journal article
THE CHINESE MODEL OF COGNITIVE SECURITY: “THE RIGHT TO INTERPRET” AS A RESOURCE OF POWER; [КИТАЙСКАЯ МОДЕЛЬ КОГНИТИВНОЙ БЕЗОПАСНОСТИ: “ПРАВО НА ИНТЕРПРЕТАЦИЮ” КАК РЕСУРС ВЛАСТИ]
Abstract
The article offers a comprehensive analysis of the cognitive security model emerging in China as a new paradigm in strategic thinking. This model is understood as a set of defensive and offensive tools designed to protect the cognitive sphere of society from external influence, consolidate a state-sanctioned image of reality, and achieve strategic superiority by targeting the adversary’s cognitive mechanisms. The author traces the conceptual shift from the paradigm of “information warfare” to “cognitive warfare,” where the primary objective is not control of data flows, but the struggle over the “right to interpret” reality. Chinese scholars increasingly define the cognitive sphere as an independent operational domain. The article draws on academic papers and public writings by PLA and security experts to show that Beijing sees this model as a response to similar Western concepts. Chinese thinkers often use broader terms like “cognitive confrontation” or “cognitive game,” which cover not just the military domain but also efforts to keep ideological purity at home. Chinese strategic thinking combines traditional stratagems with advanced technologies – including AI, big data analytics, and social engineering – to develop targeted instruments of influence. The article highlights vulnerabilities identified by Chinese experts, such as technological dependence on Western platforms and growing polarization of public opinion (the “scissors phenomenon”). Cognitive warfare is portrayed as a primary tool used by foreign actors to undermine national identity. The author examines the debate among Chinese experts over who should lead in cognitive defense: the security services or the ideological system. The article also stresses how important cognitive resilience has become and shows how appeals to national values are used to maintain social unity. The article concludes that although the concept of cognitive warfare has not yet been codified in China’s top-level party documents, ongoing expert debates suggest a “critical mass” of development may soon lead to its institutionalization. © 2026, Russian Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Author keywords
algorithmic warfare; artificial intelligence; china; cognitive warfare; ideology; information warfare; neurotechnologies; security; social media; the right to interpret