sorry for being totally off topic, but I want your opinion on this: 1989-1991, the 1st 4GW, fought with the power of radio& manipulation, making the citizens of the enemy rise against the enemy and beat him up for you, without you having to fire a single bullett. Can we say it? Re-writing security and warfare theory? Entering the field only when and where manipulation of creating the coup will not work? In fact, in Iran it was used already twice (Dr. Mossadegh & the Schach), but the real thing could be considered Eastern Europe. What is your opinion? Ok, we might be subjective in this, being from Russia, respectivelly Romania, but I really would love to read your opinion on it. tks in advance, Cristina
@Cristina: the power of radio& manipulation, making the citizens of the enemy rise against the enemy and beat him up for you, without you having to fire a single bullett. Can we say it? Re-writing security and warfare theory? Entering the field only when and where manipulation of creating the coup will not work?
Hi Cristina. Have you read the books by John Perkins (Confessions of an Economic Hitman, The Secret History of the American Empire, A Game as Old as Empire, Hoodwinked)? He says that the Imperial strategy of control goes in the following sequence:
a) first, they send in what he calls Economic Hit Man (EHM) who try to corrupt the ruling elite.
b) then, they send in what he calls the Jackals, killers who try to assissinate the resisting ruler
c) lastly, when all else fails, they send in the military.
Well, that latest phase is always preceeded by a massive propaganda and subversion campaign. The idea is that the military will really just “finish off” the resistance. This also makes is possible to present the intervention as a “liberation”.
All this is not inherently new. Look at the US role in the history of Haiti and Cuba, or the way Hitler justified his invasions of the East European countries.
Following the movement to deconolize the world after WWII, nobody will openly say “we will invade you because we need your natural ressources”, so spreading freedom, democracy, progress or defending an oppressed minority is the way to do that now. Of course, sometimes this kind of stuff only goes that far. Even though in 2006 Israel pretended to liberate Lebanon from Hezbollah, nobody took this nonsese seriously and Israel got comprenesively defeated.
Thanks Saker, but no, it is not what I was asking. Yes, I read the books, yes it is only confirmation to what we thought/felt aso. No, my question to you as military specialist is: can we consider what happened in Eastern Europe (Russia totally included) during 1989-1991 part of not only an intelligence, but also a military operation/campaign, a new kind of war maybe (RMA/RGW), with the result of defeating the enemy with a) a very small amount of casualties on the defeated side (Romania and later on Russia – without these it would have hard for me to think about military operation; b) an even smaller amount of human victims on the side of the winner (the so-called journalists, fallen at least in Romania, I cannot recall the situation in Russia). So my question is very, very technical – I am trying to put 2 and 2 together in the latest security theories (the replacement of the state as focal point with the human and it occured to me that that was the moment when theories began to change). Coming to your a), b), c) – I do have a strong feeling that after managing to put the claws of the Persian resources already twice through a + b now they will have to go to c). But somehow, with all the respect to Persia, its culture, history aso, I do feel that the fall of Eastern Europe + Russia is incomparable and somehow not explained from a military pov. Sorry for being such a nuisance, but you know – during the Great Lent people have to face all kind of chalenges:) Anyhow, nice to have holidays at same time for once, Thank you, C
@Cristina: ok. now I get your point. let me try to answer it more accurately.
can we consider what happened in Eastern Europe (Russia totally included) during 1989-1991 part of not only an intelligence, but also a military operation/campaign, a new kind of war maybe (RMA/RGW), with the result of defeating the enemy with a) a very small amount of casualties on the defeated side
My personal opinion is that no, we cannot. Unless, of course, we consider this propaganda/subversive campaign as a “psyop preparation of the battlefield” which would serve as the first phase of a military operation. Others might disagree, but in my somewhat old fashioned opinion you can only call something a “military operation/campaign” if it is planned and executed by a military staff and if it involves the use of armed force.
Notice also that what happened in Eastern Europe did not involve RMA/4GW.
What you are describing should, in my opinion, be called a “strategic PSYOP”.
I am trying to put 2 and 2 together in the latest security theories
I am personally rather dubious of the “latest security theories”, and the rather mediocre performance of US and Israeli military forces in the recent years only reinforce my scepticism.
I do feel that the fall of Eastern Europe + Russia is incomparable and somehow not explained from a military pov.
Well, from a military point of view the fall of Eastern Europe makes the Moscow Military District of Russia a border district… What used to be the 2nd strategic echelon has now been transformed into the first tactical one. That is about as bad as it gets for Russia. However, and that is a big however, NATO as a military alliance is turning into a colonial and imperial enforcer organization which really is loosing its military quality very rapidly. East European armies are essentially bullshit armies, like the one Georgia had. The main disaster therefore is not for Russia which can live with the new geopolitical context, but for the East Europeans who missed a truly historical opportunity to finally become independent. Instead, they turned into a NATO colony (with CIA torture centers and US nukes). Russia is rapidly and skillfully adapting to the new reality. Eastern Europe is stuck under the US boot for a long long time.
Sorry for being such a nuisance
You are emphatically NOT a nuisance and please do not worry about being “off-topic”. I ENCOURAGE off-topic interaction and exchanging points of view is something which I enjoy. In fact, I wish more of my readers used this blog as a discussion forum with little or no regard to what article are posted at the top of the page at any given time.
Hy Saker,
sorry for being totally off topic, but I want your opinion on this: 1989-1991, the 1st 4GW, fought with the power of radio& manipulation, making the citizens of the enemy rise against the enemy and beat him up for you, without you having to fire a single bullett. Can we say it? Re-writing security and warfare theory? Entering the field only when and where manipulation of creating the coup will not work? In fact, in Iran it was used already twice (Dr. Mossadegh & the Schach), but the real thing could be considered Eastern Europe.
What is your opinion? Ok, we might be subjective in this, being from Russia, respectivelly Romania, but I really would love to read your opinion on it.
tks in advance,
Cristina
@Cristina: the power of radio& manipulation, making the citizens of the enemy rise against the enemy and beat him up for you, without you having to fire a single bullett. Can we say it? Re-writing security and warfare theory? Entering the field only when and where manipulation of creating the coup will not work?
Hi Cristina. Have you read the books by John Perkins (Confessions of an Economic Hitman, The Secret History of the American Empire, A Game as Old as Empire, Hoodwinked)? He says that the Imperial strategy of control goes in the following sequence:
a) first, they send in what he calls Economic Hit Man (EHM) who try to corrupt the ruling elite.
b) then, they send in what he calls the Jackals, killers who try to assissinate the resisting ruler
c) lastly, when all else fails, they send in the military.
Well, that latest phase is always preceeded by a massive propaganda and subversion campaign. The idea is that the military will really just “finish off” the resistance. This also makes is possible to present the intervention as a “liberation”.
All this is not inherently new. Look at the US role in the history of Haiti and Cuba, or the way Hitler justified his invasions of the East European countries.
Following the movement to deconolize the world after WWII, nobody will openly say “we will invade you because we need your natural ressources”, so spreading freedom, democracy, progress or defending an oppressed minority is the way to do that now.
Of course, sometimes this kind of stuff only goes that far. Even though in 2006 Israel pretended to liberate Lebanon from Hezbollah, nobody took this nonsese seriously and Israel got comprenesively defeated.
I hope that this answers your question.
I wish you a happy end to the Great Lent.
Kind regards,
The Saker
Thanks Saker, but no, it is not what I was asking. Yes, I read the books, yes it is only confirmation to what we thought/felt aso. No, my question to you as military specialist is: can we consider what happened in Eastern Europe (Russia totally included) during 1989-1991 part of not only an intelligence, but also a military operation/campaign, a new kind of war maybe (RMA/RGW), with the result of defeating the enemy with a) a very small amount of casualties on the defeated side (Romania and later on Russia – without these it would have hard for me to think about military operation; b) an even smaller amount of human victims on the side of the winner (the so-called journalists, fallen at least in Romania, I cannot recall the situation in Russia).
So my question is very, very technical – I am trying to put 2 and 2 together in the latest security theories (the replacement of the state as focal point with the human and it occured to me that that was the moment when theories began to change).
Coming to your a), b), c) – I do have a strong feeling that after managing to put the claws of the Persian resources already twice through a + b now they will have to go to c).
But somehow, with all the respect to Persia, its culture, history aso, I do feel that the fall of Eastern Europe + Russia is incomparable and somehow not explained from a military pov.
Sorry for being such a nuisance, but you know – during the Great Lent people have to face all kind of chalenges:)
Anyhow, nice to have holidays at same time for once,
Thank you,
C
@Cristina: ok. now I get your point. let me try to answer it more accurately.
can we consider what happened in Eastern Europe (Russia totally included) during 1989-1991 part of not only an intelligence, but also a military operation/campaign, a new kind of war maybe (RMA/RGW), with the result of defeating the enemy with a) a very small amount of casualties on the defeated side
My personal opinion is that no, we cannot. Unless, of course, we consider this propaganda/subversive campaign as a “psyop preparation of the battlefield” which would serve as the first phase of a military operation. Others might disagree, but in my somewhat old fashioned opinion you can only call something a “military operation/campaign” if it is planned and executed by a military staff and if it involves the use of armed force.
Notice also that what happened in Eastern Europe did not involve RMA/4GW.
What you are describing should, in my opinion, be called a “strategic PSYOP”.
I am trying to put 2 and 2 together in the latest security theories
I am personally rather dubious of the “latest security theories”, and the rather mediocre performance of US and Israeli military forces in the recent years only reinforce my scepticism.
I do feel that the fall of Eastern Europe + Russia is incomparable and somehow not explained from a military pov.
Well, from a military point of view the fall of Eastern Europe makes the Moscow Military District of Russia a border district… What used to be the 2nd strategic echelon has now been transformed into the first tactical one. That is about as bad as it gets for Russia. However, and that is a big however, NATO as a military alliance is turning into a colonial and imperial enforcer organization which really is loosing its military quality very rapidly. East European armies are essentially bullshit armies, like the one Georgia had. The main disaster therefore is not for Russia which can live with the new geopolitical context, but for the East Europeans who missed a truly historical opportunity to finally become independent. Instead, they turned into a NATO colony (with CIA torture centers and US nukes). Russia is rapidly and skillfully adapting to the new reality. Eastern Europe is stuck under the US boot for a long long time.
Sorry for being such a nuisance
You are emphatically NOT a nuisance and please do not worry about being “off-topic”. I ENCOURAGE off-topic interaction and exchanging points of view is something which I enjoy. In fact, I wish more of my readers used this blog as a discussion forum with little or no regard to what article are posted at the top of the page at any given time.
Have I answered your question better this time?
Has anyone purchased Roger Waters Tickets from the website http://roger-waters-tickets.doitbigtickets.com/