danni naeil

Category: State of the world

  • The American Wolf Warriors

    During the reign of Xi Jinping Chinese diplomacy, the dominant approach to other countries, with the exception of Russia, has been to call forth the Wolf Warriors. In just a matter of a few years, China went from a rather respected cooperative partner in countries like Sweden, for instance in creating Confucius Institutes and exchange programmes in the Academy, to being an enemy. Not an opponent or adversary, but a foe.

    As in France, the Chinese ambassador to Sweden, was seen as rude and unreasonable. Calls for his expulsion came from the right, the center and the left. In the Czech Republic, Chinese merchants were exposed exporting face masks and other medical equipment during the early phases of Covid pandemic, to selling (or was it donating?) them to the Czech Republic, calling it aid.

    In Southeast Asia, China has turned all other states into enemies, with their frequent harassment of fishers, border patrols and building military bases on reefs near or in other states. States turned to the United States of America to shield them. President Joe Biden iterated and reiterated his military protection of Taiwan. He talked to, and with, other states, let them front important political decisions.

    But now, the Trump administration has become the new Wolf Warriors, demeaning, slandering and threatening states: Ukraine, Russia, Denmark, Germany, Panama, Palestine. And the European Union. Trump and his lackey Ass Vance seem not to have learned anything from the Chinese way of diplomacy: you gain virtually no friends or allies. States shun you and realise they must cooperate more without you. How can you expect to gain friends by bullying, threatening and belittling people? Even the Russian regime understands this.

  • Harvesting US agencies for Grok?

    Few have escaped the unconstitutional encroachments of Elon Musk(olini) (professional manchild) into US agencies, with his team of followers (at least 37 people, because the portrayal of the single, man “genius” simply doesn’t exist – they always rely on lots of followers and fixers).

    Ostensibly they’re distmantling agencies (USAID was instituted by the Republican party in the 1990’s by the way) and “saving expenditures” for the sake of saving money and perhaps decreasing the US debt. Personally, I believe the real purpose is, primarily, to harvest as much data on the population as possible, to provide all of it to Muskolinis Grok AI. The scaling laws need more data, and why not harvest secret and non-official data? Without it, AI programs can neither proceed nor progress, and now Grok has an advantage. Whoever wins this war of artificial intelligence wins all of it (it is presumed) and can control the population with extremely sensitive data on virtually every American.

    Secondly, Grok will have the capacity to surveil and weed out uncomfortable and inconvenient employees in the federal bureaucracy. If necessary, they’ll fire more people and bring in loyalists and sycophants to fill the vacant places.

    As Ezra Klein put it: “Congress is a place where you can lose. […] Trump is acting like a king, because he’s too weak to govern like a president.” So, expect no resistance from the weak Republicans in Congress. And this is what happens to democracy and bureaucracy when “entrepreneurs” think they can play government.

    From now on, I’ll follow the Canadian motto “Buy Canadian”, though in the way of “Do not buy American whenever you can avoid it.”

  • Restricted aid to Ukraine

    Restricted aid to Ukraine

    I planned to write this text regarding USA, Ukraine, Russia, Israel, Iran, North Korea, China and Trump a month ago, but didn’t have the time.

    Between the US presidential election and the inauguration of Donald Trump, many pundits and military analysts had hopeful discussions on how Trump could help Ukraine more than the Biden administration. I really couldn’t see this. I know the Biden administration has done wonder for Ukraine, and faltered, stammered and didn’t do enough for Ukraine “to win” (whatever that actually means). One of the main reasons, from my perspective, is ammunition constraints.

    Israel attacked Gaza and was on the verge of attacking Libanon and Iran after the 7th of October 2023. The Biden administration did all they could to restrain the Israeli government from a regional war. Simultaneously Biden warned China that the US would fight a war for Taiwan, with an ever-present Chinese military in the Taiwan Straight, while North Korea and Iran helped Russia against Ukraine.

    I believe Biden was afraid of regional wars in Europa, the Middle East and Asia, first and foremost because wars are bad. He had realized how bad they were before becoming president and was, thus, cautious. Secondly, the US can’t support its own military against China, Israel against Iran and its allies, and Ukraine against Russia. It simply doesn’t have the ammunition to do so. The war between Russia and Ukraine proved to the Americans how quickly ammunition is depleted. Javelins and Stingers were used in numbers they US couldn’t rebuild in many years, and that was a “small” war. Fighting one to three regional wars at the same time would have forced the US to choose which war to actually fight.

    There might’ve been several, to me unbeknownst, reasons for the Biden administration to restrain its support of Ukraine, but this is the most obvious one I can think of.

    Regarding Trump I didn’t for a second believe he was going to support Ukraine as much as Biden. The man has no comprehension of geopolitics whatsoever. He doesn’t understand politics, political power and power relations at all. He believes strong men should haggle, not negotiate. Biden stood back and let allies and his own secretaries and directors take place during his years as president. Trump has yes-sayers shouting and haggling as if they’re on some sort of parody of a Medieval market.

    Trump will pivot in any way he sees fit, because he can’t focus on any issue too long. One minute he’ll affront Russia, the next the European Union, and after that Ukraine. He’ll treat Ukraine like some American granary, attempting to haggle, while not understanding what haggling territory means for Ukraine and Russia.

    He has already ruined relations in the Middle East with the preposterous idea on Gaza, his relations with Canada and Mexico. Now he’ll ruin the relations ever further with the EU (he doesn’t understand how the EU works, therefore despising it) as well as with Ukraine. The result might be what Emanuel Macron has wanted for eight years: a stronger Europe (and a weaker US). At the same time, Russia and China will grow stronger, as will India and Brazil. Meanwhile, the Trump administration will continue to erode its power and power relations globally.

  • Democracies in time

    Democracies in time

    The Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation (abbreviated SVR) seems busy spreading a narrative of Russian invincibility and inevitable Ukrainian defeat. Recently it was visible in one of Sweden’s largest newspapers, where American “experts” asserted Ukraine needs to negotiate immediately. In August CNN claimed The Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (abbreviated FSB) was attempting influencing Westerners “through layers of ostensibly independent actors.” A known Swedish blogger accused Svenska Dagbladet for actively spreading this narrative by interviewing an “independent” American “expert”. Anders Åslund disproves the obvious faulty arguments put forward by these kinds of “experts”. Josh Rogin from the Washington Post also wrote a good opinion piece on this very issue. Finish authorities have revealed that Russian intelligence services have been active in foiling Sweden joining NATO. Who could’ve thought?

    In an interview with The Kyiv Independent, Serhii Plokhy argues that we need to brace and prepare for a long war. The coming year might be pivotal and he argues, correctly I think, that short-term memory is dangerous, tending to dominate among political elites. Personally I believe regular people oftentimes see life through a short-term memeory version too. The latest inflation rate or cost of cucumber in the store seems more damaging to the world, and the self, than a long, brutal war.

    Francis Farrelly of the same newspaper wrote an op-ed on the possibility of Ukrainian defeat. It is, to say the least, very critical of the West, and its willingness to really support Ukraine in terms of weapons, ammunition and weapon systems. Overall, I agree, although I think the Biden administration has done a marvelous job all-in-all and definitely compared to if Trump had been president, and compared to the European Union. Without the Biden administration, for all its’ faults, Ukraine would’ve fought a partisan war. The countries supporting Ukraine have the most resources on the planet. Russia has survived this far into the war because of the Soviet stockpiles, because economically, and we hear lots about how Russia has withstood economic pressure better then expected and how much stronger Russia is compared to Ukraine (from certain Western “experts” for instance), Russia has a GDP in comparison to New York state or Canada. So, approximately 150 million Russians produce as much as 20 million New Yorkers or 37 million Canadians. What do we have to fear?

    It makes me wonder if the authoritarians have a better perspective on time than democrats and inhabitants in democratic societies? Of course Putler embarrassed himself so much he couldn’t even show up riding that three-wheeled motorbike (he can’t ride an ordinary motorbike) when he realized his troops were initially pulverized by the Ukrainians. But he also knows how to gamble in the casino of International Politics and Suchlike Affairs. So, he and his men tried all they could to prolong the war in order to outweigh the losses and eventually defeat the West by beating Ukraine on the battlefield or by waiting for the short-term-memory-people in the West to think, and shrug as if it didn’t matter: “nah, not worth it anymore”.

    Johann Hari, among others, has written about our Stolen Focus, our inability to think properly because our attention span is so splintered and the gratification system is constantly set to “On”. For instance, the Swedish economy isn’t feeling too well, but the smallest evidence of a turn, like lessened increase of inflation, means that things are already turning. But an economic crisis isn’t averted by one small improvement, since the crisis itself is built up during decades. If Ukraine can’t “win” on the battlefield once, everything’s lost and we’re prepared to back our bags and go home.

    If democracies and their inhabitants can’t see over the next hill, democracy as a concept is dead. The war between Ukraine and Russia is costly in many ways – that’s war. After all the promises of support for Ukraine, all the “Slava Ukraini” uttered by prime ministers and presidents, we simply can’t surrender for an enemy which seems stronger than initially thought or because a war continues longer than people anticipated. Why wouldn’t it last for years? Swift victories seem fictitious or cineastic. Victories require time, willingess, sacrifice, logistics, money and people.

    Franz-Stefan Gady wrote about the movie Napoleon in Foreign Policy. Firstly, he mentioned the Western thought of “one major, decisive battle” which will lead to absolute and definite victory. Secondly, he writes (and has written before) about teh belief in a game-changing weapon, or a weapon system so strong it’ll lead to victory. None of these two things exist. Nuclear weapons, you say? Yes, they have delayed Western support for Ukraine, but have definitely not lead to some magical victory for the Russian forces.

    An ex-commander in the US military claimed that the People’s Liberation Army (the military of the Chinese Communist Party, not the military of the state) is preparing to invade Taiwan in 2027 at the latest. Even if this is his words, the Chinese and American leaderships are well aware of the risk of war over Taiwan, attempting to defuse the tension. It might not, hopefully, come to pass, although it’s a reminder of the tangible risk of a confrontation between two superpowers, one democratic, one authoritarian, both wanting to shape the world.

    According to a report from a German think-thank, Russia could rather quickly rearm and reconstitute in order to continue aggressions. The current Russian leadership, and many rightwing extremists perceives several states (like the three Baltic states) surrounding Russia as rightfully belonging to the Russian Federation, as former parts of the Russian Empire. The claim of renewed/expanded aggression has been made by the Swedish military and military analysts since the fullscale war on Ukraine.

    Russia has also transformed itself, again, into a full-fledged dictatorship, bent on territorial and influential expansion. Belarus is already virtually annexed. Russia won’t bend because Ukraine negotiates. They won’t bend because NATO or the EU withdraws or abandons Ukraine.

    We can’t be as naïve as Neville Chamberlain and his cohorts and accept dictators and authoritarian states to remain calm and peaceful. Unfortunately, Theodore Roosevelt was right when he wrote you should speak softly and carry a big stick, and that a good navy (here military) is not a provocation to war, it is the surest guaranty of peace. Russia must loose on the battlefield. No one should even consided abandoning Ukraine. You stand by your promise, by your friends.

  • The emperor is all but draped in paper

    The emperor is all but draped in paper

    When Russia invaded Ukraine, approximately 95 % of its regular army was there. Only 5 % remained inside Russia. To this day, approximately 200.000 Russians have been killed or wounded in the war. That’s almost the same number as Russian attacked Ukraine with. Now, private military companies are not obliged to reveal their losses, and the Russian military always downplays its losses, meaning even more losses could be the fact.

    When Prigozhin’s Wagner troops began their sprint towards Moscow on Friday/Saturday, they were 25.000, 5.000 of them being a vanguard. The regular forces suffered casaulties against the 5.000 Wagnerites and it’s said that Wagner tried to reach former veterans inside Moscow in order to recruit them. So, could Putin have resisted?

    Vladimir Putin is said to have a security apparatus of hundreds of thousands of men. But yesterday, we witnessed boys with weapons and police officers in Moscow. Not security forces. Perhaps they were unseen. Perhaps they were not, because it’s a sham, a paper machier construction.

    That GRU, the Russian military intelligence, suffered losses in Ukraina was known before the intelligence leak this spring, but not how big. Washington Post analyzed papers and it seems (if I comprehend the scope correctly) GRU sent five brigades (5 * 900 soldiers) to Ukraine. Three of them have been virtually annihilated, one has been placed in the catastrophic fight for Vuhledar and suffered losses this year and, one has been slightly damaged by the war. These soldiers require at least four years of training and apparently they died like flies inside Ukraine. So much for their training.

    The “Chechen warriors” under Kadyrov raced to intercept Wagner. They live by their rumour, although they are deeply divided into Kadyrovites and Chechens who oppose Russia. Apparently the Kadyrovites use the rumour of being ferocious fighters, but are really not true. They have suffered losses in Ukraine, as they appear not to be more than boastful and erratic.

    In Sweden, there’s a diaspora waiting to return to Chechnya to fight Kadyrov and Russia, and other Chechens have joined the Ukrainian side so far, fighting what they deem are the traitors of Kadyrov.

    The Russian army has suffered staggering losses in Ukraine, with Wagner forces and airborne forces being the veterans, among the best survivors of the Russian forces so far. Could the paper tiger from Chechnya been able to do much against these veterans?

    Let’s not forget the Ukrainian attacks on Moscow, Belgorod and other places, revealing the leack of preparedness and competence in the Russian ranks.

    Prigozhin and Wagner sailed through Rostov-on-Don and Voronezh, in hours taking military headquarters with almost no resistance (that we know of). They were greeted by civilians, being given water, food and respect for being true to Russia. Putin must’ve panicked if he heard and saw that regular people in the vicinity of the war considers the war Putin wages as going completely wrong.

    My very basic, simple and amateurish guess is that Putin panicked. Prigozhin wasn’t going to hand over his only real possession, Wagner, after the new law, and he wasn’t going to end up in the infamous Lefortovo prison, being tortured and possibly executed by the FSB. So, he gambled. And the snake bit Putin’s hand.

    The Chechens weren’t able to intercept the Wagner forces, and it would’ve resulted in battles between them in many regions, with the Russian army inside Ukraine suffering from broken logistical lines and rotation. In Moscow, there’s no spetznaz forces to speak of, and my argument is that the veterans of Wagner would’ve decimated the “elite” forces, just like the Ukrainians decimated them. They’re also a paper tiger construction. Wagner would’ve conquered parts of Moscow, and Putin, not a brave man, would’ve fled before that, not being in control any longer in his train or his jet plane. The snake showed us that the emperor is all but draped in paper, nothing more.

    Putin had to aquiesce, revealing yet again that he is rather powerless, unable to win in Ukraine, unable to control a private military company opposing him. Even if Prigozhin were to suffer sooner or later, perhaps some of his soldiers are fiercely loyal and will take revenge? I fear the board is being set, inadvertenly, by many players, many more right extreme than Putin himself. He wanted to restore Russian glory, but will see Russia ripped to pieces if he doesn’t understand how to revert course now.

  • Sustainable war or Pandora’s Box in Russia?

    Sustainable war or Pandora’s Box in Russia?

    In recent weeks there’s been reports of several anti-Russian and/or Ukrainian units attacking villages around Belgorod, inside Russia, and last week Moscow was attacked by drones. The daughter of Alexander Dugin, Darya, was killed by a car bomb earlier this year, just like the military blogger Vladlen Tatarsky was killed in St Petersburg. Crimea has been attacked repeatedly, like Belgorod and other parts of Russia. There’s suspicions that Ukrainians blew up the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in the Baltic sea. Several Russian leaders in occupied parts of Ukraine have been bombed or shot to death by partisans. And now the Kachovka dam.

    The dam has been under Russian control, and it seems plausible Russian neglect or stupidity blew up the dam, causing severe damage to large swaths of land. But many of the latter attacks seem to be directed by Ukrainians and in some cases, as in attacks on Crimea, officially directed by the Ukrainian government and/or military. Is this a sign of a sustainable war entering Russia?

    Sustainable war is a concept from the anime Ghost in the Shell: SAC_2045, where the powerful countries of the world launch a sustainable war to boost the global economy. Humans are primarily not attacked by warring states, but rather structures and equipment, by machines and mercenaries. I will alter the concept so as to incorporate the sustainability of a war, but a war that could be dangerous to humans as well.

    Ukraine has proved to be a very tough opponent for Russia. The Ukrainians have been able to kill and injure hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers. They’ve also proved to be adept at using the Russian propaganda toolkit against the Russians themselves. First and foremost by gathering support of the most powerful country on the planet and the two strongest economic powers on the planet, as well as gaining support from South Korea and Japan. Finland and Sweden have abandoned neutrality. Again and again the Ukrainians have taunted and ridiculed the Russians in social media, interviews and press conferences. And now we’ve entered new territory in two ways.

    Firstly, the Ukrainians are using the Russian toolkit to spread fear and anxiety in parts of Russian society. They neither confirm nor deny attacks or events about to happen. No one is to be fully sure as to what’s really happening. Not even the Western countries, who in lack of evidence (and with evidence) will claim no damage is done and the Ukrainians have the right to defend themselves. This is the Russian playbook, turned against themselves repeatedly.

    Second, people are killed far from the border and the “special military operation”, Moscow itself is attacked and people with common sense will notice how the Russian military and leadership is unable to defend even the Kremlin, while their leader is hiding in a secret train. The New York Times reported on the city of Shebekino, a city in the vicinity of Belgorod with 40.000 inhabitants, that the Ukrainians has attacked and shelled. Virtually all people have fled and large parts of the city center have been destroyed by Ukraine. The Russians are incapable of defending the bordering regions.

    This is a very potent and dangerous combination: attack your enemy inside his own country, while claiming you didn’t do it. Or maybe you did. Use the enemies own propaganda toolkit and spread mistrust, anxiety and fear, again and again. Eventually, who are people to trust? Are they to trust anyone? Of course, the Russian people has lived under dictatorship, hardship and insecurity before. Propaganda and lies create apathy. Still, has the Russian leadership anything to live for if it cannot guarantee security? Even Stalin remained in Moscow when the Germans came and some citizens felt relief that he actually stayed, although he was feared and hated. But a leader who can’t even protect Moscow from stealthy, skilled Ukrainians, who is he?

    It might be that Vladimir Putin opened the Pandora’s Box with this war: a sustainable war he cannot end and cannot limit. How is he supposed to prevent the Ukrainians from fomenting rebellion in regions of Russia? How is he supposed to prevent Ukrainian attacks in such a large country, that even now cannot protect itself? The absolute majority of the Russian army was positioned inside Ukraine in March of 2022. The absolute majority of that army/military force is either dead or wounded now. Even with another round of mobilization, Putin cannot achieve security inside Russia, the Ukrainians will see to that. And using propaganda against the Russian population, who will they turn to? If this war continues for another year or couple of years, it might be that there’s a sustainable war raging inside Russia, with Ukrainian, Chechen, Georgian, Dagestan (to name a few) units in many more parts of Russia than now. Then, Putin can neither stop nor limit the war. It will continue, with bombings, assassinations, damage to infrastructure, levelled cities and villages, and no one knows when it will stop or when.

  • In the hands of the tech elite

    It’s obvious, if you start to look under the hood, how the tech industry (I’ll generalize now) believes itself to be an elite, swaying people to believe them, follow them, be like them. Become a tech entrepreneur! Improve people’s lives! Save the planet!

    Bill Gates funds geoengineering research to combat climate change. Jeff Bezos travels into orbit. Peter Thiel funds conservatives in the US, just like Robert Mercer.

    They all want to solve problems, for themselves, for society. But mostly for themselves. One example given is The Boomer Remover, mentioned by Kevin Roose in an interview with NPR. The creators wish to rid employers of the Baby boomers, born approximaly between 1945-1965, and voilá: an app for that! Problem solved!

    This problem-solving approach to issues (or non-issues) pervades much of the discourse. “Tech entrepreneurs” are gladly expressing their willingness to solve issues created by humans, be it climate, environment, jobs, health, national defence or gender. The approach perceives an issue to be solved very much like an algorithm: problem + solution = problem solved. The tech sort of way (of which I’ll write more later).

    If you’ve happened to deal with humans, you might disapprove of this method of solving problems. Humans are often irrational and do not always follow logic procedures, like symbols in a mathematical formulae. A world filled with individual humans and groups of humans is seldom predictable in all ways.

    Anand Giridharadas discusses power in the hands of the public versus tech entrepreneurs (or rich people in general): there’s a very tangible difference if a city, through politics, decides to do something (usually called democracy), and some rich people deciding what happens in the city (usually called plutocracy).

    I’d rather the city council makes decisions on childcare than Elon Musk, Daniel Ek or Notch. Most likely the members of the city council know my city, what childcare is, the economics behind childcare and the city in total, many of them are aware of the diverse lives of parents, public transports, working hours and so on. Most likely the rich kids are no longer aware of life as an ordinary citizen. Furthermore, decisions by the city council are more transparent and can be appealed. Neither of those apply to the rich kids’ decisions.

    And you might have noticed that the absolute majority of the tech names (the aforementioned, and Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Tim Cook, the cadre of Steves, Bills and Pauls, Sam Altman, to name but a few) are all men. White men. So, when they wish to solve problem they themselves see, their solutions are usually tech-y.

    Molly Smith follows blockchain and crypto on her website Web3 is Going Just Great. She summarises (some of) the amounts lost in events related to the so called Web 3.0: scams, fraud, hacks, bankruptcies and the like. Plenty of the people (men) behind these cryptocurrencies are facing jail for various reasons. First, they claim to help people getting rich. Second, they (try to) run away with amassed sums of money from rather unsuspecting, gullible or desperate people. Dan Olson created a video on YouTube on cryptocurrency, and discussed parts of it with Ezra Klein (you can also listen to Molly here). One very thoughtful and valid point Dan makes is how regular people are watching a decline in income versus the lives and opportunities of rich people. They can’t perceive themselves as rich, unless they risk their money (and a big portion of luck) on the stock market, the real estate market or… cryptocurrency! They might have one chance in 50.000, but some people will take the chance/risk, since it’s their only way out of poverty or a poor pension. In the tech community, some people are thus willing to satisfy this demand.

    NFT, that’s another side of the coin. When it first appeared in the media I got flashbacks from the years around 2000, when tech entrepreneurs could pitch virtually any idea and receive money, and 2006-2007, when the financial world seemed on fire with a savings rate on almost 5 %, Icelandic banks (with no money) being hailed as financial vikings. And later it all burned. When the hype is too intense, it tends to border on fantasies on what’s pausible, removing the boundaries on what’s possible. And then things crash. In May 2021 I read this often-cited article about the §2 billion deli. Matt Levine, working in the financial sector, couldn’t grasp how a simple deli in New Jersey was worth several billion dollars. Too many threads like these, ordinary people buying virtual receipts on things they can’t own for several § 100.000, and companies being hailed for doing things that aren’t even contributing to production, in the weave and you know things are spiralling out of control.

    The space contest. I cannot remember who said it or where I heard it (Kate Crawford on a podcast with Taylor Owen, revised 2023-08-11), but the perspective is highly relevant (perhaps not so much today, after the tech business has suffered post-covid, as one year ago). Markets can saturated, demand dropping, so where to next? Space. Direct resources and time to point out space as the next reliable frontier. Humans must go further, exploring the Solar system for real. Why? Because money can be made out of false narratives and hopes of… what? A better future? Because demand is dropping and markets are saturated, (some people in) the tech business needs a new “frontier” in order to scam people even more. Why not invest in something that could potentially be worth x trillion dollars? You could be much richer, if you strike the motherloard, than cryptocurrency, real estate or the stock market. Not to mention work. That’s never going go pay off. This is why Jeff Bezos squeezes himself into a little rocket.

    Seen in this light, Bill Gates seems different, the way he actually accepts taxation, donates money for good causes globally, and publically debate. Personally, I believe geoengineering is extremely dangerous, but research is research and necessarily not applied. I also believe rich people should be able to debate societal issues, instead of hiding or pretending they are contributing to solving issues simply because they create an app. The Boomer Remover, the cryptocurrency, the NFT market, the space contest – they’re all scams and shams without true purposes beside making the owners rich and us poor.

  • Dead soldiers in Clearview AI (Revised June 15th)

    Dead soldiers in Clearview AI (Revised June 15th)

    The war between Russia and Ukraine rages on. One method for the Ukrainian resistance to raise awareness of the number of dead Russian (and Ukrainian) soldiers is to use Clearview AI, the facial network services company, which can detect faces and connect them to, for instance, social media profiles. It’s also a method for the Ukrainian Ministry for Digital Transformation and five other Ukrainian agencies to detect dead soldiers scattered on and around battlefields.

    On January 6th 2021, two weeks before the inauguration of Joe Biden as president, we could witness the attack on the Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. Afterwards, authorities could tap into the network services of Clearview AI and, quite easily, detect hundreds of participants in these illegal activities. Many of them have been prosecuted and some sentenced to jail. Clearview AI has amassed billions of photos on the public Internet for years, rendering them extremely able to pinpoint human beings if you have a Clearview AI account. The image I have of you will be matched against this gigantic image database and probably tell me it is you, even if we haven’t met for years (or ever).

    The podcast Click Here has a good episode on this and how it’s used in Ukraine. On the one hand employees of the Ministry of Digital Transformation use proper Clearview AI accounts, thus being able to match most images of dead soldiers with real people, even if years have passed, the deceased have no eyes and parts of the faces are distorted. They inform both Ukrainian and Russian relatives and tell them where to retrieve the body.

    More problematic is the fact that groups affiliated with the Ukrainian IT Army appear to use an account too, also informing Russian relatives, though in a(n) (even) more condescending and hostile way. Russian relatives are probably feeling neither gratitude, nor appreciation for suddenly receiving images of dead bodies, especially with gloating or condescending messages.

    Even if I remain a skeptic, there are some reasons for using this kind of technology.

    1. War is gruesome and disgusting. People die and preferably they should be identified. Computers and programs can help here and make this much easier and faster than humans.
    2. War crimes are committed and should be investigated. Technology can help here too.
    3. Russian authorities are not the ones to inform relatives that sons have died in accidents, wars or “special military operations”. They can lie and this is where technology can help tell otherwise.
    4. Identification of people is not dependant on favourable relations with another nation’s authorities. Identification can be made without another nation’s consent, because their citizens are in databases elsewhere anyway.

    There are more cons, however, some really strong.

    1. These databases will be targeted by states, state-sponsored organizations, rogue organizations and individuals.
    2. States will strive to acquire similar databases in order to identify anyone anytime anywhere.
    3. To presume that Russian relatives will feel anger at their government and/or gratitude towards Ukrainians for sending images of their dead ones is really bad. Rather, it can galvanize public support for Russian authorities.
    4. The hope for grieving mothers’ movements to direct their anger at the Russian regime is likewise bad. Why should they, especially if there’s anonymous messages from foreigners telling them they are blind to facts and supporting an evil leader?
    5. Disinformation warfare 1 – whom to believe? A random person from another country claiming my relative is dead or the national authorities?
    6. Disinformation warfare 2 – I can assert you to be a traitor and use this tool to prove it.
    7. Disinformation warfare 3 – can “photoshopped” images be run in Clearview AI?
    8. Disinformation warfare 4 – this kind of technology can trigger an even worse response and method of war, spiralling further down.
    9. Misidentification of individuals happen in every other computer system, so why shouldn’t it happen with Clearview AI.
    10. Gathering of images is done without consent or information and for how long will they be kept?

    Similar systems in use today are the combination of Sky Net and Integrated Joint Operations Platform in China. They are very creepy and should probably be banned altogether, because the more of this technology there is, the more it will be used. Based on a decision in May, Clearview AI is no longer allowed to sell its database to private businesses in the US and to Illinois state agaencies (for five years in the latter case). At this point, the database comprises 20 billion facial photos.

    But. After all, it’s rather easy to stay emotionally detached if you’re not in Ukraine, living your life, albeit with inflation and a shaky economy. Still, the war is far away and it’s easy to say this use, weaponized use, of images is wrong. But in a different situation, with war, death, fear and suffering around me, I’d probably be doing it myself.

  • Perspectives on the war in Ukraine

    Perspectives on the war in Ukraine

    I have been listening intently to a number of podcasts because of the war in Ukraine. One that is not mainly on the daily “progress” of the war, but rather from a higher perspective is The Ezra Klein Show from New York Times. I cannot recommend the episode with Timothy Snyder enough, for three reasons.

    One, it gives insight into the historical relationship (and lack of) between Russia and Ukraina and how Putin perceives this.

    Secondly, he asks what the democratic world would have done if the Ukrainians had laid down their weapons, the leadership fled the country and been easily subdued by the Russian army? What kind of anxious, existential crisis wouldn’t have taken place in Europe and North America? What criticizm would have been heard about the crisis of democracy, its’ inept ability to handle wars, to counter the deceptive and skilled authoritarian regimes?

    Third, Snyder says that every day the Ukrainians fight, they fight for the rest of us in the democratic countries. They give us a better chance to practicing democracy, of thinking about what a future we want for ourselves and others.

    Another guest on the same podcast is Masha Gessen, who discusses Putin’s rather twisted historical perspective on Ukraine and Russia. They have written a book on Russia that can be seen as interlinked with Snyder – Putin lives in the past, we must conquer the future.

  • Russian cyberwar in the dark forest?

    Russian cyberwar in the dark forest?

    Russia has been turned into a dictatorship in two weeks. No journalists are allowed to mention the word “war” in combination with “Ukraine”, resulting in several journalists or news agencies shutting down their activity or agreeing to self-censorship. Many foreign journalists are thus going home for fear of their reporting being in conflict with these hard measures.

    Protesters face fines, but also being conscripted and sent to the frontlines of the war, in a very cruel irony. Furthermore, the Russian authorities are shutting down or blocking access to various social media. They still lack the capacity to hunt down everything said and written, so they resort to complete blocking, I guess. Simultaneously they can use Internet Research Agency (IRA) and others to spread disinformation about the war, foreign interventions and try to gain support for this military operation (Z, anyone?). Lastly, they have the opportunity to limit the influence of foreign actors.

    Many are surprised the Russians haven’t attacked, or crushed, Ukraine through cyberwar yet. This was expected regarding all the attacks Ukraina has endured since (at least) 2015: attacks on energy plants, the electric grid, authorities, banks and so on. It was also expected because of the Gerasimov doctrine (Gerasimov happens to be highest ranking military (as I understand it)) in Russia, overseeing the invasion of Ukraine.

    There are things destabilizing the Internet, such as cyberattacks on authorities, power plants and a virtual flood of spam mail, though nothing (yet) near the total cyberwar between nation states. One important aspect complete havoc has not hit us could be linked to the dark forest theory.

    The dark forest theory is developed by science fiction writer Cixin Liu in the second book of The Three-Body Problem Trilogy (spoiler alert ahead!): The Dark Forest. In my eyes it could be applied here, even if it originally concerns cosmic civilizations. Instead of a dark forest inhabitated by scattered civilizations, we see a planet with many different countries in various stages of cyber capabilites. The three strongest are the US, Russia and China. The former two are in economic war, and the US supports a fourth nation being attacked by Russia militarily. The US also has allies in the form of the Five Eyes (the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada) and the EU (which is not a cyber power in itself). On the outskirts are enemies of the US, North Korea and Iran, to keep it simple.

    Russia attacks Ukraine and the US declares its support of Ukraina, all in concert with the EU. The Five Eyes have exposed the Russian planes for months and boosted the Ukrainian defense for years, both military and the cybersecurity. All eyes are focused on Ukraine and Russia. So, to apply the dark forest theory here, all nations are separate persons sitting or standing next to a tree each, in a dark forest. Every single one is a hunter and game at the very same time. (Even if, for instance, the US, Russian and China are comprised of several agencies and authorities (and companies) each, they are reduced to one person here.) The nations/persons have all surveilled and hacked one another for years now, so they know pretty well who sits or stands next to a tree, and about where that tree is situated. Now they are poised for stronger, more devastating cyberattacks than ever before, perhaps on such a scale that it can cripple an entire person for years to come. And they can’t afford more than one chance, here meaning they have three choices:

    1. Sit/stand still
    2. Shoot
    3. Run

    The first implies trying to hide and remain, in best case, undetected, or it means remain vigilant but inactive.

    The second means attacking, thus revealing and exposing themselves by standing up and shooting. Everyone in the dark forest will instantly hear the shot. The closest, or most able, will even see the shot, perhaps even the shooter.

    The third means trying to relocate and, if succesful, hide behind another tree. It entails standing up, running, avoiding being shot and hiding behind another tree, hopefully not to close to another person.

    Unlike a real person, Russia can cause some minor disturbance for others, just like other nations might cause small disturbances, because they are comprised of so many smaller actors within themselves. But still, the nation has only have one single chance of doing something powerful: taking down an opponent/enemy.

    What upsets the dark forest theory here is allies. In the original dark forest theory there is no such thing as ally or friend. Everyone is a mortal enemy. Russia has no allies to speak of. The US is in a group of five, and aligned beside them are friendly allies, such as France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. Let’s say Russia chooses to attack the US, wreaking havoc in revenge for the support of Ukraine. They can take down some agencies, companies, municipalities and cripple many others. But since the Americans aren’t all situated in the US, many cybercapabilites will remain (the opposite is also true, though the Russians have fewer capabilites abroad). And most importantly, the allies will definitely attack Russia in turn. Since Russia has no allies, they will be the quarry.

    To speak with dark forest theory: Russia can choose to shoot. But they cannot run to another tree. They will turn from hunter to game the moment they reveal themselves. They will be fatally shot and destroyed by all the other hunters in the forest (especially considering how strained their other capablities are: military, economy, clout). That’s why I believe (and I could be very wrong) there has been no cyberwar to speak of so far (that we’ve seen). Russia simply cannot attack without being completely destroyed.

    Another main reason for this is the approach formulated by former secretary of defense Jim Mattis. In 2018 he outlined a new approach by the US in case of a major, devastating cyberattack: to consider such an attack as a nuclear attack, thus reciprocate with nuclear weapons. This is something the Russians know. Of course, this concerns an attack on the US itself, but where to draw the line when cyberattacks on one actor can spread unintentionally to others?