Ontological Infrastructure: Why Political-Warfare Operations Achieve Recognition Rather Than Persuasion

GP-2026-015   |   April 2026

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19161177

ABSTRACT

Counter-narrative and counter-disinformation programmes have failed systematically against four of the most consequential adversarial formations of the past half-century — not because they were underfunded or poorly designed, but because they were operating at the wrong level. Recognition rather than persuasion is the operative success criterion of political-warfare operations that have achieved durable effect: Pan-Slavism, Irish republicanism, the Sunni apocalyptic tradition, and the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary formation each succeeded not by advancing propositions that recipients assessed and accepted, but by activating pre-installed cognitive substrate that made externally supplied content feel like a truth already known. This note introduces ontological infrastructure as a three-dimensional analytical concept — cognitive-semiotic legibility, moral compulsion, and emotional necessity — that explains both the mechanism of docking and the pattern of differential uptake. Four cross-wave, cross-civilisational cases demonstrate structural convergence across ideologically incompatible formations. Dugin's Fourth Political Theory is analysed as the first deliberate systematisation of this mechanism at state scale, explaining why the fifth wave's composite ideological profile is an operational strategy rather than an analytical confusion. Recognising the ontological level is not a theoretical exercise. It is the condition for detection.

Keywords: ontological infrastructure | recognition mechanism | psychological capture | cognitive-semiotic legibility | moral compulsion | identity fusion | counter-narrative failure | fifth-wave extremism | docking mechanism | world-disclosure

ARTICLE

I. The Refutation Paradox

Between 2013 and 2016, the United States State Department's Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications ran a systematic digital counter-narrative operation against Islamic State recruitment — producing and amplifying content across Arabic, Urdu, Somali, and English channels, contesting ISIS claims factually, documenting atrocities, and targeting the same online spaces where ISIS material circulated. By every available metric the programme achieved negligible effect on recruitment flows. The following year, Carthy et al.'s systematic review of forty-five counter-radicalisation interventions across multiple formations and contexts reached the same conclusion with accumulated evidence: the majority of programmes achieved limited effect on populations most deeply exposed to extremist content. Paul and Matthews (2016) identified an equivalent failure from the strategic communication side — high-volume adversarial messaging succeeded not by persuading populations from zero but by triggering dispositions that made content feel like recognition rather than argument. Nyhan and Reifler (2010) documented the mechanism at the individual level: under motivated reasoning, correction does not merely fail — it can intensify resistance, because correction is processed as a threat to identity architecture rather than as new information. These failures share one explanatory assumption: that the operations being countered were advancing propositions. That assumption is wrong. They were disclosing worlds.

Two types of operation must be distinguished, and conflating them is the source of every systematic counter-programme failure this paper addresses. A persuasion operation advances propositions — claims about history, about the enemy, about the community's identity — that a recipient can assess, resist, or reject. It operates within a shared evidential framework and can in principle be countered by better evidence or more compelling argument. A world-disclosure operation does not advance propositions about a world; it makes one available. It installs or reactivates a cognitive-perceptual environment within which certain enemies feel real, certain violence feels obligatory, and certain identities feel like the only coherent available self — before any specific claim is consciously assessed. Bourdieu (1977, pp. 167–169) gives the social-theoretical formulation: doxa is the realm of what goes without saying because it comes without saying — the symbolic order that naturalises itself into the pre-political, into the way things simply are, beyond the reach of argument precisely because it is not experienced as a position that could be argued. Counter-narrative programmes are calibrated to contest orthodoxy. Ontological infrastructure operates at the doxic level. Pan-Slavism, Irish republicanism, the Sunni apocalyptic tradition, and the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary formation each built and transmitted ontological infrastructures at that level — and the Red Brigades, who explicitly theorised themselves as the scientific antithesis of religious and national mystification, built the same three-dimensional structure as formations that deployed them. That should not be possible if ideology is what these operations transmit. That it happened is the paper's central argument.

II. Ontological Infrastructure: Definition and Three Dimensions

Ontological infrastructure operates through three formally distinct dimensions, each of which is necessary and none of which is sufficient on its own. Cognitive-semiotic legibility is the first property the installed system exhibits: it makes certain categories of enemy, threat, legitimate community, and obligatory action available for perception before any specific argument is advanced. Berger and Luckmann (1966, pp. 77–86) provide the foundational account — in primary socialisation, the world installed in the child is not experienced as one world among possible others but as the world; contingency is lived as necessity. Once specific enemy categories have been installed at this level, content deploying those categories is not processed as a claim requiring assessment but as a feature of reality already known. Moral compulsion is the second property: the installed system positions specific forms of violence as obligatory restoration rather than optional aggression. Subject to one necessary precision — the system does not require the individual to consciously adopt a violent disposition; it only requires that when violence becomes situationally available, the moral framework for experiencing it as purification rather than aggression is already in place. Tetlock et al. (2000) demonstrate the psychological mechanism: once values are sacred, trade-off consideration produces moral outrage rather than deliberation. Juergensmeyer (2003, p. 119 ff.) shows the theological articulation: when violence is inserted into a cosmic war narrative, it ceases to appear as aggression and becomes participation in a struggle that transcends ordinary political time. Emotional necessity is the third property: the installed system binds individual identity to collective mission so completely that commitment is experienced as self-knowledge rather than political choice. Swann et al. (2012) on identity fusion: when personal and collective selves are fused, group-relevant content is processed as self-referential engagement rather than as external argument. Whitehouse et al. (2017) demonstrate that shared dysphoric experience — incarceration, clandestine ordeal, ritual exposure to danger — makes this binding somatic rather than merely intellectual, which is why it survives the kind of rational reconsideration that propositional commitment cannot resist. Three dimensions. Any symbolic system sufficiently developed at all three constitutes an ontological infrastructure. The ideological content that fills those dimensions is the vehicle. The three-dimensional structure is the architecture.

What makes transmission possible across regime changes, generational ruptures, and ideological discontinuities is the most analytically consequential property of ontological infrastructure — and it is the property that the existing radicalisation literature has not theorised. Doctrine can be replaced overnight when a political order collapses; what cannot be replaced by administrative decree is what Malešević (2017, ch. 6; 2019, ch. 1) identifies as ideologisation infrastructure: the network of practices, institutions, and everyday micro-solidarity norms through which a population has learned what the enemy looks like. These do not live in documents or party programmes. They live in the accumulated common sense of millions of ordinary encounters, in the unspoken assumptions of family conversation, in the emotional grammar of communal ritual. Subotić (2016) demonstrates the consequence: populations maintain identity-stabilising narrative patterns even at severe material cost because disrupting them produces not rational recalculation but existential disorientation — what is threatened is not a belief but the framework through which reality is legible. Reisigl and Wodak establish the discursive corollary: the strategies of nomination, predication, and argumentative topos through which threatening others are constructed persist structurally across political shifts because their formal operations survive the specific ideological content that originally generated them. What is transmitted is not a programme but a disclosed world — a claim that will strike political scientists schooled in ideological transmission models as counterintuitive, and rightly so; the qualification is that it holds only where all three channels of transmission — institutional, mnemonic, and discursive — are operating simultaneously. Where all three operate, as Della Porta (2013, pp. 204–262) demonstrates in the case of clandestine political violence, the organisation does not merely recruit; it encloses members within a total environment of meaning in which the disclosed world is the only coherent available reality. That is not ideology. It is ontological infrastructure doing its deepest work.

III. The Recognition Mechanism: How Docking Works

Gadamer's account of understanding reframes what happens when adversarial content finds a prepared substrate. Understanding, he argues, is not the neutral reception of information across a blank surface but an event. Meaning becomes intelligible within a historically formed horizon; what is experienced in that moment is not the acquisition of new knowledge but the recovery of something the interpreter already possessed in latent form (Gadamer, 2004, pp. 147–148). Recognition, in this account, is distinct from persuasion at the phenomenological level: persuasion moves an agent from one position to another through argument; the docking phenomenon is the experience of grasping what something truly is — the sense that encountered content is not a claim being advanced but a truth being disclosed that was always already available. Kahneman (2011, ch. 5) supplies the cognitive-psychological ground: familiarity, fluency, and coherent fit with pre-existing patterns generate what he calls cognitive ease — a subjective sense that something is true, safe, and requiring no further scrutiny. Where an ontological infrastructure has been installed, content deploying its categories achieves cognitive ease not because it has argued persuasively but because it matches a prior symbolic environment at a level below conscious assessment. This is the docking mechanism: adversarial content does not need to build new cognitive architecture in the target population — it needs only to trigger what is already structurally available. White (1989, p. 1289) documents the individual-level instance with precision: IRA micro-mobilisation was precipitated not by doctrinal conversion but by events — Bloody Sunday, internment, the daily texture of British military presence — that made a pre-existing republican frame suddenly vivid, suddenly undeniable, suddenly the only account of reality that felt adequate. The recruit did not reason their way to commitment. They recognised something they already knew as true.

Differential uptake — the phenomenon that the same operation achieves deep substrate engagement in one population and negligible purchase in another — is the docking mechanism's most analytically significant property, because it is what existing models cannot explain and what the substrate framework explains directly. Turner's self-categorisation work (1985) demonstrates that category triggering does not merely add an attitudinal preference to a prior neutral perception. It restructures which features of the social environment are perceptually salient, which behaviours are expected, and which threats feel real — the entire field of social perception reorganises around the activated category. Where an ontological infrastructure has installed specific enemy categories at depth, adversarial content deploying those categories achieves immediate salience — the threat does not need to be argued because it is already perceptually available. Szostek (2017) brings this closest to the specific case: Russian strategic narrative uptake in Ukraine depended less on message quality than on the social and communicative ties through which narratives travelled and the prior symbolic environment those ties inhabited. That is close to the substrate model but does not fully reach it — the deeper claim is that the symbolic environment itself is the product of installed ontological infrastructure, not merely of network structure. Zilinsky et al. (2024) provide the quantitative foundation: pre-existing disposition predicts acceptance of Russian war justifications more strongly than media exposure alone. The operation does not produce the receptivity. It finds it. The differential is the substrate differential.

IV. Four Cases, One Architecture

Red Brigades and Rote Armee Fraktion militants explicitly theorised themselves as practitioners of scientific historical materialism — the rational analysis of class contradiction, the objective laws of capitalist development, the disciplined application of Marxist-Leninist doctrine. They repudiated religious mystification. They repudiated nationalist sentiment. They repudiated everything that the other formations in this paper deploy as the content of their installed systems. Yet the architecture they built and transmitted was structurally identical across all three dimensions. A revolutionary proletariat experienced as the only authentic community of human existence — not a political category but a metaphysical one, the sole repository of genuine historical agency in a world otherwise populated by false consciousness (cognitive-semiotic legibility). Violence against the bourgeois state positioned not as strategically useful but as historically necessary, as the act through which the contaminating order is purified and authentic human existence becomes possible — morally obligatory in the same way that Juergensmeyer's cosmic warrior experiences violence as sacred duty (moral compulsion). Identity fused with collective mission to the degree that members described their commitment in terms indistinguishable from religious vocation — not a position they had reasoned into but a world they had been enclosed within (emotional necessity). Della Porta (2013, pp. 204–262) identifies the organisational mechanism: progressive encapsulation replaced members' prior social world with a total environment of meaning until no coherent reality remained outside it. Varon (2004, pp. 196–253) documents the intergenerational persistence: the RAF transmitted across three generations with tiny membership not because it kept persuading new converts of its propositions but because it kept socialising new entrants into the same disclosed world. The Red Brigades did not persuade. They enclosed.

Three centuries before the Provisional IRA's 1970s mobilisation, the disclosed world had already been constructed through penal law, land dispossession, and deliberate cultural suppression operating across generations. Catholic-Gaelic identity had been installed not as a political position but as a cosmological self-understanding — a community defined by its sacred character and by the contaminating alien presence that occupied it (cognitive-semiotic legibility). Armed resistance had been positioned not as a strategic option but as the only morally coherent response available to a community whose sovereignty was divinely grounded and whose suppression was experienced as an ontological violation — making restoration through force morally obligatory rather than aggressive (moral compulsion). Individual Irish Catholic identity had fused with collective national destiny to the degree that the community's survival was experienced as a personal existential stake rather than a political preference (emotional necessity). English (2003, pp. 81, 148 ff.) demonstrates that Provisional IRA mobilisation drew force from this sedimented system rather than from the novelty of republican argument: when the British Army arrived at the door, when internment filled the Long Kesh compound, when Bloody Sunday made the television screen — these events did not argue. They activated. White (1989, p. 1289) captures the individual transition: movement from passive sympathy to active commitment was precipitated by events that made the pre-existing frame suddenly vivid, suddenly the only account of reality that felt adequate. The infrastructure was three hundred years old. The activation took hours.

More than a millennium before Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's 2014 declaration, the Sunni apocalyptic tradition had sedimented a capture architecture of exceptional depth across three dimensions: the community of true believers as the only authentic human formation in a world otherwise occupied by apostasy and contamination, the binary so total that neutrality was itself a form of complicity (cognitive-semiotic legibility); violence against the contaminating other positioned as sacred obligation within a cosmic drama that transcends ordinary political time — Juergensmeyer's (2003, p. 119 ff.) cosmic war concept at maximum theological development, where martyrdom is not sacrifice but the highest form of self-realisation (moral compulsion); and identity fusion so complete that individual existence outside the collective mission was experienced as a form of death rather than as freedom (emotional necessity). Bunzel (2015) establishes that ISIS was inconceivable apart from this theological framework — its strategic choices were constrained by genuine commitments, not merely decorated by them. Roy (2017) then produces the paradox that only the substrate model resolves: many Western recruits had minimal prior Islamic scholastic formation, yet they encountered Dabiq publications as recognition rather than as argument. They were not learning a new theology. They were encountering a structural architecture — sacred community, contaminating enemy, purifying violence — that their prior psychological substrate already contained. It made no difference whether that substrate had been built from Islamic tradition or from the secular Western cultures of grievance, belonging, and redemptive purpose from which they came. The operation did not need to teach them the world. It only needed to find the one they were already living in.

Pan-Slavism's ontological infrastructure was not assembled in the twentieth century by propagandists or in the twenty-first by information operatives. It was constructed in the first half of the nineteenth century by Slavophile thinkers — Khomyakov, Kireevsky, Aksakov — who explicitly rejected Western rationalism and political theory as the wrong register for understanding Russian and Slavic identity (Walicki, 1975). Their concept of sobornost — organic communal unity grounded in Orthodox spiritual practice — was not a political theory but an account of the nature of authentic Slavic existence, prior to any political programme and immune to political refutation precisely because it did not advance propositions that could be contested. What they built was a disclosed world: a Slavic-Orthodox community experienced as the embodiment of authentic Christian civilisation surrounded by Western material contamination (cognitive-semiotic legibility); the defence and recovery of that community positioned as sacred historical mission rather than geopolitical preference, making specific forms of political and eventually military action morally obligatory rather than strategically chosen (moral compulsion); and individual Slavic identity bound to collective civilisational destiny so completely that threats to the Russian world were experienced as personal existential violations (emotional necessity). Pan-Slavist networks after 1878 operationalised this disclosed world through committee infrastructure and print circulation (Gülseven, 2017). Soviet active measures formalised it as intelligence doctrine. Russkiy mir redeploys it as what Laruelle (2015, p. 1) identifies as a geopolitical imagination whose structural blurriness is a strength rather than a weakness — it discloses a world rather than defending a doctrine, which is why it can be reinterpreted across multiple contexts without loss of operative function. The quantitative evidence confirms the docking mechanism operating in real time: Zilinsky et al. (2024) find that pre-existing disposition predicts uptake of Russian war justifications more strongly than media exposure alone; Gértrudix et al. (2023) demonstrate across 408 documented EUvsDisinfo cases that Russian information operations systematically trigger historically legible mnemonic material rather than constructing new ideological content. The infrastructure was not built in 2014. It was built in 1839 and has been continuously reactivated since.

V. Discussion: The Differential Question Answered

Four cases across four incompatible traditions, one structural result — and a result that the existing radicalisation and counter-terrorism literature has not been able to demonstrate, not because it lacked the analytical sophistication but because it was asking a different question. Kruglanski et al. (2014) on significance quest, Bouhana (2019) on the moral ecology of extremism, Gill (2015) on lone-actor behavioural precursors — these are among the most rigorous frameworks available for understanding how individuals move toward political violence, and they are diagnostically powerful within their domain. Their domain is the individual psychology of radicalisation and the surface conditions of mobilisation. What they cannot address is the differential question: why identical adversarial operations, deploying identical content through identical channels at identical scale, produce radically different rates of uptake in different target populations. The substrate answer this paper's four cases supply is structurally different from anything significance quest theory, moral ecology, or behavioural precursor analysis can generate: populations do not arrive at any specific adversarial operation as blank receptors awaiting engagement; they arrive carrying a pre-installed disclosed world whose depth and three-dimensional configuration determines, before any specific content is transmitted, whether that content will be processed as recognition or as a foreign claim requiring assessment. Carthy et al.'s (2020) systematic review of forty-five counter-radicalisation interventions confirms the structural consequence: limited effect on populations most deeply exposed was not the product of poor message design — it was the product of contesting propositions while the capture architecture those propositions triggered remained entirely intact. Schmid (2014) identified the gap from the practitioner side: adversarial formations link sacred texts, historical grievance, identity claims, and contemporary events into a framework of total historical-moral intelligibility that cannot be countered by fragmenting it into individual refutable claims. This paper goes one analytical level deeper than Schmid's formulation: that framework is not a narrative — it is a disclosed world, and the gap between narrative and ontological infrastructure is precisely the gap between what counter-narratives can contest and what they structurally cannot reach. The installed substrate model explains the mechanism of docking — but it cannot, by itself, determine when an infrastructure has decayed sufficiently that engagement fails. The IRA's political transition and the collapse of the Red Brigades both suggest that ontological infrastructures have a half-life under specific conditions — sustained delegitimisation, generational exhaustion, alternative world-disclosures becoming available — that the model must account for but cannot fully specify from historical documentary analysis alone. The model identifies what must be mapped. It does not map everything.

Counter-interpretation deserves a genuine engagement rather than a dismissal. The most serious objection to the ontological infrastructure framework is the one that threatens any structural theory of this kind: that it risks becoming unfalsifiable — if every successful adversarial operation is explained as triggering pre-existing substrate, and every failure is explained as absent or insufficient substrate, the theory accommodates all outcomes by assumption rather than by explanation. The paper's answer operates at two levels. At the theoretical level, the three-dimensional standard provides the falsifiability criterion: a disclosed world exists where cognitive-semiotic legibility, moral compulsion, and emotional necessity are each demonstrable through independent documentary evidence across multiple historical periods in the same target environment. Where that standard is not met, the claim of installed system does not hold — the theory produces a null result rather than retreating into unmeasurable abstraction. At the empirical level, the four-case structure is itself the falsifiability test: the four cases were selected for maximum surface incompatibility — far-left secular, Catholic-Gaelic nationalist, Sunni-apocalyptic, Slavic-Orthodox civilisational. If the theory were accommodating all outcomes by assumption, it would not require four maximally incompatible cases to demonstrate structural convergence — any single case would suffice. The convergence across incompatible cases is what makes the structural claim non-trivial. Bourdieu's doxa concept provides the theoretical floor: doxic orders can be disrupted — they become visible, arguable, and therefore vulnerable — when social conditions change sufficiently to make the taken-for-granted appear as a position rather than as reality. This is precisely how the RAF's disclosed world collapsed: generational exhaustion combined with the delegitimising force of the Cold War's end made the revolutionary world no longer self-evidently real to new entrants. The model is not claiming permanence. It is claiming structured persistence under identifiable conditions — and identifiable vulnerability under identifiable disruption. Most target environments carry ontological substrate of unknown depth. The activation question remains open in the vast majority of corridors.

VI. Dugin and the Fifth Wave: The Deliberate Weaponisation

Dugin's Fourth Political Theory (2012, pp. 32, 101, 156) is not a political philosophy in the conventional sense — it does not advance a programme, defend a constitution, or propose an economic order. Its subject is Dasein: collective ontological existence, the disclosed world within which a community inhabits its identity prior to political choice. Its argument is that the three twentieth-century political theories — liberalism, Marxism, and fascism — exhausted themselves as mobilisation systems precisely because they operated as persuasion systems, competing within a shared arena of propositional argument where populations eventually learned to evaluate, resist, and discount their claims. The fourth theory refuses that arena. It operates at the level where the three-dimensional architecture of the previous four cases has always operated: below the propositional threshold, in the pre-cognitive environment where the enemy is already available for perception, where violence is already morally available as restoration, where identity is already bound to collective destiny before any specific political programme arrives to direct it. Its most operationally significant feature is the one that appears most incoherent to detection frameworks calibrated for single-wave ideological consistency: it licenses selective assembly from all available ontological traditions — religious, nationalist, revolutionary-left, civilisational-conservative — without concern for their propositional compatibility, because compatibility is a propositional criterion and the fourth theory is not operating at the propositional level. Shekhovtsov (2017) demonstrates that Russian influence networks do not seek ideological alignment with Western far-right formations — they seek usable symbolic bridges to whatever substrate is most triggered by each specific local context. The composite ideological profile that Gartenstein-Ross et al. (2023) identify as the fifth wave's diagnostic signature is not ideological confusion. It is the operational consequence of a deliberate cross-spectral ontological strategy. Assemble whichever elements from incompatible traditions will trigger the deepest available substrate in each target population, supply the contemporary occupant for whichever slot is most primed to receive one, and allow the docking mechanism to proceed — because detection frameworks cannot interrupt what they are not calibrated to see. What looks like incoherence from outside is, at the ontological level, precision. The four cases this paper has traced were each doing this intuitively — building and activating disclosed worlds across incompatible ideological registers — long before the strategy was systematised. Dugin gave the intuition a theory. The fifth wave gave the theory a state budget. Recognising the ontological level is not a theoretical exercise. It is the condition for detection.

REFERENCES

Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Doubleday. [pp. 77–86, Part III]

Bouhana, N. (2019) 'The moral ecology of extremism: A systemic perspective', Aggression and Violent Behavior, 49, 101345.

Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Translated by R. Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [pp. 167–169]

Bunzel, C. (2015) From Paper State to Caliphate: The Ideology of the Islamic State. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Carthy, S.L. et al. (2020) 'Counter-narratives for the prevention of violent radicalisation', Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16(3), e1106.

della Porta, D. (2013) Clandestine Political Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [pp. 204–262]

Dreyfus, H.L. (1991) Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time, Division I. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dugin, A. (2012) The Fourth Political Theory. Translated by M. Sleboda and M. Millerman. London: Arktos. [pp. 32, 101, 156]

English, R. (2003) Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA. London: Macmillan. [pp. 81, 148 ff.]

Gadamer, H.-G. (2004) Truth and Method. 2nd rev. edn. Translated by J. Weinsheimer and D.G. Marshall. London: Continuum. [pp. 147–148, 305–307]

Gartenstein-Ross, D., Hodgson, S. and Clarke, C.P. (2023) 'Composite violent extremism', Studies in Conflict and Terrorism. doi:10.1080/1057610X.2023.2218193.

Gértrudix, M. et al. (2023) 'Information manipulation and historical revisionism', Open Research Europe.

Gill, P. (2015) Lone-Actor Terrorists: A Behavioural Analysis. London: Routledge.

Gülseven, A.Y. (2017) 'Rethinking Russian pan-Slavism in the Ottoman Balkans', Middle Eastern Studies, 53(3), pp. 332–348.

Juergensmeyer, M. (2003) Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. 3rd edn. Berkeley: University of California Press. [p. 119 ff.]

Kahneman, D. (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. [ch. 5]

Kruglanski, A.W. et al. (2014) 'The psychology of radicalization and deradicalization', Political Psychology, 35(S1), pp. 69–93.

Laruelle, M. (2015) The "Russian World": Russia's Soft Power and Geopolitical Imagination. Washington, DC: Center on Global Interests. [p. 1 ff.]

Malešević, S. (2017) The Rise of Organised Brutality: A Historical Sociology of Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ch. 6]

Malešević, S. (2019) Grounded Nationalisms: A Sociological Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ch. 1]

Nyhan, B. and Reifler, J. (2010) 'When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions', Political Behavior, 32(2), pp. 303–330.

Paul, C. and Matthews, M. (2016) The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R. (2001) Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London: Routledge.

Roy, O. (2017) Jihad and Death: The Global Appeal of Islamic State. London: Hurst.

Schmid, A.P. (2014) Al-Qaeda's "Single Narrative" and Attempts to Develop Counter-Narratives. The Hague: International Centre for Counter-Terrorism.

Shekhovtsov, A. (2017) Russia and the Western Far Right: Tango Noir. Abingdon: Routledge.

Subotić, J. (2016) 'Narrative, ontological security, and foreign policy change', Foreign Policy Analysis, 12(4), pp. 610–627.

Swann, W.B. et al. (2012) 'When group membership gets personal: A theory of identity fusion', Psychological Review, 119(3), pp. 441–456.

Szostek, J. (2017) 'The power and limits of Russia's strategic narrative in Ukraine', Perspectives on Politics, 15(2), pp. 379–395.

Tetlock, P.E. et al. (2000) 'The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), pp. 853–870.

Turner, J.C. (1985) 'Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior', in Lawler, E.J. (ed.) Advances in Group Processes, Vol. 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 77–122.

van der Linden, S. et al. (2017) 'Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change', Global Challenges, 1(2), article 1600008.

Varon, J. (2004) Bringing the War Home: The Weather Underground, the Red Army Faction, and Revolutionary Violence in the Sixties and Seventies. Berkeley: University of California Press. [pp. 196–253]

Walicki, A. (1975) The Slavophile Controversy: History of a Conservative Utopia in Nineteenth-Century Russian Thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

White, R.W. (1989) 'From peaceful protest to guerrilla war: Micromobilization of the Provisional Irish Republican Army', American Journal of Sociology, 94(6), pp. 1277–1302.

Whitehouse, H. et al. (2017) 'The evolution of extreme cooperation via shared dysphoric experiences', Scientific Reports, 7, 44292.

Zilinsky, J. et al. (2024) 'Justifying an Invasion: When Is Disinformation Successful?' Political Communication [confirm volume/issue on publication].

Citation: Kuzmanov, I. (2026). Ontological Infrastructure: Why Political-Warfare Operations Achieve Recognition Rather Than Persuasion. Angel Analytical Research Note GP-2026-015. DOI: [to be confirmed].

Published by Angel Analytical, part of The Angel Social Group. Supported by Art Angel Foundation. All rights reserved.