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.
Comments
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.
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.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.
There is some discussion that this "silver bullet" could be overused ...
“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.
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".
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 ...
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 ...
“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...
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.
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.
Here is a review of Korybko's book...
Not just the past but the future as well.
The key quote is as follows ...
Hybrid Wars I - the Law of Hybrid Warfare
is a more recent contribution.
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.
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 ...
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.
And the shoe fits very well.
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.
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?
That link to Democracy Now is interesting. Thanks. However, all the criticism seems to come from 9-11 "truthers".
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.
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.
He still is one
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/07/22/the-cost-left-wings-ongoing-v...
Kinda reminds me of Lloyd Axworthy, don't cha think? OTOH, he should know.
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.
related story: CIA's Work With Filmmakers Puts All Media Workers at Risk
see: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
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.
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.
Sorry double post.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.