Cyberattacks Become New Weapon of Psychological Warfare

Imagine a late-night phone alert warning of an imminent nuclear strike, radioactive contamination, or chemical attack. It appears to come from a trusted government app. Your first response is fear, not technical curiosity: you may call family, seek shelter, or desperately verify the warning.
Imagine discovering hackers fabricated the warning. This is no longer hypothetical: On 1 November 2026, Ukraine's official air raid alert app was reportedly compromised, issuing false warnings of radiation threats, chemical attacks and possible street fighting in Kyiv and elsewhere. One claimed Russia had launched its nuclear-capable Oreshnik hypersonic missile. Ukraine’s Air Force warned that its application may have been targeted, assuring citizens there was no radiation threat. Authorities suspended it during an investigation. Hours later, Russia's Ministry of Emergency Situations reported its app had also been cyberattacked, spreading false alerts about nuclear warheads allegedly launched across Russian regions.
The two incidents occurred within hours of each other, although their connection and the identities of those responsible have not been independently established. According to reporting by Reuters and Recorded Future News, Ukraine's air raid alert application had approximately 6.6 million active users as of January 2026. 
The incident raises a question beyond cybersecurity: Can a country be psychologically attacked without missiles? Modern warfare need not be physically destructive; influencing public perception, exploiting fear, and undermining confidence are increasingly powerful tools. While traditional warfare relies on military force, territorial destruction and economic pressure, psychological warfare targets the human mind. Its purpose is to shape perceptions, create uncertainty, erode confidence and alter public behaviour. Cyberattacks are an increasingly potent tool, especially against emergency notification systems, which exploit citizens’ trust in government warnings. People rely on these messages to protect them; when that trust is broken, the impact extends beyond the incident.
A fabricated nuclear warning can cause panic, distress, unnecessary movement, strain on emergency services, and confusion for families. Even after an all-clear, uncertainty may persist. The attacker need not destroy infrastructure, only make people doubt its reliability. This is where cyber and psychological warfare intersect.
Cyberattacks reportedly hit supermarket refrigeration systems in nine European countries, causing food spoilage, while three regional French blood service facilities were also affected. These incidents show how attacks can threaten food security, public health and daily life by disrupting essential infrastructure. Alongside Ukraine's fake nuclear alerts, these incidents illustrate cyber warfare’s dual reach: manipulating public perception and disrupting vital systems.
Research shows that the psychological effects of cyberattacks warrant serious attention. A study titled "Cyberattacks, Psychological Distress, and Military Escalation," published in the Journal of Global Security Studies in 2023, analysed 18 experiments involving over 6,000 participants across three countries. It found cyberattacks can cause distress comparable to conventional attacks, challenging the assumption that attacks without visible damage are less threatening. Digital aggression can create fear, suffering and insecurity.
There is another important dimension. The same research explored how psychological distress following cyberattacks could influence public attitudes towards military retaliation. In other words, an operation intended to create fear may also contribute to political pressure for escalation.
NATO has increasingly examined this intersection in the context of cognitive warfare. In 2023, its Allied Command Transformation explained that hostile actors can shape attitudes and behaviours by disrupting perceptions of reality. The battlefield extends beyond computer networks to the information environment where people make decisions about their safety, institutions and country. 
Perhaps the most damaging consequence of a compromised emergency communication system is not the initial panic but the possibility of long-term distrust. Consider what happens when citizens receive conflicting information. An official application announces a nuclear threat. Government authorities subsequently declare the warning false. Social media platforms circulate screenshots, rumours and competing explanations. Some people believe the original alert, while others suspect that the government's clarification is itself an attempt to conceal something.
The result is an information vacuum in which uncertainty becomes more powerful than verified facts. A 2023 study published in the British Journal of Politics and International Relations, titled The Limits of Cyberattacks in Eroding Political Trust, examined survey experiments in the United States, the United Kingdom and Israel. Interestingly, its findings showed that cyberattacks do not automatically undermine public confidence in government. Their effects depend on psychological and political circumstances. This distinction matters. A cyberattack does not inevitably destroy institutional trust. However, repeated incidents, inadequate official communication, and inconsistent responses could make it increasingly difficult to maintain public confidence.
The World Health Organization emphasised that effective emergency risk communication relies on trust among authorities, experts and affected communities, and on addressing rumours and misinformation. During crises, accurate information is essential to public safety, not just public relations. The incident in Ukraine underscores the need for reliable public communication when official digital channels fail. As societies rely on interconnected digital infrastructure for emergencies, finance, healthcare, transport and administration, vulnerabilities in one sector can affect others.
When emergency applications are compromised, citizens must have access to alternative channels for verifying information. These may include independently functioning sirens, television and radio broadcasts, verified government websites, official social media accounts and direct communication from local authorities.
Public trust requires more than official assurances: communication must remain accessible, transparent and credible, especially during emergencies. Governments should build redundant systems, regularly assess cybersecurity, secure administrative access and prepare rapid clarification procedures. Warnings should be verifiable across independent channels. Public education is also vital, helping citizens identify suspicious or manipulated messages without dismissing genuine threats.
The implications extend beyond Ukraine. Cybersecurity is vital not just for IT departments and defence agencies, but also for public safety and national resilience. In Bangladesh, growing reliance on digital public services, mobile finance and online government communications makes public communication infrastructure increasingly important to protect. A compromised emergency alert system could cause harm during cyclones, floods, industrial accidents or other crises: false warnings may spark panic, while manipulated information may deter responses to real threats.
A country's security should be judged not only by its military and technology, but also by its ability to preserve public confidence in uncertain times. Cyberattacks may target neither buildings, weapons nor territory; they may instead undermine citizens’ trust. A missile destroys infrastructure, while a fabricated emergency warning can weaken society’s bond with the institutions charged with protecting it.
And perhaps that is the emerging reality of modern psychological warfare: the next attack may not begin with an explosion. It may begin with a notification on someone's phone.
_______________________
The writer is a journalist