Psychological warfare may, in some respect, seem an outdated term. Instead, specific concepts such as information manipulation or, conversely, broader terms such as foreign influence operations are increasingly more prevalent. What is often less understood is that while these are important threats to take into account, they generally exclude a potent human quality open for targeting - emotion. Unlike information manipulation, which targets cognitive processes and perceptions, psychological warfare aims to dig deeper, exposing the most basic of human emotions (anger, fear, hatred) and seeking to transform them into something stronger for political, ideological, and security reasons. So, what is the state of psychological warfare today? What are states and other entities doing to combat it, and are their efforts sufficient? This article explores these questions, seeking to assess the prominence of this hybrid threat, and what can be done in defence.

A brief overview of psywar

Psychological warfare has a long history, dating back to Ancient times, although such an explicit label was most likely not available. However, its use really took off during the two World Wars, where targeting the morale of enemy soldiers played a key role in numerous battles. The effects were two-fold: first, the intended effect was to demoralise the enemy, and break his will to fight; second, a common by-product (whether intended or not) was often greater mistrust, confusion and uncertainty within enemy circles. This is due to the fact that, as our previous article mentioned, psychological warfare “is designed to target deeper feelings and processes outside of perception, many of which are difficult, if not impossible to control”, rendering not only the results, but also the source of attack unspecified. As the subsequent section argues, these blurred lines are becoming increasingly difficult to discern properly as both state and non-state entities leverage new technologies and tactics to aim at an ever-wider range of targets.

Targeting modern hearts and minds

Psychological warfare today comprises a range of tactics and actors, including media propaganda, pamphlet distribution, false flag operations, and information warfare. Apart from its historical use, psychological warfare (or ‘psyops’, as it is more readily known in contemporary military circles) has been a standard feature of military doctrine in countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, China, Iran, as well as a more diverse set of actors such as Estonia. While its tactics continue to be used in foreign conflicts, they are also increasingly incorporated into domestic defence planning. In other words, countries are not only interested in developing offensive capabilities to strike an enemy and demoralise him psychologically, but also to ensure that the same enemy does not succeed in using such tactics against them domestically. A number of contemporary examples demonstrate the international and domestic security implications psychological warfare continues to bring.

The Russo-Ukrainian war

Since the beginning of the war on Ukraine, Russia has been using disinformation, propaganda, and false flag operations to target the psychological state of Ukrainian armed forces and political and military leadership. Starting with the build-up of troops on and around the Ukrainian border for almost a month, Russia's objective from the outset went beyond mere military preparation for an invasion - an equally important objective of these actions was to intimidate Ukraine and break its will to resist even before the fighting began. Similarly, continuous and coordinated propaganda narratives (fascistic nature of Ukrainian leadership, genocide in Donbas and other human rights violations, development of biological weapons, surrender of President Zelenskyy, and anti-refugee sentiments among others) aimed at domestic and international audiences proliferated.

Russia’s chief method of psychological warfare has been social media, with reports of fake accounts and groups spreading information favourable to the Russian view. Their usage of Facebook, Twitter, but also relatively recent forms of social media, such as TikTok, has increased with the war’s progression. Another common source of dissemination is foreign news outlets favourable to the Russian stance, besides domestically controlled state media and their international branches. These include Chinese state media such as CGTN and Beijing News.

The objectives are varied but converge on a few common goals: first, to demoralise Ukraine, its leadership and armed forces, and break their will to resist; second, to turn Russian, Ukrainian and international public opinion against Ukraine and in favour of Russia. The latter goal is, nevertheless, also associated with political ruling regimes in these countries - the populations most favourably disposed towards the Russian narrative are those whose political leadership entertains (hopes of) positive relations with Russia.

Russia and the Baltic states

Russian psychological operations warrant another section, since outside of Ukraine (as well as Georgia), the Baltic states are also a frequent target. As former Soviet republics and current members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), modern-day Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania occupy a particularly important position in Russia’s foreign policy and on its list of target countries for psyops. Despite a significant shift in cultural and political leanings and the fact that Russian ability to influence their populations has been decreasing, the Baltic states continue to be home to a substantial Russian or Russian-speaking population. This linguistic legacy allows Russia to utilise the same, or similar tactics, narratives, and methods as it might otherwise only be possible domestically. Among the most prevalent narratives are the usual ideological triggers, such as WWII, the USSR, and anti-Western sentiment.

In terms of methods, the primary source of propaganda tends to vary from country to country. In Estonia and Lithuania, Russian social media such as VK (V Kontakte - In Contact) tend to be prevalent, while Latvian audiences turn to Facebook. The salience of the above-mentioned topics also varies accordingly.

The goals of these psyops evolve constantly. Besides continuously evoking a nostalgic image of the ‘good old days’ and the Soviet past, Russian psyops also primarily target fear - fear of Western influence and even invasion. Nevertheless, as noted above, its influence has been decreasing steadily. This is a result of geopolitical as well as domestic developments within the Baltic states themselves. First, unlike Ukraine, the Baltics have been quite successful in separating themselves from Russian influence politically and economically after the fall of the USSR. They were furthermore aided in this endeavour by their early admission into NATO and the European Union (EU). Finally, Russia’s own activity domestically (Chechnya in 2004 in particular) and in former Soviet republics, Georgia and Ukraine (2008 and 2014 respectively) has stoked fears in the Baltics of a possible invasion of their own territories, and thus served to alienate much of the now Western-oriented political and social establishments along with the wider population.

France in Mali

The French military operations in Mali (Operation Serval and a later, broader Operation Barkhane in particular) present further examples of the use of psychological warfare during a time of conflict. The motivations for it are complex and steeped in geopolitical interests and considerations of France, the UN, and a number of West African countries. In the former case, France engaged in psyops against separatist rebels during a coup in 2013, an operation which aimed to discredit the Islamist narratives taking over the country. The latter was in many ways a continuation and an extension of these objectives, continuing at least into 2017. The aims of the second operation included further crackdown on Islamist ideology and terrorist activity, as well as boosting the image of France to justify and legitimise the operation.

The methods France used in these two operations were both psychological and information-based and supported by direct action on the ground. In the case of Operation Serval, French intervention forces were deployed and consolidated in Bamako, the capital of Mali, within three days. While often overlooked in studies of psychological warfare, such quick consolidation and response often serves to demoralise the enemy in addition to particular pieces of information, since it creates a specific image of the operation - speed, mobility, efficiency. Mobility was especially important, with French troops being on the move almost constantly between 12 January and 11 May 2013. The second set of methods, more typical of Operation Barkhane, consisted primarily of influence operations through social media, Facebook in particular. At the same time, French military personnel posting as locals were attempting to conduct counter-influence operations against Russian disinformation in the country (which carried certain grassroots elements prompted by the Russian government).

The success of the former methods and tactics is considered substantial, and a prime example of effective integration of psyops into operational strategy. Falling under the responsibility of the Centre Interarmée des Actions sur l’Environnement (CIAE), France’s psychological warfare doctrine follows closely from NATO regulations and instructions about psyops integration. Nevertheless, most actions after the conclusion of Operation Serval have not been considered particularly effective, and have rather been cited as the source of regional destabilisation in the Sahel. France ended up withdrawing its troops into Niger in August 2022.

United Kingdom and the United States

Another set of influential players in the domain of psychological warfare are the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US). Besides using various tactics and methods of psyops for the purposes of safeguarding domestic security and national interests, they also contribute significantly to the psyops strategy and capabilities within NATO. Falling under the organisation’s guidelines the chief focus of psyops as used by the two countries is on studying the target audience, various attributability categories and integration within operations in other domains.

In the UK, this is the task of the 77th Brigade - soldiers trained in special skills pertaining to information warfare, psyops, and influence operations. Furthermore, they are supported by the 15 Psychological Operations Group. These military units specialise in understanding the target audience, creating content for online distribution, as well as evaluating the success of previous operations by studying how particular content is received. Their work is evident in most operations in which UK troops are deployed, with some prominent ones involving operations in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East. They are also particularly used in counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency action.

In the US, psychological operations involve additional layers of training, including cultural sensitivity, interpersonal skills, and foreign language abilities. Besides various forms of media, the focus is on establishing strong relationships with the target audience, which is essential for subsequent influence. As in the case of the UK, US psyops are regarded as part of wider military strategy and therefore used in many situations, including to build pro-US sentiments in countries like Russia, China, and Afghanistan. Furthermore, US strategy includes economic considerations, such as discrediting influential businesses.

Nevertheless, there is a concern about the effectiveness of psyops originating from democratic countries, including the ones mentioned. The need for transparency, accountability, and freedom of speech, on which much of democratic legitimacy is based, poses certain challenges to governments and militaries seeking to leverage public media platforms for the purposes of psyops. For instance, social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have inadvertently identified and taken down US military-connected fake accounts whose purpose was to propagate psyops on these platforms, prompting an investigation by the Pentagon. At the same time, these same platforms can sometimes be cooperative in such efforts as well.

Countering psychological warfare

Despite the often adverse use of psychological warfare by various major geopolitical actors, there are a number of counter mechanisms available to those vulnerable to attack. The NATO psyops framework states: “Counter PSYOPS uses assets to analyse an adversary psychological activity and its effect on friendly populations, uncommitted audiences, and NATO forces.” Subsequently, counter-narratives and other methods are deployed to discredit psyops by an adversary and to provide accurate information. Methods include content analysis, evaluation of adversarial motives, cultural significance and audience analysis. At the same time, NATO’s counter-psyops can only be deployed in consultation with other units, such as those specialising in information warfare.

Outside of organisations specialising in issues of international security, supranational entities such as the EU have also explored the threats posed by psychological warfare and the potential means by which to leverage or counter its impact. Although there is no central doctrine on the role of psyops in the EU, it is closely modelled on NATO’s example, and its use has been explored in early crisis management missions. More recently, with the psychological warfare efforts of Russia in Ukraine and beyond, the EU has taken to more focused labelling and banning of disinformation sources. Understanding local culture and history is crucial in this process, since the values associated with these social aspects tend to be targeted. Without sufficient understanding, they would thus be impossible to identify and counter efficiently. Additionally, certain countries, such as the usually heavily-hit Estonia, have developed their own frameworks, centred around collecting detailed information about adversarial targets, strategy, and tactics. Countering psychological warfare therefore involves much of the same methods and skills as the offensive attack,  the difference being the overall objective.

Conclusion

Psychological warfare is difficult to predict, plan, execute, and counter as it involves mental and emotional processes of which the intended victim might not be aware. Modern-day strategies and tactics incorporate psychological warfare, making use of all forms of traditional and social media platforms and sources. With the spread of information technologies and the multidimensional prospects of new ones, such as AI tools, the scope and reach of psychological operations may soon encompass unprecedented domains and uses. Both state and non-state entities must thus work towards incorporating such hybrid threats into their organisational frameworks and ensure a full understanding of their potential consequences. Countering the threat of psychological warfare in such an environment must furthermore take increasing priority, especially given its elusive nature, and these disproportionate consequences. Ensuring a thorough understanding of the target audience, methods, effects, and capabilities of adversaries, and countering them using these same methods should not, however, come at the expense of democratic values and citizens’ rights. As such, democratic states have a particularly fine line to tread.