babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

The Information Age of Warfare Has Arrived

ikosmos
Online
Joined: May 8 2001

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

 


Comments

Webgear
Offline
Joined: May 30 2005

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
Online
Joined: May 8 2001

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
Online
Joined: May 8 2001

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
Online
Joined: May 8 2001

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
Online
Joined: May 8 2001

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
Offline
Joined: Sep 23 2004
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
Online
Joined: May 8 2001

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
Offline
Joined: Sep 23 2004
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.

voice of the damned
Offline
Joined: Sep 23 2004
delete

ikosmos
Online
Joined: May 8 2001

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
Offline
Joined: Sep 23 2004
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
Online
Joined: May 8 2001

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
Offline
Joined: Dec 13 2002

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
Online
Joined: May 8 2001

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
Offline
Joined: Sep 23 2004
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
Offline
Joined: Jan 23 2006

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
Offline
Joined: Sep 23 2004
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
Online
Joined: May 8 2001

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
Offline
Joined: Sep 23 2004
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
Online
Joined: May 8 2001

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
Online
Joined: May 8 2001

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
Offline
Joined: Sep 23 2004
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
Online
Joined: May 8 2001

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
Offline
Joined: Sep 23 2004
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
Offline
Joined: May 30 2005

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
Offline
Joined: May 30 2005

Sorry double post.


ikosmos
Online
Joined: May 8 2001

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
Offline
Joined: May 30 2005

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
Online
Joined: May 8 2001

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
Online
Joined: May 8 2001

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.

 




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments