is not coordinated by a central authority or a singular strategic plan, but is instead unified by a clear, shared sense of purpose¹⁸. The existential nature of the threat generates intrinsic motivation across disparate sectors. During the 2024 national elections, despite lacking a formal hierarchical command structure to direct civil society, various independent organizations synchronized their operations¹⁸. They shared an underlying objective: safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process from external interference. This shared purpose functions as the strategic adhesive that compensates for the lack of centralized command, allowing universities, media outlets, and non-governmental organizations to align their efforts¹.

2.2 Organic

Taiwan’s resilience is fundamentally bottom-up, originating from the grassroots level¹. The roots of this organic development trace back to historical civil movements, such as the 2014 Sunflower Student Movement, which mobilized a generation of civic-minded technologists and activists²⁰. Communities like “g0v” (gov-zero) foster decentralized technological solutions to public challenges, enabling citizens to actively participate in democratic oversight²². Because the response architecture is organic, it possesses a high degree of agility; civil society entities can identify anomalous information patterns and deploy countermeasures rapidly²³.

2.3 Whole-Society

The model integrates a broad spectrum of actors, extending beyond the military and intelligence communities to include educational institutions, civil society organizations, independent fact-checkers, media outlets, and technology platforms¹.

However, intelligence assessments identify vulnerabilities within this framework. The integration is not absolute. Certain traditional and local nodes, such as neighborhood representatives (borough wardens) and local temple networks, remain susceptible to PRC influence¹⁸. These local entities are targeted through subsidized tourism and cultural exchange programs, functioning as conduits for United Front work that bypass the digital resilience of the urban centers¹⁶.

2.4 Evolving

Adversary tactics are not static; therefore, defensive mechanisms must adapt. The evolving characteristic of the POWER model reflects Taiwan’s capacity to integrate global best practices and rapidly upgrade its technological defenses¹⁸. As threat actors transition from rudimentary bot swarms to AI-driven influence operations, Taiwanese civil society updates its detection frameworks. This includes transitioning from manual fact-checking to deploying machine-learning algorithms that analyze coordinated inauthentic behavior across multiple platforms¹⁹.

2.5 Remit-Bound

To maximize efficiency and minimize resource overlap, the organizations operating within the POWER framework maintain strict, self-imposed remits¹⁷. The ecosystem operates via a division of labor, allowing highly specialized units to execute discrete tasks without competing for identical funding streams or jurisdictional authority.

Operational Remit	Core Function	Key Organizations and Mechanisms
Verification & Fact-Checking	Investigating individual claims, verifying statistical accuracy, and publishing corrections to combat immediate viral falsehoods.	Taiwan FactCheck Center, MyGoPen, Fake News Cleaner22.
Attribution & Digital Forensics	Tracing the origin of disinformation campaigns, mapping server domains, and analyzing coordinated inauthentic behavior networks.	Doublethink Lab, Taiwan Information Environment Research Center (IORG)19.
Crowdsourced Verification	Enabling the general public to submit suspicious content via encrypted messaging apps to scale detection capabilities.	Cofacts LINE chatbot, g0v civic tech community22.
Strategic Communication	Translating technical intelligence into accessible media literacy materials, podcasts, and civil defense guides for the public.	Watchout, various educational NGOs22.
Algorithmic Detection	Utilizing artificial intelligence to monitor natural language patterns and expose systemic bias in generative models.	Taiwan AI Labs (Infodemic platform)19.

3. Execution and Methodologies of Information Resilience

The theoretical framework of the POWER model translates into tangible defensive operations executed concurrently by civil society, government bodies, and technology sectors.

3.1 The State’s Role: Psychological Defense and the 2-2-2 Principle

While civil society focuses on attribution and fact-checking, the Taiwanese government has adapted its communication strategy to counter the psychological impact of cognitive warfare. Recognizing that authoritarian actors utilize “memetic engineering” to spread disinformation faster than traditional bureaucratic press releases can counter it, the state adopted agile communication protocols²⁶.

The most prominent protocol is the “2-2-2 principle” instituted by the Executive Yuan²³. This mandate requires that upon the detection of a significant disinformation narrative, the relevant government ministry must issue a clarification within two hours, utilizing no more than 200 words, accompanied by two images²³.

From a psychological perspective, this protocol is effective. Disinformation thrives on cognitive ease; it is designed to be rapidly consumed and shared without critical reflection²⁶. Lengthy, text-heavy governmental rebuttals increase cognitive load. By restricting the response to 200 words and relying on visual processing, the government matches the cognitive ease of the adversary’s attack. Furthermore, the protocol frequently employs the tactic of “humor over rumor”²⁶. By wrapping factual corrections in culturally resonant memes, the state incentivizes organic sharing by the public, effectively co-opting the virality mechanisms that usually favor disinformation²⁶.

3.2 Digital Intelligence and Open-Source Forensic Investigations

Non-governmental intelligence analysis forms the vanguard of the detection protocol. Organizations utilizing the DISARM (Disinformation Analysis and Risk Management) framework conduct deep forensic investigations to uncover adversary Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs)³¹.

Intelligence operations have unmasked complex infrastructures utilized by PRC actors. For example, open-source intelligence investigations into the “Borderless Group” revealed a sophisticated network utilizing 549 inauthentic accounts created between July 2023 and February 2026 on the Threads platform³². This network engaged in large-scale coordinated inauthentic behavior to drive traffic to 1,217 inauthentic news domains³². By tracking registration proxy services and historical domain registrations, civil society analysts exposed how the adversary used bulk-created assets, programmatic ad-tech, and plagiarized content to pollute the Taiwanese information environment³².

Furthermore, analysts monitor data leaks to anticipate adversary capabilities. The analysis of the “GoLaxy documents”—internal files from a company spun off from the Institute of Computing Technology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences—revealed PRC efforts to deploy AI-driven influence operations³⁴. Civil society analysts also track cross-border narrative manipulation, such as the deployment of suspicious Facebook accounts targeting Malaysian media following comments by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi regarding a Taiwan contingency, illustrating the regional scope of PRC operations³⁶.

3.3 Technological Integration and Algorithmic Countermeasures

To manage the volume of FIMI, Taiwan integrates human intelligence with artificial intelligence. Crowdsourcing platforms allow ordinary citizens to submit suspicious messages for verification, extending the detection network into encrypted, private communication channels²².

At the analytical level, researchers employ human-AI collaboration models utilizing open-source tools to process datasets of social media interactions and identify linguistic anomalies that indicate mainland Chinese origins¹⁹. Organizations like Taiwan AI Labs deploy AI-driven platforms to detect anomalous patterns and have begun identifying biases in commercial Large Language Models (LLMs)¹⁹. Testing revealed that certain PRC-developed LLMs (e.g., Deepseek-R1) embedded PRC-aligned propaganda in 23.3 percent of their responses to geopolitically sensitive queries¹⁹.

4. Adversary Countermeasures and Tactical Evolution

The PRC’s intelligence and psychological warfare apparatus is adaptive. As the Taiwan POWER model successfully degraded the efficacy of early-generation influence operations (such as automated bot swarms and massive content farms), the adversary shifted its tactics. Military and national intelligence analysts have identified four primary evolutionary shifts in the PRC’s cognitive warfare strategy.

4.1 The Transition to Decentralized Resonators

Platform crackdowns on coordinated inauthentic behavior degraded the effectiveness of overt PRC content farms⁹. In response, adversary operations have shifted toward a decentralized amplification model. Instead of generating detectable fabricated content, PRC actors increasingly operate as “operators” who identify pre-existing domestic controversies in Taiwan—such as industrial policies or local crime events—and amplify them⁹.

Crucially, the strategy relies on “resonators”—authentic domestic actors such as traditional Taiwanese media outlets, anonymous political fan pages, local influencers, and politicians⁹. By injecting narratives into the feeds of these resonators, the adversary launders the information. Once a narrative is adopted by a domestic resonator, it spreads organically, completely bypassing algorithms designed to detect foreign bots⁹.

Intelligence indicates the use of algorithmic coercion to cultivate these resonators. Research into WeChat influencers operating in Taiwan revealed directives requiring apolitical content creators (e.g., lifestyle or commerce influencers) to dedicate 10 percent of their feed to pro-unification content to ensure their profiles remain algorithmically optimized and monetizable¹¹. This leverages economic self-interest to inject propaganda into non-political digital spaces.

4.2 Synthetic Media and Artificial Intelligence

The integration of generative AI has altered the economics and detection parameters of FIMI¹⁹. Threat actors increasingly utilize “spamouflage” tactics, embedding propaganda within high volumes of benign, human-interest content to evade detection¹⁹.

During the 2024 Taiwanese elections, intelligence analysts observed a marked increase in the deployment of AI-generated assets⁵. The adversary utilized audio deepfakes to impersonate political candidates, attempting to generate scandals immediately prior to voting²³. Additionally, the use of virtual news anchors with AI-generated voices allowed the adversary to produce localized audio-visual propaganda at a fraction of the traditional cost, obscuring the geographic and linguistic origin of the content⁵. AI tools are also utilized to generate minute variations in text and posting schedules across thousands of bot accounts, breaking the identical patterns that earlier generation detection algorithms relied upon¹⁹.

4.3 Algorithmic Manipulation and Platform Exploitation

Psychological warfare requires the precise targeting of cognitive vulnerabilities. Recent audience research into the impact of short-form video platforms, specifically TikTok, reveals how algorithmically driven content consumption correlates with shifts in strategic attitudes among Taiwanese youth⁶.

Psychological profiling indicates that active TikTok users display stronger correlations with narratives promoted by PRC United Front work³⁹. Heavy utilization of the platform correlates independently with higher levels of dissatisfaction regarding Taiwan’s domestic governance, lower confidence in democratic institutions, and elevated skepticism regarding United States military and diplomatic support³⁹. Furthermore, active usage increases the statistical likelihood of users aligning with viewpoints that favor stabilization via appeasement, demonstrating that sustained exposure to fragmented, algorithmically curated environments creates a receptive cognitive landscape for authoritarian narratives³⁹.

4.4 Physical Gray Zone Infrastructure as Cognitive Coercion

Adversary tactics are not confined to the digital information space; they manifest in the physical gray zone to achieve cognitive objectives. The PRC targets geographically and economically vulnerable nodes, such as the outlying island of Kinmen, utilizing infrastructure projects as psychological weapons⁴⁰.

The PRC’s promotion of the “Four New Links” program (water, electricity, natural gas, and physical bridges) alongside the development of the Xiamen Xiang’an Airport, is framed publicly as economic development⁴⁰. However, military and intelligence analysis identifies these projects as mechanisms for cognitive coercion⁴⁰. By fostering deep physical and economic integration with the mainland, the PRC aims to conceptually isolate Kinmen from the Taiwanese mainland, attempting to convince the local population that their economic survival is intrinsically linked to Beijing rather than Taipei⁴⁰. This localized infrastructure strategy is designed to fracture the whole-society resilience model by creating pockets of the population whose immediate material interests conflict with the broader national defense posture⁴⁰.

Conclusion

Taiwan’s position on the frontlines of the PRC’s cognitive and system destruction warfare has necessitated the rapid evolution of societal defense mechanisms. The POWER model—Purpose-driven, Organic, Whole-society, Evolving, and Remit-bound—illustrates that effective deterrence in the information domain cannot rely solely on classified intelligence operations or rigid military hierarchies¹. Instead, resilience requires a decentralized, agile ecosystem where civil society organizations, technologists, and government entities operate within specialized remits bound by a shared existential purpose¹. The implementation of policies such as the 2-2-2 principle demonstrates an understanding of the psychological mechanics of disinformation, fighting cognitive manipulation with cognitive ease²⁶.

However, the threat landscape is not static. Adversary operations have adapted to these defenses by abandoning easily identifiable content farms in favor of exploiting domestic resonators, utilizing generative AI to mask coordinated behavior, and algorithmically targeting demographic vulnerabilities⁹. Furthermore, physical infrastructure investments in gray zones like Kinmen reveal that cognitive warfare encompasses economic and spatial coercion aimed at fracturing national identity⁴⁰. Ultimately, the analysis indicates that information resilience is not an end-state to be achieved, but a continuous cycle of adaptation, requiring constant technological innovation and the perpetual reinforcement of civic trust.

Master Summary Table

Operational Dimension	Counter-Cognitive Strategy (The POWER Model)	Adversary Countermeasure & Evolution
Organizational Structure	Purpose-Driven & Organic: Grassroots civic tech networks (e.g., g0v) act autonomously based on a shared perception of an existential threat, rather than waiting for central command directives1.	Exploiting Democratic Nuance: Utilizing algorithmic optimization quotas on platforms like WeChat to force authentic, apolitical influencers to inject pro-unification narratives into non-political feeds11.
Operational Scope	Whole-Society & Remit-Bound: A strict division of labor across academia, fact-checkers, and digital forensics NGOs minimizes redundancy while ensuring thorough narrative monitoring17.	Targeting Local Nodes: Bypassing urban digital resilience by directly targeting susceptible local neighborhood wardens and temple networks through subsidized mainland tourism and United Front programs16.
Government Response	The 2-2-2 Principle: Combating disinformation by enforcing a 2-hour response window, utilizing maximum 200 words and 2 images. Employs “humor over rumor” to exploit cognitive ease23.	Decentralized Resonators: Abandoning overt bot farms in favor of laundering narratives through domestic politicians and media, removing the foreign origin signature and bypassing state fact-checks9.
Technological Defense	Evolving AI Forensics: Deploying machine-learning systems (e.g., Infodemic, CKIP Tagger) to map coordinated inauthentic behavior, exposing threat networks like the Borderless Group19.	Synthetic Media & Spamouflage: Upgrading operations with high-quality audio deepfakes, AI-generated anchors, and LLMs trained to embed propaganda seamlessly into benign content5.
Societal Psychology	All-Out National Defense: Enhancing the will to fight by reforming the military reserve system, modernizing asymmetric tactics, and drawing territorial defense lessons from the Ukraine conflict14.	Algorithmic & Gray Zone Coercion: Fostering “America Skepticism” via short-form video algorithms to degrade morale, while using physical infrastructure lures (e.g., in Kinmen) to fracture national identity39.

---

Please share the link on Facebook, Forums, with colleagues, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email us in**@*********ps.com. If you’d like to request a report or order a reprint, please click here for the corresponding page to open in new tab.

---

Sources Used

1. Taiwan POWER: A Model for Foreign Information Manipulation & Interference Resilience, https://www.movedemocracy.org/taiwan-power-a-model-for-foreign-information-manipulation-interference-resilience
2. Assessing “Cognitive Warfare”, https://www.irregularwarfare.org/assessing-cognitive-warfare/
3. Taiwan’s Multidomain Cognitive War – Marine Corps University, https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-Corps-University-Press/Expeditions-with-MCUP-digital-journal/Taiwans-Multidomain-Cognitive-War/
4. Law Against Law: Taiwan’s Response to China’s ‘Hidden Front’ – 遠景基金會, https://www.pf.org.tw/tw/pfch/13-11272.html
5. Artificial Multiverse: Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference in Taiwan’s 2024 National Elections | Doublethink Lab – Medium, https://medium.com/doublethinklab/artificial-multiverse-foreign-information-manipulation-and-interference-in-taiwans-2024-national-f3e22ac95fe7
6. The Impact of TikTok on Taiwanese Youth and PRC perceptions: A 2025 TikTok User Study — Summary version | Doublethink Lab – Medium, https://medium.com/doublethinklab/the-impact-of-tiktok-on-taiwanese-youth-and-prc-perceptions-a-2025-tiktok-user-study-summary-968eab50a0b5
7. Chinese Cognitive Operations Might Impact Taiwan’s Will To Resist – T2COM G2 – Army.mil, https://oe.t2com.army.mil/product/chinese-cognitive-operations-might-impact-taiwans-will-to-resist/
8. The Challenges Taiwan Faces in Cognitive Warfare and Its Impact on US–Taiwan Relations, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/4171199/the-challenges-taiwan-faces-in-cognitive-warfare-and-its-impact-on-ustaiwan-rel/
9. 2022 Taiwan Election: Foreign Influence Observation Report | Doublethink Lab – Medium, https://medium.com/doublethinklab/2022-taiwan-election-foreign-influence-observation-report-89951af668f1
10. COVID and Cognitive Warfare in Taiwan – PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9692172/
11. How Taiwan Should Combat China’s Information War – Journal of Democracy, https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/online-exclusive/how-taiwan-should-combat-chinas-information-war/
12. Taiwan’s Theory of the Fight – War on the Rocks, https://warontherocks.com/taiwans-theory-of-the-fight/
13. The “Taiwan Model” for Self-Defense, https://globaltaiwan.org/2020/04/the-taiwan-model-for-self-defense/
14. President Tsai announces military force realignment plan-News releases-News & activities, https://english.president.gov.tw/News/6417
15. (U) Taiwan Lessons Learned from the Russia-Ukraine War – CNA.org., https://www.cna.org/reports/2024/12/Taiwan-Lessons-Learned-from-the-Russia-Ukraine-War.pdf
16. 47. Countering FIMI and Election Interference in Taiwan: Ben Graham Jones (“Taiwan P.O.W.E.R”) – Ghost Island Media, https://ghostisland.media/en/shows/taiwan-take/countering-fimi-taiwan-ben-graham-jones/
17. Disinfo Update 20/08/2024 – EU DisinfoLab, https://www.disinfo.eu/disinfo-update-20-08-2024/
18. Taiwan POWER: A Model for Resilience to Foreign Information Manipulation & Interference | Doublethink Lab – Medium, https://medium.com/doublethinklab/taiwan-power-a-model-for-resilience-to-foreign-information-manipulation-interference-70ea81f859b7
19. On the Front Line of Foreign Influence: Enhancing Taiwan’s Information Resilience, https://globaltaiwan.org/2026/02/enhancing-taiwans-information-resilience/
20. Taiwan: democratic David in 21st century east Asia – Frontiers, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2025.1631545/full
21. Taiwan: democratic David in 21st century east Asia – Frontiers, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2025.1631545/pdf
22. Ten things Taiwan can teach Canada about bolstering democratic resilience – The Macdonald-Laurier Institute, https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/20240214_4-Dissecting-Taiwans-decentralized-network-Lee_COMMENTARY.pdf
23. Learning from Taiwan to Counter China’s Disinformation – Gateway House, https://www.gatewayhouse.in/learning-from-taiwan-to-counter-chinas-disinformation-2/
24. STRONGER TOGETHER – National Endowment for Democracy, https://www.ned.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/NED_Stronger-Together-Report.pdf
25. Stronger Together: Coalitions as a Catalyst for Information Integrity, https://www.ned.org/stronger-together-coalitions-as-a-catalyst-for-information-integrity/
26. Taiwan: COGOV: Rebalancing Juggling Balls of Democracy against Disinformation, https://www.freiheit.org/de/cogov-rebalancing-juggling-balls-democracy-against-disinformation
27. Beyond the Menu of Options: A Taxonomy for Information Security Strategies, https://smallwarsjournal.com/2026/03/16/beyond-the-menu-of-options-a-taxonomy-for-information-security-strategies/
28. “The use of the Digital Fence system is a crucial part of Taiwan’s current epidemic prevention measures.” – A conversation with Audrey Tang, April 2020, https://www.frstrategie.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/autres/2020/Interview%20Audrey%20Tang.pdf
29. Pro-Russian Forces Wield AI To Undermine Pro-Ukraine Coalition – FDD, https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/09/22/pro-russian-forces-wield-ai-to-undermine-pro-ukraine-coalition/
30. COGOV: Rebalancing Juggling Balls of Democracy against Disinformation, https://pdis.nat.gov.tw/en/blog/%E5%8D%94%E5%8A%9B%E5%B0%8D%E6%8A%97%E4%B8%8D%E5%AF%A6%E8%A8%8A%E6%81%AF-%E6%B0%91%E4%B8%BB%E5%BD%A9%E7%90%83%E5%86%8D%E5%BA%A6%E9%A3%9B%E8%88%9E/
31. D2.4 – Coding/Classification Document – de-conspirator, https://deconspirator.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/WM_D2_4.pdf
32. Assessing the Borderless Group’s Activity on Threads | by Doublethink Lab – Medium, https://medium.com/doublethinklab/assessing-the-borderless-groups-activity-on-threads-69257a44ca82
33. Is Canada Ready for How Beijing Operates?, https://www.asiapacific.ca/sites/default/files/Ttcat%20APFC%2020May2026_0.pdf
34. The Rise of AI in PRC Influence Operations: Nine Takeaways from the GoLaxy Documents | by Doublethink Lab – Medium, https://medium.com/doublethinklab/the-rise-of-ai-in-prc-influence-operations-nine-takeaways-from-the-golaxy-documents-2d6617a753e5
35. China’s Influence Machine Is No Longer Just Propaganda – CommonWealth Magazine, https://english.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=4815
36. Examining Suspected Inauthentic Amplification in Malaysian Media Ecosystems: A Facebook-Based Analysis of Japan–China Tensions Following Sanae Takaichi’s Taiwan Remarks | by Doublethink Lab – Medium, https://medium.com/doublethinklab/tracking-suspicious-facebook-accounts-after-takaichis-taiwan-remarks-c1265553cded
37. Expert Warns China’s Increasing Campaign to Split Democratic Allies | JAPAN Forward, https://japan-forward.com/expert-warns-chinas-increasing-campaign-to-split-democratic-allies/
38. Inauthentic Accounts Impersonate Taiwanese to Attack Political Party | by Doublethink Lab, https://medium.com/doublethinklab/inauthentic-accounts-impersonate-taiwanese-to-attack-political-party-c7d04d5e1e13
39. Where is TikTok Scrolling Us To? – The Cognitive Reshaping of Taiwan’s Democratic Politics through Active TikTok Use | Doublethink Lab – Medium, https://medium.com/doublethinklab/where-is-tiktok-scrolling-us-to-ca15e728e7f3
40. Countering Cognitive Warfare: Taiwan’s Defense Against Party Influence in Kinmen, https://globaltaiwan.org/2024/07/countering-cognitive-warfare-taiwans-defense-against-party-influence-in-kinmen/
41. Targeting Taiwan – FDD, https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/10/04/targeting-taiwan/

1. Executive Summary

This Weekly Situation Report (SITREP) provides an exhaustive, expert-level assessment of the global threat landscape for the reporting period of July 18 to July 24, 2026. Over the course of the week, the international security environment was defined by significant structural reorganizations within the high commands of major conventional militaries, deliberate and violent escalations in maritime grey-zone operations, and pivotal leadership transitions within dominant non-state actor networks. The overarching global trend indicates a persistent erosion of conventional military deterrence, with state and proxy actors increasingly utilizing sub-threshold violence, asymmetric strike capabilities, and complex diplomatic stall tactics to unilaterally alter the operational status quo without triggering overwhelming multilateral military responses.

In the European theater, the Russia-Ukraine War experienced a profound command-and-control paradigm shift. The executive dismissal of the Ukrainian Armed Forces Commander-in-Chief culminated a period of intense civil-military friction regarding tactical doctrines, attrition rates, and the pace of technological integration.¹ This internal restructuring occurs simultaneously with an escalation in Ukrainian asymmetric deep-strike campaigns targeting Russian logistics and energy infrastructure, a strategy designed to impose new macroeconomic strains on the Russian state and stretch its domestic air defense networks.⁴ Despite the high intensity of these operations, the frontlines remain structurally static, underscoring the grueling nature of the war of attrition.⁶

In the Middle East and North Africa, the strategic horizon for conflict resolution has narrowed considerably. A decisive leadership election within the Hamas political bureau has effectively entrenched the organization’s militant, Gaza-centric faction.⁷ This development severely degrades the viability of the internationally brokered Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict (UN Resolution 2803), as the new leadership views the mandatory decommissioning of its military infrastructure as an existential red line.⁷ Concurrently, the regional threat matrix widened significantly as the Ansar Allah (Houthi) movement executed a strategic pivot in its maritime interdiction campaign. By formally declaring a blockade against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and actively launching kinetic strikes against Saudi commercial assets in the Red Sea, the Houthis have directly imperiled global energy transit networks and introduced a high probability of dragging Riyadh back into direct kinetic confrontation.⁹ Furthermore, diplomatic efforts in Lebanon show signs of fragile progress, with the Lebanese state apparatus attempting to enforce domestic disarmament to satisfy international ceasefire conditions.¹² Additionally, the fragile post-Assad transitional government in Syria faced renewed degradation of its military infrastructure via targeted Israeli airstrikes.

In the Indo-Pacific, the South China Sea witnessed a severe kinetic grey-zone escalation at Second Thomas Shoal. The incident, involving hand-to-hand combat and significant casualties, successfully tested the operational thresholds of the US-Philippines mutual defense architecture.¹⁴ Although swiftly followed by a provisional diplomatic arrangement aimed at immediate de-escalation, the tactical brutality of the encounter underscores Beijing’s commitment to physical coercion.¹⁴ Concurrently, the Myanmar Armed Forces, struggling with severe manpower and equipment deficits, signaled a dangerous deepening of its reliance on sanctioned states by publicly engaging with North Korean diplomats to expand bilateral cooperation, a likely vector for arms procurement.¹⁷

Across Sub-Saharan Africa, the security architecture continues to fragment. In Sudan, the military leadership explicitly rejected international diplomatic overtures, signaling a commitment to a protracted, high-casualty war of attrition against paramilitary forces.¹⁸ This entrenched posture guarantees the continuation of what is currently the world’s most severe internal displacement and hunger crisis.¹⁹ Simultaneously, persistent conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo escalated dramatically with a deadly massacre executed by the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) in Ituri Province, maintaining severe regional destabilization pressures.

2. Regional Conflict Breakdowns

2.1. Europe/Eurasia

2.1.1. Conflict/Threat Name: Russia-Ukraine War

Weekly Key Events:

The reporting period was dominated by a foundational structural reorganization of the Ukrainian military high command, driven by domestic political pressures and battlefield realities, alongside a highly intensified Ukrainian asymmetric strike campaign deep into Russian sovereign territory.

On July 21, 2026, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky officially announced the dismissal of General Oleksandr Syrskyi as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, appointing Major General Mykhailo Drapatyi to the position.¹ The formal transfer of authority, overseen by Acting Minister of Defense Yevhen Khmara, occurred on July 24.²⁰ This transition caps a period of intense civil-military friction that manifested in public protests involving over 10,000 demonstrators in Kyiv and other major urban centers.² The unrest was initially triggered by the removal of Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov, a prominent advocate for military modernization, which subsequently catalyzed broader demands for Syrskyi’s resignation.²

The transition from Syrskyi to Drapatyi represents a fundamental clash of military doctrines. Syrskyi, despite his successes in the defense of Kyiv, the 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive, and the cross-border Kursk operation, was increasingly criticized by active-duty personnel, veterans, and civilian leadership for adhering to a top-down, centralized command culture characterized as “Soviet-style”.¹ His operational approach was heavily scrutinized for generating unsustainable attrition rates, a controversy that peaked following independent investigations into the Skelia assault regiment, a unit closely associated with his command that suffered disproportionately high battlefield fatalities.³

The elevation of Major General Mykhailo Drapatyi signals a definitive strategic pivot toward decentralized command, personnel preservation, and rapid technological integration. Born in 1982, Drapatyi is a prominent figure of the post-Soviet military generation, having distinguished himself during the 2014 battles for Mariupol and serving as the commander of the Joint Forces Command.² His tactical pedigree includes halting the Russian advance toward Kryvyi Rih in 2022, commanding the successful liberation operations in the Kherson region, and leading the Kharkiv Operational Tactical Group in May 2024 to contain a renewed Russian cross-border offensive.²¹ Drapatyi is highly regarded for his implementation of the “Drone Line” initiative and his willingness to integrate robotic warfare directly into frontline operations.³ His immediate mandate from the executive branch involves presenting an updated defense strategy focusing on asymmetrical strikes, accelerating drone procurement, and preparing for an anticipated Russian force generation effort that aims to mobilize up to 500,000 additional personnel by the autumn of 2026.⁴ The transition received highly public endorsements from reformist factions, with former Defense Minister Fedorov describing it as a vital step toward robotizing the front and preserving infantry lives.¹

Concurrently, Ukrainian forces significantly expanded their asymmetric deep-strike capabilities targeting Russian macroeconomic and logistical infrastructure. On the night of July 17 to July 18, Ukrainian uncrewed aerial vehicle (UAV) units successfully struck two major logistics facilities owned by Wildberries—Russia’s premier e-commerce and logistics conglomerate—located near St. Petersburg, inflicting severe structural damage.⁴ This operation was rapidly followed by a massive 400-drone swarm raid on July 20, which targeted extensive logistics networks and fuel storage sites across the broader Moscow region.⁵

The strategic intent behind the targeting of commercial logistics entities like Wildberries is multifaceted. Operationally, these strikes systematically degrade domestic supply chains that support dual-use agricultural and energy logistics.⁴ Strategically, they generate acute domestic psychological friction within the Russian civilian populace, manifesting in public displays of distress from business owners reliant on the platform.⁵ Furthermore, these deep-strike campaigns impose severe secondary requirements on Russian aerospace forces, forcing the redeployment of already-stretched air defense networks away from the primary line of contact to protect interior economic hubs.⁵ In the maritime domain, continuous Ukrainian strikes against vessels in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov have reportedly compelled the Russian military command to divert elite drone units from frontline offensive operations to provide defensive screening for naval and agricultural logistics assets.⁴

The regional spillover risk of these intensified aerospace operations remains acute. On July 24, Romanian air defense units intercepted and destroyed an unspecified drone that had violated NATO airspace, while an overnight explosion heavily damaged a civilian cargo vessel bound for Ukraine off the Romanian coast.⁵ These incidents highlight the persistent, high-probability risk of horizontal escalation and grey-zone miscalculation involving NATO member states contiguous to the Black Sea theater. The strategic implications of Ukraine’s drone campaign are reportedly influencing international diplomatic postures; US intelligence briefings regarding the efficacy of Kyiv’s long-range strikes deep into Russian territory have allegedly prompted a shift in US President Donald Trump’s rhetoric, signaling stronger institutional support for the Ukrainian operational methodology.⁴

Despite the high operational tempo, geographic alterations on the battlefield remain practically negligible, underscoring the grueling reality of a static war of attrition. Open-source mapping data verified that between June 23 and July 21, 2026, Russian forces achieved a net territorial gain of merely 10 square miles across the entire Ukrainian theater.⁶ This represents a slight deceleration from the 12 square miles gained in the preceding four-week period (May 26 to June 23, 2026).⁶ In contrast, Ukrainian forces maintained a stable 4-square-mile territorial foothold within the sovereign Russian border regions of Kursk and Belgorod throughout the same reporting period.⁶

To provide comprehensive context regarding the scale of the conflict underlying these command changes, an aggregation of verifiable losses and demographic impacts is essential. The following table synthesizes the latest available open-source intelligence regarding casualties, equipment degradation, and civilian displacement since the onset of the full-scale invasion, highlighting the massive human and material costs required to achieve minimal tactical advances.

Metric / Category	Russian Federation	Ukraine	Source Context
Annual Territorial Gain	1,103 sq miles (Net)	4 sq miles (in Russia)	Net total from July 2025 to July 2026.6
Civilian Fatalities	8,012	16,431 killed (48,613 injured)	RF Gov claims vs. UN verified data.6
Total Displaced Citizens	~550,000 – 850,000 (Emigrated)	9.6 Million	Ukraine displacement includes 3.7M IDPs and 5.9M international refugees (22% of pre-war pop).6
Military Vehicles/Equipment	23,888	11,781	Total verified losses across all classes.6
Tanks/Armored Vehicles	14,129	5,992	Documented heavy armor losses.6
Aircraft	380	200	Verified fixed and rotary-wing losses.6
Naval Vessels	29	42	Includes brown-water and blue-water assets.6
Military Casualties (Est.)	400,000 to 700,000+	140,000 to 600,000+	Ranges reflect variance across US, UK, and European intelligence estimates between late 2024 and mid-2026.6

The extreme variance in military casualty estimates—ranging from President Zelensky’s conservative acknowledgment of 55,000 Ukrainian fatalities in early 2026, to Western intelligence and journalistic estimates (e.g., FT, CSIS) suggesting total Ukrainian casualties (killed, wounded, missing) between 500,000 and 600,000—illustrates the profound operational security measures surrounding force generation.⁶ The necessity to mitigate these staggering attrition rates is the primary strategic driver behind the appointment of Major General Drapatyi and the pivot toward technology-centric maneuver warfare.

2.2. Middle East/North Africa

2.2.1. Conflict/Threat Name: Gaza-Israel War

Weekly Key Events:

The tactical environment in the Gaza Strip remained highly volatile, characterized by continuous Israeli military operations and severe humanitarian degradation. However, the most consequential development of the reporting period was a pivotal leadership election within Hamas, an event that fundamentally alters the strategic horizon for ceasefire negotiations and regional stability.

On July 20, 2026, the Hamas General Shura Council formally concluded its internal electoral process, announcing the selection of Khalil al-Hayya as the new Chairman of the Political Bureau.⁷ Al-Hayya succeeds Yahya al-Sinwar, whose elimination by Israeli forces in October 2024 left a profound leadership vacuum that had been temporarily managed by a five-member joint council (comprising figures such as Muhammad Darwish and Khaled Mashaal).⁷ The election process was subjected to unprecedented operational security measures and repeated delays due to the ongoing kinetic environment in Gaza.⁷ An initial round of voting in May 2026 failed to produce a decisive majority, leading to a highly classified runoff in June characterized by the physical transport of secret ballots to evade Israeli signals intelligence.⁷

The electoral outcome was remarkably close. Intelligence assessments indicate al-Hayya defeated Khaled Mashaal—the prominent leader of the external diaspora faction—by a razor-thin margin, with reported vote counts of either 35 to 34, or 36 to 32 (out of 69 Shura Council members).⁷ Notably, the process featured the unprecedented casting of blank ballots, a protest mechanism utilized by certain council members expressing a desire for younger leadership or opposition to electing a permanent leader during active hostilities.⁷

The strategic implications of al-Hayya’s victory are profound. It signifies the absolute institutional dominance of the Hamas military wing and its internal Gaza-based leadership over the external political apparatus.⁷ Al-Hayya is deeply aligned with the Iranian axis and is mandated to preserve the ideological continuity of the Sinwar doctrine, which centers on armed resistance and the absolute rejection of disarmament.⁷ Consequently, OSINT assessments indicate that under al-Hayya, Hamas will maintain a hardline, rejectionist posture regarding the implementation of the “Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict”.⁷

The Comprehensive Plan, formally endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2803 in November 2025 and brokered by the US, established a transitional governance administration chaired by US President Donald Trump.⁸ The core tenet of this roadmap is the phased, internationally verified decommissioning of Hamas’ weapons in exchange for a staged withdrawal of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).⁸ However, the newly elected Hamas leadership views disarmament as an existential red line, effectively stalling the transition.⁷ The failure to advance this framework impedes massive recovery efforts; the UN and World Bank assess Gaza’s reconstruction needs at $71.4 billion, against only $17 billion in current pledges.⁸

Hamas Leadership Faction	Key Figure	Operational Base	Strategic Posture Post-Election
Internal / Military Wing	Khalil al-Hayya (Chairman)	Gaza Strip	Dominant faction; strict adherence to the Sinwar doctrine; rejection of disarmament; strong alignment with Iran.7
External / Diaspora Wing	Khaled Mashaal	Qatar / Turkiye	Subordinate faction; pledged unity post-election; handles external diplomacy and fundraising.7
Shura Council	Muhammad Darwish	Variable	Maintains overarching consultative authority; exhibited internal polarization via blank ballots.7
Judea and Samaria Office	Zaher Jabarin	West Bank	Coordinates auxiliary resistance operations outside of Gaza.7

Tactically, the humanitarian situation on the ground continues to deteriorate under sustained military pressure. The IDF continues to conduct localized kinetic strikes and dynamic territorial realignments. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) documented that between July 13 and July 20, Israeli operations killed at least 57 Palestinians, including targeted drone strikes on a refugee camp in Nuseirat and engagements in Khan Younis.²² UN OCHA reporting indicates that the civilian population of 2.1 million remains trapped behind the “yellow line”—the demarcated edge of Israeli military control.⁸ The IDF frequently shifts this boundary westward, severely compressing the accessible civilian footprint and increasing the density of internally displaced persons.⁸

Simultaneously, auxiliary violence in the West Bank has surged to critical levels. UN data confirms that in 2026, 55% of all Palestinian injuries in the West Bank are the direct result of Israeli settler attacks.²² The frequency of these incidents has escalated from one every three days in 2020 to over three per day in 2026, representing a systemic breakdown in localized security governance and displacing hundreds of Palestinians.²²

2.2.2. Conflict/Threat Name: Israel-Lebanon / Hezbollah Conflict

Weekly Key Events:

The reporting period saw critical diplomatic maneuvers aimed at solidifying the fragile June 2026 ceasefire framework between Israel and Lebanon, occurring alongside aggressive domestic Lebanese operations to assert state sovereignty over non-state militant infrastructure.

On July 21, 2026, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun conducted a high-level state visit to the White House, engaging in direct bilateral talks with US President Donald Trump.¹² The summit focused explicitly on enforcing the 14-point framework agreement signed in Washington on June 26, 2026, which formally ended the state of war and established conditions for a comprehensive peace.¹² A focal point of the current enforcement strategy is the establishment of internationally monitored “pilot zones” in southern Lebanon.¹² Following preliminary negotiations in Rome (July 14–15), an implementation mechanism was tentatively agreed upon whereby the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) will assume full security control of these designated zones subsequent to a verified withdrawal of Israeli forces.¹² During the Washington summit, President Aoun publicly reiterated demands that Israel be pressured to immediately withdraw from occupied Lebanese territories to facilitate the LAF deployment and guarantee the permanence of the ceasefire.²⁴

Domestically, the Lebanese state apparatus executed significant counter-militia operations, a prerequisite for maintaining international support. Operating under a strict mandate to enforce a state monopoly on armed force, President Aoun’s administration—leveraging his previous experience as the Commander of the LAF—directed the confiscation of over 500 rocket launchers, dismantled numerous subterranean arms depots, and assumed control of approximately 200 former Hezbollah tunnel networks throughout the year.¹³ Furthermore, following a negotiated agreement with Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leader Mahmoud Abbas, the LAF initiated the phased disarmament of proxy militias operating within Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.¹³ These internal security operations are critical to satisfying the stipulations of UN Resolution 1701 and securing necessary international defense assistance to rebuild the Lebanese state infrastructure.

2.2.3. Conflict/Threat Name: Red Sea / Houthi Maritime Campaign

Weekly Key Events:

The Ansar Allah (Houthi) movement executed a severe and highly disruptive escalation in its maritime interdiction campaign, officially expanding its targeting parameters beyond Israel-linked shipping to explicitly include sovereign and commercial assets belonging to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The escalation transitioned into kinetic action on July 22, 2026, when Houthi forces launched a coordinated drone, ballistic, and cruise missile attack against commercial shipping in the Red Sea.⁹ The Saudi-flagged oil tanker Encelia was struck by an unidentified projectile on its starboard side.⁹ The impact occurred approximately 70 nautical miles southwest of Al Shuqaiq, placing the vessel near the outer limits of the Saudi port of Jizan.⁹ The strike ignited a fire on the vessel’s bow, prompting immediate VHF distress calls to regional maritime authorities.⁹ Saudi state agencies successfully secured the vessel, reporting no crew casualties, but officially classified the strike as a severe violation of international law.⁹ The Houthis claimed a secondary strike on a second tanker, the Layla, though this attack remains unconfirmed by independent maritime risk agencies such as the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) and Vanguard.⁹

Concurrently with the kinetic strikes, Houthi military spokespersons formally declared the imposition of a total naval blockade on Saudi Arabia in the Red Sea.⁹ The group claims this blockade is retaliation for unspecified Saudi “escalations” and explicitly warned all international vessels against calling at Saudi ports.⁹ To physically enforce this mandate, Houthi naval units reportedly intercepted and compelled up to ten commercial vessels to abort their transits and reverse course during the reporting period.⁹

The strategic implications of this blockade are profound. Following the maritime strikes, the Houthis claimed a subsequent ballistic missile attack against the southern Saudi mainland city of Jizan on July 25, an action that triggered civil defense warnings across Jizan and Yanbu and demonstrated a willingness to target sovereign mainland territory.¹¹ This multi-domain escalation has severely disrupted regional energy logistics. Tanker owners have initiated mass rerouting protocols; vessels carrying Saudi crude and petrochemicals destined for Asian markets are actively avoiding the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.⁹ Instead, these vessels are being forced to utilize the northern route through the Suez Canal or undertake the significantly longer circumnavigation of Africa via the Cape of Good Hope.⁹ This logistical pivot has resulted in a doubling of maritime insurance premiums for the southern Red Sea and adds weeks of transit time to global energy deliveries.⁹

Diplomatically, the targeted attacks on Saudi infrastructure represent a dangerous brinkmanship strategy by Ansar Allah. The strikes threaten to unravel the fragile detente negotiated between Riyadh and Sana’a, potentially forcing Saudi Arabia to abandon its diplomatic restraint and rejoin active combat operations alongside US and UK coalition forces to secure its export routes.¹¹

2.2.4. Conflict/Threat Name: Syrian Transitional Conflict and Israeli Strikes

Weekly Key Events:

The security landscape in Syria remains highly fragmented following the overthrow of the Bashar al-Assad regime in December 2024. The country continues its fragile transition under the leadership of Ahmed al-Sharaa (former emir of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham), struggling to consolidate central authority amid competing insurgency groups, Kurdish integration negotiations, and foreign military operations.

A primary external threat vector driving instability is the continued military intervention by the State of Israel, which views the new Syrian administration as a strategic threat. Israel, which launched a ground invasion into southern Syria concurrent with the fall of Damascus in late 2024, continues to execute deep air operations to degrade Syrian military infrastructure. On July 23, 2026, the Israeli Air Force conducted a series of targeted kinetic strikes against multiple Syrian military facilities. The strikes successfully hit runways, oil depots, and radar installations at the Hama airfield and the T-4 airbase, while also targeting military infrastructure in the vicinity of Damascus. These operations underscore Israel’s commitment to maintaining a permissive airspace and preventing the reconstitution of advanced Syrian military capabilities during the transitional period.

2.3. Indo-Pacific

2.3.1. Conflict/Threat Name: South China Sea Maritime Disputes

Weekly Key Events:

The strategic environment in the South China Sea degraded sharply due to a highly violent kinetic grey-zone confrontation at Second Thomas Shoal, an event that briefly undermined years of diplomatic de-escalation before a rapid, highly conditional provisional agreement was forged.

On July 20, 2026, a severe physical altercation occurred between the China Coast Guard (CCG) and Philippine naval personnel attempting to execute a resupply mission to the BRP Sierra Madre, a grounded World War II-era landing ship serving as an outpost at Second Thomas Shoal.¹⁴ CCG cutter 21560 intercepted the Philippine mission, deploying a rigid inflatable boat (RHIB) carrying eight personnel that sailed in extremely close proximity to the outpost.¹⁴ When the Philippine Navy dispatched escort RHIBs to intercept, the CCG vessel rammed the Philippine boat, sparking a melee.¹⁴ Verified video evidence and statements from the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) confirmed that Chinese personnel utilized blunt instruments, specifically wooden batons and oars, to strike Philippine sailors.¹⁴ This resulted in a severe head injury requiring medical evacuation for at least one AFP servicemember.¹⁴

This incident is highly notable for its calculated brutality. Since the signing of a bilateral de-escalation agreement in July 2024, Second Thomas Shoal had experienced a period of relative calm, with coercive maritime activities largely shifting to other features such as Scarborough Shoal.¹⁴ The intentional use of hand-to-hand combat represents a highly sophisticated grey-zone tactic by Beijing: maximizing physical coercion, inflicting casualties, and demonstrating absolute local dominance while deliberately remaining below the threshold of lethal firearms that would automatically trigger the mutual defense obligations under the 1951 US-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty.¹⁴ Past incidents have seen similar thresholds tested, such as a June 2024 encounter where a Philippine Navy SEAL lost a thumb during a ramming incident, but the intentional use of melee weapons marks a distinct escalation in operational aggression.¹⁴

The clash triggered an immediate diplomatic crisis, occurring concurrently with the arrival of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Manila for the 59th ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting.¹⁴ The US State Department issued a harsh condemnation of Beijing’s “destabilizing conduct,” explicitly reaffirming Washington’s defense commitments and the validity of the 2016 Arbitral Tribunal ruling.¹⁴ Despite mutual recriminations and the summoning of respective ambassadors, the severe risk of unmanaged escalation prompted rapid back-channel diplomacy.¹⁴ On July 21, the Philippines and China concluded a new “provisional arrangement” specifically governing the daily resupply of personnel stationed on the BRP Sierra Madre.¹⁶ While Manila categorizes the agreement as a vital stabilization measure, Beijing’s Foreign Ministry heavily conditioned the arrangement, emphasizing its temporary nature and reiterating uncompromising demands that the grounded vessel be permanently towed away.¹⁶

The incident underscores broader US diplomatic challenges in the region. Despite strong treaty alliances, Washington struggles to build a unified Southeast Asian coalition against Chinese maritime expansionism.¹⁴ Regional states remain highly reliant on crucial economic ties with Beijing and are generally unwilling to risk these relationships by publicly aligning with US-led condemnations, preferring to manage disputes through independent, multilateral channels.¹⁴

2.3.2. Conflict/Threat Name: Myanmar Civil War

Weekly Key Events: The strategic landscape in Myanmar remains bogged down in a grueling war of attrition. Following the return of Lashio City to junta control in April 2025 under Chinese-brokered agreements ²⁹, large-scale territorial shifts in northern Shan State have stalled, though localized fighting and urban criminality remain pervasive.²⁹ Facing critical manpower and equipment shortages—exacerbated by a shrinking force size that had dropped to an estimated 120,000 combat-capable troops before recent crash conscription drives ³⁰—the State Administration Council (SAC) is increasingly relying on heavily sanctioned external partners for military sustenance.

On July 22, 2026, SAC leader Min Aung Hlaing hosted the outgoing North Korean Ambassador, Jong Ho Bom, in Naypyidaw.¹⁷ The discussions officially focused on expanding “bilateral cooperation” and diplomatic alignment.¹⁷ Given the documented history of UN-sanctioned military technology transfers between Pyongyang and the Tatmadaw, this high-level engagement strongly indicates the junta is actively seeking emergency material and technical defense support to offset its massive equipment degradation and sustain its war effort.¹⁷

2.4. Sub-Saharan Africa

2.4.1. Conflict/Threat Name: Sudan Civil War

Weekly Key Events:

The conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has entered a phase of deeply entrenched attrition, with the SAF leadership explicitly rejecting international diplomatic mediation in favor of pursuing a total military solution.

On July 24, 2026, SAF Commander-in-Chief General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan delivered a highly combative public address at the Al-Hadrab Mosque in Khartoum North.¹⁸ Burhan explicitly vowed to eradicate the RSF and completely ruled out any return to pre-war political arrangements, ceasefires, or power-sharing agreements with the paramilitary group.¹⁸ This declaration effectively deadlocks ongoing international efforts to broker a humanitarian truce. The geographic division of the country remains stark: the SAF controls the eastern half of the nation, having recently reclaimed momentum by recapturing the capital, Khartoum, and Al Jazirah state, while the RSF maintains dominant control over the western regions, including the entirety of the Darfur region.¹⁹

The human toll of the conflict continues to mount exponentially amid indiscriminate warfare tactics. On July 20, a drone strike struck the Ar Rahad market in RSF-contested North Kordofan, resulting in the deaths of two children and four adults, with over 20 additional civilian casualties reported.³⁴ Markets, hospitals, and civilian infrastructure remain prime targets in the ongoing artillery and drone exchanges.³⁴ This localized violence compounds a broader humanitarian catastrophe, with UN agencies continuously highlighting the systematic use of starvation, siege tactics, and widespread sexual violence as deliberate weapons of war.¹⁹

The recent total capture of El Fasher (North Darfur) by the RSF late last year continues to cast a long shadow over the conflict. The RSF siege and subsequent capture resulted in over 6,000 immediate fatalities in just three days, leading UN investigators to officially classify the RSF operations in the region as bearing the “hallmarks of genocide”.¹⁹ Overall fatality estimates for the conflict vary wildly due to severe access restrictions for independent monitors. The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) has documented between 52,904 and 58,000 verified fatalities as of June 2026, though intelligence assessments suggest total mortality likely exceeds 150,000 due to unrecorded violence, starvation, and disease.¹⁹

Conflict Metric	Data Point	Context
Duration	Entered 4th Year	Conflict began April 15, 2023.19
Verified Fatalities	52,904 – 58,000+	ACLED documented baseline; total mortality likely >150,000.19
El Fasher Casualties	>6,000	Fatalities during the first three days of the RSF offensive.19
Displacement	~13 Million	Represents the world’s largest displacement crisis.19
Territorial Control	East (SAF) / West (RSF)	SAF holds Khartoum/Red Sea; RSF holds Darfur/Kordofan.19

2.4.2. Conflict/Threat Name: Eastern DRC Instability

Weekly Key Events: Low-intensity kinetic engagements and persistent instability continued to plague the eastern provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). While M23 maintains stringent control over significant swaths of the Rutshuru and Masisi territories in North Kivu ³⁵, the reporting period was marked by a severe escalation in violence perpetrated by the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF).

On July 22, 2026, suspected ADF militants launched a deadly assault on the villages of Mandeite and Ndiapanda in the Mambasa territory of Ituri Province. The attack resulted in the deaths of at least 16 civilians, many of whom were local gold miners. This kinetic escalation forced widespread civilian displacement toward the city of Beni in neighboring North Kivu and brought local economic activities to a halt. The incident underscores the persistent lethality of the ADF—an affiliate of the Islamic State in Central Africa—despite ongoing joint military operations by the FARDC and the Ugandan People’s Defense Force (UPDF) designed to neutralize the group.

2.5. Western Hemisphere

2.5.1. Conflict/Threat Name: Haiti Security Crisis

Weekly Key Events: No material updates this period.³⁶

2.5.2. Conflict/Threat Name: Colombia / Venezuela Border Tensions

Weekly Key Events: No material updates this period.³⁶

3. Appendix: Methodology

3.1. Analytical Framework and OSINT Collection

This Situation Report (SITREP) is compiled utilizing a rigorous Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) collection and processing framework designed to provide strategic foresight and tactical clarity. The methodology relies on the continuous, systematic aggregation, translation, and cross-verification of publicly available information streams from across the globe. Primary data streams integrated into this analysis include:

• Official state broadcasts, military press releases, and executive branch declarations.
• Verified telemetry and geolocated visual data, including satellite imagery and localized combat footage.
• Reports and statistical data from authoritative multinational organizations (e.g., UN OCHA, OHCHR, DPPA, World Bank).
• Assessments from globally recognized defense research institutes and conflict monitors, specifically the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), and the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED).

The analytical process adheres to the intelligence community standards of evaluating competing hypotheses, ensuring that isolated data points, state-sponsored narratives, or unverified claims are not treated as fact without robust corroboration from independent or adversary sources.

3.2. Source Credibility and Materiality Verification

To mitigate the inherent risks of state-sponsored disinformation, cognitive domain manipulation, and wartime propaganda, source credibility is evaluated using a weighted matrix. Direct photographic or video evidence that has been geolocated and chronolocated by independent entities carries the highest weight in determining the factual baseline. Statements emanating from belligerent ministries of defense or state-owned media are treated analytically as statements of intent, narrative posture, or domestic signaling rather than objective truth, unless independently corroborated by neutral observers on the ground.

The Materiality Rule: To maintain analytical density and focus strictly on developments that alter the geopolitical landscape, an event is deemed “material” for inclusion in this report only if it meets one of the following strict criteria:

1. It involves verified kinetic action resulting in significant casualties or the destruction of strategic military, economic, or logistical assets.
2. It results in a verifiable transfer of territorial control between belligerents.
3. It constitutes a significant diplomatic, political, or command-level shift that directly and demonstrably impacts the operational environment or strategic outlook.
   If an ongoing or frozen conflict exhibits only routine, low-level friction that fails to alter the tactical or strategic status quo, it is excluded to preserve focus. In such instances, the conflict is denoted by the mandated phrase: “No material updates this period.”

3.3. Distinction of Grey-Zone Operations

Grey-zone operations are analytically distinguished from routine diplomatic friction or conventional military maneuvers based on the threshold of applied violence and the principle of plausible deniability.

For the purposes of this SITREP, a grey-zone maneuver is defined as a coercive action orchestrated by a state or non-state actor intended to alter the status quo, secure territorial advantage, or test adversary redlines. Crucially, these actions are deliberately calibrated to remain below the legal or physical threshold that would trigger a conventional military response or invoke mutual defense treaties (such as NATO Article 5 or the US-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty).

• Routine Military Maneuver: A publicly declared Freedom of Navigation Operation (FONOP), scheduled joint military exercises, or standard diplomatic protests.
• Grey-Zone Operation: The deliberate use of civilian, militia, or coast guard vessels to physically ram adversary ships; the use of sub-lethal weaponry (e.g., water cannons, sonic devices, high-powered lasers, or blunt instruments such as the batons utilized at Second Thomas Shoal); unacknowledged cyber intrusions into critical infrastructure; or the deployment of unflagged proxy militias. These asymmetric actions maximize coercive leverage while obfuscating legal attribution and stalling international escalation mechanisms.

---

Please share the link on Facebook, Forums, with colleagues, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email us in**@*********ps.com. If you’d like to request a report or order a reprint, please click here for the corresponding page to open in new tab.

---

Sources Used

1. Ukraine’s new commander-in-chief, Mykhailo Drapatyi draws reactions from Kyiv, Moscow, and the West — including visible concern from Russian war bloggers – Meduza, accessed July 25, 2026, https://meduza.io/en/feature/2026/07/22/ukraine-s-new-commander-in-chief-mykhailo-drapatyi-draws-reactions-from-kyiv-moscow-and-the-west-including-visible-concern-from-russian-war-bloggers
2. Change of commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine – OSW, accessed July 25, 2026, https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analyses/2026-07-22/change-commander-chief-armed-forces-ukraine
3. Zelenskyy replaces Syrskyi with Drapatyi after protests shake Ukraine army, accessed July 25, 2026, https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/ukraine-army-chief-change-zelenskyy-replaces-syrskyi-with-drapatyi-after-protests-ptag-2953313-2026-07-22
4. ISW Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, July 18, 2026 – Kyiv Post, accessed July 25, 2026, https://www.kyivpost.com/post/80595
5. ISW Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, July 24, 2026 – Kyiv Post, accessed July 25, 2026, https://www.kyivpost.com/post/81031
6. The Russia-Ukraine War Report Card, July 22, 2026, accessed July 25, 2026, https://www.russiamatters.org/news/russia-ukraine-war-report-card/russia-ukraine-war-report-card-july-22-2026
7. Khalil al-Hayya Elected to Chair Hamas political bureau – Insights …, accessed July 25, 2026, https://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/khalil-al-hayya-elected-to-chair-hamas-political-bureau-insights-and-reactions/
8. The Middle East, including the Palestinian Question, July 2026 Monthly Forecast – Security Council Report, accessed July 25, 2026, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2026-07/the-middle-east-including-the-palestinian-question-25.php
9. Houthis say they attacked two Saudi tankers; Saudi Arabia says one …, accessed July 25, 2026, https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2026/07/houthis-say-they-attacked-two-saudi-tankers-saudi-arabia-says-one-ablaze-red-sea
10. Yemen’s Houthis say they targeted two Saudi tankers; source says Encelia hit by missile, accessed July 25, 2026, https://boereport.com/2026/07/22/yemens-houthis-say-they-targeted-two-saudi-tankers-source-says-encelia-hit-by-missile/
11. Houthi blockade of Saudi trade threatens wider Middle East conflict …, accessed July 25, 2026, https://amp.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3361822/houthi-blockade-saudi-trade-threatens-wider-middle-east-conflict
12. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun’s Visit to Washington (2026) | KÜRE Encyclopedia, accessed July 25, 2026, https://kureansiklopedi.com/en/detay/lebanese-president-joseph-aouns-visit-to-washingto
13. Joseph Aoun | Lebanon, President, Army, & Hezbollah and Israel – Britannica, accessed July 25, 2026, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Joseph-Aoun
14. Rubio arrives in Manila as China-Philippines tensions spike …, accessed July 25, 2026, https://responsiblestatecraft.org/china-philippines-second-thomas-shoal/
15. China Clashes with Philippine Navy at Second Thomas Shoal …, accessed July 25, 2026, https://www.miragenews.com/china-clashes-with-philippine-navy-at-second-1713190/
16. Navigating Turbulence at Second Thomas Shoal | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, accessed July 25, 2026, https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2024/08/navigating-turbulence-at-second-thomas-shoal
17. Myanmar’s Min Aung Hlaing Discusses Expanding Cooperation With North Korea, accessed July 25, 2026, https://newdaymyanmar.com/myanmars-min-aung-hlaing-discusses-expanding-cooperation-with-north-korea/
18. Sudan’s Burhan Vows to Eradicate RSF as Peace Talks Stall – Sudan Tribune, accessed July 25, 2026, https://sudantribune.com/article/316566
19. The Sudan War in 10 Charts – CSIS, accessed July 25, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/sudan-war-10-charts
20. Oleksandr Syrskyi Officially Transferred the Powers of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to Mykhailo Drapatyi – sud.ua, accessed July 25, 2026, https://sud.ua/en/news/ukraine/367490-oleksandr-syrskyi-ofitsiino-peredav-povnovazhennia-holovnokomanduvacha-zsu-mykhailu-drapatomu
21. Who Is Mykhailo Drapatyi? Ukraine’s New Commander-in-Chief – UNITED24 Media, accessed July 25, 2026, https://united24media.com/life-in-ukraine/who-is-mykhailo-drapatyi-ukraines-new-commander-in-chief-20964
22. Israeli attacks on Gaza intensify amid surge of West Bank settler violence | UN News, accessed July 25, 2026, https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/07/1167991
23. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs – Occupied Palestinian Territory, accessed July 25, 2026, https://www.ochaopt.org/
24. Lebanese president says time has come to end war permanently after ‘fruitful’ Trump meeting – Middle East Monitor, accessed July 25, 2026, https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260724-lebanese-president-says-time-has-come-to-end-war-permanently-after-fruitful-trump-meeting/
25. IDF Press Releases: Israel at War, accessed July 25, 2026, https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/idf-press-releases-israel-at-war/
26. Joseph Aoun – Wikipedia, accessed July 25, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Aoun
27. Houthis claim missile attack on southern Saudi Arabia – The Times of Israel, accessed July 25, 2026, https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/houthis-claim-missile-attack-on-southern-saudi-arabia/
28. Houthi tanker attacks lift oil prices, widen Red Sea risk – Nation Thailand, accessed July 25, 2026, https://www.nationthailand.com/news/world/40068981
29. Crimewave in Lashio City as Junta Takes Back Control | Burma News International, accessed July 25, 2026, https://www.bnionline.net/en/news/crimewave-lashio-city-junta-takes-back-control
30. Myanmar’s war headed for a tipping point in 2026 – Asia Times, accessed July 25, 2026, https://asiatimes.com/2026/01/myanmars-war-headed-for-a-tipping-point-in-2026/
31. Sudan army vows to press offensive as civilian returns increase – Daily Sabah, accessed July 25, 2026, https://www.dailysabah.com/world/africa/sudan-army-vows-to-press-offensive-as-civilian-returns-increase
32. Civil War in Sudan | Global Conflict Tracker – Council on Foreign Relations, accessed July 25, 2026, https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/power-struggle-sudan
33. Country policy and information note: security situation, Sudan, July 2026 (accessible), accessed July 25, 2026, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sudan-country-policy-and-information-notes/country-policy-and-information-note-security-situation-sudan-july-2026-accessible
34. Drone attack on Ar Rahad market, North Kordofan, kills and injures children – ReliefWeb, accessed July 25, 2026, https://reliefweb.int/report/sudan/drone-attack-ar-rahad-market-north-kordofan-kills-and-injures-children
35. Crisis Analysis – DR Congo: Monthly Displacement Report, July 2025 – ReliefWeb, accessed July 25, 2026, https://reliefweb.int/report/democratic-republic-congo/crisis-analysis-dr-congo-monthly-displacement-report-july-2025
36. This Week in DPPA: 18 – 24 July 2026, accessed July 25, 2026, https://dppa.un.org/en/news/this-week-in-dppa-18-24-july-2026