Opinion: The DeepSeek Saga Analyzed as a Cognitive Weapon

In the same week when a spree of executive orders shook the foundations of the status quo, the Chinese large language model (LLM) DeepSeek got America talking.

The LLM, free of cost, powerful and developed for under $6 million by a hedge fund, was deemed functionally superior to American LLMs and as a revolutionary product that proved China is winning the AI race. Or at least, that’s how the story was framed.

If you followed the hype, you saw your 401K take a hit as AI stocks stumbled. Investors, who base valuations on expectations of future cash flows, panicked. If DeepSeek could be built so cheaply and given away for free, what does that say about the future of AI-driven revenues in the U.S.?

The anxiety spread quickly. AI has attracted billions in investment, and the narrative surrounding DeepSeek suggested that China had just demolished the cost barrier, undercutting American innovation and making AI development seem like a wasteful, bloated endeavor.

There has been significant discussion about DeepSeek’s functionality and features, but that is not the focus of this article. Instead, I want to examine the narratives, the framing and how this event serves as a live case study in information warfare.

I am not suggesting that the release of DeepSeek was an intentional cognitive attack by China, nor am I alleging that domestic financial actors manipulated the story to profit from NVIDIA’s temporary stock drop. I am analyzing the strategic impact of this information event and how the story itself became a weapon.

DeepSeek as an Information Weapon

A little more than two years ago, I co-authored a book in which I argued that AI must be approached strategically because any decline in AI leadership means that all other sectors will suffer. AI is not just a technology, it is the cognitive foundation of future power. The DeepSeek saga provides a powerful example of algorithmic cognitive warfare, whether intentional or not, where information itself serves as a disruptive force against U.S. technological dominance.

If one were to view the DeepSeek event as an information warfare campaign, the information weapon package would look something like this:

• Leverage American AI research, then claim innovation: DeepSeek, like Phi-4, was built using denoised synthetic data sourced from existing American LLMs. U.S. researchers and companies already completed the hardest, most expensive part of AI development: curating massive datasets.
• Declare it as a revolutionary breakthrough: Frame DeepSeek as a radical Chinese innovation, ignoring the fact that its foundation was largely American. Position China as the leader in AI while downplaying the reality that its advancement depends on Western-origin technologies.
• Manipulate perceptions of cost efficiency: Claim that DeepSeek was built for under $6 million, creating the illusion that U.S. AI firms are bloated and inefficient. In reality, the true cost of AI development extends far beyond training a model — it includes infrastructure, talent and an entire value chain that China heavily subsidizes.
• Offer the model as free and open-source to create industry disruption: This move forces American firms to question their own economic models, eroding confidence in proprietary AI. It also opens the floodgates for adversaries to access and adapt a competitive LLM.
• Connect the story to U.S. AI stocks, especially NVIDIA: The media immediately tied DeepSeek’s emergence to the future profitability of NVIDIA and other AI giants. Investors, spooked by the idea that China had leapfrogged the U.S., dumped shares, causing market losses.
• Use American influencers as amplifiers: Tech influencers, journalists and analysts, many unknowingly, became conduits for Chinese strategic messaging. They pushed the idea that China had decisively won the AI race, fueling further economic and psychological destabilization.
• Observe, learn and refine for future cognitive warfare: Regardless of intent, China has now seen, in real-time, how easily a single AI story can shake American markets. This becomes a playbook for future AI-driven influence operations, and one that the U.S. must take seriously.

Algorithmic Cognitive Warfare in Action

The DeepSeek narrative follows a classic six-stage model of algorithmic cognitive warfare, as outlined in recent Chinese military research:

• User portrait: Target audiences — in this case, investors, AI researchers and policymakers — were identified for tailored messaging.
• Attracting attention: The narrative was pushed through influential media channels to trigger immediate engagement.
• Suggesting reference: The idea that DeepSeek proves U.S. AI is lagging was made to seem like a self-evident truth.
• Inducing reaction: The framing created an economic and psychological shift, making AI investments seem riskier.
• Timely intervention: Continuous social media reinforcement kept the hype cycle alive, deepening market uncertainty.
• Supervising gratification: The event was analyzed in real time, measuring how effectively perceptions shifted.

The Case for Techno-Nationalism

Based on this analysis, I am convinced that techno-nationalism, not techno-internationalism, is the only viable path forward. AI is not just another industry; it is a national security asset, and the DeepSeek case study demonstrates the dangers of unrestricted access to American AI.

What needs to happen now:

• Restrict access to American LLMs: Foreign actors should not be allowed to freely train their models on U.S. datasets.
• Protect the U.S. AI industry: The government must support and insulate key AI firms against strategic market manipulation.
• Strengthen intelligence operations on AI disinformation: Agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency must treat AI narratives as national security threats.
• Counter Strategic Messaging: American media and tech analysts must approach Chinese AI announcements with skepticism and strategic awareness.

Final Thought: AI as a Weaponized Narrative

DeepSeek is not just an AI model; it is an event in information warfare. It exposed vulnerabilities in the way America reacts to disruptive AI stories. While no direct evidence suggests that this was a deliberate attack, the impact speaks for itself: a single AI announcement destabilized financial markets, weakened investor confidence and fueled doubts about American leadership in AI.

This is not the last time something like this will happen. The next AI shockwave will come, and the U.S. must be prepared to defend not just its technology, but also the narratives surrounding it.