ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
Decoding manipulative narratives in cognitive warfare: a case study of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Moving targets: threat and uncertainty on the front line.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Fault tree analysis-adapted knowledge structuring: a case study of sustainable international security cooperation.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study investigates the construction and dissemination of manipulative narratives in the context of cognitive warfare during the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Leveraging a mixed-methods approach that integrates AI-assisted semantic analysis with expert validation, we examine how adversarial messaging exploits cognitive biases-such as fear and confirmation bias-to influence perceptions and disrupt institutional trust. Methods: Using the proprietary Attack-Index tool and large language models (LLMs), we detect linguistic markers of manipulation, including euphemisms, sarcasm, and strategic framing. Results: Our findings demonstrate that emotionally charged narratives, particularly those invoking nuclear threat scenarios, are synchronized with key geopolitical events to influence decision-makers and public opinion. The study identifies five thematic clusters and traces shifts in rhetorical strategies over time, showing how manipulative discourse adapts to geopolitical contexts. Special attention is given to the differentiated targeting of international political elites, Western publics, and Russian domestic audiences, each exhibiting varied cognitive vulnerabilities. Discussion: We acknowledge methodological and ethical limitations, including the dual-use potential of AI tools and challenges in establishing causal inferences. Nonetheless, this study offers the following key contributions:Empirically establishing nuclear rhetoric as a strategic element of narrative manipulation, particularly around NATO summits and military aid announcements.Advancing an integrated analytical framework that combines semantic clustering and AI-based discourse detection to monitor information threats in real time.Providing actionable insights for policy and digital security, including the development of countermeasures and international collaboration in addressing cognitive warfare.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.