The Information Age of Warfare Has Arrived

71 posts / 0 new
Last post
ikosmos ikosmos's picture
The Information Age of Warfare Has Arrived

The Panama Papers has got me thinking about the Information Age of Warfare. This is just a title right now. More to follow.

 

Issues Pages: 
Webgear

Depends on what you considered "Information Age of Warfare", I would suggest there hasn't been a change in several hundred if not thousands of years. Information has always been used to drive, control and support the reasons and conduct of warfare since the first day man started fighting himself and others.

Technology has increase the flow of information however the basic concepts are still the same now as it was during the Punic Wars 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Webgear wrote:
Depends on what you considered "Information Age of Warfare", I would suggest there hasn't been a change in several hundred if not thousands of years. Information has always been used to drive, control and support the reasons and conduct of warfare since the first day man started fighting himself and others.

Technology has increase the flow of information however the basic concepts are still the same now as it was during the Punic Wars 

At least one official NATO commentator agrees with you and, for example, rejects the use of the term "Hybrid Wars". 

See Hybrid War - Does it even exist? in NATO Review

However, since NATO's usefulness itself is highly debatable, as an organization seeking to justify its own existence (one critic even goes so far as to say that NATO is the organization whose purpose is to justify its own existence) , expanding endlessly while bellicosely claiming that "Russia is moving closer to NATO" (yes - the State Department really said that in a very comical exchange)   , etc. etc., and we find that others aren't so quick to throw away the concept ...

Andrew Korybko -  Hybrid Wars: the Indirect Adaptive Approach to Regime Change

(the above is a 127 page pdf file) Russian researchers are keenly aware of the use of Colour Revolutions to overthrow countries that don't follow the dictates of the US regime; many former Soviet Republics fall under this heading. But the concept of Hybrid Wars goes beyond simply identifying US-sponsored colour revolutions.

After the Wikileaks associated with the NSA and Edward Snowden's revelations about the endless state surveillance by the US and allied governments, the recent Panama Papers seem to be (early days!) a kind of imitation, flattery, that mimics Wikileaks while missing some very important aspects (e.g., public access versus establishment gatekeepers).

Hence information warfare rising to a new stage.

Cheers.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Here is a review of Korybko's book...

Quote:
Sputnik International’s political analyst and journalist, Andrew Korybko, just published his first book onHybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach To Regime Change. It was reviewed by the Diplomatic Academy of Russia and released with the assistance of the People’s Friendship University of Russia, where Andrew is a member of the expert council for the Institute of Strategic Research and Predictions. His detailed work proves that Color Revolutions are a new form of warfare engineered by the US, with everything from their organizational makeup to geopolitical application being guided by American strategists. But unlike earlier researchers who have touched upon the topic, Andrew takes his work even further and uses the latest examples of the War on Syria and EuroMaidan to argue that the US has deployed a second, more dangerous step to its regime change toolkit.

Hybrid Wars, as he labels them, are when the US meshes its Color Revolution and Unconventional Warfare strategies together to create a unified toolkit for carrying out regime change in targeted states. When a Color Revolution attempt fails, as it miserably did in Syria in 2011, the backup plan is to roll out an Unconventional War that builds directly upon the former’s social infrastructure and organizing methods. In the case of EuroMaidan, Andrew cites Western news sources such as Newsweek magazine, the Guardian, and Reuters in reminding everyone that in the days immediately prior to the coup’s successful completion, Western Ukraine was in full-scale rebellion against the central government and the stage was set for an Unconventional Syrian-esque War in the heart of Eastern Europe. Had it not been for the sudden overthrow of President Yanukovich, the US was prepared to take the country down the path of the Syrian scenario, which would have been its second full-fledged application of Hybrid War.

Andrew’s revolutionary research ultimately shows that it was the US, not Russia, which spearheaded the use of Hybrid Wars, and that given his proven findings, it’s irresponsible to even call Russia’s alleged involvement in the Ukrainian Crisis a ‘hybrid war’. In fact, the US is far ahead of any other country in practicing this new method of warfare, as no other state has attempted a Color Revolution thus far, let alone transitioned it into an Unconventional War when their initial regime change plans failed. While some many think that such occurrences are spontaneous and happenstance, Andrew documents how Hybrid Wars are not only created from the ground-up by the US, but how they’re specifically deployed in areas where they’d be most geostrategically advantageous for the promotion of its unipolar policies.

Not just the past but the future as well.

Quote:
Thus, not only does Andrew describe the very essence of Hybrid Wars, but the final part of his book forecasts where he believes they may happen next. He introduces the groundbreaking concept of the Color Arc, a contiguous line of states stretching from Hungary to Kyrgyzstan and where the waging of Hybrid Wars would most seriously damage Russia’s national interests. This is the first time that Color Revolutions have ever been analyzed through a geopolitical prism, and it brings forth a completely different way of looking at this weapon’s utilization. This new paradigm is absolutely essential for understanding the US’ new approach to regime change and the form, both physical and geopolitical, it’s expected to take in the forthcoming years.

The key quote is as follows ...

Quote:
Hybrid Wars, as he labels them, are when the US meshes its Color Revolution and Unconventional Warfare strategies together to create a unified toolkit for carrying out regime change in targeted states.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Hybrid Wars I - the Law of Hybrid Warfare

is a more recent contribution.

Quote:
The grand objective behind every Hybrid War is to disrupt multipolar transnational connective projects through externally provoked identity conflicts (ethnic, religious, regional, political, etc.) within a targeted transit state.

Russia’s Eurasian integration objectives and China’s Silk Road projects are the targets of the US’ global Hybrid War strategy, and this accordingly opens up a wide range of geographic battlefields. Andrew examines the Greater Heartland, the Balkans, ASEAN, transoceanic Africa, and Latin America in identifying the vulnerabilities that each of the relevant transit states has to this revolutionary type of asymmetrical warfare.

Hybrid Wars 2 - Testing the Theory - Syria and Ukraine

Hybrid Wars 3 - Predicting the Next Hybrid Wars

Hybrid Wars 4 - In the Greater Heartland.

Lots to read. See Hybrid Wars Archive.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

One aspect of information warfare that I think bears underlining at the present moment ... is how, given its infancy of development, the blowback or damage on one's own country, or allies, is not well controlled and there are all sorts of "collateral" information warfare damage, or damage to unintended targets, that can be expected at this preliminary stage. If the Panama Papers fall into this category of Information Warfare, for example, this low level of development would explain the rather indiscriminate consequences. They're still working on making the techniques more precise ...

voice of the damned

ikosmos wrote:

One aspect of information warfare that I think bears underlining at the present moment ... is how, given its infancy of development, the blowback or damage on one's own country, or allies, is not well controlled and there are all sorts of "collateral" information warfare damage, or damage to unintended targets, that can be expected at this preliminary stage. If the Panama Papers fall into this category of Information Warfare, for example, this low level of development would explain the rather indiscriminate consequences. They're still working on making the techniques more precise ...

Of course, this absolves you of having to continue arguing the Cui Bone line that you started out with, because you're now saying that there was no way for the perpetrators to properly control who would and would not benefit from the leaks.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

votd, you're welcome to argue the line that there's no such thing as hybrid warfare, or even the US line that  "Putin did it", i.e., the Russian Federation is the only country that indulges in such warfare. The former is the view of NATO staffers and the latter more a neo con view.

Korybko hasn't had time to assess the recent events, of course, but it's interesting that a Kremlin spokesperson, last week, well before all the revelations were finally made public by the gatekeepers (after a year vetting what they would release), remarked that, based on some rather obvious and almost idiotic questions about their President from the Western "journalists" in Moscow, they were expecting some sort of information warfare from the Western governments and their lickspittle MSM. And that's exactly what happened.

"this absolves you of having to continue arguing the Cui Bone line that you started out with, because you're now saying that there was no way for the perpetrators to properly control who would and would not benefit from the leaks."

A child could counter this argument. The US, for example, opened the Pandora's box of hate by richly arming and subsidizing the Afghan dushmen (bandits) and Sunni fundamentalists whose education and view of life was medieval. The result - after the secular regime that the Soviets supported was overthrown and replaced by these blockheads from women-hate-land - was (eventually) 9-11. A CIA researcher even coined a term for stupid fallout from their nefarious actions - blowback he called it.

All of this is alien to you. Everything is either planned down to the minutae, or not planned at all. But this a simply a caricature of views you don't agree with.

Unlike you, I'm quite willing to change my views based on the facts. And one fact is very important; the technique of releasing information in dribs and drabs is perfect for would-be blackmailers, who can threaten anyone identified, etc. [Edited to add: the blackmail aspect is simply frightening depositers into putting their money into US vaults rather than elsewhere. There are claims of an impending financial crisis - see elsewhere.] This is a copy cat of Wikileaks without the honesty; and if you were paying attention, then you would notice that Wikileaks is ALREADY criticizing the dishonesty of how these "leaks" are being conducted, insisting that the leaks be publicly accessible as Wikileaks are, etc., etc.

This Pandora's Box seems to be mostly aimed at official enemies, relcalcitrant allies, tadpoles they could care less about, and few, if any Americans of significance. Big weapons have all sorts of collateral damage.  The enormous effort made to discredit the bogeyman of Putin, despite not a single sentence in the millions of documents identifying him, ought to have alerted geniuses such as yourself to this fact. Yes, there is a indiscriminate side, tadpoles I called them, but I really think it is a useful working hypothesis to argue that this is a relatively new weapon whose use, and misuse, is still being tested.

If my premise  that this is information warfare is correct, then I really don't see what's so surprising about such a claim.

Pepe Escobar recently wrote a book with the title Empire of Chaos. It's a good hypothesis too.

Karl Marx and Fred Engels wrote:
Modern bourgeois society… a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells."

And the shoe fits very well.

 

voice of the damned

delete

voice of the damned

Quote:
child could counter this argument. The US, for example, opened the Pandora's box of hate by richly arming and subsidizing the Afghan dushmen (bandits) and Sunni fundamentalists whose education and view of life was medieval. The result was 9-11. A CIA researcher even coined a term for stupid fallout from their nefarious actions - blowback he called it.

This isn't a good comparison. I believe in the blowback hypothesis because I believe that the US was funding the anti-Soviet Afgahns in the first place. Hence, when those Afghans tunred against the US, it qualified as blowback.

And why did I believe that the US funded the anti-Soviet Afgans? Because there is ample evidence, available to anyone, that that took place.

But you haven't provided any evidence that the Panama Leaks are being run by the American government. The only thing you ever argued in the first place was Qui Bono, saying that no American allies were being named. When it was pointed out that American allies WERE named, you said, oh well, they're really not important allies anyway, what about NATO and Israel? When it was pointed out that NATO leaders and Israelis were named in the leaks, you switched to arguing that, okay, sure maybe a bunch of people the Americans would prefer not be named have been named, but that's just because information warfare is in its infancy, and they're not very good at it.

You claim to be adjusting your conclusions to fit the evidence, but that's not really what you're doing, because no matter what evidence emerges, the only conclusion you are prepared to draw from it is that Panama Leaks is an American government operation. Basically, you're like a prosecutor who says "Of course the butler did it, he was in the old man's will". When it's proven that the butler was not in the old man's will, you switch to "Well, sure, but I bet you he's working with someone who was!". And so on and so forth.

votd, you're welcome to argue the line that there's no such thing as hybrid warfare, or even the US line that "Putin did it", i.e., the Russian Federation is the only country that indulges in such warfare.

Well, thanks for the welcome, but no, I don't think I'll be arguing that line. Mostly because it's pretty much the polar opposite of what I believe about these things. I'm pretty sure the US operates PsyOps and disinformation campaigns all the time. I just haven't seen any evidence that Panama Leaks is an example of that.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

voice of the damned wrote:
I'm pretty sure the US operates PsyOps and disinformation campaigns all the time. I just haven't seen any evidence that Panama Leaks is an example of that.

OK, well, this side of the argument can also be addressed by who funded the "international group of investigative journalists" and the staunchly pro-NATO German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung. That info came out quite early actually, and I suppose I haven't really underlined it.

We have:

- a pro-NATO newspaper

- Ford Foundation
- Carnegie Endowment
- Rockefeller Family Fund
- W K Kellogg Foundation
- Open Society Foundation (Soros)

The Soros organization connects directly to USAID and US government funded NGOs. The Russian Federation recently passed laws requiring foreign funded organizations to register as such - which evoked howls of discontent from the Soros-funded orgs.

Wikileaks spokespersons have tweeted (critically) about these funders, and the US gov connection, already. Maybe we rushed over this too quickly. mea culpa.

eta: This is in addition to the significant difference(s) from how Wikileaks conducted itself: in particular, the public accessing of the records rather than the official gate-keepers. The latter means that much of the information will never be public.

voice of the damned

The Soros organization connects directly to USAID and US government funded NGOs.

Yeah. Soros also connects to harm-reduction programs in Vancouver. And to Amy Goodman and Democracy Now, which I believe is also syndicated on this very website.

As for wikileaks, their criticism may very well be valid, but I wonder about their alliance with the NYT. What do connections with a pro-NATO, oligarch-run newspsper say about THEIR progressive credentials?

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Soros had a very significant role in regime change in former Soviet/East bloc countries. These include:

year....country...colour revolution name...organization...funder(s)

2000...Serbia...Otpor! Network = Soros Funded
2003...Georgia..Rose Revolution; Kmara Network = Soros and USAID funded
2004...Ukraine...Orange Revolution; International Renaissance Foundation = Soros and USAID funded
2005 Kyrgyzstan...Tulip Revolution; Coalition for Democracy and Civil Society = Soros and USAID Funded

votd - You seen to be habitually missing the forest for the trees. How much in the way of resources did the Harm Reduction program cost Soros? How much to foment regime change? Did you remember to make a mental note about the US Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland's  boast about how much money they spent on regime change in Ukraine? (hint: US$ 5 Billion. Notice the big Chevron logo. All the resources fit to steal. ) C'mon. Are you even serious here?

Paul Craig Roberts, fmr Assistant Sec. of U.S. Treasury wrote:
Anytime you see anything funded by Washington, directly or indirectly, you know that you are permitting Washington to undermine your own country.

That link to Democracy Now is interesting. Thanks. However, all the criticism seems to come from 9-11 "truthers".

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Paul Craig Roberts believes that the Sandy Hook killings were a hoax.

So who gives a flying fuck what his credentials were before his brain turned to Jell-o pudding??

He's only incrementally less credible than David Icke.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Roberts was with Treasury. That will make anyone batshit crazy. In any case, the quote was an excellent generalization about the role of US funding, generally, outside of the USA.

It would be nice to see what the US funds here in Canada. Problem is, there's plenty that will kiss US ass for free, so they're getting a real discount. Dirty deeds and they're done dirt cheap. The military even have a legitimizing term for exchanging US for Canadian personnel. They call it "interoperability". I call it treason.

voice of the damned

Paul Craig Roberts wrote:

Quote:
Anytime you see anything funded by Washington, directly or indirectly, you know that you are permitting Washington to undermine your own country.

So, then when Republicans cut off funding for birth control program in the third world, rather than lamenting that, as the left usually does, we should actually be happy?

As for PCR going insane because he was in the Treasury, well, he entered the Treasury as a devout Reaganite, so it's not like he was exactly playing with a full deck to begin with.

And the stuff linking Soros to Democracy Now comes from David Horowitz, a neo-con who hates both Democracy Now and Soros. I don't see anywhere that the linkage has been denied by either party, though.

And whatever else he may be, Horowitz is pretty much the opposite of a 9-11 Truther. A prime example of the latter, though, would be Paul Craig Roberts.

bekayne

voice of the damned wrote:
Paul Craig Roberts wrote:

 

Quote:
Anytime you see anything funded by Washington, directly or indirectly, you know that you are permitting Washington to undermine your own country.
So, then when Republicans cut off funding for birth control program in the third world, rather than lamenting that, as the left usually does, we should actually be happy?

 

As for PCR going insane because he was in the Treasury, well, he entered the Treasury as a devout Reaganite, so it's not like he was exactly playing with a full deck to begin with.

He still is one

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/07/22/the-cost-left-wings-ongoing-v...

voice of the damned

bekayne wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:
Paul Craig Roberts wrote:

 

Quote:
Anytime you see anything funded by Washington, directly or indirectly, you know that you are permitting Washington to undermine your own country.
So, then when Republicans cut off funding for birth control program in the third world, rather than lamenting that, as the left usually does, we should actually be happy?

 

As for PCR going insane because he was in the Treasury, well, he entered the Treasury as a devout Reaganite, so it's not like he was exactly playing with a full deck to begin with.

He still is one

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/07/22/the-cost-left-wings-ongoing-v...

Yeah, the guy who wrote that quote about US aid always undermining countries defends Reagan's support for the contras!

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

voice of the damned wrote:
Yeah, the guy who wrote that quote about US aid always undermining countries defends Reagan's support for the contras!

Kinda reminds me of Lloyd Axworthy, don't cha think? OTOH, he should know.

voice of the damned

ikosmos wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:
Yeah, the guy who wrote that quote about US aid always undermining countries defends Reagan's support for the contras!

Kinda reminds me of Lloyd Axworthy, don't cha think? OTOH, he should know.

I don't know if that's supposed to be some sorta big-time Gotcha line, but if so, you aimed at the wrong target. I am not a fan of Lloyd Axworthy.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

voice of the damned wrote:
ikosmos wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:
Yeah, the guy who wrote that quote about US aid always undermining countries defends Reagan's support for the contras!

Kinda reminds me of Lloyd Axworthy, don't cha think? OTOH, he should know.

I don't know if that's supposed to be some sorta big-time Gotcha line, but if so, you aimed at the wrong target. I am not a fan of Lloyd Axworthy.

 

My point was that Lloyd while in office officially supported all sorts of nefarious and odious politicians around the world, and, after retiring from politics underwent a transformation akin to a deathbed conversion.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

related story: CIA's Work With Filmmakers Puts All Media Workers at Risk

see: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

Quote:
Vice’s Jason Leopold (4/6/16) has uncovered documents showing the CIA had a role in producing up to 22 entertainment “projects,” including History Channel documentary Air America: The CIA’s Secret Airline, Bravo‘s Top Chef: Covert Cuisine, the USA Network series Covert Affairs and the BBC documentary The Secret War on Terror—along with two fictional feature films about the CIA that both came out in 2012.....

The CIA’s history of producing or helping to produce films goes back decades. The Agency, for example, secretly bought the rights to Animal Farm after Orwell’s death in 1950 and produce an animated adaptation centered on demonizing the Soviet Union rather than capturing Orwell’s broader critiques of power....

In such revelations, an important point is often overlooked: The CIA assisting or posing as filmmakers, journalists and other creative roles—a practice the Agency reserves the right to partake in to this day—puts actual filmmakers, journalists and other creators at risk overseas. It’s an important piece of context that’s rarely addressed by a pundit class who is (rightfully) outraged at American journalists and filmmakers being detained as spies overseas, but responds with praise or amusement when CIA takes on such roles as cover.

voice of the damned

No major disagreements with the above posted article(from what I read in the excerpt). However...

The Agency, for example, secretly bought the rights to Animal Farm after Orwell’s death in 1950 and produce an animated adaptation centered on demonizing the Soviet Union rather than capturing Orwell’s broader critiques of power....

Not that I approve of CIA involvement in film-making, but I think Animal Farm, as written, is pretty clearly about the Russian Revolution, and not much else. I don't really see any other interpretation for Napoleon/Snowball than as stand-ins for Stalin/Trotsky, for example.

I think 1984 is a better example of Orwell putting forth "a broader critique of power". Airstrip One is sort of like an American-imposed Stalinist dictatorship with residual overtones of wartime England, and even that is probably understating the broadness of Orwell's scope.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

The claim that the CIA bought the rights is not in dispute. If you're comfortable with something they've produced, then fill your boots. That's not for the likes of me.

My understanding is that they also brought Krushchev's speech in 1956 (CPSU Congress) as well as some of Boris Pasternak's work to a wider, i.e., Western, audience. What would not have got publicity did get wider publicity with the help of the CIA.

It's interesting that some of the Russian media commentators (at RT, for example) explicitly compare what RT does today with what Western media (and CIA sponsors) did in the past; they provide a platform for minority views that would otherwise not get wider coverage. Therefore, what was good for the CIA and Western "MSM" in the past is perfectly fine for RT today. It's an interesting argument. No doubt the double standard standard is the State Department reply; it's OK for us but not OK for others. When we hear loud wailing about RT (from the authorities, I mean, not State Department leftists), it's useful to bear this all in mind.

 

voice of the damned

Quote:
The claim that the CIA bought the rights is not in dispute. If you're comfortable with something they've produced, then fill your boots. That's not for the likes of me.

Well, I never said I liked the film in question(it's been decades since I've seen it), so have fun arguing with the imaginary opponent you've got babbling away in your head.

Webgear

Like I mentioned earlier in the thread the term “Hybird War” is just a new description to series of commonly used military tactics.

The blending of types of forces structures is not new to warfare, many examples can be observed throughout history.

The Mongols can be used to show how information can be gathered or disseminated by spies and civilian supporters to deceive an enemy in protecting key areas while the Mongol cavalry is out manoeuvring and striking the enemy at undefended locations across the battlefield.

I believe NATO was taken almost taken completely by surprised changes to Russian Military Doctrine over the last 10-12 years. The Russians took innovations being discussed in Western Forces Leadership Schools and made them into practical tactical and strategic solutions.

The Russians went from a very inflexible and structured force that was controlled by a highest level of command to a very westernized model of flexibility and control at the lowest level. I believe the Russians have surpassed a majority of Western Forces in terms of advancing the modernization of their forces.

Concepts being discussed in Canada Military Institutions are being fully implemented and supported by the Russian Military Commanders across their forces. The use of information and cyber warfare to support conventional and unconventional military forces in Ukraine and Syria is amazing. They have mastered the combined arms approach to their forces and their country objectives.

Controlling the information is very important, getting your version of the story out first is the key to winning modern conflicts. The use and control of social media and cyber warfare is now the key to most military forces, both the Russians and Chinese are creating large units and forces that are solely built around these concepts.

The need of tough and hardened soldiers remain however they are now being supported by creative thinking and intelligent soldiers that wouldn’t have been common placed 20 years ago.

Of course this is just my opinion.

 

Webgear

Sorry double post.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

The NATO Defence College likes Korybko's book so much that they cite it a number of times. lol. 

Korybko: "It turns out that they even included it as a source in a December 2015 book that was forewarded by General Phillip M. Breedlove, the Supreme Allied Commander for Europe".

Apparently not all NATO bigwigs share your view, Webgear.

NATO's Response to Hybrid Threats

Quote:
Although Hybrid warfare is not new, since Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and the war in Ukraine it has become a new buzzword that is widely used, both by military and civilian actors. While there is some confusion over the term--which leads to some difficulty in defining what it really is--what is at stake is to efficiently and effectively recognize the patterns of this type of warfare in order to deter or counter it.

Hybrid warfare might not be limited solely to Russian courses of action. It could be also waged by non-state actors on NATO’s Southern flank. In both cases what we are witnessing is conflict that is integrated, adaptive, flexible, and mixing overt and covert operations. Hybrid threats target the vulnerabilities of open societies and our militaries, blurring the usual distinction between war and peace, and undermining traditional institutions and government on a possibly unprecedented scale.

Of course, the NATO publications, despite the cancerous growth of NATO right up to the Russian border, nevertheless talk of "Russian expansion", deny the democratic nature of Crimea's independence (while lauding the transformation of Kosovo into an overblown NATO military base) , have nothing to say about the criminal invasions of Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc. , and generally treat the US as the rightful globocop of Planet Earth. 

But they do seem to say that hybrid warfare is something new in the sense of requiring analysis to figure out. . Just that they "never" do it and only "the bad guys" (i.e., Russia) do it. I guess the colour revolutions never happened, all those George Soros NGOs don't exist, and Victoria Nuland's tweet about Yats being "our guy" (fyi - Yats is no longer there!) was just a figment of our imagination.

Call me biased, but it sure looks like the Russians are giving NATO a thumping in diplomacy, military doctrine, and lessons in how to quickly defeat terrorists on a budget.

 

Webgear

I am no expert on current NATO doctrine, it hasn’t been focus of mine in a few years. The great thing about doctrine is that it changes every few years according to the current situation. It is a cycle; the old ways have a way becoming new again.

I disagree that the Russians or NATO are trying to defeat each other, in a lot of cases over the years there have been a lot more visit between nations, mutual agreements and sharing of information on common enemies for example the air/ground war over Syria.  

I would bet there was a lot of communications between nations in order to prevent embarrassing situations from happening.

I would speculate all military powers are trying to satisfy their national governments and their desires more than trying to fight each other. Let’s face the fact, it is the civilian governments that control the military , I would bet most NATO/Russian Commanders have very similar thoughts on how to deal with ISIS which is likely very different than their civilian oversight/control.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Webgear wrote:
I disagree that the Russians or NATO are trying to defeat each other, in a lot of cases over the years there have been a lot more visit between nations, mutual agreements and sharing of information on common enemies for example the air/ground war over Syria.  

I would bet there was a lot of communications between nations in order to prevent embarrassing situations from happening.

This makes sense. And it certainly reflects how the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, and President Putin seem to underline those issues that the US and Russia have common interest in solving. I think the Russian bogey man gets used for domestic political consumption. 

Quote:
I would speculate all military powers are trying to satisfy their national governments and their desires more than trying to fight each other. Let’s face the fact, it is the civilian governments that control the military ,

That's the theory. Civilians control the military. Unfortunately, the Military Industrial Complex - something written and spoken about since Dwight Eisenhower was US President - is very powerful and not just in military terms. Politically powerful, they influence public policy, what gets debated and what does not get debated, etc. Social scientists write how this political influence has a corrosive effect on US democracy. Over 1,000 military bases outside the territory of the US makes that country an Empire. And the methods that Empires use outside of the home country inevitably come back home as well. That is the military - the administration of an Empire - creating blowback at home. 9-11 isn't the only blowback. It's more comprehensive. 

You can also go at this issue by economic analysis - how much economic activity is military related? How does this translate into votes in the individual states? etc. There is also a kind of revolving door between high ranking military officials and the military industry, defence contractors, etc. We even have privatized wars, eg, in Iraq with Blackwater, etc.

 

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

How Russia and China Are Planning to Counter US Economic Warfare:

(subtitle) There is no better example of 'hybrid war' that Washington's economic and financial war against Moscow

Sanctions are the chosen weapon of the US administration against Iran. And some of their leaders have noted that the nothing much has changed from the US regime.

Quote:
U.S. Treasury officials, since “implementation” day, have been doing the rounds, warning European banks that the U.S. sanctions on Iran remain in place, and that European banks should not think, even for a second, of tapping the dollar or euro bond markets in order to finance trade with Iran, or to become involved with financing infrastructure projects in Iran.

Banks well understand the message: touch Iranian commerce and you will be whacked with a billion dollar fine – against which there is no appeal, no clear legal framework – and no argument countenanced.  The banks (understandably) are shying off. Not a single bank or financial lending institution turned up when Iranian President Hassan Rouhani visited Paris to hold meetings with the local business élite.

There is some discussion that this "silver bullet" could be overused ...

Quote:
“Economic sanctions have become the ‘silver bullet’ of American foreign policy over the past decade, because they’re cheaper and more effective in compelling adversaries than traditional military power. But Jack Lew warns of a ‘risk of overuse’ that could neuter the sanctions weapon and harm America.

But they're doing them anyway. One reason it to attack China.

Quote:
One reason for this apparent contradiction implicit in Lew’s remarks probably is China: Recall that when China’s stock markets were in freefall and hemorrhaging foreign exchange, as it sought to support the Yuan – China blamed the U.S. Fed (U.S. Reserve Bank) for its problems – and promptly was derided for making such an “outlandish” accusation.

You know, sorta like the US mocking the North Koreans for not finding a film about the assasination of their President "funny".

Quote:

In short, the Ignatius’s “silver bullet” of foreign policy (the U.S. Treasury Wars against any potential competitor to U.S. political or financial hegemony) is facing a growing “hybrid” financial war, just as NATO has been complaining that it is having to adjust to “hybrid” conventional war – from the likes of Russia.

So, as the U.S. tries to expand its reach, for example by claiming legal jurisdiction over the Bank of China, and by blacklisting one of China’s largest telecom companies, thus forbidding any U.S. company from doing business with China’s ZTE, China is pushing back. It has just demonstrated convincingly that U.S. Treasury “silver bullets” can fall short.

So China has pushed back. That makes them "aggressive".

Now about Russia ...

Quote:
In respect to Russia, this is important: Russia and America seem to be edging towards some sort of “grand bargain” over Syria (and possibly Ukraine too), which is likely to involve the Europeans lifting, in mid-2016, their sanctions imposed on Russia. But again, the U.S. is likely nonetheless to maintain its own sanctions (or even add to them, as some in the U.S. Congress are arguing).

If the Russians don't go along with US direction, then there are sanctions. If the Russians do go along with US direction, then there are sanctions. There's a pattern here, I think...

So here we go. If we lift the covers a little ...

David Ignatius of Washington Post wrote:
“U.S. power flows from our unmatched military might, yes. But in a deeper way, it’s a product of the dominance of the U.S. economy. Anything that expands the reach of U.S. markets — such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership in trade, for example — adds to the arsenal of U.S. power. Conversely, U.S. power is limited by measures that drive business away from America, or allow other nations to build a rival financial architecture that’s less encumbered by a smorgasbord of sanctions.”

If they avoid our sanctions, or introduce their own counter-measures, then they're bad! Why can't those dastardly Chinese and Iranians and Russians understand that it is the right of the USA to be globocop forever? Think of the children!

In conclusion, then...

Quote:
This is the new hybrid war (and not the hot air issuing from NATO). Lew and Ignatius know that a parallel “architecture” is under construction, and that Congress’ addiction to new sanctions is just speeding it into place....

What may be missing from this hubristic interpretation, however, is the understanding that Iran’s experience will not be lost on the others, nor on the SCO when it convenes its next meetings on how to combat Western “color revolution” operations (with Iran likely joining that organization as a member, rather than an observer, this summer).

Blowback. Hybrid blowback. And if this observer is correct, one result of all this hybrid warfare is the bringing together of Iran, China, Russia, and the other SCO/BRICS members to develop their own financial and economic architecture to immunize themselves from the block-headed hubris of the American Empire.

Sounds good to me. Welcome to the end of the unipolar world.

 



ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Neo-liberal Restoration and Hybrid War Hyenas Tear Brazil Apart

Pepe Escobar wrote:
In a message to the nation, Brutus Temer admitted as much; “hope” after impeachment will be absolutely swell for “foreign investment”, as in let them plunder the colony at will; back to the trademark history of Brazil since 1500.

So Wall Street, US Big Oil and the proverbial “American interests” win this round at the circus – thanks to the, once again proverbial, vassal/comprador elites. Chevron execs are already salivating with the prospect of laying their hands on the pre-salt oil deposits; that was already promised by a trusted vassal in the Brazilian opposition.

The coup goes on. The real hyenas haven’t yet pounced. So it’s far from over.

 

USA! USA! How many states will you overthrow today?

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Now here's an unexpected spin-off:

How to learn from the US Empire's hybrid warfare for the benefit of a more diverse, multi-polar world, or

Color Revolution Technology Isn't Just Black and White

Quote:
As provocative as it may initially sound, the disciplined and selective use of Color Revolution technology can realistically be employed by multipolar activists in order to resist the unipolar agenda being thrust upon their countries. Whether it’s “regime reinforcement” in the Republic of Macedonia or the democratic effort to get a contentious piece of NATO legislation up to a national referendum in Montenegro or Serbia, reverse-Color Revolution strategies and tactics are instrumental in peacefully achieving these objectives. Just as the Balkans have always been, they’re once more the testing ground for rolling out a new sort of asymmetrical process all across the world, except for the first time ever, it’s not one which advances the US’ grand geostrategic vision, but one which actively works against it and presents the greatest hope for the emerging multipolar world order.

Hell, yeah.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

The Information War is also applied domestically, inside the belly of the monster ...

Anonymous: "Sanders was hacked (to help Clinton win) ."

Truly, in the citadels of imperialism, we live in a fake democracy. Time to lop off a few he*ds like those clever French in 1789. 

 

Quote:
Claims of election fraud began circulating last Tuesday when thousands of Bernie Sanders supporters were prevented from voting for Sanders due to their votes mysteriously being changed from Democratic to Independent.

Anonymous have issued a press release saying that the abnormally low vote total may be the result of Clinton’s campaign hacking the sanders campaign voter database.

NDPP

Meanwhile at that liberal honeytrap and favourite of babblers The Guardian, information warfare continues...

Freedland: 'I For One, Welcome Our Corporate American Overlords' (and vid)

https://off-guardian.org/2016/04/22/freedland-i-for-one-welcome-our-corp...

"American lawmakers are a global force for good, one for which we should all be grateful...according to The Guardian."

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

The Hybrid Warfare experts are coaching the next generation of "activists". Whether it is N"G"O's, (fake NGOs), "Peace" or "Non-Violent" activists (government subsidy, academic legitimation, and, of course, useful idiots), using students as unwitting research assistants, protective accompaniment (using Western “volunteers” as literal human shields in protecting ... Color Revolution activists during their provocations.), using diaspora communities as proxies, use of CIA front organizations, etc., etc. - essentially "fusing academia, private sector “volunteers”, and government agencies  in an effective operational mix" ... it all works into the agenda of fomenting identity conflicts in the targetted states. Remember the definition:

Quote:
...“The Law Of Hybrid War” which states that “the grand objective behind every Hybrid War is to disrupt multipolar transnational connective projects through externally provoked identity conflicts (ethnic, religious, regional, political, etc.) within a targeted transit state.”

The final goal is of "constructing a Color Revolution factory that aims to continually produce strategists, activists, and policy facilitators in order to dish out a never-ending stream of “democratic” and “human rights” destabilization anywhere in the world."

Quote:
Color Revolutions are the epitome of post-modern warfare, and they’ve been successfully applied to devastating effect everywhere from Serbia to Syria. Whether as stand-alone regime change operations such as the one in 2003 Georgia or the catalyst to a Hybrid War like in 2011 Libya, Color Revolutions have arguably emerged as one of the US’ preferred strategies of choice in destabilizing targeted states.

Forget Gene Sharp, John Carlarne Is The New Color Revolution Chief

 

Pax Americana. All those who oppose the Empire must die!

Webgear

I would suggest researching Russian doctrine/theory called “Reflexive Control". It is slightly older than “Hybrid Warfare” but is very similar.

 

Webgear

Russian Federation Armed Forces’ Information Space Activities Concept

http://eng.mil.ru/en/science/publications/more.htm?id=10845074@cmsArticle

Webgear

Interesting article relating to Hizbullah and the 2006 conflict.

http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/Alert_7_Hizbullah_hybrid_warfare.pdf

 

Webgear

Russian Reconnaissance Large units and military Units

http://eng.mil.ru/en/structure/forces/ground/structure/reconnaissance.htm

In the interests of the Land Force reconnaissance is carried out by organic reconnaissance subunits of combined-arms formations (motorised rifle and tank brigades), formations and units of special purpose, radio and electronic reconnaissance of army and military district sets, as well as reconnaissance units and subdivisions of the Arms and Special Forces of the Land Force.

In preparation and during conducting of combined-arms operations (combat actions) they perform the following tasks:

• disclosure of the enemy’s intention, its immediate preparations for aggression, and its surprise attack prevention;
• identifying the troops (forces) of the enemy and its control system’s combat structure, position, grouping, status and capabilities;
• disclosure of the objects (targets) for defeating and determination of their location (coordinates);
• disclosure of the elements of the war theatre’s operational equipment, the terrains’ engineering equipment and the system of barriers;
• determination of the degree of terrain’s passability, the state of communications, the nature of water barriers, the boundaries and the dimensions of areas of destruction, fires and floods, contamination areas, possible ways of overcoming them and turning movement around them;
• identifying the enemy’s new weapons and methods of warfare, as well as its activities to ensure full operation (battle);
determination of the morale of the enemy’s troops and the local population, the economic status of the operation’s area, etc.

Reconnaissance Formations and Units extract the necessary information about the enemy by the following main ways:

surveillance (tracking) and eavesdropping;
• photographing (ground or air);
interception, technical analysis of radiation of electronic means and determination of objects’ coordinates;
• conducting searches, raids, ambushes, reconnaissance in force;
survey of local residents, interrogation of prisoners and defectors;
• studying the enemy’s documents, equipment and weapons captured.

Further improvement of capabilities of the Reconnaissance Formations and Units is made by improving their organizational structure, equipping them with highly technical means of reconnaissance, including based on new physical principles, tactical systems of reconnaissance based on unmanned aerial vehicles, as well as with automation of data collection, processing of reconnaissance data and informing commanders and staffs about them in real time.

 

All the bolded items are key to Hybrid Warfare.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Nine theses about the war we are engaged in (from a link provided by NDPP on another thread)is a Russian view about the new sorts of war they are confronted with.

Quote:
This leads us to thesis eight. Color coup can be stopped neither by consolidation of the national elite (it would simply progress to the next scenario), nor by preparedness of its military to fight (it will eventually be exhausted), nor by effective work of the national media (they will be overwhelmed by the technological capabilities of the aggressor).

The preparedness of the victim-state to resist is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to block the mechanisms of the color coup.

Only the support of the legitimate authorities of the victim-country by another superpower able to confront the aggressor-country with equal force in any way with any means can stop color aggression.

Syria required Russia to prevent the US from slaughtering the population of that country or installing a puppet regime. Serbia, Libya, and Iraq show various versions of the color revolution playbook. The Empire will not be trifled with.

"This is war. A new kind of war. Not the war as an extension of policy by other means (using the expression of von Clausewitz), but color technology as an extension of war by other means.

We engaged in this war before even realizing we were at war. As often happens with Russia, we started with defeats of the 1990s, then came to our senses, learned to fight, and have been fighting successfully in the last two years."

Sobering, frightening, thought-provoking. Not war as an extension of policy by other means, but a policy of the  extension of war itself by other means. Endless war.

And what else is the War on Terror but endless war, truly?

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

ikosmos wrote:
Sobering, frightening, thought-provoking. Not war as an extension of policy by other means, but a policy of the  extension of war itself by other means. Endless war.

And what else is the War on Terror but endless war, truly?

War on an abstract noun has no end, by definition. Whoah, hoa. William Blake. Look who agrees with me.

Time Magazine: President Obama’s Legacy Is Endless War


NDPP

Surely an aspect of information warfare is the capture of liberals by ill intentioned pied pipers like the increasingly ghastly graun

The Guardian in Crisis: How Britain's Liberal Bugle is Destroying Itself

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/342075-guardian-crisis-britain-media/

"With its left wing dogma abandoned, the newspaper has switched to the right on geopolitics and economics..."

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Pepe Escobar calls it. Word.

Quote:
We are all living in Hybrid War time. From R2P (“responsibility to protect”) to color revolutions, from currency attacks to stock market manipulations.

From judicial-financial-political-media enabled “soft” coups – as in Brazil – to support for “moderate” jihadis, multiple stages of Hybrid War now cross-pollinate and generate a vortex of new mutant viruses.

Hybrid War, a Beltway concept, has even been turned upside down by the conceptualizers. NATO, affecting puzzlement at the very existence of the concept, interprets the Russian “invasion” of Ukraine as Hybrid War. That serves prime Hybrid War purveyors such as the RAND corporation to take it further, peddling war game scenarios of Russia being able to invade and conquer the Baltic states — Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania — in less than 60 hours.

Here's a nice little list for those "puzzled" by the concept ...

Quote:
This is the ultimate, ongoing 21st confrontation that will keep generating multiple, localized hybrid warfare forms – as it takes place not only across Eurasia but across the whole Global South. It’s all interlocked – from Maidan to the secret TTIP negotiations; from provoking China in the South China Sea to an oil price war and an attack on the ruble; from the NSA spying on Petrobras feeding a slow motion, legalistic regime change process in Brazil to an EU ravaged by twin plagues; a refugee crisis ultimately provoked by NATO’s wars (and instrumentalized by Turkey) coupled with Salafi-jhadi terrorism also spawned by the same wars.

The New Normal: Cold War 2.0 - Pepe Escobar

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

The Empire's New Tactics

Paul Pugh wrote:
Although I have lived most of my life in Thunder Bay, I grew up in Uruguay, and then Brazil for two years until I was 18. This past fall, my wife Evelina and I, together with friends, visited Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina for a few weeks.

            On April 17, I watched in amazement a live-stream broadcast of proceedings from Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies (Brazil’s legislature consists of elected Chamber of Deputies and Senate) as Deputies voted to forward impeachment charges against President Dilma Rousseff to the Senate. The voting went on for hours, as each Deputy made a speech prior to voting, but I couldn't take myself away from the monitor.

            On the one hand, I was pleased to note that a majority of Deputies from Bahia, which we visited, voted against: PT (Worker's Party), PCdoB (Communist Party), and PSOL (Socialism and Freedom Party) Deputies in particular, but other parties as well. However, a large number of Deputies made no attempt to argue that Dilma was guilty of any crime (she has not even been accused of criminal acts), while they railed against government poverty reduction programs, unions, the PT and “reds” in general. A disturbing number of religiously motivated Deputies argued that God wanted Dilma and the PT out.

            According to its 1988 Constitution (following the 1964-1985 military dictatorship), Brazil is a federal republic with separation of powers between a popularly elected President, a bicameral legislature, the judiciary, and the states (Brazil is composed of 26 states and a federal district).

            The Workers Party (PT) has won the past four presidential elections 2002, 2006 (Luiz Inacio Lula de Silva - “Lula”) and 2010, 2014 (Dilma Vana Rousseff - “Dilma”). The PT and left (PCdoB, PSOL) have never achieved a majority in the legislature, but have governed by forming coalitions with centrist parties, especially the PMDB (Democratic Movement Party), the largest party in the legislature. Partly due to this, the PT government has not addressed the fundamental causes of inequality in Brazil (concentration of wealth in corporate and land ownership), but has introduced poverty reduction programs and pro-union measures that moved tens of millions of Brazilians out of poverty. The PT government has also introduced quotas in universities, mandating spaces for Brazilians of African and Aboriginal descent (in reality, most Brazilians have some degree of African and/or Aboriginal descent, but “whiter” individuals do not recognize this). This measure has irritated lighter skinned and wealthier strata, who have traditionally monopolized university education.

            What's next? The Senate will meet and each party will select its Senators (in proportion) to comprise a committee of 42 to determine whether there is a legal basis for a trial. In theory, this should be the end of the matter, as no one has accused Dilma of criminal behaviour, as required by the Constitution. However, in view of what took place in the Chamber of Deputies, I am not confident legal rules will prevail. Class hatred may well carry the day. If the committee approves, the trial will take place before the full Senate. In that case, Dilma will be removed from her position for up to 180 days while the trial takes place, and VP Michel Temer will take over, and Chamber of Deputies Eduardo Cunha will be in line if anything happens to Temer. Both are from the PMDB, which recently broke relations with the PT. Temer and Cunha face charges of financial corruption, heightened by recent Panama papers revelations. However, these charges can’t go to trial so long as they remain in office. In fact, of the 367 Deputies who voted in favour of impeachment, 299 face criminal charges which can’t proceed so long as they remain in office. President Rousseff has no charges against her.

            How did all this happen? More analysis will provide details, no doubt, but a personal shorthand account: the CIA and other U.S. agencies (Endowment for Democracy, etc.) have been quietly working in concert with Latin American traditional elites to perfect yet another technique for regime change, the legislative-judicial coup. This, of course, does not rule out the traditional military coup, but is more sophisticated than the latter with its executions, tortures and associated negative publicity.

            Nor am I suggesting that domestic reaction is not hard at work even without assistance from the Empire, but a pattern has emerged that I don't think is coincidence. The 2009 Honduras coup was first, where the popularly elected left-leaning President Manuel Zelaya was removed by judicial-legislative manipulation. Most saw this as a peculiar Honduran aberration. In 2012, popularly elected Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo, the left-leaning former Bishop of Paraguay, was removed by the legislature via trumped up charges and a 30 minute trial. Now Brazil, in line with the anniversary of the March 31, 1964 military coup. A common element is Liliana Ayalde, who was U.S. ambassador to Paraguay at the time of the Lugo removal. In 2013, Dilma Rousseff expelled U.S. ambassador Thomas Shannon, when Wikileaks revealed that the NSA was spying on Dilma’s communications. US President Obama appointed Liliana Ayalda to replace Shannon.

            Beginning in 2013, “Arab Spring”-type social media organized protests began, largely comprising upper income participants, sparked by revelations of corruption around Petrobras (the state-owned petroleum firm) contracts, in which some PT members were involved (not Lula or Dilma), along with representatives of many other parties, and increasingly called for Dilma’s ouster. Months of street protests, combined with a recession as Brazil's exports declined due to deteriorating global market conditions, plus back room maneuvers, resulted in the break up of the PT alliance with the PMDB. At this point, the impeachment proceedings against Dilma began, as the votes were in hand.

            Many throughout Latin America are now fully aware that a new form of regime change is part of the Empire's armoury. Honduras and Paraguay could possibly be seen as isolated instances. No more.

            Meanwhile, in Argentina, things go from bad to worse. The recently elected right-wing President Macri has signed a deal with financial "vulture funds" creating Argentina's (and the 3rd world's) largest international debt. Prices for transit and hydro have increased by 300%, some 194,000 pensions have been eliminated, etc. By no coincidence, a judge has summoned left-leaning former President Cristina Fernandez to face trumped up charges of financial wrongdoing (almost certainly a pre-emptive move to prevent her from running in the next election), while Macri, identified in at least nine Panama Papers cases of financial wrongdoings, faces no charges. Cristina took her time showing up at the court, accompanied by thousands of supporters, and delivered a 1.5 hour speech on the court steps, broadcast live, before entering. She informed the judge she does not recognize his trumped up charges, that she is not afraid of him, and accused him of political manipulations.

            South America is entering a new phase, and popular forces will have to learn to confront the Empire's and traditional elites’ new tactics.

NDPP

More on this:

The Empire's War on Latin America: Wall Street, Washington and the Neoliberal Conspiracy (and audio)

http://stopimperialism.org/empires-war-latin-america-wall-street-washing...

"Want to know how Hillary Clinton, Wall Street, the TPP/TTIP are connected to the developments in Latin America? Listen to Eric Draitser's hour-long converstation with broadcaster Don DeBar..."

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: Only the Russians do it. Canada, and the other NATO regimes, are as pure as driven snow.

Meanwhile, the Ceeb indulges in a little of their own information war. Because those nasty Rooskies have the effrontery to hold concerts in Palmyra! Dastardly beasts! How dare they! etc.

The Western media is literally falling over itself to shit on the concert in Palmyria. Because freedom. Or something.

 

CBC: Taking a risky 72-hour ride inside the Russian military's information war

It's quite remarkable how our own public broadcaster berates another country for doing what they are doing: telling people how to think and what to think.

Double-think, Canadian style. Susan Ormiston must be being groomed to take the place of that corporate lickspittle, Peter M~.

Webgear

The Russians should be credited with winning the propaganda war in Syria, they have some of the best information operations occurring right now.  

They conducted large amounts of bombing with very little concern or investigating reporting from the western media about civilian casualties. Inserted large number of troops and equipment with limited reports of military deaths and injuries or equipment loses.  

Their complete operation was declared more successful than any other military mission in the region by western media but with very little evidence to support this.

The single report of a Russian soldier being killed resulted in a story of a modern military hero sacrificing himself to rid the whole of evil terrorists. The dead Lt. even received praise from most western military social media websites.     

The latest media victory was last week’s military public affairs convoy to Palmyra. Very well done to the Russian leader that conducted this event, it reminded me of the media operations in Kandahar over the last decade.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Your joking right? A quick google search shows a tsunami of reports from the Western media about the Russian bombing.

Webgear wrote:

They conducted large amounts of bombing with very little concern or investigating reporting from the western media about civilian casualties.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=russia+bobms+civilians&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&...

Quote:

Their complete operation was declared more successful than any other military mission in the region by western media but with very little evidence to support this.

Lets see until they entered the fray ISIS was gaining ground in Syria and after they began helping the legitimate government of Syria the terrorists have been on the run in various areas in the country. Most military analysts would call that more successful. Some days Webgear I think you draw a pay cheque for the disinformation you spew but I know that could not possibly be true so I will not accuse you of it.

 

Webgear

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Your joking right? A quick google search shows a tsunami of reports from the Western media about the Russian bombing.

Webgear wrote:

They conducted large amounts of bombing with very little concern or investigating reporting from the western media about civilian casualties.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=russia+bobms+civilians&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&...

Quote:

Their complete operation was declared more successful than any other military mission in the region by western media but with very little evidence to support this.

Lets see until they entered the fray ISIS was gaining ground in Syria and after they began helping the legitimate government of Syria the terrorists have been on the run in various areas in the country. Most military analysts would call that more successful. Some days Webgear I think you draw a pay cheque for the disinformation you spew but I know that could not possibly be true so I will not accuse you of it.

 

I am not joking, I believe the western media hasn’t been as critical of the Russian campaign as the Canadian/NATO campaign is Syria/Iraq. This has been seen with the analysts/journalist posting on Rabble/Babble.

I believe it was a collation effort to beat ISIS in Syria. I believe all interested parties were sharing information about the common enemy and fighting him on three fronts. This is what has defeat ISIS at the current stage of the war.

The success of the Russia Campaign in Syria is hard to define due to the targets that that Russians and Syrian Airforces/Army were striking. If they weren’t only going after ISIS targets then they were only building the friction up between in the civil war parties.

I am not sure why you made such unnecessary and hostile comments at the end of our last post. If you don’t agree with my statements, please state so and provide refuting points. There is no need for uncalled innuendo and childish behaviour.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Webgear wrote:

I am not joking, I believe the western media hasn’t been as critical of the Russian campaign as the Canadian/NATO campaign is Syria/Iraq.

It is not childish it is merely a commentary on what I consider to be an extreme misreading of the media coverage. If a quick google of the stories didn't convince you off the type of coverage the Western media has spewed then IMO you are best being willfully blind. 

Pages