Dueling Drills: World Powers Are Prepping For SOMETHING
by James Corbett
corbettreport.com
August 3, 2019
Are you keeping your eye on the news? Have you noticed any worrying patterns lately? Do you get the sense that we're drifting towards war? And not just another Libya-style "destroy the country and leave" war, but an all-out war war?
Don't worry, you're not the only one. There have been any number of developments in the last few weeks alone that feed into this narrative.
There was the tit-for-tat tanker seizures between Britain and Iran last month (with the MSM memory holing Britain's tit in the reporting on Iran's tat, of course), which has enabled the always-insightful Russian Foreign Ministry to conclude that the US "is simply looking for a pretext to whip up the situation" in the Persian Gulf (shocking, I know).
There is the still-escalating situation in Hong Kong, where US-backed regime change NGOs and authentically angry Hong Kongers are struggling against Beijing's encroachment on their regional autonomy (with China now warning the US to mind its own beeswax in the matter).
There was the incident over South Korea late last month where, depending on whose side of the story you trust, South Korean forces fired warning shots on Russian military aircraft that violated their airspace or innocent Russian peace planes were totally not violating anybody's airspace and no shots were even fired.
Oh, and there's the breaking news story as I write this article about the US formally withdrawing from the INF nuclear treaty, a Cold War-era arms control deal that had hitherto limited development of mid-range ground based nuclear missiles.
Yes, it's safe to say that the world is beginning to feel like a powder keg and each one of these incidents is a lit match.
But as bad as all of these stories sound, the reality is even worse! Let's take a look at a few recent developments that demonstrate how the world's biggest powers are prepping for something huge.
Story 1: PLA teams prepare for International Army Games
Ever heard of the "International Army Games"? Well guess what? Yes, the "International Army Games" (IAG) is a thing that exists. Specifically, the games are a series of military sporting contests that Russia has been hosting every year since 2015. Like the fever dream of some whacked-out Dr. Strangelove, the games feature events like "Aviadarts" (competition for flight crews), a "Tank biathlon," and a "Masters of artillery fire" competition where artillery crews get to put their calculation abilities to the test. No word on whether spectators are considered collateral damage in these sports, but you may not want to bring the kids to this one.
And the "international" here is not a misnomer. Each year more nations are participating in the games, with the 2018 edition seeing military competitors not only from core Shanghai Cooperation Organization members like Russia, China and Kazakhstan, but also from non-aligned nations like Vietnam, Myanmar, the Philippines and even the Sudan.
Of course, the main fireworks take place between Russian and Chinese competitors and this year is no different. Chinese state media (is there any other kind?) is bragging about the PLA Naval Aviation brigade's preparations for the "Aviadarts" competition and noting with pride that "The increasing presence of Chinese naval units in the IAG is an indication that the Navy is becoming more confident in foreign communication and exchange."
So just in case you were under the impression that the wholesale glorification of war and the use of propaganda to get military men excited about throwing themselves into the meat grinder was a strictly American thing, you can rest assured that it is a global phenomenon and actively encouraged by the likes of Putin and Xi. None of which should be reassuring to those who are concerned that we are marching headlong into another Cold War-style military standoff where the public is traumatized about the possibility of nuclear annihilation and the military contractors laugh all the way to the bank.
Story 2: Air Force sends F-35s, F-15s to Europe in combat readiness test
Just two weeks ago, the US Air Force engaged in "Operation Rapid Forge," which the military describes as "a test of the service's ability to quickly deploy air power overseas." Specifically, the operation involved deploying F-35A Lightning IIs, F-15E Strike Eagles and C130s to Powidz air base in Poland in order to test the forces' "ability to operate at forward locations." Squadrons were also deployed to Lithuania and Estonia as part of the exercise.
This comes on the heels of the BALTOPS naval drill, an annual NATO exercise run by the U.S. Navy’s 2nd Fleet command in Norfolk, Virginia. The 2nd Fleet command is a World War II-era fleet that was deactivated in 2011 due to easing tensions with Russia. It was reactivated last year due to (you guessed it) renewed fears about "Russia’s growing naval activity in the Atlantic." What's more, according to NATO this year's BALTOPS exercise "marks the command’s first major engagement in Europe." 8,600 U.S. and European troops from 18 nations took part in the drill which involved about 50 ships and submarines and 40 aircraft and "amphibious assaults in several locations within the Baltic Sea region."
Story 3: UK: Europe-led mission will protect vital shipping in Gulf
Britain responded to last month's oil tanker seizure with a bold proposal: a European-led "maritime protection mission" that would work "to safeguard shipping in the vital Strait of Hormuz." Interestingly, British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, when announcing the plan, "sought to put distance between Britain and its closest international ally, the United States." After all, let us remember that it was Uncle Sam who famously caused the current round of Iranian tensions by unilaterally pulling out of the Iran deal and then threatening to sanction anyone who dared continue buying or selling with the dastardly Persians.
It's not clear exactly what this maritime force would consist of, what nations would participate, who would command it, how long it would operate or what its rules of engagement would be, but other than that it sounds like a solid plan. Oh, except for the fact that Germany has already said they wouldn't participate in any US or UK-led force, but they may be open to cooperating in a specifically European operation.
The fact that there is a deep schism between these major NATO "allies" (the US, the UK and Europe), with all sides keen to distance themselves from the positions of the others, speaks to the chaos-within-chaos that defines the current geopolitical situation. Such animosity among so many different countries, both erstwhile allies and erstwhile enemies, would be worrying enough in times of relative stability . . . but I think we can all agree that this is not a time of relative stability.
So what's going on here?
All these drills, exercises, patrols, maritime missions and "military games" are a sign of our new geopolitical reality: For the first time since the end of the Cold War, there is the real possibility of a major power war in the near future.
Now, as my readers will know, I believe that these current tensions, like the Cold War itself, are being engineered and stage-managed to benefit the military contractors, to justify a domestic police state, and, ultimately, to usher in the New World Order. But that doesn't mean that a real war involving the real deaths of real people is not a possibility in this situation. Anyone who has studied history knows that wars happen despite the fact that the conflicts between nations (or, in the case of Europe during the days of royalty, the conflicts between cousins) has all the reality of a professional wrestling match. When, if, and as the would-be self-appointed (mis)leaders of this round of Cold War 2.0 decide, in the memorable words of Zbigniew Brzezinski, that it would be "infinitely easier to kill a million people than control a million people," you can bet that they will have no compunction about killing a million people. Or a billion.
And beyond that, the sheer number of drills, exercises, patrols and other military scenarios that are playing out right now make it that much more likely that the wrong junior officer on the wrong day will give the wrong order and unintentionally set off a shooting war that will escalate on its own. Case in point: the recent incident over South Korean skies. You know, the one where (according to South Korea) a couple of Russian reconnaissance jets violated their air space, necessitating the firing of 360 warning shots? Well, that wasn't just a Russian-South Korean incident. It involved China, too, who had two H-6K jet bombers up there with the Russian planes conducting a rendezvous over the Sea of Japan in the first-ever Russian/Chinese joint air patrol. The National Interest headline captures the gravity of a little "oopsie" like this: World War III? How Russia, China, Japan and South Korea Nearly Started a War
Long story short: It's not just you. There are a lot of worrying signs that the powers that shouldn't be are prepping the public for something big.
James, one thing that worries me about the increasing escalation towards war is that it may give "them" the right opportunity to make casualties of war out of all of us who know what's going on behind the scene.
Just like you showed in the last NewWorldNextWeek, they have satellites in the skies monitoring us 24/7. They obviously know where we live.
What if, say, North Korea declares war on Japan, and a stray nuke lands on "the sunny climes of western Japan", where, BY PURE COINCIDENCE, you happen to reside?
That may be the primary motivation "they" have for triggering a global conflict.
James is pretty important to me, you, and probably lots of folks, but I doubt TPTB would be willing to sacrifice the number of people and the profitable infrastructure that would be taken out with a nuke targeted at him personally. That's the problem with WMD's: they are useless against individuals, or small groups because of the collateral damage to all the people TPTB depend on parasitizing for their wealth and power.
This is why soldiers and cops still have guns. That's what's needed to seize individuals and enforce oppressive edicts: armed thugs on the ground. There's much better technology for killing lots of people, but not for dragging one to jail. There's also much better technology (they're not selling at Walmart next to the shotguns) for preventing armed gangs of thugs from oppressing you, but we'll have to make those devices ourselves.
Yay for 3D printers!
Be well.
You're right, I may have exaggerated a little bit. It's not like they will start a nuclear war just to take out James (or any other individual).
What I meant was something like this: we know that "they" have been increasing the tension between North Korea and Japan for years. If they go for full out war and decide to pop some nukes, don't you think that they will try to kill two birds with one stone and land the nuke somewhere where they can take out any persona non grata? I would do it if I were in their place.
And I disagree about them needing us. That may have been true up until a few decades ago, but why exactly do they need me, you or anyone else?
Because of money? But they're the the ones creating money in the first place, they know very well that it has no intrinsic value, they don't care about our money.
Because of manpower? But robots are way more efficient than humans will ever be. Why would they rely on our work when robots and neural networks exist?
Because they need "human pets" to keep them company? Maybe, but why keep us as pets when they could just genetically engineer the human of their dreams in their labs?
When you look at it from their perspective, there is no reason we "natural" humans should be allowed to continue living on "their" planet.
Robots are not as efficient as you might think, because the sourcing of materials, production, and maintenance of robots is not able to be entirely automated. Considerable development will be required to enable a completely automated industrial loop, and that will require a substantial and willing labor market. A few nukes will utterly remove the willingness of that labor market, even if it does not eliminate the laborers completely.
Money is not wealth. Wealth is what you can buy with money, and that depends on people being willing to exchange wealth for money, which they are less and less as money is more and more simply conjured out of thin air. The more reduced in actual wealth individuals are, the less they are willing to exchange what wealth they have for money.
Power remains dependent on population, and will for the foreseeable future, so the vampires remain dependent on population size today, and will until automated industrial production becomes a closed loop independent of labor.
Well, I guess the crux of the matter then is how advanced their technology really is. I don't think that the level of automation that you can see at Amazon or in China is indicative of what they have. After all, even back in the 60s the SRI had already developed fully automated robots capable of computer vision and autonomous movement (e.g. Shakey). But that's speculation on my part, it's hard to guess at what level their technology really is.
You're wrong about nukes having an adverse effect on the labor market. Historically, after big wars and catastrophes, there has always been a period of intense economic growth. In Germany, after WWII, there was the Wirtschaftswunder (lit. economic miracle). In Italy, the Boom Economico (lit. economic boom). And Japan, which was nuked twice at the end of WWII, quickly become one of the richest nations on the planet, up until the Lost Decade in the 90s.
You're right: money is not wealth. But my point still stands: what wealth do you possess that the multi-trillionaire banking families crave so much? Your plasma TV? Your Nintendo Switch? Your car? Your home? Your collection of vintage vinyls from the 70s?
No matter how you look at it, there is simply nothing of value that me, you or 99% human beings can provide to them. Sure, maybe they still need a few hundred thousands of us because maybe they still haven't fully automated everything, but for how long is that going to be true?
There are actually many different valuable goods and services that aren't otherwise potential to them. They need our labor, our political power, our DNA, and much more, upon which their quality of life depends. While machine vision is a great leap towards automation, it does not enable robots to actually use what they see to do the work we do with what we see.
It's easy to grasp how much technological progress has been made, but that progress is so short of actual human capabilities it's far - very far - from making us redundant. We are extremely complex and much more capable relative to robots today, and for the foreseeable future. A machine may be able to do a particular task better than me. But they can't do all the tasks I can do - at all. A drone can't tie a shoe. It can't pick an apple. All it can do is fly, and maybe take pics or shoot. They may not have any use for my fridge, but if they want a fridge, they need someone to design it, make it, deliver it, maintain it, fill it, and so on and so forth, until it needs to be hauled away and replaced.
Robots aren't going to be closing that loop soon, if ever. By the time automation has reached most of those tasks, folks like you and I are also going to have it. Money is not wealth, refrigerators full of food are. Aquaponics, 3D printers, so forth, are available to you and I today, not just fat cats that own factories. Technological advances are in our favor, not theirs.
What willl give monetarily rich people power when we don't need money to have wealth?
This is the real change that is coming. We're not going to be wiped out by the parasites that depend on us for their sustenance. We're going to ignore them until they can do their own work, or just go away. Decentralization is not their power, it's ours. Technology always increases the power of individuals more than institutions, and the more advanced the tech, the more power individuals gain, and the faster they gain it.
The key to keeping their power is our consent, and this is why the enemedia so carefully craft the narratives we are fed: to make us believe we need to.
We don't. Sooner than they can live without us, we'll be living without them. The good old days are yet to come. One description of wealth is being of independent means. We're becoming independent of them far faster than they are of us. While digits in accounts show money is being concentrated faster than ever in the accounts of the rich, actual wealth is being more widely distributed than ever in history.
The real question is how long until we gain the power to travel offworld. Once we're interplanetary, there will never be any means of oppression that can follow us across the universe. Our sons will inherit the stars, and only the good company they choose to keep will be part of their lives. Real freedom is coming, and the joy and prosperity we want to give our posterity comes with it.