The war in Ukraine continues, although little is talked about. And if there is less talk about it, it is not because there is less development than before, but because the media machine deliberately chooses to deal with something else: not for political reasons, but for marketing reasons. Gaza “sells” better because it reminds us of a well-known and familiar problem, and also because it distracts from a story that is becoming harder to “sell” in the news. This does not mean that Gaza is a more important, serious or dangerous problem; it just means it “sells” better, at least for now. In reality, there are always two different levels in our view of the reality that surrounds us: there are facts, and there are the ways they are represented by those who assert them. “The person who presents these things to us” is an intermediary, “mediator” (Latin, not English), who provides us with the information after processing it. Now, the “media” (plural of the Latin word “medium”: many, but not all, know this) that provide the information do so not out of courtesy, but because it is their job; It is easy to say “public service” when talking about state media, but since they ultimately have to support themselves (at the same time) from the revenues of the service, their work is aimed at making money, and therefore the audience that produces it. It places advertising orders, which generates economic income.

If we always took this basic truth into account, perhaps we would be less angry and also less trapped by the information sold to us: just as we would not make our choices in a supermarket based on information alone. on the basis of label but also value for money. Instead, we often fall into the trap and accept information at face value because it is always the simplest solution. Because we are bored, we take it seriously and get involved: we “take sides”. After all, even if we are adults, it is the same trap that makes us read the children’s story on the cereal package or make us fall for the charm of the character who presents his own image in the advertisement. So ultimately the media shapes our ideas; even if in reality there is no political reason to do so, but only an economic motivation.

Naturally, those who practice hybrid warfare know this very well and benefit from it. He does this by maliciously inserting himself into the news flow, sometimes even by provoking it, and directs this flow in the direction that best suits him.

The masterpiece of those waging hybrid warfare is when they manage to align the media’s commercial interests with their own. When a particular news attracts a lot of attention and at the same time directs it in the desired direction to achieve one’s “hybrid” goal. The most classic example of this is the suffering of civilians in war. This is a classic argument that rightly generates outrage by focusing on the correct moral convictions of our people, who tend to identify with the victims and oppose those who instigate them. But this only happens when the victims are properly publicized: just as there are victims who are “sold” successfully, there are also others who are completely ignored because they do not “sell” well. For example, the Burmese Rohingyas “sell” poorly, the Kurds “sell” so-so, and the Palestinians “sell” very well. We know that the Congolese do not “sell” at all, who knows why.

I will not discuss the political or ethical reasons for this: suffice it to say that it is a fact; It is based on the fact that it is planned to conduct wars, including hybrid ones. The hybrid aspect of the Ukrainian conflict is where Russia has been most successful. In the face of complete conventional military failure, an army that initially had an overwhelming superiority is now forced to defend what remains of the territory it originally occupied, hoping to freeze the conflict so that it leaves at least something in its hands. The hybrid aspect yielded some positive results before the situation on the ground deteriorated completely.

As we have been repeating for months, the Ukrainian conflict can only end in two ways: with the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and a change of the Russian regime, or with a “freeze” of the situation that will keep it stuck and festering until it is resolved. Then it explodes (the same situation that has been going on in the Middle East for eighty years, I think this does not suit anyone except Putin).

The deciding variable between the two outcomes is Western support for Ukraine: as long as this continues, the first outcome is only a matter of time; But if it ends, the second one will be inevitable. Now, since the real cost of Western support is actually minimal (less than the conflict in Afghanistan that we sometimes forget), it is not clear how the support could plausibly fail; Since this is a fact, Russia’s hybrid strategy tends to “sell” this fact with a different image, aiming to show us an exorbitant “cost” for the West that does not actually exist. Of course, there are also for Ukrainians; but since they are an angry people, they seem ready to pay the price… So we need to “sell” the idea of ​​”enough is enough” to the West. .

The “enough is enough” strategy is diverse and often changes direction and main topic. Initially, the issue was Russia’s “invincibility.” When this myth was eroded by Putin’s shameful military failures, we turned to bristly solidarity with the poor Ukrainian soldiers: remember: “For God’s sake, stop Zelensky!” During the Ukrainian summer counter-offensives of 2022 and 2023? Who knows why the same is not true of the winter offensives carried out by the Russians in Bakhmut last year and now in Avdiivka: in the latter case the deaths among the attackers are MUCH higher, but no one wants to say “for God’s sake, stop”. “Putin” to save the poor Russian soldiers. This is a typical manipulation of hybrid warfare examined at the table. It is a useful tool for those who are passionate about this work and work on hybrid warfare.

Hybrid warfare is a very broad and deep field of study; Planning a hybrid campaign in parallel or differently to a traditional campaign is an extremely complex issue and involves a very long series of measures that must be taken well in advance. Military planning in general includes, among other things, “contingency plans”: detailed plans prepared in advance for possible but not yet chronologically planned actions, to be activated at the appropriate time if necessary. Personally, I believe that Hamas’s action on October 7 was the implementation of its emergency plan.

I think so because it was an extremely complex and well-studied action; Its detailed planning required technical, professional, informational, economic, logistical and administrative elements that Hamas did not have and instead were typical of a State-Advanced nation. . If we exclude the cooperation of an Arab country (none of them is interested in what is happening), only Iran and Russia remain with historically proven effective ties of cooperation (even without dependence or ideological subordination, it is a “treacherous ally”). for both) with Hamas. The finger is immediately pointed at Iran, but frankly it seems counterintuitive to me: Iran now has major internal problems of its own, and the idea that Gaza can “distract” its people from these problems is wrong. I say this because those who oppose the Ayatollah Regime are certainly not hostile to Israel and do not feel “united” with their own government in any way over the Palestine crisis. Moreover, if Iran had consented to the October 7 action, it would have mobilized Shiite Hezbollah (affiliated with Iran, as opposed to Sunni Hamas) to take full advantage of the surprise effect and maximize the initial damage to Israel before taking action. Hezbollah’s attack did not happen and Iran continues to talk without doing anything; Israel itself actually ignores Hezbollah and Iran, limiting itself to a few rocket exchanges in Lebanon while focusing on Gaza: This is not a question of concentration of forces, because once mobilized Israel has more than enough forces to fight on multiple fronts is happening, and Hamas is not a militarily significant enemy.

If Iran is “innocent” for October 7 (as “innocent” as a guilty regime can be), Russia is the only one who can provide Hamas with the necessary organizational support (such as satellite images) and incentive to attack. a certain moment (the beginning of the action in Avdiivka). Many insist that Russia had no reason to attack Israel, on the contrary… But at the same time, from OUR point of view, it had no reason to attack Ukraine. But Putin’s point of view is VERY different from ours and is based on the belief that there is an irreducible contrast with the “collective” West (of which Israel is also an organic part), that the views of the peoples (including them) are irrelevant. Russia) and speaks of the convenience of constantly increasing tension and confusion at the global level, not only to distract the energy of the West, but above all to confuse public opinion.

Pushing public opinion in the West to say “enough is enough”.

“Now stop!” This means forcing Western governments to cut off all support to their worldwide allies (Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan…) who are seen as “provocateurs” and “colonialists” even as they fight for their own survival. The masses, guided by autocracies, do what they love most, regardless of the consequences, and this cannot be the “job” of the West (unless they want to return to colonialism). It’s called Hybrid Warfare: Vladimir Bear’s last chance.