The Russian Concept of Reflexive Control - TTG

In 1996 I heard the siren song of the developing field of Information Warfare (IW). The concept intrigued me, but I found it was little more than a conglomeration of well established aspects of warfare. IW was visualized as an image of a Greek temple with five columns. The “five pillars” of IW at that time were OPSEC, PSYOPS, military deception, electronic warfare and physical destruction. See. Nothing new. In retrospect, these early attempts were rather crude and simplistic.

Shortly after that, I had the pleasure and good fortune of meeting Tim Thomas.  He was a Russian FAO and an analyst at the Foreign Military Studies Office at Fort Leavenworth. He was an expert in Soviet/Russian military doctrine and in the Russian equivalent of IW, commonly referred to as information confrontation or information-based warfare. We shared an interest in all things Russian and, between us, had a fair amount of experience dealing with Russians. I told him of my experiences with Russian trained cyberneticists and he introduced me to the concept of reflexive control. This theory has been a subject of study in the Soviet Union for over fifty years. It became the guiding principle in the development of the Soviet Union’s/Russia’s growing capability in information confrontation.

Tim Thomas describes reflexive control in his July 1996 article “Russian Views on Information-based Warfare.” He’s written a lot on this subject since then. 

——————————————

"Information manipulation/perception management"

"Disinformation is a Russian technique that manipulates information and misinforms people or groups. Some disinformation procedures are obvious, some unconvincing, and some work through delayed perceptions, rumors, repetition, or arguments. Specific persons or particular social groups can serve as disinformation targets. The purpose of a disinformation campaign is to influence the consciousness and mind of man. In Russia today, where there is an unstable public-political and socio-economic situation, the entire population could serve as the target of influence for an enemy campaign."

"The authorities in Moscow recognize this and are trying to gain control over a most dangerous situation in their view. Clearly, the management of information is essential to their maintenance of stability. Historically, the Soviet Union was very good at developing theories of information management. Their propaganda machine stood at the apex of this effort. One of their most interesting Cold-war methods for managing information and getting people (or an opponent) to do what an action's initiator wanted was described by the theory of reflexive control. Reflexive control is a "branch of the theory of control related to influencing the decisions of others. In a military context, it can be viewed as a means for providing one military commander with the ability to indirectly maintain control over his opponent commander's decision process." Reflexive control involves creating a pattern or providing partial information that causes an enemy to react in a predetermined fashion without the enemy realizing that he is being manipulated. Its aim is to force an enemy commander to make a decision that, through the manipulation of information, was predetermined by the opposing side.“

——————————————

Our doctrine of IW, now information operations, has come a long way from those early days of the five pillared temple. Perception management, now a core concept of our doctrine, is a first cousin of reflexive control. And we are equally good at it. 

I share all this with you, my fellow correspondents, so that you may read two articles from “War on the Rocks” with open, yet critical minds. “WHODUNNIT? RUSSIA AND COERCION THROUGH CYBERSPACE” by Robert Morgus and “TROLLING FOR TRUMP: HOW RUSSIA IS TRYING TO DESTROY OUR DEMOCRACY” by Andrew Weisburd, Clint Watts and J.M. Berger describe this year’s series of hacks, leaks and false news as a deliberate Russian information operation targeting the U.S. If you have the time and/or inclination, I suggest you drill down through all the embedded links in the articles. There’s a lot of good stuff there.

As many of you know, I am convinced that all this was the result of a well planned and executed information operation undertaken by the Russian government. I’ve spent a decade working in and around this type of thing and can recognize an elegant information operation when I see one. And elegant it was. No drone assassinations. No extrajudicial kidnappings and imprisonments. No arming of terrorists. Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, you magnificent bastard, I salute you.

What I don’t know is the true objective of this operation. Was it to defeat Clinton and elect Trump? Was it to destroy confidence and increase doubt in our political system and/or media? Perhaps it was it something else altogether. One’s answers to these questions seems totally dependent on one’s political inclinations. Since there are so many other factors that brought about our present situation, I doubt we’ll ever know the true motives behind this information operation. Nor will we know its true effectiveness or ineffectiveness. But one thing I can assure all of you, it's happening, baby.

TTG

Comments

[turcopolier]

All

We, with or without the "elegant doctrine," have done much the same thing since WW2. pl

[steve]

If we have, then we shouldn't be surprised others would do the same. Just acknowledge it and go on. (Assuming an investigation confirms.)

[Cee]

TTG,

I'LL read those. I just watched a video about a 1995 law that will install Clinton in office. If true, war is on.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_92pK1GolUw

[Kooshy]

Here we go, this is just out, the other day in UCLA hospital baring room, a middle aged lady supporter of Clinton was telling me that she knows the electoral collage reps will reject voting for Trump and will vote for Clinton, I told here that is a coup, she didn't care.
"Is Hillary Clinton Trying To Question The Legitimacy Of Donald Trump Winning?"
http://www.npr.org/2016/12/12/505286051/is-hillary-clinton-trying-to-question-the-legitimacy-of-donald-trump-winning

[robt willmann]

Cee,

The guy in the video on the question of Hillary still getting in does not say much in the way of specifics. But according to the Huffington Post, this is the federal court opinion he is referring to, Marks v. Stinson, 19 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1994); I have not read it--

http://www.leagle.com/decision/199489219F3d873_1759/MARKS%20v.%20STINSON

Today, a federal trial court judge denied Jill Stein's request for a recount in Pennsylvania--

http://www.thedp.com/article/2016/12/jill-stein-recount-pennsylvania-blocked-judge

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-judge-rejects-bid-pennsylvania-election-recount-150302058.html?ref=gs

[Valissa]

TTG, thanks for you input on this issue. Very educational. But after reading those two articles, what struck me was how conspiracy oriented they are, and this time from the side of the elites or establishment.

I have no problem believing the Russians spy, hack, propagandize, etc, like any other powerful nation. I have no problem believing they are master at these things and are trying to influence western and UN opinion (as the US does, and others). It's the belief that ALL the events being discussed were masterminded by the Russians that I have a problem with. That's a few bridges too far for me. Especially given the WikiLeaks statement that it was a DNC insider who leaked the info. And who knows what Anonymous is up to in this area and what part they've played. I see many players in this game. Perhaps the Russians are the better or most major players, but still NOT the only ones.

Let's take these 5 points from the Trolling for Trump article (numbering is mine):
--------
Russia’s social media campaigns seek five complementary objectives to strengthen Russia’s position over Western democracies:
1-Undermine citizen confidence in democratic governance;
2-Foment and exacerbate divisive political fractures;
3-Erode trust between citizens and elected officials and democratic institutions;
4-Popularize Russian policy agendas within foreign populations;
5-Create general distrust or confusion over information sources by blurring the lines between fact and fiction
------------

Clearly the Russian news outlets are enacting item 4. I think the propaganda games of both the Democrats and Republicans, combined with their collusion at the highest levels of power and money (the rulers using a divide & conquer strategy on the ruled), is the predominant reason for 1, 2 and 3. Have some paid trolls from Russia chimed in? Probably. But both political parties in the US use paid trolls to steer conversations on political blogs, and have for years. How can anyone tell exactly who caused what here?

Item 5 I lay primarily on the MSM, which barely functions as "news" anymore.

If Russian IO has targeted item 5 as a goal, it would be hard to discern their influence from general trends about information and knowledge in our society that are already in place.

I am very disturbed by the congressional witch hunt that's brewing on this issue. It is not the Russians who are instigating this witch hunt, it's a political establishment freaked out by the fact that an OUTSIDER has been elected, who doesn't understand or play by the rules they are used to, and who is going to push to do many things differently than they have been for the past 16 years. Obviously being on friendly terms with Russia is something that much of the establishment/Borg does NOT want. Who is promoting fear of Russia? And why? I hope these questions come out in the hearings, but will not hold my breath.

[Kooshy]

TTG, does this mean you don't believe/ accept the legitimacy of President elect and this elections? One can't understand how you could question the legitimacy of the elections and accept the resaults.

[David Lentini]

Reflexive control involves creating a pattern or providing partial information that causes an enemy to react in a predetermined fashion without the enemy realizing that he is being manipulated.

Sounds like most political PR strategies to me, where the "enemy" is the voter. Clinton certainly did her share, as did Trump.

But more to the point, so what if Putin did these things? The question is whether they so influenced the election that Clinton would have won without them. We've seen Israel and other allies do all sorts of shenanigans to influence US votes. We never had a "redo" or worse, declare the loser of an election the winner.

All of the major statistical analyses that I've seen indicate that the election results were in the realm of possibility. We've seen in the states that have done recounts, that Trump has gained votes and any voter fraud has been in favor of Clinton.

But on these vague assertions about "capability" and unsubstantiated accusations, we're now supposed to either declare Clinton the winner or retain Obama for a re-do of the election.

C'mon.

[steve]

I skimmed the case. My simple take:

The appellate court found that there was substantial enough evidence of election fraud to vacate the certification of the "winning" candidate. The fraud involved c. 500 absentee ballots which was close to the electoral margin for the "winning" candidate.

Though the court affirmed vacating the certification of the cheating candidate, what it also did was reverse the lower court's order that the "cheated" candidate be declared the winner. It said instead that there would have to be an exact count of the number of legal votes to actually declare a winner. The court explicitly rejected the idea that the cheating candidate be punished through an election forfeit, that there had to be a vote count.

So, for a variety of reasons, this case really has little bearing on the the Clinton-Trump election. But following the court's reasoning even if applicable, Hillary would not be installed as president.

[Ishmael Zechariah]

TTG,
re: "As many of you know, I am convinced that all this was the result of a well planned and executed information operation undertaken by the Russian government. I’ve spent a decade working in and around this type of thing and can recognize an elegant information operation when I see one."
I have three (non-rhetorical) questions:
1-Can anyone prove, in the legal sense of the term (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_(law) ), that the Russians did this?
2-Do you think the burden of proof has been met? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) )
3-Why should we believe the masters of the universe, the cadres who have been lying to the US (and the world) population continuously about Iraq, Libya, Syria, the Ukraine and Russia, if there is no convincing proof?
And, a fourth one: Does this suspicion of yours justify the governments (US, Turkish, British, German...ad nauseam) to form "Ministry of Truth" offices? That seems to be where the US and the West is heading and many innocents might die or become enslaved because of this.
Ishmael Zechariah

[The Twisted Genius]

Valissa,

I, too, noticed a conspiracy theorist tone to the articles. If you read about any good influence operation, there's a good chance it will sound like a conspiracy theory. This one is certainly no exception. When I read about this particular operation, I see a case of psychological jiu-jitsu. Many of these events were occurring without Russian help. How many years have we heard about the illegitimacy of the Federal government from so many of our fellow Americans? Remember Charlton Heston is my president? The whole birther movement? The whole system is rigged? We did this to ourselves.

Another item is all the hoopla about fake news. I tend to believe the reports that much of this was due to online scam artists feeding sensational fake articles to make money. They didn't give a damn about the content. It just worked out that fake news disparaging Clinton or praising Trump gathered a lot more clicks than the other way around. The scammers just went to where the money was.

The Russians just took advantage of the cracks we put in our own society. That doesn't make them evil. They're looking out for their own interests, as we should do ourselves. I think a lot of those getting all worked up over this are incensed that anyone could do this to us or even attempt to do this to us. These people still think we're exceptional, the indispensable nation. Others are desperately grasping at this or desperately denying it out of pure partisan desires.

[David Lentini]

In a quick read of the summary and the decision, it seems like Clinton would have a tough row to hoe. The decision was based on a court finding as fact that one of the two candidates had actively conspired with election officials responsible for the votes. Even if you accept Russian hacking—which the retired CIA officer Baer I saw admits is impossible— that's still a far cry from the facts here.

[The Twisted Genius]

Kooshy,

When did I ever say that? I have faith in our entire election process and see no reason to doubt it this time. Trump won the election. He is the president elect and will soon be the President. I still think he's a thin skinned bullshit artist and conman, but he will still be my President. For all our sake, I wish him well.

[Lemur]

1-Undermine citizen confidence in democratic governance;
2-Foment and exacerbate divisive political fractures;
3-Erode trust between citizens and elected officials and democratic institutions;
4-Popularize Russian policy agendas within foreign populations;
5-Create general distrust or confusion over information sources by blurring the lines between fact and fiction
------------

One can turn this around on the elites, and this democracy they speak of itself.

1. If democracy is so easy to subliminally subvert, its a practical impossibility.
2. Democracy is predicated on a plurality of divisions. Identifying certain divisions with a foreign power is a way for elites to impose ideological orthodoxy.
3. attributing decline of public faith in democratic procedures to a foreign 'other' is a useful way for elites to explain away their role in the loss of confidence. You should always trust your elites. They love us. They want the best for us! *foams at the mouth*
4. See point 2. If democracy can't handle differing viewpoints, it isn't democracy.
5. Same principle as three. Blame a foreign government for what you (domestic elites) have done.

[Edward Amame]

Kooshy

Trump's legitimacy as president should be in question unless (a) he releases his tax returns and (b) the CIA publicly issues a report on the findings that suggest to them that Russia intervened in our election on his behalf.

[kooshy]

Thank you, I agree entirely

[kooshy]

EA, sorry man, for me Trump and this election has more legitimacy than does the political operatives in CIA. A few days a ago in UCLA hospital' longe a female law professor supporter of HC told me that Electoral college state reps. are like our congressional state reps, they can change their stand due to the briefing they receive and their understanding of circumstances once they arrive to vote in congress. This is why i linked the article from NPR above since it matched what i heard from this lady. Something dangerously fishy is going on like preparation for a color revolution, you read an electoral coup.

[Lemur]

Btw, great article here by Micahel Tracey
https://medium.com/mtracey/russian-hackers-provided-vital-information-to-american-voters-d7fb0f9ec50b#.npqsqytxo

This [revelations about how our corrupt elites actually operate] is the terrible misfortune that the American people were subject to as a result of the supposed Russian “hack” — greater information about how powerful political officials operate in the dark. When the United States “interferes” in the electoral processes of other countries, it tends to depose their leaders by violent force. When Russia “interferes” — which, once again, is nowhere near proven—at least in this case they apparently provide previously-concealed information to voters, information which is very clearly in the public interest. The horror. The horror."

[BillWade]

Well, the MSM tried to marginalize Trump and the Internet tried to do the same to Clinton. The voters had more information to make a decision than ever before, they saw the debates, they read their newspapers of choice, listened to NPR or Infowars, they made their decision, 2600 counties for Trump, just under 500 for Clinton. It's not about Russia. Unfortunately for the Dems, it's about their urban-centric ideas, ideas most of us don't share. You cannot call a large portion of the voting population "deplorables" and expect to win. The Russians are free to do what they want, just as are the Canadians, Israelis, Saudis etc. (didn't Hillary accept about 20 million from them?).

[Valissa]

Excellent turn around, Lemur! Your point #3 is the crux of the current matter, IMO.

[VietnamVet]

TTG

I have no doubt that there are government information operations underway. The masking of the CIA and America’s Allies support of Syrian Islamists is one case, for sure. But, the efficacy of the Russian’s operations is another question. If anything, the Russians have been ineffective at countering the West’s Propaganda. For example, Georgia’s invasion of South Odessa morphed into “Russia’s invasion of Georgia” or “Aggressive Russia” shot down MH-17. Also, there is an ongoing corporate information operation to convince Americans that this is the best of all possible worlds despite their increased morbidity.

What is incredible is the tug of war between the “nationalist” FBI and the “globalists” CIA. This has the feeling that the Internationalists are increasingly worried about their future in a Trump Presidency. A lot of rice bowls are at risk of being broken. If Russia has an effective counter information warfare office, this would be prime area to leak more information. It is in Russia’s and the American people’s best interest that the 2016 election not be voided.

[Cee]

TTG,

The first is to shake Americans’ confidence in public institutions, to include political parties, democratic processes,

The Russians don't have to do that. These pols who would shut down the government and do nothing to better to lot of citizens do that all one their own.

and the media.

I haven't forgotten Operation Mockingbird and I think it is ongoing.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/10/16/cia-owns-everyone-significance-major-media/

The second, slightly less obvious, goal is likely to deflect some attention away from other Russian actions around the world, like their ongoing questionable operations in Syria and Ukraine.

I don't know many people who don't support Russia crushing ISIS. We're supposed to hate them, right?
As to Ukraine - the truth is getting out from there as well. A Nazi party that opposes Russia has gained some prominence. See about our feelings above.

Plus, our hands are not clean.

In Poland we did all of the things that are done in countries where you want to destabilize a communist government and strengthen resistance to that. We provided the supplies and technical assistance in terms of clandestine newspapers, broadcasting, propaganda, money, organizational help and advice. And working outward from Poland, the same kind of resistance was organized in the other communist countries of Europe.

http://carlbernstein.com/magazine_holy_alliance.php

[kao_hsien_chih]

Exactly. Outsiders rarely are so influential that they could subvert a solidly popular regime. Even assuming that Russians successfully pulled something off, that's not exactly a clean bill of health on democratic politics in US.

[Lemur]

yeah the academic term is 'legitimation crisis'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimation_crisis#Legitimation_crisis_tendencies

Elites will do anything to avoid acknowledging a crisis, including starting wars.

[FkDahl]

I would argue Bernay's and Wilson bringing the US into the madness that Great War represented is exhibit one.