Posts Tagged Offense Industry

Industry Talk: Offense Industry In Syria?

The deal is distinct from the common practice of oil majors and other corporations outsourcing security in hot spots in the Middle East and elsewhere. Under the contract, the wells are not just to be guarded, but to be captured first, the article said.

“The arrangement returns to the times of Francis Drake and Cecil Rhodes,” it noted, referring to two figures from British history whose careers mixed warfare and private profit.-NYT

A couple years back, I came up with a concept that more accurately described the type of contracts PMSC’s were conducting in the war. Current contracts are more or less classified as ‘Defense Industry’, where companies profit from the defense of a client and their property. This kind of contract is more favorable because it is not geared towards destroying the enemy. You actually want the enemy to stick around so you don’t work yourself out of a job. lol

The second type of scheme is ‘Offense Industry’. Basically we are talking about contracts where a company profits from the destruction of a client’s enemy and their property. If XYZ company destroys ISIS, then they are payed 50 billion dollars for example. In my post about it, I brought up past examples of offense industry–like privateering.

Fast forward to today’s news coming out of Syria. According to the news site Fontanka, there is an offense industry contract that has been arranged between Syria and several Russian PMSC’s. Here is the quote from the NYT’s article on it:

So far, two Russian companies are known to have received contracts under the new policy, according to the reports: Evro Polis, which is set to receive profits from oil and gas wells it seizes from the Islamic State using contract soldiers, and Stroytransgaz, which signed a phosphate-mining deal for a site that was under militant control at the time.
The agreements, made with the Syrian government, are seen as incentives for companies affiliated with Russian security contractors, who reportedly employ about 2,500 soldiers in the country, to push the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, out of territory near Palmyra, in central Syria.
Most Middle Eastern wars are suspected of having some variant of this deal, but it is seldom made as explicit as in the Russian contracts.
“It’s all very simple,” Ivan P. Konovalov, director of the Center for Strategic Trends Studies, said by telephone of the deals, struck in December but just recently reported. “If a company provides security, then the country getting that service should pay. It doesn’t matter how the payment is made.”
In the petroleum deal, Evro Polis, a corporation formed last summer, will receive a 25 percent share of oil and natural gas produced on territory it captures from the Islamic State, the news site reported.

This contract is not just about defending a client’s asset. This first requires these companies to conduct offensive operations and seize this territory, and then defend it! That is a big difference and greatly adds to the risk of these types of contracts. But there is a big reward if they can take it.

It is that reward mechanism that creates an incentive for an investor to put so much into something like this. It is why investors put so much money into privateering vessels during the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 in the US–they were ‘incentivized’. But they also had a legal contract with the backing of the US Constitution and congress in the form of a Letter of Marque. I have not seen such legal protections talked about in this article by the NYT or Fontanka. Although I have to imagine the backroom dealings on this would be pretty comprehensive.

A final thought on this is that I held back on putting this story up at first. I do not have the resources to go to Syria and confirm all of this. So these forces might be legitimate Russian PMSC’s, or they might be just Russian special operations dressed up to be PMSC’s (little green men anyone?). I have written about PMC Wagner in the past, as well as the Slovanic Corps and the story always seems to be a little different that what was reported. There are a lot of groups out there pushing agendas and trying to trade up the chain as they say. So are we seeing the beginnings of new offense industry in Syria? We will see where this goes…. –Matt


Russian EOD personnel in Palmyra, Syria. -NBC

Russia Deploys a Potent Weapon in Syria: The Profit Motive
JULY 5, 2017
The Kremlin is bringing a new weapon to the fight against the Islamic State militant group in Syria, using market-based incentives tied to oil and mining rights to reward private security contractors who secure territory from the extremists, Russian news outlets have reported.
So far, two Russian companies are known to have received contracts under the new policy, according to the reports: Evro Polis, which is set to receive profits from oil and gas wells it seizes from the Islamic State using contract soldiers, and Stroytransgaz, which signed a phosphate-mining deal for a site that was under militant control at the time.
The agreements, made with the Syrian government, are seen as incentives for companies affiliated with Russian security contractors, who reportedly employ about 2,500 soldiers in the country, to push the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, out of territory near Palmyra, in central Syria.
Most Middle Eastern wars are suspected of having some variant of this deal, but it is seldom made as explicit as in the Russian contracts.
“It’s all very simple,” Ivan P. Konovalov, director of the Center for Strategic Trends Studies, said by telephone of the deals, struck in December but just recently reported. “If a company provides security, then the country getting that service should pay. It doesn’t matter how the payment is made.”
In the petroleum deal, Evro Polis, a corporation formed last summer, will receive a 25 percent share of oil and natural gas produced on territory it captures from the Islamic State, the news site reported.
The website has a record of accurately reporting about private security companies in Russia, and just last month Washington appeared to corroborate one of its earlier reports by imposing sanctions on a Russian whose activities first came to light in the publication.
Fontanka’s latest article on the topic, published last week, detailed how Evro Polis was cooperating with a shadowy Russian private security group called Wagner, which American sanctions suggest has also provided contract soldiers to the war in Ukraine.
The deal is distinct from the common practice of oil majors and other corporations outsourcing security in hot spots in the Middle East and elsewhere. Under the contract, the wells are not just to be guarded, but to be captured first, the article said.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,

Fish And Game: Utah’s Predator Control Program–$50 Dollar Bounty Per Coyote!

The Utah Legislature passed two predator-related bills in 2012. The first bill, Predator Control Funding (Senate Bill 87), adds a $5 fee to all Utah big game hunting permits. The money will fund a program to control populations of predatory animals that endanger the health of Utah’s non-predatory wildlife.
The second bill, Mule Deer Protection Act (Senate Bill 245), allocates general funding to the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources ($500,000) and the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food ($250,000). The legislation directs our agencies to work together — and with other government entities — to administer programs that reduce and control coyote populations, particularly in areas where predation of mule deer occurs.

Outstanding and it is good to see a state implement a ‘state-wide’ bounty program, as opposed to having counties within the state do this. The reason why this is a better program is because then hunters in one county can’t bag a coyote and take the thing to another county that posted the bounty. It is easy for hunters to ‘game’ the system, and it is unfair to those counties that bare the costs of such a thing.

Now when it comes to hunters going out of state and killing coyotes, and then bringing them to Utah to try and collect the bounty is another issue. Of course the DWR have tried to set up appropriate measures to keep folks honest, but I am sure there will be those who will test the system.

Plus, coyotes could care less about state borders.  Perhaps if Utah tried to convince their neighbors to implement a regional plan, and maybe even appeal to the federal government for such a thing, then maybe this program could be more effective?

The funding of this is interesting as well. It takes one group of hunters that go after big game, and attaches a 5 dollar fee to their tag, so that another group of hunters that focuses on coyotes will be compensated. The culling of coyotes helps to increase the amount of deer, or one system helps another system.

Plus, a hunter that goes after both deer and coyotes could potentially cover the cost of their hunting trip by bagging a few coyotes! In a poor economy, a program like this is a win win– deer meat in the freezer and income from culling coyotes.

The other reason why I like posting these deals is that bounty systems are excellent studies for offense industry.  You can see how hunters operate and how the system supports the overall goal of culling. You can also observe any unforeseen consequences and see how that group changes the program to mitigate that. My one advice to Utah is to remain flexible and use the data collected to apply some Kaizen to their culling program.

Below I have posted the FAQ, but if you go to the website you will see all of the forms and links that are associated with the FAQ. Good luck and happy hunting. –Matt


Utah’s Predator Control Program
Our offices have received many phone calls and questions about Utah’s new laws to control coyotes and other predators. This page provides details about the new Predator Control Program and addresses the most common questions. Please keep in mind that this information is subject to change and may be updated at any time. We encourage you to check back on a regular basis for the latest updates.
Frequently asked questions
How will the new Predator Control Program work?
This year, in addition to maintaining an aggressive predator-management policy, the DWR is implementing a predator control program that provides incentives for members of the public to remove coyotes. Participants in this new program will receive $50 for each properly documented coyote that they kill in Utah. For details, see the rest of this FAQ page or download the fact sheet (170 KB PDF) and the map (382 KB PDF).
When does the program begin?
You may register for the program starting July 1, 2012. There are no restrictions on removal dates after the program has begun, but reimbursements will not begin until after Sept. 1, 2012.
How do I register for the program?

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , ,

Building Snowmobiles: Institutions Vs. Collaboration… And The Strength Of Offense Industry

In this deal I wanted to highlight the Power Law concept and the Pareto principle (80-20 rule) mentioned by Clay Shirky at around 8:30 in the TED video below. To me, this is an important element of Offense Industry, and it also shows how the collaborative nature of Offense Industry is able to compete against enemies that use institutions for warfighting.

Specifically, I wanted to highlight the actions of privateers during the war of 1812 versus the British Royal Navy. One group is a collaborative effort, and the other was an institution. At the end of the day, the collaborative effort of the privateers being focused on merchants and other valuable British prizes, ended up contributing greatly to the overall success of the war effort. And yet, there was no admiral coordinating the privateer attacks, no institution that dictated how each privateer operated other than a license (letter of marque) giving them authority, and there was room in this offense industry for the top performers all the way down to the one hit wonders.

Privateers during that time period also seem to exhibit a power law, 20-80 type effort. There were the privateers that were the top performers (20 percent that captured most of the prizes), and then there were the long tail of privateers who would get a prize here and there (one hit wonders or 80 percent). This entire grouping of privateers ended up accomplishing quite a lot, and at no cost the US government. Actually, the government made money off of these privateers and usually collected about 10 percent from each prize taken, which then went back into the war chest to further fund ‘institutions’ like the navy.

This system also rewards the top 20 percent, but still gives hope to those that are part of the effort. But governments that utilize the privateering system should know that those 20 percent are crucial to your effort, and every effort should be given to identifying and working with this 20 percent so they continue to be successful. A government should also be aware of the 80 percent and understand their place in the effort as well.

It should also be noted that the US Navy only had 23 ships during the war and the total registered amount of privateers was 517. Likewise, privateers were able to capture 1300 prizes and the navy was able to capture 254. Yet privateers funded their own vessels and self organized, whereas the navy was an institution requiring investment by the US. This is expensive and time consuming and obviously the US was not able to raise an adequate Navy in time for this war.

So instead, the US depended upon the ‘collaborative’ strength and cost effectiveness of a privateering system to accomplish the task of attacking British commerce and logistics.  To me, this collaborative nature of offense industry is it’s strength. I also wanted to identify this strength and archive it for future discussions about Offense Industry. You can also see that the more inclusive and massive the privateering system is, the more effective that privateering system will be at gaining prizes. It’s a numbers game, and institutions will have a hard time competing with that.

You could also apply this concept to what is happening in the arab spring. You have people who are part of a collaborative effort to overthrow their government and it’s ‘institutions’. These collaborative efforts follow the power law curve as well, and you will have the top performers and the one hit wonders throughout the effort, and the overall results of that effort equate to great accomplishments and the overthrow of dictators. Interesting stuff and the video below is definitely worth your time to watch. –Matt


Tags: , , , , ,

Books: The Privateering Stroke, By Capt. Michael Rustein

Henry Adams stated flatly that “the privateers contributed more than the regular navy to bring about a disposition for peace in the British classes most responsible for the war.”

For those of you that have been following along with the blog’s focus on privateering, letter of marque and reprisal, and offense industry, then you will know why this book would interest me. I have not had a chance to check it out yet, but from the sounds of it, it was written by a privateering ‘maven‘.

The author has actually built a schooner called the Fame, based on the first privateering vessel to capture a prize during the War of 1812. He has written several books on the subject and even has a business that teaches the public the history and the workings of a privateer vessel. I would say that would be defined as pretty passionate about the subject. lol

Probably the most interesting aspect of this book from the description below, is the author’s focus on how important privateers really were during the war. This was the ultimate in old school privatized warfare and offense industry in overdrive.

An entire industry focused on attacking the weakness of an enemy, and Britain’s weakness was their commerce/trade. There is no way our navy and privateers could have taken on the Royal Navy directly, so instead we did like most small disadvantaged forces would do in that situation, and attacked their poorly defended commerce/trade. Check this quote out.

Deprived of customs duties, the United States government was in dire straits by the end of 1814. Had the conflict continued, the nation would have been incapable of defending itself without a central bank, new taxes, and conscription. Meanwhile, America’s privateers were waging a highly effective war against British trade. They captured an estimated 2,000 prizes worth $40 million, sent insurance rates to unprecedented levels, and drove up prices at a time when Britain’s economy was groaning under the strain of two decades of warfare. The British public was outraged; merchants bombarded the government with protests and appeals. With the United States incapable of maintaining the initiative in Canada, privateering became the nation’s last, best, and only offensive weapon. 

Pretty neat and this book would be another good one to check out. Especially if you are a student of ‘offense industry’ or are interested in the letter of marque concept. This would also be a good read for those of you interested in naval history and guerrilla warfare. –Matt

The Privateering Stroke

By Capt. Michael Rustein
Book Description
Publication Date: March 25, 2012
High school and even college textbooks oversimplify the War of 1812 — when they don’t ignore it completely. Popular histories emphasize the military as opposed to the economic and political aspects of the war. The U.S. Navy’s role has been written about ad nauseum. Meanwhile, we are still waiting for a definitive work on the equally important contributions of American privateers. While the Navy’s outstanding performance in single-ship engagements remains a source of national pride, those victories did not change the course of the war one iota. Had Constitution defeated a dozen British frigates, the thousand-ship Royal Navy would still have blockaded our coasts, strangled our commerce, bottled up our warships, and hunted down those that escaped. Even her former commander, Tyrone Martin, conceded that Constitution’s victories were “no more than pin pricks” that “had no direct effect on the course of the war.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , ,

Bounties: Offense Industry And Black Swan Event–The New Orleans Saints Finds An Edge With Bounties!

First off, who are we kidding?  The NFL is a business and war, and every team/army is doing everything they can to gain advantage and win Super Bowls. Teams pay millions of dollars in salaries to players, and those teams make millions of dollars from ticket sales and the selling of merchandise. It is an insanely popular sport here and it is very much a part of our national culture and heritage. Football in the US is big, big, business.

Not to mention that the teams purposely look for players that hit hard and can deliver results. That is what they are getting paid to do. Sure they wear body armor in the form of a helmet and pads, but their coaches are purely focused on turning that player into a weapon on the football field. They practice for their game, much like gladiators practiced for matches in the arena, or how soldiers train for war.

Why do I know this?  Because I played football when I was younger and hitting hard, targeting players to take them out of the game or to make crucial plays, and enjoying the win was what football was all about. You did not play the game to lose, nor does any player play the game to be ‘ineffective’. It’s a rough game requiring strategy, fitness and aggression, and fans and players wouldn’t have it any other way.

So when I read through this ‘bounty gate’ thing, I just shake my head as to how ridiculous and hypocritical it is. But it is also a Black Swan event in the NFL, because the New Orleans Saints found a scheme that worked and it has created an uproar. They created an offense industry that contributed to a win in the Super Bowl, and it did not require millions of dollars to fire it up. It reminds me of moneyball, another scheme that contributed to wins while saving money. (funny how Executive Outcomes won wars, while doing it on time and under budget too?… And they certainly shocked the world with their effectiveness. lol)

The other thing that is not mentioned enough is that bounties have been a common practice in the NFL for awhile. (please see the first article below) What ticked everyone off about the New Orleans Saint’s bounty program or ‘offense industry’, was that it was successful. That they won a bowl game, not that they were targeting players. All teams play the game violently and to it’s fullest, because if they didn’t, they would lose and they would lose out on money because fans and investors could care less about them. All teams have strategies that target the weakness or the center of gravity of the other team, and they have a very short period of time to win their war.

As to the bounty related rules, I also have to laugh. The teams are more concerned with salary caps so that teams that are well supported by rich owners or highly populated cities, do not have advantage over teams that do not have those resources. In the NFL, they try to make things equal when it comes to pay, just so the game is more interesting and fair. So when someone figures out how to properly implement an offense industry to win a game, and there is money involved with that scheme, then of course the other teams are going to cry. Not because of the safety issue, but because they didn’t think of it first. They also cry because it fits nicely in a morality attack to knock down a winning team. Remember Boyd’s ‘isolate your enemy morally, mentally, and physically, while increasing your moral, mental and physical standing’?

I do realize this is a sporting event and not warfare, so I guess some modicum of fair play should exist. lol But to me, what Gregg Williams did was awesome. This is exactly what ‘offense industry’ is all about, and Gregg used his particular bounty system to motivate his players to win their war. He also did it pretty efficiently by getting the players to add to their own bounty pool program, along with encouraging others to add to that pool. This gets everyone invested into the game. Williams could also focus on the key players of the opposition that would be strategically beneficial to take out of the game or render ineffective. Here is a brief run down of how it worked:

On March 2, 2012, ESPN’s Adam Schefter reported that the NFL had indeed found evidence of a bounty program. Later that day, the NFL announced it had obtained irrefutable proof of a bounty pool dating back to the 2009 season, based on a review of 18,000 documents. It determined that Williams had initiated the fund soon after he arrived in New Orleans in 2009, in hopes of making the defense more aggressive. Between 22 and 27 Saints defensive players were involved. The players and Williams contributed their own cash to the pot, and received cash payments based on their performance in the previous week’s game. For instance, a special teamer who downed a kick returner inside the receiving team’s 20-yard-line earned $100. Players could also be fined for mental mistakes and penalties. Players also received “bounties” for “cart-offs” (plays in which an opponent was removed from the field on a stretcher or cart) and “knockouts” (plays that resulted in a player being unable to return for the rest of the game). Players usually earned $1,000 for “cart-offs” and $1,500 for “knockouts” during the regular season, though they were encouraged to put their winnings back into the pot in order to raise the stakes as the season went on. Payments were known to double or even triple during the playoffs.
The NFL sent a confidential and detailed memo to all 32 teams detailing its findings. It revealed that the Saints had not only targeted Warner and Favre during the 2009 playoffs, but had also targeted Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers and Carolina Panthers quarterback Cam Newton during the 2011 regular season. According to that memo, Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma offered $10,000 cash to any teammate who knocked Favre out of the NFC Championship Game. Another source told’s Mike Freeman that Reggie Bush’s agent at the time, Michael Ornstein, was closely involved in the scheme from the beginning. Ornstein contributed $10,000 to the pot in 2009, and an undisclosed amount in 2011.

What is also hypocritical is Senator Dick Durbin’s shock about the whole thing. He will be conducting a Senate hearing on the practice of bounties in the NFL, and in other sports. I actually look forward to what comes out of it, just so I can learn what the various teams of different sports have done. Who knows, maybe the State Department and DARPA could learn from this?  Maybe the State Department can modify their Rewards For Justice program, and have Gregg Williams advise? lol –Matt


Saints took common practice of bounties to new, dangerous level
By Mike Freeman
Monday March 05, 2012?The bounty was $2,000, and the conditions were simple: Knock the starting quarterback out of the game and the cash was yours.
So it was on. The bounty was kept secret from the coaching staff and some of the team. Mostly, only the bounty hunters themselves — players on the defensive line — knew the whole plan. The money was fronted by the participants, and one player held the cash.
The problem was, in the game, no one reached the quarterback, and the bounty went unclaimed. The next week, it was doubled to $4,000. The quarterback survived the game intact. The pot grew to $8,000, and finally the defense had knocked out a quarterback, but there were problems. He was only out a few plays and the player who made the hit wasn’t part of the bounty crew.
The players spent the money on exotic dancers instead.
That’s one story from a player who asked that neither he nor his team be identified. Other players from around the NFL, in interviews, also recounted various bounty tales. The practice is far from isolated. Some players estimated 30 to 40 percent of all NFL players last season participated in a bounty system.
“This ‘bounty’ program happens all around the league,” former NFL lineman Damien Woody tweeted, “not surprising.”
“Bounties, cheap shots, whatever you want to call them, they are part of this game,” former Washington defensive back Matt Bowen wrote. “It is an ugly tradition … you will find it in plenty of NFL cities.”
This, the players seem to agree on. There are many bounty systems in the NFL. They can inspire more energized play, and are usually created by players, not coaches. Players interviewed said bounties are offered for anything from knocking a player out of the game to delivering so-called “remember-me” shots.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , ,

Publications: Structuring A Sustainable Letters Of Marque Regime, By Lieutenant Todd Hutchins

A big hat tip to David Isenberg for finding this paper and writing an excellent article about it. Also bravo to the California Law Review for publishing this paper and hopefully between this site and David’s, we can really promote this thing. I am always on the lookout for modern legal interpretations of, and the possible uses for the LoM.

It is also cool that the author of this paper is an officer in the US Navy and a current JAG student. Maybe he can come up and talk a little about any feedback he has received for this paper, and the reason why he chose this particular topic.

Now for a couple of points of interest. Lt. Hutchins is more focused on an international LoM system, as opposed to countries issuing LoM’s. You know, I don’t think this approach would work, just because personally speaking, I would rather answer to the laws and customs of my own country versus answering to an international court. What is to prohibit any biases towards me and my nationality in such a international court?  So personally, I would much rather have a LoM issued by a country whose legal system I trust and would give me the best odds in a trial of my peers–from my country.

I still think companies would seek an internationally issued LoM. Especially if the profit margin was there. If it is not, then the risk will definitely not equal the reward and this industry will not thrive. You really need to make the enemy into the ‘Blufin Tuna’ or ‘Buffalo’ of prizes.

Which brings me to my next point. Offense Industry requires a strong profit motive for the destruction or capture of a declared enemy. The reward must equal or be greater than the risk in this case. I tend to lean towards greater than the risk, just because we want extreme competition for this highly valuable enemy.

So the question with this is if the enemy has enough assets that can be seized and decided upon in a prize court. The guys with the money are on land or hiding out in Dubai or wherever. How will a company be able to seize their assets on the international stage?

Now privateers like Captain Morgan did do land raids to capture enemies and their assets. He was quite successful at it, and if we were to target Somali pirates, then allowing companies to raid wealthy Somali investors in Somalia or elsewhere would be key. But then that would require special agreements with those countries that these investors are hiding in. The LoM would have to be very specific and comprehensive in this regard.

Or, the issuing party could throw in bounties and create a false market out of the whole thing. To artificially attach value to these targets, as well as allow companies to seize assets. That to me would be optimum, just because you really have to sweeten the pot for companies to get involved with this thing. Perhaps the 10 percent that governments would receive via prize courts, would go back into the pot for bounties and costs of running prize courts?  Raising money for bounties is a factor when creating artificial values of targets.

I also applaud the author for identifying how expensive the current Defense Industry is for maritime security. I have mentioned in the past that DI’s are costly, and they do nothing to eliminate the problem. If anything, DI’s profit from the continuation of war or piracy, and it is against the best interest of these participants to remove the very thing that gives them their reason for existence. But DI’s have their place, and I believe that in order to reduce the costs of DI, you need to also implement an offensive capability. You will always need guards to protect that in which you love, but you must also have a force tasked with hunting the bad guys–to keep them off balance and put them on the defense. And ultimately, you would like to make piracy into a very unprofitable game for all parties thinking about getting into that business.

Finally, I would like to add one more deal to this review, just to emphasize the significance of profit and reward in warfare. This quote comes from Sun Tzu.

Now in order to kill the enemy, our men must be roused to anger; that there may be advantage from defeating the enemy, they must have their rewards…Therefore in chariot fighting, when ten or more chariots have been taken, those should be rewarded who took the first. Our own flags should be substituted for those of the enemy, and the chariots mingled and used in conjunction with ours. The captured soldiers should be kindly treated and kept….This is called, using the conquered foe to augment one’s own strength.- Paragraphs 16, 17, 18, Chapter 2, ‘Waging War’.

Even Sun Tzu understood the value of reward in war.  Might I add that the interpretation of ‘rewards’ refers to spoils, and not some ideological reward of just ‘winning’. Although that has it’s place for incentive, but feeling good about a win does not pay the bills as they say. lol

I should also note that Sun Tzu also delved into the concept of the cost of protracted war. It is expensive, and if there is no element of a strategy focused on eliminating an enemy, and industry is only used for defense, then the costs will continue to drain the treasures of those nations and companies with interest in the matter.

There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare…It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on. –Paragraphs 6,7, Chapter 2, ‘Waging War’.

That pretty much sums up why wars should be fought as quickly as possible, and why there should be thought about creating an industry that profits from ending it, and not ‘carrying it on’. Something to give balance or even counter strong DI’s that come about from prolonged warfare. –Matt



Structuring A Sustainable Letters Of Marque Regime: How Commissioning Privateers Can Defeat the Somali Pira…

Tags: , , , , , ,