The war of Russia against Ukraine is a case of the “Controlled Conflict” as it is described by Carroll Quigley, George Orwell, Eustace Mullins.

The war of Russia against Ukraine is a case of the “Controlled Conflict” as it is described by Carroll Quigley, George Orwell, Eustace Mullins.
This is an audio version with Quigley’s description. It is quite obvious that the Russia invasion of Ukraine and the continuing simulacra of war with real deaths and suffering, in all points corresponds to Quigley’s description.

Carroll Quigley, “Tragedy and Hope”:

As a result of all the complex interrelationships of weapons and politics that we have
mentioned up to this point, it seems very likely that the international relations of the
future will shift from the world we have known, in which war was epidemic and total, to
one in which conflict is endemic and controlled. The ending of total warfare means the
ending of war for unlimited aims (unconditional surrender, total victory, destruction of
the opponent’s regime and social system), fought with weapons of total destruction and a
total mobilization of resources, including men, to a condition of constant, flexible,
controlled conflict with limited, specific, and shifting aims, sought by limited application
of diverse pressures applied against any other state whose behavior we wish to influence.
Such controlled conflict would involve a number of changes in our attitudes and
behavior:
1. No declarations of war and no breaking off of diplomatic relations with the
adversary, but, instead, continuous communication with him, whatever level of intensity
the conflict may reach.2. Acceptance of the idea that conflict with an adversary in respect to some areas,
activities, units, or weapons does not necessarily involve conflict with him in other areas,
activities, units, or weapons.
3. Military considerations, and the use of force generally, will always be subordinate
to political considerations, and will operate as part of policy in the whole policy context.
4. Armed forces must be fully professionalized, trained and psychologically prepared
to do any task to the degree and level they are ordered by the established political
authorities, without desire or independent effort to carry combat to a level of intensity not
in keeping with existing policy and political considerations.
5. There must be full ability at all times to escalate or to de-escalate the level of
warfare as seems necessary in terms of the policy context, and to signal the decision to do
either to the adversary as a guide to his responses.
6. Ability to de-escalate to the level of termination of violence and warfare must be
possible, both in psychological and procedural terms, even with continuance of conflict
on lower, non-force, levels such as economic or ideological conflict.
7. There must exist a full panoply of weapons and of economic, political, social, and
intellectual pressures that can be used in conflict with any diverse states to secure the
specific and limited goals that would become the real aims of international policy in a
period of controlled conflict.
8. Among the methods we must be prepared to use in such a period must be
diplomatic or tacit agreement with any other state, including the Soviet Union or Red
China, to seek parallel or joint aims in the world. This will be possible if all aims are
limited to specific goals, which each state will recognize are not fatal to his general
position and regime, and by which one specific aim can be traded against another, even
tacitly. This will become possible for the double reason that professionalization of the
fighting forces and the growing productiveness of the Superpower economies will not
require either the total psychological mobilization or the almost total economic
mobilization necessary in World War II.
9. All this means a blurring of the distinction between war and peace, with the
situation at all times one of closely controlled conflict. In this way endemic conflict is
accepted in order to avoid, if possible, epidemic total war. The change will become
possible because the ultimate policy of all states will become the preservation of their
way of life and existing regime, with the largest possible freedom of action. These aims
can be retained under controlled conflict but will be lost by all concerned in total war.

Advertisements