The Sphere of Sovereign Virtual and Information National Space of the State

A group of states led by the United States is effectively conducting a hybrid war that contains such an element as «lawfare». Therefore, Russia needs a doctrinal foundation for making regulatory acts and normative-technical documents that ensure sovereignty in any incident situation affecting the interests of Russia in any domain (local, territorial, and/or global) of the virtual-informational space. The issues of sovereignizing the national space have become important and relevant. Incidents taking place in a so-called «digital» virtual-informational space require a jurisdictional mechanism for identifying (specifying) the actor (source, producer, and/or product), in particular, this involves the application of judicial jurisdiction, including expertise for jurisdictional purposes, which allows admission of judicial-expert evidence and making judicial decisions. Furthermore, in specific situations, it is necessary to apply countermeasures that must comply with the norms of response established in national legislation for situations arising in the virtual-informational space. The paper relies on categorical-tensor and producent approaches developed by the author. The paper demonstrates the need for doctrinal discussion of the categories of domain, space, and situation in the virtual-informational space. It is argued that national sovereignty should extend not only to carriers in «cyberspace» in the data space, but also to the content of sign-products (signs of information, signal messages, and/or binary data codes) that carry semiotic content (information), ideas, and/or forms representing real and/or existing entities in the virtual-informational space that can influence the psychosocial properties of the population.

1. Ilnitskiy AM. The Strategy of Mental Security of Russia. Voennaya mysl. 2022;4:24-35. (In Russ.).

2. Makarov E. Mentaland Cognitive Wars— Questionsof Definition, Goals, and Means. Geopolitika. ru. Available at: https://www.geopolitika.ru/article/mentalnaya-i-kognitivnaya-voyny-voprosy-opredeleniya-celi-i-sredstva?ysclid=m5k1d6czeq891503478 [Accessed 20.03.2025].

3. Rumyantseva VG. The State Interest: the Sovereign’s Power by Default. Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL). 2023;1(11):165-170. (In Russ.).

4. Air-Force General Eric Autellet, Dr. Norbou Buchler, et al. Cognitive Warfare Symposium. ENSC. NATO Science and Technology Organization. 2021. Available at: https://2050.su/cognitive-warfare-the-future-of-cognitive-dominance/?ysclid=m5kovrrhds752346147 [Accessed 20.03.2025].

5. Cao K, Glaister S, et al. NATO Review. (20 May 2021). Johns Hopkins University & Imperial College London. Available at: https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2021/05/20/countering-cognitive-warfare-awareness-and-resilience/index.html [Accessed 20.03.2025].

6. Claverie B, Cluzel F. The Cognitive Warfare Concept. NATO Allied Command Transformation. Innovation Hub. 2021. Available at: https://2050.su/the-cognitive-warfare-concept/?ysclid=m5kopvahv450540445 [Accessed 20.03.2025].

7. Norton В. Behind. NATO’s ‘cognitive warfare’: ‘Battle for your brain’ waged by Western militaries. Grayzone. 2021;8. Available at: https://thegrayzone.com/2021/10/08/nato-cognitive-warfare-brain/ [Accessed at: 20.03.2025].