Japan: the 2025 White Paper and Lessons for the West

09/07/2025
By Pasquale Preziosa

Tokyo’s 2025 White Paper redefines the concept of security: no longer just borders and deterrence, but the defense of democratic institutions threatened by hybrid warfare, the “invisible war.”

The 2025 Japanese Defense White Paper highlights how contemporary democracies are no longer threatened only by conventional conflicts, but are already immersed in a form of permanent conflict defined as ‘hybrid warfare’ or in its most radical sense, ‘invisible war’.

The Japanese case is paradigmatic because it shows how a state that has historically focused on territorial defense and conventional deterrence against China and North Korea now recognizes that the existential threat no longer concerns only physical borders but also the internal stability of democratic institutions.

Hybrid warfare goes beyond the classic concept of conflict. It combines conventional tools (military pressure, nuclear threats, coercive exercises) and unconventional tools (cyberattacks, information manipulation, economic pressure, terrorism, weaponization of migration).

The concept of “invisible war” emphasizes that the conflict takes place primarily in the cognitive and social sphere, aiming to erode the pillars of democratic resilience from within. This overturns the traditional Clausewitzian conception of war as “the continuation of politics by other means”: today, democratic politics itself has become the target of war.

The Russian case, referred to in the White Paper and documented by Western sources (CSIS, NATO StratCom), shows how Moscow has developed a highly sophisticated hybrid arsenal in three critical areas:

  • Electoral interference (US 2016, France 2017, Germany 2019, Moldova 2024).
  • Complex information operations (doppelganger campaigns, deepfakes, saturation of fact-checkers).
  • Invisible infrastructure attacks (submarine cables, GPS, cyberattacks).

The goal is not so much to sway election results in favor of pro-Russian candidates as it is to delegitimize the democratic process and generate systemic distrust in institutions.

This is a war that does not aim at territorial conquest, but rather at the implosion of democracies through the erosion of their internal legitimacy.

Japan, although geographically distant from the Ukrainian theater, perceives this dynamic as an immediate threat.

Three elements emerge most strongly:

  • Electoral concern about possible foreign interference in the House of Councillors elections (2024), which has fueled awareness of cognitive and institutional vulnerability;
  • The educational approach, aimed at incorporating information literacy into school curricula, recognizing that democratic resilience cannot be solely technological, but must also be based on cultural and cognitive foundations;
  • International cooperation, considered essential for articulating a multilateral response with allies and partners, avoiding strategic isolation and integrating the fight against hybrid warfare into the broader Indo-Pacific security architecture.

The Japanese case highlights at least three particularly important implications:

  • A change in the concept of security: national defense can no longer be reduced to the military domain alone, but also includes social, informational, and economic dimensions;
  • Democratic fragility as a center of gravity: while Clausewitz identified the center of gravity as the main source of the enemy’s strength, for contemporary democracies it is not military infrastructure, but popular trust in institutions;
  • The paradox of transparency: open, pluralistic societies based on the free flow of information are, by definition, more vulnerable to information saturation and cognitive manipulation.
  • Recognizing the urgency of defending elections, information, and civil society, the Japanese White Paper emphasizes the need for a new doctrine of comprehensive security.

This includes:

  • Institutional reforms aimed at ensuring electoral transparency.
  • Systemic programs of critical thinking and information education.
  • International cooperation and intelligence sharing.
  • Development of cognitive deterrence capabilities based on social and institutional resilience.

The Japanese case shows that hybrid warfare is not a peripheral issue confined to Ukraine or Europe, but a global phenomenon that is redefining the paradigms of international security.

By including the dimension of “invisible” warfare in its White Paper, Japan recognizes that the survival of democracies depends on their ability to defend their internal legitimacy as much as their external borders.

Looking ahead, this confirms that hybrid conflict cannot be understood through 20th-century categories (war, peace, alliance), but requires a new theoretical paradigm that integrates the cognitive, informational, and social dimensions of security.

This was published by PRPChannel on August 29, 2025 in Italian and is published with the consent of the author.