I N T E R N A T I O NA L C O N F E R E N C E RCIC’22
Redefining Community in Intercultural Context
Brașov, 5-7 May 2022
78
THE COGNITIVE WARFARE IN DESIGNING THE INTERNATIONAL
SOCIETY (AND THE SECURITY ENVIRONMENT)
Ioana LEUCEA*
*Faculty of Intelligence Studies, ”Mihai Viteazul” National Intelligence Academy, Bucharest, Romania
Abstract: The constructivist approach of international relations informs us about the deep structures of the global
political organization, which is culture: the intersubjective meanings and perspectives people have in common and
share. Our minds, our thoughts, our perceptions are in part the result of specific educational curricula, up to now
designed to follow independent national educational programs. The language and the words we use play a very
important role in configuring the cultural lens which intermediates our communication with reality, placing us in the
middle of things and seldom obscuring the distinction between the subject and the object of our observation.
The social construction of reality and a social world of our making are no longer philosophical ideas but the
evidence to study. The need to theorize the theorization process, perceived as a base for social constructions, indicates
us to question our educated identities and our educated mind frames as scientific objects to study.. ”A world of our
making” (Onuf, 1989) means that culture, as an invisible mind frame, should be the object to study in order to better
understand and anticipate the systemic challenges and to assess the risks that might arise in the future. McLuhan
(1970) once said that culture is our business – war equals education, violence is the quest for identity and having his
ideas in mind we intend to discuss the cultural infrastructure we presume is at stake in contemporary systemic
cognitive warfare.
Keywords: cognitive warfare, constructivism, culture, international security environment
1. INTRODUCTION
The recent events from the Eastern part of
Europe, more specifically the conflict in Ukraine,
preceded by negotiations between Russia, US, EU
and NATO regarding Ukraine, the ‘’red lines”
invoked by Russia about NATO’s frontier expansion
towards the East, the difficulties to reach an
agreement between the parties involved in the
conflict made us think in terms of cognitive warfare:
the human mind is as well the battlefield and the aim
is to change how people think in order to change how
they act. As Russia’s declarations (Adevărul.ro,
30.01.2022) revolved around the idea that they didn’t
want war but security guarantees, that they request
written accords on some specific subjects, like
agreements that Ukraine will never become a NATO
member, we wondered why Russia insisted on
getting the written promises of Western countries.
What’s at stake? Why the parties involved in the
conflict are not able to find a compromise?
We presume that at stake on the cognitive
warfare strategic map are the deep foundational
principles of the international system. The reasons
superseding the invasion of Ukraine might be
interpreted as a manifestation of the historical
contradictions between the two main theories of
international relations, realism and liberalism. The
two main paradigms of IR, realism and liberalism,
perceived from a constructivist point of view,
represent two variants of global order to agree upon
and consider the normalcy on the global scene. The
agreement on some principles of the international
system from a constructivist point of view represents
the deep structure of the international system. Ian
Clark (2007:2) formulates the idea in terms of core
principles of legitimacy which express rudimentary
social agreements. “Legitimacy is attached to society
as the subject”. Some values were privileged in
certain historical contexts. International society has
expressly adhered to certain principles, be that
maintaining a balance of power or securing
fundamental human rights. (Clark, 2007:2-3)
The core principles negotiated in relation with,
for instance, Ukraine, represents the units, the
fundamental bricks of the international system. When
talking about delineating between international
systems, Phipott (2001) discuss the changes of the
core organizing principles generated by deep cultural
turns, e.g. the revolutions in sovereignty.
