Navy Officer Tells Alaskans: Prepare For War

Anonymous official suggests Russia preparing invasion in response to US strikes

An unnamed former Navy official has warned the residents of Alaska to prepare for an invasion in the event of war between the U.S. and Russia.

The Daily Star has reported that a former high-ranking Naval official has evidence to suggest Russia is preparing to invade Alaska if war breaks out between the United States and Russia.

“We are the verge of being invaded from Alaska all the way down into Canada and eventually the Northwest,” he said.

The invasion, according to the Naval official, will begin via submarine incursion near the city of Wasilla, approximately 43 miles northeast of Anchorage.

Wasilla is located along the coast of the Knik Arm, a body of water that branches into the Cook Inlet, which flows west into the Gulf of Alaska.

“Our feeling in the Navy was that Obama had turned Alaska into a defenseless area that will serve as a forward base of operations when World War III begins,” the unnamed official suggested.

Russians disguised as “highway road crews” are allegedly already in Alaska preparing to serve in an asymmetrical role during a full-scale invasion. The crews are set to “disrupt communications and seize vital bridges” when war begins.

Another anonymous source claimed Russians in “civilian clothing” have been seen moving into abandoned motels and military bases.

To describe the Alaskan coast around Wasilla as “undefended” is not entirely accurate, however; Joint Base Elmendorf–Richardson, site of Alaska Command, NORAD Alaska, the 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division and the 11th Air Force, is located in Anchorage.

Clear Air Force Station, which houses a radar station designed to detect ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and Eareckson Air Station, which houses the Cobra-Dane radar system, are also located in Alaska.

As tensions with the United States continue to rise over competing interests in Syria and threatening language from American military officials, Russia has begun taking steps to build up its military capabilities in the sparsely populated Far East region of the country to counter American military forces in Alaska.

Russia recently announced plans to position a new coastal defense military division along its eastern coast by 2018, with some troops expected to be stationed approximately 50 miles from Alaska.

Deployment of the Iskander M, a mobile missile system capable of targeting aircraft and launching nuclear-armed missiles at targets up to 300 miles away, would drastically limit America’s ability to deploy F-22 Raptors from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in response to long range patrols by nuclear capable Tu-160 Blackjack and Tu-95 Bear bombers recently ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin.




Criminally insane: NATO generals predict they will provoke Russia into nuclear war by 2017

Former NATO deputy commander says Russia will attack Ukraine and Baltic States next May.

Though it has attracted little attention, a book by a retired British general, Sir Alexander Richard Shirreff, is predicting Russia is going to attack NATO next year.

General Shirreff, who was NATO’s Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe from 2011 to 2014, has even said in which month next year the attack will take place. According to him it will be in May 2017. That month Russia will apparently conquer eastern Ukraine and Latvia whilst threatening NATO with nuclear war.

Lest anyone think these are the isolated ravings of a madman, the book was launched at the London offices of Britain’s Royal United Services Institute and contains a foreword by none other than US Admiral James Stavridis, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, who writes portentously that:

“Under President Putin, Russia has charted a dangerous course that, if it is allowed to continue, may lead inexorably to a clash with Nato. And that will mean a war that could so easily go nuclear.”

Similarly wild – though rather less precise – warnings of coming war have been made by other NATO generals including US Air Force General Breedlove – Stavridis’s successor – and by Breedlove’s successor, US Army General Scaparrotti.

Before anyone starts worrying that we have fallen into the world of Doctor Strangelove, I should say that General Shirreff is talking nonsense. World War III is not going to happen next year and Russia is not planning to attack Latvia next May.

General Shirreff’s comments about Russia show that he is profoundly ignorant of the country and its people and has no understanding at all of the thinking of its leaders. If he did he would know that he was talking nonsense.

Do General Shirreff and NATO’s other military leaders however actually believe any of the nonsense they are saying?

General Sir Alexander Richard Shirreff

In General Shirreff’s case it is impossible to avoid the feeling that his book is intended to make him money so that he can provide financially for his retirement. Predicting war is it seems a good sell.

That however cannot be the whole story. It does not explain why someone like Stavridis would want to endorse General Shirreff’s book.

There is of course a strong element behind these warnings of the military lobbying aggressively for more money.

In Shirreff’s case it is known that he frequently clashed with Britain’s political leaders over what he felt was their financial neglect of the military. Playing up the threat of war is the classic way to panic politicians and the public into opening their purse strings.

There is no doubt much of the hysteria is about that, especially at a time when the US is lobbying furiously to get European members of NATO to increase their defence budgets.

Nonetheless I suspect that there is a core of genuine alarm buried deep inside these warnings.

Given that NATO spends so much more than Russia on defence the idea that Russia might attack NATO – the world’s most powerful military alliance – must appear absurd to most people. However that does not take into account how the world might seem to NATO’s senior military.

Until very recently these people inhabited a mental world where since the end of the Cold War their overwhelming military superiority over Russia was something they took for granted.

Unsurprisingly this complacent assumption of overwhelming superiority in the end influenced their behaviour.

With the USSR gone NATO military leaders felt free to do what they wanted without fear of Soviet intervention. Given the USSR’s previous role of balancing NATO power in any armed conflict that might arise, that appeared to remove for NATO the risk of defeat. Not surprisingly – especially given the West’s exceptionalist and universalist ideology – that meant that the temptation for the Western powers to throw their weight around became irresistible.

The result was a series of wars launched almost casually with minimal public discussion against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

What has now hit the NATO leaders hard is the shocking realisation that their assumption of overwhelming superiority over Russia is wrong.

In a string of military campaigns – in Chechnya in 1999, against Georgia in 2008, in Crimea in 2014 and, most spectacularly, in Syria in 2015 and since – the Russian military has gone from victory to victory, proving that it is not merely a force to be reckoned with but that in terms of sheer proficiency and technological competence it is a match for the best in NATO.

The Syrian operation has been the most alarming of all. In that theatre both

© Sputnik/ Dmitriy Vinogradov

Russia and the US are militarily involved. It is therefore possible to make direct comparisons between the militaries of the two countries. The fact the Russian military in Syria appears in some respects to have actually outperformed the US military must for US and NATO leaders – brought up to believe in the myth of their own invincibility – be particularly alarming.

It does not help that over the same period that the Russian military has gone from victory to victory the US and NATO have experienced one setback after another.

The NATO military that feels the most alarmed and humiliated is the British.

Until about a decade ago the British military believed themselves to be the best in NATO and the strongest in NATO after the US. As a British citizen I have had to listen to any number of lectures from proud British patriots telling me how much better their army is compared to that of the US.

In the event, over the last decade, the British military has experienced one defeat after another.

It had to be rescued by the US military in Basra. It was badly defeated in Helmand. During the air campaign against Libya it found it could not sustain the bombing campaign against Gaddafi’s troops without US help. In Syria – a theatre where both the US and the Russians are present – it has proved completely ineffective.

General Shirreff is a British general and it would not be surprising if he felt the British military’s humiliation especially keenly.

Given the profound shock NATO commanders have experienced as their core assumption of effortless superiority over the Russians collapses all around them, it is not surprising if they are now furiously lobbying for more troops and more bases in Europe so that they can return to the position of unchallengeable superiority they had grown accustomed to.

That in my opinion is what is driving their warnings and their increasingly shrill demands for more money and more troops.

Though it is doubtful that anyone takes General Shirreff and his warnings very seriously, it would be unwise to be complacent about all this.

General Shirreff admits in his book that the Russians are becoming increasingly worried at the spread of NATO bases around their territory. That is what he says is driving them towards war.

General Shirreff’s “solution” to this problem – shared with him by all the other top commanders of NATO – is however to deploy even more NATO troops and even more NATO bases even closer to Russia.

The logical fallacy is obvious. What General Shirreff proposes cannot make the situation better. It can only make it worse.

If General Shirreff had the courage to accept his own logic he would see that the way to reduce tension in Europe and end forever the risk of war is to reduce the number of NATO troops close to Russia, not increase them.

As for seeking to gain the sort of military superiority over Russia that NATO once believed it had, a realistic assessment of the situation in Europe would recognise that that is impossible. Russia unlike every other European country is a continental sized Great Power. By definition that makes it militarily more powerful than any other European country or combination of countries is or can ever be. Amongst the NATO powers only the US can match it.

That does not make Russia aggressive or expansionist. It does however make it dangerous to threaten.

The way to secure peace in Europe is not through confrontation with Russia but through a rapprochement with it. That however would mean accepting that Russia is a Great Power and is entitled to be treated as one.

Instead by treating Russia as a mortal enemy General Sherriff and his NATO comrades risk making it one.

Comment: Further reading: Foaming at the mouth for war: NATO provokes Russia following Victory Day celebrations

Russia “Fully Mobilized,” Strikes Turkish Targets in Syria

Will use electronic warfare to protect aircraft

“The president is mobilized, fully mobilized, mobilized to the extent that circumstances demand,” Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said on  Saturday.

“The circumstances are unprecedented. The gauntlet thrown down to Russia is unprecedented. So naturally the reaction is in line with this threat,” he told Russia’s “News on Saturday” TV program.

In addition to placing S-400 missiles in Syria on Thursday and deploying the Moskva missile cruiser, Russia is preparing to wage electronic warfare.

According to Lieutenant-General Evgeny Buzhinsky Russia will begin using land and air-based jamming systems to protect its aircraft.

“Regarding the possible impact of this incident on the further developments of the operation in Syria, I think that from now on, our pilots will be more attentive and if the Turks continue behaving in such a manner, Russia will have to resort to electronic jamming and other warfare equipment, including special aircraft with special equipment on board, in order to protect our pilots from being stricken with missiles,” Buzhinsky told Sputnik, the Russian news service.

Russia has reportedly struck more than 450 targets in Syria since its Su-24 warplane was shot down on the Syria-Turkey border. The strikes are concentrated primarily in the Latakia and Idlib provinces.

On Thursday Russia bombed the Bab al-Hawa border crossing used by the Turkish government to transfer weapons and money to the jihadists. According to the Israeli source DEBKAfile, targets on the Syrian side of the border post included trailers belonging to the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation, an organization accused of ties to al-Qaeda.

“DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources report that since Wednesday night, Nov. 25, Russian heavy bombers and warplanes have been hitting every Turkish vehicle moving or stationary inside Syria,” the website reported on Friday.

Turkey has suspended military flights over Syria and the United States halted airstrikes after Russia deployed its S-400 anti-aircraft system at the Khmeimim airbase.

On Friday a spokesperson for the Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve said the halt “has nothing to do with the S400 deployment” in Syria.

“The fluctuation or absence of strikes in Syria reflects the ebb and flow of battle,” the spokesperson said.

NATO Begins Naval Drills Near Russia

One of largest war games since the Cold War
NATO Begins Naval Drills Near Russia

Image Credits: U.S. Navy.

by RT | August 31, 2015

Ukraine is hosting naval military exercise in the Black Sea with NATO forces, involving 2,500 troops and some 150 military vehicles, from warships and helicopters to armored cars.

The host nation of Sea Breeze 2015 has deployed 1,000 troops, nine warships and eight aircraft for the drill. The US has sent 1,000 troops as well as five warships, two submarines and six aircraft.

The remaining 500 troops, six warships, three submarines and six aircraft were provided by Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Italy, Romania, Turkey, the UK and the non-NATO nations Moldova and Sweden.

“The exercise is meant to boost trust and security in the region, [and to increase] the compatibility between the Ukrainian Navy and the navies of NATO members and partner countries,” the Ukrainian Defense Ministry said in a statement.

Sea Breeze is held in Ukraine’s Odessa and Nikolaevsk region not far from Russia’s Crimea, which Kiev and its foreign sponsors consider to be Ukrainian. It will last till mid-September. Ukraine will participating in a total of 11 NATO drills in 2015.

NATO is also currently conducting another war game, called Swift Response, in Germany, Italy, Bulgaria and Romania. It is one of the largest such events since the Cold War and is planned to last until September 13. A separate exercise, called Simple Strike, is under way in the Baltic.

Russia, which calls NATO exercises in Europe provocative, has just completed a joint naval drill with China, called Naval Cooperation. It was held in the Far East and has been described as unprecedented in scale.

Russia to Begin Airstrikes Against ISIS in Syria

Russian presence in Syria will increase likelihood of encounters with US

by Kurt Nimmo | | August 31, 2015

During a speech Sunday at the Citadel in South Carolina Republican presidential hopeful Scott Walker said ISIS would not be defeated in Syria until the government of Bashar al-Assad is brought down.

Walker said so long as Syrian President Bashar Assad “is still in power and Iran, his patron, has a base of operations in Damascus,” ISIS will not be defeated.

“But let me be clear: Defeating ISIS and rolling back Iran will require a greater investment of U.S. resources,” Walker said. “Therefore, we must do more to recruit and support fighters in Syria who oppose both ISIS and Assad.”

Earlier this month, the Obama administration authorized the use of airstrikes to counter ISIS in Syria, but Obama’s policy on Syria has prompted criticism by Republicans and Democrats alike, many whom want a more robust response to the terrorist group.

U.S. airstrikes, however, will soon face competition from Russia.

Western diplomats say a Russian expeditionary force has arrived in Syria and will operate, according to the Israeli website YNet, as a Russian forward operating base.

“In the coming weeks thousands of Russian military personnel are set to touch down in Syria, including advisors, instructors, logistics personnel, technical personnel, members of the aerial protection division, and the pilots who will operate the aircraft,” writes Alex Fishman.

“The current makeup of the expeditionary force is still unknown, but there is no doubt that Russian pilots flying combat missions in Syrian skies will definitely change the existing dynamics in the Middle East.”

The presence of the Russian military in the skies over Syria will increase the possibility of encounters with the United States, especially if the US adopts a more aggressive stance against the Syrian government.

Earlier this month the United States began launching manned airstrikes against ISIS targets in Syria from the Incirlik Air Base in Turkey.

As Donbas Heats Up, War Between US and Russia Seems Inevitable

Mikhail Gorbachev: “I’m really extremely worried”
As Donbas Heats Up, War Between US and Russia Seems Inevitable

by Kurt Nimmo | | August 20, 2015

If there is to be a war between NATO and Russia, it will begin the Donbas region of Ukraine.

On Monday Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the regime in Kiev is preparing a new offensive in the contested area, a move that would violate the Minsk II ceasefire signed in February.

Last week seven Ukrainian soldiers were killed and 40 wounded in skirmishes near Donetsk.

At the same time, Eduard Basurin, the spokesperson for the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic, accused the Ukrainian military of attacking its area with tanks and heavy armament,

The US has accused Russia of inflaming tension in the region and using the ceasefire to capture 28 towns and villages in a 250 square kilometer wide area.

“The struggle in Ukraine is more serious than ISIS,” said the former US ambassador to Ukraine and Director of the Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council in Washington, John Herbst. “It’s very simple. Any military thinker looks at a threat – what is the possible damage? Putin wants to change the peace established in 1991 and after World War II.”

“Putin wants all of Ukraine,” added Ukrainian MP Dmytro Lubinets.

First Deputy Parliamentary Speaker Andriy Parubiy, the radical nationalist leader of the coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine last year, told InterFax on Thursday 30 units of Russian military hardware have crossed over the border in the last two days.

Military Preparations for War

Meanwhile, US and British special forces are actively preparing Kiev’s military for escalated combat, reports Stephen Lendman.

Earlier this month it was reported that approximately 75 British military trainers are currently in the Ukraine to help the Kiev government defeat “Russian-inspired terrorism.”

British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon, who characterized the crisis in Donbas as “red hot,” said his country plans to double the number of trainers working with the Kiev government’s military.

As well, the United States stated in July it will train regular Ukrainian military forces later this year.

In February the Obama administration announced it may send “defensive arms” to Ukraine.

The following month the House of Representatives voted to urge Obama to arm Ukraine.

“The West needs to bolster deterrence in Ukraine by raising the risks and costs to Russia of any renewed major offensive,” a report issued by the Atlantic Council and the Brookings Institute argues. “That requires providing direct military assistance — in far larger amounts than provided to date and including lethal defensive arms.”

The report was authored in part by Michèle A. Flournoy, the former Undersecretary for Defense. Flournoy is a “liberal interventionist” who worked as a senior adviser for the Center for Strategic and International Studies and supported 2005 advocacy campaign spearheaded by the neoconservative Project for the New American Century that called for increasing the size of the US military.

Globalist Insiders Predict War

Reports of Russian troops entering Donbas, the training of Ukrainian soldiers by the US and Britain, unprecedented military exercises by NATO and Russia, and repeated violations of the Minsk ceasefire agreement point to a wider conflict and the possibility of a world war between two nuclear superpowers.

As reported earlier this month, war games by NATO and Russia increase the possibility of “dangerous military encounters” and war on the European continent, according to the London-based European Leadership Network think tank.

“While spokespeople may maintain that these operations are targeted against hypothetical opponents, the nature and scale of them indicate otherwise: Russia is preparing for a conflict with NATO, and NATO is preparing for a possible confrontation with Russia,” Ian Kearns, director of the ELN, said in the report.

The report highlights NATO’s “Allied Shield” exercise in June and Russia’s “snap exercise” held in March that involved 80,000 military personnel.

“These tensions are further aggravated and elevated into a sense of unpredictability when the exercises are not pre-notified or publicly announced beforehand, as is apparently the case with a number of Russian exercises,” the report states.

Globalist insiders, from Henry Kissinger to Mikhail Gorbachev, have warned about the increasing danger of a war in Ukraine that may develop into a larger world war.

In January Kissinger told the US Senate Armed Services Committee he was “uneasy about beginning a process of military engagement in Ukraine without knowing where it will lead us and what we’ll do to sustain it.”

“I believe we should avoid taking incremental steps before we know how far we are willing to go. This is a territory 300 miles from Moscow, and therefore has special security implications,” he said.

“I can no longer say that this Cold War will not lead to a ‘Hot War’. I fear that they could risk it,” said Gorbachev.

“The statements and propaganda on both sides make me fear the worst. If anyone loses their nerve in this charged atmosphere, we will not survive the next few years… I’m really extremely worried.”

Russia Moves Huge Number of Troops to Western Border

Appears to be preparing for war in December

by Kurt Nimmo | | August 13, 2015

The official Russian government news agency reports the nation’s military is moving a large number of soldiers and equipment to the Western Military District.

“The General Staff and the Western Military District’s command have been working tightly on determining and specifying the personnel and hardware of the 20th combined army,” a military source told TASS.

“In particular, questions are being decided of complementing the army with units from other military districts and forming more mechanized infantry, armor, artillery, missile, reconnaissance and other brigades.”

The army will be “reformatted” by December 1st in the district that encompasses 2 million square kilometers of airspace and 3,000 kilometers along the border with Europe.

The Russian Air Force and Air Defense Army is armed with Sukhoi Su-34, Su-35S and Su-30MS jets, Kamov Ka-52, Mil Mi-28N, Mi-35, and Mi-MTV5 helicopters, and S-300, S-400 and Pantsir-S air defense systems, according to TASS.

Russia also plans to create a new tank army along the border. It will incorporate the Tamanskaya Mechanized Infantry Division and the Kantemirovskaya Tank Division, as well as the 27th Sevastopolskaya Mechanized Infantry Brigade and the 6th Tank Brigade.

Another tank army will be in place near Moscow by December 1st.

In addition, Russia will create a rapid reaction force of paratroopers that will coordinate with ground troops. According to the General Staff, the airborne troops will increase in size from 45,000 to 60,000.

In June NATO announced it would include around 40,000 troops in its rapid response Spearhead Force stationed in Eastern Europe on the border with Russia.

“The proposal would mark a significant increase in the number of NATO troops in the region, as there were just 4,000 troops there in 2014,” the International Business Times reported.

Does Military Defense Require Large States?

Wealth — not size — buys defense
Does Military Defense Require Large States?

by Ryan McMaken | | June 12, 2015

Earlier this year, Lithuania reinstituted the military draft, which the Lithuanian state claimed was in response to threats from Russia.

Ukraine has also recently reinstituted the draft, with mixed political results, and for similarly stated reasons.

Regardless of how one gauges the magnitude of Russian aggression, the problem faced by small states like Lithuania is an important one.

How can a small state with a small population — and thus a small military — ever hope to defend itself against a much larger state?

This is an important question for libertarians especially, since, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe has noted, if we must have states, a system of small, independent states (i.e., Monaco, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, and arguably Switzerland) is much more ideal than a system of medium-sized or large states.

As illustrated here and here, we find that small states are less able to impose strong coercive state monopolies since small states face greater competition from surrounding states, and the more abusive states (if small) are at greater risk of losing their most productive citizens to emigration. Thus, small states have an incentive to pursue more laissez-faire policies.

The natural implication of this is that libertarians and other proponents of laissez-faire should seek a world of small states through secession, or through radical decentralization which leads to de facto local autonomy.

In response to this, opponents of secession and decentralization claim that only large and strong states can provide adequate military defense in the face of illiberal and large foreign regimes. “We can reduce the Americas and Europe to regions of small, weak states,” they may say, “but that would leave them defenseless against domination by some future equivalent of China, or Russia, or the United States.”

But are small states really defenseless?

Wealth — Not Size — Buys Defense

War-making is an expensive and capital-intensive endeavor. Ironically, some of the most warlike states often have their genesis in relatively laissez-faire economies (e.g., those of the American and Imperial British economies) because those economies are able to provide more tax revenue.

The other side of coin, however, is the fact that wealthier societies have a greater ability to defend themselves from aggressors. Wealthier societies can afford important and expensive armaments such as anti-aircraft defenses and related defensive technologies. They can afford to pay for specialized highly-trained troops instead of resorting to a 100-percent conscription tax on people with no particular skill for soldiering. Wealthier societies can also more easily obtain nuclear weapons technology which has clearly been shown to deter war-making by large aggressive states.

Also, wealthier societies can buy defense from neighbors in a variety of other ways. They can employ foreign mercenaries, and they can simply bribe unfriendly foreign regimes. Potential foreign aggressors will also be reluctant to bomb wealthy foreign cities that are sources of lucrative trade and investment.

And finally, in a wealthier society, residents at an individual and small organizational level, are more capable — if the state permits it — of arming themselves, which has the effect of adding another layer of resistance to foreign aggression.

The Advantages of Decentralization

This latter advantage of economic wealth brings us to the tactical advantages of political and military decentralization. Hoppe writes:

As a monopolist of ultimate decision-making, the state decides for everyone bindingly whether to resist or not; if to resist, whether in the form of civil disobedience, armed resistance or some combination thereof; and if armed resistance, of what form. If it decides to put up no resistance, this may be a well-meaning decision or it may be the result of bribes or personal threats by the invading state — but in any case, it will certainly be contrary to the preferences of many people who would have liked to put up some resistance and who are thus put in double jeopardy because as resisters they disobey now their own state as well as the invader.

On the other hand, if the state decides to resist, this again may be a well-meaning decision or it may be the result of pride or fear — but in any case, it too will be contrary to the preferences of many citizens who would have liked to put up no resistance or to resist by different means and who are entangled now as accomplices in the state’s schemes and subjected to the same collateral fallout and victor’s-justice as everyone else.

The reaction of a free territory is distinctly different. There is no government which makes one decision. Instead, there are numerous institutions and individuals who choose their own defense strategy, either independent of or in cooperation with others, each in accordance with one’s own risk assessment. Consequently, the aggressor has far more difficulties gathering information and conquering the territory. It is no longer sufficient to “know” the government, to win one decisive battle or to gain control of government headquarters from where to transmit orders to the native population. Even if one opponent is “known,” one battle is won or one defense agency defeated, this has no bearing on others.

Moreover, the multitude of command structures and strategies as well as the contractual character of a free society affect the conduct of both armed and unarmed resistance. As for the former, in state-territories the civilian population is typically unarmed and heavy reliance exists on regular, tax-and-draft-funded armies and conventional warfare. Hence, the defense forces create enemies even among its own citizenry, which the aggressor state can use to its own advantage, and in any case there is little to fear for the aggressor once the regular army is defeated. In contrast, the population of free territories is likely heavily armed and the fighting done by irregular militias led by defense professionals and in the form of guerilla or partisan warfare. All fighters are volunteers and all of their support: food, shelter, logistical help, etc. is voluntary. Hence, guerrillas must be extremely friendly to their own population. But precisely this: their entirely defensive character and near-unanimous support in public opinion can render them nearly invincible, even by numerically far superior invading armies. History provides numerous examples: Napoleon’s defeat in Spain, France’s defeat in Algeria, the U.S. defeat in Vietnam, Israel’s defeat in South Lebanon.

Collective Defense, Guerilla Warfare, and Private Arms

Rothbard explored these same themes in his work on the American Revolution, in which he noted the essential role of guerilla warfare in that conflict. Simultaneously during the war, the “United States” functioned as a group of independent states that had come together for the purposes of collective defense. The coalition was successful against the most powerful state of the era, and the Americans states remained de facto independent small entities, even if they functioned internationally under a single diplomatic banner.

Consequently, we find that effective military defense does not necessitate a centralized state or political unity. There is no compelling reason to believe that had there been twenty or thirty colonies instead of thirteen, that the outcome or conduct of the war on the side of the Americans would have been any different.

These facts remain relevant even today since other regions of the world could take advantage of the same dynamics, were they able to overcome their commitments to nationalism and authoritarianism. For example, if Lithuania were serious about military defense, it might look to the fact that the former states of the Soviet Bloc, from Estonia to Bulgaria (not including the former SSRs, such as Ukraine), have a combined population of over 100 million people and populations spread out over a large area. In other words, the region has the potential to mount a credible and effective military defense to foreign invaders through decentralized, collective defense.

Defensive military capability would also be greatly enhanced by a commitment to economic growth through deregulation and laissez-faire. Not surprisingly, though, most of the states of the region are unwilling to free their economies from government intervention. At the same time, those same states are committed to disarming the local populations and centralizing military capability while palming off their defense costs on the American taxpayer via NATO. That is, they remain committed to old models of state defense that have failed them spectacularly in the past.

The region (like most of the world) remains mired in the idea that a centralized state and a defenseless private sector are the best option for defense. The number of privately owned-firearms in Bulgaria, for example, is six guns per 100 people. In Poland, the number is 1.3 private guns per 100 people. There are even fewer private guns in Lithuania (0.7 per 100), which has decided that enslaving young men via conscription is better than letting citizens have guns. When we compare these numbers to gun ownership in Switzerland, which has a rate of forty-five guns per 100 people (the rate is eighty-eight per 100 in the United States), it becomes abundantly clear that the regimes of eastern Europe are not serious about any type of military defense that does not prioritize protecting the state’s monopoly of coercion over its own citizens.

Ideology Matters

Economics, size, and the quality of war materiel all matter, but none of these factors can overcome the power of ideology. Hoppe writes:

[H]ow is one to explain, for instance, that France has not long ago conquered Monaco, or Germany Luxemburg, or Switzerland Liechtenstein, or Italy Vatican City, or the U.S. Costa Rica? Or how is one to explain that the U.S. does not “finish the job” in Iraq by simply killing all Iraqis. Surely, in terms of population, technology and geography such are manageable tasks.

The reason for these omissions is not that French, German, Swiss, Italian or U.S. state rulers have principled moral scruples against conquest, occupation, expropriation, confiscation, enslavement and the imprisonment or killing of innocents — they do these things on a daily basis to their “own” population. … [W]hat constrains the conduct of state rulers and explains their reluctance to do things that appear feasible from a “technical” point of view is public opinion, domestically, but also abroad.

As La Boétie, Hume, Mises, Rothbard have explained, government power ultimately rests on opinion, not brute force. Bush does not himself kill or put a gun to the head of those he orders to kill. Generals and soldiers follow his orders on their own. Nor can Bush “force” anyone to continue providing him with the funds needed for his aggression. The citizenry must do so on its own, because it believes that, by and large, it is the right thing to do. On the other hand, if the majority of generals, soldiers and citizens stop believing in the legitimacy of Bush’s commands, his commands turn into nothing more than hot air.

Ultimately, no governmental structure can prevent war if the prevailing ideology is one that prefers violence to peace and nationalism to international laissez-faire. Likewise, Sweden and Norway (for example) no longer come to blows, not because peace is imposed on them by NATO or the US, but because the people of the region view war as an untenable option. There is peace (for now) throughout most of the West because few of the productive taxpaying citizens of the West are inclined to make war on other citizens of the West. This is an ideological triumph, not a military one.

Bilderberg 2015: Full Attendee List & Agenda

Elitist confab to discuss artificial intelligence
Bilderberg 2015: Full Attendee List & Agenda

by | June 8, 2015

The official Bilderberg Group website has released the full attendee list and agenda for this year’s conference. As ever, the list of topics to be discussed is so vague as to almost be meaningless. Infowars will have full coverage of Bilderberg’s detailed agenda later today and for the rest of the week.

63rd Bilderberg conference to take place from 11 – 14 June 2015 in Telfs-Buchen, Austria.

Telfs-Buchen, 8 June 2015 – The 63rd  Bilderberg conference is set to take place from 11 – 14 June 2015 in Telfs-Buchen, Austria. A total of around 140 participants from 22 countries have confirmed their attendance. As ever, a diverse group of political leaders and experts from industry, finance, academia and the media have been invited. The list of participants is available on

The key topics for discussion this year include:

  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Cyber-security
  • Chemical Weapons Threats
  • Current Economic Issues
  • European Strategy
  • Globalization
  • Greece
  • Iran
  • Middle East
  • NATO
  • Russia
  • Terrorism
  • United Kingdom
  • USA
  • US Elections

Founded in 1954, the Bilderberg conference is an annual meeting designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America. Every year, between 120-150 political leaders and experts from industry, finance, academia and the media are invited to take part in the conference. About two thirds of the participants come from Europe and the rest from North America; approximately one third from politics and government and the rest from other fields.

The conference is a forum for informal discussions about major issues facing the world. The meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor of any other participant may be revealed.

Thanks to the private nature of the conference, the participants are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions. As such, they can take time to listen, reflect and gather insights. There is no desired outcome, no minutes are taken and no report is written. Furthermore, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued.

Telfs-Buchen, Austria 11 – 14 June 2015

Final list of Participants


Castries, Henri de Chairman and CEO, AXA Group FRA
Achleitner, Paul M. Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG DEU
Agius, Marcus Non-Executive Chairman, PA Consulting Group GBR
Ahrenkiel, Thomas Director, Danish Intelligence Service (DDIS) DNK
Allen, John R. Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, US Department of State USA
Altman, Roger C. Executive Chairman, Evercore USA
Applebaum, Anne Director of Transitions Forum, Legatum Institute POL
Apunen, Matti Director, Finnish Business and Policy Forum EVA FIN
Baird, Zoë CEO and President, Markle Foundation USA
Balls, Edward M. Former Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer GBR
Balsemão, Francisco Pinto Chairman, Impresa SGPS PRT
Barroso, José M. Durão Former President of the European Commission PRT
Baverez, Nicolas Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP FRA
Benko, René Founder, SIGNA Holding GmbH AUT
Bernabè, Franco Chairman, FB Group SRL ITA
Beurden, Ben van CEO, Royal Dutch Shell plc NLD
Bigorgne, Laurent Director, Institut Montaigne FRA
Boone, Laurence Special Adviser on Financial and Economic Affairs to the President FRA
Botín, Ana P. Chairman, Banco Santander ESP
Brandtzæg, Svein Richard President and CEO, Norsk Hydro ASA NOR
Bronner, Oscar Publisher, Standard Verlagsgesellschaft AUT
Burns, William President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace USA
Calvar, Patrick Director General, DGSI FRA
Castries, Henri de Chairman, Bilderberg Meetings; Chairman and CEO, AXA Group FRA
Cebrián, Juan Luis Executive Chairman, Grupo PRISA ESP
Clark, W. Edmund Retired Executive, TD Bank Group CAN
Coeuré, Benoît Member of the Executive Board, European Central Bank INT
Coyne, Andrew Editor, Editorials and Comment, National Post CAN
Damberg, Mikael L. Minister for Enterprise and Innovation SWE
De Gucht, Karel Former EU Trade Commissioner, State Minister BEL
Dijsselbloem, Jeroen Minister of Finance NLD
Donilon, Thomas E. Former U.S. National Security Advisor; Partner and Vice Chair, O’Melveny & Myers LLP USA
Döpfner, Mathias CEO, Axel Springer SE DEU
Dowling, Ann President, Royal Academy of Engineering GBR
Dugan, Regina Vice President for Engineering, Advanced Technology and Projects, Google USA
Eilertsen, Trine Political Editor, Aftenposten NOR
Eldrup, Merete CEO, TV 2 Danmark A/S DNK
Elkann, John Chairman and CEO, EXOR; Chairman, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles ITA
Enders, Thomas CEO, Airbus Group DEU
Erdoes, Mary CEO, JP Morgan Asset Management USA
Fairhead, Rona Chairman, BBC Trust GBR
Federspiel, Ulrik Executive Vice President, Haldor Topsøe A/S DNK
Feldstein, Martin S. President Emeritus, NBER;  Professor of Economics, Harvard University USA
Ferguson, Niall Professor of History, Harvard University, Gunzberg Center for European Studies USA
Fischer, Heinz Federal President AUT
Flint, Douglas J. Group Chairman, HSBC Holdings plc GBR
Franz, Christoph Chairman of the Board, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd CHE
Fresco, Louise O. President and Chairman Executive Board, Wageningen University and Research Centre NLD
Griffin, Kenneth Founder and CEO, Citadel Investment Group, LLC USA
Gruber, Lilli Executive Editor and Anchor “Otto e mezzo”, La7 TV ITA
Guriev, Sergei Professor of Economics, Sciences Po RUS
Gürkaynak, Gönenç Managing Partner, ELIG Law Firm TUR
Gusenbauer, Alfred Former Chancellor of the Republic of Austria AUT
Halberstadt, Victor Professor of Economics, Leiden University NLD
Hampel, Erich Chairman, UniCredit Bank Austria AG AUT
Hassabis, Demis Vice President of Engineering, Google DeepMind GBR
Hesoun, Wolfgang CEO, Siemens Austria AUT
Hildebrand, Philipp Vice Chairman, BlackRock Inc. CHE
Hoffman, Reid Co-Founder and Executive Chairman, LinkedIn USA
Ischinger, Wolfgang Chairman, Munich Security Conference INT
Jacobs, Kenneth M. Chairman and CEO, Lazard USA
Jäkel, Julia CEO, Gruner + Jahr DEU
Johnson, James A. Chairman, Johnson Capital Partners USA
Juppé, Alain Mayor of Bordeaux, Former Prime Minister FRA
Kaeser, Joe President and CEO, Siemens AG DEU
Karp, Alex CEO, Palantir Technologies USA
Kepel, Gilles University Professor, Sciences Po FRA
Kerr, John Deputy Chairman, Scottish Power GBR
Kesici, Ilhan MP, Turkish Parliament TUR
Kissinger, Henry A. Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc. USA
Kleinfeld, Klaus Chairman and CEO, Alcoa USA
Knot, Klaas H.W. President, De Nederlandsche Bank NLD
Koç, Mustafa V. Chairman, Koç Holding A.S. TUR
Kogler, Konrad Director General, Directorate General for Public Security AUT
Kravis, Henry R. Co-Chairman and Co-CEO, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. USA
Kravis, Marie-Josée Senior Fellow and Vice Chair, Hudson Institute USA
Kudelski, André Chairman and CEO, Kudelski Group CHE
Lauk, Kurt President, Globe Capital Partners DEU
Lemne, Carola CEO, The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise SWE
Levey, Stuart Chief Legal Officer, HSBC Holdings plc USA
Leyen, Ursula von der Minister of Defence DEU
Leysen, Thomas Chairman of the Board of Directors, KBC Group BEL
Maher, Shiraz Senior Research Fellow, ICSR, King’s College London GBR
Markus Lassen, Christina Head of Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Security Policy and Stabilisation DNK
Mathews, Jessica T. Distinguished Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace USA
Mattis, James Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University USA
Maudet, Pierre Vice-President of the State Council, Department of Security, Police and the Economy of Geneva CHE
McKay, David I. President and CEO, Royal Bank of Canada CAN
Mert, Nuray Columnist, Professor of Political Science, Istanbul University TUR
Messina, Jim CEO, The Messina Group USA
Michel, Charles Prime Minister BEL
Micklethwait, John Editor-in-Chief, Bloomberg LP USA
Minton Beddoes, Zanny Editor-in-Chief, The Economist GBR
Monti, Mario Senator-for-life; President, Bocconi University ITA
Mörttinen, Leena Executive Director, The Finnish Family Firms Association FIN
Mundie, Craig J. Principal, Mundie & Associates USA
Munroe-Blum, Heather Chairperson, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board CAN
Netherlands, H.R.H. Princess Beatrix of the NLD
O’Leary, Michael CEO, Ryanair Plc IRL
Osborne, George First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer GBR
Özel, Soli Columnist, Haberturk Newspaper; Senior Lecturer, Kadir Has University TUR
Papalexopoulos, Dimitri Group CEO, Titan Cement Co. GRC
Pégard, Catherine President, Public Establishment of the Palace, Museum and National Estate of Versailles FRA
Perle, Richard N. Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute USA
Petraeus, David H. Chairman, KKR Global Institute USA
Pikrammenos, Panagiotis Honorary President of The Hellenic Council of State GRC
Reisman, Heather M. Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc. CAN
Rocca, Gianfelice Chairman, Techint Group ITA
Roiss, Gerhard CEO, OMV Austria AUT
Rubin, Robert E. Co Chair, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Secretary of the Treasury USA
Rutte, Mark Prime Minister NLD
Sadjadpour, Karim Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace USA
Sánchez Pérez-Castejón, Pedro Leader, Partido Socialista Obrero Español PSOE ESP
Sawers, John Chairman and Partner, Macro Advisory Partners GBR
Sayek Böke, Selin Vice President, Republican People’s Party TUR
Schmidt, Eric E. Executive Chairman, Google Inc. USA
Scholten, Rudolf CEO, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG AUT
Senard, Jean-Dominique CEO, Michelin Group FRA
Sevelda, Karl CEO, Raiffeisen Bank International AG AUT
Stoltenberg, Jens Secretary General, NATO INT
Stubb, Alexander Prime Minister FIN
Suder, Katrin Deputy Minister of Defense DEU
Sutherland, Peter D. UN Special Representative; Chairman, Goldman Sachs International IRL
Svanberg, Carl-Henric Chairman, BP plc; Chairman, AB Volvo SWE
Svarva, Olaug CEO, The Government Pension Fund Norway NOR
Thiel, Peter A. President, Thiel Capital USA
Tsoukalis, Loukas President, Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy GRC
Üzümcü, Ahmet Director-General, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons INT
Vitorino, António M. Partner, Cuetrecasas, Concalves Pereira, RL PRT
Wallenberg, Jacob Chairman, Investor AB SWE
Weber, Vin Partner, Mercury LLC USA
Wolf, Martin H. Chief Economics Commentator, The Financial Times GBR
Wolfensohn, James D. Chairman and CEO, Wolfensohn and Company USA
Zoellick, Robert B. Chairman, Board of International Advisors, The Goldman Sachs Group USA