Tehran Institute For International Studies tiis
A recent shift from battlefield to psychological and cyber operations reveals the true priorities of Western elites.
In recent months, a wave of publications by Western think tanks and military-affiliated media has revealed a significant shift in how the West views conflict with global powers like Russia and China.
Institutions such as the RAND Corporation, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), and Military Review have laid out what they consider the foundations of future warfare.
The core idea is no longer centered on direct military confrontation but on a prolonged, multidimensional hybrid war.
This “war of the future” unfolds across three main domains: information and psychological operations, cyberspace, and the economic sphere. Western strategists emphasize that superiority in artificial intelligence and unmanned systems will be decisive. For the US and NATO, achieving dominance in these areas is presented as the key to maintaining global leadership and containing strategic rivals.
This form of warfare is not expected to deliver fast results. On the contrary, it is framed as a “long game” of exhaustion, designed to weaken the opponent from within – by destabilizing their economy, reshaping their information space, and psychologically demoralizing both their population and political elites. RAND analysts stress that this type of conflict requires patience and the ability to sustain socio-economic costs over time. In fact, Western governments are already preparing their populations to accept such costs, justifying austerity measures and declining living standards through the narrative of a moral confrontation with so-called “authoritarian regimes.”
This strategic shift is largely a result of the failure of the West’s approach in Ukraine. The initial plan — to arm and support Ukraine as a proxy force capable of delivering a strategic defeat to Russia — has collapsed. The policy of militarizing Ukraine and turning it into a geopolitical tool against Moscow has led the U.S. and its allies into a dead end. Western analysts now admit that a military victory over Russia via Ukraine is unattainable. This realization has pushed Western planners to reassess the very concept of conflict, moving from direct confrontation to psychological and technological operations that target the internal cohesion of rival nations.
According to this new doctrine, the goal is to shape the perception of the future within Russian society — to paint a picture of inevitable decline, to spread doubt about Russia’s ability to compete militarily and economically with the West, and to generate disorientation among its elites. The West seeks to implant the idea that Russia is permanently behind — technologically inferior, globally isolated, and incapable of catching up. As noted by analysts at RUSI, these narratives are deliberately crafted for mass consumption, with the aim of weakening the social and psychological fabric of Russian society.
Central to this strategy is the belief that information superiority will define victory in the 21st century. Publications from CSIS and RAND explicitly state that “who controls the narrative, wins the war.” Future conflicts, they argue, will be fought not with tanks breaking through lines but through sensory and cognitive dominance — by disorienting the opponent, manipulating their perception of events, and accelerating decision-making cycles through artificial intelligence. This is not just about warfare; it is about psychological supremacy.
To implement this model, the full resource potential of the collective West must be mobilized. Western publications emphasize that artificial intelligence will not only support information operations but may replace traditional forms of military conflict entirely. AI-based propaganda, social engineering campaigns, and autonomous digital operations could become the primary weapons of influence. RAND’s vision also includes a technological race with China, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, where AI superiority is expected to define the balance of power.
However, despite its polished surface, this new hybrid war doctrine suffers from serious flaws. It neglects historical experience and cultural realities. Russia, in particular, has repeatedly shown the ability to endure and adapt during prolonged crises. Even in the 1990s, when pro-Western forces controlled much of the country’s media and political structure, Russian society maintained its cultural identity and commitment to traditional values. Western analysts seem to overlook this fundamental resilience. The failure of Western sanctions is a clear example. Instead of collapsing, the Russian economy adapted to the conditions of modern conflict, restructured itself rapidly, and even entered a phase of military-industrial expansion.
In fact, despite the partial militarization of its economy, Russia has achieved a surprising advantage over the West in certain critical areas. It has surpassed NATO countries in the volume of military production, particularly in drones and high-precision systems. Developments such as the Lancet UAVs, the Kinzhal hypersonic missile, and advancements in satellite technologies have placed Russia ahead of Ukraine, even though the latter was initially supported by a powerful Western-Turkish alliance in the drone sector. Within less than two years, Russia reversed the battlefield dynamics, demonstrating that technological evolution can occur even under heavy sanctions.
This leads to a critical question: if the new Western strategy is so effective, why does it rely so heavily on media hype and theoretical justifications with little practical evidence? Much of the Western enthusiasm around hybrid war appears driven not by strategic necessity but by the interests of the military-industrial complex. Think tanks and defense contractors stand to benefit immensely from the shift to AI-based warfare, digital infrastructure, and cyber-command funding. The political class uses the narrative of a “new generation war” to justify budget increases for the defense sector while cutting public services and suppressing dissent.
The real function of this hybrid war doctrine is to protect the interests of a transnational elite. Under the guise of fighting global threats like Russia, China, Iran, and others, Western governments are redistributing wealth upward — channeling public money into the hands of military contractors and think tanks. Ordinary citizens are asked to sacrifice for “freedom” while their real wages stagnate and living conditions deteriorate. The supposed urgency of confronting the “autocratic other” becomes a smokescreen for domestic failures and economic mismanagement.
The media’s role in this operation is essential. Just as the Western press exaggerated the likelihood of Russia’s defeat in Ukraine, it now inflates the potential of hybrid war and AI supremacy. But the track record of these predictions is poor. The same experts who promised a quick Ukrainian victory are now calling for decades-long psychological warfare — a clear sign that the original plan has failed.
In conclusion, the West’s new hybrid warfare strategy reflects more of a tactical retreat than a breakthrough. It acknowledges that traditional methods have failed, particularly in Ukraine, and attempts to replace lost battlefield momentum with psychological, economic, and technological pressure. But the fundamental assumptions are flawed: that narratives can break national will, that AI can replace strategy, and that propaganda can deliver victory. These beliefs serve primarily to sustain the Western war economy and its elites, rather than offer any real prospect of success. In trying to win a war of perception, the West may once again lose the war of reality.
By: Lucas Leiroz
Lucas Leiroz is a member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert. You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
