south front
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery - NATO Information Operations


Transcript:

Psychological Operations or PSYOP are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of organizations, groups, and individuals.

The beginning of interest in post-Cold War information operations can be traced to the UN intervention in Somalia and the Rwanda Genocide. Relatively honest and direct reporting from these war zones meant that the public opinion of Western countries was a factor that had to be considered by the political classes. Hence the complaining at the time about the so-called "CNN Effect" which forced the politicians to send and/or withdraw troops irrespective of what the elites actually wanted to happen at the time. The early methods of influencing the public opinion by manipulating the media, though reasonably effective, were not enough. We have seen their strengths and limitations during both wars against Iraq, in which the bulk of the media was effectively co-opted through the process of frequent press briefings (featuring no shortage of videos showing NATO bombs unerringly falling toward their obviously evil targets) and later by "embedding" the mostly male reporters in military units, which naturally had the dual effect of stroking their egos and adopting the military's point of view.

Still, in spite of all that, it proved impossible to control the narrative, and the public support for the various US and NATO wars collapsed under the pressure of inconvenient news coming even from mainstream media which clearly maintained a degree of independence. But if you fast-forward a decade, to the current wars in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Ukraine, and others, it is clear that something has changed. There is one dominant narrative that is being pushed by literally every mainstream media source, irrespective of their ostensible ideological bent. No matter where you turn, you read or hear about Assad's "barrel bombs", Gaddafi's "massacres", or "Russian aggression." These reports invariably represent a point of view that is not only completely one-sided, but also factually wrong, even on the most basic of issues. How did US and NATO manage to achieve such an amazing discipline within the supposedly free and independent Western media?

There are essentially three parts to the answer: state oversight of the media; co-opting individual reporters; disseminating propaganda through covert means. The first two are obvious enough and have long been practiced. Media corporations are just that-corporations, subject to variety of laws and regulations whose enforcement can be used to steer individual outlets toward adopting a desired point of view. Individual reporter's coin of the realm is "access" to privileged information, which may be granted or withheld depending on their effectiveness as government propagandist. The third, the covert dissemination of propaganda, is new, and that factor likely explains the lack of variation from one media outlet to the next. The media are no longer merely encouraged to toe the official line-they have the stories planted for them to pick up through social media and other unofficial channels.

The so-called investigations of the MH17 disaster is a case study, though a fairly crude one due to Ukraine's crude methods of information warfare. But it is evident that nearly all the "evidence" implicating Russia or the Novorossia insurgents was prepared by Ukrainian secret services, then laundered through social media, before being presented to Western audiences as the truth, the only truth, and nothing but the truth.

NATO is conducting similar operations which are harder to identify and counter because they are more sophisticated, better institutionalized, and provided with higher levels of funding. The United Kingdom, for example, maintains the 77th Brigade whose subunits include the Media Operations Group and the shadowy 15th Psychological Operations Group that has been dubbed the "Twitter detachment." Germany has established the ZOpKomBw, or the Bundeswehr Rapid Communications Center. In the US, information operations against the US population appear to be the responsibility of the intelligence community, which is understandable considering the taboo on US military operations on US territory. As such, they remain largely out of public scrutiny, though their handiwork can be readily seen in the form of unverifiable reports from a variety of war zones, and even placing specially prepared "witnesses" in front of Congressional committees. Even non-NATO countries like Sweden are following suit by establishing their own information operations units intended for waging information war on its own population. At the NATO level, information operations are coordinated by NATO doctrine JP 13-3 Information Operations, with practical applications honed by alliance-wide exercises such as the Multinational Information Operations Experiment (MNIOE).

Western voters have been accepting of all these measures because they were sold to them as part of their countries' counter-terrorism measures. What they failed to take into account is that terrorism is a phenomenon that knows no borders, with the enemy already present among Western societies. Which means that, if counter-terrorist information operations are to be effective, they also have to be aimed at Western publics.

In the short-term, information operations may be effective in manufacturing popular support for policies that otherwise no free society would accept. In the longer term, bypassing the public opinion means the elites are now more free than ever to embark on highly dangerous international adventures that will likely backfire and lower even further the already low standing of the elites. Therefore the fact that the so-called "free world" elites increasingly have to resort to such dirty tricks in order to stay in power means that their grasp on power is slowly weakening.

Wave of Terror Shapes EU Political Landscape


Transcript:

After a large truck plowed into crowds and killed 84 people in Nice late on July 14, French President Francois Hollande stated that the country's state of emergency was extended for another three months. Hollande also said that border controls would be tightened and that France would show "real force and military action in Syria and Iraq." The very same time he announced that France was sending additional military advisers to Iraq and deploying its aircraft carrier to the region. The deteriorating security situation will influence both the country's upcoming presidential campaign and the political debate within the European Union.

The first round of France's presidential election, scheduled for April 2017. The issue of terrorism at home and abroad will play an important role in the political agenda of the center-right Republican Party, which traditionally focuses on issues of security and the right-wing National Front, which has been gaining support since the start of migration crisis. Both parties are likely to accuse the Socialist government of failing to protect France. The Republicans and the National Front are both critical of the Schengen Agreement. The Republicans have promised to reform Schengen while the National Front wants to annul the agreement altogether. The terrorists involved in the November 2015 attacks in Paris moved freely between France and Belgium, and both parties will use this fact to justify their criticism of the agreement.

The Republicans and the National Front will not be alone in criticizing Schengen. Many forces in Europe are also critical of the agreement. Some parties are demanding the end of the agreement, while others want to expel member states that fail to control their borders appropriately. Some countries already shuttered their borders along the Balkan migration route and in countries including Austria, Germany, Denmark and Sweden because of concerns over immigration. The most recent attacks will only further conflate the immigration and terrorism debates and will be used by nationalist parties across the European Union to propel their agendas.

Syrian War Report - July 26, 2016:


Transcript:

On July 25, the Syrian army successfully advanced in the Layramoun industrial area of Aleppo city, liberating over dozen buildings there. After liberation of the brick factory, sugar factory, Sabbagh factories, Bana factory, Shabareq factory and "Marketna Mall" area, the Syrian army reached Al Barrad crossroad. Heavy clashes were reported there. If Al Barrad crossroad is secured by pro-government forces, the logistical capabilities of militant groups operating in Aleppo will deteriorate significantly.

Early on July 26, the Syrian army further advanced south from the Mallah Farms, securing Castello Complex and expanding the zone of control along the strategic Castello Highway.

This will allow the Syrian army to develop momentum along the Castello Highway from north and from south, cutting off the militant units in Bani Zeid and Youth Housing from the main militant forces. The Kurdish YPG will likely use this in order to capture Youth Housing and help the Syrian army to push militants from Bani Zeid. Strategically, this move sets the full siege on the militant-controlled areas of Aleppo city.

Syrian and Russian warplanes have conducted a series of air raids against the ISIS terorrist group near the cities of Palmyra and Deir Ezzor in Syria. Syrian fighter jets bobmbed ISIS targets east of Palmyra and at Arak region, destroying the terrorists' tactical units and fighting positions there.

Separately, Russian warplanes conducted air raids at Deir Ezzor with special attention to the Thayyem Valley where the terrorist group contentrated manpower for an advance against the Syrian army units encircled in the city. Due to Russian air raids the advance was foiled. Russian fighter bombers also conducted air raids near the T4 airport. However, there is no information about casualties among ISIS terrorists there.

The ISIS-linked Amaq media outlet reportedon July 25 that ISIS militants had shot down a US warplane near Ayn Asad Airbase in Iraq's Anbar province. The report added that the warplane's crew is dead. However, the U.S. military quickly rebutted the claim as false.

Recent Syrian War Reports US Voters Face a Difficult Choice


Transcript:

The upcoming elections are unique in US political life. One of the candidates is, for the first time, a woman. The other candidate had never stood for election for any public post, and has defeated his party's professional politicians. Both potential presidents are noted for their scandalous reputations. This state of affairs is a symptom of the US electoral system, the bias of official institutions, and the population's willingness to risk radical solutions. The voters, however, are in a difficult situation since they will have to make a choice between two very bad candidates.

Party conventions will soon nominate both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton (Trump already nominated). What baggage are Trump and Clinton carrying following the primaries? Trump had an impressive run, receiving 1542 delegates out of 2472, with 1237 required for nomination. Ted Cruz, who came second (with 559 delegates) dropped out of the race in May.

During the Democratic Party convention, 4765 delegates will cast their votes. Clinton needs more than half, or at least 2383 votes. 2220 are already guaranteed, plus 592 superdelegates who are not obligated to vote for her but it is highly unlikely they would vote for anyone else. At this point, we can be certain she will be the nominee.

According to opinion surveys, Clinton is ahead of Trump by 5-10%. In one poll, 47% favored Clinton, while 40% favored Trump. In addition, 5% plan to vote for someone else, 6% are undecided, and 2% don't intend to vote or refused to answer. Therefore, even a small change can launch Trump into the lead.

However, he would first need to overcome intra-party divisions, which he will most likely succeed in doing. Naturally, one can expect all manner of surprises from the upcoming convention, but the party elite will hardly be able to implement its treacherous plan to overthrow the billionaire in the name of "anyone but Trump." Thus far, no plot against Trump has succeeded. He has literally out-Trumped them.

It is evident there exists a sizable GOP faction opposed to the New York magnate. They want the rules committee to allow the delegates to vote "their conscience", rather than in accordance with the will of their states' voters. This scenario is not very plausible. The GOP lacks an alternative to Trump — had one existed, it would have been presented to voters already. Secondly, nominating someone else would inevitably lead to GOP defeat because people who voted for Trump during primaries will simply stay home in November. Thirdly, any discussion of removing Trump would further weaken the declining GOP bloc by showing the absence of political unity on the eve of an election.

It would appear, however, that Trump has made an important step toward reconciliation with the GOP establishment. After the primaries, he replaced his campaign manager, 42-year-old Corey Lewandowski, with the scandal-prone Paul Manafort who, back in the day, was an advisor not only to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, but also such luminaries as Somali dictator Siyad Barre, Zair's president-for-life Mobutu Sese Seko and Ukraine's president Viktor Yanukovych. Manafort has spent his whole life working for GOP candidates, has good ties within the party, and is appreciated and valued there. Trump probably wants to use Manafort's abilities in order to prevent a split right before the convention, and wants to establish mutually beneficial cooperation.

Showing flexibility and willingness to negotiate helped Trump win over the "undecideds", given Clinton's continuing scandals. It's obvious that, in spite of her guaranteed nomination, her position is fragile. She struggled during the primaries, winning 29 states against 21 won by Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders. Her modest opponent offered tough competition and mobilized millions of disaffected voters using his fiery liberal rhetoric, not allowing his heiress competitor to try on the crown before the final vote was counted. Clinton had to change her position on a number of issues after Sanders' criticism of US inequality resonated with millions of voters.

Her constant scandals are also destabilizing the ranks of her potential supporters. The entire executive branch and corporate media establishment is being employed to keep her afloat. Any other candidate who suffered such irretrievable damage to her reputation following scandals associated with Middle Eastern Monarchies financing the various Clinton Foundations (while Hillary was the Secretary of State), the case of the sale of Uranium One from which Hillary, apparently, received a "commission," plus her mishandling of classified information on a large scale. However, since the current administration is backing Hillary to the hilt, she still remains the nominee. The Justice Department recently ended the probe into her emails and her private email servers. Obama already endorsed Hillary's candidacy, though he was expected to do so later in the race.

Many Americans were outraged that Clinton came to the campaign rally where the endorsement was made on Obama's presidential plane, which is a violation of campaign laws in any law-abiding country. In Europe, a candidate would simply have to resign the candidacy and then leave political life for a long period of time. But in the current political situation in the US, the "right" candidate can get away with almost anything thanks to an intentional lack of media and government oversight, which is provoking protest activity among average citizens.

In reality, both Trump and Clinton are being promoted by current political and financial elites who have steered the country into, if not a crisis, then definitely a pre-crisis situation. They have provoked the worsening of the international situation, the growth of crime and terrorism inside the US, the growth of unemployment and the worsening of citizen's welfare. That is the primary reason the "socialist" Sanders won in 21 states and also why many Sanders supporters are now flocking to Green Party candidate Jill Stein now that Sanders has thrown in his lot with Clinton.

On the other hand, many believe that Trump spent his entire business career fighting against big banks — this is, after all, what a real estate developer does. Clinton, on the other hand, has been their favored candidate for well over a decade, dating to her term in the US Senate, where she represented New York — the biggest US financial hub. Likewise most of Trump's primary opponents came from the globalist faction of the GOP, with many of them currently openly advertising their willingness to shift loyalties and to align themselves with Clinton. By the same token, many Sanders voters, who are predominantly anti-globalist, will almost certainly vote for Trump in November. So the battle lines are drawn: globalism versus economic nationalism, and Trump's potential electorate resembles that of the Brexit Leave voting population. Especially amid the fact, that Sanders is now supporting Clinton despite the all previous rhetoric.

One should also not prejudge the US elite preferences. After all, in spite of all the predictions to the contrary, Brexit appears to be on track which suggests that a sizable chunk of the British financial elite prefers a return to economic independence. Clinton offers the continuation of policies that have been in place since the early 1990s: economic expansion through market penetration and dominance, until every country on the planet is inextricably woven into the web of US-based corporations, by force if necessary. But that approach is beginning to fail economically. While these policies still have widespread support, the fact that Brexit is taking place and Trump is about to become the GOP nominee indicate the elites are entertaining a major change in policies that would end the post-Cold War "New World Order" and lead to the return of economic nationalism. In other words, Clinton is supported by the military industrial complex, oil and gas companies, the Wall Street and the world's virtual space cartel. Trump is representative of the national industrial corporations aimed on the home consumption and export of civil industrial production.

The majority of voters disapprove of both candidates. Recent ABC News and Washington Post polls showed that 60% of US citizens disapprove of Trump, while 53% disapprove of Clinton. It is an unprecedented result since 1984, when such polls started to be taken. It would seem US voters will go to vote not for, but against a candidate this time around. At the same time, 44% of Americans say they would vote for a third party candidate. Clinton continues to lead in a one-on-one match-up against Trump, but the gap has closed in spite of all her campaign advantages. One can expect a heated campaign, bold slogans, and fiery speeches, which are all part of the US election show. But, in spite of the two candidates' unattractiveness and the inconsistent US electoral system, Trump is likely than Clinton to deliver the changes the voters want. But will he be able to satisfy the hopes of his voters once he becomes president? Will the US elites allow him to do that?