Perception Warfare and Reflexive Control

Preface

Reflex control is one of the most interesting, yet complex, concepts in the study of strategic

communication, psychological warfare, and information operations. According to Soviet military theory during the Cold War, it was conceived as a means of manipulating the perception and reasoning of an adversary in order to force the other side to voluntarily make a choice favorable to the manipulator. Unlike coercion, which is based on deceptive pressure or falseness, reflexive control operates by manipulating truth, mass sentiment, beliefs, and context. It does not simply mislead, but creates the foundations for a distorted reality, within which deliberately dictated collective persuasion becomes indistinguishable from impartial rational cognition. In relation to contemporary civil and public interaction, reflexive control has evolved from a niche doctrine of Soviet war science into a broader analytical framework through which to understand contemporary hybrid warfare and social engineering. Its practical mechanisms and levers of penetration are observable not only in state and intelligence operations, but also in the intricate web of media agenda-setting and the corresponding forging process of polarized identities. Artificially creating an information landscape through symbolic cues, selective truths, and premeditated disputes gives stakeholders an advantage in successfully exploiting the vulnerabilities of targeted societies, internally dividing them, and provoking the desired reactions, often without resorting to direct and brute force.

Since gaining independence in 1991, Georgia has gone through a thorny path of development, which has led to the initial formation of a vulnerable and unwieldy “sociocultural configuration” – a complex chain of collective memory, religious and regional identity, institutional fragility, and patterns of radicalization/polarization that defines post-Soviet Georgian society. In a similarly entrenched and tight arrangement, reflexive control finds fertile ground, as a result of which competing informational narratives about identity, sovereignty, morality, and foreign ties can easily be activated and abused by both domestic and external actors. Unfortunately, reflexive control turns out not to be such an unfamiliar and distant phenomenon, but rather a qualitative feature of the Georgian public and ongoing internal information warfare.

This presented analytical article examines reflexive control, both in theory and in practice, in thecase of Georgia, to demonstrate how operational intermediaries exploit damaging emotional predispositions and limiting cognitive biases to pursue strategic objectives and malicious interests successfully.

Theoretical and Historical Foundations

The intellectual roots of reflexive control lie in the foundations of Soviet systems theory,

cybernetics, psychology, and military science. In the 1960s, Vladimir Lefebvre and other Soviet theorists developed models of “reflexive behavior” that employed logical patterns and mathematical calculations to explain how people construct their own and others’ representations. Lefebvre's reflexive game theory, based on the principle of scientific assumption, infers that actors make decisions not only based on the objective conditions of external reality, but also on subjective explanations of how others perceive them [1]. In this type of recursive model, control can be exercised by influencing the adversary’s perception of the situation, rather than thesituation itself. If one understands biased intuition and behavioral logic with which the opponent interprets cues, one can create these specific cues to make the desired decision.

Soviet military intellectuals, particularly at the Institute of Military Strategy of the General Staff, adopted these ideas and incorporated them into the sophisticated doctrines of operational persuasion and information warfare. Reflex control was defined as the process by which“ specially prepared information is transmitted to the adversary in order to force them tovoluntarily make a predetermined decision” [2]. Not merely an exercise in disinformation or

deception, rather, it required an extensive grasp of the adversary’s logic, cultural codes, and

strategic psychology. The essence of reflexive control lies not in spreading falsehood, but in the manipulation of the adversary’s limited sense of truth.

Such theoretical sophistication distinguished reflexive control from Western concepts of

propaganda and disinformation. While Western psychological and information operations often emphasized persuasion through repetition and emotional appeal, Soviet reflexive control focused on the necessity to falsify the reasoning process itself from the outset, thus inevitably manipulating and overloading the structure of cognition. Reflexive control essentially transformed into an epistemological tool of domination and subjugation. The strategists sought topenetrate and immerse the adversary’s cognition, not only accurately predicting in advance how they would interpret signals, but also how they would expect the manipulator to respond to these.

In practice, reflexive control combined the principles of cybernetics, feedback loops, behavioral self-regulation, and systems modeling with traditional so-called “maskirovka” and the art of military deception. “Maskirovka” focused on large-scale camouflage, perceptual distortions, and disinformation in tactical contexts; reflex control extended the range of operational techniques into cognitive and social engineering. Its multifaceted objective seeks not only to mislead the public about positions and opinions, but also to distort political and moral interpretations of the conflict itself. Through subtle and invisible influence over the media, diplomats, interest groups,and the public discourse at large, Soviet specialists were able to provoke hesitation, self-doubt, or overconfidence in their adversaries. At the end of the Cold War, reflexive control was studied in classified military institutions and later methodically integrated into intelligence exercises. Since the collapse of the USSR, Russia’s strategic culture has retained many of its operational principles. Modern analysts identify reflexive control as a foundational element of the Russian soft power doctrine of information and hybrid warfare, combining psychological, cyber, diplomatic, and diasporic mechanisms in orchestrated mass influence operations [3]. Unlike traditional propaganda or circulating disinformation, which aims to convert people on a mass scale, reflexive control operates under the guise of controllable strategic uncertainty and vagueness. Its enforceable goal is to overload information ecosystems, fabricate conflicting narratives, and mold a sense of ambiguity around the notion of objective truth. When the boundary between factual truth and manipulation dissolves, the upper hand on the figurative battlefield comes not from coercive force, but from the mastery of misorientation blur.

Reflexive control aligns with the theories of social constructionism and symbolic interactionism. The latter taps into what Erving Goffman called “frames” – a set of mental and cognitive schemes that individuals utilize to interpret events [4]. Adjusting one’s frame of reference leads to self-altered perception fueled by wishful thinking. This process unfolds inherently iterative, since individuals tend to interpret the world through frames shaped by collective narratives -frames that can, in turn, be manipulated by external forces. In this sense, reflexive control can be classified as a form of social engineering that draws on information and factual knowledge as the raw materials of collective understanding.

Reflexive Control in Practice: Intelligence, Politics, and the Media

In practice, reflexive control operates in many professional fields or activities. Intelligence

services, through preconditioned and imposed narratives, often employ these methods to shape an adversary’s behavior, reinforcing leaked false information or preexisting biases. In political contexts, reflexive control functions by manipulating media, provoking moral panic, and exploiting polarized identities for immediate strategic advantage. In the era of digital

communication, its scope has expanded exponentially, given that the distributed algorithms of social networks ensure the division and fragmentation of online interactions, thereby

encouraging the so-called “echo chambers”. Thus, truth becomes a matter of affiliation and bias, instead of evidence-based rational reasoning.

A notable addition to the practice of reflexive control is the Russian hybrid warfare doctrine,

which, since the early 2000s, has emphasized “non-linear warfare”, where the distinction

between peace and conflict is blurred and influence operations become as decisive as hard

military force [5]. According to the hybrid intervention and penetration Operations handbook, such special measures serve to disrupt collective consciousness, paralyze decision-making, and generate predictable overreactions. Its effectiveness and degree of success depend less on the persuasiveness of any single message or specific stimulus than on the cumulative effect of uncertainty.

In a public environment characterized by low institutional trust, reflexive control can exploit thevalue and ideological polarization of a non-magical society. In “echo chambers,” identity divided populations are more sensitive to and radicalized by symbolic narratives that affirm their moral or ideological superiority. Psychological research on motivated reasoning clearly indicates that individuals resist factual corrections when these corrections threaten their social identity labels or sense of belonging [6]. Consequently, information warfare is successful not only because people are deceived and misled, but also because their unconscious wishful thinking leads them tomistakenly choose flattering self-assurances.

The sociocultural configuration of post-Soviet Georgia

Georgia’s post-Soviet transformation has been characterized by rapid political shifts, unresolved territorial conflicts, and divisive disputes over identity. The historical transition from the Soviet order, rather than a consensus in Georgian society, has produced a fragmented mosaic of diverse orientations: nationalist, conservative, and nostalgic. From a cultural standpoint, Georgia lies at the intersection of European and Eurasian civilizations. Its Orthodox Christian identity, linguistic distinctiveness, and deep-rooted traditions are balanced, to some extent, by a cosmopolitan aspiration toward the Western world. This dualism that produces such differences has directly or indirectly led to difficulties in adaptive coexistence and psycho-emotional tensions within Georgia. Such a vacuum of ambivalence is an environment in which reflexive control can be powerfully exerted. By amplifying and foregrounding false identity dilemmas, informational actors of reflexive control push citizens to ponder on fabricated cultural struggles built on half-truths, which often appeal to the country's orientation, its national historical heritage, and traditions.

Polarization in Georgia is not only political, ideological, or value-based, but also existential in

content. Studies and observations demonstrate deep affective divisions: citizens increasingly

describe political opponents as immoral or dangerous [7]. Family, church, and narrow communal ties are the main mediators of identity, which means that political affiliation is frequently contingent on close social relationships. When these ties are politicized in nature, conflict acquires emotional immediacy. Reflexive control exploits precisely such conditions, when the boundary between moral and political identity is blurred and, in turn, information that validates personal moral affiliation can spread virally, quickly, and irreversibly. Georgia’s information landscape further reflects this tension. Major television channels are often

linked to political factions and different interest groups, and the online media space is polarized. The digital public information field lacks a common epistemological axis. Competing narratives of patriotism, religion, and external interference simultaneously prevail, each claiming absolute authenticity.

In the Georgian case, Reflexive control is irreversibly entrenched in catch-allpluralism, not because one side controls a monopoly on information, but because the very notion of truth itself becomes a matter of dispute. Given this unhealthy environment, intentionally

delivered narratives get imposed on the public that are perceived differently by different

subgroups, leading to confrontation without direct coercion.

Another dimension of Georgia’s sociocultural configuration is institutional weakness. Public

trust in political institutions remains low; perceptions of corruption and elite capture are still

prevalent. Where citizens do not trust official and verifiable sources of information, they turn to informal networks or alternative media that are more interested in and sensitive to special

influences. Reflexive control does not require direct control of these networks, yet only the

capacity to sow narratives that they will willingly disseminate. Religion and tradition provide an additional layer of vulnerability. The Georgian Orthodox Church, one of the most influential institutions in the country, wields considerable moral and public authority. Narratives built around the protection of faith or family are powerful, especially in rural and remote areas. Reflexive control strategies often use these symbolic issues of morality, cultural sovereignty, or historical grievances to activate emotional stimuli and affectivity. In doing so, technologists are able to shift political and ideological disagreements into the realm of moral absolutism and reactionism, where compromise is seen as betrayal and a sign

of weakness.

Perception Warfare, Polarization, and Radicalization

Over the past decade, the polarization and radicalization of Georgian society have accelerated, not only due to external manipulative intervention but also as a result of internal unfoldings that are increasingly reinforced by reflexive control. Social networks, partisan media, and political rhetoric reinforce dichotomous thinking: one is either “for” or “against” the nation, tradition, or progress. Reflexive control operates by transforming these surface-level oppositions and natural contradictions into everyday hostility logic. As a result, manipulation and division are structurally conditioned by the dictated concepts.

Georgia’s polarization reflects what Pierre Bourdieu calls the struggle for symbolic capital [8].Competing stakeholders and sociocultural institutions brawl for legitimacy over who defines the concepts of “Georgian” and “Georgianness.” In such dynamics, reflexive control functions as a multiplier - subtly fostering reciprocal delegitimization between interest groups, which obstructs the formation of a shared symbolic and epistemological framework. The ultimate consequence is cognitive fatigue, nihilism, indifference, cynicism, alienation, and absolute exclusion from civic life. Overwhelmed by conflicting claims, citizens distance themselves from each other, resulting in a set of the most radical voices dominating the discourse. Recent developments in Georgian political life – emotional mobilization, moral panic, fetishized conspiracy theories should not be considered as isolated occurrences, but as part of a bigger trend - a deeper reflexive control

operative process. The information space and public discourse reward outrage and paranoia; all disputes, no matter how insignificant, are interpreted in existential and identity terms. Reflexive control in such acute conditions becomes naturally self-perpetuating, since it does not require the invention of new concepts, but only the promotion of the perplexity over meanings and ideas.

Epilogue

The practice of reflexive control, conceived in the Soviet laboratories of science and intelligence, has evolved as a leading strategy in the informational and cognitive conflicts of the twenty-first century. As an implemented hybrid strategy, it functions by transforming the mind frames, achieving control not through force, but by steering the internal logic of one’s own beliefs, thereby turning opponents into objects of capture and subjugation. The case of Georgia reveals how fragile post-Soviet societies, burdened with unresolved historical traumas and complex identity structures, become convenient targets for orchestrated large-scale operational manipulation.

Given Georgia’s rich and mixed sociocultural configuration, reflexive control exacerbates the hostile contradictions between traditional and modernity, nationalism and cosmopolitanism, sovereignty and globalism. At last, understanding reflexive control in Georgia is not just a matter of propaganda or research on interested actors. This practical issue at hand requires an appropriate assessment of how perception, identity, and emotion are intertwined in a society that is still in nailing dilemmas about its own post-imperial “self.” Reflexive control measures succeed when societies lose theircapacity for reflexivity, and they halt asking informative questions about how they know what they know.

In the age of ubiquitous information, the front line of conflict is cognitive and intellectual.

Reflexive control is a valuable reminder that manipulation does not necessarily require the

imposition of a belief, but rather it simply sets up mirrors in which preconceptions and biases

embody the collective reflection of people's inner selves.