Serbia’s "Geopolitica" magazine interviews analyst Andrew Korybko – color revolutions as hybrid warfare and the fate of the Balkans and Eurasia

RSS Feed

Serbia’s "Geopolitica" magazine interviews analyst Andrew Korybko – color revolutions as hybrid warfare and the fate of the Balkans and Eurasia

November 4th, 2015

Awake Goy

What makes Hybrid Wars so unique in the spectrum of human warfare is that it pays particular emphasis in using human shields during the Color Revolution phase and terrorism during the Unconventional Warfare one (oftentimes with both tactics intermixed during their application). Although there’s a sizeable foreign component that goes into these conflicts, their general rule is that they’re sparked off by domestic elements operating under the orders of their external patron. Never before in human civilization have traitors, backstabbers, and internal subversives that ‘open the gates’ for the enemy played such a prominent role in the warfighting strategy of an aggressive power, and the reason for this is because such behavior was universally reviled and looked down upon even by those that have historically engaged in it from time to time, to say nothing of the disgust that everyone (even the contracting power) personally feels towards the traitorous individuals that assisted the operation, whether or not it succeeded.

Comment: Psychopaths know how to appeal to their own. From Lobaczewski’s Political Ponerology

People exist everywhere in the world with specifically susceptible deviant personalities; even a faraway pathocracy evokes a resonating response in them, working on their underlying feeling that “there is a place for people like us there”. Uncritical, frustrated, and abused people also exist everywhere, and they can be reached by appropriately elaborated propaganda. The future of a nation is greatly dependent on how many such people it contains. Thanks to its specific psychological knowledge and its conviction that normal people are naive, a pathocracy is able to improve its “antipsychotherapeutic” techniques, and pathologically egotistical as usual, to insinuate its deviant world of concepts to others in other countries, thus making them susceptible to conquest and domination.

The most frequently used methods include paralogistic and conversion methods such as the projection of one’s own qualities and intention onto other persons, social groups, or nations,

paramoral indignation, and reverse blocking. This last method is a pathocratic favorite used on the mass scale, driving the minds of average people into a dead end because, as a result, it causes them to search for the truth in the “golden mean” between the reality and its opposite.

What this means is that the fundamentals of Hybrid War are against standard human nature and that they’re an extreme manifestation of conflict. Being so far removed from the standard practices of how human beings have historically and regularly dealt with one another, Hybrid War is able to successfully surprise all those that it has thus far been practiced against, although with the passing of time and the “normalization” of such methods, it’ll begin to lose a bit of its luster and become slightly more predictable in a sense. Still, the essence of using one’s own people against them as militant proxies on behalf of another power is unsettling and will always remain so, because somewhere in the mix of things the targeted authority will be faced with the uncomfortable decision of having to strike back at its own citizens out of self-defense, which is as unnatural for a country to do against “unarmed protesters” as it is for a sibling to strike their own “unprovoked”.

In both cases, however, things are not as they seem, it’s just the weight of ‘human conscience’ that holds back the defending actor. Nobody wants to feel like “Cain” who mercilessly killed their brother – everyone needs to feel as though there’s some kind of justification for their response. Visually, it might not look like the “protesters” are a threat, and in many cases of legitimate protest, there’s nothing for anyone to fear, neither the state nor the protesters. But when a “protest” becomes cover for a foreign intelligence-organized regime change attempt, and there’s hundreds or maybe even thousands of unwitting and unaware human shields tricked into attending, then the situation is beyond critical and the risks of violence are extraordinarily high.

In this case, the state will be very reluctant to defend itself and the rest of the non-protesting citizens that it represents (always the vast majority of the population) because it doesn’t want to inflict collateral damage against the human shields, but if provoked to do so because of petrol bombs or other ordinances being used against it by professional provocateurs (urban terrorists/guerrillas, but identified in the US as “protest organizers”), there might not be any choice. It’s just that by the time it takes decisive action, it might be too late to stem the critical anti-government mass that has formed, or the action itself might unwittingly lead to the creation of the very same scenario that the state is trying to avoid.

These are the ethical, moral, and importantly, strategic dilemmas that Hybrid War, especially the initial Color Revolution phase, are expected to pose to the targeted state, and because it goes completely against the experience of human nature, it’s more likely to lead to the decision-making paralysis that could dramatically increase the coup’s chance of success