By Richard Martin, President, Alcera Consulting Inc.
“We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past, I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
Litany Against Fear, Frank Herbert, Dune
In both the Ukraine-Russia war and Israel’s conflicts with Hezbollah and Hamas, we see a common dynamic where the fear of escalation dominates Western narratives, shaping strategic decisions and often paralyzing more robust responses. This fear, however, is largely overblown. The reality is that war in both theaters is already ongoing, and the risk of broader conflict is minimal. Instead, what we are witnessing is a struggle between offensive risk-takers—aggressive actors who exploit fear to their advantage—and defensive risk managers, who allow fear to dictate their strategic choices. The Western media and politicians often push a narrative of escalation, amplifying a co-dependent relationship that keeps the defensive side on its heels while aggressors gain the initiative.
This post will explore how these dynamics manifest in Ukraine and the Middle East, drawing on the principles of Strategic Epistemology and Worldview Warfare (SE/WW) to understand how control of narrative and perception is as critical as the military struggle itself. We will also integrate the insights of Dr. Karen Mitchell’s theory of Persistent Predatory Personality (PPP) and its parallel with the predator-prey dynamic in geopolitics.
Western Fear of Escalation: A Self-Inflicted Concept
In both the Ukraine-Russia conflict and Israel’s operations in Lebanon and Gaza, the fear of escalation has been a recurring theme in Western discourse. However, the idea that these conflicts could rapidly spiral into uncontrollable regional or global wars is largely a Western construction.
The Middle East: A Conflict Already Underway
In the Middle East, fears of a broader war are misplaced. The conflict involving Israel, Hezbollah, and Hamas has been ongoing for years. What we are witnessing today is merely an escalation of an existing war, not the beginning of a new one. Despite the rhetoric, no major power—neither Iran, Russia, nor the United States—has any real interest in escalating this conflict into a full-scale regional war. Instead, the dynamics remain focused on local objectives: Israel aims to contain and degrade Hezbollah in Lebanon and destroy Hamas in Gaza, while its adversaries aim to survive and inflict as much damage as possible.
The Western media and politicians amplify the narrative of escalation, creating a perception that the region is on the brink of explosion. In reality, the major players are carefully managing their actions to avoid drawing in new actors. Even the coalition protecting shipping routes from Houthi attacks is a limited engagement, focused on economic interests rather than military expansion.
Israel’s strategic goals are clear:
- In Lebanon, Israel seeks to push Hezbollah back south of the Litani River, destroy its offensive capabilities, and degrade its military infrastructure.
- In Gaza, the objectives are more extreme: destroy Hamas, secure the release of hostages, and prevent Hamas from rearming or infiltrating the West Bank.
Despite fears of a broader war, Israel’s operations are carefully targeted. The aim is to contain and degrade—not provoke a larger conflict. The narrative of fear, however, serves to keep the international community passive, which plays into the hands of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, who count on Western hesitation to continue their operations.
Ukraine: The Shift in Initiative
In Ukraine, the fear of escalation has also paralyzed Western leaders from taking bolder steps. The fear of provoking Russia, particularly its nuclear threats, has limited the kinds of military aid Ukraine has received. But here, as in the Middle East, the conflict is already fully underway, and Russia has largely lost the initiative.
Ukraine is now on the offensive, cleverly creating operational dilemmas for Russia. Through the use of autonomous and remotely operated vehicles and weapons, Ukraine is targeting critical Russian infrastructure—rail yards, oil depots, and ammunition storage facilities. By invading the Kursk region, Ukraine is forcing Russia to spread its defenses, creating dilemmas that make it difficult for Russia to concentrate its forces effectively.
Ukraine’s strategy reflects an understanding of the operational and strategic dynamics at play. The Western fear of escalation—of pushing Russia too far and provoking a more dangerous response—has constrained Ukraine’s military aid, but Ukraine is finding ways to circumvent this by using innovative tactics to force Russia into reactive mode. Much like Israel’s operations, Ukraine’s actions are calculated, designed to degrade Russia’s capabilities while avoiding actions that would truly provoke a larger conflict.
Offensive Risk-Taking vs. Defensive Risk Management
At the core of both conflicts is the tension between offensive risk-taking and defensive risk management. This mirrors the dynamic described by Karen Mitchell in her analysis of Persistent Predatory Personality (PPP), where aggressive individuals (or states) exploit their victims’ fears and hesitation to maintain control.
- Offensive Risk-Takers (Aggressive Gambling Mindset):
- Actors like Russia, Hezbollah, and Hamas engage in offensive risk-taking. They understand that the fear of escalation often paralyzes their opponents. For them, the threat of escalation is a tool, not something to fear. Like the predators in Mitchell’s framework, they are willing to push boundaries because they do not experience the same guilt, shame, or fear that holds back their adversaries.
- Russia in Ukraine calculated that the West would be too fearful of a nuclear response to fully support Ukraine, which allowed it to push forward aggressively. Similarly, Hezbollah and Hamas gamble that their asymmetric warfare tactics will not provoke a disproportionate Israeli response or broader regional conflict.
- Defensive Risk Management (Passive and Reactive):
- In contrast, Western leaders and Ukraine (initially) have taken a defensive risk management approach. This mindset is defined by a passive response, where the main concern is avoiding escalation rather than seizing the initiative. Like prey in Mitchell’s model, these actors are more concerned with managing the risks of provocation than with proactively shaping the conflict.
- In Ukraine, the West’s fear of escalating the war with Russia has led to incremental support for Ukraine, always cautious of crossing perceived red lines. In the Middle East, Israel operates under the pressure of Western calls for restraint, knowing that its actions are scrutinized for fear of provoking a larger conflict with Iran or other regional players.
The Co-Dependent Dynamic: Predators and Prey in Geopolitics
The co-dependent relationship described by Mitchell between predators and prey perfectly maps onto the strategic relationships in these conflicts. The offensive actors (predators) like Russia, Hezbollah, and Hamas rely on the defensive actors’ (prey) fear of escalation to push their agendas. These predators know that by keeping the threat of broader conflict alive, they can continue their aggressive actions with little consequence.
For example:
- Russia has consistently used the fear of nuclear escalation to temper Western military support for Ukraine. By playing on this fear, Russia has been able to extend its aggression far beyond what might have been possible if the West had acted more decisively from the start.
- Hezbollah and Hamas use asymmetric warfare, knowing that Israel is under constant pressure to minimize escalation, despite being militarily capable of far more decisive actions.
This dynamic allows aggressive actors to maintain the initiative, while defensive actors remain reactive, always trying to manage the risks of escalation rather than shaping the conflict on their terms. This is a co-dependent cycle, where the aggressors push boundaries, and the defenders hesitate, creating a strategic imbalance that favors the offensive side.
Strategic Epistemology and Worldview Warfare (SE/WW): The Battle for Perception
These dynamics also align with my theory of Strategic Epistemology and Worldview Warfare (SE/WW), which posits that modern conflicts are not just fought on the battlefield but in the realm of narrative and perception.
- In Ukraine, Russia initially controlled the narrative, framing itself as a protector of Russian-speaking populations and a victim of NATO aggression. This narrative helped justify its actions and dampened Western resolve. However, as Ukraine has gained the initiative, it has started to shift the narrative, showing the world that Russia’s aggression can be challenged and defeated. The use of innovative tactics, such as drone strikes on Russian infrastructure, has helped Ukraine regain control of the narrative and shape perceptions both domestically and internationally.
- In the Middle East, Israel’s operations are carefully targeted to maintain a narrative of self-defense and containment, while Hezbollah and Hamas attempt to frame themselves as defenders of Palestinian and Lebanese sovereignty. Both sides understand the importance of controlling the narrative to gain international support and justify their actions.
In SE/WW, the real battle is for the mind—shaping the worldview of your population, your adversaries, and the international community. By controlling the narrative, actors can dictate the terms of the conflict and ensure that they hold the moral and strategic high ground. The fear of escalation, in this context, becomes a weapon in the hands of the aggressor, who uses it to manipulate perception and force the defensive side to act cautiously.
Conclusion: The Real Fear Is Fear of Initiative
Ultimately, the fear of escalation in both the Ukraine-Russia war and Israel’s conflicts in the Middle East is more a fear of taking the initiative than a genuine fear of broader conflict. In both cases, the war is already underway, and the risk of a larger war is minimal. What really holds back defensive actors is the passive risk management mindset, which allows aggressors to maintain the initiative.
The challenge for Western leaders and defensive actors like Ukraine and Israel is to overcome this fear and embrace a more proactive approach. By doing so, they can break the co-dependent dynamic that favors aggressors and take control of both the military and narrative battlefields. The war is already here—the real question is who will control it.
In the final analysis, escalation is a tool—and those who understand how to wield it effectively can shape the outcome of the conflict. Western fears of escalation only serve to strengthen those willing to take risks. It’s time to rethink this dynamic and embrace a strategy that balances offensive risk-taking with calculated strategic objectives. Only then can we shift the balance in these ongoing global conflicts.
About the Author
Richard Martin is the President of Alcera Consulting Inc., a strategic advisory firm specializing in navigating complex challenges. He is the author of Brilliant Manoeuvres: How to Use Military Wisdom to Win Business Battles and the creator of the blog ExploitingChange.com. Richard is also the developer of Strategic Epistemology, a groundbreaking theory that focuses on winning the battle for minds in a world of conflict by dismantling opposing worldviews and ideologies through strategic narrative and archetypal awareness.
© 2024 Richard Martin
Discover more from Exploiting Change
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
