High-ranking psychopaths are pushing for a nuclear war with Russia, seemingly intentionally

If the US leaders wanted to wage a thermonuclear war that would destroy America and the world, we would not be here to talk about it. President Biden has explicitly ruled out a direct confrontation with Russia, no matter what happens in Ukraine.

However, there are disturbing indications that some individuals in high places in the US (or representing the thinking of many in such high places) are okay with a nuclear war that will destroy the United States, or in fact are encouraging such a war.

A "no fly zone" of death would expand across the globe instantly

Imposing a no-fly zone in Ukraine will trigger a third world war because it will require targeting Russian airfields, radar and defense systems on Russian territory with American missiles. Russian defenses have vast ranges that prohibit the use of US aircraft over Ukraine. Russian weapons can also easily reach all American airfields in Europe that would be involved in any such operation. The vastness of the Russian military means that the US would have to launch a devastating attack on Russia to neutralise all the threats to US planes as they attack the Russians. Russia would invariably respond by attacking US airfields in turn, and very quickly targeting the US mainland and cities in response to its own territory being attacked by America.

Despite this, there are calls from seemingly well-qualified individuals to go ahead and start this suicidal conflict anyway.

Here are just three examples. There are no doubt others, possibly more influential, but these are just picked at random for being prominent examples of Anglo-American leadership on both sides of the Atlantic.

General Philip Breedlove

This man is no crank. Breedlove is a US general and the former supreme military commander of NATO (Supreme Allied Commander Europe, or SACEUR). He has explictly pleaded, "How many casualties does it take before we take a different approach to this war?" While this may simply seem like a stupid remark, based on emotion, this man is trained and competent enough to be fully aware that what he is advocating will entail killing not just everyone in Ukraine but everyone in Russia, Europe and North America too. Why, then, is he advocating it?

Lindsey Graham

Lindsey Graham, an influential and powerful US senator, has stated that the use of chemical weapons in Ukraine (which he will only blame on Russia) will make the moral case to forget about the risk of nuclear war and begin attacking the Russians. He is also too well-informed in briefings to be unaware that his suggestion to start a world war against Russia would kill far more people than a chemical attack and would quickly kill everyone in the United States and Russia under the fire of hydrogen bombs.

Jonathan Powell

The former Downing Street Chief of Staff under Tony Blair from 1997-2007 has advocated against "appeasement" and argued for launching a war on the Russians if they use a chemical weapon in Ukraine. He cites the example of Syria and the need to take a firmer moral stand (apparently that will do a whole lot of good when we are all skeletons). He is advocating this despite the fact that Western governments were never even fully confident that Syria used chemical weapons, and they bombed Syria merely because of intelligence assessments stating it was "likely". Apparently, we will be very impatient to immolate ourselves and not bother to wait for any investigation in Ukraine, too.

As horrifying as the pictures may have been, the use of chemical weapons in Syria barely killed anyone and had little to no effect on the battlefield other than prompting Western strikes. More people died from knives in Syria. The nuclear exchange that would be guaranteed by attacking Russia on such a flimsy, emotionally manipulative pretext about "chemicals" would kill almost everyone in Ukraine, and then kill almost everyone in both the West and Russia. Apparently, politicians don't see a moral issue with the scenario of mass immolation of people, followed by the larger group of us whose skin will melt and their eyeballs will fall out, followed by another percentarge who will be vomiting blood. No, these scenes don't worry them; they are just worried about the "chemicals" and the idea of people choking, such that they think it is worth risking the nuclear scenario.

These interventionist leaders we are talking about may be insane, but the unique mental health problems of those with power are less important to talk about than the need to stop them.

Who will stop these men?

The answer is... currently serving American officers and generals, who want their troops to live, and probably want their families to survive too.

It should be observed that military experts and officials tend to always warn against what will cause a nuclear war, as happened in Syria. Here we are again, and the same kind of "hawks" are trying to impose a situation where deescalation could become too difficult for the military personnel tasked with a nation's safety, as if the politicians had reached out and ripped the brakes from your car to make sure you crash.

Getting closer and closer to Russia and trying to enforce the US's will closer and closer to them potentially creates an ever more uncontrollable and unpredictable series of conflicts between the US and Russia that make it almost impossible for troops to avoid a nuclear war, even if they have the maximum will to avoid one.

Being responsible for a larger population, if the US gets into a nuclear war with Russia, it will suddenly make the world record for being the country with the biggest piles of dead bodies in human history. Every American officer and general's family will most likely perish, meaning that they have utterly failed not only in their duty as a soldier but even as a human being.

The only solution can be that American officers must continuously resist the pressure of politicians to put them in a situation of nuclear escalation that they cannot escape. Finally, if American officers are unable to prevent themselves being put in that situation, it would become their duty to preserve their country by, in the worst case scenario, mutiny. One should be prepared, privately, to kill their own political leaders and seize control of the government, even at grave risk to their own lives, if the alternative is to obey orders that will directly lead to nuclear war.

- ClubOfInfo

Read More »

Three ways for Russia to punish the West

Due to the ongoing operation to eliminate radical anti-Russian nationalists in Ukraine, Russia is under pressure unseen since the Axis powers attacked its territory in the Second World War. The following are three decisive methods the Russian government could consider, to severely punish the NATO countries.

1. Proxy war in Ukraine

Americans have already taken the lead in making a European proxy war possible, suggesting the supply of armaments to rebels and foreign volunteers who are expected to arrive in Ukraine. They want to copy the success of foreign fighters in Afghanistan during the 1980s, believing only the Russians will suffer from this policy, but Europe could be more at risk itself. After all, this "Afghanistan" would be in Europe, and Ukraine already has a problem with armed neo-Nazis.

In fact, NATO has more reason to fear this scenario of a failed state in Ukraine than Russia.

Unlike Afghanistan, Russians are natives of this area, with large populations and families supporting Russia in parts of Ukraine. They will not be withdrawing like the Soviet Army. Returned to Russian protection, they could contribute to a strong buffer zone of sympathetic forces to help secure Russia's Ukrainian frontier. There is already the Donetsk People's Republic, DPR, and Lugansk People's Republic, LPR, able to provide Russia with mutual security against Western nationalist proxies in Ukraine. Russia could be restrictive about travel from Ukraine to Russia, but the European Union would never be so strict, having opened its doors to Ukrainian exiles and aided their travels. If Ukraine becomes a ruined failed state, filled with protracted warfare and resentment, home to many shadowy groups including local Russian proxies, Russia would be able to use Ukraine to threaten Europe, while enjoying security itself. The inevitable blockback of weapons and radical ideas into Europe from a European repeat of Afghanistan could be uncontrollable, and may result in armed insurgents seizing cities across Europe and spreading civil war and chaos. We must remember that the foreign fighters of the Afghan jihad set about trying to topple the local regimes after they returned home, for example in Algeria, being convinced of their just cause. Foreign fighters who are radicalised in Ukraine would be returning to places like Berlin and Paris.

2. Impounding ships

Russia encompasses a huge amount of land with a vast coastline, meaning potential dominance at key shipping routes, especially those icy seas along its north. It possesses a powerful navy and air forces, more than enough to interdict shipping. In retaliation for sanctions, Russia could impound all cargo ships and tankers it encounters if they belong to the countries carrying out sanctions on Russia, taking their cargo as compensation. The US already did this to Iran, and France even was bold enough to do this to Russia itself. The occasional disappearance of a tanker could produce negative economic effects and denying them passage could be just as disruptive.

With the French declaring "total economic and financial war on Russia", Russia has no reason to let any French cargo ship pass if it can intercept it. An even more aggressive option is for Russian navy vessels to actively hunt, intercept and board all vulnerable ships of the European Union and throw their cargo overboard, destroying the goods (unless they contain things that are extra valuable, such as gold!)

European countries could retaliate in a number of ways, but they would likely be too costly. Freight shipping is a notoriously cost-averse business, maintaining ageing ships often of dubious quality and crews on fairly minimal salaries, so it seems unlikely that warshups will be used for this task or assigned for protection in peacetime.

3. Turning off the gas to Europe

Russia can simply turn off the gas to Germany and instead supply its gas to China and other Asian countries. If done in combination with delaying, diverting or seizing US LNG shipments bound for Europe, this could be catastrophic to European economies, forcing them to shut down industry and even fail to keep their citizens warm.

Owing to its size and resources, Russia has proved to be invulnerable in many ways as a country, and numerous alliances have shattered when trying to take this country on.

- ClubOfInfo

Read More »

Did Britain subtly suggest it will shoot Estonia's Russian civilians?

 Arrest of a youth during the Bloody Sunday massacre of Sunday, 30 January 1972

On Sunday, 30 January 2022, Britain appeared to time its announcement of NATO reinforcements to Estonia with the 50th anniversary of its troops murdering 14 civilians in Northern Ireland in the Bloody Sunday massacre.

Additional UK troops are deploying to Estonia, where 320,000 ethnic Russians live what is described sometimes as a marginalized life under a pro-NATO government. Western publications tend to describe them as loyal to Russia.

Considering the timing of its announcement on Bloody Sunday's anniversary, the UK deployment could be seen as a deliberate, if subtle, threat that the UK is ready to murder ethnic Russian civilians in countries that already make life hard for Russian-speakers, such as the Baltic states. NATO already created an excuse for civilian deaths under the "hybrid" war model that can accuse anyone of being part of a Russian plot.

Note that the UK timed its announcement of troop increases on the 50th anniversary of the Bloody Sunday massacre of civilians by British troops in Northern Ireland. Either a huge gaffe by Boris Johnson or a deliberate message that the UK is fine with shooting Russian civilians.

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) January 30, 2022

"Hybrid" threats can include civilians

It should be noted that Russian civilians reside all over Eastern Europe under an increasing NATO occupation, driven by exaggerated threats of Russian civilian subversion and irredentism. These civilians are considered a fifth column in the hybrid war theory of NATO enthusiasts, for example, in this publication by the Chatham House think tank.

Ethnic Russian civilians were in the streets ahead of all the Russian "aggression" in Crimea and Donbass to take part in protest activity. In the War in Donbass, described as countering Russian aggression according to NATO and the central government in Kiev, the majority of victims have been Russian civilians.

Considering the above facts, a bloody incident with NATO occupation troops shooting at civilians in an Eastern European country cannot be ruled out and should even be expected in the future.

Much of the Western public has already accepted the idea that any Russians are enemies and British MPs openly refer to Russia as an evil regime. If massacres occur, they will be justified by Western journalists and media consumers by merely by pointing out that the civilian victims were Russian, which will be enough to create glee among British MPs.

https://t.co/2177AyaPDZhttps://t.co/0pw5C8Jdty
To confirm, the same day - Sunday, 30th January, is the reported day of Boris's announcement and the civilian massacre's 50th anniversary

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) January 30, 2022

UK is not shy about civilian massacres

The only likely battle that British soldiers will take part in, in Estonia, is a scandalous ethnic massacre like the Bloody Sunday incident in Northern Ireland as NATO becomes increasingly frustrated with disloyal civilians. The brazen timing of the NATO reinforcements announcement looks like a signal that it is aware its targets will be Russian civilians, and it is prepared to murder them.

Russians living in Estonia should view British troops as hostile to them and placed to assist in an ethnic massacre when "the Russians" are inevitably villified as Vladimir Putin's agents. Resistance to NATO occupation seems legitimate for Russians who are threatened by NATO expansion.

- ClubOfInfo

Read More »

International law could allow Russia to strike NATO, ban NATO response

While Russian diplomats have not yet stated the following, preferring to make polite requests of US and NATO forces in Europe, they may have the international legal high ground to attack if NATO attempts to build up sufficient forces on the Russian border to prevail.

The United Nations Charter, conceived to prevent aggression like the Axis attack on the Soviet Union, does not permit developing aggressive military alliances to defeat a nation and moving armies towards it as NATO is doing. In fact, international law would seem to support pre-emptively destroying these forces before they are ready to attack.

Article VII of the UN Charter reads, "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations". All that is required is that it be "immediately reported to the Security Council". It covers preventive action, when you believe an object is being placed to imminently attack your country and its indepdendence.

To quote the interpretation of international law experts in the UK:

Article 51 of the UN Charter does not require a state passively to await an attack, but includes the ‘inherent right’ – as it’s described in Article 51 – to use force in self-defence against an ‘imminent’ armed attack, referring back to customary international law

As the British view states, one does not need to stand idle and wait to be attacked by an adversary, while one believes the adversary is assembling a military coalition or military infrastructure for aggression.

Russia outnumbered

Being the lesser military force in terms of pieces of equipment and numbers of troops, as was also the case during the German invasion in 1941 and prior, during Napoleon's 1812 invasion, Russia is under no obligation to wait passively as a massive 30-nation alliance rallies armies in front of its territory to threaten it with overwhelming force. If NATO attempts to accumulate forces near Russia capable of inflicting a decisive defeat on it, this will give legal justification for Russian leaders to attack and cripple Alliance objects that pose imminent threats near their territory. This will of course not include targeting the home territories of the US, UK and France, which are part of a quite different calculation concerning mutual destruction.

We have to remember that the UN Charter was written after the Second World War, and the Soviet Union played a major role in its adoption. It barred wars of aggression against the existence of a state.

For NATO to bring missiles and a coalition of armies from thousands of miles away to menace Russia cannot be perceived as anything other than preparation for aggression. This will fall entirely on the wrong side of international law, and justify every form of warfare by Russia to remove the imminent and encroaching threat. NATO forces will have no legal right to respond to being eliminated along the Russian border, since the Russian attack will be limited only to imminent threats it notified the UN about.

NATO could crumble under a justified Russian attack

Russian forces could solely use their conventional missiles, and not exit the Russian borders, tightly adhering to international law so that their actions cannot be interpreted as anything other than an appropriate and surgically precise response to imminent aggression.

Rather than going nuclear, NATO would most likely capitulate to Russian demands in such a conflict situation (with the exception of announcing some sanctions and doing additional media manipulation to convince people to think Russia may have been the aggressor). NATO military forces, like Russian troops, may be willing to obey orders and fight to the bitter end in a nuclear war, but the reality is that NATO is led not by these men but by civilian pencilnecks whose main message in all their actions is that they really don't want to get hurt. In fact, that's why NATO expanded. The core member states of NATO don't even want to fight, never mind get hurt in a conflict, hence the desire for buffer states.

Preferring complete immunity and having no chance of dying has been the core motive of all NATO's policies, including those responsible for the current crisis. As soon as the promise of  growing security was replaced with real violence and the spectre of a chaotic death, NATO leaders would no longer care about defeating Russia and would only think about saving their own skins.

- ClubOfInfo

Read More »

US intentionally breaking Europe: Kristian NF Interview

 

Europe is split along more lines than just a conflict with Russia. As Eastern European countries are protective of their national sovereignty and hold conservative views of culture, they are on a collision course with the economic powerhouses of the liberal West.

"While liberal ideologues dream of the United States of Europe, a different trend is emerging in Eastern Europe", emailed Kristian NF, a German dissident blogger also using the name Mars von Padua, in response to a question on whether divisions are forming between eastern and western member states.

Despite the division with the overbearing Brussels, countries like Poland are unlikely to find themselves back in any kind of favorable relationship with Russia. It is more likely that these nationalistic states will be stuck between Russia and the EU and supported by the Americans against both. They will fight a two-front Cold War in which they denounce liberal adversaries to the west and the speculative Russian military threat to the east.

In Kristian's words:

...one must not forget the transatlantic influence of NATO on the question of the EU. The USA in particular has a special interest in preventing Germany and Russia from getting closer. An alliance between Moscow, Berlin or even Paris would be a nightmare. That is why the Intermarium project was refocused, a geopolitical draft that was developed after the Second World War. An alliance of the Eastern European countries from the Baltic to the Black Sea under Polish leadership. The Polish Marshal Josef Pilsudski called this project Międzymorze. And this project has been under discussion again since 2016, with the Viségrad states being the first cornerstones. The USA is promoting this project, in which Hungary, Croatia and Romania, both NATO countries, are also involved. Just like the Baltic states. If this project is realized, there will be no rapprochement with Russia, but only a strong division with Western Europe. 

Poland's tensions with the EU elites, based on Kristian's assessment, arise from its aggressive foreign policy goals to establish itself as a great power. The US encourages these goals, despite the risk of Poland clashing with all its neighbors in Warsaw's attempts to establish itself as master of Eastern Europe.

These comments were received as part of an email-based Q and A series that replaced what would normally be an annual discussion among Mont Order members. The full series is available as a printout at Academia.edu, titled Mont Order November 2021 Conference Text.

- ClubOfInfo

Read More »

If Twitter is loyal to the US, other countries should block it

Has Twitter started to act like a leading propaganda agency of the US state after the Democrats assumed power this year? We can speculate that it is going to support deadly US foreign policy objectives while also shielding the regime at home from criticism.

Views critical of the regime may be hidden, while many label them as treasonous. Parrots who praise the regime mindlessly might be bizarrely boosted on the social network, even while being mocked on the street (this could be proven by identifying a list of such users and analysing the way they talk about their IRL experiences).

As of today, Twitter still maintains its permanent ban on the current top US opposition figure, Donald Trump. At the same time, the social network is alleged to support the opposition figure and NATO stooge in Russia, Alexei Navalny, who begged for US and EU sanctions against his own country in a letter (imagine if Trump had written to Moscow for a package of sanctions on America in response to his election defeat!)

Medvedev slams Twitterhttps://t.co/Y8S5BcezzO

— RT (@RT_com) February 1, 2021

One way that Twitter obviously filters information is by shadowbanning popular accounts so users cannot find them, and by recommending headlines from the North American regime's preferred newspapers and broadcasters instead.

Twitter's shadowban on @RT_com and @CCTV expresses how much it wants the North American regime to get away with murdering civilians without anyone seeing it in the news. Twitter represses opposition in the US. Don't be surprised when it helps the regime commit murder abroad. pic.twitter.com/1SVOubBxqJ

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) February 1, 2021

Twitter's excuses for banning Trump were related to preventing violence like the chaos at the US Capitol. Even if these excuses are valid, they resemble the same national security reasons given by governments (such as Uganda) when they block Twitter itself during sensitive political periods. Twitter's pompous managers are trying to use the same arguments for blocking information as far away as Africa, while condemning the actual government authorities in Africa for using these arguments or taking any action.

The government of #Uganda is responsible for blocking things Uganda. Here is your own statement with a few corrections to it. pic.twitter.com/va94nRo3Ss

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) January 12, 2021

In using such poor arguments and being so glaringly hypocritical, Twitter has essentially given carte blanche for all governments in the world to block its services completely if they want. Twitter's own statements prioritising political stability and preventing interference actually support arguments for the social network to be blocked by governments during sensitive times.

And so Twitter should be blocked more regularly around the world, if it is going to be an arm of America.

Twitter deletes opposition accounts in the US and boosts opposition in Russia. It is an anti-democracy propaganda cesspit and weapon of the US government. Every country in the world should feel free to block this stupid website.

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) February 1, 2021

In conclusion, we should be tolerant of any government choosing to block Twitter, as the website now heavily overrrepresents the views of a single state entity and its elite rather than a society.

When newly introduced, a technology will set many people free and let them punch above their weight. Perhaps when it reaches its maturity and the limits of its power, we then see excessively powerful monopolies (as we see now with social media). Around this time, there often are abuses and atrocities before states inevitably have to step in and restrict everything once again.

- ClubOfInfo

Read More »

Buying a Robot Army: are drones the future of defense?

This essay argues that there is a path to the replacement of armies with a national defense system consisting entirely of automated responses and weapons. Based on the future many national armies already see in unmanned weapons, this culmination of military evolution may be closer than it seems. Should we continue reacting with horror to unmanned weapons? They may be inevitable, and we could hope they will form part of a strong deterrent structure that minimizes violence and helps push us to pacifism.

It is well-known that many countries manufacture and operate unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) as weapons,[1] and this is leading to an interest in solutions to guide similar armed drones without the need for remote control by humans. We can see this already in the concept of "drone swarms", groups of semi-autonomous drones that could participate in battles.[2] Weapons equipped with artificial intelligence (AI), are pursued by the US, Russia and China.[3] Russia's military chief Valery Gerasimov considered in 2013 that "a fully robotized unit will be created, capable of independently conducting military operations."[4]Taken together, such news reports suggest the seemingly fictitious pursuit of robot armies by states is real.

Relying mostly on news reports, this essay will consider the merger of two different areas of military technological innovation. The first is the development of reliable unmanned aerial, naval and ground combat units. The second is the more hypothesis-laden topic of military artificial intelligence (AI), which may be applied to coordinate individual combat vehicles and eventually entire units on at least a tactical level. Military experts have not suggested the breakthrough of artificial general intelligence referred to by AI experts[5] is necessary to hit targets or outperform a human tactician, so that concept will be irrelevant here. This essay will be new in its attempt to make possible the concept of a complete national defense system that can consist wholly of automated units, reliant on automated responses and measures, to entirely replace a manned army. In doing so, this essay will address some military and political challenges such a national defense system could face and argue that its creation is achievable.

Before addressing the present direction of the two major areas of innovation concerned, we can consider an example of a similar defensive initiative. Unmanned defenses and automated retaliatory measures are not new ideas, although similar projects have never been seen as desirable. Nuclear weapons in Russia have been considered as possible components of an automated retaliatory system, in response to the close proximity of NATO forces to the Russian capital. In such a system, launches of the opposing (US) side's nuclear missiles would be detected and automatically trigger a retaliatory strike from Russia without requiring any human authorization.[6] If such powerful weaponry can be launched automatically, why not much less drastic military options deployed in a purely defensive manner?

On the less ambitious end of the spectrum, automated defenses including self-aiming stationary defenses like turrets with machine-guns already exist[7] and intelligent mines have already been advanced as ideas.[8] What seem to be persistently absent from this mix are unmanned anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) launchers and other towed or man-portable launchers. Even the most advanced such weapons known to exist only gained "fire-and-forget" technology and still require crews exposed to danger[9] to perform loading and firing. If better types of stationary defenses were to be relied on more heavily in future wars, they could significantly reduce the need to endanger human personnel with the low-value task of guarding a single point and help deter the most common low-tech threats.

Beyond stationary point defense is the adoption of mobile unmanned weapons. Russia,[10] China,[11] the US,[12] the UK[13] and others[14] all fund programs that consider drones as essential players in the future of warfare. Unmanned weapons such as these are best examined when divided into the different domains of ground, naval, aerial, and space combat and will be addressed in that order here. For a state to fully automate its defense, it would need to have capable responses to threats in all military domains.

The biggest current obstacles to unmanned warfare exist on the ground. Hostile personnel, being flexible and fast, can present a never-ending source of confusion and challenges to drone tanks. Such remote-controlled tanks, called unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs), have been trialed in combat by the Russian Federation but are hindered by difficulties in signal,[15] cheap and unreliable design features,[16] and optics.[17] One summary of such problems may simply be that engineers have so little historical experience of creating full-scale unmanned vehicles, in contrast with manned vehicles, that almost all the problems are new and the solutions are still decades away.

Plans to overcome signal problems and the threat of jamming by making drone tanks drive autonomously may be complicated by the "cluttered and unpredictable" nature of battlefields.[18] Whatever targeting software is involved also appears to be too simple to deal with the huge array of threats from a speedy and proficient enemy.[19] The answer to such problems seems to lie in machine learning analogous to the same elusive way image recognition bots are developed.[20] For weapons, that would mean testing them repeatedly with the help of massive volumes of recorded data from real and simulated combat situations until results are promising enough for them to learn in real situations.

Done tanks appear to be the most challenging of all types of military robot to develop. Commercial self-driving cars are likely to remain drastically ahead of them for the foreseeable future. Due to their relationship, advances in self-driving car software can be expected to result in successes that filter down into the technologies carried aboard drone tanks.[21] The weapons will become more reliable as this happens. Self-driving car software appears to already be based on the same machine learning mentioned previously,[22] verifying that this is the likely route that will be taken to create smarter autonomous weapons. Machine learning used for image recognition should be just as applicable to all other data, including audio, radar and sonar, that may be recorded and acted upon in a combat situation.

The future of naval drones shows promise, with the adoption of unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs).[23] With the most concerning challenges to armed drones arguably existing in the domain of ground warfare, potential dangers to naval drones are not as significant. Naval armed drones are being trialed in various countries,[24] including a Russian drone torpedo called the Poseidon that acts as an autonomous nuclear-armed, nuclear-powered torpedo[25] and has strengthened Russia's nuclear deterrent.[26]

UUVs may have some of the best prospects as unmanned weapons in actual combat, since a non-operating drone underwater could at least be difficult for an enemy to locate. Such a drone could lose signal and be useless for a time, but not be truly lost or surrendered like its air and land counterparts. It can be hypothesized that an underwater drone could be created with the option to remain inert on the seabed, in order to gain an opportunity to reactivate and attack when the enemy is not ready.

Air-to-ground drone warfare is often thought to be fully developed already, but is totally ineffective in contested airspace.[27] Present technology appears to be inadequate to challenge a human pilot. Air-to-air drone warfare may remain too difficult at present, but development in that direction does seem to be of interest to China.[28] The most common use of lethal drones so far seems to be in ethically questioned assassinations by the US.[29] Because these are aimed at non-state targets, with the expectation that they will be undefended and unaware that they are being targeted, the effectiveness of drones as front-line weapons remains untested by the US. What is clear is that current drones and other unmanned weapons are effective only when acting in uncontested and remote spaces. It can be concluded that current unmanned weapons are very far from being flexible enough to compete with enemy manned weapons or enemy personnel in direct combat. Just as with drone tanks, however, this would be overcome by making the weapons autonomous and capable of learning.

Space warfare can already be considered entirely unmanned, because all space objects with potential military value are unmanned satellites[30] heavily dependent on computers and mission control centers on Earth. The fact the only presence held by states on other planets is robotic, too,[31] warns us that robots will be central to space militarization if and when it speeds up. Creating a "space corps", meaning military combatants stationed in orbit,[32] could prove to be a catastrophic mistake while space flight continues to be such a fragile task. This is because opposing states may instead solely focus on robotic satellites[33] that are much less vulnerable and much more menacing in the vacuum of space than any pressurized vehicle or suit. Small satellites, new missiles,[34] and intentionally placed debris[35] created by a desperate enemy could easily inflict overwhelming losses on a space corps and bring them burning down to Earth. Unmanned craft could also survive longer away from the Earth without resupply. Of all the different areas of warfare today, therefore, space warfare would be the most likely to see effective dominance of unmanned weapons, and that is because personnel would be too hard to sustain there. Space is already favorable to the non-living.

Lack of autonomy in drone weapons is their greatest handicap. They are little more than oversized remote-controlled toys in their present form, not much different than their World War 2 era predecessors, remote-controlled "Goliath" mines.[36] They may be even more vulnerable because signals can be disrupted and jammed[37] and obstacles can block signals,[38] potentially surrendering vehicles and their armaments to the enemy or leaving aerial drones vulnerable to interception by a much cruder enemy aircraft.

We can see the creation of lethal autonomous weapons (LAWs) is being pursued by states despite the push for international prohibitions against them.[39] Engineers are likely to consider autonomy important to overcome aforementioned problems inherent to remote-control by human operators, especially in the case of drone tanks. Given the current situation, military competition between states can reasonably be expected result in significant strides in the development of autonomous drone weapons in coming decades, possibly as commercial self-driving software filters into military software.[40] If Russia's military chief is correct,[41] this will lead to robotic units that can continue to carry out decisive combat actions even when their signal is severed, and perhaps fight to restore their connection with their commanders. These designs could, we can speculate, be able to defend their own technology from capture and even self-destruct when parts of their casing are opened by unauthorized personnel. Whether this is possible or useful will have to be explored by the relevant professionals.

Beyond the future engineering breakthroughs in lethal autonomous weapons, it is predictable that a whole different form of warfare will emerge in the long-term. This form of warfare will be the result of artificial intelligence continuing to be incorporated onboard military drones[42] or in the signals infrastructure used to control them from afar, or both. Although a completely automated army is not a stated goal of any country, evidence of amazing military engineering will make it increasingly plausible to propose much heavier funding for such projects in the future. It may not even emerge as a specifically funded project at all, but a simple reorganization of robotic forces and integration of future weapons and other systems into that national defense system once the machines are reliable.

Whether leadership of tactical-level decisions for drones could be handed over to a form of artificial intelligence like a robot general is a much more difficult topic to address than the drones themselves, so the following is highly speculative. The breakthroughs to artificial general intelligence and "super" AI[43] are almost certainly not necessary, although the state achieving these first may have a big advantage.[44] The success of computers in chess[45] and various games[46] can be viewed as precedent they can already make swifter and superior decisions than a human expert, but we must respect the fact real wars are much more complicated than any game.[47] It is possible some biological elements of creative thought and aggressiveness are required to act decisively in the fog of war and turn the tide of a battle, but it is not clear if these require anything like a human mind. What is clear is that, because war is so complex, it will be hard to maintain the flow of sufficiently detailed data between drones and an artificial general to allow it to make the type of fast or well-informed decision it would make in a game. This brings us back to the issue of maintaining signal. Whereas food and medicine would never be issues, a whole set of new baggage and responsibilities would drive the actions of an army consisting only of robots.

The biggest engineering problem, even in the exceedingly hypothetical idea of a fully automated military, may not be the creation of competent artificial generals to manage artificial armies but the already discussed problem of maintaining communication in a chaotic environment. It makes sense that such a problem would only be further compounded if a remotely-based artificial intelligence was giving instructions to robotic units and waiting for their feedback. The data being transmitted to and from the units would be immense. Time delays would exist. However, it is possible that the challenges would then be overcome simply by building ever more specialized and larger drones. Antenna-carrying models could be assigned to carry signals over buildings and other troublesome objects and overpower jamming attempts. These hypothetical vehicles may need to be very large, costly, and high-powered to provide maximum coverage. They would become high-value targets that require significant protection from other drones. Other types of supporting drone could be created specifically to attack sources of interference detected by them. Some drones could be adapted to act as commanders by interpreting many signals from lower-ranking drones and issuing orders back to them.

What is not speculation is the way funding and policy preferences of governments are going to be the deciding factors in whether defense becomes more automated, and to what degree. Current military robots and drones can be accurately described as being of limited variety and low cost,[48] indicating governments fund them grudgingly and wait for results before deciding what to do next. The production of war machines capable of acting autonomously and being led by other machines will likely depend on the creation of many more ambitious variants of military drone, with ever increasing size and cost. Whether this is purely science fiction talk or the next big revolution in warfare will depend on the choices of political leaders in the country prepared to take that leap.

The crossover from human warriors and their horses to machines as the main agents of warfare has been in the works for hundreds of years already, but may be close to its ultimate conclusion. It can be argued that drone armies and AI will eventually overtake humans in their ability to win wars. The end result, although still remote, may be that humans become obsolete in all domains of war. Over sufficient generations, it can be hoped that this reduces the militaristic upbringing and values of much of the population and reduces warlike sentiments and policies. Whether that is a helpful prediction has not yet been discussed in any literature so far and is worth further inquiry.

Harry Bentham

Exclusively for The clubof.info Blog

[1] Dillow, C., "All of These Countries Now Have Armed Drones", http://fortune.com/2016/02/12/these-countries-have-armed-drones/, Fortune, 12 February 2016, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[2] Lendon, B., "U.S. Navy could 'swarm' foes with robot boats", https://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/06/tech/innovation/navy-swarm-boats/index.html, CNN, 13 October 2014, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[3] O'Connor, T., "Russia's Military Challenges U.S. and China By Building a Missile That Makes Its Own Decisions", https://www.newsweek.com/russia-military-challenge-us-china-missile-own-decisions-639926, Newsweek, 20 July 2017, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[4] LaPointe, C., and Levin, P. L., "Automated War", https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-09-05/automated-war, Foreign Affairs, 5 September 2016, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[5] Dickson, B., "What is Narrow, General and Super Artificial Intelligence", https://bdtechtalks.com/2017/05/12/what-is-narrow-general-and-super-artificial-intelligence/, TechTalks, 12 May 2017, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[6] Bender, J., "Russia May Still Have An Automated Nuclear Launch System Aimed Across The Northern Hemisphere", https://www.businessinsider.com/russias-dead-hand-system-may-still-be-active-2014-9?IR=T, Business Insider, 4 September 2014, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[7] Parkin, S. "Killer robots: The soldiers that never sleep", http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150715-killer-robots-the-soldiers-that-never-sleep, BBC, 16 July 2015, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[8] Bergstein, B., "'Smart' land mines, with remote control", http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4664710/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/smart-land-mines-remote-control/, NBC News, 4 April 2004, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[9] "Antitank guided missile", https://www.britannica.com/technology/antitank-guided-missile, Britannica.com, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[10] Majumdar, D. ,"Russia Is Developing a Mysterious Unmanned Strike Aircraft", https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-developing-mysterious-unmanned-strike-aircraft-23941, The National Interest, 4 January 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[11] Huang, K. "The drones that have become part of China’s military strategy", https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2161354/drones-have-become-part-chinas-military-strategy, South China Morning Post, 26 August 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[12] "Predator C Avenger Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)", https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/predator-c-avenger-unmanned-aircraft-system-uas/, Airforce Technology
[13] "Taranis", https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/taranis, BAE Systems, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[14] Dillow, C., "All of These Countries Now Have Armed Drones", http://fortune.com/2016/02/12/these-countries-have-armed-drones/, Fortune, 12 February 2016, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[15] Mizokami, K., "Russia’s Tank Drone Performed Poorly in Syria", https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a21602657/russias-tank-drone-performed-poorly-in-syria/, Popular Mechanics, 18 June 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[16] "Russian Uran-9 unmanned combat vehicle tested in Syria", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MiiUOjmqLo, Binkov's Battlegrounds, YouTube, 20 July 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[17] "Combat tests in Syria brought to light deficiencies of Russian unmanned mini-tank", https://defence-blog.com/army/combat-tests-syria-brought-light-deficiencies-russian-unmanned-mini-tank.html, Defence Blog, 18 June 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[18] "Unmanned Ground Vehicle Technology Issues", Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations, The National Academies Press, 2005, pp. 148-153
[19] "Russian Uran-9 unmanned combat vehicle tested in Syria", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MiiUOjmqLo, Binkov's Battlegrounds, YouTube, 20 July 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[20] "What is the Working of Image Recognition and How it is Used?", https://www.marutitech.com/working-image-recognition/, Maruti Techlabs, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[21] Wall, R. "Armies Race to Deploy Drone, Self-Driving Tech on the Battlefield", https://www.wsj.com/articles/armies-race-to-deploy-drone-self-driving-tech-on-the-battlefield-1509274803, WSJ, 29 October 2017, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[22] "What is the Working of Image Recognition and How it is Used?", https://www.marutitech.com/working-image-recognition/, Maruti Techlabs, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[23] Rees, M., "General Dynamics Demonstrates Naval Unmanned Systems C3 Capabilities", https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/2018/09/general-dynamics-demonstrates-naval-unmanned-systems-c3-capabilities/, Unmanned Systems Technology, 11 September 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[24] "Unmanned Warrior", https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/unmannedwarrior, Royal Navy Website, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[25] "Russia Begins Sea Trials of Nuclear-Capable ‘Poseidon’ Underwater Drone", https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/russia-begins-sea-trials-of-nuclear-capable-poseidon-underwater-prone/, The Diplomat, 21 July 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[26] "Russia’s new weapons, nuclear parity and arms race: What’s going on?", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4LejOtYiyw, RT, YouTube, 26 March 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[27] "NATO report highlights drone limitations in 'contested environments'", http://www.natowatch.org/newsbriefs/2014/nato-report-highlights-drone-limitations-contested-environments, NATO Watch, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[28] Axe, D., "Dark Sword: China's Mysterious (and 'Robotic') Stealth Fighter Has Arrived", The National Interest, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/dark-sword-chinas-mysterious-robotic-stealth-fighter-has-26175, 8 June 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[29] Masters, J. "Targeted Killings", https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/targeted-killings, Council on Foreign Relations, 23 May 2013, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[30] Adams, D., "Weaponized Satellites and the Cold War in Space", https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/weaponized-satellites-and-the-cold-war-in-space/, Digital Trends, 1 May 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[31] Mindell, D. A., "Robotic exploration of Mars is equivalent to human presence on Mars.", http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/10/robotic_exploration_of_mars_is_equivalent_to_human_presence_on_mars.html, Slate, 23 October 2015, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[32] Gould, J., "US Space Corps could launch in 3 years, key lawmaker says", https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/02/28/2021-a-space-odyssey-space-corps-could-launch-in-three-to-five-years-key-lawmaker-says/, Defense News, 28 February 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[33] Gertz, B., "China’s Space Weapons Threaten US Satellites", https://freebeacon.com/national-security/chinas-space-weapons-threaten-us-satellites/, Washington Free Beacon, 26 February 2015, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[34] Erwin, S., "U.S. intelligence: Russia and China will have ‘operational’ anti-satellite weapons in a few years", https://spacenews.com/u-s-intelligence-russia-and-china-will-have-operational-anti-satellite-weapons-in-a-few-years/, SpaceNews.com, 14 February 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[35] Stenger, R., "Scientist: Space weapons pose debris threat", https://web.archive.org/web/20120930100948/http://articles.cnn.com/2002-05-03/tech/orbit.debris_1_low-earth-orbits-space-junk-international-space-station?_s=PM:TECH, CNN, 3 May 2002, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[36] "Back to the Drawing Board – The Goliath Tracked Mine", https://www.military-history.org/articles/back-to-the-drawing-board.htm, Military History Monthly, 12 July 2012, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[37] Kube, C., "Russia has figured out how to jam U.S. drones in Syria, officials say", https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/russia-has-figured-out-how-jam-u-s-drones-syria-n863931, NBC News, 10 April 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[38] Mizokami, K., "Russia’s Tank Drone Performed Poorly in Syria", https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a21602657/russias-tank-drone-performed-poorly-in-syria/, Popular Mechanics, 18 June 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[39] " Pathways to Banning Fully Autonomous Weapons", https://www.un.org/disarmament/update/pathways-to-banning-fully-autonomous-weapons/, UNODA Website, 23 October 2017, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[40] "Russian Uran-9 unmanned combat vehicle tested in Syria", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MiiUOjmqLo, Binkov's Battlegrounds, YouTube, 20 July 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[41] LaPointe, C., and Levin, P. L., "Automated War", https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-09-05/automated-war, Foreign Affairs, 5 September 2016, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[42] Lee, P., "Drones will soon decide who to kill", http://theconversation.com/drones-will-soon-decide-who-to-kill-94548, The Conversation, 11 April 2018, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[43] Dickson, B., "What is Narrow, General and Super Artificial Intelligence", https://bdtechtalks.com/2017/05/12/what-is-narrow-general-and-super-artificial-intelligence/, TechTalks, 12 May 2017, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[44] Allen, G. C., "Putin and Musk are right: Whoever masters AI will run the world", https://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/05/opinions/russia-weaponize-ai-opinion-allen/index.html, CNN, 5 September 2017, Retrieved 5 October 2018
[45] Gibbs, S. "AlphaZero AI beats champion chess program after teaching itself in four hours", https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/07/alphazero-google-deepmind-ai-beats-champion-program-teaching-itself-to-play-four-hours, The Guardian, 7 December 2017, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[46] McConnell, M., "The AIs Are Winning: 5 Times When Computers Beat Humans", https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/ais-winning-5-times-computers-beat-humans/, MUO, 10 May 2016, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[47] "What Computer Games Get "Wrong" about War", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peNU5EffPYU, Military History Visualized, YouTube, 22 November 2016, Retrieved 3 October 2018
[48] Mclean, W., "Drones are cheap, soldiers are not: a cost-benefit analysis of war", https://theconversation.com/drones-are-cheap-soldiers-are-not-a-cost-benefit-analysis-of-war-27924, The Conversation, 26 June 2014, Retrieved 3 October 2018

Read More »

UK assassins gassed themselves accidentally in Salisbury (analysis)

The bizarre "chemical attack" in Salisbury, England, blamed on Russia by the UK, seems like a chapter intended for Syria rather than Britain. Because it is.

Had the chemical attack not been reported in Salisbury, it would have been reported in Syria a few days later. It may yet happen in Syria too.

Clear signs are being ignored by UK politicians in their patriotic dash to blame the Russian "enemy". The signs show the British government accidentally released the nerve agent in its own territory prematurely, while hoping to commit an atrocity using it in Syria.

Nerve gas was being transported by the UK spies themselves

The nerve agent was being transported by so-called "targeted" UK spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter. The Russian former double agent's daughter Yulia, likely as involved with UK intelligence agencies as her father, seems to have been carrying the nerve agent in her suitcase at the time of the apparent "attack". That much is already confirmed by, basically, all the media.

The nerve agent actually seems to have been destined for Eastern Ghouta, Syria, which would inevitably require spies (or expendable mules) to deliver it in a rather risky operation. We know the UK was trafficking weapons from Salisbury to Eastern Ghouta, Syria, to support Syrian rebels.

"Salisbury, England" inscribed on smuggled weapons in Eastern Ghouta

Recent video footage of captured munitions in Eastern Ghouta shows that some of the munitions' origin was Salisbury, England.* Such a finding offers strong grounds to suspect at least some link between the events in Salisbury and the events in Eastern Ghouta, Syria, where Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is routinely accused of using poison gas by the British and American governments. The British and American governments are in turn accused of staging false flag attacks as they seek excuses to launch airstrikes on Syria, making it likely that this was their plan once again.

There is already a history of bungled attempts to move chemical weapons into Syria and give them to rebels to frame Assad, and this just looks like one more example of it. In 2013, the big year the US first threatened to attack and overthrow Assad for supposedly using chemical weapons, anti-Assad rebels backed by the West were arrested in Turkey with chemical weapons.

There is no motive for Britain or Russia to carry out a military grade nerve gas attack in Salisbury, and Sergei Skripal and his daughter were not important enough to be targeted by either country, but they were expendable enough to be used as mules. The only reason this chemical "attack" would occur is by mistake, as it fits neither country's agenda.

* Porton Down, location of the UK's own chemical weapons labs, is also just a few miles away from the site of this accident

US envoy's speech about Salisbury sounded like redraft of a speech about Ghouta

The current diplomatic crisis, which serves neither Russian nor UK interests, can't have been premeditated by the UK. It does not serve the US and NATO foreign policy aims, which are heavily focused on chemical attacks and escalating violence in Syria rather than in Britain. Nothing demonstrated this clearer than when US diplomat Nikki Haley tried to conflate the events in England with the events in Syria and advocate increased US violence in Syria while talking about Salisbury.

Haley talked about Syria and Assad around ten times in the course of a few minutes in front of the UN Security Council after being asked to talk about Salisbury, as she fumbled papers that apparently focus on Syria.

The plan was for this chemical attack to happen in Syria. The US had its script so well-prepared to talk about it happening in Syria that it didn't even bother to rewrite it much.

It is a distinct possibility that, in their desperation to avoid mockery by Russia for accidentally gassing themselves while trying to frame Assad, the British government suddenly decided to start assailing Russia with allegations, hoping for a spectacle that might hide their incompetence.

Of course, we don't know for certain what happened in Salisbury. Almost no-one you talk to in Britain believes Putin really did a chemical attack in Britain. It is just too ridiculous to believe, so it makes sense to offer a more rational alternative version of events.

Read More »

US humiliated as Russia takes over its base

The Blog

Authorities in the United States are in fits of anger over Russia's use of a former US-controlled airfield to bomb US interests in Syria.

Such was the analysis given at The Iran Project on 30 August, addressing the Russian Aerospace Forces' use of the Hamadan airbase in Iran.

Hamadan, the website states, was originally used by the United States to position aircraft to attack the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Iran's consistent opposition to the US has therefore "again humiliated America 37 years after the Islamic Revolution" the analysis went on.

Original analysis: The party of Russian fighters just started in Iran

In addition, Turkey's relations with the United States have been imperiled by a recent failed coup attempt (backed by US generals, according to anti-NATO critics and Turkish media) and increased US support for Kurdish rebels opposed to Ankara. This led to Ankara inviting Russia to use the NATO airbase at Incirlik.

#antiNATO group repaired by publishing @hugoturner1969, @Fort_Russ_News, @NoDronesNetwork to https://t.co/JdERXvz1gc pic.twitter.com/up9Mf1UEGb

— Anti-NATO group (@NukeNATO) August 23, 2016

If Russia accepts Turkey's invitation to base aircraft at Incirlik, Turkey will shift further into alliance with Russia, China and Iran's SCO and isolate the US-led NATO countries, pressuring them to withdraw forces (including nuclear missiles) from Turkey.

American soldiers die "dressed up as women" in Syria: The BlogIn its shocking aggression, the US has declared... https://t.co/2qc28E1Z75

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) August 26, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

South Africa's ANC is on the way out

The Blog

South Africa's African National Congress (ANC) party is on the way out, global social theorist Immanuel Wallerstein wrote on 15 August.

This can be told in the outcome of municipal elections, which show the ANC on the run. Marred by corruption scandals, the old party of the country's anti-apartheid struggle is losing support across a whole spectrum of ethnic and political elements in the country.

Wallerstein asks his readers rhetorically, "what next?" In addition to the above corruption scandal and the overall economic difficulty the country has run into, there is also "the fact that twenty years after the end of apartheid, no significant program of return of Blacks to land ownership has been enacted, and the ANC did not seem to seek to move forward on this issue".

One party that is pushing the land ownership issue, however, is the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) led by the controversial but charismatic Julius Malema. "The EFF performed better than expected" in recent municipal elections, Wallerstein points out, "obtaining more than 10% in several cities".

Malema's EFF uses a "combination of left language and xenophobic pressures" that "has been successful in several former Communist countries in East and Central Europe", and could also persuade many in South Africa.

Wallerstein concludes, "South Africa has now shifted from a democratic model that it has claimed to be, to being a center of internal turmoil of a sort that might be difficult to label as democratic".

The BRICS countries relied on South Africa's membership and wealth as as proof they "are truly concerned with Africa, the poorest continent", Wallerstein observes. BRICS could therefore be severely undermined as a bloc by South African economic setbacks.

Full analysis: South Africa's ANC is Slipping Away

A decline in South Africa's economic status could, in combination with Libya's destruction by NATO, seal Africa's fate as the continent of unrelenting poverty from its northernmost coasts to its southernmost cape.

Mont society includes Kevin Carson: The BlogThe Mont Order society includes Center for a Stateless Society (C... https://t.co/TToMhEaHv2

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) August 16, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

Opinion: NATO "ought to be disbanded"

The Blog

US presidential candidate Donald Trump thinks NATO membership costs should be paid by European states rather than the US. Sheldon Richman reminds readers that NATO serves US goals, not European goals, in the first place.

NATO is often taken as some kind of protector of Europe, with American soldiers acting as knights in shining armor who do nothing but make Europe safer. This myth captures the imaginations of some European puppets eager to please their masters in Washington, despite the fact the US troops are the targets of Russian nukes in the first place.

Commenting on the misconception at the center of Trump's views regarding NATO, Richman noted in a recent analysis published by the Center for a Stateless Society that "NATO is America’s tool. The member states don’t need it". Rather, Richman says, "America’s ruling elite does. That elite got rather upset in 1966 when French President Charles de Gaulle, resenting US overbearance, withdrew his country from NATO’s military structure".

Richman concludes NATO should be disbanded. "Of course, the US should not really pay NATO’s members. Rather, the alliance ought to be disbanded", he wrote, "It was never just a defensive alliance, and the defensive mask fell away entirely when the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union disbanded. Since that time it has been openly aggressive".

Obviously referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin's military preparations against NATO, Richman notes "any sober Russian leader" would be concerned by the constant aggression, despite it being sanitized in the media as the act of concerned democracies worried about human rights.

US presidential candidates have been unable to resist the fact that the US is in decline against Russia and China and have been constantly referencing the 'old days' when the US was not weak. Richman offers the view that "American strength" has killed enough babies and a weakness would be better.

Turkish regime's "collapse" possible: The BlogDespite the triumph of the government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan o... https://t.co/YoB0JvFPOQ

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) August 5, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

Turkish regime's "collapse" possible

The Blog

Despite the triumph of the government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan over coup plotters in Turkey, sociological expert Immanuel Wallerstein still foresees possible collapse for the AKP-led government.

"It seems unlikely that Turkey can stem a bubbling up of internal opposition, which might lead to a total collapse of the regime", Wallerstein wrote Monday 01 August 2016 in a commentary on the "rise and fall" of the Turkish president.

Wallerstein was commenting on the apparent repressive measures applied by President Erdoğan against his opponents in the wake of the failed coup. Overall, Wallerstein's analysis of the political developments in Turkey seems balanced:

"When Erdoğan says that Gülen had long plotted the coup, his arguments seem plausible. It is for this reason that all the opposition parties – CHP, NMH, and HDP (left party with a strong base in Kurdish areas) – went into the streets to oppose the coup. When, however, the CHP and HDP plus commentators in Turkey and elsewhere say that Erdoğan seemed prepared to use the excuse of the coup to purge the country of every conceivable possible opponent, these arguments also seem plausible. In particular, his proposal to change the constitution to create an “executive presidency” is considered as leading to a dictatorship."

Wallerstein's comment about the "total collapse of the regime" is based on his analysis that Turkey's two biggest strengths in international relations at present - its control of refugee flows to Europe and the critical role of its airfields to the United States and NATO - may be "illusory". The "world context" has changed, Wallerstein writes.

"Erdoğan may have overplayed his hand" considering the way his efforts to reconcile with the Kurds and Armenians and unseat Bashar al-Assad from power turned into such failures. These losses, in addition to any further hostility in relations with the EU, the United States or Russia, may still turn the tide against his regime and result in him falling from power quite rapidly.

Garrison Center takes WikiLeaks side: The BlogDirector of the Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journa... https://t.co/JRLX1Gz1yq

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) August 2, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

Did Erdogan stage a coup on himself?

The Blog

Views have been circulating that the coup attempt in Turkey may have been plotted by Erdogan himself to justify gaining more executive powers.

According to a post by Hussain Saqib at the Pakistan-based Voice of East magazine:

"Erdogan has had plans to rewrite country’s constitution but has not been able to do that so far... It is now written on the wall that Erdogan will swiftly move to further tighten his iron grip over the country, further gag the media and dissenting voices and clear the way for absolute power in his hands. The failed coup will strengthen the hands of president Erdogan to realize his dreams of becoming the all-powerful Sultan of Turkey.

"Does all this prove the assumption that it was a phony coup?"

Full report

Saqib views the coup as "unprofessional" and apparently set up to fail. The mass arrests and accusations that followed - without any official investigation being conducted - also indicate lists being prepared in advance for a political purge throughout Turkey.

WikiLeaks has been undertaking efforts to release more documents on the Erdogan government's dealings to increase civil criticism of this government, which is becoming more authoritarian. On 19 July, WikiLeaks tweeted it would release 300 internal emails of the ruling AKP party, to which Erdogan belongs.

Meanwhile, other theories exist that the coup plot was the work of hyperactive agents of Washington and NATO, who believed Erdogan was an insufficient puppet of US interests. According to this view, Erdogan's rapprochement with Russia and hopes of restoring Turkey as a more honorable and independent power resulted in the conspiracy to depose him.

The West should end its own terrorism: The BlogRejecting the notion that the West is simply a helpless victim... https://t.co/hQe6XxqMuF

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) July 19, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

'NATO failed to overthrow Erdogan'

The Blog

Sources have indicated the recent coup attempt in Turkey was the work of pro-NATO generals attempting to ensure the country remains a loyal puppet of Washington.

Also, the Erdogan government's accusations against the US, which it sees as harboring anti-state cleric Fethullah Gulen, indicate a possible split by Turkey away from the US regime.

Anti-NATO sources on Twitter make this possibility quite clear.

Kadyrov: Pro-Western generals want Erdogan out for his foreign policy changes (Anti-#NATO group)

— Anti-NATO group (@NukeNATO) July 17, 2016

Andrew Korybko analysis of Turkish coup attempt (Anti-#NATO group)

— Anti-NATO group (@NukeNATO) July 17, 2016

Failed Coup Will Scare Erdogan Into Closer Relations With Russia - Israel Shamir (Anti-#NATO group)

— Anti-NATO group (@NukeNATO) July 16, 2016

Military Coup in Turkey SITREP, by Scott (Anti-#NATO group)

— Anti-NATO group (@NukeNATO) July 16, 2016

BREAKING NEWS: military coup in progress in Turkey! (OPEN THREAD) (Anti-#NATO group)

— Anti-NATO group (@NukeNATO) July 16, 2016

The world was shocked on Friday by a conspiracy among Turkish military officers to overthrow Turkish democracy and seize power. The conspiracy may have included high-ranking generals in the NATO chain of command, who believed regime-change was needed in the country.

Turkey has already begun arresting those deemed to be traitors in the military, and has denied US forces access to Incirlik Airbase, where the US regime stores nuclear weapons and conducts airstrikes in the region.

Immediately prior to the coup, Turkish President Erdogan had apologized to Russian President Putin for the earlier deterioration in bilateral relations, and promised to work closely with Russia. Many believe this caused NATO military generals to become angry at the Turkish government and seek to depose Erdogan.

'Jews have no duty to support Israel': The BlogQuotes from Jewish anti-Zionist blogger Thalwen's recent post,... https://t.co/Bk48QBQyDt

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) July 15, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

Immanuel Wallerstein reacts to Brexit

The Blog

Immanuel Wallerstein offered the following selected comments on the outcome of Britain's referendum to leave the European Union.

The full commentary is available at Wallerstein's website and these quotes are used only for informative purposes to break the key details down.

"What are the matters underlying this debate? There are essentially four: popular anger at the so-called Establishment and its parties; the geopolitical decline of the United States; the politics of austerity; and identity politics. All of them have contributed to the turmoil...

"There is little doubt that popular anti-Establishment anger is a strong force. It has often erupted when economic conditions are uncertain, as they surely are today. If this seems a stronger motivation now than previously, it is probably because economic uncertainty is far greater than in the past...

"anti-Establishment movements have not won out everywhere or consistently"

"The geopolitical consequences of Brexit are probably more important. Great Britain’s withdrawal from Europe deals a further blow to the ability of the United States to maintain its dominance in the world-system. Great Britain has been in many ways the indispensable geopolitical ally (or is it agent?) of the United States in Europe, in NATO, in the Middle East, and vis-à-vis Russia. There is no substitute...

"Austerity is obviously nobody’s desired policy, except for the ultra-rich who alone profit from it. The fear of increased austerity, as promised by the British government, surely contributed significantly to the move for Brexit, which was promoted as a way to reduce austerity...

"Brexit is important as a symptom but not as a cause of turmoil."

"Since the turmoil is part of a chaotic structural crisis in the modern world-system... We are not paying enough attention to the middle run, where the long-run successor world-system (or systems) will be decided, and where the decision remains dependent on what we do in the middle-run struggle."

Criminal tries to become US President: The BlogIn an obvious attempt to prop up war criminal sadist Hillary C... https://t.co/YyTKB5Nbza

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) July 5, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

Clinton campaign nuked by WikiLeaks

The Blog

Despite much of the political left deciding to endorse Hillary Clinton amidst exaggerated campaign rhetoric against Donald Trump, WikiLeaks hasn't held back from striking out at Clinton.

In June, WikiLeaks editor and political prisoner Julian Assange promised "enough evidence to indict" Clinton, relating to her emails.

This has been followed by WikiLeaks releasing emails to and from Clinton related to the situation in Iraq. Clinton voted in favor of the Iraq War in 2003, as well as being in favor of other military interventions. She was the main criminal responsible for the disastrous NATO aggression in Libya, which plunged the country in chaos and murder and was later described by Obama as the worst mistake of his career.

During her time as Secretary of State, Clinton also was largely responsible for decisions to escalate the conflict in Syria by illegally smuggling weapons into the conflict zone. This, she wrote in an email, was necessary to help the Israeli regime maintain security during its policies of genocide, apartheid and expansion.

Clinton continues to favor direct US military strikes on Syrian government targets, despite them being protected by Russian military forces and being the main ground opponents of ISIS.

Ecuador threatened for Assange asylum: The BlogWhile the US seems intent on regime change to overthrow its cr... https://t.co/HLFa8d7A6f

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) July 1, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »