Cognitive warfare
Is it ethical for liberal democracies to influence public beliefs about political and social institutions? In his book Cognitive Warfare, Henschke stresses the need to understand cyber operations, disinformation, and social engineering in a world saturated with information.
“Sustained narratives, propaganda, and disinformation targeting civilians so that they predominantly lose faith in political and social institutions is what I define as cognitive warfare”, he explains. “Cognitive warfare can also be used to support political institutions. But, generally, it is linked with influencing or disrupting individual and group beliefs to sow distrust in targeted social and political institutions.”
Cognitive warfare threatens liberal democracies. It isn’t about whether a certain political party wins an election. What is at stake is the long-term degradation of social and political institutions. “Democracy is at a significant risk. The interference of cognitive warfare in political sovereignty and political autonomy is what I am worried about”, Henschke says.
Polarisation
According to him, the goal of cognitive warfare is to control and change the way people interact with information. He gives algorithmic content as an example. “Algorithmic content is a force multiplier in driving engagement. People see more of what would grab and hold their attention. That makes boosting certain narratives and maintaining public attention on a certain political figure or topic much easier.”
Because algorithmic content is based on individual internet habits, it creates a deeply fragmented information ecosystem. Two people—living in the same city, even in the same household—can engage with entirely different digital realities. These different realities can produce big schisms in society. “Today there is a significant polarization”, Henschke says. “People in the same country see one another as enemies rather than as citizens with differing opinions.”
The effectiveness of cognitive warfare lies in the way technology platforms prioritise content that triggers anger and outrage. “It is much easier to catch our attention and hold it through anger and outrage”, he explains. “This drives social and political polarization. For an adversary—whether a foreign power or a domestic actor looking to destabilise—sowing division is an incredibly effective strategy.”
‘Bad’ or ‘Good’
Is cognitive warfare inherently harmful, or does its morality depend on who is pulling the strings? Is it justifiable if the Netherlands uses it, but unacceptable if Russia does? This question inspired Henschke’s book. The answer, he argues, lies in whether human dignity and political autonomy underpin these actions.
Henschke: “If we manipulate, deceive, or exploit people, we treat them like tools, so we undermine their human dignity. The foundation of a liberal democracy is political autonomy—people’s ability to decide what happens in that democracy. When that autonomy is undermined—whether by distorting information or manipulating public opinion - it contradicts the values we claim to be important.”
He concludes that cognitive warfare could be justified if it increases people's capacity to make informed decisions and if it supports political institutions that enable political autonomy.
Importance of education
Making people resilient to manipulation is the first step to preserving the very foundations of democracy. “It is crucial to educate people—from primary school students to politicians—about their vulnerabilities to disinformation. They need to know how to tell the difference between what is factual and what is not and how to respond to it”, Henschke says.
He emphasises that universities have a critical role in building stronger collaboration between the humanities and tech. “There is a lot of empirical research on human-computer interaction, which is absolutely necessary. But this is only half the story. Cognitive warfare targets people's beliefs, ideas, and motivations, so we need to focus on the human factors, too.”
