How China is using psychological warfare in the Russia-Ukraine conflict

IN warfare history, psychological strategies have long been used to achieve strategic goals. China’s psychological warfare is not new but differs from past methods that were closely linked to violence.

Instead, China employs a “holistic offence system” (zhengti gongji tixi), spanning politics, economy, science, technology, diplomacy, and culture, targeting not just adversaries but also neutral states and global audiences. This strategy operates subtly, influencing thought and behaviour while maintaining plausible deniability.

Aided by non-linearities, China can influence thoughts and behaviour without detection, working by attrition to lull opponents into complacency. The lack of physical confrontation and the difficulty of discerning intentions enable countries to misinterpret China’s statecraft, allowing Beijing to maintain strategic ambiguity while disregarding mainstream values.

Observers searching for nuances in official statements or overt actions may find themselves misled, as Chinese psychological strategies “leverage the logic of deception,” even if the regime does not overtly seek to deceive. This is evident in China’s limited statements on the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

China’s military culture, rooted in deception and psychological manipulation, is well documented. According to scholars Lucian Pye and Nathan Leites, themes of surprise and deception are vital in Chinese political culture, contrasting with Western deception, which prioritises self-gain rather than the enemy’s failure.

Donald Daniel and Katherine Herbig observe a strong alignment between Mao Zedong’s writings and classical Chinese military texts regarding the role of deception in control and risk minimisation. Ralph D Sawyer further confirms that deception remains a key focus in contemporary Chinese strategic thought.

Allusion manipulates perception by presenting altered realities as genuine, leading targets to believe new ideas originate from their own thoughts. Similar to coercive diplomacy, it exploits human psychology to induce compliance without force, triggering anxiety and uncertainty in adversaries.

Through calculated messaging, China subtly influences attitudes and decisions while ensuring that its actions appear benign. This technique plays on cognitive biases, making it difficult for targets to distinguish between their own reasoning and external manipulation.

Just as coercive diplomacy exploits “wants and fears” to induce change, allusion discourages aggression by instigating mental instability, anxiety, and doubt. Unlike coercion, which relies on explicit threats, allusion functions by shaping perceptions subtly, creating an altered version of reality in which adversaries make decisions against their own interests without realising they are being manipulated.

Ancient Chinese theorists believed that persuasive narratives (xiwen) were crucial for political mobilisation and moral justification in warfare. By controlling information — whether facts, arguments, rumours, or lies — they claimed the moral high ground and justified actions as the “will of Heaven” (titian xing dao). This strategy seeks to undermine adversaries’ legitimacy while strengthening internal unity and winning support from third parties.

Reasoning plays a key role in shaping public perception, much like Western propaganda and disinformation tactics designed to manipulate opinion, promote narratives, and foster distrust.

Through a mix of selective truths and fabricated claims, China influences the discourse around conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war, subtly framing Western actions as unjustified while presenting its own stance as neutral and principled. This approach helps China position itself as an alternative global leader while challenging the legitimacy of US and European influence.

Chinese martial strategists believed that dissolving enemy resistance through cultural influence, lifestyle promotion, and value shifts was key to achieving victory without battle. Luring serves as a form of “psychological encirclement”, undermining confidence in adversaries’ governments while fostering emotional and ideological affinities. This tactic is designed to weaken resistance by making China’s influence appear natural and appealing rather than coercive.

Two primary methods facilitate this strategy: “affection and reform” (ganhua) and “disguise” (qiaozhuang). The former appeals to emotions, using shared cultural origins, blood ties, and mutual interests to create a sense of familiarity and reduce hostility.

By aligning identities through subtle persuasion, China gradually shapes opinions and behaviours, making adversaries more receptive to its influence. The latter involves deception, where operatives pose as enemies to infiltrate and disrupt from within, exploiting internal divisions and weakening alliances.

These tactics aim to reduce opposition without resorting to open conflict. By subtly shifting perspectives, China can erode trust in foreign institutions, promote pro-China narratives, and weaken adversarial cohesion. This approach has been evident in its engagement with Western countries, where economic partnerships and cultural exchanges serve as tools for strategic influence.

As US-China tensions intensify, understanding China’s psychological warfare strategies is crucial. While these tactics do not replace conventional warfare, they shape global narratives, undermine Western alliances, and influence international stability. The 2019 Chinese defence white paper highlights the shift towards “informationized” and “intelligent” warfare, underscoring the need for global norms to counter psychological manipulation.

China’s psychological strategies seek to secure political superiority, weaken the legitimacy of adversaries, and divide alliances. By shaping international perceptions, China can delegitimise Western actions, erode the credibility of the US and Europe, and undermine the confidence of their allies. This approach influences how global audiences interpret conflicts, often portraying Western nations as aggressors while China positions itself as a stabilising force.

Youngjune Chung argues that countering these strategies requires more than superficial measures aimed at transforming China into a Western-style democracy. Instead, addressing the ideological and symbolic frameworks that underpin Chinese psychological warfare is essential.

Western nations must develop counter-strategies that acknowledge China’s tactics, emphasising greater political transparency, enhanced information sharing, and improved allied readiness.

The future of psychological warfare will likely centre on information control, strategic deception, and influence campaigns. To maintain global security and stability, international coalitions must establish norms that track, expose, and deter China’s psychological operations. Upholding the liberal international order through collective action remains vital in an era where psychological warfare increasingly shapes global power dynamics.

* Dr Vusi Shongwe is the chief director for Heritage Resource Services in the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Sport, Arts, and Culture. This article is written in his personal capacity.

** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, Independent Media, or IOL.