Strategic Communication in a Fragmented World

The Psychological Battlefield

What determines victory when a single fabricated intelligence assessment cascades through institutional decision-making structures to fundamentally alter strategic calculations across multiple governments? Contemporary strategic competition occurs not merely through economic leverage or military deployment, but within the cognitive terrain of human decision-making itself—a domain where psychological sophistication determines outcomes more decisively than conventional measures of power (Jervis, 1976). Unlike traditional diplomacy's assumption of rational actors operating with shared information incentives, cognitive warfare systematically exploits neural vulnerabilities to engineer perception and manipulate decision-making processes. Strategic actors who master these psychological dynamics achieve disproportionate influence while those constrained by conventional approaches find themselves systematically disadvantaged in contests where engineered perception shapes reality more powerfully than objective facts.

Like viral agents that hijack cellular machinery to reproduce themselves, sophisticated strategic communication operations transform target institutions into unwitting participants in their own strategic degradation. Russia's systematic campaign to undermine Western confidence operates not through crude propaganda but by amplifying the inherent uncertainty present in all intelligence assessments, watching as carefully planted seeds of skepticism metastasize into broader analytical paralysis (Betz & Stevens, 2024). Rather than manufacturing wholesale fabrications, advanced practitioners exploit authentic ambiguities within target systems, creating conditions where decision-makers systematically second-guess their own capabilities while pursuing courses that serve adversarial interests. The most effective operations remain invisible precisely because they amplify genuine uncertainties rather than introducing foreign elements—a process that makes institutional self-doubt appear as prudent analytical rigor rather than manufactured vulnerability.

If traditional warfare seeks to destroy enemy capabilities, cognitive warfare seeks to corrupt enemy judgment—a far more economical and deniable approach to strategic competition. The psychological mechanisms involved operate below conscious awareness, exploiting fundamental features of human cognition that evolved for entirely different purposes than resisting systematic manipulation. When intelligence analysts begin questioning their own methodologies not because of new evidence but because of accumulated micro-doubts about previously reliable processes, they demonstrate how cognitive warfare achieves strategic effects through incremental psychological pressure rather than dramatic informational revelations. Such operations succeed because they work with rather than against natural human tendencies toward caution and self-correction.

The Fragmenting Global Order

Forty-five percent of global population now operates within economic and political structures designed to challenge Western institutional dominance—a statistical reality that fundamentally alters strategic communication dynamics across all domains of international competition (Stuenkel, 2024). BRICS expansion from five to ten members in 2024 represents more than institutional growth; it signals systematic fracturing of the post-1945 international order into competing spheres of influence where different psychological frameworks, cultural assumptions, and strategic communications operate simultaneously. Yet beneath this apparent anti-Western alignment lies a more complex pattern: Global South nations increasingly pursue hedging strategies that resist binary alignments while demonstrating sophisticated sensitivity to sovereignty messaging and development-focused narratives over traditional security communications (Carnegie Endowment, 2024).

Where Cold War bipolarity created clear communication channels between opposing camps, contemporary multipolarity generates informational chaos that sophisticated operators exploit through selective message targeting and audience segmentation. Economic fragmentation following COVID-19 accelerated these trends as trade flows became sensitive to geopolitical distance rather than pure efficiency, creating new opportunities for strategic communicators who understand how to navigate multipolar competition through psychological sophistication rather than institutional leverage alone (Freund et al., 2023). Each new power center develops its own gravitational field of influence, pulling previously neutral actors into orbital patterns that reflect regional rather than global strategic calculations.

The paradox of contemporary international relations lies in how increased connectivity enables greater fragmentation—digital technologies that were supposed to create global convergence instead facilitate the construction of parallel information universes tailored to specific cultural and political contexts. Chinese strategic communication in Africa emphasizes development partnerships and non-interference principles, while Russian messaging in Latin America exploits anti-colonial historical narratives, and Western approaches rely on governance and human rights frameworks that often fail to resonate beyond traditional allied networks. Strategic communicators who recognize these fragmented attention landscapes gain significant advantages over those who assume universal message appeal or uniform audience psychology.

The AI Revolution in Influence Operations

Cost structures that once required millions of dollars now operate with thousands, while precision that demanded teams of analysts can be maintained by individual operators with appropriate technological tools—a transformation that fundamentally democratizes access to sophisticated strategic communication capabilities. OpenAI's 2024 investigation documented five state-sponsored operations from China, Russia, Iran, and Israel utilizing generative AI for automated content generation, social media manipulation, and multilingual propaganda campaigns across major platforms, revealing how artificial intelligence enables entirely new categories of influence warfare (OpenAI, 2024). The implications extend far beyond automation of existing processes to creation of strategic communication possibilities that were previously impossible due to resource constraints or operational complexity.

Consider how machine learning algorithms can simultaneously maintain thousands of distinct online personas, each with carefully constructed biographical details, posting histories, and interaction patterns designed to appear authentic to both human observers and detection systems. German diplomatic research demonstrates AI systems predict state behavior in multilateral negotiations by analyzing patterns invisible to traditional analysis, while Pentagon systems process real-time intelligence streams to identify psychological pressure points in adversarial decision-making with unprecedented accuracy (SWP Berlin, 2022). Such capabilities represent qualitative rather than merely quantitative improvements in strategic communication effectiveness.

When artificial intelligence systems begin generating content that achieves human-level persuasiveness while remaining undetectable through current technical means, the fundamental assumptions underlying information verification and source credibility collapse. CSET research reveals that AI can enhance disinformation campaigns through speed, scale, and personalization using frameworks that integrate reach, influence, content generation, human targeting, data analysis, and amplification across multiple platforms simultaneously—creating influence operations that operate at scales and speeds impossible for human practitioners (CSET, 2024). Detection capabilities consistently lag behind generation advances, creating persistent verification challenges that systematically favor offensive operations over defensive measures in information warfare contexts. The resulting environment privileges actors willing to embrace AI-enhanced deception over those constrained by traditional verification standards.

Cognitive Vulnerabilities as Strategic Terrain

Beneath conscious reasoning lies a cognitive architecture evolved for survival in small groups facing immediate physical threats—an architecture that proves systematically vulnerable to manipulation in complex information environments designed by strategic adversaries. Tversky and Kahneman's demonstration that "people do not appear to follow the calculus of chance or the statistical theory of prediction" revealed fundamental limitations in human information processing that strategic communicators now exploit through operations designed around confirmation bias, availability heuristics, and anchoring effects (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). These vulnerabilities operate independently of intelligence, education, or professional training, making even sophisticated decision-makers susceptible to systematic manipulation when cognitive load exceeds processing capacity.

Why do experienced analysts reach different conclusions when presented with identical evidence? Cognitive load theory provides crucial insights: overwhelming decision-makers with excessive, contradictory information systematically impairs judgment through a process that sophisticated information warfare exploits via coordinated campaigns that saturate analytical capacity while providing carefully crafted peripheral cues designed to bypass critical evaluation entirely (Sweller, 1988). The elaboration likelihood model reveals when audiences engage systematic versus heuristic processing, enabling strategic communicators to manipulate cognitive resources while ensuring that emotionally compelling but logically flawed narratives achieve acceptance through deliberately reduced analytical scrutiny.

Group psychology amplifies individual cognitive vulnerabilities through social dynamics that make collective decision-making even more susceptible to systematic manipulation than individual judgment. Turner's self-categorization theory reveals how communicators leverage group psychology to achieve behavioral modification through identity activation rather than logical persuasion—a process that operates below conscious awareness while generating powerful emotional investment in artificially constructed narratives (Turner & Reynolds, 2001). Contemporary information operations systematically activate social identity processes that make individuals psychologically invested in storylines serving foreign strategic interests, transforming domestic political disagreements into vectors for adversarial influence. Tajfel's minimal group studies demonstrate that even arbitrary divisions create immediate bias and discrimination, making identity manipulation particularly effective because it exploits fundamental human needs for belonging while remaining invisible to targets who experience artificially induced group loyalty as authentic personal conviction (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Advanced practitioners understand that the most effective influence campaigns never appear foreign at all, instead amplifying existing tensions and grievances to serve strategic objectives while maintaining plausible deniability through exploitation of authentic domestic divisions.

The Arsenal of Invisible Persuasion

Intelligence collection disguised as intellectual discourse represents perhaps the most elegant strategic communication technique, transforming conversation into reconnaissance while maintaining the appearance of collaborative scholarly exchange. Drawing from Renaissance diplomatic traditions where information advantage determined outcomes more decisively than military capability, contemporary practitioners engineer discussions that feel intellectually stimulating while systematically mapping target psychology, operational capabilities, and decision-making vulnerabilities (Mattingly, 1955). The psychological engine operates through ingratiation combined with motivational interviewing techniques that create environments where targets feel validated and intellectually appreciated, leading them to voluntarily disclose sensitive information they would never reveal under direct questioning.

Rather than interrogation, sophisticated operators establish therapeutic-like dynamics where strategic intelligence emerges through careful cultivation of intellectual ego and systematic exploitation of human needs for recognition and understanding. The most skilled practitioners understand that willing disclosure provides insights into psychological structure that covert observation cannot achieve—targets reveal not only factual information but the cognitive frameworks they use to process and evaluate new data, enabling precise calibration of future influence operations. Such conversations often conclude with targets feeling intellectually enriched and professionally validated, unaware that they have provided comprehensive intelligence about their organization's strategic thinking and operational vulnerabilities.

Weaponized silence exploits one of the most fundamental human psychological vulnerabilities: intolerance of uncertainty that drives individuals toward increasingly desperate actions to resolve unknown outcomes. Unlike active deception that requires careful construction and maintenance, strategic delay achieves psychological pressure through absence rather than presence, inaction rather than action. Fabius Maximus's strategic patience against Hannibal provides historical precedent for contemporary applications that systematically induce anxiety through periods of non-response designed to trigger panic responses in high-achievement personalities who cannot tolerate unresolved situations (Dugas et al., 1998). Advanced practitioners enhance effectiveness through intermittent reinforcement schedules—occasional, minimal responses after extended silence periods—that create powerful psychological addiction cycles where targets become dependent on periodic communication validation.

The beauty of this technique lies in its operational security: silence cannot be detected, recorded, or used as evidence of hostile intent, yet it generates measurable psychological effects in target populations while providing practitioners complete control over engagement timing and conditions. When targets begin sending increasingly frequent and revealing communications attempting to provoke responses, they demonstrate how strategic absence can induce tactical revelations. Such approaches transform professional communication into psychological pressure instruments while maintaining plausible deniability through techniques that appear reasonable rather than manipulative.

Group ostracism through coordinated silence represents perhaps the most psychologically devastating strategic communication technique, achieving destruction through symbolic de-creation rather than direct confrontation or argument. Neuroimaging research demonstrates that social exclusion activates identical brain regions as physical pain, enabling strategic communicators to inflict genuine neurological injury through coordinated behavior that appears professionally appropriate while systematically isolating targets from social validation networks (Eisenberger et al., 2003). Implementation requires iron-clad coordination among multiple participants who maintain absolute silence regarding target existence across all professional and social contexts—a discipline that transforms everyday interactions into weapons of psychological warfare.

Symbolic interactionism theory reveals that personal identity requires continuous social validation; systematic withdrawal of recognition forces targets into anomie where their sense of self dissolves through lack of social reflection, creating cognitive dissolution that often proves more effective than any direct attack. The technique operates through collective behavior that appears individually reasonable—busy professionals simply failing to respond to communications or acknowledge contributions—while creating cumulative psychological pressure that can induce complete professional and personal breakdown. Targets often blame themselves for the social isolation, making the technique particularly devastating because it turns victims into accomplices in their own psychological destruction.

Persistent erosion of foundational beliefs operates like geological processes that reshape landscapes through imperceptible increments, targeting cognitive architecture rather than surface-level positions. Advanced practitioners identify single core assumptions that support comprehensive belief systems, then repeatedly present small, undeniable contradictory evidence that forces micro-adjustments to fundamental premises (Beck, 2011). Each questioning session—framed as humble attempts to reconcile minor inconsistencies—induces cognitive dissonance that targets must resolve by gradually modifying core beliefs to accommodate accumulating anomalies. The technique operates through patient repetition that appears intellectually honest while systematically undermining the psychological foundations of opponent confidence and analytical certainty.

Unlike direct argumentation that often strengthens opposing positions through defensive reactions, incremental erosion works with natural human tendencies toward cognitive consistency and rational explanation. Targets participate willingly in the process because each small adjustment seems reasonable and intellectually defensible, unaware that cumulative modifications are fundamentally altering their worldview in directions favorable to strategic adversaries. The psychological mechanism proves particularly effective because it exploits the very intellectual virtues—openness to evidence, willingness to reconsider positions, commitment to rational analysis—that targets value most highly about themselves.

Environmental manipulation operates at the macro level by creating comprehensive information ecosystems where authentic and fabricated elements become systematically indistinguishable, forcing targets to rely on psychological shortcuts that practitioners can predict and exploit with mathematical precision. Rather than attempting to win arguments through superior logic, sophisticated operators manage all information sources that targets encounter, feeding carefully coordinated streams of manipulated reports, fabricated data, and controlled communications that collectively point toward predetermined conclusions (Simpson, 1994). The psychological engine exploits confirmation bias on an environmental scale, where targets' own cognitive processes become the engine of their deception through systematic seeking of information that confirms artificially implanted premises.

Advanced environmental control extends beyond information management to include physical and social contexts that influence decision-making through mechanisms that operate below conscious awareness. Meeting locations, timing of communications, presence or absence of particular individuals, and even ambient factors like lighting and temperature can be manipulated to create psychological states that favor specific outcomes. The most sophisticated operations integrate multiple environmental variables to create immersive experiences where targets reach predetermined conclusions while believing they are making independent assessments based on objective analysis. Such comprehensive environmental manipulation represents the ultimate strategic communication technique because it controls the cognitive context within which all other influence attempts operate.

Corporate Warfare in Hostile Environments

Geopolitical turbulence transforms corporate strategic communication from a support function into a primary competitive capability as business leaders navigate tensions that directly impact market performance, regulatory compliance, and stakeholder confidence. McKinsey research demonstrates that 78% of organizations now use AI in at least one business function, with corporate strategic communication evolving from reactive crisis management to proactive psychological operations designed to shape regulatory environments, investor sentiment, and competitive positioning through systematic application of behavioral economics principles (McKinsey, 2024). Market confidence depends more on perception management than objective performance metrics, leading sophisticated practitioners to design investor communications that bias stakeholder interpretations toward predetermined conclusions through framing effects and confirmation bias exploitation.

The challenge intensifies for companies operating in sanctioned environments, where traditional metrics of success become secondary to sophisticated frameworks for supply chain messaging that obscures vulnerabilities while projecting resilience, regulatory positioning that influences compliance interpretation, and competitive messaging that creates information asymmetries favoring corporate interests. German manufacturing data reveals that 34% of firms report China as difficult-to-replace supplier, necessitating strategic communication that addresses vulnerabilities while maintaining stakeholder confidence and avoiding regulatory scrutiny (CEPR, 2024). Such environments reward organizations that master psychological sophistication over those relying on conventional transparency or objective performance reporting.

Corporate strategic communication in fragmented geopolitical landscapes requires understanding that different stakeholder groups operate within distinct information universes with varying psychological frameworks, cultural assumptions, and decision-making processes. Investor communications that resonate in New York may prove counterproductive in Shanghai, while regulatory messaging effective in Brussels could trigger adverse reactions in Delhi or São Paulo. The most successful corporate practitioners develop portfolio approaches to strategic communication that simultaneously manage multiple, sometimes contradictory narratives across different stakeholder ecosystems while maintaining overall strategic coherence and operational security. This complexity demands psychological sophistication that extends far beyond traditional public relations competencies.

Leadership Under Cognitive Assault

Information warfare targets executive decision-making processes specifically by exploiting the psychological mechanisms that leaders use to process complex data under time pressure, making accurate assessment increasingly difficult as authentic and fabricated elements become systematically indistinguishable. Contemporary research reveals that information operations achieve effectiveness by manipulating time perceptions, risk assessments, and resolve calculations rather than simply providing false information—a process that creates cognitive pressure designed to degrade judgment and force suboptimal choices (Kertzer & McGraw, 2023). Crisis leadership psychology involves managing uncertainty while maintaining stakeholder confidence under deliberately engineered information pressure that makes traditional decision-making frameworks inadequate for contemporary challenges.

Executive vulnerability stems from psychological patterns that prove adaptive in normal business environments but become systematic weaknesses when exploited by sophisticated adversaries. Harvard Business Review analysis demonstrates that effective crisis leadership requires specific competencies including cognitive flexibility, emotional regulation, and systematic decision-making frameworks that resist manipulation—capabilities that traditional executive training programs rarely address (HBR, 2020). The most sophisticated leaders understand that information warfare represents a primary competitive threat requiring defensive psychological training combined with strategic communication capabilities that enable advantage through superior cognitive discipline.

Leadership effectiveness in cognitively contested environments depends on recognizing that traditional approaches to information processing and strategic planning prove insufficient when adversaries systematically exploit the psychological mechanisms underlying executive judgment. Advanced practitioners develop meta-cognitive awareness that enables recognition of influence operations while maintaining strategic communication capabilities that serve organizational interests. Such psychological sophistication becomes a core leadership competency rather than specialized knowledge, requiring integration of cognitive psychology principles with strategic planning processes and organizational decision-making frameworks.

The Democratization Paradox

Between artificial intelligence that reduces operational costs and psychological sophistication that remains scarce, strategic communication capabilities face simultaneous democratization and concentration—a paradox that will define competitive dynamics across the next decade. Current evidence suggests both outcomes simultaneously: while AI reduces operational costs from millions to thousands of dollars, effective application requires psychological insight and cultural competence that remains concentrated among sophisticated practitioners with deep understanding of target psychology, cultural dynamics, and operational security. OpenAI's documentation of state-sponsored operations utilizing generative AI for influence campaigns demonstrates that technological accessibility does not automatically translate into strategic effectiveness—successful operations still require human judgment for target analysis, cultural adaptation, and strategic planning (OpenAI, 2024).

CSET research reveals that AI systems can enhance disinformation campaigns through speed, scale, and personalization, but detection capabilities consistently lag behind generation advances, creating persistent verification challenges that favor offensive operations over defensive measures in information warfare contexts (CSET, 2024). This asymmetry suggests that organizations with superior psychological sophistication will gain increasing advantages over those relying primarily on technological solutions or traditional approaches to strategic communication. The democratization of tools does not necessarily democratize effectiveness when human insight remains the determining factor in strategic success.

Looking toward 2025-2030, artificial intelligence will likely transform strategic communication from human-controlled activities to human-supervised processes where autonomous systems conduct influence campaigns with minimal oversight while achieving superior results through systematic application of psychological principles at scales impossible for human operators. Advanced AI systems demonstrate increasing sophistication in predicting human behavior, cultural adaptation, and emotional manipulation that suggests eventual development of autonomous strategic communication agents capable of outperforming human practitioners across multiple domains (IBM, 2024). Early adopters gain cumulative advantages that compound over time while late adopters face systematically degraded strategic positions in environments where AI-enhanced psychological operations determine outcomes.

McKinsey surveys reveal 80% of organizations experimenting with generative AI while 45% actively implement solutions demonstrating measurable performance improvements in strategic communication effectiveness—trends suggesting approaching scenarios where sophisticated capabilities become commoditized, enabling previously marginal actors to achieve disproportionate influence through psychological sophistication rather than conventional resource advantages. Yet this democratization occurs unevenly, with organizations possessing superior psychological insight and cultural competence maintaining decisive advantages over those relying primarily on technological solutions. The future belongs neither to traditional power nor to technological capability alone, but to strategic actors who successfully integrate psychological sophistication with AI enhancement while maintaining operational security and cultural sensitivity.

Theoretical Reconstruction

Classical international relations theory crumbles when confronted with strategic communication that systematically violates its foundational assumptions about rational actors operating in information-rich environments with aligned incentives for truthful communication. Jervis's seminal analysis of perception and misperception anticipated current developments by demonstrating how cognitive limitations affect international relations, but contemporary hybrid warfare exploits these limitations through information asymmetry weaponization, cognitive domain manipulation, attribution challenges, and speed-accuracy trade-offs that reward rapid response over deliberative consideration (Jervis, 1976). Theoretical frameworks require fundamental updating to address technological transformation, cognitive warfare dimensions, multipolar competition dynamics, and power redistribution occurring through AI democratization of influence capabilities.

The transformation proves so profound that strategic communication increasingly depends on psychological sophistication that enables practitioners to exploit predictable cognitive biases while protecting their own decision-making from similar manipulation—dynamics suggesting scenarios where psychological competence determines strategic outcomes more decisively than traditional measures of power. Professional competencies must evolve beyond traditional diplomatic skills to encompass dual-process understanding of systematic versus heuristic information processing, bias exploitation capabilities balanced with defensive awareness, cultural cognition competence for cross-cultural psychological operations, group psychology management across individual and collective dynamics, and emotional intelligence scaled for digital platform operations (Gregory & Smith, 2025).

Advanced practitioners require capability to engineer cognitive environments where targets reach predetermined conclusions through their own analytical processes while remaining unaware of external manipulation—a skill set that combines therapeutic listening techniques with strategic deception principles. Integration of multiple psychological principles simultaneously—confirmation bias exploitation coordinated with social proof manipulation and authority positioning—creates influence effects that prove resistant to counter-messaging because targets become psychologically invested in conclusions they believe they reached independently. Such competencies represent fundamental departures from traditional diplomatic training and professional development frameworks.

Institutional architecture requires fundamental reorganization to integrate diplomatic, psychological, technological, and intelligence functions under unified strategic direction capable of conducting sophisticated psychological operations while maintaining operational security and legal compliance. Government and corporate institutions increasingly need dedicated strategic communication centers that function as cognitive warfare units rather than traditional public relations departments (Simpson, 1994). Advanced institutional approaches recognize strategic communication as primary rather than supporting capability, allocating resources and developing organizational cultures that reward psychological sophistication over conventional expertise. Professional development programs must integrate classical diplomatic skills with cognitive psychology, digital technology management, and strategic deception principles that enable practitioners to operate effectively in environments where perception management determines outcomes more decisively than objective performance—a transformation that challenges fundamental assumptions about professional competence and institutional purpose.

Research priorities demand immediate attention to measurement methodologies for strategic communication effectiveness across diverse cultural and temporal contexts, counter-influence techniques that protect institutional decision-making from sophisticated manipulation while maintaining analytical capability, cultural adaptation frameworks that enable psychological operations across different political environments, AI-human integration optimization that maximizes technological capabilities while preserving human strategic judgment, and long-term impact assessment of sustained campaigns on institutional stability and social cohesion. Academic institutions bear responsibility for advancing knowledge that serves strategic effectiveness while understanding profound implications of democratizing sophisticated psychological operations through AI accessibility. Current trends suggest approaching scenarios where strategic communication capabilities will determine competitive outcomes across all domains of human activity, making this research agenda particularly urgent for organizations seeking to maintain strategic relevance in cognitively contested environments.

The convergence of artificial intelligence, psychological research, and geopolitical fragmentation creates possibilities for strategic communication that transcend anything previously imagined in diplomatic or corporate contexts. Organizations that master the integration of psychological sophistication with technological capabilities while maintaining strategic discipline will determine the future trajectory of international relations, corporate competition, and institutional governance. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that in an era of cognitive warfare, the mind represents both the ultimate battlefield and the decisive weapon, with victory determined not by those who possess superior resources, but by those who understand how to engineer the cognitive terrain itself.

References:

Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D.M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252-1265.

Beck, J.S. (2011). Cognitive behavior therapy: Basics and beyond (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Betz, D.J., & Stevens, T. (2024). Cognitive warfare and the future of conflict. Hurst Publishers.

Briant, P. (2002). From Cyrus to Alexander: A history of the Persian Empire. Eisenbrauns.

Brook, T., Bourgon, J., & Blue, G. (2008). Death by a thousand cuts. Harvard University Press.

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (2024). BRICS expansion and the future of world order. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/03/brics-expansion-and-the-future-of-world-order

CEPR. (2024). Trade wars and fragmentation: Insights from a new ESCB report. VoxEU. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/trade-wars-and-fragmentation-insights-new-escb-report

Cialdini, R.B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion (Rev. ed.). Harper Business.

CSET Georgetown. (2024). AI and the future of disinformation campaigns. https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/ai-and-the-future-of-disinformation-campaigns-2/

CSIS. (2024). Russia's shadow war against the West. https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-shadow-war-against-west

Dugas, M.J., Gagnon, F., Ladouceur, R., & Freeston, M.H. (1998). Generalized anxiety disorder: A preliminary test of a conceptual model. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(2), 215-226.

Eisenberger, N.I., Lieberman, M.D., & Williams, K.D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290-292.

Freund, C., Mattoo, A., Mulabdic, A., & Ruta, M. (2023). Is the global economy fragmenting? World Trade Organization Working Paper.

Granovetter, M.S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.

Gregory, A., & Smith, B.G. (2025). Artificial intelligence and strategic communication: A systematic review. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 19(2), 145-168.

Harvard Business Review. (2020). The psychology behind effective crisis leadership. https://hbr.org/2020/04/the-psychology-behind-effective-crisis-leadership

IBM. (2024). The future of AI: Trends shaping the next 10 years. https://www.ibm.com/think/insights/artificial-intelligence-future

Jervis, R. (1976). Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton University Press.

Johnston, D. (2015). The Cambridge companion to Roman law. Cambridge University Press.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.

Kertzer, J.D., & McGraw, K.M. (2023). Folk realism: Testing the microfoundations of realism in ordinary citizens. International Studies Quarterly, 67(2), 245-258.

Mattingly, G. (1955). Renaissance diplomacy. Houghton Mifflin.

McKinsey & Company. (2024). The state of AI: How organizations are rewiring to capture value. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-state-of-ai

Miles, R. (2010). Carthage must be destroyed: The rise and fall of an ancient civilization. Allen Lane.

Nesse, H. (2024). Collective response capacity: Developing crisis leadership in organisations. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 32(1), 1-15.

Nicol, D.M. (1992). The last centuries of Byzantium, 1261-1453. Cambridge University Press.

Nisbett, R.E., & Wilson, T.D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 250-256.

OpenAI. (2024). Disrupting malicious uses of AI by state-affiliated threat actors. https://openai.com/index/disrupting-malicious-uses-of-ai-by-state-affiliated-threat-actors/

Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer-Verlag.

Simpson, C. (1994). Science of coercion: Communication research and psychological warfare, 1945-1960. Oxford University Press.

Stuenkel, O. (2024). BRICS and the transformation of global governance. International Organization, 78(3), 445-472.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.

SWP Berlin. (2022). Diplomacy and artificial intelligence. https://www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2022RP01/

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Brooks/Cole.

Turner, J.C., & Reynolds, K.J. (2001). The social identity perspective in intergroup relations: Theories, themes, and controversies. In R. Brown & S.L. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 133-152). Blackwell.