Abstract
The purpose of the article is to provide an integrated analysis of the strategic approaches, instruments, and institutional arrangements of cognitive countermeasures employed by Western states and international organizations to neutralize Russian information influence during 2022–2025. The study covers the diplomatic, information-analytical, technological, and societal dimensions of the West’s response to Russian influence operations. The methodological framework is based on structural-functional, comparative political, and information-analytical approaches, as well as content analysis of official documents, reports, digital platform data, and studies produced by NATO, the European Union, the G7, the Hybrid CoE, and independent research institutions. The article examines the evolution of strategic communications, the practice of pre-emptive intelligence declassification, the development of the OSINT ecosystem and fact-checking, sanctions-based public diplomacy, and technical tools for detecting and countering disinformation. Special attention is given to emerging threats associated with the use of generative AI in FIMI operations and to the responses of Western institutions to these challenges. The scientific novelty of the study lies in its integrated examination of Western cognitive countermeasures as a layered system encompassing diplomacy, digital security, algorithmic monitoring, artificial intelligence, fact-checking, and civic mobilization. Conclusions. During 2022–2025, Western approaches to cognitive countermeasures became substantially institutionalized and developed into a core element of security policy. A transition occurred from fragmented responses to a broad model integrating intelligence declassification, rapid debunking of hostile narratives, sanctions-based pressure, regulation of digital platforms, and the development of common strategic communication standards. Coordinated efforts by governments, supranational institutions, private companies, and civil society created a multi-layered deterrence ecosystem that significantly limited the effectiveness of Russian FIMI operations across the transatlantic space and in Ukraine. OSINT communities, automated manipulation detection tools, increasing media literacy, and the establishment of specialized centres for countering hybrid threats played an important role in this process. However, the current framework of countermeasures remains incomplete and still needs further refinement. The spread of generative AI, the emergence of high-quality deepfakes, circumvention mechanisms within the information ecosystems of the Global South, and the persistence of vulnerable audiences within Western societies create new challenges. Russian influence operations continue to adapt by combining social, political, and technological instruments while seeking to exploit internal crises within democratic states. Under these conditions, Western institutions require anticipatory planning, stronger regulatory frameworks, the integration of AI into protection and monitoring systems, and enhanced societal resilience through education, strategic communication, and cross-sectoral cooperation. Cognitive countermeasures are becoming a long-term, multidimensional, and technologically sophisticated component of contemporary security policy that requires the continuous refinement of approaches.References
Aho, A., Alonso Villota, M., Giannopoulos, G., Jungwirth, R., Lebrun, M., Savolainen, J., Smith, H., & Willkomm, E. (2023). Hybrid threats: A comprehensive resilience ecosystem. European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats. https://www.hybridcoe.fi/publications/hybrid-threats-a-comprehensive-resilience-ecosystem/
Backes, O., & Swab, A. (2019). Cognitive warfare: The Russian threat to election integrity in the Baltic States. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/cognitive-warfare-russian-threat-election-integrity-baltic-states
Bespeka, V. (2026a). Institutionalization of cognitive operations in the U.S. military-political planning system (2001–2025). Visnyk Humanitarnykh Nauk, 16. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18850203
Bespeka, V. (2026b). Retrospective analysis of the activities of Western states and international organizations in countering the cognitive influence of the Russian Federation (2014–2025). Voienno-Istorychnyi Visnyk, 60(2), 88–95. https://doi.org/10.33099/2707-1383-2026-60-2-88-95
Bespeka, V. (2026c). Russian propaganda narratives against Ukraine: Cognitive structure and strategic functions (2014–2025). Scientific Papers of the Vinnytsia Mykhailo Kotsyiubynskyi State Pedagogical University Series History, 55, 195–205. https://doi.org/10.31652/2411-2143-2026-55-195-205
Borger, J., & Harding, L. (2022, January 14). US claims Russia planning ‘false-flag’ operation to justify Ukraine invasion. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/14/us-russia-false-flag-ukraine-attack-claim
Catena, B., Ditrych, O., & Kovalčíková, N. (2025, October 7). Smoke and mirrors: Building EU resilience against manipulation through cognitive security. European Union Institute for Security Studies. https://www.iss.europa.eu/publications/briefs/smoke-and-mirrors-building-eu-resilience-against-manipulation-through-cognitive
Chee, F. Y. (2022, March 2). EU bans RT, Sputnik over Ukraine disinformation. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-bans-rt-sputnik-banned-over-ukraine-disinformation-2022-03-02/
Danyk, Y., & Briggs, C. M. (2023). Modern cognitive operations and hybrid warfare. Journal of Strategic Security, 16(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.16.1.2032
Deppe, C., & Schaal, G. S. (2024). Cognitive warfare: A conceptual analysis of the NATO ACT cognitive warfare exploratory concept. Frontiers in Big Data, 7, Article 1452129. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2024.1452129
Digital Forensic Research Lab. (2020, April 2). Twitter botnet targeted Turkey while politicizing coronavirus. Atlantic Council. https://dfrlab.org/2020/04/02/twitter-botnet-targeted-turkey-while-politicizing-coronavirus
Global Affairs Canada. (2023). G7 Rapid Response Mechanism annual report 2023. Government of Canada. https://international.gc.ca/transparency-transparence/rapid-response-mechanism-mecanisme-reponse-rapide/2023-annual-report-rapport-annuel.aspx?lang=eng
Helmus, T. C., & Holynska, K. (2024). Ukrainian resistance to Russian disinformation: Lessons for future conflict. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2771-1.html
Helmus, T. C., Bodine-Baron, E., Radin, A., Magnuson, M., Mendelsohn, J., Marcellino, W., Bega, A., & Winkelman, Z. (2018). Russian social media influence: Understanding Russian propaganda in Ukraine. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2237.html
Hern, A. (2022, September 27). Meta takes down ‘influence operations’ run by China and Russia. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/sep/27/meta-takes-down-influence-operations-run-by-china-and-russia
Higgins, E. (2019). We are Bellingcat: An intelligence agency for the people. Bloomsbury.
High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. (2022, April 4). Declaration on Russian atrocities committed in Bucha and other Ukrainian towns [Press release]. Council of the European Union. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/04/04/ukraine-declaration-by-the-high-representative-on-behalf-of-the-eu-on-russian-atrocities-committed-in-bucha-and-other-ukrainian-towns/
Kutidze, D. (2023). Ukraine’s strategic communication against Russian disinformation. Gnomon Wise Research Institute. https://gnomonwise.org/public/storage/publications/October2023/mOEblCoTHtfxaBp8ql6p.pdf
NATO Allied Command Transformation. (n.d.). Protecting the Alliance against the threat of cognitive warfare [Video]. https://www.act.nato.int/activities/cognitive-warfare
NORC at the University of Chicago. (2022). Ukraine survey. https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/WSJ_NORC_Ukraine_Poll_June_2022.pdf
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (2020). NATO military policy on strategic communications (MC 0628). https://www.act.nato.int/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/nato-pao-handbook-2020.pdf
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (2022). NATO 2022 strategic concept: Adopted by Heads of State and Government at the NATO Summit in Madrid, 29 June 2022. https://www.nato.int/content/dam/nato/webready/documents/publications-and-reports/strategic-concepts/2022/290622-strategic-concept.pdf
Pew Research Center. (2023, July 10). Overall opinion of Russia. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2023/07/10/overall-opinion-of-russia/
Pilati, F., & Venturini, T. (2025). The use of artificial intelligence in counter-disinformation: A world wide (web) mapping. Frontiers in Political Science, 7, Article 1517726. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2025.1517726
Rijo, L. (2025, November 15). Google terminates over 18,500 channels in Q3 2025 influence operations. PPC Land. https://www.ppc.land/google-terminates-over-18-500-channels-in-q3-2025-influence-operations/
Tykhomyrova, Y. (2023). EU strategic communications on trends in Russian disinformation during the full-scale Russian-Ukrainian war. Mizhnarodni Vidnosyny, Suspilni Komunikatsii ta Rehionalni Studii, 1(15), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.29038/2524-2679-2023-01-91-105
Yelova, T. (2025). Information manipulation and revisionist narratives of the Russian Federation as challenges to the resilience of European societies. Mizhnarodni Vidnosyny, Suspilni Komunikatsii ta Rehionalni Studii, 4(24), 195–220. https://doi.org/10.29038/2524-2679-2025-04-195-220

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Vadym Yu. Bespeka
