Reflexive Control is a distinctive disinformation strategy developed in Russia in which one “conveys to opponents specifically prepared information to incline the opponents to voluntarily make a decision desired by the initiator of the action.” All available original literature on Reflexive Control is written in Russian, and so this exposition is based on English publications.
Psychological studies show that when the brain is exposed continuously to the same information, we begin to perceive that information as true, and we discard conflicting evidence. The concept of Reflexive Control was pioneered in the Soviet Union in the 1960s by Vladimir Lefebvre, a psychologist and mathematician. Reflexive Control is based on a special kind of influence activity; a sustained campaign that exposes an opponent to selected information so that the opponent ends up “voluntarily” making the decisions wanted of him or her.
Reflexive Control is taught in Russian military schools and training programs, and is conceived as a national security strategy. A key concept of Reflexive Control is that an opponent is provided specific and predetermined information with the explicit goal of controlling his decision-making process. Unlike western concepts of perception management, Reflexive Control seeks to control, not just to manage, an opponent’s perception.
For example, during the Cold War, the Soviet Union convinced the United States that Soviet missile capabilities were far greater than they actually were. Using a number of disinformation techniques, the Soviets created an illusion of military might that forced Western governments to misallocate time and resources. More recently, in 2014, Russia confused NATO and Kiev so successfully in the Crimea that, in three weeks, and without firing a shot, the Ukrainian military surrendered all of its Crimea military bases. In a 2019 research trip, I personally witnessed Russian Reflexive Control techniques in full display in the Baltic States where Russia seeks to activate its ethnic minorities in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
Also, during the 2016 Presidential elections in the United States, Russia employed Reflexive Control techniques hoping to manipulate our electoral decision-making process. Russia’s goal was not to help a given candidate, but more fundamentally to undermine our democratic political system.
The specific mechanisms of Reflexive Control are complex, but the strategy strives to imitate the opponents reasoning to cause a decision unfavorable to the opponent. Specifically, it attacks our moral and physical cohesion to move us to make decisions harmful to ourselves. Russian military theorist Colonel S. A. Komov has described the following basic elements of Reflexive Control:
Distraction: Create real or imaginary threats to force opponents to adapt plans.
Overload: Frequently send large amounts of conflicting information.
Paralysis: Create the perception of an unexpected threat to a vital interest.
Exhaustion: Compel opponents to undertake useless operations.
Deception: Force opponents to relocate assets in reaction to an imaginary threat.
Division: Persuade opponents to operate in opposition to common goals.
Pacification: Convince opponents that ongoing operations are innocuous training exercises.
Deterrence: Create the perception of superiority.
Provocation: Force opponents to take action advantageous to one’s own side.
Suggestion: Offer information that affects the opponents legally, morally, ideologically, etc.
Pressure: Offer information that discredits the opponents in the eyes of the population.
My South Florida readers will recognize these techniques as expertly used by the Cuban and Venezuelan governments under Russian tutelage. For decades, Cuba and Venezuela have successfully used Reflexive Control to distract, overload, paralyze, exhaust, deceive, divide, pacify, deter, provoke, suggest, and pressure their respective oppositions.
Consequently, these populations seldom engage cohesively in a fight for their fundamental political freedoms. The Reflexive Control apparatus has succeeded in controlling the decision-making processes so that the people’s focus is economic rather than political. Today, most criticism and actions against the Cuban and Venezuelan governments emphasize the economic misery the regimes create, rather than the liberties that they suppress. The people’s choice, instigated by Reflexive Control, has become to flee, not to fight.
To my dismay, in these societies the disheartening observation of Roman historian, Sallust is evident: “Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master.”
Dr. Azel‘s latest book is “Liberty for Beginners.”
Psychological studies show that when the brain is exposed continuously to the same information, we begin to perceive that information as true, and we discard conflicting evidence. The concept of Reflexive Control was pioneered in the Soviet Union in the 1960s by Vladimir Lefebvre, a psychologist and mathematician. Reflexive Control is based on a special kind of influence activity; a sustained campaign that exposes an opponent to selected information so that the opponent ends up “voluntarily” making the decisions wanted of him or her.
Reflexive Control is taught in Russian military schools and training programs, and is conceived as a national security strategy. A key concept of Reflexive Control is that an opponent is provided specific and predetermined information with the explicit goal of controlling his decision-making process. Unlike western concepts of perception management, Reflexive Control seeks to control, not just to manage, an opponent’s perception.
For example, during the Cold War, the Soviet Union convinced the United States that Soviet missile capabilities were far greater than they actually were. Using a number of disinformation techniques, the Soviets created an illusion of military might that forced Western governments to misallocate time and resources. More recently, in 2014, Russia confused NATO and Kiev so successfully in the Crimea that, in three weeks, and without firing a shot, the Ukrainian military surrendered all of its Crimea military bases. In a 2019 research trip, I personally witnessed Russian Reflexive Control techniques in full display in the Baltic States where Russia seeks to activate its ethnic minorities in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
Also, during the 2016 Presidential elections in the United States, Russia employed Reflexive Control techniques hoping to manipulate our electoral decision-making process. Russia’s goal was not to help a given candidate, but more fundamentally to undermine our democratic political system.
The specific mechanisms of Reflexive Control are complex, but the strategy strives to imitate the opponents reasoning to cause a decision unfavorable to the opponent. Specifically, it attacks our moral and physical cohesion to move us to make decisions harmful to ourselves. Russian military theorist Colonel S. A. Komov has described the following basic elements of Reflexive Control:
Distraction: Create real or imaginary threats to force opponents to adapt plans.
Overload: Frequently send large amounts of conflicting information.
Paralysis: Create the perception of an unexpected threat to a vital interest.
Exhaustion: Compel opponents to undertake useless operations.
Deception: Force opponents to relocate assets in reaction to an imaginary threat.
Division: Persuade opponents to operate in opposition to common goals.
Pacification: Convince opponents that ongoing operations are innocuous training exercises.
Deterrence: Create the perception of superiority.
Provocation: Force opponents to take action advantageous to one’s own side.
Suggestion: Offer information that affects the opponents legally, morally, ideologically, etc.
Pressure: Offer information that discredits the opponents in the eyes of the population.
My South Florida readers will recognize these techniques as expertly used by the Cuban and Venezuelan governments under Russian tutelage. For decades, Cuba and Venezuela have successfully used Reflexive Control to distract, overload, paralyze, exhaust, deceive, divide, pacify, deter, provoke, suggest, and pressure their respective oppositions.
Consequently, these populations seldom engage cohesively in a fight for their fundamental political freedoms. The Reflexive Control apparatus has succeeded in controlling the decision-making processes so that the people’s focus is economic rather than political. Today, most criticism and actions against the Cuban and Venezuelan governments emphasize the economic misery the regimes create, rather than the liberties that they suppress. The people’s choice, instigated by Reflexive Control, has become to flee, not to fight.
To my dismay, in these societies the disheartening observation of Roman historian, Sallust is evident: “Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master.”
Dr. Azel‘s latest book is “Liberty for Beginners.”
“The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author”.
