querying.ipynb

{
  "cells": [
    {
      "cell_type": "markdown",
      "metadata": {
        "id": "9NVvUCWP8Hts"
      },
      "source": [
        "# Global search\n",
        "- following this [notebook](https://microsoft.github.io/graphrag/posts/query/notebooks/global_search_nb/)"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": null,
      "metadata": {
        "id": "JKmDDXW95l23"
      },
      "outputs": [],
      "source": [
        "import os\n",
        "\n",
        "import pandas as pd\n",
        "import tiktoken\n",
        "\n",
        "from graphrag.query.indexer_adapters import read_indexer_entities, read_indexer_reports\n",
        "from graphrag.query.llm.oai.chat_openai import ChatOpenAI\n",
        "from graphrag.query.llm.oai.typing import OpenaiApiType\n",
        "from graphrag.query.structured_search.global_search.community_context import (\n",
        "    GlobalCommunityContext,\n",
        ")\n",
        "from graphrag.query.structured_search.global_search.search import GlobalSearch\n",
        "\n",
        "os.environ[\"GRAPHRAG_API_KEY\"] = \"QWERTY\"\n",
        "os.environ[\"GRAPHRAG_LLM_MODEL\"] = \"gemma2\"\n",
        "\n",
        "api_key = os.environ[\"GRAPHRAG_API_KEY\"]\n",
        "llm_model = os.environ[\"GRAPHRAG_LLM_MODEL\"]\n",
        "\n",
        "# we're setting OpenaiApiType, but actually using ollama's gemma2 model\n",
        "# running at http://localhost:11434/v1\n",
        "llm = ChatOpenAI(\n",
        "    api_key=api_key,\n",
        "    model=llm_model,\n",
        "    api_base=\"http://localhost:11434/v1\",\n",
        "    api_type=OpenaiApiType.OpenAI,\n",
        "    max_retries=20,\n",
        ")\n",
        "\n",
        "token_encoder = tiktoken.get_encoding(\"cl100k_base\")\n",
        "\n",
        "# community level in the Leiden community hierarchy from which we will load the community reports\n",
        "# higher value means we use reports from more fine-grained communities (at the cost of higher computation cost)\n",
        "COMMUNITY_LEVEL = 2\n",
        "\n",
        "entity_df = pd.read_parquet(\"./output/20240713-095103/artifacts/create_final_nodes.parquet\")\n",
        "report_df = pd.read_parquet(\"./output/20240713-095103/artifacts/create_final_community_reports.parquet\")\n",
        "entity_embedding_df = pd.read_parquet(\"./output/20240713-095103/artifacts/create_final_entities.parquet\")"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": null,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {
          "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/",
          "height": 661
        },
        "id": "gyJrKCYq6XSv",
        "outputId": "091685ab-431b-479a-879f-934578e74bb5"
      },
      "outputs": [
        {
          "name": "stdout",
          "output_type": "stream",
          "text": [
            "Report records: 105\n"
          ]
        },
        {
          "data": {
            "application/vnd.google.colaboratory.intrinsic+json": {
              "summary": "{\n  \"name\": \"report_df\",\n  \"rows\": 105,\n  \"fields\": [\n    {\n      \"column\": \"community\",\n      \"properties\": {\n        \"dtype\": \"string\",\n        \"num_unique_values\": 105,\n        \"samples\": [\n          \"22\",\n          \"58\",\n          \"57\"\n        ],\n        \"semantic_type\": \"\",\n        \"description\": \"\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"column\": \"full_content\",\n      \"properties\": {\n        \"dtype\": \"string\",\n        \"num_unique_values\": 105,\n        \"samples\": [\n          \"# Russian Security & Influence Community\\n\\nThis community centers around Russian political figures, particularly Vladimir Putin, and their perspectives on international security, revolutions, and Western influence. It highlights Putin's belief in the role of NGOs in fueling unrest and his emphasis on information technology as a key element in modern warfare.\\n\\n## Putin's View on Revolutions\\n\\nVladimir Putin consistently portrays revolutions as externally orchestrated events driven by NGOs rather than genuine popular uprisings. He attributes these revolutions to Western governments seeking to destabilize Russia and its allies.  [Data: 411, 398, 403] This perspective suggests a deep distrust of Western intentions and a belief that Russia is under constant threat from external forces attempting to undermine its stability.\\n\\n## Information Warfare as a Key Tool\\n\\nPutin recognizes the crucial role of information technology in modern warfare, placing it on par with traditional military capabilities. He believes that information can be weaponized to influence values, culture, and public opinion. [Data: 404, 402] This highlights Russia's focus on shaping narratives and controlling information flows as a strategic advantage in international relations.\\n\\n## Disagreements Within Russian Leadership\\n\\nThe community reveals internal divisions within the Russian leadership regarding foreign interventions. Putin and Medvedev, for example, held differing views on the Western intervention in Libya. [Data: 410] This suggests that while there is a shared national security agenda, there are diverse perspectives on how to achieve it.\\n\\n## Emphasis on 'Sovereign Democracy'\\n\\nThe concept of 'sovereign democracy,' promoted by Vladislav Surkov within the United Russia party, suggests a model of governance that prioritizes national sovereignty and independence from Western influence. [Data: 733] This ideology underscores Russia's desire to define its own political system and resist external pressures.\\n\\n## Russian Perspective on Color Revolutions\\n\\nThe community presents a Russian perspective on 'color revolutions,' viewing them as externally orchestrated attempts to destabilize countries and undermine traditional power structures. [Data: 603, 604] This narrative frames Russia as a defender against Western interference and promotes a sense of national unity in the face of perceived threats.\",\n          \"# Russian Military Thought Community\\n\\nThe Russian Military Thought Community centers around individuals like Putin, Gorbunov, Bogdanov, Kvachkov, Serebryannikov, and Clausewitz. This community emphasizes the study of armed conflict, drawing inspiration from historical figures like Sun Tzu while analyzing modern warfare in the 21st century.  Key themes include the nature of war, its classification, and the use of both military and nonmilitary means.\\n\\n## Putin aligns with Gorbunov and Bogdanov's views on conflict.\\n\\nVladimir Putin's political ideology appears to be influenced by the writings of Russian military theorists Gorbunov and Bogdanov. This is evident in his policies and statements regarding international relations and armed conflict. [Data: Community (23)]  Further research into Putin's public pronouncements and policy decisions could reveal a more explicit connection to their theories.\\n\\n## Kvachkov critiques Clausewitz's definition of war.\\n\\nMilitary theorist Kvachkov challenges the traditional understanding of war as presented by Carl von Clausewitz.  He proposes a broader definition that encompasses not only armed warfare but also nonmilitary means of achieving strategic objectives. [Data: Community (303, 18)] This suggests a shift in thinking within Russian military circles towards a more comprehensive approach to conflict.\\n\\n## Gorbunov and Bogdanov draw upon Sun Tzu's ideas.\\n\\nThe writings of Gorbunov and Bogdanov demonstrate a clear influence from the ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu. They incorporate his principles of strategy, deception, and adaptability into their analysis of modern warfare. [Data: Community (369)] This highlights the enduring relevance of classical military thought in contemporary strategic discussions.\\n\\n## Kvachkov and Serebryannikov share similar views on war.\\n\\nBoth Kvachkov and Serebryannikov, prominent figures in Russian military thought, appear to hold similar perspectives on the nature of war. Their writings suggest a focus on the strategic use of both military and nonmilitary means to achieve national objectives. [Data: Community (339)] Further analysis of their individual works could reveal specific points of convergence and divergence in their approaches.\\n\\n## Gorbunov and Bogdanov's study focuses on 21st-century armed confrontation.\\n\\nThe research conducted by Gorbunov and Bogdanov specifically addresses the challenges and dynamics of armed conflict in the 21st century. They analyze contemporary conflicts, emerging technologies, and the evolving nature of warfare. [Data: Community (685, 686, 684)] This indicates a keen interest in understanding and adapting to the complexities of modern military operations.\",\n          \"# Soviet Military Thought Community\\n\\nThis community centers around Soviet military thought and strategy, highlighting figures like Stalin and their engagement with theorists like Clausewitz. It explores the evolution of war concepts within a Marxist-Leninist framework, emphasizing the role of armed force in politics.\\n\\n## Stalin's Influence on Soviet Military Thought\\n\\nStalin is a central figure in this community, with his ideas on military art and strategy deeply embedded within the Soviet Armed Forces. [Data: SOVIET ARMED FORCES (324); Entities (STALIN)]. His views are studied and discussed, shaping the practices of the Soviet military. [Data: SOVIET ARMED FORCES (324)].  His emphasis on dialectics resonates with communist military theorists. [Data: CLAUSEWITZ (310)]\\n\\n## Clausewitz's Enduring Relevance in Soviet Discourse\\n\\nDespite evolving circumstances, Clausewitz's work remains a subject of debate within the community. Stalin himself addressed the continued relevance of Clausewitz's ideas in modern times during a conversation with Rasin. [Data: CLAUSEWITZ (327)]. While some, like Kirshin, criticize Clausewitz's definition of war as too narrow, others appreciate his insights on the nature of war and its connection to politics. [Data: CLAUSEWITZ (309); KIRSHIN (301)]\\n\\n## Marxist-Leninist Framework for Understanding War\\n\\nThe community emphasizes a Marxist-Leninist perspective on war, viewing it as an extension of political struggle. This is reflected in the definition of war presented in the book 'Marxism-Leninism o Voine i Armii,' which states that war is 'the continuation of politics by means of armed force.' [Data: MARXISM-LENINISM O VOINE I ARMII (577)].  This framework shapes how Soviet military thinkers approach conflict and strategy.\\n\\n## Nuclear Weapons as a Defining Feature of Soviet Military Power\\n\\nKhrushchev, a prominent figure in the community, asserted that nuclear weapons constituted the primary armament of the Soviet Armed Forces. [Data: SOVIET ARMED FORCES (325)]. This highlights the growing importance of nuclear deterrence and its central role in Soviet military doctrine.\\n\\n## Shifting Nature of War\\n\\nThe community acknowledges that the nature of war is constantly evolving. ov's speech reflects this changing landscape, indicating a need for adaptation and innovation within Soviet military thinking. [Data: OV (322)].\"\n        ],\n        \"semantic_type\": \"\",\n        \"description\": \"\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"column\": \"level\",\n      \"properties\": {\n        \"dtype\": \"number\",\n        \"std\": 0,\n        \"min\": 0,\n        \"max\": 2,\n        \"num_unique_values\": 3,\n        \"samples\": [\n          2,\n          1,\n          0\n        ],\n        \"semantic_type\": \"\",\n        \"description\": \"\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"column\": \"rank\",\n      \"properties\": {\n        \"dtype\": \"number\",\n        \"std\": 0.8836891950265056,\n        \"min\": 3.0,\n        \"max\": 9.5,\n        \"num_unique_values\": 10,\n        \"samples\": [\n          6.0,\n          7.5,\n          6.5\n        ],\n        \"semantic_type\": \"\",\n        \"description\": \"\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"column\": \"title\",\n      \"properties\": {\n        \"dtype\": \"string\",\n        \"num_unique_values\": 81,\n        \"samples\": [\n          \"Russian Military Doctrine & GRU\",\n          \"Gorbunov & Bogdanov's Framework on 21st Century Conflict\",\n          \"Marxist Military Theory Community\"\n        ],\n        \"semantic_type\": \"\",\n        \"description\": \"\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"column\": \"rank_explanation\",\n      \"properties\": {\n        \"dtype\": \"string\",\n        \"num_unique_values\": 105,\n        \"samples\": [\n          \"The community focuses on influential Russian figures shaping narratives around international security and potentially influencing global events.\",\n          \"This community's focus on contemporary armed conflict analysis and potential influence on policy decisions warrants a high impact severity rating.\",\n          \"The community demonstrates significant influence on military doctrine and strategy, potentially impacting global security dynamics.\"\n        ],\n        \"semantic_type\": \"\",\n        \"description\": \"\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"column\": \"summary\",\n      \"properties\": {\n        \"dtype\": \"string\",\n        \"num_unique_values\": 105,\n        \"samples\": [\n          \"This community centers around Russian political figures, particularly Vladimir Putin, and their perspectives on international security, revolutions, and Western influence. It highlights Putin's belief in the role of NGOs in fueling unrest and his emphasis on information technology as a key element in modern warfare.\",\n          \"The Russian Military Thought Community centers around individuals like Putin, Gorbunov, Bogdanov, Kvachkov, Serebryannikov, and Clausewitz. This community emphasizes the study of armed conflict, drawing inspiration from historical figures like Sun Tzu while analyzing modern warfare in the 21st century.  Key themes include the nature of war, its classification, and the use of both military and nonmilitary means.\",\n          \"This community centers around Soviet military thought and strategy, highlighting figures like Stalin and their engagement with theorists like Clausewitz. It explores the evolution of war concepts within a Marxist-Leninist framework, emphasizing the role of armed force in politics.\"\n        ],\n        \"semantic_type\": \"\",\n        \"description\": \"\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"column\": \"findings\",\n      \"properties\": {\n        \"dtype\": \"object\",\n        \"semantic_type\": \"\",\n        \"description\": \"\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"column\": \"full_content_json\",\n      \"properties\": {\n        \"dtype\": \"string\",\n        \"num_unique_values\": 105,\n        \"samples\": [\n          \"{\\n    \\\"title\\\": \\\"Russian Security & Influence Community\\\",\\n    \\\"summary\\\": \\\"This community centers around Russian political figures, particularly Vladimir Putin, and their perspectives on international security, revolutions, and Western influence. It highlights Putin's belief in the role of NGOs in fueling unrest and his emphasis on information technology as a key element in modern warfare.\\\",\\n    \\\"rating\\\": 8.5,\\n    \\\"rating_explanation\\\": \\\"The community focuses on influential Russian figures shaping narratives around international security and potentially influencing global events.\\\",\\n    \\\"findings\\\": [\\n        {\\n            \\\"summary\\\": \\\"Putin's View on Revolutions\\\",\\n            \\\"explanation\\\": \\\"Vladimir Putin consistently portrays revolutions as externally orchestrated events driven by NGOs rather than genuine popular uprisings. He attributes these revolutions to Western governments seeking to destabilize Russia and its allies.  [Data: 411, 398, 403] This perspective suggests a deep distrust of Western intentions and a belief that Russia is under constant threat from external forces attempting to undermine its stability.\\\"\\n        },\\n        {\\n            \\\"summary\\\": \\\"Information Warfare as a Key Tool\\\",\\n            \\\"explanation\\\": \\\"Putin recognizes the crucial role of information technology in modern warfare, placing it on par with traditional military capabilities. He believes that information can be weaponized to influence values, culture, and public opinion. [Data: 404, 402] This highlights Russia's focus on shaping narratives and controlling information flows as a strategic advantage in international relations.\\\"\\n        },\\n        {\\n            \\\"summary\\\": \\\"Disagreements Within Russian Leadership\\\",\\n            \\\"explanation\\\": \\\"The community reveals internal divisions within the Russian leadership regarding foreign interventions. Putin and Medvedev, for example, held differing views on the Western intervention in Libya. [Data: 410] This suggests that while there is a shared national security agenda, there are diverse perspectives on how to achieve it.\\\"\\n        },\\n        {\\n            \\\"summary\\\": \\\"Emphasis on 'Sovereign Democracy'\\\",\\n            \\\"explanation\\\": \\\"The concept of 'sovereign democracy,' promoted by Vladislav Surkov within the United Russia party, suggests a model of governance that prioritizes national sovereignty and independence from Western influence. [Data: 733] This ideology underscores Russia's desire to define its own political system and resist external pressures.\\\"\\n        },\\n        {\\n            \\\"summary\\\": \\\"Russian Perspective on Color Revolutions\\\",\\n            \\\"explanation\\\": \\\"The community presents a Russian perspective on 'color revolutions,' viewing them as externally orchestrated attempts to destabilize countries and undermine traditional power structures. [Data: 603, 604] This narrative frames Russia as a defender against Western interference and promotes a sense of national unity in the face of perceived threats.\\\"\\n        }\\n    ]\\n}\",\n          \"{\\n    \\\"title\\\": \\\"Russian Military Thought Community\\\",\\n    \\\"summary\\\": \\\"The Russian Military Thought Community centers around individuals like Putin, Gorbunov, Bogdanov, Kvachkov, Serebryannikov, and Clausewitz. This community emphasizes the study of armed conflict, drawing inspiration from historical figures like Sun Tzu while analyzing modern warfare in the 21st century.  Key themes include the nature of war, its classification, and the use of both military and nonmilitary means.\\\",\\n    \\\"rating\\\": 8.5,\\n    \\\"rating_explanation\\\": \\\"This community's focus on contemporary armed conflict analysis and potential influence on policy decisions warrants a high impact severity rating.\\\",\\n    \\\"findings\\\": [\\n        {\\n            \\\"summary\\\": \\\"Putin aligns with Gorbunov and Bogdanov's views on conflict.\\\",\\n            \\\"explanation\\\": \\\"Vladimir Putin's political ideology appears to be influenced by the writings of Russian military theorists Gorbunov and Bogdanov. This is evident in his policies and statements regarding international relations and armed conflict. [Data: Community (23)]  Further research into Putin's public pronouncements and policy decisions could reveal a more explicit connection to their theories.\\\"\\n        },\\n        {\\n            \\\"summary\\\": \\\"Kvachkov critiques Clausewitz's definition of war.\\\",\\n            \\\"explanation\\\": \\\"Military theorist Kvachkov challenges the traditional understanding of war as presented by Carl von Clausewitz.  He proposes a broader definition that encompasses not only armed warfare but also nonmilitary means of achieving strategic objectives. [Data: Community (303, 18)] This suggests a shift in thinking within Russian military circles towards a more comprehensive approach to conflict.\\\"\\n        },\\n        {\\n            \\\"summary\\\": \\\"Gorbunov and Bogdanov draw upon Sun Tzu's ideas.\\\",\\n            \\\"explanation\\\": \\\"The writings of Gorbunov and Bogdanov demonstrate a clear influence from the ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu. They incorporate his principles of strategy, deception, and adaptability into their analysis of modern warfare. [Data: Community (369)] This highlights the enduring relevance of classical military thought in contemporary strategic discussions.\\\"\\n        },\\n        {\\n            \\\"summary\\\": \\\"Kvachkov and Serebryannikov share similar views on war.\\\",\\n            \\\"explanation\\\": \\\"Both Kvachkov and Serebryannikov, prominent figures in Russian military thought, appear to hold similar perspectives on the nature of war. Their writings suggest a focus on the strategic use of both military and nonmilitary means to achieve national objectives. [Data: Community (339)] Further analysis of their individual works could reveal specific points of convergence and divergence in their approaches.\\\"\\n        },\\n        {\\n            \\\"summary\\\": \\\"Gorbunov and Bogdanov's study focuses on 21st-century armed confrontation.\\\",\\n            \\\"explanation\\\": \\\"The research conducted by Gorbunov and Bogdanov specifically addresses the challenges and dynamics of armed conflict in the 21st century. They analyze contemporary conflicts, emerging technologies, and the evolving nature of warfare. [Data: Community (685, 686, 684)] This indicates a keen interest in understanding and adapting to the complexities of modern military operations.\\\"\\n        }\\n    ]\\n}\",\n          \"{\\n    \\\"title\\\": \\\"Soviet Military Thought Community\\\",\\n    \\\"summary\\\": \\\"This community centers around Soviet military thought and strategy, highlighting figures like Stalin and their engagement with theorists like Clausewitz. It explores the evolution of war concepts within a Marxist-Leninist framework, emphasizing the role of armed force in politics.\\\",\\n    \\\"rating\\\": 7.5,\\n    \\\"rating_explanation\\\": \\\"The community demonstrates significant influence on military doctrine and strategy, potentially impacting global security dynamics.\\\",\\n    \\\"findings\\\": [\\n        {\\n            \\\"summary\\\": \\\"Stalin's Influence on Soviet Military Thought\\\",\\n            \\\"explanation\\\": \\\"Stalin is a central figure in this community, with his ideas on military art and strategy deeply embedded within the Soviet Armed Forces. [Data: SOVIET ARMED FORCES (324); Entities (STALIN)]. His views are studied and discussed, shaping the practices of the Soviet military. [Data: SOVIET ARMED FORCES (324)].  His emphasis on dialectics resonates with communist military theorists. [Data: CLAUSEWITZ (310)]\\\"\\n        },\\n        {\\n            \\\"summary\\\": \\\"Clausewitz's Enduring Relevance in Soviet Discourse\\\",\\n            \\\"explanation\\\": \\\"Despite evolving circumstances, Clausewitz's work remains a subject of debate within the community. Stalin himself addressed the continued relevance of Clausewitz's ideas in modern times during a conversation with Rasin. [Data: CLAUSEWITZ (327)]. While some, like Kirshin, criticize Clausewitz's definition of war as too narrow, others appreciate his insights on the nature of war and its connection to politics. [Data: CLAUSEWITZ (309); KIRSHIN (301)]\\\"\\n        },\\n        {\\n            \\\"summary\\\": \\\"Marxist-Leninist Framework for Understanding War\\\",\\n            \\\"explanation\\\": \\\"The community emphasizes a Marxist-Leninist perspective on war, viewing it as an extension of political struggle. This is reflected in the definition of war presented in the book 'Marxism-Leninism o Voine i Armii,' which states that war is 'the continuation of politics by means of armed force.' [Data: MARXISM-LENINISM O VOINE I ARMII (577)].  This framework shapes how Soviet military thinkers approach conflict and strategy.\\\"\\n        },\\n        {\\n            \\\"summary\\\": \\\"Nuclear Weapons as a Defining Feature of Soviet Military Power\\\",\\n            \\\"explanation\\\": \\\"Khrushchev, a prominent figure in the community, asserted that nuclear weapons constituted the primary armament of the Soviet Armed Forces. [Data: SOVIET ARMED FORCES (325)]. This highlights the growing importance of nuclear deterrence and its central role in Soviet military doctrine.\\\"\\n        },\\n        {\\n            \\\"summary\\\": \\\"Shifting Nature of War\\\",\\n            \\\"explanation\\\": \\\"The community acknowledges that the nature of war is constantly evolving. ov's speech reflects this changing landscape, indicating a need for adaptation and innovation within Soviet military thinking. [Data: OV (322)].\\\"\\n        }\\n    ]\\n}\"\n        ],\n        \"semantic_type\": \"\",\n        \"description\": \"\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"column\": \"id\",\n      \"properties\": {\n        \"dtype\": \"string\",\n        \"num_unique_values\": 105,\n        \"samples\": [\n          \"683a5e61-2901-4ad7-a33f-cc6ccc9ca64a\",\n          \"c965ef34-840c-4fff-8527-6d127f7e4bc2\",\n          \"e888cb97-3126-4c28-9fb5-494615fd36a7\"\n        ],\n        \"semantic_type\": \"\",\n        \"description\": \"\"\n      }\n    }\n  ]\n}",
              "type": "dataframe",
              "variable_name": "report_df"
            },
            "text/html": [
              "\n",
              "  <div id=\"df-a2f6eb79-a69d-420c-9ad8-7d2bec07c400\" class=\"colab-df-container\">\n",
              "    <div>\n",
              "<style scoped>\n",
              "    .dataframe tbody tr th:only-of-type {\n",
              "        vertical-align: middle;\n",
              "    }\n",
              "\n",
              "    .dataframe tbody tr th {\n",
              "        vertical-align: top;\n",
              "    }\n",
              "\n",
              "    .dataframe thead th {\n",
              "        text-align: right;\n",
              "    }\n",
              "</style>\n",
              "<table border=\"1\" class=\"dataframe\">\n",
              "  <thead>\n",
              "    <tr style=\"text-align: right;\">\n",
              "      <th></th>\n",
              "      <th>community</th>\n",
              "      <th>full_content</th>\n",
              "      <th>level</th>\n",
              "      <th>rank</th>\n",
              "      <th>title</th>\n",
              "      <th>rank_explanation</th>\n",
              "      <th>summary</th>\n",
              "      <th>findings</th>\n",
              "      <th>full_content_json</th>\n",
              "      <th>id</th>\n",
              "    </tr>\n",
              "  </thead>\n",
              "  <tbody>\n",
              "    <tr>\n",
              "      <th>0</th>\n",
              "      <td>100</td>\n",
              "      <td># Gorbunov &amp; Bogdanov's Framework on 21st Cent...</td>\n",
              "      <td>2</td>\n",
              "      <td>8.5</td>\n",
              "      <td>Gorbunov &amp; Bogdanov's Framework on 21st Centur...</td>\n",
              "      <td>The community focuses on a critical topic – th...</td>\n",
              "      <td>This community centers around the research of ...</td>\n",
              "      <td>[{'explanation': 'Gorbunov and Bogdanov's rese...</td>\n",
              "      <td>{\\n    \"title\": \"Gorbunov &amp; Bogdanov's Framewo...</td>\n",
              "      <td>0388c716-fee7-4214-88c0-873448939f81</td>\n",
              "    </tr>\n",
              "    <tr>\n",
              "      <th>1</th>\n",
              "      <td>101</td>\n",
              "      <td># Military Thought &amp; War Definitions Community...</td>\n",
              "      <td>2</td>\n",
              "      <td>7.5</td>\n",
              "      <td>Military Thought &amp; War Definitions Community</td>\n",
              "      <td>This community explores a significant topic wi...</td>\n",
              "      <td>This community explores various perspectives o...</td>\n",
              "      <td>[{'explanation': 'The community highlights con...</td>\n",
              "      <td>{\\n    \"title\": \"Military Thought &amp; War Defini...</td>\n",
              "      <td>a27293ff-70ed-4a92-be0e-f870dce96fd0</td>\n",
              "    </tr>\n",
              "    <tr>\n",
              "      <th>2</th>\n",
              "      <td>102</td>\n",
              "      <td># Soviet Military Thought Community\\n\\nThis co...</td>\n",
              "      <td>2</td>\n",
              "      <td>8.5</td>\n",
              "      <td>Soviet Military Thought Community</td>\n",
              "      <td>The Soviet Union's military doctrine significa...</td>\n",
              "      <td>This community centers around the Soviet Union...</td>\n",
              "      <td>[{'explanation': 'The Soviet Union's military ...</td>\n",
              "      <td>{\\n    \"title\": \"Soviet Military Thought Commu...</td>\n",
              "      <td>9207f5c2-9011-453b-a484-2a6b072559ac</td>\n",
              "    </tr>\n",
              "    <tr>\n",
              "      <th>3</th>\n",
              "      <td>103</td>\n",
              "      <td># Soviet Union's View on War\\n\\nThis report an...</td>\n",
              "      <td>2</td>\n",
              "      <td>7.5</td>\n",
              "      <td>Soviet Union's View on War</td>\n",
              "      <td>The Soviet Union's historical impact on global...</td>\n",
              "      <td>This report analyzes the Soviet Union's perspe...</td>\n",
              "      <td>[{'explanation': 'The Soviet Union believed th...</td>\n",
              "      <td>{\\n    \"title\": \"Soviet Union's View on War\",\\...</td>\n",
              "      <td>499e66ef-a302-4d0b-a50a-13ad4d407a41</td>\n",
              "    </tr>\n",
              "    <tr>\n",
              "      <th>4</th>\n",
              "      <td>104</td>\n",
              "      <td># Military &amp; Political Thought on War\\n\\nThis ...</td>\n",
              "      <td>2</td>\n",
              "      <td>7.5</td>\n",
              "      <td>Military &amp; Political Thought on War</td>\n",
              "      <td>The community delves into influential theories...</td>\n",
              "      <td>This community explores various perspectives o...</td>\n",
              "      <td>[{'explanation': 'Clausewitz's belief that all...</td>\n",
              "      <td>{\\n    \"title\": \"Military &amp; Political Thought ...</td>\n",
              "      <td>c51e292c-33df-4d67-aace-54e1df23a2c9</td>\n",
              "    </tr>\n",
              "  </tbody>\n",
              "</table>\n",
              "</div>\n",
              "    <div class=\"colab-df-buttons\">\n",
              "\n",
              "  <div class=\"colab-df-container\">\n",
              "    <button class=\"colab-df-convert\" onclick=\"convertToInteractive('df-a2f6eb79-a69d-420c-9ad8-7d2bec07c400')\"\n",
              "            title=\"Convert this dataframe to an interactive table.\"\n",
              "            style=\"display:none;\">\n",
              "\n",
              "  <svg xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" height=\"24px\" viewBox=\"0 -960 960 960\">\n",
              "    <path d=\"M120-120v-720h720v720H120Zm60-500h600v-160H180v160Zm220 220h160v-160H400v160Zm0 220h160v-160H400v160ZM180-400h160v-160H180v160Zm440 0h160v-160H620v160ZM180-180h160v-160H180v160Zm440 0h160v-160H620v160Z\"/>\n",
              "  </svg>\n",
              "    </button>\n",
              "\n",
              "  <style>\n",
              "    .colab-df-container {\n",
              "      display:flex;\n",
              "      gap: 12px;\n",
              "    }\n",
              "\n",
              "    .colab-df-convert {\n",
              "      background-color: #E8F0FE;\n",
              "      border: none;\n",
              "      border-radius: 50%;\n",
              "      cursor: pointer;\n",
              "      display: none;\n",
              "      fill: #1967D2;\n",
              "      height: 32px;\n",
              "      padding: 0 0 0 0;\n",
              "      width: 32px;\n",
              "    }\n",
              "\n",
              "    .colab-df-convert:hover {\n",
              "      background-color: #E2EBFA;\n",
              "      box-shadow: 0px 1px 2px rgba(60, 64, 67, 0.3), 0px 1px 3px 1px rgba(60, 64, 67, 0.15);\n",
              "      fill: #174EA6;\n",
              "    }\n",
              "\n",
              "    .colab-df-buttons div {\n",
              "      margin-bottom: 4px;\n",
              "    }\n",
              "\n",
              "    [theme=dark] .colab-df-convert {\n",
              "      background-color: #3B4455;\n",
              "      fill: #D2E3FC;\n",
              "    }\n",
              "\n",
              "    [theme=dark] .colab-df-convert:hover {\n",
              "      background-color: #434B5C;\n",
              "      box-shadow: 0px 1px 3px 1px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.15);\n",
              "      filter: drop-shadow(0px 1px 2px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3));\n",
              "      fill: #FFFFFF;\n",
              "    }\n",
              "  </style>\n",
              "\n",
              "    <script>\n",
              "      const buttonEl =\n",
              "        document.querySelector('#df-a2f6eb79-a69d-420c-9ad8-7d2bec07c400 button.colab-df-convert');\n",
              "      buttonEl.style.display =\n",
              "        google.colab.kernel.accessAllowed ? 'block' : 'none';\n",
              "\n",
              "      async function convertToInteractive(key) {\n",
              "        const element = document.querySelector('#df-a2f6eb79-a69d-420c-9ad8-7d2bec07c400');\n",
              "        const dataTable =\n",
              "          await google.colab.kernel.invokeFunction('convertToInteractive',\n",
              "                                                    [key], {});\n",
              "        if (!dataTable) return;\n",
              "\n",
              "        const docLinkHtml = 'Like what you see? Visit the ' +\n",
              "          '<a target=\"_blank\" href=https://colab.research.google.com/notebooks/data_table.ipynb>data table notebook</a>'\n",
              "          + ' to learn more about interactive tables.';\n",
              "        element.innerHTML = '';\n",
              "        dataTable['output_type'] = 'display_data';\n",
              "        await google.colab.output.renderOutput(dataTable, element);\n",
              "        const docLink = document.createElement('div');\n",
              "        docLink.innerHTML = docLinkHtml;\n",
              "        element.appendChild(docLink);\n",
              "      }\n",
              "    </script>\n",
              "  </div>\n",
              "\n",
              "\n",
              "<div id=\"df-6f0c9de9-7863-4cca-83d7-845b476c0d73\">\n",
              "  <button class=\"colab-df-quickchart\" onclick=\"quickchart('df-6f0c9de9-7863-4cca-83d7-845b476c0d73')\"\n",
              "            title=\"Suggest charts\"\n",
              "            style=\"display:none;\">\n",
              "\n",
              "<svg xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" height=\"24px\"viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\"\n",
              "     width=\"24px\">\n",
              "    <g>\n",
              "        <path d=\"M19 3H5c-1.1 0-2 .9-2 2v14c0 1.1.9 2 2 2h14c1.1 0 2-.9 2-2V5c0-1.1-.9-2-2-2zM9 17H7v-7h2v7zm4 0h-2V7h2v10zm4 0h-2v-4h2v4z\"/>\n",
              "    </g>\n",
              "</svg>\n",
              "  </button>\n",
              "\n",
              "<style>\n",
              "  .colab-df-quickchart {\n",
              "      --bg-color: #E8F0FE;\n",
              "      --fill-color: #1967D2;\n",
              "      --hover-bg-color: #E2EBFA;\n",
              "      --hover-fill-color: #174EA6;\n",
              "      --disabled-fill-color: #AAA;\n",
              "      --disabled-bg-color: #DDD;\n",
              "  }\n",
              "\n",
              "  [theme=dark] .colab-df-quickchart {\n",
              "      --bg-color: #3B4455;\n",
              "      --fill-color: #D2E3FC;\n",
              "      --hover-bg-color: #434B5C;\n",
              "      --hover-fill-color: #FFFFFF;\n",
              "      --disabled-bg-color: #3B4455;\n",
              "      --disabled-fill-color: #666;\n",
              "  }\n",
              "\n",
              "  .colab-df-quickchart {\n",
              "    background-color: var(--bg-color);\n",
              "    border: none;\n",
              "    border-radius: 50%;\n",
              "    cursor: pointer;\n",
              "    display: none;\n",
              "    fill: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "    height: 32px;\n",
              "    padding: 0;\n",
              "    width: 32px;\n",
              "  }\n",
              "\n",
              "  .colab-df-quickchart:hover {\n",
              "    background-color: var(--hover-bg-color);\n",
              "    box-shadow: 0 1px 2px rgba(60, 64, 67, 0.3), 0 1px 3px 1px rgba(60, 64, 67, 0.15);\n",
              "    fill: var(--button-hover-fill-color);\n",
              "  }\n",
              "\n",
              "  .colab-df-quickchart-complete:disabled,\n",
              "  .colab-df-quickchart-complete:disabled:hover {\n",
              "    background-color: var(--disabled-bg-color);\n",
              "    fill: var(--disabled-fill-color);\n",
              "    box-shadow: none;\n",
              "  }\n",
              "\n",
              "  .colab-df-spinner {\n",
              "    border: 2px solid var(--fill-color);\n",
              "    border-color: transparent;\n",
              "    border-bottom-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "    animation:\n",
              "      spin 1s steps(1) infinite;\n",
              "  }\n",
              "\n",
              "  @keyframes spin {\n",
              "    0% {\n",
              "      border-color: transparent;\n",
              "      border-bottom-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "      border-left-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "    }\n",
              "    20% {\n",
              "      border-color: transparent;\n",
              "      border-left-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "      border-top-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "    }\n",
              "    30% {\n",
              "      border-color: transparent;\n",
              "      border-left-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "      border-top-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "      border-right-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "    }\n",
              "    40% {\n",
              "      border-color: transparent;\n",
              "      border-right-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "      border-top-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "    }\n",
              "    60% {\n",
              "      border-color: transparent;\n",
              "      border-right-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "    }\n",
              "    80% {\n",
              "      border-color: transparent;\n",
              "      border-right-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "      border-bottom-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "    }\n",
              "    90% {\n",
              "      border-color: transparent;\n",
              "      border-bottom-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "    }\n",
              "  }\n",
              "</style>\n",
              "\n",
              "  <script>\n",
              "    async function quickchart(key) {\n",
              "      const quickchartButtonEl =\n",
              "        document.querySelector('#' + key + ' button');\n",
              "      quickchartButtonEl.disabled = true;  // To prevent multiple clicks.\n",
              "      quickchartButtonEl.classList.add('colab-df-spinner');\n",
              "      try {\n",
              "        const charts = await google.colab.kernel.invokeFunction(\n",
              "            'suggestCharts', [key], {});\n",
              "      } catch (error) {\n",
              "        console.error('Error during call to suggestCharts:', error);\n",
              "      }\n",
              "      quickchartButtonEl.classList.remove('colab-df-spinner');\n",
              "      quickchartButtonEl.classList.add('colab-df-quickchart-complete');\n",
              "    }\n",
              "    (() => {\n",
              "      let quickchartButtonEl =\n",
              "        document.querySelector('#df-6f0c9de9-7863-4cca-83d7-845b476c0d73 button');\n",
              "      quickchartButtonEl.style.display =\n",
              "        google.colab.kernel.accessAllowed ? 'block' : 'none';\n",
              "    })();\n",
              "  </script>\n",
              "</div>\n",
              "\n",
              "    </div>\n",
              "  </div>\n"
            ],
            "text/plain": [
              "  community                                       full_content  level  rank  \\\n",
              "0       100  # Gorbunov & Bogdanov's Framework on 21st Cent...      2   8.5   \n",
              "1       101  # Military Thought & War Definitions Community...      2   7.5   \n",
              "2       102  # Soviet Military Thought Community\\n\\nThis co...      2   8.5   \n",
              "3       103  # Soviet Union's View on War\\n\\nThis report an...      2   7.5   \n",
              "4       104  # Military & Political Thought on War\\n\\nThis ...      2   7.5   \n",
              "\n",
              "                                               title  \\\n",
              "0  Gorbunov & Bogdanov's Framework on 21st Centur...   \n",
              "1       Military Thought & War Definitions Community   \n",
              "2                  Soviet Military Thought Community   \n",
              "3                         Soviet Union's View on War   \n",
              "4                Military & Political Thought on War   \n",
              "\n",
              "                                    rank_explanation  \\\n",
              "0  The community focuses on a critical topic – th...   \n",
              "1  This community explores a significant topic wi...   \n",
              "2  The Soviet Union's military doctrine significa...   \n",
              "3  The Soviet Union's historical impact on global...   \n",
              "4  The community delves into influential theories...   \n",
              "\n",
              "                                             summary  \\\n",
              "0  This community centers around the research of ...   \n",
              "1  This community explores various perspectives o...   \n",
              "2  This community centers around the Soviet Union...   \n",
              "3  This report analyzes the Soviet Union's perspe...   \n",
              "4  This community explores various perspectives o...   \n",
              "\n",
              "                                            findings  \\\n",
              "0  [{'explanation': 'Gorbunov and Bogdanov's rese...   \n",
              "1  [{'explanation': 'The community highlights con...   \n",
              "2  [{'explanation': 'The Soviet Union's military ...   \n",
              "3  [{'explanation': 'The Soviet Union believed th...   \n",
              "4  [{'explanation': 'Clausewitz's belief that all...   \n",
              "\n",
              "                                   full_content_json  \\\n",
              "0  {\\n    \"title\": \"Gorbunov & Bogdanov's Framewo...   \n",
              "1  {\\n    \"title\": \"Military Thought & War Defini...   \n",
              "2  {\\n    \"title\": \"Soviet Military Thought Commu...   \n",
              "3  {\\n    \"title\": \"Soviet Union's View on War\",\\...   \n",
              "4  {\\n    \"title\": \"Military & Political Thought ...   \n",
              "\n",
              "                                     id  \n",
              "0  0388c716-fee7-4214-88c0-873448939f81  \n",
              "1  a27293ff-70ed-4a92-be0e-f870dce96fd0  \n",
              "2  9207f5c2-9011-453b-a484-2a6b072559ac  \n",
              "3  499e66ef-a302-4d0b-a50a-13ad4d407a41  \n",
              "4  c51e292c-33df-4d67-aace-54e1df23a2c9  "
            ]
          },
          "execution_count": 9,
          "metadata": {},
          "output_type": "execute_result"
        }
      ],
      "source": [
        "reports = read_indexer_reports(report_df, entity_df, COMMUNITY_LEVEL)\n",
        "entities = read_indexer_entities(entity_df, entity_embedding_df, COMMUNITY_LEVEL)\n",
        "print(f\"Report records: {len(report_df)}\")\n",
        "report_df.head()"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": null,
      "metadata": {
        "id": "jp1WWm5x6zwW"
      },
      "outputs": [],
      "source": [
        "context_builder = GlobalCommunityContext(\n",
        "    community_reports=reports,\n",
        "    entities=entities,  # default to None if you don't want to use community weights for ranking\n",
        "    token_encoder=token_encoder,\n",
        ")"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": null,
      "metadata": {
        "id": "HWLuZk16Ywwn"
      },
      "outputs": [],
      "source": [
        "context_builder_params = {\n",
        "\n",
        "\n",
        "    # use TRUE for presentation -much faster!\n",
        "    \"use_community_summary\": True,  # False means using full community reports. True means using community short summaries.\n",
        "\n",
        "\n",
        "    \"shuffle_data\": True,\n",
        "    \"include_community_rank\": True,\n",
        "    \"min_community_rank\": 0,\n",
        "    \"community_rank_name\": \"rank\",\n",
        "    \"include_community_weight\": True,\n",
        "    \"community_weight_name\": \"occurrence weight\",\n",
        "    \"normalize_community_weight\": True,\n",
        "    \"max_tokens\": 3_000,  # changed from 12_000 to 3_000\n",
        "    \"context_name\": \"Reports\",\n",
        "}\n",
        "\n",
        "map_llm_params = {\n",
        "    \"max_tokens\": 1000,\n",
        "    \"temperature\": 0.0,\n",
        "    \"response_format\": {\"type\": \"json_object\"},\n",
        "}\n",
        "\n",
        "reduce_llm_params = {\n",
        "    \"max_tokens\": 1000,  # changed from 2_000 to 1_000\n",
        "    \"temperature\": 0.0,\n",
        "}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": null,
      "metadata": {
        "id": "b75WtAEV7OM7"
      },
      "outputs": [],
      "source": [
        "search_engine = GlobalSearch(\n",
        "    llm=llm,\n",
        "    context_builder=context_builder,\n",
        "    token_encoder=token_encoder,\n",
        "    max_data_tokens=3_000,  # changed from 12_000 to 3_000\n",
        "    map_llm_params=map_llm_params,\n",
        "    reduce_llm_params=reduce_llm_params,\n",
        "    allow_general_knowledge=False,\n",
        "    json_mode=False,  # I set this to False\n",
        "    context_builder_params=context_builder_params,\n",
        "    concurrent_coroutines=32,\n",
        "    response_type=\"multiple paragraphs\",\n",
        ")"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": null,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {
          "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/"
        },
        "id": "0Z7l_MjA7X56",
        "outputId": "af3f1a96-f6cb-48c2-d796-0c4cf825b587"
      },
      "outputs": [],
      "source": [
        "result = await search_engine.asearch(\n",
        "    # \"What are the differences between Russian and Western approaches to war?\"\n",
        ")\n",
        "\n",
        "print(result.response)"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": null,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {
          "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/",
          "height": 649
        },
        "id": "G60AqmL_7dKQ",
        "outputId": "2af578ff-33b5-41c1-c9be-992865d9363e"
      },
      "outputs": [
        {
          "data": {
            "application/vnd.google.colaboratory.intrinsic+json": {
              "summary": "{\n  \"name\": \"result\",\n  \"rows\": 71,\n  \"fields\": [\n    {\n      \"column\": \"id\",\n      \"properties\": {\n        \"dtype\": \"string\",\n        \"num_unique_values\": 71,\n        \"samples\": [\n          \"89\",\n          \"104\",\n          \"81\"\n        ],\n        \"semantic_type\": \"\",\n        \"description\": \"\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"column\": \"title\",\n      \"properties\": {\n        \"dtype\": \"string\",\n        \"num_unique_values\": 60,\n        \"samples\": [\n          \"Military & Political Thought on War\",\n          \"Military Doctrine & Objectives Community\",\n          \"Military Knowledge Community: Vorobyov & Kiselyov\"\n        ],\n        \"semantic_type\": \"\",\n        \"description\": \"\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"column\": \"occurrence weight\",\n      \"properties\": {\n        \"dtype\": \"number\",\n        \"std\": 0.16443626488032972,\n        \"min\": 0.006211180124223602,\n        \"max\": 1.0,\n        \"num_unique_values\": 40,\n        \"samples\": [\n          0.20496894409937888,\n          0.17391304347826086,\n          0.031055900621118012\n        ],\n        \"semantic_type\": \"\",\n        \"description\": \"\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"column\": \"content\",\n      \"properties\": {\n        \"dtype\": \"string\",\n        \"num_unique_values\": 71,\n        \"samples\": [\n          \"# Russian Information Warfare Community\\n\\nThis community centers around Russia's perception of being targeted by information-psychological warfare.  Pravda, a Russian newspaper, reports on these alleged attacks, highlighting the importance of this narrative within Russia. The Chechen Wars are cited as an example where information-psychological warfare played a significant role.\\n\\n## Russia Views Itself as Target of Information Warfare\\n\\nThe data indicates that Russia sees itself as the target of a coordinated information-psychological warfare campaign. This perception is central to the community's understanding of its own position in the world.  [Data: Relationships (46)]\\n\\n## Pravda Amplifies Russian Narrative\\n\\nPravda, a Russian newspaper, serves as a key source of information about this alleged warfare. The news organization's reporting on January 8, 2015, suggests that the narrative is actively being disseminated and shaped within Russia. [Data: Entities (277); Relationships (557)]\\n\\n## Chechen Wars Serve as Case Study\\n\\nThe Chechen Wars are presented as a historical example where information-psychological warfare was crucial. This suggests that Russia views this tactic as a serious and recurring threat. [Data: Relationships (649)]\",\n          \"# Military & Political Thought on War\\n\\nThis community explores various perspectives on war, primarily focusing on its political and strategic dimensions. Key entities include thinkers like Clausewitz, Lenin, Khrushchev, and Garthoff, who offer diverse interpretations of war's nature, causes, and consequences. The community highlights the evolving understanding of war in modern times, encompassing not just military force but also economic, diplomatic, technological, and ideological aspects.\\n\\n## War is fundamentally political.\\n\\nClausewitz's belief that all wars are inherently political in purpose is a central theme within this community. This perspective emphasizes the interconnectedness of war and politics, suggesting that conflicts arise from underlying power struggles and ideological differences. [Data: WAR (207), Clausewitz]  This idea resonates with other thinkers like Lenin who viewed war as an extension of political maneuvering. [Data: WAR (216)]\\n\\n## Modern conditions have transformed the nature of war.\\n\\nThe community acknowledges that modern warfare has evolved beyond traditional notions of armed conflict.  [Data: WAR (200)]. This transformation is attributed to advancements in technology, globalization, and the increasing complexity of international relations. The lines between war and peace are becoming increasingly blurred, as highlighted by Gerasimov's perspective on the indistinct boundaries between these states. [Data: WAR (206)]\\n\\n## War encompasses a broader spectrum of activities beyond military force.\\n\\nShabardin and Kalistratov propose a more comprehensive definition of war, encompassing non-military means such as economic warfare, diplomacy, intelligence operations, technological competition, and ideological struggle. [Data: WAR (32), WAR (212)]. This broadened perspective recognizes the multifaceted nature of modern conflict, where victory is not solely determined by military might but also by influence, control over resources, and the ability to shape public opinion.\\n\\n## War's role as an instrument of policy is debated.\\n\\nThe community presents contrasting views on whether war remains a viable tool for achieving political objectives. While some argue that war has ceased to be an effective instrument of policy, citing the complexities and unintended consequences of modern conflict, others maintain that it retains its significance in certain circumstances. [Data: WAR (193), WAR (194), WAR (195)]. This debate reflects the ongoing evolution of international relations and the search for alternative means of resolving conflicts.\\n\\n## Marxist-Leninist ideology views war as a product of economic factors.\\n\\nThe Marxist-Leninist perspective on war emphasizes its roots in economic disparities and class struggle. According to this view, wars are instigated by the ruling class to maintain their power and exploit the working class. [Data: WAR (177)]. This analysis highlights the social and economic dimensions of conflict, suggesting that addressing underlying inequalities is crucial for preventing future wars.\",\n          \"# Russian Military Doctrine & Actors\\n\\nThis community analyzes key figures and concepts within Russian military doctrine. It highlights General Baluyevsky's influence on shaping these doctrines, Adamsky's expertise in analyzing Russian deterrence strategies, and the emphasis placed on information warfare and nonmilitary measures.\\n\\n## General Baluyevsky's Influence on Russian Military Doctrine\\n\\nGeneral Baluyevsky is identified as a key figure in shaping Russian military doctrine. He authored both the 2010 and 2014 versions of the doctrine, which advocate for a multi-faceted approach to deterrence [Data: Relationships (336)]. This suggests that his strategic thinking has significantly influenced Russia's defense and security posture.\\n\\n## Adamsky's Expertise on Russian Deterrence\\n\\nDr. Adamsky is recognized as an expert on Russian nuclear deterrence doctrine. He analyzes doctrines like NGW (New Generation Warfare) and the Gerasimov Doctrine, describing Russian deterrence as having gone through three intellectual waves [Data: Entities (719)]. His insights provide valuable understanding of Russia's strategic thinking regarding nuclear weapons.\\n\\n## Emphasis on Information Warfare in Russian Military Doctrine\\n\\nThe Russian military doctrine places significant importance on information warfare as a key element in modern conflicts [Data: Relationships (435)]. This highlights Russia's recognition of the crucial role of information control and manipulation in achieving strategic objectives.\\n\\n## First-Use Policy Reiteration in 2014 Doctrine\\n\\nThe 2014 Russian military doctrine reconfirmed the first-use policy, indicating Russia's willingness to potentially use nuclear weapons preemptively [Data: Relationships (439)]. However, it lacked a codified procedure for damage assessment, suggesting potential ambiguity in its implementation.\\n\\n## Importance of Nonmilitary Measures in Russian Strategy\\n\\nThe Russian Military Doctrine emphasizes the importance of nonmilitary measures alongside traditional military force in protecting national interests [Data: Relationships (438)]. This indicates a broader strategic approach that encompasses diplomacy, economic pressure, and other tools beyond direct military action.\"\n        ],\n        \"semantic_type\": \"\",\n        \"description\": \"\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"column\": \"rank\",\n      \"properties\": {\n        \"dtype\": \"number\",\n        \"std\": 0.903603338840546,\n        \"min\": 3.0,\n        \"max\": 9.5,\n        \"num_unique_values\": 9,\n        \"samples\": [\n          9.0,\n          8.5,\n          6.0\n        ],\n        \"semantic_type\": \"\",\n        \"description\": \"\"\n      }\n    }\n  ]\n}",
              "type": "dataframe"
            },
            "text/html": [
              "\n",
              "  <div id=\"df-2bd9f406-4272-4b69-adf6-3f30e63b45c2\" class=\"colab-df-container\">\n",
              "    <div>\n",
              "<style scoped>\n",
              "    .dataframe tbody tr th:only-of-type {\n",
              "        vertical-align: middle;\n",
              "    }\n",
              "\n",
              "    .dataframe tbody tr th {\n",
              "        vertical-align: top;\n",
              "    }\n",
              "\n",
              "    .dataframe thead th {\n",
              "        text-align: right;\n",
              "    }\n",
              "</style>\n",
              "<table border=\"1\" class=\"dataframe\">\n",
              "  <thead>\n",
              "    <tr style=\"text-align: right;\">\n",
              "      <th></th>\n",
              "      <th>id</th>\n",
              "      <th>title</th>\n",
              "      <th>occurrence weight</th>\n",
              "      <th>content</th>\n",
              "      <th>rank</th>\n",
              "    </tr>\n",
              "  </thead>\n",
              "  <tbody>\n",
              "    <tr>\n",
              "      <th>0</th>\n",
              "      <td>104</td>\n",
              "      <td>Military &amp; Political Thought on War</td>\n",
              "      <td>0.322981</td>\n",
              "      <td># Military &amp; Political Thought on War\\n\\nThis ...</td>\n",
              "      <td>7.5</td>\n",
              "    </tr>\n",
              "    <tr>\n",
              "      <th>1</th>\n",
              "      <td>32</td>\n",
              "      <td>Russian Military Doctrine &amp; Influence</td>\n",
              "      <td>0.229814</td>\n",
              "      <td># Russian Military Doctrine &amp; Influence\\n\\nThi...</td>\n",
              "      <td>8.5</td>\n",
              "    </tr>\n",
              "    <tr>\n",
              "      <th>2</th>\n",
              "      <td>86</td>\n",
              "      <td>Russian Military Doctrine &amp; Influences</td>\n",
              "      <td>0.155280</td>\n",
              "      <td># Russian Military Doctrine &amp; Influences\\n\\nTh...</td>\n",
              "      <td>8.5</td>\n",
              "    </tr>\n",
              "    <tr>\n",
              "      <th>3</th>\n",
              "      <td>40</td>\n",
              "      <td>Russian Information Warfare Strategies</td>\n",
              "      <td>0.080745</td>\n",
              "      <td># Russian Information Warfare Strategies\\n\\nTh...</td>\n",
              "      <td>8.5</td>\n",
              "    </tr>\n",
              "    <tr>\n",
              "      <th>4</th>\n",
              "      <td>34</td>\n",
              "      <td>Korybko's Theory of Warfare &amp; Color Revolutions</td>\n",
              "      <td>0.074534</td>\n",
              "      <td># Korybko's Theory of Warfare &amp; Color Revoluti...</td>\n",
              "      <td>7.5</td>\n",
              "    </tr>\n",
              "    <tr>\n",
              "      <th>...</th>\n",
              "      <td>...</td>\n",
              "      <td>...</td>\n",
              "      <td>...</td>\n",
              "      <td>...</td>\n",
              "      <td>...</td>\n",
              "    </tr>\n",
              "    <tr>\n",
              "      <th>66</th>\n",
              "      <td>35</td>\n",
              "      <td>Soviet Military Thought Community</td>\n",
              "      <td>0.049689</td>\n",
              "      <td># Soviet Military Thought Community\\n\\nThe Sov...</td>\n",
              "      <td>7.5</td>\n",
              "    </tr>\n",
              "    <tr>\n",
              "      <th>67</th>\n",
              "      <td>88</td>\n",
              "      <td>Post-Russo-Georgian War Reforms in Russia</td>\n",
              "      <td>0.018634</td>\n",
              "      <td># Post-Russo-Georgian War Reforms in Russia\\n\\...</td>\n",
              "      <td>7.5</td>\n",
              "    </tr>\n",
              "    <tr>\n",
              "      <th>68</th>\n",
              "      <td>103</td>\n",
              "      <td>Soviet Union's View on War</td>\n",
              "      <td>0.018634</td>\n",
              "      <td># Soviet Union's View on War\\n\\nThis report an...</td>\n",
              "      <td>7.5</td>\n",
              "    </tr>\n",
              "    <tr>\n",
              "      <th>69</th>\n",
              "      <td>37</td>\n",
              "      <td>Russian Military &amp; Warfare Perspectives</td>\n",
              "      <td>0.018634</td>\n",
              "      <td># Russian Military &amp; Warfare Perspectives\\n\\nT...</td>\n",
              "      <td>6.5</td>\n",
              "    </tr>\n",
              "    <tr>\n",
              "      <th>70</th>\n",
              "      <td>73</td>\n",
              "      <td>URSS Publishing Community</td>\n",
              "      <td>0.012422</td>\n",
              "      <td># URSS Publishing Community\\n\\nThe URSS Publis...</td>\n",
              "      <td>3.0</td>\n",
              "    </tr>\n",
              "  </tbody>\n",
              "</table>\n",
              "<p>71 rows × 5 columns</p>\n",
              "</div>\n",
              "    <div class=\"colab-df-buttons\">\n",
              "\n",
              "  <div class=\"colab-df-container\">\n",
              "    <button class=\"colab-df-convert\" onclick=\"convertToInteractive('df-2bd9f406-4272-4b69-adf6-3f30e63b45c2')\"\n",
              "            title=\"Convert this dataframe to an interactive table.\"\n",
              "            style=\"display:none;\">\n",
              "\n",
              "  <svg xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" height=\"24px\" viewBox=\"0 -960 960 960\">\n",
              "    <path d=\"M120-120v-720h720v720H120Zm60-500h600v-160H180v160Zm220 220h160v-160H400v160Zm0 220h160v-160H400v160ZM180-400h160v-160H180v160Zm440 0h160v-160H620v160ZM180-180h160v-160H180v160Zm440 0h160v-160H620v160Z\"/>\n",
              "  </svg>\n",
              "    </button>\n",
              "\n",
              "  <style>\n",
              "    .colab-df-container {\n",
              "      display:flex;\n",
              "      gap: 12px;\n",
              "    }\n",
              "\n",
              "    .colab-df-convert {\n",
              "      background-color: #E8F0FE;\n",
              "      border: none;\n",
              "      border-radius: 50%;\n",
              "      cursor: pointer;\n",
              "      display: none;\n",
              "      fill: #1967D2;\n",
              "      height: 32px;\n",
              "      padding: 0 0 0 0;\n",
              "      width: 32px;\n",
              "    }\n",
              "\n",
              "    .colab-df-convert:hover {\n",
              "      background-color: #E2EBFA;\n",
              "      box-shadow: 0px 1px 2px rgba(60, 64, 67, 0.3), 0px 1px 3px 1px rgba(60, 64, 67, 0.15);\n",
              "      fill: #174EA6;\n",
              "    }\n",
              "\n",
              "    .colab-df-buttons div {\n",
              "      margin-bottom: 4px;\n",
              "    }\n",
              "\n",
              "    [theme=dark] .colab-df-convert {\n",
              "      background-color: #3B4455;\n",
              "      fill: #D2E3FC;\n",
              "    }\n",
              "\n",
              "    [theme=dark] .colab-df-convert:hover {\n",
              "      background-color: #434B5C;\n",
              "      box-shadow: 0px 1px 3px 1px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.15);\n",
              "      filter: drop-shadow(0px 1px 2px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3));\n",
              "      fill: #FFFFFF;\n",
              "    }\n",
              "  </style>\n",
              "\n",
              "    <script>\n",
              "      const buttonEl =\n",
              "        document.querySelector('#df-2bd9f406-4272-4b69-adf6-3f30e63b45c2 button.colab-df-convert');\n",
              "      buttonEl.style.display =\n",
              "        google.colab.kernel.accessAllowed ? 'block' : 'none';\n",
              "\n",
              "      async function convertToInteractive(key) {\n",
              "        const element = document.querySelector('#df-2bd9f406-4272-4b69-adf6-3f30e63b45c2');\n",
              "        const dataTable =\n",
              "          await google.colab.kernel.invokeFunction('convertToInteractive',\n",
              "                                                    [key], {});\n",
              "        if (!dataTable) return;\n",
              "\n",
              "        const docLinkHtml = 'Like what you see? Visit the ' +\n",
              "          '<a target=\"_blank\" href=https://colab.research.google.com/notebooks/data_table.ipynb>data table notebook</a>'\n",
              "          + ' to learn more about interactive tables.';\n",
              "        element.innerHTML = '';\n",
              "        dataTable['output_type'] = 'display_data';\n",
              "        await google.colab.output.renderOutput(dataTable, element);\n",
              "        const docLink = document.createElement('div');\n",
              "        docLink.innerHTML = docLinkHtml;\n",
              "        element.appendChild(docLink);\n",
              "      }\n",
              "    </script>\n",
              "  </div>\n",
              "\n",
              "\n",
              "<div id=\"df-84e6ef35-fff7-4ee4-90a3-b7b5e937ff23\">\n",
              "  <button class=\"colab-df-quickchart\" onclick=\"quickchart('df-84e6ef35-fff7-4ee4-90a3-b7b5e937ff23')\"\n",
              "            title=\"Suggest charts\"\n",
              "            style=\"display:none;\">\n",
              "\n",
              "<svg xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" height=\"24px\"viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\"\n",
              "     width=\"24px\">\n",
              "    <g>\n",
              "        <path d=\"M19 3H5c-1.1 0-2 .9-2 2v14c0 1.1.9 2 2 2h14c1.1 0 2-.9 2-2V5c0-1.1-.9-2-2-2zM9 17H7v-7h2v7zm4 0h-2V7h2v10zm4 0h-2v-4h2v4z\"/>\n",
              "    </g>\n",
              "</svg>\n",
              "  </button>\n",
              "\n",
              "<style>\n",
              "  .colab-df-quickchart {\n",
              "      --bg-color: #E8F0FE;\n",
              "      --fill-color: #1967D2;\n",
              "      --hover-bg-color: #E2EBFA;\n",
              "      --hover-fill-color: #174EA6;\n",
              "      --disabled-fill-color: #AAA;\n",
              "      --disabled-bg-color: #DDD;\n",
              "  }\n",
              "\n",
              "  [theme=dark] .colab-df-quickchart {\n",
              "      --bg-color: #3B4455;\n",
              "      --fill-color: #D2E3FC;\n",
              "      --hover-bg-color: #434B5C;\n",
              "      --hover-fill-color: #FFFFFF;\n",
              "      --disabled-bg-color: #3B4455;\n",
              "      --disabled-fill-color: #666;\n",
              "  }\n",
              "\n",
              "  .colab-df-quickchart {\n",
              "    background-color: var(--bg-color);\n",
              "    border: none;\n",
              "    border-radius: 50%;\n",
              "    cursor: pointer;\n",
              "    display: none;\n",
              "    fill: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "    height: 32px;\n",
              "    padding: 0;\n",
              "    width: 32px;\n",
              "  }\n",
              "\n",
              "  .colab-df-quickchart:hover {\n",
              "    background-color: var(--hover-bg-color);\n",
              "    box-shadow: 0 1px 2px rgba(60, 64, 67, 0.3), 0 1px 3px 1px rgba(60, 64, 67, 0.15);\n",
              "    fill: var(--button-hover-fill-color);\n",
              "  }\n",
              "\n",
              "  .colab-df-quickchart-complete:disabled,\n",
              "  .colab-df-quickchart-complete:disabled:hover {\n",
              "    background-color: var(--disabled-bg-color);\n",
              "    fill: var(--disabled-fill-color);\n",
              "    box-shadow: none;\n",
              "  }\n",
              "\n",
              "  .colab-df-spinner {\n",
              "    border: 2px solid var(--fill-color);\n",
              "    border-color: transparent;\n",
              "    border-bottom-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "    animation:\n",
              "      spin 1s steps(1) infinite;\n",
              "  }\n",
              "\n",
              "  @keyframes spin {\n",
              "    0% {\n",
              "      border-color: transparent;\n",
              "      border-bottom-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "      border-left-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "    }\n",
              "    20% {\n",
              "      border-color: transparent;\n",
              "      border-left-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "      border-top-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "    }\n",
              "    30% {\n",
              "      border-color: transparent;\n",
              "      border-left-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "      border-top-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "      border-right-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "    }\n",
              "    40% {\n",
              "      border-color: transparent;\n",
              "      border-right-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "      border-top-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "    }\n",
              "    60% {\n",
              "      border-color: transparent;\n",
              "      border-right-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "    }\n",
              "    80% {\n",
              "      border-color: transparent;\n",
              "      border-right-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "      border-bottom-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "    }\n",
              "    90% {\n",
              "      border-color: transparent;\n",
              "      border-bottom-color: var(--fill-color);\n",
              "    }\n",
              "  }\n",
              "</style>\n",
              "\n",
              "  <script>\n",
              "    async function quickchart(key) {\n",
              "      const quickchartButtonEl =\n",
              "        document.querySelector('#' + key + ' button');\n",
              "      quickchartButtonEl.disabled = true;  // To prevent multiple clicks.\n",
              "      quickchartButtonEl.classList.add('colab-df-spinner');\n",
              "      try {\n",
              "        const charts = await google.colab.kernel.invokeFunction(\n",
              "            'suggestCharts', [key], {});\n",
              "      } catch (error) {\n",
              "        console.error('Error during call to suggestCharts:', error);\n",
              "      }\n",
              "      quickchartButtonEl.classList.remove('colab-df-spinner');\n",
              "      quickchartButtonEl.classList.add('colab-df-quickchart-complete');\n",
              "    }\n",
              "    (() => {\n",
              "      let quickchartButtonEl =\n",
              "        document.querySelector('#df-84e6ef35-fff7-4ee4-90a3-b7b5e937ff23 button');\n",
              "      quickchartButtonEl.style.display =\n",
              "        google.colab.kernel.accessAllowed ? 'block' : 'none';\n",
              "    })();\n",
              "  </script>\n",
              "</div>\n",
              "\n",
              "    </div>\n",
              "  </div>\n"
            ],
            "text/plain": [
              "     id                                            title  occurrence weight  \\\n",
              "0   104              Military & Political Thought on War           0.322981   \n",
              "1    32            Russian Military Doctrine & Influence           0.229814   \n",
              "2    86           Russian Military Doctrine & Influences           0.155280   \n",
              "3    40           Russian Information Warfare Strategies           0.080745   \n",
              "4    34  Korybko's Theory of Warfare & Color Revolutions           0.074534   \n",
              "..  ...                                              ...                ...   \n",
              "66   35                Soviet Military Thought Community           0.049689   \n",
              "67   88        Post-Russo-Georgian War Reforms in Russia           0.018634   \n",
              "68  103                       Soviet Union's View on War           0.018634   \n",
              "69   37          Russian Military & Warfare Perspectives           0.018634   \n",
              "70   73                        URSS Publishing Community           0.012422   \n",
              "\n",
              "                                              content  rank  \n",
              "0   # Military & Political Thought on War\\n\\nThis ...   7.5  \n",
              "1   # Russian Military Doctrine & Influence\\n\\nThi...   8.5  \n",
              "2   # Russian Military Doctrine & Influences\\n\\nTh...   8.5  \n",
              "3   # Russian Information Warfare Strategies\\n\\nTh...   8.5  \n",
              "4   # Korybko's Theory of Warfare & Color Revoluti...   7.5  \n",
              "..                                                ...   ...  \n",
              "66  # Soviet Military Thought Community\\n\\nThe Sov...   7.5  \n",
              "67  # Post-Russo-Georgian War Reforms in Russia\\n\\...   7.5  \n",
              "68  # Soviet Union's View on War\\n\\nThis report an...   7.5  \n",
              "69  # Russian Military & Warfare Perspectives\\n\\nT...   6.5  \n",
              "70  # URSS Publishing Community\\n\\nThe URSS Publis...   3.0  \n",
              "\n",
              "[71 rows x 5 columns]"
            ]
          },
          "execution_count": 14,
          "metadata": {},
          "output_type": "execute_result"
        }
      ],
      "source": [
        "result.context_data[\"reports\"]"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": null,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {
          "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/"
        },
        "id": "NPchWIVy7d4-",
        "outputId": "45337ada-9352-4065-d940-f5f5167a0687"
      },
      "outputs": [
        {
          "name": "stdout",
          "output_type": "stream",
          "text": [
            "LLM calls: 13. LLM tokens: 45026\n"
          ]
        }
      ],
      "source": [
        "# inspect number of LLM calls and tokens\n",
        "print(f\"LLM calls: {result.llm_calls}. LLM tokens: {result.prompt_tokens}\")"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": null,
      "metadata": {
        "id": "iZmA4aRQLSYQ"
      },
      "outputs": [],
      "source": [
        "# The Russian Understanding of War_ Blurring the Lines Between.pdf\n",
        "questions_based_on_the_contents = (\n",
        "    \"What are the main themes discussed in the introduction of the book?\",\n",
        "    # chapter 1\n",
        "    \"How did Soviet military science define the cause of war?\",\n",
        "    \"What role did politics play in the Soviet understanding of war?\",\n",
        "    \"Who was Evgeny Messner, and what were his contributions to Soviet military thought?\",\n",
        "    # chapter 2\n",
        "    \"How did the understanding of war in Russia evolve during the 1990s?\",\n",
        "    \"What were the major changes in Russia's military strategy in the 2010s?\",\n",
        "    # chapter 3\n",
        "    \"What are the key elements of Russia's Information Security Doctrines?\",\n",
        "    \"Can you explain the difference between information-technical warfare and information-psychological warfare in the Russian context?\",\n",
        "    # chapter 4\n",
        "    \"How does Russia's political view on color revolutions differ from its military view?\",\n",
        "    \"What are the key conclusions drawn in the chapter on color revolutions?\",\n",
        "    # conclusions\n",
        "    \"What are the major policy implications discussed in the conclusion of the book?\"\n",
        ")"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": null,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {
          "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/"
        },
        "id": "eHJRZUkULUXa",
        "outputId": "72f3f5dc-bf54-4c03-ee71-6a6a8cdd5f33"
      },
      "outputs": [],
      "source": [
        "interactions = {}\n",
        "for idx, question in enumerate(questions_based_on_the_contents, start=1):\n",
        "    result = await search_engine.asearch(question)\n",
        "    interactions[question] = result.response\n",
        "    print(idx)"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": null,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {
          "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/"
        },
        "id": "kp9krmzprN0_",
        "outputId": "3c471770-896d-4430-e2b6-de5bc2d6df00"
      },
      "outputs": [
        {
          "name": "stdout",
          "output_type": "stream",
          "text": [
            "- \"What are the main themes discussed in the introduction of the book?\"\n",
            "\n",
            "\"\"\"\n",
            "The introduction likely discusses the Soviet Union's military doctrine and its revision [Data: Reports (13)].  \n",
            "\n",
            "The Soviet Union believed that certain types of wars were justified, specifically those aimed at defending socialist countries or supporting national liberation movements. This belief stemmed from their ideology [Data: Reports (13)]. \n",
            "\n",
            "\"\"\"\n",
            "\n",
            "\n",
            "- \"How did Soviet military science define the cause of war?\"\n",
            "\n",
            "\"\"\"\n",
            "The Soviet Union believed that war was a consequence of class struggle, a central tenet of their Marxist-Leninist ideology.  This belief held that wars were inevitable outcomes of the inherent conflict between social classes. \n",
            "\n",
            "Furthermore, the Soviet Union viewed war as a tool for achieving revolutionary goals and spreading socialism globally [Data: Reports (13)]. They believed certain types of wars were justified, particularly those aimed at defending socialist countries or supporting national liberation movements [Data: Reports (13)].  \n",
            "\n",
            "\"\"\"\n",
            "\n",
            "\n",
            "- \"What role did politics play in the Soviet understanding of war?\"\n",
            "\n",
            "\"\"\"\n",
            "The Soviet Union viewed war through a political lens, believing it could be a tool for advancing socialist revolution.  This perspective was deeply rooted in their Marxist-Leninist ideology [Data: Reports (13)]. \n",
            "\n",
            "Furthermore, documents like 'K Novoi Redaktsii Voennoi Doktriny', published by the USSR in Moscow, explicitly suggest that political considerations were paramount in shaping Soviet military doctrine [Data: Reports (13)].  \n",
            "\n",
            "\n",
            "\n",
            "\"\"\"\n",
            "\n",
            "\n",
            "- \"Who was Evgeny Messner, and what were his contributions to Soviet military thought?\"\n",
            "\n",
            "\"\"\"\n",
            "I am sorry but I am unable to answer this question given the provided data.\n",
            "\"\"\"\n",
            "\n",
            "\n",
            "- \"How did the understanding of war in Russia evolve during the 1990s?\"\n",
            "\n",
            "\"\"\"\n",
            "I am sorry but I am unable to answer this question given the provided data.\n",
            "\"\"\"\n",
            "\n",
            "\n",
            "- \"What were the major changes in Russia's military strategy in the 2010s?\"\n",
            "\n",
            "\"\"\"\n",
            "I am sorry but I am unable to answer this question given the provided data.\n",
            "\"\"\"\n",
            "\n",
            "\n",
            "- \"What are the key elements of Russia's Information Security Doctrines?\"\n",
            "\n",
            "\"\"\"\n",
            "I am sorry but I am unable to answer this question given the provided data.\n",
            "\"\"\"\n",
            "\n",
            "\n",
            "- \"Can you explain the difference between information-technical warfare and information-psychological warfare in the Russian context?\"\n",
            "\n",
            "\"\"\"\n",
            "I am sorry but I am unable to answer this question given the provided data.\n",
            "\"\"\"\n",
            "\n",
            "\n",
            "- \"How does Russia's political view on color revolutions differ from its military view?\"\n",
            "\n",
            "\"\"\"\n",
            "I am sorry but I am unable to answer this question given the provided data.\n",
            "\"\"\"\n",
            "\n",
            "\n",
            "- \"What are the key conclusions drawn in the chapter on color revolutions?\"\n",
            "\n",
            "\"\"\"\n",
            "I am sorry but I am unable to answer this question given the provided data.\n",
            "\"\"\"\n",
            "\n",
            "\n",
            "- \"What are the major policy implications discussed in the conclusion of the book?\"\n",
            "\n",
            "\"\"\"\n",
            "I am sorry but I am unable to answer this question given the provided data.\n",
            "\"\"\"\n",
            "\n",
            "\n"
          ]
        }
      ],
      "source": [
        "for q, a in interactions.items():\n",
        "    print(f'- \"{q}\"\\n\\n\"\"\"\\n{a}\\n\"\"\"\\n\\n')"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": null,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {
          "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/"
        },
        "id": "IivR9WFdTDoW",
        "outputId": "1e783714-3cc1-4123-87e9-6a02d1166f44"
      },
      "outputs": [
        {
          "data": {
            "text/plain": [
              "{'reports':      id                                            title  occurrence weight  \\\n",
              " 0   104              Military & Political Thought on War           0.322981   \n",
              " 1    32            Russian Military Doctrine & Influence           0.229814   \n",
              " 2    86           Russian Military Doctrine & Influences           0.155280   \n",
              " 3    40           Russian Information Warfare Strategies           0.080745   \n",
              " 4    34  Korybko's Theory of Warfare & Color Revolutions           0.074534   \n",
              " ..  ...                                              ...                ...   \n",
              " 66   35                Soviet Military Thought Community           0.049689   \n",
              " 67   88        Post-Russo-Georgian War Reforms in Russia           0.018634   \n",
              " 68  103                       Soviet Union's View on War           0.018634   \n",
              " 69   37          Russian Military & Warfare Perspectives           0.018634   \n",
              " 70   73                        URSS Publishing Community           0.012422   \n",
              " \n",
              "                                               content  rank  \n",
              " 0   # Military & Political Thought on War\\n\\nThis ...   7.5  \n",
              " 1   # Russian Military Doctrine & Influence\\n\\nThi...   8.5  \n",
              " 2   # Russian Military Doctrine & Influences\\n\\nTh...   8.5  \n",
              " 3   # Russian Information Warfare Strategies\\n\\nTh...   8.5  \n",
              " 4   # Korybko's Theory of Warfare & Color Revoluti...   7.5  \n",
              " ..                                                ...   ...  \n",
              " 66  # Soviet Military Thought Community\\n\\nThe Sov...   7.5  \n",
              " 67  # Post-Russo-Georgian War Reforms in Russia\\n\\...   7.5  \n",
              " 68  # Soviet Union's View on War\\n\\nThis report an...   7.5  \n",
              " 69  # Russian Military & Warfare Perspectives\\n\\nT...   6.5  \n",
              " 70  # URSS Publishing Community\\n\\nThe URSS Publis...   3.0  \n",
              " \n",
              " [71 rows x 5 columns]}"
            ]
          },
          "execution_count": 22,
          "metadata": {},
          "output_type": "execute_result"
        }
      ],
      "source": [
        "# context sent to LLM\n",
        "result.context_data"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": null,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {
          "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/"
        },
        "id": "7vho6MOMTAVx",
        "outputId": "8a4f51ba-44e6-4ac0-9c7f-fefc71b5bda0"
      },
      "outputs": [
        {
          "data": {
            "text/plain": [
              "['\\n\\nid|title|occurrence weight|content|rank\\n104|Military & Political Thought on War|0.32298136645962733|\"# Military & Political Thought on War\\n\\nThis community explores various perspectives on war, primarily focusing on its political and strategic dimensions. Key entities include thinkers like Clausewitz, Lenin, Khrushchev, and Garthoff, who offer diverse interpretations of war\\'s nature, causes, and consequences. The community highlights the evolving understanding of war in modern times, encompassing not just military force but also economic, diplomatic, technological, and ideological aspects.\\n\\n## War is fundamentally political.\\n\\nClausewitz\\'s belief that all wars are inherently political in purpose is a central theme within this community. This perspective emphasizes the interconnectedness of war and politics, suggesting that conflicts arise from underlying power struggles and ideological differences. [Data: WAR (207), Clausewitz]  This idea resonates with other thinkers like Lenin who viewed war as an extension of political maneuvering. [Data: WAR (216)]\\n\\n## Modern conditions have transformed the nature of war.\\n\\nThe community acknowledges that modern warfare has evolved beyond traditional notions of armed conflict.  [Data: WAR (200)]. This transformation is attributed to advancements in technology, globalization, and the increasing complexity of international relations. The lines between war and peace are becoming increasingly blurred, as highlighted by Gerasimov\\'s perspective on the indistinct boundaries between these states. [Data: WAR (206)]\\n\\n## War encompasses a broader spectrum of activities beyond military force.\\n\\nShabardin and Kalistratov propose a more comprehensive definition of war, encompassing non-military means such as economic warfare, diplomacy, intelligence operations, technological competition, and ideological struggle. [Data: WAR (32), WAR (212)]. This broadened perspective recognizes the multifaceted nature of modern conflict, where victory is not solely determined by military might but also by influence, control over resources, and the ability to shape public opinion.\\n\\n## War\\'s role as an instrument of policy is debated.\\n\\nThe community presents contrasting views on whether war remains a viable tool for achieving political objectives. While some argue that war has ceased to be an effective instrument of policy, citing the complexities and unintended consequences of modern conflict, others maintain that it retains its significance in certain circumstances. [Data: WAR (193), WAR (194), WAR (195)]. This debate reflects the ongoing evolution of international relations and the search for alternative means of resolving conflicts.\\n\\n## Marxist-Leninist ideology views war as a product of economic factors.\\n\\nThe Marxist-Leninist perspective on war emphasizes its roots in economic disparities and class struggle. According to this view, wars are instigated by the ruling class to maintain their power and exploit the working class. [Data: WAR (177)]. This analysis highlights the social and economic dimensions of conflict, suggesting that addressing underlying inequalities is crucial for preventing future wars.\"|7.5\\n32|Russian Military Doctrine & Influence|0.22981366459627328|\"# Russian Military Doctrine & Influence\\n\\nThis community focuses on Russian military doctrine and its application in various conflicts, highlighting the role of figures like Gerasimov and their influence on strategy. It emphasizes information warfare, soft power, and traditional warfare as key elements.\\n\\n## Emphasis on Information Warfare\\n\\nThe community strongly emphasizes the importance of information warfare in contemporary conflict. Gerasimov, a prominent figure within this community, highlights the use of NGOs and private military companies as tools for manipulating public opinion and influencing narratives in conflicts like Ukraine and Syria [Data: Entities (148, 149, 160, 161); Relationships (14)]. This suggests Russia actively seeks to shape global perceptions through strategic information campaigns.\\n\\n## Soft Power as a Military Tool\\n\\nThe community presents \\'soft power\\' as a crucial element in Russian military strategy. Syria is cited as an example where \\'soft power\\' was allegedly employed [Data: Entities (163)]. This indicates Russia aims to achieve its objectives not solely through military force but also by influencing public opinion, fostering alliances, and shaping international discourse.\\n\\n## Traditional Warfare Still Relevant\\n\\nWhile emphasizing information warfare, the community acknowledges the continued relevance of traditional military tactics. Afghanistan is mentioned as an example of a conflict where traditional warfare prevailed [Data: Entities (534)]. This suggests Russia maintains a balanced approach, utilizing both modern and conventional military strategies depending on the context.\\n\\n## Influence of Gerasimov\\'s Doctrine\\n\\nThe community heavily features Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces. His strategic thinking and doctrine significantly influence Russia\\'s military approach [Data: Entities (148, 149, 160, 161)]. This highlights the importance of understanding his ideas to comprehend Russia\\'s current and future military actions.\\n\\n## Evolution of Russian Military Doctrine\\n\\nThe community demonstrates an awareness of the evolution of Russian military doctrine. The 2008 war with Georgia is cited as a catalyst for reforms within the Russian Armed Forces [Data: Entities (607)]. This suggests Russia continuously adapts its strategies based on real-world experiences and evolving global security dynamics.\"|8.5\\n86|Russian Military Doctrine & Influences|0.15527950310559005|\"# Russian Military Doctrine & Influences\\n\\nThis community explores the evolution and key influences on Russian military doctrine, highlighting its focus on internal security threats, external challenges, and lessons learned from conflicts like the Chechen Wars and Russo-Georgian War. It identifies influential figures and documents shaping Russia\\'s military thinking.\\n\\n## Emphasis on Internal Security Threats\\n\\nThe Russian Federation places considerable emphasis on addressing internal security threats. The \\'Defense 2010\\' document, issued by the Ministry of Defense, specifically focuses on these dangers [Data: MINISTRY OF DEFENSE (228); DEFENSE 2010 (246)]. This suggests a prioritization of maintaining stability within its borders and countering potential domestic challenges.\\n\\n## Influence of Past Conflicts\\n\\nThe Chechen Wars and the Russo-Georgian War have significantly shaped Russian military doctrine. The Chechen conflicts highlighted the importance of information-psychological warfare [Data: INFORMATION-PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE (649); CHECHEN WARS (250)].  The Russo-Georgian War led to reforms and a renewed focus on the Russian Armed Forces [Data: RUSSO-GEORGIAN WAR (254)]. These conflicts served as practical testing grounds for military strategies and tactics, influencing future doctrine development.\\n\\n## Evolution of Military Doctrine\\n\\nRussian military doctrine has undergone notable changes over time. The year 2000 marked a significant shift in doctrine [Data: RUSSIAN FEDERATION (255)]. This evolution reflects the changing geopolitical landscape and Russia\\'s evolving security priorities.\\n\\n## Focus on Perceived Security Challenges\\n\\nThe \\'Foreign Policy Concept\\' outlines strategies for addressing perceived security challenges. It emphasizes a proactive approach to safeguarding Russian interests [Data: RUSSIAN FEDERATION (248)]. This concept highlights Russia\\'s concerns about external threats and its commitment to maintaining a strong military posture.\\n\\n## Influence of Military Theorists\\n\\nMilitary theorists within the Russian Federation have played a role in shaping doctrine. The Gulf War influenced Russian military thinking, impacting both theoretical frameworks and practical doctrines [Data: RUSSIAN FEDERATION (249)]. This suggests that Russia draws inspiration from past conflicts and international developments to refine its military strategies.\"|8.5\\n40|Russian Information Warfare Strategies|0.08074534161490683|\"# Russian Information Warfare Strategies\\n\\nThis community focuses on Russian perspectives and strategies in modern warfare, particularly information warfare. Key entities include experts like Giles and Renz who analyze these strategies, the Russian state itself, and NATO nations as targets of these efforts. The relationships highlight how Russia seeks to influence perceptions and deter aggression through communication and potentially subversive tactics.\\n\\n## Russia views information as a key battleground in modern conflict.\\n\\nThis insight is supported by the focus on Russian concepts and approaches in information activities. Experts like Giles and Renz highlight that Russia\\'s understanding of war extends beyond traditional armed violence to encompass the manipulation of information and public opinion [Data: RUSSIAN CONCEPTS AND APPROACHES IN INFORMATION ACTIVITIES; Relationships (500)]. This aligns with the Gerasimov doctrine, which emphasizes the use of non-military means to achieve strategic objectives [Data: RENZ (2); Relationships (498)]. \\n\\n## Giles and Renz are recognized experts on Russian information warfare strategies.\\n\\nBoth Giles and Renz have published extensively on the topic of hybrid warfare and the Gerasimov doctrine, demonstrating their expertise in analyzing Russia\\'s approach to conflict [Data: Entities (497, 501)]. Their work is cited for its insightful analysis of Russian warfare tactics and strategies [Data: Relationships (498, 502)]. Giles specifically argues that NATO nations\\' actions in information space can be perceived as hostile by Russia, potentially leading to unexpected reactions [Data: Relationships (499)].\\n\\n## The Russian state employs a multifaceted approach to achieve its objectives.\\n\\nWhile the Russian state primarily seeks to deter aggression against its core security interests through communication and signaling [Data: Entities (1376)], it also utilizes instruments like subversion and coercion [Data: Relationships (498)]. This suggests a willingness to engage in both overt and covert actions to achieve its goals. However, the community also acknowledges potential vulnerabilities within the Russian state due to societal impacts that could destabilize it [Data: Entities (1376)].\"|8.5\\n34|Korybko\\'s Theory of Warfare & Color Revolutions|0.07453416149068323|\"# Korybko\\'s Theory of Warfare & Color Revolutions\\n\\nThis community centers around geopolitical analyst Korybko and his theory of warfare, which emphasizes nonviolent and violent methods of regime change, particularly focusing on the role of social media in \\'Color Revolutions\\'.  Key relationships include Korybko\\'s analysis of Gerasimov\\'s theories on hybrid warfare and unconventional warfare.\\n\\n## Korybko\\'s Theory of Warfare\\n\\nKorybko presents a theory of warfare that encompasses both nonviolent and violent methods of regime change. He distinguishes between \\'Color Revolutions,\\' which are characterized as non-military means, and \\'Unconventional Warfare,\\' which involves a hard coup to violently overthrow a regime [Data: THEORY OF WARFARE; KORYBKO].  This framework highlights the diverse tactics employed in contemporary geopolitical conflicts.\\n\\n## Color Revolutions as Hybrid Warfare\\n\\nKorybko views \\'Color Revolutions\\' as a form of hybrid warfare, utilizing non-military means to achieve political objectives. He emphasizes the role of social media in these revolutions, arguing that it serves to promote ideologies, mobilize supporters, and disseminate alternative news sources [Data: COLOR REVOLUTIONS; KORYBKO; SOCIAL MEDIA]. This suggests that information campaigns and public opinion manipulation are crucial elements in modern regime change strategies.\\n\\n## Social Media\\'s Role in Regime Change\\n\\nKorybko stresses the significance of social media platforms in facilitating \\'Color Revolutions.\\' He posits that these platforms enable the rapid dissemination of information, the organization of protests, and the creation of a sense of collective identity among participants [Data: KORYBKO; SOCIAL MEDIA]. This underscores the potential for social media to be weaponized for political ends and its impact on shaping public discourse.\\n\\n## Influence of Gerasimov\\'s Theories\\n\\nKorybko draws heavily upon the theories of Russian military strategist Valery Gerasimov, particularly those concerning adaptive use of force and hybrid warfare. He incorporates Gerasimov\\'s definitions and concepts into his own analyses, suggesting a shared understanding of contemporary conflict dynamics [Data: GERASIMOV; KORYBKO]. This indicates that Korybko\\'s work is situated within a broader intellectual framework on modern warfare.\\n\\n## Unconventional Warfare as a Hard Approach\\n\\nKorybko contrasts \\'Color Revolutions\\' with \\'Unconventional Warfare,\\' describing the latter as a more forceful method of regime change involving a hard coup. This distinction highlights the spectrum of tactics employed in achieving political objectives, ranging from non-violent mobilization to violent overthrow [Data: KORYBKO; UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE]. Understanding these different approaches is crucial for analyzing contemporary geopolitical conflicts.\"|7.5\\n25|Military Doctrine & Objectives Community|0.037267080745341616|\"# Military Doctrine & Objectives Community\\n\\nThis community centers around military doctrine, particularly as defined by the Ministry of Defense.  Key entities include DOCTRINE itself, its attributed author NIKOLAI MAKAROV, and various objectives outlined within the doctrine. The doctrine also incorporates the use of POPULATION\\'S PROTEST POTENTIAL and SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES.\\n\\n## Ministry of Defense Drives Doctrine Development\\n\\nThe Ministry of Defense plays a central role in this community.  It is responsible for creating and revising DOCTRINE, acting as the primary author and issuer of these military principles. This suggests a strong institutional influence on strategic thinking within the community. [Data: Relationships (226)]\\n\\n## Doctrine Outlines Diverse Objectives\\n\\nThe DOCTRINE entity encompasses various objectives, including military-political, economic, strategic, and nonmilitary measures. This indicates a multifaceted approach to achieving goals, potentially encompassing both conventional warfare and indirect influence strategies. [Data: Relationships (572)]\\n\\n## Population Protest Potential is a Strategic Tool\\n\\nThe Doctrine incorporates the use of POPULATION\\'S PROTEST POTENTIAL as a strategic element. This suggests that influencing public opinion and potentially inciting unrest within target populations is considered a viable tactic within this framework. [Data: Relationships (573)]\\n\\n## Special Operations Forces are Key Implementers\\n\\nThe Doctrine utilizes SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES as a means to achieve objectives. This highlights the importance of specialized military units in executing complex and potentially covert operations within this strategic framework. [Data: Relationships (574)]\\n\\n## Nikolai Makarov\\'s Role is Disputed\\n\\nWhile the DOCTRINE is attributed to NIKOLAI MAKAROV, his connection to it is disputed. This raises questions about the authenticity and origins of the doctrine, potentially indicating competing narratives or hidden influences within this community. [Data: Relationships (575)]\"|7.5\\n',\n",
              " '\\n\\nid|title|occurrence weight|content|rank\\n21|Russian Military Thought & Hybrid Warfare Community|0.16770186335403728|\"# Russian Military Thought & Hybrid Warfare Community\\n\\nThis community centers around Russian military doctrine and its application in hybrid warfare. Key figures include Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff of Russia, and Mark Galeotti, a scholar who has extensively analyzed Russian military thinking. The community highlights the evolving nature of warfare, emphasizing non-kinetic methods like political pressure and economic influence alongside traditional military force.\\n\\n## Valery Gerasimov is a central figure in shaping Russian military doctrine.\\n\\nValery Gerasimov, as the Chief of the General Staff of Russia, holds significant influence over Russian military strategy. His 2013 speech on modern warfare [Data: Entities (1)], widely known as the \\'Gerasimov Doctrine\\', outlined a shift towards hybrid warfare tactics that combine conventional military force with political, economic, and informational operations [Data: Doctrine (568)]. This doctrine has been influential in shaping Russia\\'s approach to conflicts like the annexation of Crimea and the war in Ukraine.\\n\\n## The \\'Gerasimov Doctrine\\' emphasizes a blurring of lines between war and peace.\\n\\nThe \\'Gerasimov Doctrine\\', attributed to Gerasimov\\'s 2013 speech, proposes a new paradigm of warfare that blurs the distinction between war and peace. It advocates for the use of non-kinetic methods like propaganda, cyberattacks, economic pressure, and political manipulation alongside traditional military force [Data: Entities (568), Doctrine (575)]. This approach aims to achieve strategic objectives without resorting to large-scale conventional warfare, making it difficult to identify and respond to.\\n\\n## Mark Galeotti is a prominent scholar analyzing Russian military thought.\\n\\nMark Galeotti, an expert on Russia\\'s security apparatus, has extensively researched and written about the \\'Gerasimov Doctrine\\' [Data: Entities (491), Findings (492)]. While he coined the term, Galeotti acknowledges its limitations and suggests that Nikolai Makarov, a Russian military theorist, may have been an earlier proponent of similar ideas [Data: Findings (493)]. Galeotti\\'s work provides valuable insights into the evolution of Russian military thinking and its implications for international security.\\n\\n## The concept of \\'political war\\' is debated within Russia.\\n\\nGaleotti highlights the contradictions surrounding the term \\'political war\\' in Russia [Data: Findings (494)]. While some Russian military writers have explored the idea of warfare without open fighting, others argue that it is an oxymoron due to the inherent violence involved in political conflict. This debate reflects the complexities and ambiguities surrounding modern warfare, where traditional boundaries are increasingly blurred.\\n\\n## Hybrid warfare tactics pose a significant threat to international security.\\n\\nThe emphasis on hybrid warfare within this community presents a serious challenge to global stability. By employing non-kinetic methods alongside conventional military force, Russia can destabilize countries and manipulate political landscapes without triggering a full-scale war [Data: Findings (496)]. This approach makes it difficult for international actors to respond effectively and undermines traditional notions of conflict and deterrence.\"|8.5\\n13|Russian Information Warfare Community|0.08695652173913043|\"# Russian Information Warfare Community\\n\\nThis community centers around the concept of an ongoing \\'information war\\' against Russia, primarily perceived as originating from the West. Key figures like Putin and Aleksandr Dugin believe in this narrative, while analysts on platforms like RUNET frequently discuss it. The Cold War serves as a historical precedent for this perceived conflict.\\n\\n## Information Warfare as a Central Concept\\n\\nThe concept of \\'information war\\' is pervasive within this community. It is frequently mentioned in relation to Russia\\'s perceived enemies, particularly the West. This framing suggests a belief that information is a weapon being used against Russia to undermine its stability and influence. [Data: RUNET (596, 598, 601, 602), Entities (PUTIN, INFORMATION WAR)]\\n\\n## Western Actors as Perceived Perpetrators\\n\\nThe West is consistently identified as the primary actor engaged in this information war. This perception likely stems from geopolitical tensions and historical narratives of conflict between Russia and Western powers. [Data: Entities (WEST), Relationships (PUTIN, WEST)]\\n\\n## Cold War Parallels\\n\\nThe Cold War serves as a significant historical reference point for understanding this perceived information war.  Analysts draw parallels between the ideological struggle of the Cold War and the current information landscape. This suggests a belief that Russia is facing a similar type of existential threat. [Data: Entities (COLD WAR), Relationships (NIKOLAYCHUK, COLD WAR)]\\n\\n## Putin\\'s Regime as Target\\n\\nPutin\\'s regime is portrayed as being under attack in this information war. This framing suggests that the Russian government sees itself as a victim of Western propaganda and attempts to discredit its legitimacy. [Data: Entities (PUTIN, REGIME), Relationships (PUTIN, INFORMATION WAR)]\\n\\n## Influence of Aleksandr Dugin\\n\\nAleksandr Dugin, a prominent Russian political theorist, is influential in shaping this narrative. His writings and speeches often emphasize the concept of an information war and its implications for Russia\\'s national security. [Data: Entities (DUGIN), Relationships (DUGIN, INFORMATION WAR)]\"|7.5\\n84|Russian Political Strategy & Influence|0.062111801242236024|\"# Russian Political Strategy & Influence\\n\\nThis community centers around Vladislav Surkov, a key Russian political strategist closely associated with Vladimir Putin.  Surkov\\'s concepts of \\'sovereign democracy\\' and \\'orange technologies\\' are central to understanding Russia\\'s approach to domestic policy and foreign influence. The United Russia party serves as a platform for these ideas.\\n\\n## Surkov\\'s Influence on Russian Politics\\n\\nVladislav Surkov is a prominent figure in Russian politics, deeply connected to Vladimir Putin.  [Data: Relationships (408)]. He is considered part of the Russian leadership and responsible for managing domestic policy. [Data: Relationships (47)]. His influence extends to shaping political discourse within Russia through his concept of \\'sovereign democracy,\\' which emphasizes national sovereignty and limits foreign influence. [Data: Entities (1147), Relationships (733)].\\n\\n## The Concept of \\'Sovereign Democracy\\'\\n\\nSurkov\\'s \\'sovereign democracy\\' is a key concept in understanding Russia\\'s political ideology. It prioritizes national sovereignty and limits foreign influence, often framing Western engagement as a threat to Russian independence. [Data: Entities (1147), Relationships (733)]. This concept has been promoted within the United Russia party, highlighting its importance in shaping Russian political discourse. [Data: Relationships (733)].\\n\\n## Surkov\\'s View on \\'Orange Technologies\\'\\n\\nSurkov coined the term \\'orange technologies\\' to describe Western-backed strategies aimed at undermining Russia\\'s sovereignty through non-violent means. [Data: Entities (1147)]. He views these strategies, often associated with color revolutions, as a form of \\'soft capture,\\' where external actors exert influence without direct control. [Data: Entities (1147)].\\n\\n## United Russia as a Platform for Surkov\\'s Ideas\\n\\nThe United Russia party serves as a platform for Surkov\\'s political ideas, including \\'sovereign democracy.\\'  [Data: Relationships (733)]. It was within the context of United Russia that Vladimir Putin first made claims about foreign interference in elections. [Data: Entities (1136)].\\n\\n## The Threat Perception of Color Revolutions\\n\\nSurkov sees color revolutions as a significant threat to Russia, despite believing they are unlikely to occur within the country. [Data: Relationships (176)]. He connects these revolutions to foreign NGOs and views them as destabilizing forces that undermine existing regimes.\"|8.5\\n94|Hybrid Warfare Analysis|0.043478260869565216|\"# Hybrid Warfare Analysis\\n\\nThis community explores the concept of \\'Hybrid Warfare\\', focusing on its definition, applications, and key figures like Valery Gerasimov and Mark Galeotti. It highlights the debate surrounding hybrid warfare in both Russia and the United States.\\n\\n## Hybrid Warfare is a Multifaceted Concept\\n\\nHybrid warfare is defined as a blend of military and non-military tactics used to achieve strategic objectives. This concept encompasses various methods, including political manipulation, cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and conventional military operations. [Data: Entities (631)]  The term \\'hybrid war\\' itself has been subject to debate, with some arguing for a distinction between it and \\'political war\\'. [Data: Relationships (474)]\\n\\n## Valery Gerasimov is a Key Figure in the Discourse\\n\\nGeneral Valery Gerasimov is widely recognized as a prominent figure associated with the concept of hybrid warfare. He is credited with popularizing the term and outlining its characteristics, emphasizing the integration of military and non-military means to achieve strategic goals. [Data: Relationships (121)] However, Gerasimov has also criticized the US discourse surrounding hybrid warfare, suggesting it lacks balance and presents a one-sided perspective. [Data: Relationships (121)]\\n\\n## Color Revolutions are Cited as an Example of Hybrid Warfare\\n\\nColor revolutions, which involve popular uprisings often fueled by political and social grievances, have been identified as a type of non-military means employed in hybrid warfare. [Data: Relationships (178)] This suggests that the concept of hybrid warfare extends beyond traditional military conflicts to encompass broader forms of political and societal influence.\\n\\n## Mark Galeotti Offers a Broader Definition of Hybrid Warfare\\n\\nAnalyst Mark Galeotti argues for a more expansive definition of hybrid warfare, encompassing not only military tactics but also political warfare. [Data: Relationships (474)] He believes that the term should encompass a wider range of actions aimed at achieving strategic objectives through both overt and covert means.\\n\\n## The Debate on Hybrid Warfare is Ongoing\\n\\nThe concept of hybrid warfare remains a subject of ongoing debate in both Russia and the United States. [Data: Entities (631)] Different perspectives exist regarding its definition, scope, and implications. This highlights the complexity and evolving nature of modern conflict.\"|7.5\\n33|Russian Military Theoretical Debate Community|0.012422360248447204|\"# Russian Military Theoretical Debate Community\\n\\nThis community centers around Russian military theoretical debates, with key entities including Tor Bukkvoll\\'s classification system, the General Staff, the Russian Academy of Military Science, and several prominent military newspapers. Bukkvoll identifies these entities as major arenas for these debates.\\n\\n## Tor Bukkvoll\\'s Classification System is Central\\n\\nTor Bukkvoll\\'s classification system serves as the foundation for understanding this community. His work identifies key arenas where Russian military theoretical debates take place, including institutions like the General Staff and the Russian Academy of Military Science [Data: Relationships (549, 726, 727, 728, 729)]. Bukkvoll\\'s classification highlights the diverse range of actors and platforms involved in shaping military thought within Russia.\\n\\n## The General Staff is a Major Arena for Debate\\n\\nAccording to Bukkvoll, the General Staff is one of the most significant arenas for Russian military theoretical debates [Data: Relationships (549)]. This suggests that practical considerations and strategic planning within the armed forces heavily influence the direction of these discussions. The General Staff\\'s role in shaping doctrine and policy likely makes it a crucial platform for testing and refining new ideas.\\n\\n## The Russian Academy of Military Science Contributes to Theoretical Discourse\\n\\nBukkvoll also identifies the Russian Academy of Military Science as a major arena for military theoretical debates [Data: Relationships (726)]. This indicates that academic research and intellectual analysis play a vital role in shaping Russian military thought. The Academy\\'s focus on research and education likely contributes to the development of new concepts, strategies, and technologies.\\n\\n## Military Newspapers Facilitate Public Discourse\\n\\nSeveral military newspapers, such as Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star), NEZAVISIMOYE VOYENNOYE OBOZRENIYE (NVO), and Voyenno-Promyshlennyy Kuryer (VPK), are classified by Bukkvoll as part of the \\'others\\' category in his system [Data: Relationships (727, 728, 729)]. This suggests that these publications contribute to public discourse on military affairs and potentially influence broader societal perceptions of defense policy. They may serve as platforms for disseminating official information, promoting specific viewpoints, or engaging in debate among the general public.\"|7.5\\n',\n",
              " '\\n\\nid|title|occurrence weight|content|rank\\n42|Russian Military Theorists Community|0.40993788819875776|\"# Russian Military Theorists Community\\n\\nThis community centers around Russian military theorists who have shaped contemporary thinking on war and conflict. Key figures include Gareyev, Gerasimov, and Kipp, whose writings and speeches explore topics like the nature of war, information warfare, and threats to international security. Their perspectives often align with Soviet-era theories while incorporating modern geopolitical realities.\\n\\n## Gareyev\\'s Perspective on War\\n\\nAlexander Gareyev is a prominent figure in this community, emphasizing that war encompasses more than just armed conflict. He argues that non-military forms of struggle, such as the Rose Revolution in Georgia, can also be considered war [Data: Entities (351)]. Gareyev aligns with late Soviet theorists who broadened the definition of war beyond traditional military engagements [Data: Entities (351)].  He believes large-scale aggressions against Russia are becoming less likely due to nuclear weapons and other factors [Data: Entities (351)]. While acknowledging the existence of nuclear weapons, Gareyev contends they do not fundamentally alter the nature of war [Data: Entities (352)]. He cites Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples of nuclear weapons being used to achieve US policy objectives [Data: Entities (353)].  Gareyev advocates for the UN\\'s active role in revising the definition of war and submitting the outcomes to the UN for consideration [Data: Entities (356)]. His work reflects a nuanced understanding of modern warfare, incorporating political, economic, and social dimensions.\\n\\n## Gerasimov\\'s Influence on Military Doctrine\\n\\nValery Gerasimov, the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, is another influential figure in this community. His annual speeches at the Academy of Military Sciences [Data: Entities (128)] shape Russian military doctrine and strategy. Gerasimov\\'s concept of \\'hybrid warfare,\\' which combines conventional military force with non-military means like propaganda and cyberattacks, has gained significant traction globally. This approach reflects a shift towards more complex and multifaceted conflicts, blurring the lines between war and peace [Data: Entities (128)]. His speeches often address threats to international security, highlighting Russia\\'s perspective on global challenges.\\n\\n## Kipp\\'s Contributions to Information Warfare\\n\\nBoth Gareyev and Kipp are cited as military theorists who contributed to the understanding of information warfare in the 1990s [Data: Entities (363)]. This highlights the growing importance of information as a weapon in modern conflict.  Their work emphasizes the need for Russia to develop robust capabilities in cyberspace, propaganda, and other forms of non-kinetic warfare.\"|8.5\\n90|Russian Military Community: General Staff & Key Figures|0.2795031055900621|\"# Russian Military Community: General Staff & Key Figures\\n\\nThis report analyzes a community centered around the Russian General Staff, its leadership, and key figures like Yuri Baluyevsky and Viktor Kartapolov. The General Staff is revealed as a central body shaping military doctrine, strategy, and public discourse on security issues. Its influence extends to publications like Voyennaya Mysl and its members actively engage in discussions about the evolving nature of warfare.\\n\\n## The General Staff is the central body shaping Russian military doctrine and strategy.\\n\\nThe General Staff is described as a military organization responsible for leading and overseeing the development of the Russian military. [Data: GENERAL STAFF (554)]. It also plays a crucial role in shaping public discourse on security issues, with its members actively participating in discussions about the changing nature of warfare. [Data: GENERAL STAFF (548), GENERAL STAFF (587)]. The General Staff\\'s influence extends to publications like Voyennaya Mysl, which it is in charge of publishing. [Data: VOYNENAYA MYSL (190)]. This suggests that the General Staff holds significant power within Russia\\'s military apparatus and influences national security policy.\\n\\n## Yuri Baluyevsky is a prominent figure within the General Staff, serving as its Chief.\\n\\nYuri Baluyevsky is identified as a member of the General Staff and serves as its Chief. [Data: GENERAL STAFF (20)]. He has authored articles in Military Thought about the changing nature of military power. [Data: YURI BALUYEVSKY (587)]. This indicates that Baluyevsky holds a position of authority within the General Staff and is likely influential in shaping its policies and strategies.\\n\\n## Viktor Kartapolov is a key figure within the General Staff, focusing on unconventional warfare.\\n\\nViktor Kartapolov is mentioned as a member of the General Staff who focuses on unconventional warfare. [Data: CHEKINOV AND BOGDANOV (316)]. He uses the Euromaidan uprising as an example of the destructive power of hybrid warfare. [Data: KARTAPOLOV (610)]. His views on indirect means complement the analysis of Chekinov and Bogdanov on unconventional warfare. [Data: CHEKINOV AND BOGDANOV (316)]. This suggests that Kartapolov plays a significant role in shaping the General Staff\\'s understanding of modern warfare.\\n\\n## The General Staff acknowledges the changing nature of war and emphasizes information warfare.\\n\\nThe chief of the General Staff confirmed the changing nature of war. [Data: GENERAL STAFF (548)]. Timothy Thomas researched the General Staff\\'s understanding of information warfare as a method of resolving conflict through information advantage. [Data: GENERAL STAFF (550)]. This indicates that the General Staff recognizes the growing importance of information in modern warfare and is actively developing strategies to leverage it.\\n\\n## The General Staff\\'s influence extends beyond military matters, shaping public discourse on security.\\n\\nThe Theorists involved in drafting public security doctrines have influential positions within the General Staff\\'s theoretical discussions. [Data: GENERAL STAFF (555)]. This suggests that the General Staff plays a role in shaping public opinion and policy on security issues beyond its direct military responsibilities.\"|8.5\\n53|Yugoslavia Conflict Analysis|0.06832298136645963|\"# Yugoslavia Conflict Analysis\\n\\nThis community centers around Yugoslavia, a country that experienced significant conflict and serves as a case study for various warfare strategies. Key entities include Yugoslavia itself, aggression, and fourth-generation warfare tactics employed by the United States. Relationships highlight how information warfare was used to influence public opinion and justify actions during the conflict.\\n\\n## Yugoslavia as a Case Study\\n\\nYugoslavia is presented as a significant case study for analyzing conflict dynamics and the application of various warfare strategies.  The text emphasizes Yugoslavia\\'s experience with aggression, internal conflicts, and external intervention, making it a valuable historical example [Data: Entities (379); Relationships (588, 589)]. \\n\\n## Information Warfare in Yugoslavia\\n\\nThe community highlights the use of information warfare in Yugoslavia to manipulate public opinion and legitimize actions taken during the conflict.  Burenok, a source cited in the data, specifically mentions Yugoslavia as an example where information warfare was employed [Data: Relationships (590)]. This suggests that propaganda and disinformation played a crucial role in shaping the narrative surrounding the Yugoslav conflicts.\\n\\n## Fourth-Generation Warfare\\n\\nThe text identifies the conflict in Yugoslavia as an example of fourth-generation warfare, a type of warfare characterized by unconventional tactics and strategies. The United States is mentioned as a key actor deploying these tactics during the Yugoslav conflict [Data: Relationships (589)]. This suggests that modern warfare increasingly involves blurring the lines between traditional combat and non-military actions.\\n\\n## Impact of Aggression\\n\\nThe community emphasizes the role of aggression in destabilizing Yugoslavia. The text states that Yugoslavia was attacked, leading to internal conflicts and further exacerbating the situation [Data: Relationships (588)]. This highlights how external aggression can have a profound impact on a country\\'s stability and lead to widespread violence.\"|8.0\\n52|Putin\\'s Information Warfare Narrative|0.062111801242236024|\"# Putin\\'s Information Warfare Narrative\\n\\nThis community centers around Vladimir Putin and his perception of information warfare as a significant threat orchestrated by the West. It highlights Putin\\'s views on \\'color revolutions,\\' his criticism of Western foreign policy, and his belief in the potency of non-nuclear weapons like information warfare. The community also touches upon Russian elites who share this perspective.\\n\\n## Putin views \\'color revolutions\\' as a Western-backed threat to Russian stability.\\n\\nPresident Putin sees \\'color revolutions,\\' which are popular uprisings often fueled by pro-democracy sentiments, as a direct threat to Russia\\'s interests. He believes these revolutions are orchestrated and supported by the West to destabilize countries and undermine Russian influence. [Data: Relationships (421), Entities (446)] This perception is deeply ingrained in Putin\\'s worldview, shaping his foreign policy decisions and rhetoric.  He has repeatedly warned against the dangers of \\'controlled chaos\\' and \\'foreign interference\\' in domestic affairs, framing these as tools of information warfare employed by Western powers. [Data: Relationships (641), Entities (446)]\\n\\n## Putin considers information warfare as effective as nuclear weapons.\\n\\nPresident Putin has publicly stated that he views information warfare as a powerful and potentially devastating tool, comparable in its impact to nuclear weapons. [Data: Relationships (639), Entities (446)] This statement reflects his belief that the West is actively engaged in manipulating public opinion and influencing events through propaganda, disinformation, and cyberattacks. Putin sees this as a serious threat to Russia\\'s national security and seeks to counter it through various means, including state-sponsored media outlets and online campaigns.\\n\\n## Putin criticizes Western foreign policy at the Munich Conference on Security Policy.\\n\\nIn his 2007 speech at the Munich Conference on Security Policy, President Putin delivered a scathing critique of Western foreign policy. [Data: Relationships (640), Entities (446)] He accused Western governments of hypocrisy and double standards, particularly in their support for democracy movements abroad while simultaneously undermining Russia\\'s sovereignty. This speech became a defining moment in Putin\\'s public image, solidifying his position as a staunch critic of the West and its perceived interference in global affairs.\\n\\n## Russian elites share Putin\\'s perception of information warfare as a threat.\\n\\nThe Russian elite, including political figures, media personalities, and influential businessmen, largely echo President Putin\\'s views on information warfare. [Data: Relationships (446)] They perceive it as a serious threat to Russia\\'s national interests and actively participate in shaping public discourse around this issue. This shared understanding reinforces Putin\\'s narrative and contributes to the widespread acceptance of his policies aimed at countering Western influence.\\n\\n## Putin views OSCE election monitoring as interference by the United States.\\n\\nPresident Putin sees the OSCE\\'s efforts to monitor elections in Russia as a form of interference by the United States. [Data: Relationships (641)] He believes that these organizations are used by Western powers to undermine Russian sovereignty and legitimacy. This perception fuels distrust towards international institutions and further isolates Russia from the global community.\"|8.5\\n67|Russian Military Doctrine & Coercion|0.055900621118012424|\"# Russian Military Doctrine & Coercion\\n\\nThis community explores Russian military theory and strategy, focusing on concepts like deterrence and coercion as key elements within their strategic culture. It highlights how these concepts are intertwined and used to achieve national interests.\\n\\n## Deterrence is a central pillar of Russian military strategy.\\n\\nDeterrence, as defined in the \\'DETERRENCE\\' entity, aims to prevent adversaries from harming Russia through the threat of retaliation. This concept is deeply ingrained in Russian military theory and policy [Data: Entities (450)].  The \\'RUSSIAN COERCION PARADIGM\\' entity explicitly states that deterrence is a key element within this paradigm, used to safeguard Russia\\'s interests [Data: Relationships (464)]. \\n\\n## Russian Coercion Paradigm reflects cultural influences on military strategy.\\n\\nThe \\'RUSSIAN COERCION PARADIGM\\' entity describes a distinct approach to achieving national interests through coercion. This paradigm is heavily influenced by cultural factors [Data: Entities (157)]. The relationship between the \\'RUSSIAN COERCION PARADIGM\\' and \\'RUSSIAN STRATEGIC CULTURE\\' emphasizes that understanding this cultural context is crucial for comprehending Russia\\'s actions in global affairs [Data: Relationships (463)].\\n\\n## Cross-domain coercion encompasses both deterrence and compelling.\\n\\nThe \\'CROSS-DOMAIN COERCION\\' relationship highlights that this strategy involves both preserving the status quo (deterrence) and changing it (compelling) [Data: Relationships (185)]. This suggests a multifaceted approach to achieving objectives through coercion.\"|8.5\\n92|Russian Military Doctrine Development|0.031055900621118012|\"# Russian Military Doctrine Development\\n\\nThis community focuses on the development and implementation of public security doctrines within Russia. Theorists hold influential positions within the General Staff, shaping these doctrines which guide both internal order and national security strategies.\\n\\n## Theorists are key players in shaping Russian military doctrine.\\n\\nTheorists within Russia play a crucial role in developing public security doctrines. They contribute to theoretical discussions within the General Staff, influencing the direction and content of these doctrines.  [Data: Relationships (555)] This suggests that theorists possess specialized knowledge and expertise in security matters, making their contributions highly valued by military leadership. [Data: Entities (272)]\\n\\n## Public Security Doctrines guide Russia\\'s approach to both internal order and national security.\\n\\nPublic Security Doctrines are theoretical frameworks that outline Russia\\'s strategies for maintaining internal order and national security. These doctrines encompass a wide range of policies and beliefs regarding security within Russia, serving as a foundational guide for understanding and responding to threats. [Data: Entities (273)] The interconnected nature of these doctrines highlights the comprehensive approach Russia takes to ensuring its security.\\n\\n## The General Staff relies on theorists for input in developing military doctrine.\\n\\nRelationships between Theorists and the General Staff indicate a strong reliance on theoretical expertise within the development of public security doctrines. [Data: Relationships (555)] This suggests that the General Staff recognizes the importance of incorporating diverse perspectives and specialized knowledge into its strategic planning process.\\n\\n## Theorists directly influence the content of Public Security Doctrines.\\n\\nThe relationship between Theorists and Public Security Doctrines highlights the direct impact theorists have on shaping these official frameworks. [Data: Relationships (556)] Their contributions likely involve analyzing security threats, proposing policy solutions, and refining existing doctrines to align with evolving challenges.\"|8.5\\n',\n",
              " '\\n\\nid|title|occurrence weight|content|rank\\n82|Russian Information Warfare Community|0.2795031055900621|\"# Russian Information Warfare Community\\n\\nThis community centers around Russian entities and individuals who engage in information warfare, utilizing tactics like automated accounts (bots), denial-of-service (DoS) attacks, and propaganda to influence global politics and security. Key figures include Mikryukov, Putin, Soldatov, Borogan, and Vasily Burenok, who highlight the strategic importance of information warfare for achieving political and economic objectives.\\n\\n## Information Warfare is Perceived as a Critical Threat\\n\\nRussian elites view information warfare as a major threat, shaping their understanding of global politics and security. This perception is evident in statements from figures like Putin who argue that information warfare can lead to political or economic crises [Data: Entities (26, 455)].  This highlights the seriousness with which Russia takes this form of conflict.\\n\\n## Divergent Views on Information Warfare\\n\\nThere is a clear difference in how Russia and the West perceive information warfare. While Russia adopts a broader perspective, emphasizing its role in achieving strategic objectives without resorting to armed force [Data: Entities (452)], the West prioritizes the free flow of information [Data: Entities (451)]. This divergence underscores the ideological underpinnings of this conflict.\\n\\n## Utilization of Automated Accounts (Bots)\\n\\nInformation warfare heavily relies on automated accounts (bots) to spread misinformation, manipulate public opinion, and amplify propaganda. These bots operate autonomously, often without human intervention, making them difficult to detect and counter [Data: Entities (448)]. This tactic allows for the rapid dissemination of false information and the creation of a sense of widespread support for specific narratives.\\n\\n## Information Warfare as a New Form of Military Action\\n\\nThe community recognizes information warfare as a distinct type of military action, employing information as a weapon to achieve strategic goals. This shift in warfare paradigms highlights the growing importance of cyberspace and the need for new strategies to defend against these attacks [Data: Entities (440)].  Information warfare can be used to disrupt critical infrastructure, sow discord within societies, and undermine trust in institutions.\\n\\n## Key Figures Shaping the Discourse\\n\\nSeveral prominent figures within this community have contributed significantly to shaping the discourse on information warfare. Mikryukov sees immense potential in this domain and believes it has reached a new stage with modern technology [Data: Entities (444)].  Soldatov and Borogan are authors who have extensively researched and written about information warfare tactics [Data: Entities (450)]. Vasily Burenok argues that information warfare plays a crucial role in Ukraine, specifically aiming for regime change through influencing public consciousness [Data: Entities (454)].\"|8.5\\n2|Russian Military Thought & Geopolitics|0.17391304347826086|\"# Russian Military Thought & Geopolitics\\n\\nThis community explores the interconnectedness of Russian military thought, geopolitical events like the Euromaidan revolt and the invasion of Ukraine, and influential figures such as Putin and Ivanov. It highlights how Russia views revolutions, Western influence, and the evolving nature of warfare.\\n\\n## Russian Military Thought Emphasizes Hybrid Warfare\\n\\nThe analysis reveals that Russian military thought increasingly prioritizes hybrid warfare, combining conventional and unconventional tactics. This is evident in the description of hybrid warfare as a part of broader trends in Russian military thought [Data: RUSSIAN MILITARY THOUGHT (36)].  Furthermore, the community highlights Slipchenko\\'s work as influential in understanding how conventional military means are changing within this framework [Data: RUSSIAN MILITARY THOUGHT (26)]. This suggests a strategic shift towards more complex and multifaceted conflict strategies.\\n\\n## The Soviet Union Shapes Russian Military Thought\\n\\nThe community underscores the historical influence of the Soviet Union on Russian military thought. It states that the Soviet period directly shaped the development and characteristics of this thinking [Data: SOVIET UNION (35)]. This historical context likely informs Russia\\'s current military doctrines and approaches to conflict.\\n\\n## Russia Views Revolutions as Externally Orchestrated\\n\\nThe community reveals a shared perspective among Putin and Ivanov that revolutions are primarily driven by NGOs rather than direct Western government involvement [Data: PUTIN (18), IVANOV (4)]. This suggests a belief in external manipulation of internal political processes, potentially influencing Russia\\'s foreign policy decisions and responses to perceived threats.\\n\\n## The Invasion of Ukraine Sparks Calls for Military Thought Revolution\\n\\nThe community identifies the invasion of Ukraine as a catalyst for calls to revolutionize Russian military thought and practice [Data: RUSSIAN MILITARY THOUGHT (11), RUSSIAN MILITARY THOUGHT (89)]. This indicates a potential reassessment of existing strategies and doctrines in light of the conflict\\'s challenges and outcomes.\\n\\n## Western Debate Contrasted with Russian Military Thought\\n\\nThe community highlights the Western debate as often analyzing and contrasting with Russian military thought [Data: RUSSIAN MILITARY THOUGHT (10)]. This suggests a significant interest in understanding Russia\\'s military perspectives within the broader international security landscape.\"|8.5\\n71|Moscow\\'s Strategic Community|0.13664596273291926|\"# Moscow\\'s Strategic Community\\n\\nThis report analyzes Moscow\\'s strategic community, focusing on its role in shaping Russian military doctrine, deterrence strategies, and informational warfare. Key entities include the Russian military, K Novoi Redaktsii Voennoi Doktriny (a publication on military doctrine), and various actors involved in policymaking discourse. The community perceives US information warfare as a threat and engages in counter-strategies through \\'operations on the theater of informational struggle\\'.\\n\\n## Moscow as the Center of Military Power\\n\\nThe data highlights Moscow as a central location for the Russian military. It is described as where the Russian military demonstrates its capabilities [Data: Entities (375)]. This suggests that Moscow serves as a hub for military operations, training, and strategic planning. The city\\'s importance in this context is further emphasized by its association with the \\'deterrence programme\\', which aims to influence opponent decision-making through military strength [Data: Relationships (370)].  Moscow\\'s actions are also assessed for their impact on strategic stability [Data: Relationships (373)], indicating that the city plays a crucial role in shaping Russia\\'s approach to international security.\\n\\n## Information Warfare as a Key Concern\\n\\nThe community perceives US information warfare as a significant threat. Moscow views \\'operations on the theater of informational struggle\\' as a necessary response to this perceived threat [Data: Relationships (371)]. This suggests that Russia sees information as a critical battleground in contemporary conflict and is actively engaged in shaping narratives and influencing public opinion both domestically and internationally. The data also indicates that Moscow considers informational superiority crucial, blurring the lines between war and peace through these operations [Data: Entities (716)]. This highlights the growing importance of information warfare in Russia\\'s strategic calculus.\\n\\n## Moscow as a Hub for Strategic Discourse\\n\\nThe data portrays Moscow as a central location for policymaking discourse and strategic community interaction. It is described as the place where actions are assessed [Data: Entities (375)]. This suggests that Moscow serves as a forum for decision-making, analysis, and debate among key actors within the Russian government and military. The publication of K Novoi Redaktsii Voennoi Doktriny in Moscow further reinforces this notion, indicating that the city is a focal point for shaping Russian military doctrine [Data: Relationships (374)]. This concentration of strategic actors and discourse highlights Moscow\\'s importance as a center for decision-making and policy formulation.\"|8.5\\n63|Russian Military Thought Community|0.043478260869565216|\"# Russian Military Thought Community\\n\\nThe Russian Military Thought community centers around publications and institutions dedicated to shaping military strategy and doctrine within Russia. Key entities include MILITARY THOUGHT, a journal publishing strategic analyses by prominent figures like Yuri Baluyevsky, and 27 TSNII, a research institute specializing in strategic deterrence and informational warfare. These entities are closely linked to the General Staff (GS), the primary military planning body, and its sub-division, the Military-Strategic Analysis Center.\\n\\n## MILITARY THOUGHT serves as a platform for disseminating Russian military thought.\\n\\nMILITARY THOUGHT is a key publication within the community, acting as a forum for military professionals and intellectuals to share their views on strategy, operational art, and force build-up. [Data: MILITARY THOUGHT (5), Relationships (679)].  Prominent figures like Yuri Baluyevsky have used this platform to publish their analyses, indicating its influence within the Russian military sphere. [Data: YURI BALUYEVSKY (587)].\\n\\n## 27 TSNII specializes in strategic deterrence and informational warfare.\\n\\n27 TSNII is a Russian military research institute that focuses on analyzing and publishing articles on military strategy. Their work, often featured in MILITARY THOUGHT, highlights their expertise in areas like Russia\\'s \\'strategic deterrence\\' system and the complexities of informational struggle. [Data: 27 TSNII (587), Relationships (679)]. This specialization suggests a growing emphasis on these domains within contemporary Russian military doctrine.\\n\\n## The General Staff (GS) oversees strategic analysis and policy development.\\n\\nThe General Staff (GS) is the primary military planning and advising body in Russia, responsible for shaping national security strategy. [Data: GENERAL STAFF (GS) (905)].  Within this structure, the Military-Strategic Analysis Center plays a crucial role in conducting strategic analysis and developing policy recommendations. [Data: MILITARY-STRATEGIC ANALYSIS CENTER (702)]. This hierarchical organization demonstrates the centralized nature of military decision-making in Russia.\\n\\n## MILITARY THOUGHT reflects ongoing debates within Russian strategic theory and policy.\\n\\nArticles published in MILITARY THOUGHT often delve into current issues and controversies surrounding Russian military strategy, reflecting the dynamic nature of these debates. [Data: MILITARY THOUGHT (680), Relationships (681)]. This suggests that the journal serves as a platform for exchanging ideas and shaping future military doctrine.\"|8.5\\n68|Russian Strategic Community\\'s Influence Operations|0.043478260869565216|\"# Russian Strategic Community\\'s Influence Operations\\n\\nThe Russian Strategic Community plays a central role in shaping Russia\\'s military strategies, including those related to informational struggle. They develop and employ tactics like Crossdomain coercion, Digital sabotage, and Psychological subversion to influence public opinion and achieve strategic objectives.\\n\\n## Holistic Approach to Informational Struggle\\n\\nRussia views informational struggle as a multifaceted endeavor, integrating digital technologies and psychological manipulation. This holistic approach is evident in their strategies for shaping narratives, influencing public opinion, and undermining adversaries\\' capabilities.  [Data: Relationships (23)]\\n\\n## Crossdomain Coercion as a Key Strategy\\n\\nThe Russian Strategic Community employs Crossdomain coercion as a unified program for influence, integrating various tactics across multiple domains. This strategy encompasses non-nuclear, informational, and nuclear influence to achieve strategic objectives. [Data: Relationships (592), Relationships (647)]\\n\\n## Digital Sabotage for Disruption\\n\\nDigital sabotage is a key tactic within Russia\\'s informational struggle arsenal, aimed at disrupting a state\\'s managerial capacity. This can involve attacks on critical infrastructure, government networks, and communication systems to sow chaos and undermine stability. [Data: Relationships (517)]\\n\\n## Psychological Subversion for Manipulation\\n\\nRussia utilizes psychological subversion to deceive victims, discredit leadership, and demoralize populations and militaries. This involves spreading disinformation, propaganda, and divisive rhetoric to create confusion and erode trust. [Data: Relationships (518)]\\n\\n## Development of Informational Warfare Theories\\n\\nThe Russian Strategic Community actively develops theories and strategies related to informational struggle. They analyze trends, identify vulnerabilities, and refine tactics to maintain a competitive edge in the information domain. [Data: Relationships (519)]\"|8.5\\n89|Russian Information Warfare Community|0.043478260869565216|\"# Russian Information Warfare Community\\n\\nThis community centers around Russia\\'s perception of being targeted by information-psychological warfare.  Pravda, a Russian newspaper, reports on these alleged attacks, highlighting the importance of this narrative within Russia. The Chechen Wars are cited as an example where information-psychological warfare played a significant role.\\n\\n## Russia Views Itself as Target of Information Warfare\\n\\nThe data indicates that Russia sees itself as the target of a coordinated information-psychological warfare campaign. This perception is central to the community\\'s understanding of its own position in the world.  [Data: Relationships (46)]\\n\\n## Pravda Amplifies Russian Narrative\\n\\nPravda, a Russian newspaper, serves as a key source of information about this alleged warfare. The news organization\\'s reporting on January 8, 2015, suggests that the narrative is actively being disseminated and shaped within Russia. [Data: Entities (277); Relationships (557)]\\n\\n## Chechen Wars Serve as Case Study\\n\\nThe Chechen Wars are presented as a historical example where information-psychological warfare was crucial. This suggests that Russia views this tactic as a serious and recurring threat. [Data: Relationships (649)]\"|7.5\\n',\n",
              " '\\n\\nid|title|occurrence weight|content|rank\\n51|US-Russia Relations & Non-Contact Warfare|0.2236024844720497|\"# US-Russia Relations & Non-Contact Warfare\\n\\nThis community focuses on the complex relationship between the United States and Russia, particularly in the context of non-contact warfare. It highlights US support for democracy movements and NGOs in Eastern Europe, which has been criticized by Putin and codified as foreign interference by the Russian Duma. The community also explores the US\\'s use of non-contact warfare strategies, including high-precision weaponry and information operations.\\n\\n## US-Russia Relations are Marked by Tension and Distrust\\n\\nThe relationships between the United States and Russia are characterized by a history of tension and mistrust. This is evident in the diplomatic relations described as having periods of \\'reset\\' but ultimately remaining strained [Data: Relationships (42)].  Furthermore, Putin directly criticizes US foreign policy, specifically targeting their support for democracy movements and NGOs [Data: Relationships (421)]. This criticism has led to Russia enacting laws against foreign interference, explicitly mentioning the United States as a perpetrator [Data: Relationships (420)]. \\n\\n## Non-Contact Warfare is a Key Element in US Foreign Policy\\n\\nThe community reveals that the United States employs non-contact warfare strategies as a core element of its foreign policy. This includes utilizing high-precision weaponry and information operations [Data: Relationships (417)]. The book originating from the US further explores this concept, suggesting it\\'s a significant aspect of modern conflict [Data: Relationships (419)]. Additionally, the US conducts psychological offensives, particularly after 9/11, to support its war aims [Data: Relationships (418)].\\n\\n## The NED Plays a Role in Supporting Democracy Movements\\n\\nThe National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is identified as a key player in supporting democracy movements. The US provided funding to the NED, which in turn supported the Orange Revolution [Data: Relationships (416)]. European states also contributed to the NED\\'s efforts, further highlighting its role in promoting democratic values abroad [Data: Relationships (423)].\\n\\n## Slipchenko Emphasizes Non-Contact Warfare and Information Dominance\\n\\nThe community highlights Slipchenko as an analyst who focuses on the actions and strategies of the United States during conflict.  Slipchenko advocates for the importance of non-contact warfare, emphasizing its two pillars: information dominance and high-precision weaponry [Data: Relationships (282)]. This suggests a shift in military strategy towards less direct confrontation.\\n\\n## Putin\\'s Criticism Led to Legal Codification of Foreign Interference\\n\\nPutin\\'s criticism of US foreign policy, particularly its support for democracy movements and NGOs, had a tangible impact on Russian law. The Duma responded by codifying foreign interference into law, directly referencing the United States as an entity attempting to influence Russian elections [Data: Relationships (406), (420)]. This demonstrates how international relations can shape domestic legislation.\"|8.5\\n38|NATO-Russia Relations: A Landscape of Tension|0.20496894409937888|\"# NATO-Russia Relations: A Landscape of Tension\\n\\nThis community explores the complex relationship between NATO and Russia, highlighting their contrasting perspectives on security, military doctrine, and hybrid warfare. The analysis reveals a deeply entrenched mistrust fueled by historical grievances and geopolitical competition.\\n\\n## NATO views Russia\\'s military expansion as a direct threat to its security.\\n\\nThe analysis reveals that NATO perceives Russia\\'s military actions, particularly its expansion into former Soviet territories, as a significant threat to its collective security. This perception is evident in statements made by NATO officials and analyses conducted by think tanks affiliated with the organization [Data: Relationships (21)].  Furthermore, NATO\\'s Military Doctrine explicitly identifies Russia as a major challenge [Data: Relationships (26)], underscoring the seriousness with which NATO takes this perceived threat.\\n\\n## Russia views NATO expansion as an encroachment on its sphere of influence.\\n\\nThe data indicates that Russia sees NATO\\'s eastward expansion as a direct challenge to its national security and a violation of agreements made after the Cold War. Russian military doctrine explicitly identifies NATO as a major adversary [Data: Relationships (428)], reflecting this deeply held belief.  Analysts like Gareyev, cited in the dataset, further support this perspective by framing NATO as a potential threat to Russia\\'s interests [Data: Relationships (21)]. This perception of NATO as an encroaching force contributes significantly to the tensions between the two entities.\\n\\n## Hybrid warfare is a key element in Russian military strategy.\\n\\nThe dataset highlights that Russia employs hybrid warfare tactics, which combine conventional military operations with unconventional methods such as cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and economic pressure. This approach is described in analyses of Russian military doctrine [Data: Relationships (506)] and recognized by NATO as a significant threat [Data: Relationships (429)]. The UK Defence Committee actively analyzes the nature of Russian warfare, including its hybrid aspects [Data: Relationships (623)], demonstrating the international concern surrounding this strategy.\\n\\n## NATO has adopted a \\'flexible response\\' strategy to counter potential threats.\\n\\nThe dataset reveals that NATO\\'s military doctrine emphasizes a \\'flexible response\\' approach, meaning they would initially utilize conventional forces in response to aggression and only escalate to nuclear options as a last resort. This strategy was developed after the Cuban Missile Crisis [Data: Relationships (426)] and reflects NATO\\'s commitment to de-escalation while maintaining a credible deterrent against potential adversaries.\\n\\n## The relationship between NATO and Russia is characterized by mistrust and suspicion.\\n\\nDespite attempts at dialogue and cooperation, the dataset reveals a deep-seated mistrust between NATO and Russia. This stems from historical grievances, differing geopolitical interests, and conflicting perceptions of security threats. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine further exacerbates these tensions, creating a highly volatile environment [Data: Relationships (150)].  The analysis suggests that bridging this divide will require significant diplomatic effort and a willingness to address underlying concerns on both sides.\"|8.5\\n96|Slipchenko\\'s View on Warfare|0.043478260869565216|\"# Slipchenko\\'s View on Warfare\\n\\nThis community centers around Slipchenko\\'s perspective on warfare, highlighting information as a destructive weapon and defining war through precision strikes characteristic of sixth-generation warfare. Military force is presented as the primary actor wielding both traditional and modern strategies within this framework.\\n\\n## Information as a Destructive Weapon\\n\\nSlipchenko views information as a destructive weapon comparable to traditional weaponry. This perspective suggests a shift in warfare paradigms where data and knowledge are actively used to inflict harm, potentially through manipulation, propaganda, or cyberattacks. [Data: Relationships (286)]  This redefinition of warfare raises concerns about the ethical implications of using information for offensive purposes and the potential for widespread societal disruption.\\n\\n## Precision Strikes Define Modern Warfare\\n\\nSlipchenko defines war in terms of precision strikes, aligning with the characteristics of sixth-generation warfare. This emphasis on targeted attacks suggests a future where conflicts are characterized by long-range engagements and minimal collateral damage. [Data: Relationships (285)] However, the reliance on precision strikes could lead to an increase in cyberwarfare and the targeting of critical infrastructure, potentially causing significant disruption even without large-scale conventional battles.\\n\\n## Military Force as a Key Player\\n\\nMilitary force is presented as the primary actor wielding both traditional and modern strategies within Slipchenko\\'s framework. This highlights the continued relevance of armed forces in future conflicts, even with the increasing importance of information warfare. [Data: Relationships (651)]  The integration of advanced technologies like long-range precision-guided missiles into military doctrine suggests a shift towards more autonomous and technologically driven warfare.\"|7.5\\n85|Russian Foreign Policy Community|0.031055900621118012|\"# Russian Foreign Policy Community\\n\\nThis community centers around Russian officials and their perspectives on international security, particularly concerning color revolutions. Key entities include Putin, Sergei Shoigu (Defense Minister), and Sergei Lavrov (Foreign Minister). They are connected through their participation in the Moscow Conference on International Security (MCIS) where they discussed the threat of color revolutions and foreign intervention.\\n\\n## Putin\\'s Focus on Color Revolutions\\n\\nVladimir Putin has expressed concerns about color revolutions at the Moscow Conference on International Security (MCIS) [Data: Relationships (397)]. This suggests that he views these events as a significant threat to Russia\\'s interests and stability.  Further investigation is needed to understand the specific nature of his concerns and how they shape Russian foreign policy.\\n\\n## Shoigu Emphasizes Global Impact\\n\\nSergei Shoigu, the Defense Minister of Russia, has spoken at the MCIS about color revolutions and their impact on global stability [Data: Relationships (603)]. This indicates that Russia perceives these events as having wider implications beyond its borders. It suggests a potential for Russian military involvement in regions experiencing or vulnerable to color revolutions.\\n\\n## Lavrov\\'s View of Sanctions\\n\\nSergei Lavrov, the Foreign Minister of Russia, sees sanctions imposed by the U.S. and EU as an attempt at regime change [Data: Entities (1091)]. This suggests a deep distrust of Western intentions and a belief that they are actively seeking to undermine Russian governance. It highlights the potential for further escalation in relations between Russia and the West.\\n\\n## MCIS as a Platform for Discourse\\n\\nThe Moscow Conference on International Security (MCIS) serves as a platform for Russian officials to articulate their views on international security issues [Data: Relationships (397, 603, 604)]. This conference allows Russia to shape the narrative surrounding color revolutions and present its perspective to a global audience. It also provides an opportunity for Russia to build relationships with other countries that share similar concerns.\"|8.5\\n76|Soviet Military Science & Philosophy|0.018633540372670808|\"# Soviet Military Science & Philosophy\\n\\nThis community centers around Soviet military science, heavily influenced by Marxist philosophy and its philosophical foundation, Hegelian Dialectics.  The relationships highlight how these concepts are intertwined and form the basis of Soviet military strategy and doctrine.\\n\\n## Marxist Philosophy is Fundamental to Soviet Military Science\\n\\nThe data clearly establishes that Marxist philosophy is a cornerstone of Soviet military science.  [Data: Relationships (329)]. This suggests a deep integration of philosophical ideas into the practical realm of military strategy and operations within the Soviet Union. The influence extends beyond mere inspiration; it\\'s described as fundamental to the scientific basis of Soviet military science, implying a systematic and structured application of Marxist principles. [Data: Relationships (329)]\\n\\n## Hegelian Dialectics Underpins Marxist Philosophy\\n\\nThe relationship between Hegelian Dialectics and Marxist philosophy reveals a direct lineage.  [Data: Relationships (334)]. Hegelian Dialectics serves as the philosophical bedrock for Marxist philosophy, shaping its core tenets and analytical framework. This historical connection highlights the importance of understanding Hegelian Dialectics to fully grasp the nature and influence of Marxist philosophy within the Soviet context.\"|8.0\\n20|CSTO and Information Warfare|0.018633540372670808|\"# CSTO and Information Warfare\\n\\nThis community centers around the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and its secretary-general, Nikolai Borduzha.  Borduzha believes a full-scale information war has been launched against Russia, highlighting the CSTO\\'s perspective on this issue.\\n\\n## CSTO\\'s Perspective on Information Warfare\\n\\nThe Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) views information warfare as a serious threat. This is evident through the belief of its secretary-general, Nikolai Borduzha, who asserts that a full-scale information war has been launched against Russia. [Data: Relationships (660); Entities (639)].  This perspective suggests that the CSTO considers information warfare a significant challenge to its member states\\' security and stability.\\n\\n## Nikolai Borduzha\\'s Role in Shaping CSTO\\'s Stance\\n\\nNikolai Borduzha, as the secretary-general of the CSTO, plays a crucial role in shaping the organization\\'s stance on information warfare. His belief that a full-scale information war is underway against Russia directly influences the CSTO\\'s policies and actions. [Data: Relationships (660); Entities (640)]. Borduzha\\'s position within the CSTO grants him significant authority to define and address this perceived threat.\\n\\n## Russia as a Focal Point of Information Warfare\\n\\nAccording to Nikolai Borduzha, Russia is at the center of this alleged information war. This suggests that the CSTO perceives Russia as a primary target of hostile information campaigns. [Data: Relationships (12)]. The CSTO\\'s focus on Russia in the context of information warfare highlights the geopolitical tensions and strategic considerations surrounding the country.\"|7.0\\n36|Andrew Korybko\\'s Sphere of Influence|0.012422360248447204|\"# Andrew Korybko\\'s Sphere of Influence\\n\\nThis community centers around Andrew Korybko, a theorist specializing in hybrid war. He works at RISS (Russian Institute for Strategic Studies) and hosts content on Sputnik News, suggesting a connection between his work and Russian state-sponsored media.\\n\\n## Andrew Korybko\\'s Expertise in Hybrid Warfare\\n\\nAndrew Korybko is a theorist who specializes in hybrid warfare. He argues that color revolutions and unconventional warfare represent a new type of warfare, which he analyzes and provides insights into. [Data: Entities (172); Relationships (474)]. This expertise positions him as a key figure in understanding contemporary geopolitical strategies and potential threats. His work could be influential in shaping perceptions of conflict and international relations.\\n\\n## Korybko\\'s Affiliation with RISS\\n\\nAndrew Korybko is a member of the expert council at RISS (Russian Institute for Strategic Studies). [Data: Relationships (472)]. RISS is a Russian organization, suggesting a potential link between Korybko\\'s research and Russian state interests. This connection raises questions about the objectivity and potential biases in his analysis.\\n\\n## Sputnik News as a Platform for Korybko\\'s Content\\n\\nAndrew Korybko hosts content on Sputnik News. [Data: Relationships (473)]. Sputnik News is a platform known for its close ties to the Russian government and its dissemination of pro-Kremlin narratives. This suggests that Korybko\\'s work may reach a wider audience through a channel with potential biases and agendas.\"|7.0\\n',\n",
              " '\\n\\nid|title|occurrence weight|content|rank\\n48|Ukraine Conflict Actors|0.4906832298136646|\"# Ukraine Conflict Actors\\n\\nThis community centers around the conflict in Ukraine, highlighting various actors involved, including Russia, the US, the EU, NGOs, and private military companies. The relationships between these entities are complex, with accusations of information warfare, support for opposing sides, and influence on public opinion.\\n\\n## Russia\\'s military capabilities are being tested in Ukraine.\\n\\nData indicates that Russia is actively engaged in military operations within Ukraine. This involvement has been widely reported and documented. [Data: Entities (155); Relationships (148)] The conflict serves as a testing ground for Russia\\'s military strategies and capabilities, with implications for regional and global security.\\n\\n## The US is accused of provoking color revolutions in other countries.\\n\\nSome sources within the dataset allege that the US instigates or supports \\'color revolutions\\' in various nations. [Data: Entities (173)] This claim suggests a pattern of US intervention aimed at regime change through popular uprisings, though concrete evidence supporting this assertion is not readily available within the provided data.\\n\\n## Information warfare plays a significant role in the Ukraine conflict.\\n\\nMultiple sources highlight the use of information warfare tactics in the context of the Ukraine crisis. [Data: Entities (153, 149); Relationships (147)]  Burenok cites Ukraine as an example where information warfare was employed to influence public opinion and potentially destabilize the government. Gerasimov mentions NGOs and private military companies being involved in disseminating information for strategic purposes.\\n\\n## The EU is implicated in the conflict through potential support and involvement in information warfare.\\n\\nWhile the dataset does not provide specific details about the EU\\'s actions, it suggests their involvement in the Ukraine conflict. [Data: Entities (154, 522)]  Accusations against the EU include supporting actions that led to the armed conflict and potentially engaging in information warfare tactics.\\n\\n## Public opinion regarding the Ukraine crisis is a key factor.\\n\\nThe Levada Center conducted surveys on public opinion regarding the crisis in Ukraine, indicating the importance of understanding public sentiment. [Data: Entities (145)]  This suggests that shaping public perception through information campaigns and propaganda may be a crucial aspect of the conflict.\"|8.5\\n44|Russian Military Theory & Non-Traditional Warfare|0.15527950310559005|\"# Russian Military Theory & Non-Traditional Warfare\\n\\nThis community centers around Russian military theory and its evolving understanding of non-traditional warfare, including cyberwarfare and the War of Consciousness. Key figures like Gareyev, Konyzhev, Sergunin, Kokoshin, and Kristin Ven Bruusgaard contribute to this discourse. The community highlights the influence of national security concepts on Russian military thought and explores the limitations of purely cyber-based conflict.\\n\\n## Russian Military Theory is Influenced by National Security Concepts\\n\\nThe relationships between entities like the \\'National Security Concept\\' and \\'RUSSIAN MILITARY THEORY\\' suggest a strong influence of national security paradigms on the development and evolution of Russian military thought. This indicates that Russia\\'s strategic objectives and perceived threats shape its understanding of warfare. [Data: Relationships (244)]\\n\\n## Konyzhev and Sergunin Critically Analyze Cyberwarfare\\n\\nKonyzhev and Sergunin, as highlighted in the \\'CONCLUSIONS OF CYBERWAR SCHOOL\\' relationship, express caution about the conclusions drawn by the cyberwar school. They argue that relying solely on cyberattacks for military victory is impractical due to their unpredictable nature and limitations. This suggests a nuanced perspective within Russian military theory regarding the role of cyberwarfare. [Data: Relationships (531, 530, 532)]\\n\\n## Kokoshin Highlights the Importance of Strategic Gesture\\n\\nAndrei Kokoshin\\'s criticism of Russian military theory for neglecting \\'the art of strategic gesture\\' reveals a potential gap in their understanding of modern warfare. He emphasizes the need to develop this concept further, suggesting that non-kinetic actions and psychological influence are crucial aspects of contemporary conflict. [Data: Relationships (378)]\\n\\n## Kristin Ven Bruusgaard Connects Military Theory with Cyber Capabilities\\n\\nKristin Ven Bruusgaard\\'s work, as mentioned in the \\'CALCULATION ALGORITHMS\\' relationship, demonstrates a connection between Russian military theory and the development of cyber capabilities. Her insights into calculation algorithms and damage assessment suggest that Russia is actively exploring the application of these technologies within its military framework. [Data: Relationships (512)]\\n\\n## War of Consciousness is Defined as a Psychological Warfare Tactic\\n\\nKonyzhev and Sergunin\\'s definition of \\'WAR OF CONSCIOUSNESS\\' as a psychological war targeting enemy values highlights the growing importance of non-kinetic warfare in Russian military doctrine. This suggests a shift towards influencing public opinion, morale, and decision-making processes as key objectives in modern conflict. [Data: Relationships (532)]\"|7.5\\n69|Russian Cross-Domain Coercion Strategies|0.09937888198757763|\"# Russian Cross-Domain Coercion Strategies\\n\\nThis community explores the concept of \\'cross-domain coercion\\' as a key strategy employed by Russia against adversaries. It highlights the integration of conventional military force, informational warfare (including cyber), and nuclear threats to achieve strategic objectives.  The analysis suggests that Russian leaders may be misinterpreting signals and overestimating the effectiveness of this approach.\\n\\n## Russia Utilizes Cross-Domain Coercion as a Primary Strategy\\n\\nThe community strongly suggests that Russia views \\'cross-domain coercion\\' as a central element of its strategic approach.  [Data: Relationships (49)]. This strategy aims to influence and deter opponents through a combination of conventional military force, informational warfare (including cyber operations), and nuclear threats. [Data: Relationships (185, 187)]. This multi-pronged approach reflects Russia\\'s desire to achieve its objectives without necessarily resorting to full-scale conventional war.\\n\\n## Cross-Domain Coercion Aligns with Russian Strategic Concepts\\n\\nThe concept of \\'cross-domain coercion\\' resonates with existing Russian notions of \\'struggle\\' and \\'strategic deterrence.\\' [Data: Relationships (1440)]. This suggests that it is not merely a Western construct adopted by Russia, but rather a strategy that aligns with their long-held strategic thinking.  Furthermore, the community highlights that cross-domain coercion is presented as an alternative to traditional strategic deterrence, emphasizing its focus on non-nuclear aspects. [Data: Relationships (1440)]. This could indicate a shift in Russian military doctrine towards a more nuanced and multifaceted approach to achieving strategic goals.\\n\\n## Potential Misinterpretations and Delusions Among Russian Leaders\\n\\nThe community raises concerns about potential misinterpretations and delusions among Russian leaders regarding the effectiveness of cross-domain coercion. [Data: Relationships (183)]. It suggests that they may be overestimating its ability to deter adversaries and achieve desired outcomes. This could lead to a dangerous escalation of tensions, as Russia might miscalculate the risks involved in employing this strategy.\\n\\n## Cross-Domain Coercion Integrates Conventional Deterrence Theories\\n\\nThe community emphasizes that conventional deterrence theories are integrated into the concept of cross-domain coercion. [Data: Relationships (186)]. This indicates that Russia is drawing upon established military doctrines while adapting them to the contemporary security environment characterized by hybrid warfare and information dominance.\\n\\n## Cross-Domain Coercion as a Key Element of New Generation Warfare\\n\\nThe community positions cross-domain coercion as a central element of \\'New Generation Warfare\\' (NGW). [Data: Relationships (188)]. This suggests that Russia views it as a crucial component of its future military strategy, one that seeks to integrate conventional and unconventional warfare capabilities to achieve strategic objectives.\"|8.5\\n27|Russian Military Doctrine & Non-Nuclear Deterrence|0.08695652173913043|\"# Russian Military Doctrine & Non-Nuclear Deterrence\\n\\nThis report analyzes the Russian military community\\'s focus on non-nuclear deterrence, as evidenced by the 2014 Doctrine and its reliance on precision conventional munitions. The General Staff (GS) plays a central role in shaping this doctrine, incorporating insights from the Russian expert community.\\n\\n## Non-Nuclear Deterrence is Central to Russia\\'s Military Strategy\\n\\nSince 2010, Russia has increasingly emphasized non-nuclear deterrence as a key element of its national security strategy. This shift is evident in the 2014 Doctrine, which codifies this concept as its main innovation [Data: MILITARY DOCTRINE (259), NON-NUCLEAR DETERRENCE (583)]. The General Staff (GS) identified the creation of a unified system of non-nuclear deterrence as a key task [Data: GS (582), NON-NUCLEAR DETERRENCE (582)]. This indicates a strategic realignment away from nuclear dominance towards a more diversified approach to defense.\\n\\n## Precision Conventional Munitions are Key to Non-Nuclear Deterrence\\n\\nThe 2014 Doctrine utilizes precision conventional munitions as a forceful tool for strategic deterrence [Data: NON-NUCLEAR DETERRENCE (584), PRECISION CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS (565)]. These munitions are designed to inflict damage on adversary targets with high accuracy and minimal collateral damage. This suggests that Russia aims to deter potential adversaries through the credible threat of conventional force, capable of inflicting significant harm without resorting to nuclear weapons.\\n\\n## The General Staff Plays a Pivotal Role in Shaping Doctrine\\n\\nThe GS plays a key role in shaping and implementing Russia\\'s Military Doctrine [Data: MILITARY DOCTRINE (258), GS (583)]. This indicates that the GS is responsible for translating strategic objectives into concrete military plans and policies. The GS\\'s emphasis on non-nuclear deterrence suggests a shift in thinking within the Russian military leadership.\\n\\n## Russian Experts Influence Military Doctrine Development\\n\\nIdeas from the Russian expert community influenced the development of the 2014 doctrine [Data: 2014 DOCTRINE (585), RUSSIAN EXPERT COMMUNITY (566)]. This highlights the importance of intellectual discourse and analysis in shaping Russia\\'s military strategy. The involvement of experts suggests a deliberate effort to incorporate diverse perspectives into the development of military doctrine.\"|8.5\\n79|VLADIMIROV\\'s Perspective on Modern Warfare|0.024844720496894408|\"# VLADIMIROV\\'s Perspective on Modern Warfare\\n\\nThis community centers around VLADIMIROV, an expert on modern warfare who emphasizes the role of consciousness and ideas in contemporary conflicts. He draws upon MESSNER\\'s work on mass consciousness manipulation, particularly in the context of INFORMATION WARFARE as seen in Ukraine.\\n\\n## VLADIMIROV\\'s Expertise\\n\\nVLADIMIROV is identified as an author and expert on modern warfare. He places particular emphasis on the importance of consciousness and ideas in shaping contemporary conflicts. This suggests a focus on the psychological and ideological dimensions of warfare rather than purely military tactics. [Data: Entities (8); Relationships (90)]\\n\\n## Information Warfare as Manipulation\\n\\nVLADIMIROV views information warfare as a form of manipulation of mass consciousness, particularly in the context of Ukraine. This implies that he sees the spread of information and narratives as a key weapon in modern conflict, capable of influencing public opinion and shaping perceptions of events. [Data: Relationships (92)]\\n\\n## Influence of MESSNER\\'s Work\\n\\nVLADIMIROV acknowledges the influence of MESSNER\\'s work on his understanding of mass consciousness manipulation. This suggests that he draws upon existing theories and research to inform his analysis of modern warfare. [Data: Relationships (91)]\\n\\n## Modern Warfare as a New Phenomenon\\n\\nThe term \\'MODERN WARFARE\\' is described as a qualitatively new phenomenon, implying that it differs significantly from traditional forms of warfare. This aligns with VLADIMIROV\\'s emphasis on the role of consciousness and ideas, suggesting that modern warfare is characterized by greater complexity and psychological dimensions. [Data: Entities (13)]\"|6.5\\n',\n",
              " '\\n\\nid|title|occurrence weight|content|rank\\n102|Soviet Military Thought Community|0.43478260869565216|\"# Soviet Military Thought Community\\n\\nThis community centers around the Soviet Union\\'s military doctrine and its influence on global affairs. It encompasses key figures like Brutalksy & Maltsev, explores the impact of Marxist-Leninist ideology on war understanding, and analyzes the Soviet Union\\'s actions in conflicts like Cuba, Czechoslovakia, and Finland. The dissolution of the Soviet Union led to a decline in Western interest in this community.\\n\\n## Soviet Military Doctrine Rooted in Marxist-Leninist Ideology\\n\\nThe Soviet Union\\'s military doctrine was deeply intertwined with Marxist-Leninist ideology. This influence is evident in the understanding of war as a continuation of politics by means of armed force, as described in the book \\'Marxism-Leninism on War and the Army\\'. [Data: Marxism-Leninism O Voine I Armii (577)]  Furthermore, the Soviet Union viewed imperialist aggression and wars between exploiting classes and the working class as unjust. [Data: SOVIET UNION (65)]. This ideological framework shaped their military strategy and justifications for interventions in various conflicts.\\n\\n## Soviet Military Thought Influenced by Internal Thinkers\\n\\nThe Soviet Union had a rich tradition of internal military thinkers who contributed to the development of its doctrine. The text specifically mentions the understanding of war held by these thinkers within the Soviet context. [Data: SOVIET UNION (82)].  While specific names are not provided, their ideas likely played a significant role in shaping the Soviet approach to warfare.\\n\\n## Soviet Union Justified Interventions as Defensive Actions\\n\\nThe Soviet Union consistently justified its interventions in conflicts like Cuba, Czechoslovakia, and Finland as defensive actions. [Data: SOVIET UNION (76, 77, 75)]. This narrative aimed to portray the USSR as a protector against external threats, even when their actions involved military aggression.\\n\\n## Western Interest in Soviet Military Thought Declined After Dissolution\\n\\nThe collapse of the Soviet Union led to a decline in Western interest in Russian military thought. [Data: SOVIET UNION (79)]. This shift can be attributed to the perceived end of the Cold War and the changing geopolitical landscape.\\n\\n## Comparison Between Soviet and Western Military Thought\\n\\nThe text highlights a comparison between the Soviet Union\\'s influence on military thought and Western approaches. [Data: SOVIET UNION (58)]. This suggests an analysis of contrasting ideologies, strategies, and perspectives on warfare between these two blocs.\"|8.5\\n41|Russian Military Theory & Non-Traditional Warfare|0.15527950310559005|\"# Russian Military Theory & Non-Traditional Warfare\\n\\nThis community explores Russian military theory, focusing on the shift from traditional warfare doctrines towards non-traditional methods like hybrid warfare and cyberwar. Key figures include Bartles and Korybko, who analyze these evolving strategies and their impact on the information sphere.\\n\\n## Russian Military Theory Embraces Non-Traditional Warfare\\n\\nThe community reveals a clear shift in Russian military thought away from traditional Clausewitzian doctrines. This is evident through the prominence of figures like Bartles, who analyze this evolution and its implications.  [Data: Relationships (503, 504); Entities (BARTLES, RUSSIAN MILITARY THINKING)]. The concept of \\'Nontraditionalists\\' as a school of thought within Russian military theory further underscores this departure from traditional paradigms. [Data: Entities (NONTRADITIONALISTS)]\\n\\n## Hybrid Warfare is a Central Concept\\n\\nHybrid warfare emerges as a key focus within the community, with Bartles explicitly writing about it. This concept encompasses a blend of conventional military force with unconventional tactics like cyberattacks and propaganda campaigns. [Data: Relationships (503, HYBRID WARFARE)]. The analysis suggests that hybrid warfare represents a significant departure from traditional battlefield engagements. [Data: Entities (HYBRID WARFARE)]\\n\\n## Information Warfare is Crucial to Non-Traditional Strategies\\n\\nThe community emphasizes the importance of the information sphere in contemporary conflict.  Korybko\\'s analysis of Color Revolutions highlights how propaganda and coordinated messaging can be powerful tools for indirect warfare. [Data: Relationships (469, COLOR REVOLUTION)]. This underscores the interconnectedness of traditional military action with non-military methods like cyberwarfare and influence operations. [Data: Entities (COLOR REVOLUTION, INFORMATION SPHERE)]\\n\\n## Cyberwarfare is Seen as a Disruptive Force\\n\\nThe community recognizes cyberwarfare as a potent tool in non-traditional warfare.  It\\'s described as focusing on the virtual information sphere and potentially displacing traditional uses of force. [Data: Relationships (539, CYBERWAR)]. This suggests that cyberattacks can be used to cripple infrastructure, spread disinformation, and influence public opinion, all without resorting to direct military engagement. [Data: Entities (CYBERWAR)]\\n\\n## Traditional Warfare Still Holds Relevance\\n\\nWhile the community emphasizes non-traditional methods, it also acknowledges the continued relevance of traditional warfare.  Afghanistan is cited as an example of a conflict where traditional military action has been observed. [Data: Relationships (534, AFGHANISTAN)]. This suggests that while the nature of warfare is evolving, conventional military forces still play a role in certain contexts. [Data: Entities (AFGHANISTAN, TRADITIONAL WARFARE)]\"|8.5\\n72|Russian Military Doctrine & Influence|0.11180124223602485|\"# Russian Military Doctrine & Influence\\n\\nThis community focuses on the Russian military\\'s evolving doctrine, particularly Gerasimov\\'s Doctrine, and its emphasis on informational warfare. It highlights the importance of the informational domain in modern conflict and the efforts of Western analysts to understand these strategies.\\n\\n## Gerasimov\\'s Doctrine emphasizes disrupting the enemy\\'s internal coherence rather than direct annihilation.\\n\\nGerasimov\\'s Doctrine, as described in [Data: Relationships (559)], is a key concept within this community. It prioritizes undermining an adversary\\'s unity and cohesion through informational warfare, aiming to sow discord and exploit internal vulnerabilities. This approach diverges from traditional military doctrine focused on direct force projection and highlights the Russian military\\'s understanding of modern conflict as multifaceted and reliant on psychological manipulation. [Data: Entities (1281)]\\n\\n## The informational domain is increasingly crucial to the Russian military\\'s strategy.\\n\\nThe community emphasizes the significance of the informational domain in modern warfare, a view reflected in the Russian military\\'s actions and strategies. [Data: Relationships (560)]. This highlights their understanding that information can be a powerful weapon, used to influence public opinion, manipulate perceptions, and ultimately achieve strategic objectives. The use of disinformation campaigns, propaganda, and cyberattacks are all examples of how the Russian military seeks to leverage this domain.\\n\\n## Western analysts are actively studying Russian military thinking on psychological manipulation.\\n\\nThe US and Allied Analytical Communities are tasked with understanding Russian military ideas about psychological manipulation in conflict. [Data: Relationships (558)]. This underscores the perceived threat posed by these unconventional tactics and the need for Western nations to develop effective countermeasures. The analysis of Russian writings, strategies, and actions is crucial to anticipating potential threats and developing informed responses.\\n\\n## Moscow is closely associated with the activities and capabilities of the Russian military.\\n\\nThe community links Moscow [Data: Relationships (375)] to the actions and capabilities of the Russian military. This suggests that Moscow serves as a central hub for planning, coordinating, and executing military operations. The city\\'s political and economic influence likely plays a significant role in shaping the Russian military\\'s objectives and strategies.\\n\\n## The Russian military is undergoing defense reform to conventionalize its capabilities while developing innovative strategies.\\n\\nThis community highlights the ongoing transformation within the Russian military. [Data: Entities (6)]. They are seeking to modernize their conventional forces while simultaneously pursuing unconventional warfare tactics and strategies. This dual approach reflects a desire to maintain both traditional military power and the ability to operate in complex, information-driven environments.\"|8.5\\n74|Soviet Military Thought & Ideology|0.09316770186335403|\"# Soviet Military Thought & Ideology\\n\\nThis community explores the interconnectedness of Soviet military thought, ideology (dialectical materialism), and key figures like Ioakim Vatsetis. It highlights how dialectical materialism shaped Soviet military science and the Red Army\\'s understanding of war.\\n\\n## Dialectical Materialism as the Foundation of Soviet Military Thought\\n\\nThe community reveals that dialectical materialism served as the bedrock for Soviet military science. This philosophical framework, emphasizing historical materialism and class struggle, profoundly influenced how the Soviets viewed war and strategy. [Data: SOVIET MILITARY SCIENCE (330), DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM (330)]  This influence is further emphasized by the statement that \\'Soviet military science is fundamentally shaped by the principles of dialectical materialism.\\' [Data: SOVIET MILITARY SCIENCE (330)]\\n\\n## The Red Army\\'s Connection to Dialectical Materialism\\n\\nThe community establishes a direct link between the Red Army and dialectical materialism. The Bolsheviks believed that the Red Army, armed with the principles of dialectical materialism, held the key to military success. [Data: DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM (336)] This suggests that the Soviet leadership saw dialectical materialism as not just an intellectual framework but a practical tool for achieving military dominance.\\n\\n## Ioakim Vatsetis and the Economic Roots of War\\n\\nThe community introduces Ioakim Vatsetis, the chief of the Red Army in 1923. Vatsetis\\'s views on war, as presented in the data, highlight his belief that future conflicts would stem from economic rivalry inherent to class-based societies. [Data: IOAKIM VATSETIS (563)] This perspective aligns with the dialectical materialist understanding of history and conflict.\\n\\n## Georg Hegel\\'s Rejection in Favor of Dialectical Materialism\\n\\nThe community contrasts dialectical materialism with Georg Hegel\\'s idealistic metaphysics. It notes that while Hegel was influential, his ideas were ultimately rejected in favor of dialectical materialism. [Data: DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM (335)] This suggests a shift in Soviet intellectual thought towards a more materialist and historically-driven understanding of the world.\\n\\n## The Diminished Threat of the Red Army\\n\\nThe community describes the Red Army as a significant military force in the past, but now diminished. This decline is attributed to fear and lack of initiative among military leaders following purges, hindering its development. [Data: RED ARMY (1)] The use of the past tense for \\'Red Army\\' emphasizes that it no longer poses a major threat.\"|6.5\\n91|Russian Military Training Community|0.024844720496894408|\"# Russian Military Training Community\\n\\nThis report examines a community centered around military training in Russia, focusing on the relationships between the CENTER and the MILITARY ACADEMY OF THE GENERAL STAFF.  The data suggests a history of organizational shifts within the CENTER, ultimately leading to its relocation within the broader context of the Russian military education system.\\n\\n## CENTER\\'s History of Relocation\\n\\nThe CENTER has undergone significant organizational changes, initially being part of the GENERAL STAFF before relocating to the MILITARY ACADEMY OF THE GENERAL STAFF. This suggests a dynamic and evolving structure within the Russian military organization.  [Data: Relationships (546); Relationships (612)].\\n\\n## MILITARY ACADEMY OF THE GENERAL STAFF\\'s Role\\n\\nThe MILITARY ACADEMY OF THE GENERAL STAFF serves as a crucial institution for training Russian military officers. Its role in shaping the future of the Russian military is significant, and its connection to the CENTER highlights the importance of training within the broader military structure. [Data: Entities (423)]\\n\\n## Vladislav Orlyansky\\'s Employment\\n\\nVladislav Orlyansky is currently employed at the MILITARY ACADEMY OF THE GENERAL STAFF. This connection suggests potential involvement in training activities and provides a point of contact for further investigation into the community. [Data: Entities (423)]\"|7.5\\n77|Military Knowledge Community: Vorobyov & Kiselyov|0.012422360248447204|\"# Military Knowledge Community: Vorobyov & Kiselyov\\n\\nThis community centers around the concept of \\'MILITARY KNOWLEDGE\\' and highlights the importance of military history within this framework.  Vorobyov and Kiselyov are key theorists who emphasize this historical perspective. Soviet Military Science is presented as a precursor that sought to develop scientifically grounded military thought.\\n\\n## Emphasis on Military History\\n\\nThis community places a strong emphasis on the role of military history in shaping military knowledge. Vorobyov and Kiselyov are specifically identified as theorists who consider military history an essential component of understanding military strategy and doctrine. [Data: Relationships (751)]\\n\\n## Soviet Military Science Influence\\n\\nThe community acknowledges the influence of Soviet Military Science on the development of \\'scientifically\\' developed military thought.  This historical context suggests that the community draws upon past theories and practices to inform its understanding of military knowledge. [Data: Relationships (333)]\\n\\n## Key Theorists\\n\\nVorobyov and Kiselyov emerge as key theorists within this community. Their work is highlighted for emphasizing the importance of military history in understanding military knowledge. This suggests that their ideas are influential within the community and potentially beyond. [Data: Entities (1481), Relationships (751)]\\n\\n## Limited Scope\\n\\nThe community appears to have a relatively narrow focus on military knowledge and its historical development. There is no mention of other related concepts or fields, such as political science, economics, or sociology. This suggests that the community\\'s scope is primarily confined to military affairs. [Data: Entities (1357), Relationships (333, 751)]\"|6.0\\n',\n",
              " '\\n\\nid|title|occurrence weight|content|rank\\n98|Marxist Military Theory Community|0.3167701863354037|\"# Marxist Military Theory Community\\n\\nThis community centers around Marxist thinkers, particularly Lenin and Stalin, and their influence on military theory. It highlights Lenin\\'s definition of war as a continuation of politics by violent means, his analysis of imperialist wars, and his views on the role of militarization in socialist societies. Stalin is presented as building upon Lenin\\'s ideas, integrating Clausewitzian concepts into Marxist thought.\\n\\n## Lenin\\'s Definition of War as Politics by Other Means\\n\\nLenin\\'s concept of war as the continuation of politics by other means is a central theme in this community. This idea posits that war is not merely a military conflict but an extension of political objectives and power struggles. [Data: DEFINITION OF WAR (392)]  This perspective emphasizes the inextricable link between war and politics, suggesting that understanding the underlying political motivations is crucial for comprehending the nature and conduct of warfare. Lenin\\'s writings on this topic have significantly influenced Marxist thought and military strategy.\\n\\n## Influence of Marx and Engels on Lenin\\'s Views\\n\\nLenin\\'s understanding of war was deeply rooted in the ideas of Marx and Engels, who laid the foundation for Marxist theory. [Data: MARX AND ENGELS (382)]  He built upon their analysis of capitalism and its inherent contradictions, arguing that imperialist wars were a consequence of the competitive nature of capitalist economies. Lenin saw war as a tool used by capitalist powers to secure resources, markets, and geopolitical dominance. This Marxist perspective on war emphasizes the economic and social factors driving conflict.\\n\\n## Lenin\\'s Analysis of Imperialist Wars\\n\\nThis community highlights Lenin\\'s analysis of imperialist wars as a defining feature of the highest stage of capitalism. [Data: IMPERIALISM: THE HIGHEST STAGE OF CAPITALISM (381)]  In his seminal work, \\'Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism,\\' Lenin argued that capitalist economies inevitably lead to imperialism, characterized by competition for colonies and resources, which ultimately culminates in war. He saw imperialist wars as a manifestation of the inherent contradictions within capitalism.\\n\\n## Stalin\\'s Integration of Clausewitzian Ideas\\n\\nThis community emphasizes Stalin\\'s role in integrating Clausewitzian ideas into Marxist military theory. [Data: STALIN (326)]  Clausewitz, a renowned Prussian military theorist, emphasized the importance of political objectives in warfare and the interconnectedness of war and politics. Stalin analyzed and defended Lenin\\'s use of Clausewitzian concepts, incorporating them into his own understanding of military strategy.\\n\\n## Lenin\\'s Belief in War as Necessary for Socialism\\n\\nThis community reveals Lenin\\'s belief that war was a necessary tool for the success of socialism. [Data: SOCIALISM (390)]  He argued that socialist revolutions often required military force to overthrow capitalist regimes and establish socialist states. This perspective reflects Lenin\\'s commitment to revolutionary action and his view of war as a means to achieve political and social transformation.\"|8.5\\n24|Russian Military Doctrine & GRU|0.3105590062111801|\"# Russian Military Doctrine & GRU\\n\\nThis report analyzes the Russian military doctrine and its relationship to the GRU (Main Intelligence Directorate). The Ministry of Defense plays a central role in shaping doctrine, issuing documents like \\'Defense 2010\\' and various Military Doctrines. These doctrines reflect views on war similar to those from Soviet times, emphasizing concepts like \\'Subversion-Wars\\'. The GRU operates within this framework, utilizing the outlined strategies and objectives.\\n\\n## Ministry of Defense Dominates Doctrine Development\\n\\nThe Ministry of Defense is the primary entity responsible for creating and revising military doctrines in Russia. [Data: MINISTRY OF DEFENSE (226, 228, 229, 230, 232, 233)]. They are the authors and issuers of all doctrinal documents, including \\'Defense 2010\\' and various Military Doctrines. This centralized control suggests a strong top-down approach to shaping military strategy and thought within Russia. [Data: MINISTRY OF DEFENSE (226, 228, 229, 230, 232, 233)]\\n\\n## Soviet Legacy Influences Modern Doctrine\\n\\nRussian military doctrine exhibits strong echoes of Soviet-era thinking. [Data: MILITARY DOCTRINE (256)]. The 1993 Military Doctrine mirrored views from the 1986 \\'Soviet Military Encyclopedia\\', indicating a continuity in strategic concepts and perspectives. This suggests that historical influences continue to shape Russia\\'s approach to warfare and national security. [Data: MILITARY DOCTRINE (256)]\\n\\n## GRU Operates Within Doctrinal Framework\\n\\nThe GRU, Russia\\'s primary military intelligence agency, functions within the established framework of military doctrine. [Data: MILITARY DOCTRINE (23)]. This implies that GRU operations are guided by the strategic objectives and principles outlined in official doctrines. The GRU likely utilizes these doctrines to inform its intelligence gathering, analysis, and covert operations. [Data: MILITARY DOCTRINE (23)]\\n\\n## Emphasis on \\'Subversion-Wars\\' as a Key Concept\\n\\nRussian military doctrine places significant emphasis on \\'Subversion-Wars\\', defined as armed conflicts waged by insurgent or rebel forces. [Data: MINISTRY OF DEFENSE (234)]. This suggests a focus on unconventional warfare and the potential for protracted, low-intensity conflicts. The GRU likely plays a crucial role in countering and conducting such operations. [Data: MINISTRY OF DEFENSE (234)]\"|9.5\\n65|Russian Military Thought & Policy Community|0.13664596273291926|\"# Russian Military Thought & Policy Community\\n\\nThis community centers around Russian strategic theory and policy, highlighting the influence of institutions like the GS Military-Strategic Analysis Center. Concepts like nuclear deterrence and New Generation Warfare (NGW) are key themes within this discourse.\\n\\n## Nuclear Deterrence Remains Central to Russian Strategy\\n\\nThe data consistently emphasizes the importance of nuclear deterrence in shaping Russian strategic thinking. [Data: NUCLEAR DETERRENCE (385); RUSSIAN STRATEGIC THEORY AND POLICY (593)]. This doctrine, based on mutually assured destruction, is seen as a cornerstone for preventing aggression and maintaining peace from Russia\\'s perspective.  The concept is deeply ingrained in their military and foreign policy.\\n\\n## New Generation Warfare (NGW) Is A Contested Concept\\n\\nWhile NGW was once a prominent theme in Russian military literature, recent research suggests its presence has diminished. [Data: THOMAS (295); NGW (670)]. This shift might indicate evolving strategic priorities or a reassessment of the concept\\'s effectiveness. Further investigation is needed to understand the reasons behind this apparent decline.\\n\\n## The GS Military-Strategic Analysis Center Is A Key Think Tank\\n\\nThe GS Military-Strategic Analysis Center stands out as a significant contributor to Russian strategic theory and policy development. [Data: RUSSIAN STRATEGIC THEORY AND POLICY (703)]. Its publications are considered influential within the intellectual circles shaping Russia\\'s military doctrine. The center\\'s work likely reflects the current debates and concerns driving Russian strategic thinking.\\n\\n## Military Thought Publications Reflect Current Debates\\n\\nArticles in Military Thought journals provide insights into the ongoing discussions and evolving perspectives within Russian strategic circles. [Data: MILITARY THOUGHT (681); RUSSIAN STRATEGIC THEORY AND POLICY (681)]. Analyzing these publications can shed light on the key issues, challenges, and potential future directions of Russian military strategy.\\n\\n## Cross-Domain Coercion Is A Key Element Of Modern Warfare\\n\\nThe concept of Cross-domain Coercion is gaining prominence in contemporary warfare, particularly within the framework of NGW. [Data: CROSS-DOMAIN COERCION (188)]. This approach integrates military and non-military measures to achieve strategic objectives, blurring the lines between traditional battlefields and civilian domains.\"|8.5\\n78|Messner\\'s Subversion-War Theory|0.12422360248447205|\"# Messner\\'s Subversion-War Theory\\n\\nThis community centers around the theories of Vladimir Messner, a prominent figure in the White movement who developed the concept of \\'subversion-war\\'. His work emphasizes the psychological dimension of modern warfare and posits that the third worldwide war will be characterized by widespread mutiny, insurgency, and rebellion. \\n\\n## Vladimir Messner is a key figure in this community, developing the concept of \\'subversion-war\\'.\\n\\nVladimir Messner is identified as a central figure in this community. His work focuses on analyzing and theorizing about modern warfare, particularly emphasizing the psychological aspects. [Data: Relationships (91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99)]  He is described as a theorist who defines and explains \\'subversion-war\\', an approach to warfare characterized by psychological dominance. [Data: Relationships (93)]. Messner\\'s theories suggest that the third worldwide war will be defined by widespread mutiny, insurgency, and rebellion, which he terms \\'myatezhvoina\\'. [Data: Relationships (97, 98, 99)]\\n\\n## The concept of \\'subversion-war\\' is central to this community.\\n\\n\\'Subversion-war\\' is a key concept developed by Messner. It describes a form of warfare that prioritizes psychological manipulation and influence over traditional military tactics. [Data: Relationships (93)].  Messner argues that the psyche plays a crucial role in modern conflict, and \\'subversion-war\\' aims to exploit this vulnerability. He suggests that the third worldwide war will be characterized by widespread mutiny, insurgency, and rebellion, which he terms \\'myatezhvoina\\'. [Data: Relationships (97, 98, 99)]\\n\\n## Messner\\'s work has been documented and analyzed by other researchers.\\n\\nDomnin is mentioned as having written about Messner\\'s career and theorizing in 2005. [Data: Relationships (96)]. This suggests that Messner\\'s ideas have been subject to scholarly scrutiny and analysis, contributing to their dissemination and potential influence.\\n\\n## The community highlights the importance of psychological warfare in modern conflict.\\n\\nMessner\\'s emphasis on \\'subversion-war\\' underscores the growing significance of psychological warfare in contemporary conflicts. [Data: Relationships (93)]. By manipulating perceptions, influencing behavior, and exploiting vulnerabilities, actors can achieve strategic objectives without resorting to traditional military force.\\n\\n## The community suggests a potential future conflict characterized by widespread rebellion and insurgency.\\n\\nMessner\\'s concept of \\'subversion-war\\' paints a picture of a future conflict marked by widespread mutiny, insurgency, and rebellion. [Data: Relationships (97, 98, 99)]. This raises concerns about the potential for instability, violence, and societal breakdown in such a scenario.\"|7.5\\n70|Strategic Stability Community|0.018633540372670808|\"# Strategic Stability Community\\n\\nThe Strategic Stability community revolves around the concept of maintaining balance and predictability in international relations, particularly concerning military capabilities. Moscow\\'s actions are analyzed within this framework, and the effectiveness of coercive signaling is discussed. R.G. Tagirov, a researcher who published in the journal \\'Strategic Stability,\\' contributes to this discourse.\\n\\n## Moscow\\'s Actions Impact Strategic Stability\\n\\nThe data highlights the significance of Moscow\\'s actions in the context of strategic stability.  [Data: Relationships (373)]. This suggests that Moscow\\'s policies and decisions are closely scrutinized for their potential to disrupt the balance of power and influence global security. Further investigation is needed to understand the specific nature of these actions and their implications.\\n\\n## Coercive Signaling in Strategic Stability\\n\\nThe relationship between \\'Strategic Stability\\' and \\'Coercive Signalling\\' indicates that the effectiveness and potential risks of coercive signaling are discussed within the framework of maintaining strategic stability. [Data: Relationships (708)]. This suggests a nuanced understanding of how threats and displays of force can be used to influence other actors while striving for a stable international environment.\\n\\n## R.G. Tagirov\\'s Contribution to Strategic Stability Discourse\\n\\nR.G. Tagirov, a researcher who co-authored an article on \\'Strategic Stability,\\' is identified as a contributor to the discourse surrounding this concept. [Data: Relationships (709)].  His work likely provides insights into the complexities of maintaining strategic stability in the contemporary world.\"|7.5\\n',\n",
              " '\\n\\nid|title|occurrence weight|content|rank\\n17|Russian Information Warfare & Military Strategy|1.0|\"# Russian Information Warfare & Military Strategy\\n\\nThis community explores Russia\\'s multifaceted approach to information warfare and military strategy. It highlights entities like the Internet Research Agency, RT, Sputnik, and key figures like Shoigu and the President of Russia, revealing their roles in shaping narratives, influencing public opinion, and deterring adversaries through nuclear strategies.\\n\\n## Russia Utilizes Pro-Kremlin Media for Information Warfare\\n\\nRussia leverages state-controlled media outlets like RT and Sputnik to disseminate propaganda, shape narratives, and influence public opinion both domestically and internationally. [Data: Entities (29, 30); Relationships (6)]. These outlets often present biased or misleading information, aiming to sow discord, undermine trust in Western institutions, and promote pro-Kremlin viewpoints.  [Data: Claims (18, 24)]\\n\\n## The Internet Research Agency Amplifies Disinformation Campaigns\\n\\nThe Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian troll factory, actively engages in online disinformation campaigns to manipulate public discourse and interfere with elections. [Data: Entities (1); Relationships (6)]. The IRA employs thousands of individuals who create and spread fake news, propaganda, and divisive content across social media platforms. [Data: Claims (54)] This strategy aims to polarize societies, erode trust in democratic processes, and ultimately serve Russian geopolitical interests. [Data: Relationships (23)]\\n\\n## Russia Employs Nuclear Deterrence Strategies\\n\\nRussia maintains a robust nuclear arsenal and employs two primary strategies of nuclear deterrence: massive retaliation and limited nuclear strikes. [Data: Entities (14); Relationships (5)]. The doctrine of massive retaliation involves launching a full-scale nuclear attack in response to any perceived threat, while the strategy of limited nuclear strikes focuses on targeting specific military assets or infrastructure to inflict severe damage on an adversary. [Data: Claims (16, 17)] These strategies are designed to deter potential aggressors and maintain Russia\\'s position as a global power. [Data: Entities (43)]\\n\\n## Russia Views War Through a Unique Lens\\n\\nRussian military doctrine and strategic thinking are heavily influenced by historical experiences, geopolitical considerations, and a distinct worldview. [Data: Entities (36)].  Scholars like Persson have highlighted the importance of understanding Russia\\'s perspective on war and national security to effectively analyze its actions and intentions. [Data: Claims (38)] This unique lens shapes Russia\\'s approach to conflict, alliances, and international relations. [Data: Relationships (27)]\\n\\n## Regional Security is Impacted by Russian Military Posture\\n\\nRussia\\'s military activities and strategic objectives have a profound impact on regional security in Europe and beyond. [Data: Entities (34)]. Its deployment of troops, weapons systems, and its assertive foreign policy contribute to tensions and instability in neighboring countries. [Data: Relationships (16)] This dynamic necessitates careful diplomacy and international cooperation to mitigate risks and promote stability. [Data: Claims (29)]\"|8.5\\n60|Soviet Military Thought Community|0.13043478260869565|\"# Soviet Military Thought Community\\n\\nThis community centers around key figures and concepts in Soviet military theory, highlighting the influence of Lenin, Trotsky, and Svechin. It emphasizes the political nature of war and the importance of scientific development in military thought.\\n\\n## Lenin\\'s Influence on Soviet Military Theory\\n\\nLenin played a crucial role in shaping early Soviet military thought. His writings and ideology heavily influenced the development of Soviet military theory, as evidenced by the relationship between Lenin and Soviet Military Theory (Data: Relationships (384)).  This influence is further highlighted by the shared belief between Lenin and Trotsky that violence is a defining feature of war (Data: Relationships (388)).\\n\\n## Trotsky\\'s Contributions to Early Soviet Military Thought\\n\\nTrotsky, alongside Lenin, contributed significantly to the development of early Soviet military theory. He presented his views on war at the Military Science Society (Data: Relationships (394)), demonstrating his active engagement in shaping military discourse within the Soviet Union. Trotsky\\'s admiration for Clausewitz and agreement with his view on war as an extension of politics (Data: Relationships (307)) also influenced Soviet military thought.\\n\\n## Svechin\\'s Emphasis on Scientific Military Thought\\n\\nAleksandr Svechin, a leading Soviet military theorist, advocated for a scientifically developed approach to military thought. He believed that politics hold supremacy over strategy in the realm of military affairs (Data: Relationships (391)).  Svechin\\'s emphasis on historical analysis within Soviet military theory is also notable (Data: Relationships (396)). Despite holding contrasting views on the nature of war with Trotsky, both shared a commitment to scientifically developed military thought (Data: Relationships (395)).\\n\\n## The Political Nature of War in Soviet Military Thought\\n\\nBoth Lenin and Svechin believed that politics are superior to strategy. This highlights the central role of political considerations in shaping strategic decisions within Soviet military thought (Data: Relationships (391)).  Trotsky\\'s view on war as an extension of politics, influenced by Clausewitz, further reinforces this emphasis (Data: Relationships (307)).\\n\\n## The Military Science Society as a Platform for Discourse\\n\\nThe Military Science Society served as a platform where influential figures like Trotsky presented their views on war. This suggests the importance of organized discourse and intellectual exchange in shaping Soviet military thought (Data: Relationships (394)).\"|7.5\\n64|Russian Military Thought Community|0.09316770186335403|\"# Russian Military Thought Community\\n\\nThis community centers around Russian military thought and its evolution, particularly focusing on the concepts of hybrid warfare and the influence of figures like Chekinov & Bogdanov. It highlights connections between historical thinkers like Clausewitz and contemporary analysts like Thomas, emphasizing the enduring nature of certain Russian strategic perspectives.\\n\\n## Chekinov & Bogdanov\\'s work is central to understanding contemporary Russian military thought.\\n\\nChekinov & Bogdanov are identified as key figures in shaping modern Russian military thinking. Their article, referenced by multiple entities, appears to have significantly influenced the discourse on warfare within Russia and beyond. [Data: Relationships (280, 294, 297, 298, 299, 300)]\\n\\n## Hybrid warfare is a prominent theme in this community.\\n\\nThe concept of hybrid warfare is repeatedly mentioned and analyzed. Thomas\\'s work specifically highlights the importance of understanding this evolving form of conflict within the context of Russian military strategy. [Data: Relationships (293, 294, 295)]\\n\\n## Russian thought draws upon historical influences like Clausewitz.\\n\\nWhile emphasizing contemporary trends, this community acknowledges the enduring influence of classical thinkers like Clausewitz. Chekinov & Bogdanov\\'s work is presented as a continuation and reinterpretation of these traditional ideas. [Data: Relationships (298)]\\n\\n## The Arab Spring serves as a case study for understanding new forms of warfare.\\n\\nChekinov & Bogdanov\\'s perspective on the Arab Spring suggests that it represents a significant shift in the nature of conflict. This view highlights the community\\'s focus on analyzing contemporary events through the lens of evolving military strategies. [Data: Relationships (137)]\\n\\n## Western analysts are increasingly engaging with Russian military thought.\\n\\nThe influence of Chekinov & Bogdanov extends beyond Russia, reaching Western analysts who are incorporating their ideas into their own assessments. This suggests a growing recognition of the importance of understanding Russian military thinking in international security discussions. [Data: Relationships (299)]\"|7.5\\n81|Russian Military Doctrine & Actors|0.08695652173913043|\"# Russian Military Doctrine & Actors\\n\\nThis community analyzes key figures and concepts within Russian military doctrine. It highlights General Baluyevsky\\'s influence on shaping these doctrines, Adamsky\\'s expertise in analyzing Russian deterrence strategies, and the emphasis placed on information warfare and nonmilitary measures.\\n\\n## General Baluyevsky\\'s Influence on Russian Military Doctrine\\n\\nGeneral Baluyevsky is identified as a key figure in shaping Russian military doctrine. He authored both the 2010 and 2014 versions of the doctrine, which advocate for a multi-faceted approach to deterrence [Data: Relationships (336)]. This suggests that his strategic thinking has significantly influenced Russia\\'s defense and security posture.\\n\\n## Adamsky\\'s Expertise on Russian Deterrence\\n\\nDr. Adamsky is recognized as an expert on Russian nuclear deterrence doctrine. He analyzes doctrines like NGW (New Generation Warfare) and the Gerasimov Doctrine, describing Russian deterrence as having gone through three intellectual waves [Data: Entities (719)]. His insights provide valuable understanding of Russia\\'s strategic thinking regarding nuclear weapons.\\n\\n## Emphasis on Information Warfare in Russian Military Doctrine\\n\\nThe Russian military doctrine places significant importance on information warfare as a key element in modern conflicts [Data: Relationships (435)]. This highlights Russia\\'s recognition of the crucial role of information control and manipulation in achieving strategic objectives.\\n\\n## First-Use Policy Reiteration in 2014 Doctrine\\n\\nThe 2014 Russian military doctrine reconfirmed the first-use policy, indicating Russia\\'s willingness to potentially use nuclear weapons preemptively [Data: Relationships (439)]. However, it lacked a codified procedure for damage assessment, suggesting potential ambiguity in its implementation.\\n\\n## Importance of Nonmilitary Measures in Russian Strategy\\n\\nThe Russian Military Doctrine emphasizes the importance of nonmilitary measures alongside traditional military force in protecting national interests [Data: Relationships (438)]. This indicates a broader strategic approach that encompasses diplomacy, economic pressure, and other tools beyond direct military action.\"|8.5\\n59|Soviet Military Doctrine & Social Transformation|0.06832298136645963|\"# Soviet Military Doctrine & Social Transformation\\n\\nThis community focuses on Soviet military doctrine and its perceived necessity for social transformation. Key entities include \\'ARMED STRUGGLE\\', \\'SOVIET LEADERS\\', and \\'SOCIALISTIC TRANSFORMATION OF SOCIETY\\'.  Relationships highlight the belief that armed struggle was essential for achieving socialist goals.\\n\\n## Soviet Leaders Viewed Armed Struggle as Essential for Social Change\\n\\nData consistently portrays Soviet leaders as firmly believing that armed struggle was indispensable for achieving socialistic transformation.  [Data: Relationships (457)]. This belief is presented as a core tenet of their ideology, shaping their strategic thinking and actions. [Data: Relationships (721)].\\n\\n## Armed Struggle Was Seen as a Primary Means to Achieve Socialist Goals\\n\\nThe community emphasizes the centrality of armed struggle in achieving socialist objectives.  Soviet leaders viewed it not merely as a tactic but as the fundamental mechanism for societal transformation. [Data: Relationships (457)]. This suggests a willingness to use violence as a primary tool for political and social change.\\n\\n## Contactless Warfare Methods Were Considered Part of Armed Struggle\\n\\nWhile emphasizing traditional armed conflict, the community also acknowledges the importance of \\'CONTACTLESS METHOD\\' within the framework of armed struggle. [Data: Relationships (455)]. This indicates a recognition that modern warfare encompasses a range of tactics beyond direct engagement, potentially including cyberwarfare, economic sanctions, and propaganda.\\n\\n## Economic Disruption Was a Key Objective of Armed Struggle\\n\\nThe community highlights the objective of \\'DESTROYING THE ECONOMIC POTENTIAL\\' of targeted states as a central aim of armed struggle. [Data: Relationships (456)]. This suggests a focus on crippling an adversary\\'s economic capacity to weaken their ability to resist or sustain conflict.\\n\\n## Bogdanov\\'s Writings Outline Strategies for Armed Struggle\\n\\nThe community identifies \\'BOGDANOV\\' as a figure who outlines objectives and strategies for armed struggle. [Data: Relationships (275)]. This suggests the existence of specific individuals or groups within the Soviet system responsible for developing and disseminating doctrines related to armed conflict.\"|7.5\\n23|Military Doctrine Community|0.018633540372670808|\"# Military Doctrine Community\\n\\nThe Military Doctrine Community revolves around the concepts of war and military strategy, as evidenced by the 2000 Military Doctrine and its predecessor, the 1993 Doctrine. The Ministry of Defense plays a key role in shaping these doctrines, which influence the understanding of modern wars.\\n\\n## Ministry of Defense as Doctrine Creator\\n\\nThe Ministry of Defense is identified as the creator of the 2000 Military Doctrine [Data: Relationships (232)]. This suggests a significant role in shaping military strategy and potentially influencing national security policies.  Further investigation into the Ministry of Defense\\'s structure, goals, and influence would be crucial to understanding the full scope of its impact on this community.\\n\\n## Evolution of Military Doctrine\\n\\nThe 2000 Military Doctrine is presented as a successor to the 1993 Doctrine [Data: Relationships (434)]. This indicates an ongoing process of refining military strategy and adapting to changing global dynamics. Analyzing the specific changes between these doctrines could reveal insights into evolving threats, technological advancements, and strategic priorities.\\n\\n## Modern Wars as a Key Concept\\n\\nBoth the 2000 Military Doctrine and the 1993 Doctrine are linked to the concept of \\'Modern Wars\\' [Data: Relationships (433, 434)]. This suggests that the community views modern warfare as distinct from traditional conflicts, potentially emphasizing psychological, ideological, or technological aspects. Exploring the definition of \\'Modern Wars\\' within this context could shed light on the perceived nature of contemporary conflict.\"|7.5\\n',\n",
              " '\\n\\nid|title|occurrence weight|content|rank\\n47|Russian Security Concerns: Color Revolutions & Western Influence|0.5590062111801242|\"# Russian Security Concerns: Color Revolutions & Western Influence\\n\\nThis community focuses on Russian perceptions of threats, particularly concerning color revolutions and Western influence. It highlights how Russia views these phenomena as challenges to its security and stability, emphasizing the role of non-military means in shaping global power dynamics.\\n\\n## Russia views Color Revolutions as a significant threat to its security.\\n\\nMultiple data points indicate that Russia perceives color revolutions as a serious challenge to its stability and interests. The 2014 Military Doctrine explicitly identifies them as a domestic military danger [Data: MILITARY DOCTRINE (169)]. Russian military theorists have also widely adopted this view, recognizing the threat posed by non-military means of regime change [Data: RUSSIAN MILITARY THEORISTS (182)].  Analysts like Zarudnitsky further emphasize this point, arguing that color revolutions represent a novel type of military threat and signify a shift in global politics [Data: ZARUDNITSKY (165)]. This perception is deeply ingrained within the Russian leadership, shaping their understanding of international relations and security challenges. \\n\\n## Russia attributes Color Revolutions to Western influence.\\n\\nThe community strongly suggests that Russia believes Western actors are behind color revolutions.  This belief is evident in statements like \\'The US is accused of provoking color revolutions in other countries\\' [Data: COLOR REVOLUTIONS (3)] and \\'The EU is accused of provoking color revolutions in other countries\\' [Data: COLOR REVOLUTIONS (174)]. This perception reinforces Russia\\'s narrative of a West actively seeking to undermine its influence and stability. \\n\\n## Russia sees the West as engaging in an information war against it.\\n\\nThe community highlights Russia\\'s view of the West as a primary actor in an ongoing information war. This is evident in statements like \\'The West is identified as the main perpetrator of the information war against Russia\\' [Data: WEST (521)] and \\'Galeotti identifies the West as a source of perceived cultural pressure on Russia\\' [Data: GALEOTTI (496)].  This perception suggests that Russia sees Western media, diplomacy, and cultural influence as tools for undermining its legitimacy and shaping global narratives.\\n\\n## Russia emphasizes non-military means of power projection.\\n\\nThe community underscores Russia\\'s recognition of the importance of non-military means in international relations. This is reflected in statements like \\'According to Gerasimov\\'s theory, the West primarily uses nonmilitary and nonviolent force\\' [Data: WEST (520)] and \\'Color Revolutions challenge traditional notions of military power, highlighting the importance of non-military means\\' [Data: COLOR REVOLUTIONS (168)]. This suggests that Russia is adapting its security strategy to account for the growing influence of non-state actors and unconventional warfare tactics.\"|8.5\\n93|Russian Military Doctrine Community|0.4472049689440994|\"# Russian Military Doctrine Community\\n\\nThe Russian Military Doctrine Community centers around key figures like Gerasimov and Slipchenko, who contribute to military theory and doctrine development within institutions like the Academy of Military Science and the General Staff. This community emphasizes adaptive approaches to warfare, hybrid methods, and non-military means, reflecting a shift in strategic thinking.\\n\\n## Emphasis on Adaptive Approaches to Warfare\\n\\nGeneral Gerasimov\\'s concept of \\'adaptive use of force\\' is a central theme within this community. [Data: Entities (116, 133); Relationships (28)]. This approach advocates for flexible and adaptable strategies that integrate military and non-military means to achieve strategic objectives.  Gerasimov\\'s writings and speeches on this topic have been influential in shaping Russian military doctrine. [Data: Entities (119, 120, 123, 124, 125); Relationships (28)]. This emphasis on adaptability reflects a recognition of the evolving nature of warfare in the 21st century.\\n\\n## Hybrid Warfare as a Key Concept\\n\\nThe community strongly promotes the concept of \\'hybrid warfare,\\' which combines conventional military operations with non-military tactics such as cyberattacks, propaganda, and economic pressure. [Data: Entities (133); Relationships (28)]. Gerasimov\\'s definition of hybrid war is widely cited within this context. [Data: Entities (133)]. This concept highlights the blurring lines between traditional warfare and other forms of conflict, emphasizing the need for comprehensive strategies that address both military and non-military dimensions.\\n\\n## Influence on Russian Military Doctrine\\n\\nThe community\\'s ideas have directly influenced the development and evolution of Russian military doctrine. [Data: Entities (235); Relationships (23)]. The Security Council has been actively involved in shaping this doctrine, incorporating insights from key figures like Gerasimov. [Data: Entities (235)]. This influence underscores the community\\'s importance in shaping Russia\\'s strategic thinking and military posture.\\n\\n## Collaboration Between Academia and Practice\\n\\nThe community fosters close collaboration between academic institutions like the Academy of Military Science and practical military organizations like the General Staff. [Data: Entities (106, 109, 110); Relationships (21, 22)]. This exchange of ideas and expertise ensures that Russian military doctrine remains relevant and adaptable to contemporary challenges.  Individuals like Slipchenko, who hold positions within both academia and the military, play a crucial role in bridging this gap. [Data: Entities (109)]. \\n\\n## Focus on Non-Military Means\\n\\nThe community emphasizes the importance of non-military means in achieving strategic objectives. [Data: Entities (116); Relationships (28)]. Gerasimov\\'s writings highlight the use of \\'soft power,\\' economic pressure, and propaganda as essential tools in modern warfare. [Data: Entities (125); Relationships (28)]. This focus reflects a shift towards more multifaceted approaches to conflict, recognizing the limitations of purely military solutions.\"|8.5\\n97|Clausewitz & Marxist Military Thought|0.2732919254658385|\"# Clausewitz & Marxist Military Thought\\n\\nThis community centers around Carl von Clausewitz\\'s influential theory of war as a continuation of politics by violent means. It explores how various thinkers, including Lenin, Trotsky, Chekinov, Bogdanov, Kvachkov, Stalin, and Kirshin, engage with and critique Clausewitz\\'s ideas within the context of Marxist military thought.\\n\\n## Clausewitz\\'s definition of war is widely debated within the community.\\n\\nClausewitz\\'s famous dictum that \\'war is the continuation of politics by other means\\' is a central point of discussion. While some, like Trotsky, admire and agree with this view [Data: CLAUSEWITZ, TROTSKY], others, such as Kirshin, criticize it for being too narrow [Data: KIRSHIN, CLAUSEWITZ].  Kvachkov also criticizes Clausewitz\\'s definition for focusing too heavily on armed violence [Data: CLAUSEWITZ, WAR DEFINITION]. This debate highlights the ongoing relevance and complexity of defining war in a changing world.\\n\\n## Marxist thinkers offer diverse perspectives on Clausewitz\\'s work.\\n\\nThe community reveals a range of responses to Clausewitz from Marxist theorists. Trotsky, for example, found value in Clausewitz\\'s insights and incorporated them into his own understanding of war [Data: CLAUSEWITZ, TROTSKY].  Chekinov and Bogdanov acknowledge Clausewitz\\'s traditional perspective while presenting their own views on future warfare [Data: CHEKINOV & BOGDANOV, CLAUSEWITZ]. Stalin, conversely, argues that Lenin already utilized key aspects of Clausewitz within Marxist theory, suggesting a degree of continuity rather than complete rejection [Data: CLAUSEWITZ, STALIN]. This diversity demonstrates the multifaceted nature of Marxist engagement with Clausewitz\\'s ideas.\\n\\n## The nature of war is a recurring theme in the community.\\n\\nClausewitz believed that the fundamental nature of war remained constant [Data: CLAUSEWITZ, NATURE OF WAR]. However, other voices within the community, such as ov, suggest that the nature of war is evolving [Data: OV, NATURE OF WAR]. This tension between a perceived unchanging essence of war and its dynamic evolution reflects a key debate within military thought. The community\\'s exploration of this theme highlights the ongoing need to understand and adapt to the changing realities of conflict.\\n\\n## The relationship between politics and war is central to the community\\'s discourse.\\n\\nClausewitz\\'s core argument, that war is an extension of politics, serves as a foundational concept for many discussions within the community. Byely et al. explicitly draw a distinction between Clausewitz\\'s and Lenin\\'s views on war, emphasizing their differing perspectives on this crucial relationship [Data: CLAUSEWITZ, BYELY ET AL.]. This focus on the interconnectedness of politics and war underscores the importance of understanding the broader context in which military conflicts arise and unfold.\\n\\n## The community demonstrates the enduring influence of Clausewitz\\'s work.\\n\\nDespite being written over two centuries ago, Clausewitz\\'s ideas continue to resonate within contemporary military thought. His work is referenced and debated by a diverse range of thinkers, from Marxist theorists to modern military strategists. This ongoing engagement with Clausewitz\\'s legacy highlights the enduring power and relevance of his insights into the nature of war.\"|7.5\\n107|Soviet Military Thought Community|0.062111801242236024|\"# Soviet Military Thought Community\\n\\nThis community centers around Soviet military theorist Vasily Sokolovsky and his influential work, \\'Voyennaya Strategiya\\'.  Sokolovsky\\'s writings define war narrowly as armed violence used to achieve political objectives. His ideas were highly influential within the Soviet Union.\\n\\n## Sokolovsky\\'s Narrow Definition of War\\n\\nVasily Sokolovsky, a prominent figure in this community, holds a specific view of war. He defines it solely as armed violence employed between groups to achieve political goals. This narrow definition contrasts with broader interpretations that encompass other aspects like economic or ideological conflict. [Data: Entities (41)]\\nSokolovsky\\'s work \\'Voyennaya Strategiya\\' elaborates on this concept, refuting claims about the nature of war that extend beyond armed violence. [Data: Relationships (192)]\\n\\n## Influence within the Soviet Union\\n\\nSokolovsky\\'s writings served as authoritative sources for understanding the Soviet perspective on war during his time. His ideas were influential in shaping military doctrine and policy within the Soviet Union. [Data: Relationships (72)]\\nThis suggests that the community had a direct impact on the internal workings of the Soviet state, influencing its approach to conflict and international relations.\\n\\n## Emphasis on Subordination of Military Strategy to Policy\\n\\nSokolovsky strongly emphasizes the principle of complete subordination of military strategy to policy. He argues against the notion that war has become independent of political objectives, rejecting claims that it has evolved into a separate sphere. [Data: Entities (41)]\\nThis indicates a focus on strategic coherence between military actions and broader political goals within the Soviet Union.\\n\\n## Nuclear Weapons and the Nature of War\\n\\nWhile acknowledging that nuclear weapons represent a significant change in warfare, Sokolovsky maintains that they do not fundamentally alter the nature of war. He disagrees with those who argue for a complete shift in the definition of war due to nuclear capabilities. [Data: Entities (41)]\\nThis suggests a perspective within the community that views nuclear weapons as a powerful tool within the existing framework of war, rather than a paradigm shift.\\n\\n## Limited Scope of \\'Voyennaya Strategiya\\'\\n\\n\\'Voyennaya Strategiya\\' focuses primarily on defining and analyzing war within the context of armed violence. It does not appear to delve extensively into other aspects of warfare, such as logistics, intelligence, or diplomacy. [Data: Entities (45)]\\nThis suggests a specific focus within the community on the core elements of military conflict.\"|7.5\\n55|Foreign Policy Concept & Economic Factors|0.006211180124223602|\"# Foreign Policy Concept & Economic Factors\\n\\nThis community centers around the Foreign Policy Concept of 2000, which emphasizes economic factors in international relations. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs outlines this concept. \\n\\n## Importance of Economic Factors\\n\\nThe Foreign Policy Concept of 2000 highlights the significance of economic factors in shaping international relations. This concept suggests that economic considerations are crucial for countries to achieve their foreign policy objectives.  [Data: Relationships (650)]\\n\\n## Ministry of Foreign Affairs\\' Role\\n\\nThe Ministry of Foreign Affairs is responsible for outlining and implementing the Foreign Policy Concept of 2000. This indicates that the ministry plays a central role in shaping the country\\'s approach to international relations. [Data: Relationships (238)]\"|6.5\\n',\n",
              " '\\n\\nid|title|occurrence weight|content|rank\\n50|Russian Military Thought Community|0.18012422360248448|\"# Russian Military Thought Community\\n\\nThis community centers around Russian military theorists and their ideas about future warfare, emphasizing non-military means like propaganda and economic destruction. Key figures include Bogdanov, Chekinov, and Slipchenko, who share perspectives on the nature of future conflict and its strategies. Their work has influenced official documents like the National Security Concept.\\n\\n## Emphasis on Non-Military Warfare\\n\\nThis community places significant emphasis on non-military means of warfare, particularly propaganda and information operations. This is evident in the work of Chekinov, who builds upon Gerasimov\\'s ideas about non-military means, focusing specifically on these areas [Data: Entities (30)]. Bogdanov also shares this perspective, arguing for the importance of Information Superiority in achieving victory in Future War [Data: Entities (279)]. This shift towards non-military tactics suggests a potential evolution in Russian military strategy, emphasizing influence and disruption over traditional kinetic warfare.\\n\\n## Shared Vision of Future Warfare\\n\\nMembers of this community, particularly Bogdanov and Slipchenko, share a similar vision of future warfare characterized by \\'contactless\\' methods and economic destruction [Data: Entities (27)]. Bogdanov outlines his concept of Future War extensively, emphasizing these strategies [Data: Entities (274)]. This shared understanding suggests a cohesive school of thought within the Russian military regarding the nature of future conflicts. Their emphasis on economic warfare could have significant implications for global stability and international relations.\\n\\n## Influence on Official Doctrine\\n\\nThe ideas espoused by this community have demonstrably influenced official Russian military doctrine. Bogdanov\\'s work was influential in the debate surrounding the National Security Concept in the 2010s [Data: Entities (243)]. This suggests a direct link between academic thought and policy decisions within Russia, highlighting the importance of understanding these theoretical frameworks to anticipate future military actions.\\n\\n## Close Professional Relationships\\n\\nThere are strong indications of close professional relationships within this community. Chekinov and Bogdanov have co-authored multiple articles together, including one discussing modern warfare and another advocating for nonmilitary solutions over military ones [Data: Entities (271)]. This collaboration suggests a shared intellectual space and a willingness to exchange ideas and influence each other\\'s work.\\n\\n## Focus on Information Warfare\\n\\nThis community places significant emphasis on the role of information warfare in future conflicts. Chekinov and Bogdanov both recognize the importance of propaganda and information operations [Data: Entities (30, 279)]. This focus aligns with broader trends in global military strategy, where control over information is increasingly seen as a critical advantage.\"|8.5\\n56|Russian Foreign Policy Community|0.13664596273291926|\"# Russian Foreign Policy Community\\n\\nThe Russian Foreign Policy Community centers around the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which develops and publishes key documents like the Foreign Policy Concept. This concept outlines Russia\\'s approach to global security, values, and the use of \\'soft power\\'. Lavrov, associated with the Ministry, likely plays a significant role in shaping these policies.\\n\\n## The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the central entity in shaping Russian foreign policy.\\n\\nThe Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) emerges as a dominant force in the community. It is responsible for producing crucial documents like the Foreign Policy Concept [Data: Entities (236, 237, 238, 239); Relationships (240)]. This concept outlines Russia\\'s strategic goals and approach to global challenges [Data: Entities (248), Relationships (268)]. The MFA also oversees the publication of these documents, ensuring their dissemination and influence [Data: Entities (236)].  Furthermore, Lavrov, associated with the MFA [Data: Entities (240)], likely holds significant sway in shaping these policies. \\n\\n## The Foreign Policy Concept is a key document outlining Russia\\'s foreign policy objectives.\\n\\nThe Foreign Policy Concept serves as a foundational document for understanding Russia\\'s approach to international relations [Data: Entities (248), Relationships (268)]. It identifies perceived security challenges and outlines strategies to address them [Data: Entities (248), Relationships (268)]. The concept also highlights the importance of \\'soft power\\' as a tool for political influence [Data: Entities (163, 267), Relationships (268)]. Additionally, it emphasizes the clashing values and models of development between Russia and other nations, particularly those based on democracy and market economies [Data: Entities (267)]. The document also expresses concerns about new types of weapons eroding global security architecture [Data: Entities (269)]. \\n\\n## \\'Soft power\\' is presented as a tool for achieving Russia\\'s foreign policy objectives.\\n\\nThe Foreign Policy Concept explicitly mentions \\'soft power\\' as a strategy employed by Russia to achieve its goals [Data: Entities (163, 267), Relationships (268)].  Syria and Libya are cited as examples where \\'soft power\\' was allegedly used to influence political situations [Data: Entities (163, 267)]. This suggests that Russia views \\'soft power\\' as a valuable asset in its foreign policy toolkit.\\n\\n## Russia perceives a clash of values with the West.\\n\\nThe Foreign Policy Concept identifies a fundamental difference between Russia\\'s values and those espoused by Western nations, particularly regarding democracy and market economies [Data: Entities (267)]. This suggests that Russia sees these values as incompatible with its own worldview and potentially threatening to its interests.\"|8.5\\n19|Russia\\'s Information Warfare Strategy|0.09937888198757763|\"# Russia\\'s Information Warfare Strategy\\n\\nThis community outlines Russia\\'s approach to informational struggle, emphasizing its multifaceted nature encompassing digital-technological and cognitive-psychological dimensions. It highlights Russia\\'s focus on influencing adversary perception, decision-making, and behavior through targeted information campaigns and reflexive control strategies.\\n\\n## Russia views informational struggle as a key domain of conflict.\\n\\nThe community emphasizes Russia\\'s recognition of informational struggle as a crucial battleground in modern warfare. This is evident in the description of \\'ADVERSARY\\' and how Russia aims to influence their perception, decision-making, and behavior through cross-domain coercion [Data: Relationships (52)].  Russia considers various targets based on their strategic significance and collateral effects in potential conflicts [Data: Relationships (15)]. \\n\\n## Russia employs a multi-faceted approach to informational struggle.\\n\\nThe community highlights the dual nature of Russia\\'s informational warfare strategy, encompassing both digital-technological and cognitive-psychological components. This suggests a comprehensive approach that leverages technology alongside psychological manipulation to achieve its objectives [Data: Relationships (514)].  Russia aims to misinform, manipulate, and influence the adversary\\'s reality to achieve strategic goals [Data: Relationships (514)].\\n\\n## Reflexive control is a key tactic in Russia\\'s informational warfare.\\n\\nThe community identifies \\'REFLEXIVE CONTROL\\' as a strategy employed by Russia to manipulate the adversary\\'s perception of reality. This involves carefully tailoring information to guide the adversary\\'s decision-making and force them to act according to a false reality [Data: Relationships (515)]. Reflexive control aims to manipulate the adversary\\'s perception of reality for strategic advantage [Data: Relationships (515)].\\n\\n## Military writings provide guidance on target selection in informational warfare.\\n\\nThe community acknowledges the importance of \\'MILITARY WRITINGS\\' in outlining strategies and tactics for informational warfare. These documents offer insights into how to effectively choose targets during conflict, suggesting a structured approach to Russia\\'s information operations [Data: Relationships (580)].\"|8.5\\n87|Russian Military Doctrine & Gulf War Influence|0.08074534161490683|\"# Russian Military Doctrine & Gulf War Influence\\n\\nThis community explores the impact of the Gulf War on Russian military thinking, particularly focusing on the rise of network-centric warfare and the role of information technologies in modern conflict. Key entities include the US Military, the Gulf War itself, and prominent Russian theorists like Slipchenko.\\n\\n## The Gulf War served as a wake-up call for Russian military theorists.\\n\\nThe decisive US victory in the Gulf War, achieved through technological superiority and innovative tactics, exposed the limitations of traditional Soviet military doctrines. This defeat shocked Russian theorists who witnessed firsthand the effectiveness of advanced weaponry and information-based warfare against numerically larger armies relying on conventional strategies. [Data: Relationships (664), Entities (288)]\\n\\n## Network-centric warfare emerged as a key area of study for Russia.\\n\\nThe Gulf War\\'s emphasis on information sharing, real-time intelligence, and coordinated operations sparked interest in network-centric warfare (NCW) within Russian military circles.  Analysts began studying the US Military\\'s MTR/RMA doctrine, later known as NCW, seeking to understand its principles and potential applications for Russia. [Data: Relationships (288), Entities (664)]\\n\\n## Information technologies were recognized as a crucial weapon.\\n\\nThe Gulf War demonstrated the transformative power of information technologies in warfare, showcasing their use for intelligence gathering, target identification, and communication. This realization led Russian theorists to prioritize the development and integration of information technologies into their military strategies. [Data: Relationships (663)]\\n\\n## The US Military\\'s approach to warfare became a point of comparison.\\n\\nRussian military analysts extensively compared and contrasted the strategies employed by the US Military during the Gulf War with their own doctrines. This comparative analysis aimed to identify strengths and weaknesses, ultimately seeking to adapt and evolve Russian military thinking in response to the changing nature of warfare. [Data: Entities (2), Relationships (53)]\\n\\n## The impact of the Gulf War continues to shape Russian military doctrine today.\\n\\nWhile Russia has developed its own unique approaches to warfare, the lessons learned from the Gulf War continue to influence their strategic thinking. The emphasis on technological advancement, information dominance, and network-centric operations remains a central theme in contemporary Russian military doctrine. [Data: Relationships (249)]\"|7.5\\n100|Gorbunov & Bogdanov\\'s Framework on 21st Century Conflict|0.062111801242236024|\"# Gorbunov & Bogdanov\\'s Framework on 21st Century Conflict\\n\\nThis community centers around the research of Gorbunov and Bogdanov, who analyze modern conflict in the 21st century. Their work highlights the evolving nature of war, emphasizing non-military strategies like information warfare alongside traditional military tactics. They draw inspiration from Sun Tzu\\'s military philosophy and their ideas appear to have influenced prominent figures like Putin.\\n\\n## Gorbunov & Bogdanov\\'s Framework Emphasizes Non-Military Conflict\\n\\nGorbunov and Bogdanov\\'s research highlights a shift in the nature of conflict towards non-military approaches. They argue that information warfare, economic pressure, and other non-traditional tactics are increasingly important alongside traditional military strategies. [Data: STUDY (1), GORBUNOV AND BOGDANOV (687)] This suggests a move away from purely kinetic warfare and towards a more multifaceted approach to conflict in the 21st century.\\n\\n## Sun Tzu\\'s Influence on Modern Conflict Analysis\\n\\nGorbunov and Bogdanov explicitly draw upon Sun Tzu\\'s military philosophy in their study of armed confrontation. [Data: GORBUNOV AND BOGDANOV (369)] This indicates a continued relevance of ancient strategic thinking in understanding contemporary conflicts.  Sun Tzu\\'s emphasis on strategy, deception, and adaptability likely resonates with the complexities of modern warfare.\\n\\n## Putin\\'s Views Align with Gorbunov & Bogdanov\\'s Framework\\n\\nThere is evidence suggesting that Putin\\'s views on conflict align with the writings of Gorbunov and Bogdanov. [Data: PUTIN (405)] This could indicate that their research has influenced political decision-making at a high level.  Further investigation would be needed to determine the specific extent of this influence.\\n\\n## Information Warfare as a Key Element in 21st Century Conflict\\n\\nGorbunov and Bogdanov emphasize information warfare as a crucial aspect of modern conflict. [Data: GORBUNOV AND BOGDANOV (687)] They argue that states can be weakened through non-military means such as propaganda, cyberattacks, and the manipulation of public opinion. This highlights the growing importance of information control and strategic communication in contemporary conflicts.\"|8.5\\n18|Russian Political Landscape: NGO Law & Opposition|0.018633540372670808|\"# Russian Political Landscape: NGO Law & Opposition\\n\\nThis report analyzes the Russian political landscape focusing on the impact of the NGO law and its relationship with key figures like Valery Galchenko and Putin. The data reveals a tightening grip on civil society organizations, potentially limiting dissent and foreign influence.\\n\\n## NGO Law as a Tool for Control\\n\\nThe NGO law introduced in Russia (Data: Relationships (13)) is presented as a tool to regulate foreign influence and maintain national unity. This suggests a deliberate effort by the Russian government to control civil society organizations and limit their activities. [Data: Entities (700)] The law\\'s impact on NGOs has been significant, severely restricting their ability to operate within Russia. [Data: Entities (700)]\\n\\n## Valery Galchenko\\'s Role in Limiting NGO Activity\\n\\nValery Galchenko, a Duma deputy, co-authored the NGO law and viewed NGOs as detrimental to the Russian state (Data: Entities (701)). This highlights his active role in shaping legislation that restricts civil society. [Data: Relationships (669)] His stance suggests a strong belief in centralized control and a potential threat to dissenting voices within Russia.\\n\\n## Shift in Putin\\'s Approach After NGO Law\\n\\nThe adoption of the NGO law in 2005 marked a shift in Putin and Surkov\\'s approach (Data: Relationships (407)). This implies that the law was a deliberate policy decision aimed at consolidating power and controlling dissent. The specific nature of this shift remains unclear from the provided data.\"|8.5\\n',\n",
              " '\\n\\nid|title|occurrence weight|content|rank\\n83|Putin-Surkov Network: Russian Influence Operations|0.30434782608695654|\"# Putin-Surkov Network: Russian Influence Operations\\n\\nThis community centers around Vladimir Putin and Vladislav Surkov, key figures in Russian leadership. It highlights their roles in shaping Russia\\'s foreign policy, particularly concerning NGOs and information warfare. The network reveals a strategy of portraying Western influence as manipulative and utilizing information technology for political gain.\\n\\n## Putin Views Revolutions as Externally Orchestrated\\n\\nVladimir Putin believes that revolutions are not organic movements but rather orchestrated by external forces, primarily NGOs funded by Western governments. This belief is evident in his statements at the Moscow Conference on International Security (MCIS) [Data: Entities (8, 397)] and his article \\'Byt silnymi: Garantii natsionalnoy bezopasnosti dlya Rossii\\' [Data: Entities (400)]. He sees NGOs as tools for destabilizing countries and undermining Russian interests. This perspective shapes Russia\\'s approach to international affairs, leading to a heightened focus on countering perceived Western influence.\\n\\n## Surkov is Putin\\'s Key Advisor on Information Warfare\\n\\nVladislav Surkov, a close associate of Putin, plays a crucial role in shaping Russia\\'s information warfare strategy. The community highlights their collaborative efforts in addressing NGOs and foreign interference [Data: Entities (8, 407)].  Surkov is identified as part of the Russian leadership alongside Putin [Data: Entities (8)], suggesting his significant influence on policy decisions. This partnership underscores the importance of information control and manipulation in achieving Russia\\'s geopolitical objectives.\\n\\n## Putin Emphasizes Information Technology in Modern Warfare\\n\\nVladimir Putin recognizes the transformative role of information technology in modern warfare, placing it on par with traditional military means [Data: Entities (404)]. This understanding is reflected in his statements about the importance of controlling narratives and influencing public opinion. He views information as a powerful weapon that can be used to shape perceptions, sow discord, and achieve strategic goals. This emphasis on information technology highlights Russia\\'s commitment to adapting its military doctrine to the evolving nature of conflict.\\n\\n## Putin Views Western Intervention in Libya as a Threat\\n\\nThe community reveals a disagreement between Putin and Dmitry Medvedev regarding the Western intervention in Libya [Data: Entities (410)]. This rift within Russian leadership indicates concerns about Western involvement in regional conflicts. Putin\\'s stance suggests a preference for non-interference in other countries\\' affairs, unless it directly threatens Russia\\'s interests. This perspective aligns with Russia\\'s broader foreign policy goals of maintaining its sphere of influence and resisting perceived Western encroachment.\\n\\n## Putin Uses Information Warfare to Influence Values and Culture\\n\\nVladimir Putin believes that information warfare can be used to manipulate values and culture, shaping societal norms and beliefs [Data: Entities (402)]. This understanding underscores Russia\\'s commitment to using propaganda and disinformation campaigns to achieve its political objectives. By influencing public opinion and perceptions, Russia aims to undermine Western influence and promote its own agenda.\"|9.0\\n45|Russian Military & The Arab Spring|0.21739130434782608|\"# Russian Military & The Arab Spring\\n\\nThis community explores the Russian military\\'s perspective on the Arab Spring and its implications for warfare doctrine. Key entities include figures like Gareyev, Gerasimov, Chekinov, and Bogdanov, who view the Arab Spring as a paradigm shift in conflict, influencing modern military strategy and potentially inspiring domestic unrest.\\n\\n## The Arab Spring is viewed as a new type of warfare.\\n\\nSeveral figures within the Russian military establishment, including Gerasimov and Chekinov & Bogdanov, see the Arab Spring uprisings as indicative of a new era in warfare. [Data: Military Doctrine (142), CHEKINOV & BOGDANOV (137), ARAB SPRING (140)]. This perspective suggests that traditional military confrontations are being replaced by more complex and decentralized conflicts involving non-state actors, social media, and popular uprisings.  This shift in thinking has implications for how Russia prepares for and engages in future conflicts.\\n\\n## The Arab Spring is seen as a potential model for future conflict.\\n\\nGareyev believes that disruptive technologies employed by the West during the Arab Spring are a key factor in shaping modern warfare. [Data: ARAB SPRING (41)]. This suggests that Russia views Western involvement in these uprisings as a strategic threat and is analyzing the tactics used to potentially counter them in future conflicts.  Furthermore, Gerasimov\\'s argument that Arab Spring-style revolts could become the typical war in the 21st century [Data: ARAB SPRING (127)] indicates a serious concern within the Russian military about the potential for widespread instability and conflict fueled by popular uprisings.\\n\\n## The Arab Spring influenced Russian domestic politics.\\n\\nThe protests during the Russian elections of 2011-12 were partly influenced by events in the Arab Spring. [Data: ARAB SPRING (143), RUSSIAN ELECTIONS OF 2011-12 (144)]. This suggests that the Arab Spring served as a catalyst for domestic dissent and highlighted the potential for similar uprisings within Russia. The Russian government likely took note of these events and may have adjusted its policies and strategies to prevent or manage future unrest.\\n\\n## The Arab Spring is linked to Color Revolutions.\\n\\nBoth the Arab Spring and the Color Revolutions are interconnected concepts. While the Arab Spring was initially seen as a series of successful nonviolent uprisings, aligning with the typical characteristics of Color Revolutions, it also witnessed significant violence in various countries. [Data: ARAB SPRING (136)]. This complex nature highlights the diverse trajectories these revolutions can take and suggests that Russia is closely monitoring these movements for potential inspiration or application within its own sphere of influence.\\n\\n## The U.S. role in the Arab Spring is a point of contention.\\n\\nThere are claims that the U.S. instigated events perceived as successful \\'color revolutions\\' like the Arab Spring. [Data: ARAB SPRING (141)]. This suggests that Russia views the U.S. as actively involved in destabilizing regions and promoting regime change through covert operations. Such a perspective could further fuel tensions between the two countries and contribute to a more adversarial relationship.\"|7.5\\n66|Russian Military Doctrine & Coercion|0.055900621118012424|\"# Russian Military Doctrine & Coercion\\n\\nThis community explores Russian military discourse and concepts, focusing on strategic deterrence, demonstration phases, and cross-domain coercion as key tactics. It highlights the integration of military and non-military actions in achieving deterrence objectives.\\n\\n## Strategic Deterrence is a Core Concept in Russian Military Thought\\n\\nThe term \\'strategic deterrence\\' holds considerable weight within Russian military discourse. While it appears in the Russian military dictionary, its usage is not widespread. [Data: Relationships (645)]. This suggests that while the concept is recognized, it might not be as central to everyday operational discussions compared to other doctrines.  However, the relationship between \\'strategic deterrence\\' and \\'demonstration phase\\' indicates its importance as a strategic goal. [Data: Relationships (646)] The demonstration phase serves as a tactic to achieve strategic deterrence, implying that Russia views this concept as crucial for shaping international relations and preventing conflict escalation.\\n\\n## Demonstration Phase Utilizes Limited Military Force\\n\\nThe \\'demonstration phase\\' is presented as a critical stage in achieving strategic deterrence. [Data: Relationships (646)] It involves both military and non-military actions aimed at deterring potential adversaries before active warfighting commences. [Data: Entities (1016)].  Furthermore, the relationship between \\'demonstration phase\\' and \\'limited employment of military force\\' highlights a specific tactic employed during this phase. [Data: Relationships (716)] This suggests that Russia seeks to project strength and resolve through measured military actions, aiming to dissuade adversaries without resorting to full-scale conflict.\\n\\n## Cross-Domain Coercion Encompasses Diverse Tactics\\n\\nThe concept of \\'cross-domain coercion\\' emerges as a significant element within Russian discourse. [Data: Relationships (184)] It bridges the gap between Russian military terminology and Western understanding, suggesting an attempt to articulate a comprehensive approach to influence beyond traditional military means.  [Data: Entities (843)]. The relationship between \\'strategic deterrence\\' and \\'cross-domain coercion\\' indicates that the latter can be viewed as a specific manifestation of the former. [Data: Relationships (647)] This implies that Russia seeks to exert pressure across various domains, including political, economic, and informational, to achieve its strategic objectives.\"|8.0\\n35|Soviet Military Thought Community|0.049689440993788817|\"# Soviet Military Thought Community\\n\\nThe Soviet Military Thought community centers around the Academy of the General Staff, a prestigious institution within the Soviet Armed Forces. Key figures include OV, commandant of the Academy, and Maj. Gen. Sergei Kuralenko, a military expert associated with the Academy.  Their discourse reflects both traditional views on warfare and an awareness of its evolution due to long-range capabilities.\\n\\n## OV is a prominent figure within the Soviet Military Thought community.\\n\\nOV holds the position of commandant at the Academy of the General Staff [Data: Relationships (320)]. This indicates a high level of authority and influence within the military establishment. OV\\'s speeches align with the established viewpoints of the General Staff [Data: Relationships (321)], suggesting a strong connection between the individual and the institution\\'s official doctrine. Additionally, OV is recognized as an author or organization that published a work in 2009 [Data: Entities (75)]. This further highlights OV\\'s role as a thought leader within the community.\\n\\n## The Academy of the General Staff plays a central role in shaping Soviet military thought.\\n\\nThe Academy of the General Staff is described as a prestigious institution within the Soviet Armed Forces [Data: Entities (76)]. It serves as a hub for developing and sharing military expertise, holding a high position of importance within the force structure. The fact that Kuralenko worked at the Academy as the chief of military art further emphasizes its significance in shaping military doctrine [Data: Relationships (323)].  The Academy\\'s influence extends beyond internal circles, as OV\\'s speech aligns with the confirmation of existing viewpoints by the General Staff [Data: Relationships (321)], indicating a direct link between the institution and high-level military discourse.\\n\\n## Maj. Gen. Sergei Kuralenko is a recognized expert on modern warfare within the community.\\n\\nMaj. Gen. Sergei Kuralenko is described as a military expert who recognizes the significant shift in warfare tactics brought about by long-range capabilities [Data: Entities (997)]. He highlights the fundamental changes this technology has introduced to warfare, emphasizing the crucial roles of information superiority, special operations, and electronic warfare in modern conflict. His association with the Academy of the General Staff [Data: Relationships (323)] suggests that his expertise is widely respected within the community.\\n\\n## The Soviet Military Thought community acknowledges the evolving nature of warfare.\\n\\nOV\\'s speech reflects the changing nature of war [Data: Relationships (322)], indicating an awareness of the impact of new technologies and tactics on military strategy. Maj. Gen. Sergei Kuralenko also emphasizes this shift, highlighting the fundamental changes brought about by long-range capabilities [Data: Entities (997)]. This suggests that the community is actively engaged in adapting its understanding of warfare to the contemporary landscape.\"|7.5\\n88|Post-Russo-Georgian War Reforms in Russia|0.018633540372670808|\"# Post-Russo-Georgian War Reforms in Russia\\n\\nThis community focuses on the impact of the Russo-Georgian War on Russia, highlighting the subsequent New Look reforms implemented by the Russian Federation. The war\\'s influence is evident in the reforms\\' initiation and their focus on strengthening the Russian Armed Forces.\\n\\n## The Russo-Georgian War as a Catalyst for Change\\n\\nThe Russo-Georgian War of 2008 served as a pivotal event that triggered significant changes within Russia.  [Data: Entities (1332); Relationships (750)] This conflict exposed vulnerabilities in the Russian Armed Forces and prompted a reassessment of national security priorities.\\n\\n## New Look Reforms: A Response to Wartime Challenges\\n\\nThe New Look reforms, initiated in 2009 following the Russo-Georgian War, aimed to address the weaknesses revealed during the conflict. [Data: Entities (1333); Relationships (750)] These reforms focused on modernizing and strengthening the Russian Armed Forces, reflecting a renewed emphasis on military capabilities.\\n\\n## Impact on Russian Domestic Policy\\n\\nThe Russo-Georgian War had a profound impact on Russia\\'s domestic policy landscape. [Data: Entities (1332)] The conflict heightened nationalistic sentiments and led to increased government control over various aspects of society.\\n\\n## Foreign Policy Implications\\n\\nThe war significantly shaped Russia\\'s foreign policy trajectory. [Data: Entities (1332)] It resulted in a more assertive stance on the international stage and strained relations with Western countries.\"|7.5\\n',\n",
              " '\\n\\nid|title|occurrence weight|content|rank\\n103|Soviet Union\\'s View on War|0.018633540372670808|\"# Soviet Union\\'s View on War\\n\\nThis report analyzes the Soviet Union\\'s perspective on war, drawing from the book \\'Marksizm-Leninizm o voine i armii\\'. The analysis reveals that the Soviet Union believed in the legitimacy of certain wars, particularly those defending socialist countries or national liberation struggles.  The report highlights the influence of Marxist-Leninist ideology on Soviet military thought.\\n\\n## Soviet Justification for War\\n\\nThe Soviet Union believed that certain types of wars were justified, specifically those aimed at defending socialist countries or supporting national liberation movements. This belief stemmed from their Marxist-Leninist ideology, which viewed class struggle as a fundamental aspect of history and saw imperialism as a threat to the global working class. [Data: Relationships (64)]\\nThe Soviet Union\\'s stance on war was not solely based on ideological considerations. They also acknowledged the potential for non-nuclear combat strategies following NATO\\'s strategic shift, indicating a pragmatic approach to military planning. [Data: Relationships (432)]\\n\\n## Influence of Marxist-Leninist Ideology\\n\\nThe book \\'Marksizm-Leninizm o voine i armii\\' serves as a key source for understanding the Soviet Union\\'s perspective on war, revealing the profound influence of Marxist-Leninist ideology. The text argues that just wars of liberation are a legitimate response to violence from exploiters, invaders, or colonialists, reflecting the Soviet Union\\'s commitment to anti-imperialism and support for revolutionary movements worldwide. [Data: Relationships (432)]\"|7.5\\n37|Russian Military & Warfare Perspectives|0.018633540372670808|\"# Russian Military & Warfare Perspectives\\n\\nThis community explores differing viewpoints on modern warfare within Russia, primarily focusing on academics and authors. Sergei Brezkun, a professor at the Academy of Military Science, challenges Bruntalsky and Maltsev\\'s perspectives, arguing for a continued reliance on classical warfare principles. Bruntalsky and Maltsev, on the other hand, propose that modern warfare has evolved beyond solely armed violence.\\n\\n## Contrasting Views on Modern Warfare\\n\\nThis community highlights a divergence of opinion regarding the nature of modern warfare. Sergei Brezkun, representing the Academy of Military Science, posits that traditional military principles remain central to contemporary conflict [Data: Relationships (107)]. Conversely, Bruntalsky and Maltsev, both authors, contend that modern warfare has transcended its reliance on solely armed violence [Data: Relationships (103, 105)], suggesting a broader understanding of conflict dynamics. This contrasting perspective reflects the ongoing debate within Russia about the evolving nature of war.\\n\\n## Influence of Academic & Authorial Perspectives\\n\\nThe community demonstrates the influence of both academic and authorial perspectives on shaping understandings of modern warfare. Sergei Brezkun, as a professor at the Academy of Military Science [Data: Relationships (106)], brings institutional weight to his argument. Bruntalsky and Maltsev, as authors, contribute their insights through published works, potentially reaching a wider audience. This interplay between academic rigor and public discourse highlights the multifaceted nature of understanding contemporary conflict.\\n\\n## Alignment Between Bruntalsky & Maltsev\\n\\nBruntalsky and Maltsev exhibit a clear alignment in their views on modern warfare [Data: Relationships (104)]. Both authors propose that the nature of war has evolved beyond traditional conceptions, suggesting a shared understanding of the complexities of contemporary conflict. This convergence of perspectives strengthens their arguments and underscores the potential for broader acceptance of their viewpoints within intellectual circles.\"|6.5\\n73|URSS Publishing Community|0.012422360248447204|\"# URSS Publishing Community\\n\\nThe URSS Publishing Community centers around the publishing house URSS, which published the document \\'K Novoi Redaktsii Voennoi Doktriny\\'. The document was published in Moscow.\\n\\n## URSS is the central entity\\n\\nURSS is identified as a publishing house responsible for producing \\'K Novoi Redaktsii Voennoi Doktriny\\'. This suggests URSS plays a key role in disseminating information within this community.  [Data: Entities (96); Relationships (376)]\\n\\n## Publication event is significant\\n\\n\\'K Novoi Redaktsii Voennoi Doktriny\\' is described as a publication event, indicating the importance of this document within the community. The title suggests it deals with military doctrine and its revision. [Data: Entities (1193)]\\n\\n## Moscow is a key location\\n\\nThe publication of \\'K Novoi Redaktsii Voennoi Doktriny\\' took place in Moscow, suggesting the city holds significance for this community. [Data: Relationships (374)]\"|3.0\\n']"
            ]
          },
          "execution_count": 21,
          "metadata": {},
          "output_type": "execute_result"
        }
      ],
      "source": [
        "# generated context text\n",
        "result.context_text"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": null,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {
          "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/",
          "height": 53
        },
        "id": "vMwaZaaCTM1x",
        "outputId": "d1ca90ff-b3ae-4467-9c71-3ec6d9f83a53"
      },
      "outputs": [
        {
          "data": {
            "application/vnd.google.colaboratory.intrinsic+json": {
              "type": "string"
            },
            "text/plain": [
              "'What are the major policy implications discussed in the conclusion of the book?'"
            ]
          },
          "execution_count": 24,
          "metadata": {},
          "output_type": "execute_result"
        }
      ],
      "source": [
        "question"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": null,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {
          "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/",
          "height": 53
        },
        "id": "p1PpfEbrTKd9",
        "outputId": "4650104d-67af-4ace-809d-bce50ba7a10f"
      },
      "outputs": [
        {
          "data": {
            "application/vnd.google.colaboratory.intrinsic+json": {
              "type": "string"
            },
            "text/plain": [
              "'I am sorry but I am unable to answer this question given the provided data.'"
            ]
          },
          "execution_count": 23,
          "metadata": {},
          "output_type": "execute_result"
        }
      ],
      "source": [
        "result.response"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "metadata": {
    "accelerator": "GPU",
    "colab": {
      "gpuType": "T4",
      "provenance": []
    },
    "kernelspec": {
      "display_name": "Python 3",
      "name": "python3"
    },
    "language_info": {
      "name": "python"
    }
  },
  "nbformat": 4,
  "nbformat_minor": 0
}