Chapter 2, Section V. Why Asymmetric Warfare Makes Traitor Generals So Dangerous
- john raymond
- Jul 5
- 2 min read
In symmetric warfare, the rules are straightforward. Two sides face each other with comparable means—troops, tanks, strategy, and terrain.
A general in such a conflict is tasked with defeating the adversary across lines clearly drawn, both literal and ideological. Treason in that world is a breach of command, a betrayal of orders, a signal flare handed to the enemy. And when it occurs, it is usually rare and easy to isolate.
But asymmetric warfare plays by an entirely different set of rules.
In asymmetric conflict, the battlefield isn’t confined to geography—it stretches across information networks, into the realm of perception, trust, morale, and identity. And in this domain, the damage a single general can do is not merely disruptive—it is nonlinear, catastrophic.
A traitor general in asymmetric war doesn’t sabotage a supply line. He is the supply line. He becomes a transmission vector for disinformation, a poisoner of institutional legitimacy, and a saboteur of coordination itself.
When the battlefield is informational, a corrupted actor at the top of the command structure can unravel the entire system—not by firing a weapon, but by breaking the very logic of truth and trust.
This is what makes Donald Trump so dangerous. His lies are not gaffes. They are not “truths spoken in error” or exaggerations born of ego.
They are precision weapons.
Every time Trump declares an election stolen, mocks NATO, attacks America’s intelligence agencies, or denies the seriousness of a threat—he isn’t just making noise. He is weakening the West’s ability to coordinate. He is making collective defense impossible. He is making democracy incoherent.
In symmetric war, you worry about the enemy out there. In asymmetric war, you worry about the enemy inside. And when that enemy is in command, when that enemy is shaping the very information your system needs to survive—your system begins to fail.
Trump doesn’t just serve the Kremlin in the classic sense of espionage. He is also a man who will burn down the system if it gives him—or his master—a momentary advantage.
And in asymmetric war, that kind of behavior is a weapon far more devastating than bombs.
In this context, the traitor general is not a hypothetical. He is a reality. And he has already done incalculable damage.
Comments