Through the last six weeks I’ve noticed a unique dimension in psychological operations in the Russian-Ukrainian war.
Where the senior retired American and British generals (former commanders of the American military commands, former commanders of NATO forces and others) present very accurate explanations and assessments of the troops’ performance on the ground at strategic, operational and tactical levels, concentrating in the misuse of the Russian troops at unit and sub-unit levels, as well as the fatal mistakes of supply and provisions operations, withdrawal mistakes and other subtleties.
On the other hand, you may notice the assessments of the former senior Russian commanders and strategists and the assessments of non-Russian commanders and strategists who support Russian invasion, which focus on displaying Russian greatness and prestige represented in its strength and the ambiguity of its thinking and its so called “long-term strategy”. Where their assessments are characterized with generality, resonant and eloquent sentences to a degree that is sometimes incomprehensible without a coherent operational or tactical evidences that might be touched on the ground. This is what their Western counterparts exploit with great craftsmanship and cunning, as they focus on the weaknesses of the Russian commanders’ decisions, HQ plans and troops failure, while Russian strategists focus on their strengths and the continuation of their vacuumed ambiguity that is being exposed by time.
We may also notice that the response of the Russian political and military leadership, Russian strategists and their supporters is focused on one thing, which is that the information on which Western experts and the Western media base their assessments on the military situation of both sides is unreal, but the Russian HQ and strategists do not discredit it with counter assessments on the operational and tactical levels, so their efforts to discredit them are wasted in vain.
MG(ret). Dr. Sayed Ghoneim
Fellow, Nasser’s Higher Military Academy