A short, insightful extract from SnakeAppleTrees pocket-book of warfare
There would be two possible outcomes.
The other side would automatically win, if the other side also gave a war.
Nothing at all would change, if the other side did not give a war.
If Putin means what he says that he will fight defensively but not offensively, but that if he has to fight at all he will use everything available to him to win… is there any reason to doubt his sincerity on that? - it means it would be stupid to start a war against him.
What we know about Russian military tactics is they most usually use “Mexican stand-off” and describe that as honourable.
“Mexican stand-off” is the name I know for a situation where everybody has a gun pointed at everybody else. The only way anyone can survive is if everybody puts their guns down and walks away.
The alternative is “assured mutual destruction”. Only an idiot would opt for assured mutual destruction.
However, there is a problem with a party who always plays Mexican stand-off, which is that it is predictable and therefore manipulable.
To avoid being exploited, a person who plays Mexican stand-off must for their own protection occasionally play by any other tactic, to remind potential exploiters not to assume it is weak.
This open up two branches of possibility.
One, the generally preferred branch, is to always use logic in approaching and assessing any case specific situation. This is responsible and accountable in that every step of every process is considered and justifiable in the given circumstance.
We have witnessed Russia most usually use this tactic almost constantly through history.
One example of this is to “use minimal required effort for maximum return”.
In the situation of expanding into East Ukraine (previously West Russia), Russia initially used 2nd world war tactics and equipment it had stockpiled and which otherwise would have rusted without use. Russia then switched up to developing the most advanced war-drones available to it, new technology, more effective.
The second branch for the same problem of protecting oneself from being predictable, therefore manipulable, is chaotic. It is to use random tactics to confuse the opponent or potential opponent. It is less credible and more risky, for a number of reasons. Largely because it lacks accountability for consequence of actions. It is less controllable, to either side.
We see example of this in the Islamic call to jihad where autonomous self-directive action is a method of destabilising opponents. That blame is deflected from the movement to the individual is a psychological trick attempting to claim innocence while enacting terror. The group denies responsibility while collectively it gains.
The Modern West does not identify it as warfare. The Modern West identifies it as isolated incidents of terrorism.
The terrorists all wave the same flag. The 90% majority who wave that same flag and adhere to that same creed and its philosophy from that same book, are not causing acts of terrorism. They only benefit from it. The book describes it as warfare.
That is a fatal mistake on the part of the Modern West. We are already witnessing its downfall.
Using chaos to cause chaos to an opponent is not the same as using precision to cause chaos to an opponent. The difference between a controlled chaos and a chaotic chaos. The philosophical edge of warfare is not the same as the physical actions involved. Both impact on the psychological edge of warfare.
Psychological warfare is a factor. It is a tactic of warfare.
Terrorism is ‘to intentionally put (opponents) into a state of terror’. Trauma, anxiety, stress, as a permanent and ongoing state of being. It is detrimental, degenerate and depressing. People react to it in predictable ways.
An example of DARVO attempting to control the narrative
