Strategic Declassification and Perception Manipulation

Strategic Declassification and Perception Manipulation  

By Paolo Falconio  

Member of the Consejo Rector de Honor and lecturer at the Sociedad de Estudios Internacionales (SEI)

For some time now, European public discourse has been permeated by increasingly detailed and unsettling war scenarios presented by senior military officials.

A recent interview in the Daily Mail with General Richard Shirreff paints a terrifying picture of the future: “How the West will meet a bloody end in World War III: it starts with a blackout. Thousands of rockets tear through the sky. Then China enters the fray…” These are the tones, but the General introduces a scenario built around timing. What does that mean? European rearmament will take time, and Trump’s mandate—disengaging the United States from the Ukrainian conflict—expires in 2028. These factors, he argues, will lead Russia to seize an opportunity, acting—he says—as China’s attack dog. The General suggests November 5th as a symbolic date, implying Russia must act before Europe rearms and while the U.S. remains disengaged. He warns: “We are on the brink of a catastrophic two-front conflict.” In short, Russia will invade the Baltics, NATO will be unprepared and paralyzed, as China simultaneously invades Taiwan. The U.S. will issue condemnations and perhaps sanctions, but will not intervene. Within five days, the war will be lost. The outcome: Russian victory, NATO relegated to history, and Europe’s political demise.

The problem lies in the level of detail in this “forecast”—such precision could only come from someone professionally engaged in scenario planning. Anyone familiar with strategic planning (such as NATO’s excellent research office) knows that we never speak of “predictions,” but of scenarios. Possible, not probable. And when a scenario is presented to the public (with some parts kept secret), using apocalyptic tones and a specific date, it ceases to be analysis—it becomes manipulation. This is a cognitive warfare operation. Technically, it’s called “strategic declassification,” and it serves to sustain public support for certain policies—such as rearmament (which I fully support)—by controlling perception, in this case through the portrayal of an imminent threat.

The question is: who conducts strategic planning in Europe? As far as I know, the only countries doing so on the continent are the United Kingdom and France. Certainly not Italy. Recently, France has faced difficulties, and the initiative is entirely in British hands—which means we glimpse the long American shadow.

This mechanism of perception control affects not only citizens but, regrettably (and it shouldn’t), governments, EU institutions, and even NATO’s political bodies—posing risks of escalation.

In short, Britain, having exited the European Union, has re-entered through the strategic door: the American mandate. Today, it leads the continent’s politico-military posture, with an Anglo-Saxon accent—though not without exceptions.

Why is this relevant? First, becoming aware of it helps us interpret the media landscape. But concretely, it translates into EU policies and budgets increasingly focused eastward. The Mediterranean has vanished from the Union’s agenda, yet it is precisely in the Mediterranean where our strategic interests lie. At least for Italy, the Baltics are a strategic distraction. I won’t speak for other nations, but our vital interest is to the south, not the north. Even Germany has opposed the excessive allocation of EU resources to Eastern countries.

Meanwhile, war-related news is amplified—like the U.S. President’s post declaring, after a meeting with Zelensky, that he finally understands: Russia is a paper tiger, and Ukraine can not only reclaim lost territory but perhaps even seize parts of Russia… thanks to European financial support. A shift in posture? I’d say no. The United States remains in a grey zone—inside the conflict but formally outside it. They maintain their intelligence support role (reconnaissance and target acquisition), but formally stay out of a war they deem irrelevant, perhaps even lost—so much so that they’ve turned it into a European war, delegating Britain. This posture is evident in the post’s closing line, wishing “the best for both nations (Russia and Ukraine)” and “good luck.” But no one seems to notice what wasn’t said—namely, the promised harsh sanctions. Further confirmation comes from the total media silence surrounding the recent UN Security Council meeting, where the EU and Ukraine proposed a motion for an immediate ceasefire, restoration of territorial integrity, and Ukraine’s right to independence. The motion was vetoed by China, Russia, and—remarkably—the United States! If a Western axis ever existed, it has now been definitively broken. Europe plays a delegated role—useless and dangerous. As previously stated, the American war has been artificially transformed into a European one, and unfortunately, even Russian narrative has opportunistically adapted. With the U.S., one can negotiate; the real enemies are the Europeans, whose moral backbone will be shattered.

As the great Flaiano once said, “The situation is grave, but not serious.” Yet the gravity of a war on our continent demands seriousness and awareness—in our reading, our reaction, and our planning.