I recently read an interview with the famous Russian methodologist Sergey Preslegyn. Preslegyn is a smart and erudite man, which made the interview all the more disgusting to read, filled as it was with frantic attempts to explain why Russia is actually doing well in its war with Ukraine. The closest analogy would be a prostitute attempting to arouse her client for hours on end while doing her best to convince him that nothing’s wrong with his hardware. The money’s been paid – he must as well get something out of it. So to the Russian intellectuals are slavishly arousing Putin’s genocidal tendencies. What at first glance appeared to be a refined Russian intellectual turns out to be merely a thin façade covering a rotting, subservient core. A core that revels in the destruction of those more free than it.

That’s all flavour text. Let’s get to business. Preslegyn’s interview forced me to remember one of his old texts. With the backdrop of destroyed Ukrainian cities and the horrors we are uncovering day by day, committed by “liberators” brandishing Ribbons of St. George, many are asking themselves the question – what is the root of this vandalism?

Sergey Timofeytsev’s now infamous article “What should Russia do with Ukraine,” released on one of the leading state media channels “RIA Novosti,” shows that Russia is no longer being shy about its internal messaging. We have translated this fascist filth into English for your reading (dis)pleasure (link here).

Preslegyn has decided to add to this growing fascist tradition. His contribution is the concept of “saturating influence,” which he came up with in 2000, not too long before 9/11.

I will attempt to highlight the most interesting moments. First of all, Preslegyn based his thought process on the experience with the Chechen War. He attempted to imagine how the nations of the South could respond most effectively to Europe and the US. Looking at Irpyn and Bucha, one can safely draw the conclusion that these fascist methods of terror have graduated to Russian state policy.

I will now present the postulates of the concept of saturating influence, which has been deployed against the West for some time now (for an example – recall the wave of terror attacks that swept Europe not too long ago).

The essence:

The “Southern country” can use the following strategic tools of a “small war:”

  • The strategy changes from one of defense, as in the Gulf War, to one of offense. Military action is transferred to the territory of the European enemy. Casualties should be maximized on both sides – ideally among the civilian population. As the situation develops, the enemy’s system of transport and information communications must be continuously deteriorated. This in turn will lead to a deterioration of the morale and psychological state of the military, to panic, and eventually to a sociopolitical crisis that the West will seem to exit through a “peace at any price.” Ideally, the operation should be prosecuted up until the complete destruction of the technological Northern civilization.
  • These demands are fulfilled by the CONCEPT OF A “SATURATING TERRORIST ASSAULT.” The operation involves the organization and execution, on the territory of the European enemy, of a series of terror attacks that are aimed exclusively at maximizing civilian casualties. If it wants to, the North can extend a “security umbrella” to its most important military and industrial assets, as well as to its political and military leadership. However, neither the army nor the special/security forces will be capable of protecting every school, daycare, hospital and maternity ward (the likeliest list of terror targets).
  • The preparation of “cheap” terror cells aimed at unarmed (peaceful) targets can be minimal. From the Southern perspective, these groups that are killing women and children (ignoring the fact that the terrorists can be women and children themselves) are incredibly inexpensive and highly effective. Furthermore, their effectiveness lies not only in their ability to kill, but also in their ability to die.
  • Massive terrorist activity, if coordinated, will lead to panic. One cannot make advance predictions as to the specific reaction of the assaulted European country, but once can almost certainly conclude that this reaction will be inadequate and will only exacerbate the crisis. For example, a hardening of the borders will prove useless against the cells already in the country, but will damage the country’s transport system. Sooner or later the panic will lead to a “witch hunt” directed against the society’s own members – with all the expected, devastating consequences.
  • The attempts of the army and the police to deal with the terrorist attacks and their aftermath, the discussions of the ever-growing problems in the governments, parliaments and supranational organizations (such as the UN) will completely “saturate” all transport and informational networks.
  • Attempts to “defend everything and everyone without giving up anything” will quickly sap the capacity of the security services to react quickly to the rapidly deteriorating situation.
  • Additional problems can be created by sending unarmed people into Europe that will be tasked with imitating the activities of terrorist units – putting severe pressure on the democratic ideals of the North. The destruction of these unarmed groups is impossible from the perspective of European ethics, since it would mean the moral victory of the South. But ignoring these groups isn’t possible either, since they will only exacerbate the already difficult situation vis-à-vis law and order.
  • Only after the aforementioned activities lead to political chaos in the Northern countries, completely eliminating their ability to offer active resistance, can the complete and unconditional victory of the South be achieved through the use of biological weapons. The highly integrated nature of the European transportation network makes the North incredibly vulnerable to bacteriological attack. It would be practically impossible to prevent the appearance in multiple major international airports of suicide attackers that had been infected with diseases with high incubation periods. The initial spread of the disease can be started in the first stages, with massive spread being achieved concurrently with the peak of terrorist activity. The usage of severe, hard-to-treat, massively spreadable infections can cause the death toll from the “biological attack” to rise into the tens of thousands in a matter of weeks.
  • This will be enough to destroy any government in any European country. That will be the moment to transition into the third stage of the war – a sudden attack carried out by specially-trained, “expensive” combat units against military assets – namely military airports, dispatch centers, transportation nodes, nuclear power plants etc…

10.This “expensive” attack has a high chance of succeeding, since by this point the capacity of the European armed forces will have been minimized. The inability to establish air superiority is tantamount to complete battlefield failure for modern European armies.

Subsequent “saturation” of the capacities of security, health and military systems will follow. The “saturation” effect will completely destroy the defense of the North – with obvious and catastrophic strategic consequences. Therefore, despite the colossal military superiority of the North, there is a strategy that, at the very least, can force it into a position of strategic defense. But for an expansionist strategy like that followed by the North, the very transition into this defensive position will be tantamount to failure.”

Madness you say? For 22 years it certainly seemed that way. Now it is clear that these tenets form the cornerstones of Russian policy.