The desire to influence ones opponent without using violence, has probably existed in all times. Reflexive control is a method used historically without the user knowing about the concept, but through research during the 1900s, theories from psychology, behavioral science and cybernetics entered into the military application of modern influence operations. Reflexive control builds upon the fact that a stimulated organism responds with a reflex. Which, in the context of the essay, means that a controller transfers prepared information to a partner or a counterpart to bring him to single-handedly take one of the controller intended decision. This is expressed either by methods used intuitively by an intelligent user or systematically by a controller with knowledge and resources, creating a situation which voluntarily brings or forces the other part to make decisions as the controller wants for its own use. The methods are based on knowledge of the other part's self-image. A self-image that can be individual, for example, a president, or a group, such as a state leadership. The reflex may contain of a decision or of an action that are not well considered but that benefits the controller. The controller then exploits the new situation created by its preparations that may have been on going for a long time. The essay describes some of the methods that has been used by the Soviet Union and later integrated into the Russian warfare. The essay askes the questions; Can Bismarck's actions in 1870 and Russia's actions in the Georgia conflict in 2008 be explained by the theory of reflexive control? Is there a difference? If it is - how is the difference expressed? Yes, both cases reflect reflexive control. The differences between them are explained by the evolution from intuitive actions into systematic use.