A battlefield without gunpowder: a typological analysis of the PLA’s cognitive warfare against Taiwan through military exercises
Abstract
Between 2022 and 2024, China targeted Taiwan with four large-scale military exercises, integrating military deterrence with cognitive warfare. This study examines China’s strategic adjustments by categorizing operational targets along “General public/Political elites” and “Anti-Independence/Pro-Reunification” (反獨/促統, fan du/Cu tong) dimensions. Using textual coding and data-driven analysis, information is classified into “Deterrence,” “Punishment,” “Mobilization,” and “Appeasement.” Findings indicate strategic shifts aligned with the political landscape. During Tsai Ing-wen’s administration, cognitive warfare prioritized deterrence to weaken Taiwan-U.S. relations. Conversely, after Lai Ching-te took office, the strategy shifted inward, focusing on mobilization and appeasement to induce cognitive biases and deepen socio-political divisions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Still being checked.
- Authors
- Lin, Y.-Y., & Chiu, C.-H.
- Corresponding author
- Chiu, Chih-Hsiang
- Venue
- Asian Security
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2026-01-28
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 132-152
- ISSN
- 1479-9855 (ISSN-L)
- 1555-2764
- OpenAlex
- W7125946979
- Semantic Scholar
- b561cacd4ccc0f1ff2d2afeb6c4dae51eefbf6b7
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Asian Security (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Hong Kong and Taiwan Politics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › European and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies
- Keywords
- cognitive warfare, cross-strait relations, military deterrence, strategy typology, Tsai Ing-wen administration, political elites, public opinion manipulation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
