Author Foreword: Why Understanding Asymmetric War is Critical for MAGA and Non-MAGA Commenters
- john raymond
- Jul 9
- 3 min read
It often begins like this:
One commenter sneers, "So Russia's collapsing and taking over the world at the same time?" Another chimes in, "Guess Putin's both a genius and dying of cancer, right?" And a third adds, "These people think Russia secretly controls everything from oil prices to TikTok."
It feels clever. Detached. Ironic. And completely unhelpful.
In today’s political discourse, especially online, one of the most pervasive and corrosive dynamics is the tendency to strawman complex geopolitical arguments—not just out of malice or partisanship, but out of genuine confusion. Across ideological divides, from MAGA-aligned commenters to disillusioned centrists and ironic leftists, the same pattern repeats: ridicule replaces analysis, contradiction is mistaken for incoherence, and mockery becomes a shield against the discomfort of not knowing.
This behavior is not new, but it has become more urgent and dangerous in the age of asymmetric warfare. Asymmetric conflict does not rely on clear declarations, uniformed armies, or linear strategies. It unfolds in narrative space, through media manipulation, cyber disruption, economic leverage, and psychological operations. It exploits weakness in perception and coherence. And it thrives when its targets cannot distinguish complexity from contradiction.
To understand asymmetric war is to understand that the battlefield includes your mind and your narrative habits. The primary goal is not just to defeat an army or occupy a territory, but to create confusion, fragment trust, exhaust belief, and destabilize resistance.
This is why Russia's geopolitical strategy under Vladimir Putin so often appears contradictory: weak in economy, strong in cyber; failing in logistics, resilient in narrative warfare. These contradictions are not signs of incoherence—they are features of the strategy. They exploit our desire for simple stories. And they succeed when we give up on understanding altogether.
What many online commentators—especially those hardened by years of exposure to media sensationalism and political tribalism—fail to grasp is that mocking complexity is not analysis. Pointing out contradictions without asking what system produces them is not insight. It is performance. And performance, in the context of asymmetric warfare, can be co-opted. It can become part of the fog the adversary is trying to create.
This failure affects MAGA-aligned voices in particular ways. Many have been conditioned to see any claim of Russian interference as a partisan attack on their identity. Others have internalized the defense reflex so deeply that even raising the subject of Trump's alignment with Russian interests triggers ridicule, not reflection.
But the same failure shows up on the left as well—in ironic detachment, in fatalistic cynicism, and in the collapse of confidence that any truth can be known or any structure understood.
And crucially, these patterns persist in part because non-MAGA voices have too often failed to offer analysis grounded in the logic of asymmetric warfare, leaving a vacuum filled by ridicule instead of clarity.
Understanding asymmetric warfare requires more than just nuance. It demands intellectual discipline, humility, and a willingness to hold multiple truths at once:
That Putin is both failing and dangerous.
That Trump was recruited and continues to act in alignment with foreign strategic aims.
That contradictions in media narratives often reflect the reality of a chaotic and asymmetric battlefield, not the failure of narrative itself.
That the war includes not just drones and tanks, but memes, delays, ironies, and false certainties.
When you study asymmetric warfare, you stop laughing at the contradictions and start asking: what makes them useful? When you recognize narrative collapse as a war tactic, you stop mocking those trying to understand, and start contributing to clarity.
We don’t need louder, catchier opinions. We need quieter minds willing to sit with complexity long enough to see the shape of the battlefield beneath it.
Asymmetric war is not just happening "out there." It’s happening inside our discourse. And the first act of resistance is to understand it.
Comments