The cognitive war in national security

Wars are typically fought by breaching national borders and territorial boundaries. Advances in technology, however, have created new battlefields. Today, conflict can unfold without ships crossing our waters or troops landing on our shores. It can begin quietly, through unseen hands typing on keyboards.

The Philippines is confronting such a challenge.

This threat goes by a new name: foreign interference and malign influence, or FIMI. It is not an obvious, kinetic attack. Often, it appears as an ordinary post, a viral video, or a trending narrative. But beneath the surface, it is coordinated political warfare. Physical actions, cyber operations, economic leverage, and information campaigns can move in sync to achieve strategic narrative advantage.

Because FIMI operates subtly, it can be even more dangerous. It does not shock the system. It seeps into it. It gradually reshapes perceptions, reframes issues, and influences democratic choices.

Democracy depends on the collective judgment of its people. When perception is engineered, policy direction can be altered without initiating legislation.

Over the past two days, at a forum organized by the Stratbase Institute in collaboration with the Embassy of Canada in the Philippines, we confronted a reality that can no longer be ignored: We are facing a war that is largely invisible, fought in the digital domain and in the realm of perception.

We are familiar with disinformation and misinformation online. But FIMI goes further. It deliberately studies our vulnerabilities. It identifies social fault lines and amplifies them. The familiar tactics of dismissing, distorting, distracting, and denying are now joined by a fifth element: dismay. The goal is not only to confuse, but to exhaust public trust, deepen polarization, and make resistance seem useless.

Recent survey data illustrate why this approach can gain traction. Many Filipinos perceive corruption as prevalent. Inflation remains a pressing concern. These anxieties are legitimate. They deserve policy solutions. But they also create openings that foreign actors can exploit.

Public frustration shapes discourse. It influences behavior. And when amplified strategically, it can be weaponized to weaken confidence in institutions and to fan mistrust.

Foreign interference spreads instantly online, while democratic processes move slowly. In that gap, narratives can harden before the truth can catch up.

We have observed how influence networks operate across platforms. Messaging that begins in one corner of the digital ecosystem is quickly amplified through interconnected pages, online personalities, and coordinated accounts. Artificial intelligence tools make it easier to generate persuasive content at scale. Across X, Facebook, and YouTube, narratives cascade rapidly, often spilling beyond cyberspace, beyond mainstream media, and into in-person discussions.

Individually, some channels may appear benign. Business associations, cultural exchanges, academic programs, and local partnerships are often framed as routine cooperation. Many are legitimate. Yet taken together, certain networks can function as conduits for strategic messaging aligned with foreign geopolitical interests. The line between information and influence becomes blurred.

Traditional and digital media further magnify these narratives. In some narratives, the Philippines is portrayed as the aggressor in its own maritime domain, while expansive foreign claims are framed as reasonable or inevitable. When repeated often enough, such framing begins to shape public understanding.

This is why the issue must be treated as a core national security concern.

National defense can no longer be confined to military capabilities or maritime patrols. Information integrity and cyber resilience are now central pillars of sovereignty. If the integrity of our information space collapses, the strength of our physical defenses will not be enough.

Responding to this challenge requires more than isolated measures. It demands a resilient defense posture built on integration, collaboration, and capability enhancement.

Integration means breaking down silos across agencies. Legal, intelligence, economic, and communications responses must be synchronized. Collaboration means working not only within government, but with the private sector, academia, civil society, and international partners. No single institution can match the scale and speed of coordinated influence operations alone.

Capability enhancement means investing in analytical tools to detect networked campaigns early, updating legal frameworks to address modern espionage and covert funding, and strengthening civic education so that citizens can recognize manipulation when they encounter it.

We must also embrace transparency. Verified information must be released promptly. Facts must move at speed. Coordinated narrative defense should ensure that legal action, intelligence findings, and public messaging reinforce rather than contradict one another. Silence or delay only widens the space for distortion.

As we approach 2028 and beyond, the next leadership will matter profoundly. The Philippines occupies a strategic position in the Indo-Pacific region. Developments at home reverberate across the region, just as regional dynamics impact our domestic landscape. We must choose leaders capable of navigating geopolitical uncertainty and technological disruption with clarity and resolve.

Ultimately, this is about dismantling the networks that undermine our sovereignty. It is about ensuring that gray-zone tactics do not become normalized. It is about defending not only territory, but truth.

Across the Philippines and the broader Indo-Pacific region, we face a conflict that is difficult to see yet impossible to ignore. Its battlefield includes timelines, comment sections, academic forums, and economic channels. Its objective is influence.

We cannot defend sovereignty only at sea or in the air. We must defend it in the minds of our people.

In this cognitive war, our response must be strategic, sustained, and united — so that our democratic future is strengthened by informed choice, not engineered perception.

Victor Andres “Dindo” C. Manhit is the president of the Stratbase ADR Institute.