Category: Uncategorized

Ukraine War becomes Global Testing Ground For Military Robots

The war in Ukraine has become the largest testing ground for artificial intelligence-powered autonomous and uncrewed vehicles in history. While the use of military robots is nothing new — World War II saw the birth of remote-controlled war machines and the US has deployed fully-autonomous assault drones as recently as 2020 — what we’re seeing in Ukraine is the proliferation of a new class of combat vehicle.

This article discusses the “killer robot” technology being used by both sides in Russia’s war in Ukraine. Our main takeaway is that the “killer” part of “killer robots” doesn’t apply here. Read on to find out why.

Uncrewed versus autonomous

This war represents the first usage of the modern class of uncrewed vehicles and automated weapons platforms in a protracted invasion involving forces with relatively similar tech. While Russia’s military appears, on paper, to be superior to Ukraine’s, the two sides have fielded forces with similar capabilities. Compared to forces Russia faced during its involvement in the Syrian civil war or, for example, those faced by the US during the Iraq and Afghanistan engagements, what’s happening on the ground in Ukraine right now demonstrates a more paralleled engagement theater.

It’s important, however, to mention that this is not a war being fought by machines. It’s unlikely that autonomous or uncrewed weapons and vehicles will have much impact in the war, simply because they’re untested and, currently, unreliable.

Uncrewed vehicles and autonomous vehicles aren’t necessarily the same thing. While almost all autonomous vehicles — those which can operate without human intervention — are uncrewed, many uncrewed vehicles can only be operated remotely by humans. Perhaps most importantly, many of these vehicles have never been tested in combat. This means that they’re more likely to be used in “support” roles than as autonomous combat vehicles, even if that’s what they were designed to do.

But, before we get into the how’s and why’s behind the usage of military robots in modern warfare, we need to explain what kind of vehicles are currently in use. There are no “killer robots” in warfare. That’s a catch-all term used to describe military vehicles both autonomous and uncrewed.

These include uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs), uncrewed ground vehicles (UGVs), and uncrewed surface vehicles (USVs, another term for uncrewed maritime or water-based vehicles).

Read More: Ukraine War becomes Global Testing Ground For Military Robots

US mulls new armor delivery to Ukraine – Politico

Stryker fighting vehicles are reportedly meant to help Ukraine repel Russia’s anticipated spring offensive

The US Department of Defense is contemplating the delivery of Stryker armored fighting vehicles to Ukraine as a part of a new security assistance package, Politico reported on Monday, citing sources.

According to an unnamed Pentagon official interviewed by the outlet, the US has not yet announced a final decision on the matter, as the vehicles could be included in one of the next batches of military aid. Washington could also officially announce the next package, with or without Strykers, late next week, the Politico source said.

The Strykers are expected to help Ukraine fight off an anticipated Russian spring offensive, the report says. The eight-wheeled armored vehicles offer high off-road mobility and strike a balance between a tank and an armored personnel carrier.

“Ukrainians need armored personnel carriers and short of other countries providing it, is what we have in inventory,” a Pentagon official told Politico. “Not as good as a Bradley for a tank fight, but good to protect infantry and get up close to a fight.”

Read more

US set to fight Russia ‘to the last Ukrainian’ – Moscow

Stryker vehicles, which come in different variants and are built for the US Army by General Dynamics Land Systems, have been in service since 2002 and have seen action in Iraq. Each unit usually includes a .50 caliber machine gun.

The reported Stryker delivery plan comes after last week’s announcement from the US of a new aid package for Ukraine, which includes 50 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, touted by the Pentagon as “tank killers.” Germany and France have also stepped up lethal aid to Ukraine, with Paris agreeing to send several aging AMX-10 armored fighting vehicles and Berlin announcing future shipments of 40 similar Marder vehicles.

Moscow has repeatedly warned the West that “pumping” Ukraine with weapons will only prolong the conflict. On Thursday, commenting on Washington’s decision to support Kiev with Bradleys, Anatoly Antonov, the Russian ambassador to the US, accused the country of pursuing a “dangerous course.”

“Any talk about a ‘defensive nature’ of weapons supplied to Ukraine has long become absurd,” he noted, adding that Western arms shipments only encourage Ukrainians to kill civilians in Russia’s Donbass republics as well as in Zaporozhye and Kherson Regions.

US ‘threatening’ Africa over ties with Russia – defense minister

Washington is concerned by a Russian cargo ship’s visit to a naval base in South Africa, an American official told the WSJ

Relations between Washington and Pretoria have become strained after a Russian cargo ship visited South Africa’s largest naval base last month, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday. The country’s defense minister said the US had been pressuring African nations over any links with Moscow, according to the outlet.

Washington is “concerned by the support the South African Armed Forces provided to the ‘Lady R’,” a senior US official told the WSJ, referring to a Russian vessel that was sanctioned in May over its alleged involvement in arms shipments for Moscow.

In early December, the ship was allowed to enter Simon’s Town navy base with its transponders turned off and freely move cargo there, the report claimed. “There is no publicly available information on the source of the containers that were loaded onto the ‘Lady R’,” the official said.

The outlet cited comments made by South African Defense Minister Thandi Modise last month regarding the visit of ‘Lady R’. She declined to reveal what cargo the ship was carrying, only saying that “whatever contents this vessel was getting were ordered long before Covid,” which emerged in late 2019.

Read more

Biden faces African resistance on anti-Russia stance – media

Washington “threatens Africa, not just South Africa, of having anything that is even smelling of Russia,” Modise said, as quoted by the WSJ.

The article noted that, under the US law, Washington can place sanctions on any entity that provides services to a black-listed ship.

Darren Olivier, who heads African Defense Review consulting company, told the outlet it was plausible that the ‘Lady R’ was bringing an old order of Russian ammunition to South Africa. Moscow and Pretoria agreed a shipment of 4.5 million rounds of Russian ammunition worth around $585,000 back in 2020, he said.

As for what was loaded on the ship, Olivier pointed out that “South Africa’s defense industry does not generally produce armaments and complete systems that are used by the Russian military.” However, he said Moscow could be interested in dual-use items, including guidance systems and optics for aerial drones.


READ MORE: South Africa snubs anti-Russia sanctions

According to the senior US official, who talked to the WSJ, the US embassy warned Pretoria in November that a sanctioned vessel was about to arrive in the country, but the South African authorities did not respond. The events surrounding ‘Lady R’ demonstrate the “difficulty” of implementing sanctions on Russia for the US and its allies, the article noted.

Universities Not Interested In Admitting Fault About ‘Covid’ Policies

Former White House adviser Dr. Scott Atlas, the Robert Wesson Senior Fellow in health policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institute, wrote an excellent essay recently in the Wall Street Journal. In it, he raises a vital question for all students, parents, faculty, and the broader public, as to how our nation’s university system became, along with major media, the most aggressive proponent and distributor of medical ideology and biosecurity policy. University behavior continues to be directed by the CDC and WHO, and it appears that university administration will continue its commitment to a consensus posture toward the COVID phenomenon, until another institution that it considers authoritative tells it otherwise. That is not likely to happen.

Academia will never account for its misguided COVID policies, and it will never back out of its commitment to consensus explanations or opportunities. Indeed, these people will help accelerate the entire COVID complex. COVID is a new social engineering program, and universities will make biosecurity, including molecular engineering and tracking technology, into a permanent research activity that is worth billions per year in funding and commercialization. The link connecting business, government, and higher education has never been stronger, while China-style social credit scoring, based in part on medical and ideological compliance, is considered by the current White House administration a necessary part of the political agenda.

For universities to admit that they were wrong would not only undermine their authority and risk their research funding, but also, most of all, put their senior administration in legal jeopardy. University directors, trustees, regents, and other governance bodies are keen to avoid liability, and university legal and communications departments are working overtime to shield their institutions from blowback, including vicarious liability.

Plaintiff litigation, including class action, appears to be gaining momentum, as the evidence necessary to make durable causes of action against university administration is coalescing from widespread sources (serious health complications due to vaccines, for example). Legal theories are being formed to seek damages that could easily reach in the billions of dollars. Some universities could face bankruptcy.

COVID-related damages may be the next large-scale, long-term litigation project that rivals tobacco and asbestos. The lawyers in the modern university system know that and have effectively put out a gag order to avoid university self-incrimination. But the best legal strategy they possess is to push the same COVID explanations, while actually escalating their commitment to them. They continue to expand the spectrum of biosecurity research that has penetrated nearly every department in the modern university system.

Read More: Universities Not Interested In Admitting Fault About COVID Policies