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.

An annexation of landmasses or parts of another country is nowadays a rare case. However, Russia managed to annex parts of Ukraine after a violent and complicated conflict in 2014. There are several different theories and methods of describing Russian warfare and some of them even originate from Russia itself.   This paper aims to apply the Reflexive Control theory, which originated in Russia, and see how well it accounts Russian actions in Ukraine. The analyzation of this theory is necessary because after the annexation of Crimea there has been an increasing interest to describe Russian actions in the science of war discussions.   This is done by first describing different theorists’ approaches and views on the theory and then constructing a template from which this thesis’ analysis is concluded. There are four major contributors to the theory, all of which differ slightly in their description of the theory.   This paper concludes that patterns of Reflexive Control may have been implemented during the conflict in Ukraine. These patterns may also have been present before the conflict, after the annexation and up to present day. / -

The characteristics of the Russian military operations during the Russo-Georgian War of 2008 and again in the Crimean Crisis 2014, were “rude awakenings” to a shift in the strategic behaviour of Russia, not refraining from military aggression as means to political aims. In the aftermath of these “strategic shocks”, the scholarly debate on how to interpret and understand these limited wars, has several ongoing discussions, among which is whether this modern Russian style of warfare, as demonstrated in Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine and elsewhere, really is a novel concept or plainly “old wine in a new bottle”. This thesis is part taking in that debate through the theoretical framework of three Soviet era warfare methods from the psychological dimension: Deception – Maskirovka, Information Warfare – Reflexive Control, and Subversion – Active Measures. Within the framework, an analytical tool for qualitative text analysis is designed and then applied for the case studies of the Russo-Georgian War, as it compares to the Crimean Crisis, collecting indicators for the apparent presence of traditional methods in these cases. The study concludes that the Soviet era warfare concepts of Maskirovka, Reflexive Control and Active Measures, are relevant as explanators for a facet of the modern day Russian warfare style, in alignment with the general argument on the Russian warfare doctrine as evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, vis-a-vis the strategic practices of the Soviet era.