Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” — George Orwell, 1984

Orwell understood the essence of control, but his vision almost seems quaint compared to what’s been described as Project Blue Beam. In Orwell’s nightmare you simply ignore reality; in Blue Beam they seize it, hijack your senses, and replace what you see, hear, and even think with their own fabricated truth. Imagine being force-fed hallucinations not from a bad mushroom trip but from satellites, holograms and electromagnetic frequencies until the difference between your own mind and their programming dissolves entirely. That is the sinister promise of Blue Beam.

The warning first emerged in 1994 thanks to Serge Monast, a Quebecois investigative journalist who insisted that NASA and the United Nations were working hand in glove to execute a four-part psy-op to dissolve religion, dissolve borders, dissolve families and dissolve free thought. In its place, a New World Order would rise—centralised, technocratic, and very smug about its clever trickery. Monast wasn’t alone in his suspicion either. Dr Carol Rosin, who worked directly under Nazi rocket scientist turned head of NASA, Wernher von Braun, testified that von Braun himself had warned her of the script decades earlier. According to him, the military-industrial complex always needed an enemy: first the Russians, then terrorists, then asteroids, and finally the ultimate stage trick, a staged alien invasion. If that sounds like science fiction, remember this came directly from the lips of the man who helped build America’s space programme.

And why would they do it? Because fear is the currency of control. George H. W. Bush let the mask slip with his 1991 “New World Order” speech, painting a vision of a globe united under a single authority. Today his intellectual grandchildren at the World Economic Forum don’t even bother whispering. They want religion flattened into irrelevance, nationalism mocked into extinction, family bonds frayed, and individuality reduced to whatever crumbs the algorithm spits out between TikTok videos. Look at the obsession with transgenderism, blurring the lines of reality and shaping the culture to become fully on board with transhumanism. For these architects, fear is the lever, and Blue Beam is the machinery.

The plan unfolds in four acts. First, earthquakes. Not the natural kind, but engineered tremors strategically placed to reveal “discoveries” that rewrite religious history. The Dead Sea Scrolls rattled some theologians; imagine what conveniently unearthed tablets could do if a few million people were already primed to doubt. Induced seismicity already exists thanks to fracking and mining, and researchers tinker with sound-wave manipulation of the earth’s crust. Step one isn’t to bury faith under rubble but to crack it open just enough for doubt to seep in. Religion has always been the thorn in the side of the establishment that demands only they are worshipped. Discoveries that could unlock the key to ancient wisdom and technologies that may possibly help us all vibrate higher as a species are veiled in secrecy and closed for public scrutiny. The decision to stop excavating Gobekli Tepi and the global treaties surrounding Antarctica and mysterious eyewitness accounts from that region suggest that the elites have knowledge regarding the collective consciousness and accessing higher intelligence they don’t wish the rest of us to know.

Step two is the spectacle. A global light show straight out of a Marvel movie, only instead of Iron Man, it’s Jesus, Muhammad, Krishna and Buddha floating above cities like celestial billboards before merging together into a single cosmic being. This deity, naturally, declares all scripture has been misinterpreted, all religions are outdated, and a new universal faith must be born. Far-fetched? China already startled millions with its mysterious “floating city in the sky” phenomenon. Concertgoers cheered at a holographic Tupac. The military is always thirty to fifty years ahead of the consumer toys we get to play with. If civilians can be fooled by CGI whales breaching over basketball courts, how convincing do you think DARPA’s secret holograms look by now?

Step three is when the lights get switched from your eyes to your brain. Synthetic telepathy through electromagnetic waves, convincing every believer that their god is whispering directly to them. This is where MK Ultra graduates to 5G on steroids. The CIA once spiked unwitting citizens with LSD; today we’ve got Neuralink drilling chips into skulls, transcranial magnetic stimulation altering moods, and electroconvulsive devices sold to boost performance. Even claims about vaccinated people emitting Bluetooth signals suddenly sound less like madness and more like a proof of concept. Once they own the channel between your ears, resistance is futile.

And finally, the crescendo: an alien invasion. Holographic saucers over major cities, peppered with a few experimental craft and some directed-energy fireworks for realism. Governments panic, missiles are launched, maybe even nukes fly—and then the UN steps in, announcing the whole thing was a misunderstanding. Humanity, chastened and terrified, gladly surrenders its sovereignty for the promise of planetary protection. If that seems ludicrous, look back at Operation Northwoods in 1962, when the Pentagon actually drafted plans to fake terrorist attacks on Americans to justify a war with Cuba, and we will leave discussion of 9/11 for another day. Kennedy shot down the Northwoods plot, then he himself was shot down, but the paperwork still exists today. Blue Beam is just another false flag with special effects. And if you need a pop culture reference, the plot of The Watchmen revolves around a fake alien invasion staged to unite mankind. Sometimes fiction isn’t escapism; it’s predictive programming.

Pieces of the rehearsal are already visible. The pandemic trained billions to submit under fear and accept digital passes as the price of freedom. Central banks salivate over programmable currencies. The mainstream media, once lambasting the cranks that talked of UFOs, now covers them like weather reports, without an explanation nor apology for their monumental 180. Unidentified craft “approaching Earth” pop up in headlines with suspicious regularity. The drip-drip of fear primes the stage.

Which brings us back to Serge Monast. He warned the world in 1994, and by 1996 his children were seized by the state, and he was dead of a sudden heart attack the day after being jailed for “spreading misinformation”. No prior health issues, no warning, just gone at fifty-one. A whistle blown, a whistle silenced. How many times have we seen that story repeat? From inconvenient scientists to political dissidents, whistleblowers have a peculiar habit of developing terminal cases of coincidence.

If Project Blue Beam is genuine, it would be the most audacious psy-op in human history: Orwell’s 1984 rebooted by Hollywood with Pentagon funding and a Davos afterparty. But here’s the beautiful part: they only succeed if enough of us fall for it. Awareness is the antidote. The more people recognise the script, the harder it is to stage the play. When a holographic space Jesus hovers over your skyline, you laugh, you point, and you tweet, “Nice try, NASA.” When mainstream news dangles fear like catnip, you swat it away instead of swallowing it. Faith and family are stronger than fear and fakery, and ridicule is kryptonite to authoritarian magicians.

So if the day comes when an Antichrist laser show fills the heavens and politicians tremble on cue, remember: it isn’t revelation; it’s just really expensive cosplay. The trick only works if you clap along. And the more of us who refuse, the sooner the curtain falls. Let’s remind the elites who are watching The Watchmen.

With its space programs, the Red Dragon stands as one of the most important competitors on the global stage.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

To better understand how the space domain is evolving, geopolitically speaking, we need to take a look at one of the leading countries-China. With its space programs, the Red Dragon stands as one of the most important competitors on the global stage.

The development of the Chinese space program

The Chinese space program began in the 1950s with cooperation with the Soviet Union, although this alliance was destined to break down due to the Sino-Soviet split in 1960. Despite the break in relations with the USSR, China persevered in developing its space capability, successfully launching its first satellite, the Dong Fang Hong, in 1970, weighing 173 kg. Since then, China’s space program has progressed rapidly, culminating in historic missions such as the launch of the Chang’e 3 lunar lander in 2013, which also included the Yutu 2 rover, which explored the hidden side of the Moon, revealing new scientific details.

In 2021, China launched its own space station, Tiangong, designed to support independent scientific research and reduce dependence on the International Space Station (ISS), which will be decommissioned in the coming years. By building Tiangong, China has gained an important platform for long-term space research, including missions to the Moon and Mars, putting the country on the map of space powers.

The space program of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is managed by the China National Space Administration (CNSA), an entity that has promoted the country toward significant space milestones, making China one of the world’s leading space powers. By launching thousands of satellites, concluding manned space flights and developing its own space station, China has solidified its role in the global space landscape. Chinese President Xi Jinping has reaffirmed China’s intent to explore the Moon, Mars and beyond during 2023 and 2024, thus strengthening China’s strategic position in the space sector amid growing competition with the United States and other powers.

The space program in geopolitical competition

Space programs have always been influenced by geopolitical competition, an aspect that has not spared China. The Chinese space industry has increasingly integrated the private component, following the example of the United States, where the private sector has played an increasing role. China has thus diversified space-related economic opportunities, attracting other countries into its orbit through technological innovation, and has also made use of its satellite navigation system, BeiDou, as a strategic tool to expand its geopolitical influence. This system, launched in the early 2000s, overcame initial limitations and, with BeiDou-3, offered global coverage. The implementation of BeiDou has consolidated China’s satellite navigation capabilities for both civilian and military use, making it a crucial component for its space strategy and foreign policy.

On a military level. the Space Systems Department of the PLA Strategic Support Force (PLASSF) was established in 2015 to coordinate space warfare, information and electronic warfare, integrating space into Chinese military operations. As a result, the country has developed technologies for monitoring and early warning against missile threats, perfecting systems to damage or destroy enemy space targets, such as anti-satellite missiles (ASATs), high-energy lasers and electronic jamming.

China’s space program has also had significant repercussions on other industries and technology sectors. Technology developed for rockets, satellites and space stations has fueled innovation in areas such as microelectronics, communications, machinery manufacturing and bio-industry. For example, the research conducted has contributed to improved food security and environmental protection through the use of satellite remote sensing, which is used to monitor natural disasters and other emergencies.

As of 2022, China’s space program is estimated to have generated more than $30 billion in revenue, demonstrating a significant economic impact.

In recent years, China has boosted private sector participation in the space program, encouraging private companies to invest in the construction and development of rockets and satellites. Between 2015 and 2020, China’s commercial space industry saw exponential growth, with the market growing from $59 billion to more than $160 billion. Dozens of space start-ups have operated in China, advancing commercial space technology. This opening to the market has increased the country’s competitiveness and technological capability, although some nations, such as the United States, have accused China of militarizing space and using civilian facilities for surveillance purposes.

Tiangong and the future of Chinese space

A key step in China’s space program has been the development of its Tiangong space station, which consists of three main modules: Tianhe (the habitat), Wentian (laboratory) and Mengtian (another laboratory). China aims to build a space station that has similar capabilities to the International Space Station, and can host advanced scientific research, including supporting China’s Xuantian space telescope. Literally an alternative to the ISS. This initiative should not be underestimated at all, because other countries may be interested in cooperating, freeing themselves from American control of the space race.

The Chinese government saw the space program not only as an opportunity to advance scientifically, but also as a tool for international prestige. Xi Jinping has affirmed China’s aspiration to become a leader in space exploration, a statement that is part of a broader strategic plan that includes lunar and Martian missions. Goals that are also backed by strong political and economic commitment, with long-term planning for continued growth of China’s space infrastructure.

Space diplomacy and international cooperation

In the context of China’s growing space presence, China has taken a diplomatic approach to extend its global influence: it has signed numerous space cooperation agreements with countries around the world, including Pakistan, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Bolivia. In addition, China has invited members of the United Nations to cooperate with its space program, promising to offer access to its space resources. The European Space Agency (ESA) has already begun exploring opportunities for collaboration with China, while maintaining a clear commitment to separate scientific and military purposes.

China has also used its space diplomacy as a tool to promote its BeiDou satellite system globally, offering it free of charge to numerous countries as part of the Belt and Road Initiative. Space cooperation has also extended to Russia, which has collaborated with China on the BeiDou and GLONASS system, seeking to compete with GPS and Galileo globally.

What is clear and certain is that the Chinese space program, with its rapid development, has led China to become a space power of the first magnitude, capable of competing with the United States and other nations. State-of-the-art systems, international cooperation and long-term planning with large investments are the trump cards that are ensuring that China can achieve its goals.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Lo sviluppo del programma spaziale cinese

Il programma spaziale cinese ebbe inizio negli anni ’50 con la cooperazione con l’Unione Sovietica, sebbene questa alleanza fosse destinata a interrompersi a causa della scissione sino-sovietica del 1960. Nonostante la rottura delle relazioni con l’URSS, la Cina perseverò nello sviluppo della sua capacità spaziale, riuscendo a lanciare con successo il suo primo satellite, il Dong Fang Hong, nel 1970, con un peso di 173 kg. Da allora, il programma spaziale della Cina ha conosciuto rapidi progressi, culminando in missioni storiche come il lancio del lander lunare Chang’e 3 nel 2013, che includeva anche il rover Yutu 2, il quale ha esplorato il lato nascosto della Luna, rivelando nuovi dettagli scientifici.

Nel 2021, la Cina ha lanciato la propria stazione spaziale, Tiangong, progettata per sostenere la ricerca scientifica indipendente e ridurre la dipendenza dalla Stazione Spaziale Internazionale (ISS), la quale sarà disattivata nei prossimi anni. Con la realizzazione di Tiangong, la Cina ha ottenuto un’importante piattaforma per ricerche spaziali a lungo termine, tra cui missioni sulla Luna e Marte, che pongono il Paese sulla mappa delle potenze spaziali.

Il programma spaziale della Repubblica Popolare Cinese (RPC) è gestito dalla China National Space Administration (CNSA), un ente che ha promosso il Paese verso traguardi spaziali significativi, rendendo la Cina una delle principali potenze spaziali a livello mondiale. Lanciando migliaia di satelliti, concludendo voli spaziali con equipaggio e sviluppando una propria stazione spaziale, la Cina ha consolidato il proprio ruolo nel panorama spaziale globale. Il presidente cinese Xi Jinping ha ribadito, nel corso del 2023 e 2024, l’intento della Cina di esplorare la Luna, Marte e oltre, rafforzando così la posizione strategica della Cina nel settore spaziale, in un contesto di crescente competizione con gli Stati Uniti e altre potenze.

Il programma spaziale nella competizione geopolitica

I programmi spaziali sono sempre stati influenzati dalla competizione geopolitica, aspetto che non ha risparmiato la Cina. L’industria spaziale cinese ha integrato sempre più la componente privata, seguendo l’esempio degli Stati Uniti, dove il settore privato ha avuto un ruolo crescente. La Cina ha così diversificato le opportunità economiche legate al settore spaziale, attraendo altri Paesi nella sua orbita attraverso l’innovazione tecnologica, ed ha anche fatto uso del suo sistema di navigazione satellitare, BeiDou, come strumento strategico per espandere la propria influenza geopolitica. Questo sistema, lanciato nei primi anni 2000, ha superato le limitazioni iniziali e, con BeiDou-3, ha offerto una copertura globale. L’implementazione di BeiDou ha consolidato le capacità di navigazione satellitare della Cina, sia per uso civile che militare, rendendolo un componente cruciale per la sua strategia spaziale e per la politica estera.

Su piano militare. il Dipartimento dei Sistemi Spaziali della Forza di supporto strategico della PLA (PLASSF) è stato istituito nel 2015 per coordinare la guerra spaziale, l’informazione e la guerra elettronica, integrando lo spazio nelle operazioni militari cinesi. Il Paese ha così sviluppato tecnologie per il monitoraggio e l’allerta precoce contro minacce missilistiche, perfezionando sistemi per danneggiare o distruggere obiettivi spaziali nemici, come i missili anti-satellite (ASAT), i laser ad alta energia e il disturbo elettronico.

Il programma spaziale cinese ha avuto ripercussioni significative anche su altri settori industriali e tecnologici. La tecnologia sviluppata per i razzi, i satelliti e le stazioni spaziali ha alimentato l’innovazione in settori come la microelettronica, le comunicazioni, la produzione di macchinari e la bioindustria. Ad esempio, la ricerca svolta ha contribuito al miglioramento della sicurezza alimentare e alla protezione ambientale, grazie all’uso del telerilevamento satellitare, impiegato per monitorare disastri naturali ed altre emergenze.

Dal 2022, si stima che il programma spaziale cinese abbia generato entrate per oltre 30 miliardi di dollari, dimostrando un impatto economico significativo.

Negli ultimi anni, la Cina ha incentivato la partecipazione del settore privato nel programma spaziale, incoraggiando le aziende private a investire nella costruzione e nello sviluppo di razzi e satelliti. Tra il 2015 e il 2020, l’industria spaziale commerciale cinese ha visto una crescita esponenziale, con il mercato che è passato da 59 miliardi a oltre 160 miliardi di dollari. Decine di start-up spaziali hanno operato in Cina, facendo avanzare la tecnologia spaziale commerciale. Questa apertura al mercato ha fatto crescere la competitività e la capacità tecnologica del Paese, sebbene alcune nazioni, come gli Stati Uniti, abbiano accusato la Cina di militarizzare lo spazio e di utilizzare strutture civili per scopi di sorveglianza.

Tiangong e il futuro dello spazio cinese

Un passo fondamentale del programma spaziale cinese è stato lo sviluppo della sua stazione spaziale Tiangong, che è composta da tre moduli principali: Tianhe (l’habitat), Wentian (laboratorio) e Mengtian (un altro laboratorio). La Cina mira a costruire una stazione spaziale che abbia capacità simili alla Stazione Spaziale Internazionale, e che possa ospitare ricerche scientifiche avanzate, anche supportando il telescopio spaziale cinese Xuantian. Letteralmente un’alternativa alla ISS. Non bisogna affatto sottovalutare questa iniziativa, perché altri Paesi potrebbero essere interessati a cooperare, svincolandosi dal controllo americano della corsa allo spazio.

Il governo cinese ha visto nel programma spaziale non solo un’opportunità per avanzare scientificamente, ma anche uno strumento di prestigio internazionale. Xi Jinping ha affermato l’aspirazione della Cina di diventare leader nell’esplorazione spaziale, una dichiarazione che si inserisce in un più ampio piano strategico che include missioni lunari e marziane. Obiettivi che sono anche sostenuti da un forte impegno politico ed economico, con una pianificazione a lungo termine che prevede una continua crescita delle infrastrutture spaziali cinesi.

Diplomazia spaziale e cooperazione internazionale

Nel contesto della crescente presenza spaziale cinese, la Cina ha adottato un approccio diplomatico per estendere la sua influenza globale: ha siglato numerosi accordi di cooperazione spaziale con Paesi di tutto il mondo, tra cui Pakistan, Venezuela, Nigeria e Bolivia. Inoltre, la Cina ha invitato i membri delle Nazioni Unite a cooperare con il suo programma spaziale, promettendo di offrire accesso alle proprie risorse spaziali. L’Agenzia Spaziale Europea (ESA) ha già iniziato a esplorare opportunità di collaborazione con la Cina, pur mantenendo un chiaro impegno a separare gli scopi scientifici da quelli militari.

La Cina ha anche utilizzato la sua diplomazia spaziale come strumento per promuovere il suo sistema satellitare BeiDou a livello globale, offrendolo gratuitamente a numerosi Paesi nell’ambito della Belt and Road Initiative. La cooperazione spaziale si è estesa anche alla Russia, che ha collaborato con la Cina sul sistema BeiDou e GLONASS, cercando di competere con il GPS e il Galileo a livello globale.

Quello che è chiaro e certo è che il programma spaziale cinese, con il suo rapido sviluppo, ha portato la Cina a diventare una potenza spaziale di prima grandezza, capace di competere con gli Stati Uniti ed altre nazioni. Sistemi avanzatissimi, cooperazione internazionale e programmazione a lungo periodo con grandi investimenti sono le carte vincenti che stanno garantendo alla Cina di poter raggiungere i suoi obiettivi.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Il quarto dominio

In Geopolitica, i domini di guerra sono 5: terra, acqua, aria, spazio extra-atmosferico e infosfera. Il quinto dominio è artificiale, creato dall’uomo, mentre gli altri quattro sono tutti presenti in natura. Il quarto dominio, lo spazio, è stato oggetto di una vera e propria corsa alla conquista durante il XX secolo: tutti ricordiamo le avventure di astronauti come Yuri Gagarin, i lanci dello Sputnik, le missioni Apollo della NASA, etc. Lo spazio è entrato nell’immaginario collettivo grazie ad una potente opera di propaganda mediatica di massa, resa possibile grazie all’impiego massiccio del cinema, della radio e della televisione, per poi impiegare l’ineguagliabile internet.

Oggi pensare allo spazio è normale e quasi scontato, ma la geopolitica non è come i film o i videogiochi. Andare verso lo spazio è un impegno che riguarda tutti i popoli del pianeta, nella ricerca e nell’esplorazione, come anche nella…conquista.

Negli ultimi anni, lo spazio è diventato un ambito sempre più competitivo e strategico, coinvolgendo tanto gli Stati quanto gli attori privati. La crescente dipendenza da satelliti, che svolgono funzioni vitali in ambito civile (come comunicazioni, navigazione e sorveglianza) e militare, ha reso la difesa satellitare una priorità per la sicurezza nazionale. Satelliti con funzioni dual-use sono impiegati per scopi sia civili che militari, come nel caso del remote sensing, che ha permesso di monitorare i movimenti di truppe durante la SMO russo-ucraina già dall’inizio nel 2022, evidenziando l’importanza dei satelliti nelle operazioni militari.

Il settore spaziale è anche diventato un’opportunità economica, con la Space Economy che potrebbe raggiungere un valore di trilioni di dollari entro il 2040. Le aziende private, attratte dai potenziali guadagni, hanno ridotto i costi di produzione e lancio dei satelliti, contribuendo alla crescita del mercato. La legislazione degli Stati Uniti, come l’Asteroid Act, ha facilitato l’entrata dei privati nel settore, consentendo loro di sfruttare risorse spaziali come gli asteroidi. Tutti conosciamo Elon Musk, divenuto noto anche grazie ai suoi progetti spaziali, da SpaceX con i razzi e i voli extra atmosferici fino a Starlink coi suoi satelliti e internet super veloce.

In linea generale, questo approccio consente agli Stati di espandere la loro influenza nello spazio senza gestire direttamente tutte le operazioni. Un vantaggio amministrativo che rappresenta, però, anche un rischio.

Il capitalismo non poteva non arrivare a toccare anche il quarto dominio.

La strategia spaziale degli Stati è orientata a sfruttare lo spazio come un dominio economico, oltre che militare, riducendo la cooperazione internazionale in favore di azioni unilaterali. Questo processo sta trasformando lo spazio, un tempo considerato un “bene comune dell’umanità”, in un terreno di scontro geopolitico. Senza tanti giri di parole, le azioni che vengono compiute adesso sono ora determinanti per il futuro della competizione globale.

Lo spazio può diventare il nuovo centro della Terra.

La promessa della new space economy è, in estrema sintesi, questa: laddove lo spazio era il dominio del divino o dell’ignoto, prima, e maschera dell’agonismo fra imperi, poi, oggi i privati sono pronti a lavorare, a fare impresa, magari dal dormitorio del college, come in ogni leggenda di startupper che si rispetti. Evidente, a questo punto, quale tipo di nuova misurazione l’Universo contempli: quella del valore, del profitto. Anche oltre i confini del Mondo le regole che vengono imposte sono le stesse.

Imperialismo senza confini

Sul piano geopolitico, gli Stati Uniti e la Cina si sono posti come principali attori.

Gli Stati Uniti, con progetti come Artemis e Space Force, mirano alla leadership spaziale, inclusi gli sviluppi nel settore difesa. Non è affatto casuale – e ne riparleremo in alcuni prossimi articoli – che Elon Musk sia finito dentro l’entourage di Trump: è l’uomo giusto al posto giusto, perché potrebbe tranquillamente essere utilizzato per portare avanti progetti di conquista spaziale, come il potenziamento dei sistemi militari e delle telecomunicazioni, depotenziando la NASA e le altre agenzie federali.

Gli USA, insomma, sanno già che vogliono conquistare anche lo spazio, estendendo la propria egemonia nel quarto dominio.

Lo spazio non è mai stato un vero rifugio e i satelliti sono sempre stati a rischio. Per questo motivo, molti dei trattati di riduzione nucleare tra Stati Uniti e URSS includevano clausole che mettevano in guardia dal prendere di mira mezzi tecnici nazionali o satelliti per la raccolta di informazioni. Ciò che è cambiato ora è il ruolo che lo spazio svolge per gli Stati Uniti: è davvero un fattore chiave per la sicurezza nazionale.

Per la Russia, invece, sebbene lo spazio sia rilevante per alcuni dei suoi sforzi di sicurezza nazionale, è piuttosto una dimostrazione di forza. Poi c’è l’ulteriore complicazione del rafforzamento delle capacità spaziali della Cina. Questo, unito alla crescente proliferazione di interessi per le capacità contro-spaziali a livello globale, fa sì che il conflitto sulla Terra possa estendersi all’orbita o, in alternativa, che percezioni errate delle attività in orbita possano sfociare in un conflitto terrestre.

Se da un lato gli Stati Uniti hanno definito lo spazio come un dominio di guerra, dall’altro hanno ripetutamente indicato che non credono che la guerra nello spazio sia inevitabile. Gli Stati Uniti hanno dimostrato il loro sostegno alla definizione di norme di comportamento e all’identificazione di azioni responsabili nello spazio, sia attraverso le discussioni alle Nazioni Unite, sia attraverso un promemoria pubblicato nel 2021 dal Segretario alla Difesa statunitense Lloyd Austin, che definisce cinque principi di comportamento responsabile nello spazio a cui i componenti del Dipartimento della Difesa devono attenersi.

Gli USA sono consapevoli di non essere i soli a correre per lo spazio. Mentre nel periodo della Guerra Fredda il competitor praticamente in esclusiva era l’URSS, oggi, in un mondo sempre più multipolare, gli avversari sono molti di più.

La politica spaziale è quindi un indicatore “in ritardo” rispetto alla politica terrestre, perché la prima dipende inevitabilmente dalla seconda. Non abbiamo una “politica fatta in orbita”, quindi tutto quello che avviene lassù viene prima deciso quaggiù. Eppure, c’è la costante consapevolezza che quanto avviene lassù possa cambiare radicalmente e rapidamente quello che avviene quaggiù.

Ora, la domanda è: se lo spazio è una questione di sicurezza nazionale, significa che gli USA correranno alla conquista, come fanno di solito, cercando di aprire un fronte di conflitto in orbita, in modo da convogliare risorse e far muovere la complicata macchina economica della guerra. Se questa strategia funziona sulla terra, perché non dovrebbe funzionare anche in cielo?

Sotto l’amministrazione del Presidente Trump, il programma spaziale statunitense ha visto sviluppi significativi e una rinnovata attenzione all’esplorazione lunare. Una delle iniziative chiave è stato il programma Artemis, che mirava a riportare l’uomo sulla Luna entro il 2024 o il 2026, segnando il primo atterraggio lunare con equipaggio dall’Apollo 17 del 1972. L’amministrazione Trump ha rafforzato il ruolo della NASA, incrementando il budget dell’agenzia spaziale del 10%, il che ha contribuito a finanziare progetti chiave, tra cui lo sviluppo della Crew Dragon di SpaceX che ha trasportato con successo gli astronauti sulla Stazione Spaziale Internazionale nel 2020. Nel 2017 Trump aveva anche firmato una direttiva per riprendere l’esplorazione lunare con equipaggio, annullando la missione sugli asteroidi della precedente amministrazione.

Si tenga presente che Trump ha svolto un ruolo fondamentale nella creazione della Space Force, la nuova branca militare incentrata sulla sicurezza dei beni statunitensi nello spazio e sulla preparazione alla possibilità di una guerra spaziale. Il bilancio della Forza spaziale è cresciuto in modo vertiginoso, aumentando di oltre il 700% dal 2019 al 2024, mentre continuava a costruire sistemi satellitari per la difesa e per contrastare le minacce nello spazio.

Nonostante la scarsa attenzione diretta di Trump allo spazio durante la campagna elettorale, la sua amministrazione ha portato avanti ambiziose iniziative spaziali.

In prospettiva, la NASA porterà avanti missioni come il rover Perseverance su Marte e la missione Europa Clipper su Giove. L’eredità di Trump nel settore spaziale, adesso che entrerà di nuovo in carica, potrebbe vedere una rapida espansione.

Considerando le folli dichiarazioni riguardo Groenlandia e Golfo, non ci sarebbe di che stupirsi se Trump – o Musk – annunciasse la volontà di conquistare la Luna o Marte per esportarci la “democrazia” a stelle e strisce.

Provate a immaginare: avete l’opportunità di esportare l’ordine basato sulle regole anche su altri pianeti, potreste forse mai rinunciare ad un’occasione così ghiotta?

Il Dragone Rosso vola in alto

Dal canto suo, la Cina, pur puntando anch’essa alla supremazia nello spazio, si concentra più sullo sviluppo di armi contro-spaziali come deterrente.

Fin dall’inizio della corsa allo spazio, la Cina ha voluto far parte dell’esclusiva cerchia di Paesi spaziali che hanno anche una significativa influenza globale. In origine, i passi tecnologici necessari erano insufficienti, ma i sostanziali progressi compiuti nel corso degli anni hanno contribuito a posizionare la Cina come un concorrente chiave nella corsa allo spazio in corso. Ciò è evidenziato dalla creazione della stazione spaziale Tiangong nell’orbita terrestre bassa (LEO). Con la possibile dismissione della Stazione Spaziale Internazionale intorno al 2030, la Cina è pronta a diventare l’unico Paese al mondo con un’infrastruttura spaziale gestita dal governo, se non ci saranno nuovi sviluppi. Nel frattempo, l’amministrazione degli Stati Uniti e la NASA stanno spostando la loro attenzione verso l’esplorazione lunare e oltre, pianificando di affidarsi a stazioni spaziali commerciali dopo la ISS. Il successo del ritorno di campioni dalla superficie lunare da parte di Chang’e 5 nel 2020 ha consolidato lo status del Paese, che è diventato il terzo a riuscirci, dopo l’Unione Sovietica e gli Stati Uniti.

La Cina ha strutturato in modo efficace le proprie agenzie pubbliche e recentemente ha iniziato a sviluppare il proprio settore commerciale:  ha recentemente sviluppato centinaia di aziende spaziali commerciali, alcune delle quali hanno ottenuto una notevole attenzione a livello mondiale; ha voluto innanzitutto promuovere la crescita all’interno dei BRICS+ e guidare iniziative di cooperazione spaziale (ancora in fase di sviluppo); in termini di esplorazione futura, la Cina ha deciso di collaborare con la Federazione Russa per sviluppare la Stazione Internazionale di Ricerca Lunare (ILRS) e, con l’evolversi del progetto, la Cina si sta posizionando come Paese leader, con l’obiettivo di attirare altri Paesi e organizzazioni a collaborare. Tra queste figurano entità come l’Organizzazione di Cooperazione Asia-Pacifico (APSCO), fondata nel 2008 e con sede a Pechino, che comprende i seguenti membri: Bangladesh, Iran, Mongolia, Pakistan, Perù e Thailandia. Lo schema di cooperazione per l’ILRS contrasta con l’approccio della NASA per il programma Artemis, che ha già visto 36 Paesi firmare gli Accordi Artemis.

Il Paese del Dragone Rosso ha per di più intensificato gli sforzi per creare partenariati internazionali, lanciando un appello pubblico alla ricerca di partner e collaborazioni e istituendo la International Lunar Research Station Cooperation Organization (ILRSCO) con sede a Hefei, nella provincia di Anhui, chiamata anche Deep Space Science City. Questa iniziativa indica un allontanamento dai modelli precedenti, sottolineando uno schema di gestione e collaborazione distinto per lo sviluppo dell’ILRS, che si discosta dal metodo della NASA. La posta in gioco è più grande della mera esplorazione spaziale.

La Cina ha fatto del dominio del cielo e dello spazio una prerogativa della strategia militare generale (ne parleremo in un prossimo articolo).

Il programma spaziale della Repubblica Popolare Cinese è supervisionato dalla China National Space Administration (CNSA). Il programma spaziale cinese è riuscito a creare e lanciare migliaia di satelliti artificiali, voli spaziali con equipaggio e una stazione spaziale interna. Il presidente cinese XI Jinping ha anche espresso l’intenzione della Cina di esplorare la Luna, Marte e il resto del sistema solare. Questo è visto sia dalla Cina che dagli Stati Uniti come parte della loro competizione strategica.

In vista delle prossime missioni lunari e dell’avventurarsi in profondità nel sistema solare, la Cina ha invitato a presentare proposte per la sua missione di atterraggio e orbita del polo sud lunare Chang’e 7. La missione Chang’e 6 ha già visto la partecipazione di più Paesi: Pakistan, Svezia, Italia e Francia. Inoltre, dal 2016, la Cina ha firmato più di 46 accordi di cooperazione spaziale o MOU con 19 Paesi, regioni e quattro organizzazioni internazionali, tra cui l’UE, l’ASEAN, l’Unione Africana e molte altre. La Cina ha già costruito  satelliti con diversi Paesi come Nigeria (NigCom-1, 2007), Venezuela (VeneSat-1, 2008), Pakistan (PakSat-1R, 2011), Bolivia (Tupak Katari, 2014) e Laos (LaoSat-1, 2015).

Pace oltre le frontiere

La domanda da porsi è: serve competizione fra le due grandi potenze, Cina e USA, o forse sarebbe opportuno ingranare una marcia differente per lo spazio?

Gli Stati Uniti della nuova amministrazione MAGA 2.0 non sembrano intenzionati a promuovere un futuro di pace per lo spazio. La Cina, che è impegnata nella costruzione di una Pax Multipolaris con gli altri Paesi che aderiscono ad un nuovo ordine mondiale non basato sulle regole dell’asse UK-USA, non può permettersi di restare indietro e di lasciare agli americani il primato dello spazio, perché sarebbe una mossa svantaggiosa per il mondo intero, che si ritroverebbe vittima della prepotenza statunitense ancora una volta.

Non c’è tempo da perdere. Il quarto dominio è la corsa per ristabilire la legge del corrispettivo: Sicut in Coelo et in Terra. Così come sarà in cielo, sarà anche in terra. Chi dominerà lo spazio potrebbe diventare il nuovo dominatore globale.

China is racing for the top spot, while the United States of America seeks to open new shores of conflict beyond Earth’s atmosphere.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The fourth geopolitical domain, space, has never been closer. China is racing for the top spot, while the United States of America seeks to open new shores of conflict beyond Earth’s atmosphere.

The fourth domain

In Geopolitics, there are five domains of warfare: land, water, air, outer space and infosphere. The fifth domain is artificial, man-made, while the other four are all naturally occurring. The fourth domain, space, was the subject of a real race to conquer it during the 20th century: we all remember the adventures of astronauts like Yuri Gagarin, the Sputnik launches, NASA’s Apollo missions, etc. Space entered the collective imagination thanks to a powerful mass media propaganda effort, made possible through the massive use of film, radio and television, and then employing the unparalleled Internet.

Today thinking about space is normal and almost taken for granted, but geopolitics is not like movies or video games. Going to space is an endeavor for everyone on the planet, in research and exploration, as well as in… conquest.

In recent years, space has become an increasingly competitive and strategic domain, involving both states and private actors. The increasing reliance on satellites, which perform vital functions in civilian (such as communications, navigation, and surveillance) and military domains, has made satellite defense a national security priority. Satellites with dual-use functions are deployed for both civilian and military purposes, such as in the case of remote sensing, which enabled monitoring troop movements during the Russian-Ukrainian SMO as early as the beginning in 2022, highlighting the importance of satellites in military operations.

The space sector has also become an economic opportunity, with the space economy potentially reaching a value of trillions of dollars by 2040. Private companies, attracted by the potential gains, have reduced the cost of producing and launching satellites, contributing to the growth of the market. U.S. legislation, such as the Asteroid Act, has made it easier for private individuals to enter the industry, allowing them to exploit space resources such as asteroids. We all know Elon Musk, who has also become known through his space projects, from SpaceX with its rockets and extra-atmospheric flights to Starlink with its satellites and super-fast internet.

In general, this approach allows states to expand their influence in space without directly managing all operations. An administrative advantage that also poses a risk, however.

Capitalism could not fail to reach out and touch the fourth domain as well.

The space strategy of states is geared toward exploiting space as an economic as well as a military domain, reducing international cooperation in favor of unilateral actions. This process is turning space, once considered a “common good of humanity,” into a geopolitical battleground. Without mincing words, the actions being taken now are now determining the future of global competition.

Space can become the new center of the Earth.

The promise of the new space economy is, in a nutshell, this: where space was the domain of the divine or the unknown, first, and the mask of agonism between empires, then, today private individuals are ready to work, to do business, perhaps from their college dormitory, as in any self-respecting startupper legend. Evident, at this point, what kind of new measurement the Universe contemplates: that of value, of profit. Even beyond the borders of the World, the rules being imposed are the same.

Boundless Imperialism

On the geopolitical level, the United States and China have positioned themselves as major players.

The United States, with projects such as Artemis and Space Force, aims for space leadership, including developments in the defense sector. It is not at all coincidental-and we will talk about this in some future articles-that Elon Musk ended up inside Trump’s entourage: he is the right man in the right place, because he could easily be used to pursue space conquest projects, such as upgrading military and telecommunications systems, depowering NASA and other federal agencies.

The US, in short, already knows that it wants to conquer space as well, extending its hegemony in the fourth domain.

Space has never been a true haven, and satellites have always been at risk. For this reason, many of the nuclear reduction treaties between the U.S. and the USSR included clauses warning against targeting national technical assets or intelligence-gathering satellites. What has changed now is the role that space plays for the United States: it is really a key factor in national security.

For Russia, on the other hand, although space is relevant to some of its national security efforts, it is rather a show of force. Then there is the added complication of China’s strengthening space capabilities. This, coupled with the growing proliferation of interests in counter-space capabilities globally, means that conflict on Earth could spill over into orbit or, alternatively, that misperceptions of activities in orbit could result in conflict on Earth.

While the United States has defined space as a domain of war, it has repeatedly indicated that it does not believe that war in space is inevitable. The U.S. has demonstrated its support for setting norms of behavior and identifying responsible actions in space, both through discussions at the United Nations and through a memo issued in 2021 by U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, which outlines five principles of responsible behavior in space that DOD components must adhere to.

The U.S. is aware that it is not alone in running for space. Whereas in the Cold War period the virtually exclusive competitor was the USSR, today, in an increasingly multipolar world, there are many more adversaries.

Space policy is thus a “lagging” indicator compared to terrestrial policy, because the former inevitably depends on the latter. We do not have a “made-in-orbit policy,” so everything that happens up there is first decided down here. Yet, there is a constant awareness that what happens up there can radically and rapidly change what happens down here.

Now, the question is, if space is a matter of national security, does that mean that the U.S. will rush to conquer, as it usually does, trying to open a conflict front in orbit, so as to channel resources and get the complicated economic machinery of war moving. If this strategy works on earth, why shouldn’t it work in the sky?

Under President Trump’s administration, the U.S. space program has seen significant developments and a renewed focus on lunar exploration. One of the key initiatives was the Artemis program, which aimed to return humans to the moon by 2024 or 2026, marking the first manned lunar landing since Apollo 17 in 1972. The Trump administration has strengthened NASA’s role by increasing the space agency’s budget by 10 percent, which has helped fund key projects, including the development of SpaceX’s Crew Dragon that successfully transported astronauts to the International Space Station in 2020. In 2017 Trump had also signed a directive to resume manned lunar exploration, canceling the previous administration’s asteroid mission.

Keep in mind that Trump played a key role in the creation of the Space Force, the new military branch focused on securing U.S. assets in space and preparing for the possibility of space war. The Space Force budget grew dramatically, increasing by more than 700 percent from 2019 to 2024, while continuing to build satellite systems for defense and countering threats in space.

Despite Trump’s lack of direct attention to space during the campaign, his administration has pursued ambitious space initiatives.

Looking ahead, NASA will pursue missions such as the Perseverance rover to Mars and the Europa Clipper mission to Jupiter. Trump’s legacy in the space sector, now that he will take office again, could see a rapid expansion.

Given the crazy statements about Greenland and the Gulf, it would be no surprise if Trump-or Musk-announced a willingness to conquer the Moon or Mars to export star-spangled “democracy” there.

Just imagine: you have the opportunity to export the rules-based order to other planets as well, could you possibly pass up such a golden opportunity?

The Red Dragon flies high

For its part, China, while also aiming for space supremacy, focuses more on developing counter-space weapons as a deterrent.

Since the beginning of the space race, China has wanted to be part of the exclusive circle of space-faring countries that also have significant global influence. Originally, the necessary technological steps were insufficient, but the substantial progress made over the years has helped to position China as a key competitor in the ongoing space race. This is evidenced by the establishment of the Tiangong Space Station in low Earth orbit (LEO). With the possible decommissioning of the International Space Station around 2030, China is poised to become the only country in the world with a government-run space infrastructure if there are no new developments. Meanwhile, the U.S. administration and NASA are shifting their focus to lunar exploration and beyond, planning to rely on commercial space stations after the ISS. The successful return of samples from the lunar surface by Chang’e 5 in 2020 has solidified the country’s status as the third to succeed, after the Soviet Union and the United States.

China has effectively structured its public agencies and has recently begun to develop its commercial sector: it has recently developed hundreds of commercial space companies, some of which have garnered considerable global attention; it has first and foremost wanted to promote growth within the BRICS+ and lead space cooperation initiatives (still under development); in terms of future exploration, China has decided to partner with the Russian Federation to develop the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS); and as the project evolves, China is positioning itself as a leading country, with the goal of attracting other countries and organizations to collaborate. These include entities such as the Asia-Pacific Cooperation Organization (APSCO), founded in 2008 and headquartered in Beijing, which includes the following members: Bangladesh, Iran, Mongolia, Pakistan, Peru, and Thailand. The cooperation scheme for ILRS contrasts with NASA’s approach for the Artemis program, which has already seen 36 countries sign Artemis Agreements.

What’s more, the Red Dragon country has stepped up efforts to create international partnerships, launching a public call for partners and collaborations and establishing the International Lunar Research Station Cooperation Organization (ILRSCO) based in Hefei, Anhui Province, also called Deep Space Science City. This initiative indicates a departure from previous models, emphasizing a distinct management and collaboration scheme for the development of ILRS that departs from NASA’s method. The stakes are larger than mere space exploration.

China has made sky and space dominance a prerogative of its overall military strategy (more on this in a future article).

The space program of the People’s Republic of China is overseen by the China National Space Administration (CNSA). China’s space program has succeeded in creating and launching thousands of artificial satellites, manned space flights and an indoor space station. Chinese President XI Jinping has also expressed China’s intention to explore the Moon, Mars and the rest of the solar system. This is seen by both China and the United States as part of their strategic competition.

Ahead of upcoming lunar missions and venturing deep into the solar system, China has invited proposals for its Chang’e 7 lunar south pole landing and orbit mission. The Chang’e 6 mission has already seen the participation of multiple countries-Pakistan, Sweden, Italy and France. In addition, since 2016, China has signed more than 46 space cooperation agreements or MOUs with 19 countries, regions and four international organizations, including the EU, ASEAN, African Union and many others. China has already built satellites with several countries such as Nigeria (NigCom-1, 2007), Venezuela (VeneSat-1, 2008), Pakistan (PakSat-1R, 2011), Bolivia (Tupak Katari, 2014) and Laos (LaoSat-1, 2015).

Peace beyond borders

The question to ask is: is there a need for competition between the two great powers, China and the U.S., or perhaps a different gear should be shifted into space?

The United States of the new MAGA 2.0 administration does not seem intent on promoting a peaceful future for space. China, which is committed to building a Pax Multipolaris with the other countries adhering to a new world order not based on the rules of the UK-US axis, cannot afford to lag behind and leave the primacy of space to the Americans, because that would be a disadvantageous move for the whole world, which would find itself a victim of US bullying once again.

There is no time to lose. The fourth domain is the race to reestablish the law of correspondence: Sicut in Coelo et in Terra. Just as it will be in heaven, it will also be on earth. Whoever dominates space could become the new global ruler.

Natylie Baldwin interviews Theodore Postol of MIT on the implications of reports that Ukraine recently struck a radar used by Russia’s nuclear early-warning system.

By Natylie BALDWIN

❗️Join us on Telegram, Twitter , and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

With the Biden administration having given Ukraine permission to use U.S.-made weapons to strike military targets inside Russian territory and Ukraine reportedly having hit a radar in southern Russia that is part of its nuclear early warning system at least once in recent weeks, a new level of escalation threat has aisen between the U.S. and Russia.

Russian President Vladimir Putin responded by warning that Russia will essentially consider the U.S.-led West to be a direct belligerent if it provides satellite, intelligence and military help to facilitate any long-range missile attacks by Ukraine on Russian territory.

I talked to Theodore Postol, professor emeritus of science, technology and international security at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, about these recent escalatory events and their implications.  The discussion took place between June 5 and July 5 of this year by Zoom and email.

Natylie Baldwin: In response to the recent reports of Ukrainian drone strikes on radars in southern Russia that are part of their early detection system regarding incoming nuclear attacks, you told the Schiller Institute:

“The Russian satellite-based early warning system is very limited and cannot be used to cover the blind spots created by damage to the radar. The Atlantic, Pacific, and Northern radar warning corridors are more important, and the Russians also have radars in Moscow. However, the radars in Moscow will only see threats at a later time, resulting in yet shorter warning and decision-making times — thereby increasing the chances of a catastrophic accident… They will almost certainly choose to operate their nuclear strike forces at a higher level of alert, which will further increase the chances of accidents that could lead to an unintended global nuclear war.”

Can you talk more about how Russia’s early warning system is limited, especially compared to the U.S., and specifically how that escalates the danger of accidental nuclear war?

Theodore Postol: Well, I think the tremendously important difference, and it’s not minor, is the fact that the Russians do not at this time have satellites that can provide them with global warning and surveillance of missile launches — hopefully they will, it looks like they’re trying to launch something, but they’ve had big delays. But hopefully it will begin to solve this problem, although we have not seen this problem solved over the last over 20 years. So, the United States has satellites in space in geosynchronous orbits.

A geosynchronous orbit is at an altitude above the earth that basically is inclined at the equator of the Earth. So it’s in the plane of the equator of the Earth. And it’s at an altitude so that it rotates around the Earth every 24 hours. That’s what a geosynchronous orbit is.

(Theodore Postol)

So, basically, if you’re in a geosynchronous orbit, you look down at the Earth and you are always over the same location of the Earth because the Earth is rotating once every 24 hours and your orbit is rotating once every 24 hours.

So a geosynchronous orbit is ideal for all kinds of satellites, communication satellites. So you only have to point at one, you know, from the ground and it only has to cover the same point on the ground without rotating a lot from space. But this also turns out to be an ideal orbit for a satellite that’s looking down and trying to see things on the ground.

Now, the problem with a geosynchronous orbit is that it has to be very high in space typically around 40,000 kilometers so that altitude, which is required — because as you go to higher and higher altitudes the rotation rate of the satellite slows — and so you need to reach the right altitude where the rotation rate of the satellite coincides with the rotation rate of the Earth.

Because that altitude is so high, the Earth is quite far away, so you don’t have a lot of high-resolution capability. A typical what’s called spy satellite or reconnaissance satellite might be at 200 or 400 kilometer altitude rather than 40,000.

And the reason for that is you want to get close to the earth so your cameras can see smaller objects.

Now, what makes the American system unbelievably useful is we can see the entire surface of the Earth.

So, for example, if we had a radar that detected an incoming ballistic missile from, let’s say, Russia, it looked like it was coming from Russia, we would immediately be able to look down at the entire planet and see that nothing else was going on, that there weren’t missiles launched from other areas. So we would immediately be able to tell that this is not a general attack if it’s an attack at all.

So this system, which gives you a global presence, a global ability to monitor, gives you tremendously more information than you would get with radars because the radars are limited to line of sight. In 1996, there was a significant accidental alert of the Russian early-warning system because they saw a single rocket, but they could not see the rest of the Earth. So they had no way of knowing whether this was the beginning of a nuclear attack.

And now I think that many people have overstated the danger at that time from this accidental alert because at that time the situation between the United States and Russia was very, very calm. Yeltsin and Clinton were — with respect to presidents — there was no sense that the United States or Russia, there was no incentive for either of them to attack each other.

There was, at that instant in time, it seemed like we were going to actually become constructively engaged with each other. Of course, that hasn’t happened, but that’s another discussion.

But now, if the Russians saw, let’s say, a few incoming ballistic missiles, which may or may not be a general attack, they would have no way of knowing whether this was the beginning of a very large-scale attack or something very small. The reason for that, of course, would be they have no global information and they have no idea what is below the radar horizons of all their other early warning radars that will, at some time, just break through their radar fans at a time too late for them to take a retaliatory action.

So the global satellite-based system is a very, very stabilizing and critical piece of the early warning system because — one way to state this is that it gives you situational awareness which sounds kind of mundane but that mundane information could be critical in determining whether or not you inadvertently take action to retaliate to an attack that’s actually not occurring.

So the fact that the Russians do not have this space-based early warning system is very serious and really presents a major problem.

I had lots of contacts in Russia because I was working with the Russians on an infrared early-warning project that was supposed to be being done with the United States [RAMOS – Russian American Observation Satellites]. As usual the United States reneged on an agreement for a program with the Russians. And I was doing everything in my power to try to get the Pentagon to follow through on the agreement it had reached with the Russians.

Tundra Earth-Limb With & Without Array Pixel Files. (Theodore Postol)

Baldwin: I just want to clarify one important point: In discussing the deficiencies in Russia’s nuclear early-detection system, you often reference information you became aware of in the 1990s. Can you confirm that there is recent data indicating that this deficiency — a lack of a geosynchronous global satellite early-warning system — has not been rectified by Russia as of 2024? Where is that data coming from?

Postol: The answer to your question is simple. The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) publishes orbital data on all satellites that are in orbit. These data are typically published in the form of “Two Line Elements,” which provide all of the parameters needed to reconstruct the orbits of satellites at any time.

Since satellites can drift from their orbital positions, NORAD publishes revised two-line elements for every satellite in its catalog called regular business days (not on weekends). Hence, to analyze a specific satellite’s orbits, all that is needed in principle [are] the NORAD two-line elements for that satellite.

There is a very substantial body of information that supplements and builds on NORAD’s two-line element data. This includes a very large, well-informed, and energetic community of people who actively track and study everything they can find about satellites in orbit.

It is also of interest that the Russians have openly talked about their early-warning satellite system as consisting of satellites in both Molniya and geosynchronous orbits. [There is] a highly informative article by Anatoly Zak, a deeply knowledgeable historian of Russian space programs, [in which he] discusses the extraordinary efforts and unfortunately serious failures of the part of the Russian space-program that is dedicated to building in early warning system.

In reading of this history with the informed eyes of an individual who understands the extremely demanding technologies required to build look-down space satellite systems reveals that Russians are certainly aiming at this capability but have not yet achieved it.

As such, a comprehensive technical understanding of the demands of spaced-based ballistic missile early_warning detection and the history and choices made by Russia in its planning to deploy and its actual deployments overwhelmingly indicates that Russia is still limited to Earth-limb viewing technologies in their satellite systems.

If the Russians start launching into geosynchronous orbit, we will know after there are at least two or three occupied locations whether or not the satellites are Earth-limb viewing.

If they are Earth-limb viewing, they will be at the same geosynchronous locations of the Prognoz satellite constellation, which was ultimately canceled because of extremely high false alarm rate. We will just have to see and hope for the best.

Baldwin: Can you also discuss the role of decision-making time? How long does the president of the U.S. have to make decisions around responding to a believed nuclear attack compared to the Russian president and what is the process for assessing the threat before it gets to the respective president on either side?

Postol: The two figures below show the situation with regard to early warning times associated with a postulated U.S. SLBM attack on Moscow. Since Russia does not have satellites that can look straight down at the earth and see ballistic missiles when their rocket motors ignite, the only way it can detect the approaching attack is when the ballistic missiles pass through the radar search fans of Russian early warning radars.

The figure below showing the actual trajectories of postulated ballistic missile launches shows the location of ballistic missiles at one-minute intervals.

(Theodore Postol)

The first point on each trajectory indicates roughly where the ballistic missile will complete its powered flight when it is rocket motors shut down. After that first point, every additional point shows the location of the ballistic missile at one second intervals as it coasts towards its target. There are significant uncertainties on how fast the radars can determine the presence of incoming attacking missiles as they break through the radar search fan. Nevertheless, approximate numbers are good enough given only uncertainties associated with assessing such an attack.

The table below shows the amounts of time consumed by different operations associated with detecting, assessing, and responding to an attack.

(Theodore Postol)

Roughly two or three minutes will be needed for the radar to detect and estimate the direction and speed of the incoming ballistic missiles. This information would be immediately reported through command links to the highest-level military officers in the Moscow command center.

In all likelihood, they would have to alert the highest-level officers and bring them into a “conference.” Depending on the scenario, this could also consume several minutes.

The assessment of the situation would then have to be sent to Russia’s president — who may or may not be immediately available to get the message.

If the attack assessment is incorrect, a decision by the Russian president to retaliate would be indistinguishable from a decision to destroy Russia, so it is reasonable to assume that the president will want as much information as possible.

If a decision is made to retaliate, messages would then have to be sent out to missile facilities. The missile facilities would need to go through some process of verifying the accuracy of the launch order and going through procedures to actually launch the missiles. Even under the best of conditions it is likely that this process would take another two or three minutes.

Finally, the missiles must be launched at least one minute before the arrival of attacking warheads, as once the missiles leave their protective silos and are in flight, they would be extremely vulnerable to the blast waves from the attacking warheads.

Since warning times are potentially as short as seven-to-eight minutes, depending on the trajectories of attacking SLBMs, it is clear that there is no way to reliably guarantee that a nuclear response could be ordered by top political leadership of Russia. Russians are certainly aware of the situation and have certainly taken measures to assure that a retaliation would happen with a high degree of certainty.

This near certainty of retaliation would be implemented by pre-delegating launch authority to missile units in the field and dictating strict conditions under which these pre-delegated launches could occur.

For example, if there are any indications of nuclear detonations in the sky of Russia or on the ground, this could be detected by special sensors that could then transmit this information to missile launch installations. Obviously, this is not an ideal situation, and it would be in everybody’s interest to take cooperative measures to [reduce] the chances of an unforeseen set of circumstances leading to an accident.

Baldwin: What is the likely sequence of events that would occur if Russia responded with nuclear weapons to a false alert of a western attack due to their limited detection system? Would there be any space for stopping a spiral toward omnicide?

Postol: Because the timelines are so short, and the warning and communications systems are so fragile, it is difficult to see how anybody could stop the uncontrolled escalation if an accident occurred.

Baldwin: What are the implications of the fact that Ukraine’s armed forces could not have pulled off this attack on Russia’s early warning radar system without U.S. assistance?

Postol: I have no way of knowing whether or not the Ukrainians received critical information from the United States. The Ukrainians have been using the Starlink satellite system for communications between various military units as well as for other purposes.

The Starlink satellites are a dense constellation of low-altitude satellites that are designed for communications with systems on the ground. There is good reason to believe that the Ukrainians could use this system to communicate with a long-distance drone on a mission to attack a Russian early-warning radar. The locations of the radars are very well-known and easily identified by simply using Google Earth.

As such, it is not clear to me that the Ukrainians had to have the advice and support of the United States to perform this mission. Having said this, it is clear that the United States government does not have complete control over the Ukrainian leadership.

A very large part of the current Ukrainian leadership are known supporters of the Stepan Bandera ultranationalist ideology which was most prominent in Ukraine during the 1930s. The current admirers of Bandera would certainly know that Bandera’s followers were key figures in the brutal murders of between 60,000 and 100,000 Poles living in Western Ukraine in 1943, and also were actively involved in the murder of well over 30,000 Jews at Babi Yar in 1941.

Plus many other Bandera followers actively joined Ukrainian SS units that not only fought against the Russians, but just as importantly were engaged in mass killings of people who are not considered “racially pure” Ukrainians. These people were put in positions of authority during the U.S. sponsored Maidan Coup in February 2014.

The U.S. is now reaping the benefits of having played a major role in allowing ultranationalist extremists to gain control of the Ukrainian government. The reasons for choosing these people were simple, expedient, and standard U.S. operations for overthrowing governments that do not adhere to U.S. political demands.

The most extremist elements are the best choice because they are violent, willing to use violence, well organized, and ruthless relative to other political groups of choice. This is why the U.S. put [Augusto] Pinochet in power in Chile, and the shah in power in Iran.

The problem with this approach to “diplomacy” is that besides supporting murderous nondemocratic regimes, the U.S. can really lose control of those they have put in power.

Tundra Satellites Spaced 12 Hours in All Four Orbits (Theodore Postol)

Baldwin: This next question is admittedly asking you to engage in some speculation, but you have stated publicly that you have spoken to some of the currently serving officials in the executive branch of the U.S. government so I am interested in your opinion on this.

There was an Austrian military analysis of the recent Ukrainian strikes on Russia’s early-warning system that suggested that it could have been a warning by the West since there was no military value to the attacks for Ukraine. As Russia expert Gordon Hahn has said — if the Austrian military thinks this is a credible interpretation, one can only imagine how this looks to Russia’s military/security organs.

First question: As Russia is militarily winning in Ukraine and the U.S. is on a course to suffer an eventual embarrassment and loss of face in this conflict that it played a huge role in provoking, is it possible that the U.S. is probing Russia’s nuclear defenses and indicating that it is willing to go nuclear to save face?

Postol: As incompetent as U.S. leadership has been, I do not believe they would knowingly try to provoke the Russians into some form of nuclear attack against the West. They may be foolish and reckless enough to say things to the Russians that they know, or should know, will lead to a reaction.

One of the most astonishing of many things that [U.S. Secretary of State] Antony Blinken has said to [Russian Foreign Minister] Sergei Lavrov was that United States reserved the “right” to put nuclear-armed ballistic missiles in Ukraine.

Blinken made this statement to Lavrov in January 2022, shortly before Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. Imagine a Russian Foreign Minister telling John Kennedy in 1962 that the Russians reserved the right to put nuclear-armed ballistic missiles in Cuba, rather than indicating that Russia was willing to negotiate.

When you look at how the Biden administration has conducted its policies in Ukraine, it is hard to understand what their intentions are and whether or not they have given any thought to what they are doing. Nevertheless, I do think that they do not want to nuclear war with Russia.

Baldwin: Ironically, many in the West thought Putin would be the one to go nuclear if faced with possible defeat — is it possible that the U.S. is the one who is more of a threat to do this?

Postol: The only time I believe there might have been [a] danger that Putin would use nuclear weapons was when it initially appeared that Russia might catastrophically be losing the war with Ukraine.

Baldwin: In a presentation you gave in March of 2022, one of the things you talked about was what the results of a nuclear war would be in terms of death and destruction. You showed some harrowing images of the victims of WWII fire bombings which would be similar to what the firestorms resulting from a nuclear blast would do to people.

As a Generation X-er, I remember the threat of nuclear war being talked about when I was growing up and it was featured regularly in popular culture. Even our leaders — whether you liked them or not — seemed to understand how much a nuclear war must be avoided.

You stated at the beginning of the Ukraine war that you thought Biden was doing a good job of making it clear that he didn’t want to escalate to a direct confrontation with Russia. Since then, it seems like we’ve been experiencing the frog-in-boiling-water phenomena of the Biden administration eventually giving in to more escalatory actions. Do you think our current leaders have lost their fear of nuclear war? If so, why?

Postol: I do not think that Biden has lost his fear of nuclear war. I do think that Biden is suffering from some form of terrible debilitating and degenerative disease like dementia or Alzheimer’s.

I would be surprised if either Blinken or [National Security Advisor Jake] Sullivan did not understand that nuclear war with Russia would be a catastrophe for the United States and the world.

However, both Blinken and Sullivan are so isolated from reality that I do not rule out them inadvertently making decisions that lead to a nuclear catastrophe through escalation.

Blinken and Sullivan have presided over one of the biggest foreign policy disasters that the United States has had since the end of the Cold War. Their mindset is incomprehensible to me and wholly disturbing. You may be in a position to understand my current thinking due to your heartbreaking situation with your mother.

Imagine that a deeply loved individual started showing the signs of mental deterioration. Obviously, it would lead to tremendous pain, stress and sadness for all involved. But then imagine allowing that person to put at risk the lives in your community by encouraging them to drive a delivery truck! This is what the people surrounding Biden are doing.

Biden is clearly mentally incapacitated, yet the people around him have sought to conceal this terrible and horrifying condition from the American electorate.

The people around him must know that this is only the beginning of something that will be far worse. Yet they have so little concern for the future of our country and its citizens that they are willing to put a man into the office of president who is incapable of doing the job.

They are willing to do this even though the nation is facing multiple existential crises. Yet all these people surrounding Biden seem to care about is how they can maintain their privileges of power.

I am sorry for this diversion into our nation’s social situation, but I think the dangers we face of a possible nuclear war have much more to do with the frightening [domestic] social and political circumstances at the moment.

If people in power have absolutely no understanding of reality, then the situation is dangerous because they have no way of knowing how to make sound choices. Unfortunately, there are many other examples of delusional leadership from history.

Original article: consortiumnews.com

❗️Join us on Telegram, Twitter , and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

Recently, the U.S. began spreading rumors about alleged Russian space-based nuclear weapons. According to American intelligence, Moscow is developing a powerful anti-satellite weapon to be deployed in space, thus violating international norms that prohibit the militarization of Earth’s orbit.

Mike Turner, head of the House Intelligence Committee, formally asked for the declassification of documents concerning the investigation on the “space-nukes”, stating that a deliberation on the case in the National Congress is necessary. According to Turner, American parliamentarians need to discuss this serious “threat” to U.S. national security, having therefore the requirement to fully release data obtained by intelligence on the subject.

Subsequently, the White House stated that there was no imminent threat to the country’s national security according to the information obtained so far. Spokespersons confirmed they are monitoring the possible existence of a Russian nuclear space program, but denied the existence of any evidence of a high-risk threat at the moment. As a result, once again American officials made contradictory statements, discrediting the image of U.S. authorities.

Moscow denied the accusations and stated that the rumors were intended to strengthen the anti-Russian establishment, pressuring parliamentarians to recognize the existence of a “threat” and thus approve the billion-dollar military aid package to Ukraine. Considering the domestic political stalemate in the U.S., with pro-war sectors failing to convince their opponents to continue aid to Kiev, it is very likely that the intention behind the spread of anti-Russian rumors is to actually increase fear among policymakers about a possible “danger”.

Obviously, as a major military power, the Russian Federation has its own anti-satellite systems and is able to employ them, if necessary, in a possible large-scale conflict scenario. However, the current tensions between Moscow and Washington, despite high, do not bring any need to use military force against American satellites, and there is therefore no “imminent threat” to the U.S. in the Russian arsenal.

In parallel, Moscow remains firmly committed to complying with international space law standards. The deployment of weapons of mass destruction in Earth’s orbit is banned by the treaties that regulate space activities. Therefore, even though it has weapons strong enough to inflict damage on enemy countries’ satellites, Russia is not willing to allocate nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction in outer space, as this would violate current regulations on the matter.

In fact, Russian actions regarding the outer space make it clear that Moscow intends to cooperate to prevent the militarization of Earth’s orbit. Russia, although it has the military capacity to do so, does not invest in “space-based” weapons, focusing its space activities on the peaceful and scientific sphere. This, however, is not the case with the U.S., which openly promotes the militarization of space, with constant efforts to turn Earth’s orbit into a true battlefield.

Since the creation of the U.S. Space Force in 2019, Washington has seen the militarization of space as a true strategic priority. At the time, then-American President Donald Trump had made it clear that the country’s objective was to achieve “American dominance in space.” Since then, several activities to increase American military space capabilities have been undertaken – many of them in partnership with other NATO countries and international allies.

In 2022, NATO began drafting a “space doctrine” based on “interoperability”. The following year, the alliance published a document exposing its main interests in space and pursuing American guidelines for the militarization of the orbit. According to analysts, the “interoperability” of NATO’s space activities simply means the creation of mechanisms for U.S. allies to help pay the high costs of military space development – while, on the other hand, only the Pentagon maintains real control of the activities and benefits from “space control”.

“The U.S. Space Command planning document stated that the U.S. will ‘control and dominate space and deny other nations if necessary access to space (…) At the Space Command HQ in Colorado just above their doorway they have a sign that reads ‘Master of Space (…) Even with all its resources the U.S. can’t afford to pay for its ‘Master of Space’ plan by itself (…) [In order to maintain its dominance], the U.S. sets up a story line that it ‘must protect space’ from the dark forces in Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea (…) Interoperability’ ensures that all NATO members purchase new expensive space technologies mostly from U.S. aerospace corporations like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and others. In addition, ‘interoperability’ means that all space information, surveillance, and targeting is run through the U.S.-dominated system. In other words, NATO allies help pay for these costly space warfare systems but the Pentagon controls the ‘tip of the spear’,” Professor Bruce Gagnon, director of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, once said commenting on the topic.

All these factors lead us to believe that there really was an attempt on the part of the U.S. to create a smokescreen for its own space militarization activities. By pointing out the existence of a “Russian danger”, Washington legitimizes its own “reactive” policies, thus encouraging increased investment in space weapons in NATO. In the same sense, this smokescreen helps to pressure parliamentarians to revise their stance on supporting Ukraine. With the popularity of the anti-Russian war gradually decreasing, the creation of a non-existent threat could serve as a legitimizing factor for the conflict.

In addition to all this, it is curious how contradictory U.S. narratives about Russia fluctuate. Previously, the American media accused the Russians of fighting using shovels due to the lack of weapons. Now, on the other hand, they accuse Russia of deploying nuclear weapons from space. These lies only worsen the mainstream media’s own image among Western public opinion, leading to absolute discredit.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , Twitter  e VK .

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

Você pode seguir Lucas no X (ex-Twitter) e Telegram.

Recentemente, os EUA começaram a espalhar rumores sobre alegadas armas nucleares russas alocadas no espaço. Segundo a inteligência americana, Moscou está a desenvolver uma poderosa arma anti-satélite para ser implantada no espaço, violando assim as normas internacionais que proíbem a militarização da órbita da Terra.

Mike Turner, chefe do Comitê de Inteligência da Câmara, pediu formalmente a desclassificação dos documentos relativos à investigação das “armas nucleares espaciais”, afirmando que é necessária uma deliberação sobre o caso no Congresso Nacional. Segundo Turner, os parlamentares americanos precisam discutir esta grave “ameaça” à segurança nacional dos EUA, tendo, portanto, a exigência de divulgar integralmente os dados obtidos pela inteligência sobre o assunto.

Posteriormente, a Casa Branca afirmou que não havia ameaça iminente à segurança nacional do país de acordo com as informações obtidas até o momento. Porta-vozes confirmaram que estão a monitorar a possível existência de um programa espacial nuclear russo, mas negaram a existência de qualquer evidência de uma ameaça de alto risco neste momento. Como resultado, mais uma vez as autoridades americanas fizeram declarações contraditórias, desacreditando a imagem das autoridades dos EUA.

Moscou negou as acusações e afirmou que os rumores tinham como objetivo fortalecer o establishment anti-russo, pressionando os parlamentares a reconhecerem a existência de uma “ameaça” e assim aprovarem o pacote de ajuda militar bilionária à Ucrânia. Considerando o impasse político interno nos EUA, com os sectores pró-guerra não conseguindo convencer os seus oponentes a continuarem a ajudar Kiev, é muito provável que a intenção por detrás da propagação de rumores anti-Rússia seja, na verdade, aumentar o medo entre os tomadores de decisão sobre um possível “perigo”.

Obviamente, como uma grande potência militar, a Federação Russa possui os seus próprios sistemas anti-satélite e é capaz de empregá-los, se necessário, num possível cenário de conflito em grande escala. Contudo, as atuais tensões entre Moscou e Washington, apesar de elevadas, não trazem qualquer necessidade de uso de força militar contra satélites americanos, não existindo, portanto, nenhuma “ameaça iminente” aos EUA no arsenal russo.

Paralelamente, Moscou continua firmemente empenhada em cumprir as normas da legislação espacial internacional. A implantação de armas de destruição em massa na órbita da Terra é proibida pelos tratados que regulam as atividades espaciais. Portanto, embora possua armas suficientemente fortes para infligir danos aos satélites dos países inimigos, a Rússia não está disposta a alocar armas nucleares ou de destruição maciça no espaço exterior, pois isso violaria a regulamentação atual sobre a matéria.

Na verdade, as ações russas em relação ao espaço exterior deixam claro que Moscou pretende cooperar para impedir a militarização da órbita da Terra. A Rússia, embora tenha capacidade militar para o fazer, não investe em armas de uso “a partir do espaço”, centrando as suas atividades espaciais na esfera pacífica e científica. Este, porém, não é o caso dos EUA, que promovem abertamente a militarização do espaço, com esforços constantes para transformar a órbita da Terra num verdadeiro campo de batalha.

Desde a criação da Força Espacial dos EUA em 2019, Washington tem visto a militarização do espaço como uma verdadeira prioridade estratégica. Na altura, o então presidente americano, Donald Trump, tinha deixado claro que o objetivo do país era alcançar o “domínio americano no espaço”. Desde então, foram realizadas diversas atividades para aumentar as capacidades espaciais militares americanas – muitas delas em parceria com outros países da OTAN e aliados internacionais.

Em 2022, a OTAN começou a elaborar uma “doutrina espacial” baseada na “interoperabilidade”. No ano seguinte, a aliança publicou um documento expondo seus principais interesses no espaço e seguindo as diretrizes americanas para a militarização da órbita. Segundo analistas, a “interoperabilidade” das atividades espaciais da OTAN significa simplesmente a criação de mecanismos para que os aliados dos EUA ajudem a pagar os elevados custos do desenvolvimento espacial militar – enquanto, por outro lado, apenas o Pentágono mantém o controle real das atividades e benefícios do “controle espacial”.

“O documento de planejamento do Comando Espacial dos EUA afirmava que os EUA ‘controlarão e dominarão o espaço e negarão a outras nações, se necessário, acesso ao espaço (…) No QG do Comando Espacial no Colorado, logo acima de sua porta, eles têm uma placa que diz ‘Mestre do Espaço (…) Mesmo com todos os seus recursos, os EUA não podem pagar sozinhos o seu plano de ‘Mestre do Espaço’ (…) [Para manter o seu domínio], os EUA criam uma linha histórica de que ‘deve proteger o espaço’ das forças obscuras na Rússia, China, Irã e Coreia do Norte (…) A interoperabilidade ‘garante que todos os membros da OTAN comprem novas tecnologias espaciais caras, principalmente de empresas aeroespaciais dos EUA como Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, e outros. Além disso, ‘interoperabilidade’ significa que toda a informação espacial, vigilância e seleção de alvos são executados através do sistema dominado pelos EUA. Por outras palavras, os aliados da OTAN ajudam a pagar estes dispendiosos sistemas de guerra espacial, mas o Pentágono controla a “ponta do a lança'”, disse certa vez o professor Bruce Gagnon, diretor da Rede Global Contra Armas e Energia Nuclear no Espaço, comentando sobre o assunto.

Todos estes fatores levam-nos a acreditar que houve realmente uma tentativa por parte dos EUA de criar uma cortina de fumo para as suas próprias atividades de militarização espacial. Ao apontar a existência de um “perigo russo”, Washington legitima as suas próprias políticas “reativas”, encorajando assim o aumento do investimento em armas espaciais na OTAN. No mesmo sentido, esta cortina de fumaça ajuda a pressionar os parlamentares a reverem a sua posição sobre o apoio à Ucrânia. Com a popularidade da guerra anti-russa a diminuir gradualmente, a criação de uma ameaça inexistente poderia servir como fator de legitimação do conflito.

Além de tudo isto, é curioso como flutuam as narrativas contraditórias dos EUA sobre a Rússia. Anteriormente, a mídia americana acusou os russos de lutarem com pás devido à falta de armas. Agora, por outro lado, acusam a Rússia de utilizar armas nucleares a partir do espaço. Estas mentiras apenas pioram a imagem da grande mídia junto à opinião pública ocidental, levando ao descrédito absoluto.

❗️Join us on Telegram, Twitter , and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The claims about Russian space-based nuclear weapons unraveled to become a joke. Fortunately, the death of Western-sponsored dissident Alexei Navalny then occurred to enable Western media to go into a frenzy of anti-Russia headlines.

First up was the scaremongering story about Russia allegedly developing a space-based nuclear weapon. Initially, it was dramatically trailed as posing a serious national security threat to the United States. Despite the sensational reporting, the story quickly became a laughingstock. Even some U.S. lawmakers dismissed it as “bullshit” and a blatant attempt by the Biden White House and intelligence agencies to push Congress into passing a new mega military aid bill for Ukraine worth $61 billion.

We’ll get to the Navalny story in a moment. But let’s just first parse the orchestration of the alleged Russian space nukes.

The drama began on Wednesday when Mike Turner, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee (a dodgy source if ever there was one), made public appeals to President Joe Biden to declassify intelligence on “a serious threat to national security”. Turner is a Republican member of the House of Representatives but he is a close ally of the Democrat White House in terms of keenly supporting military aid to Ukraine. The latest bill passed the upper chamber of the U.S. Senate the day before, February 13, but it is unlikely to be approved by the House where many Republican lawmakers are staunchly opposed to it.

Accompanying the “concerns” of the intel committee chairman Turner,  media outlets then vented anonymous US intelligence sources “revealing” that the national security threat was from Russian nuclear weapons allegedly under development for destroying American communication satellites in space. The White House then “confirmed” the intel the next day, February 15. It was a flagrant put-up job. But the Biden administration sought to tamp down any public panic by saying that the threat was not imminent and the alleged Russian satellite-killing weapon had not been deployed in orbit, nor would there be any danger to Earth. (So, what was all the fuss about?)

Ironically, derisive comments from incredulous U.S. lawmakers were also echoed by the Kremlin. The latter’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov made a similar assessment that the Biden administration was playing tricks to push through the military funding package for Ukraine.

That bill has been delayed since the end of last year. The Biden administration has been cajoling Congress for months to vote it through. After the Senate finally passed the bill this week, President Biden put pressure on the House, saying that “history is watching you”. The bill has been exalted as having existential importance in defeating “Russian aggression” in Ukraine. The U.S. media have claimed (preposterously) that if the military aid is not supplied then Ukraine’s defeat could result in American troops being deployed to prevent Russian rampaging across Europe.

The American public, as with the European public, has become increasingly skeptical about the relentless funneling of taxpayer funds and weapons to Ukraine. Many citizens in the West – a majority, according to polls – have become critical of fueling a bloody war for the dubious cause of “defending democracy” in a regime dominated by NeoNazis. At a time of deep social and economic hardship in the U.S. and Europe, the Western public is rightly disdainful of hundreds of billions of dollars and euros being wasted on death and destruction and also being siphoned off by a corrupt cabal in Kiev.

The $61 billion in military aid to Ukraine is just the latest tranche that Washington is seeking to throw at the black hole of its proxy war against Russia – a war that is really all about defeating Russia as a geopolitical obstacle to U.S. hegemony. Another driver is the massive profits that taxpayers are subsidizing the military-industrial complex at the rotten heart of Western capitalism.

There’s a huge lot at stake with the failure of the US/NATO proxy war in Ukraine. The Kiev regime is facing a collapse in the face of a superior Russian military.

That’s why the passing of the latest bill by Congress has taken on such an imperative importance – for the warmongers.

To get this bill into law, the U.S. deep state rulers and the pliant Biden White House along with the media-intelligence establishment sought to demonize Russia with a desperate story about alleged nuclear weapons for outer space. Oh, those dastardly Ruskies!

But as noted above the space nukes scar-story turned into farce. It was too obvious that the public was being manipulated, or gaslighted as one US lawmaker put it. When a psyops fails, the blowback is dangerous for the authors because of the damaging revelation and contempt it engenders. The Biden administration was open to ridicule.

There are several telltale signs that the story was total hogwash from the outset. Bruce Gagnon, U.S.-based coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, said the claims are absurd. In an email exchange with the Strategic Culture Foundation for this editorial, Gagnon said Russia has already developed formidable non-nuclear kinetic weapons to destroy satellites if it wanted to. He also remarked that the United States possesses anti-satellite weapons (ASATs).

In other words, there is no need for Russia to develop a risky nuclear weapon to knock out satellites. The nuclear details flagged up in US media this week are a gratuitous embellishment designed to alarm the public and to demonize Russia as an evil rogue state.

Russia is a co-signatory to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty as are the United States, China, and over 120 other nations.

Bruce Gagnon commented: “I believe the Russians have a long history of generally honoring treaties while the U.S. does not. And remember that Russia and China every year for at least the last 20-30 years go to the UN and introduce a new treaty called Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) to ban all weapons that fall outside of the 1967 treaty. The U.S. always refuses, saying there is no need for a new treaty.”

Apart from the paramount issue of getting additional funding for the proxy war in Ukraine, another timing issue is the aftermath of the blockbuster interview of Russian President Vladimir Putin by American journalist Tucker Carlson. Since the interview was aired last Thursday,  February 8, it has broken all records for public audiences around the world. It has garnered over 300 million views, and counting.

The one-on-one interview was seen as a breakthrough world exclusive, an informative platform for Putin to comprehensively give Russia’s point of view on the whole Ukraine conflict, and more. The Russian leader was seen by American and European audiences as reasonable, intelligent, articulate, and convincing. The Western propaganda caricature of Putin was dispelled and for a rare moment, the Western public was persuasively informed of the bigger causes of the conflict in Ukraine. That is, how the U.S.-led NATO axis had instigated the war by fomenting an anti-Russian regime dominated by NeoNazis. The impact of the interview dealt a devastating blow to the Western narrative of “Russian aggression” and “evil Putin”.

Plausibly, the U.S. warmongering establishment was incensed by this exposé.

Hence, to wrest back control of the narrative and corral the Western public, the space-based nukes scare-story was unleashed. Unfortunately, that psyop attempt failed to gain traction and indeed was fast descending into a farce.

Next up, luckily, came the news of Navalny’s death. Western media immediately blared headlines and comments that he had been killed by the “Putin regime”.

Navalny was serving 19 years in prison on multiple corruption convictions. He died Friday apparently from a blood clot. The 47-year-old was a broken and forgotten figure facing a futile existence, having been used and abandoned by Western intelligence handlers as a cut-out dissident figure. His future looked bleak. Who knows at this stage what caused his death? He was last seen by his lawyer during a prison meeting this week two days before his passing. Did his lawyer pass something to Navalny? Was the washed-up Western asset offered a deal for his family’s benefit if he agreed to one last, ultimate psyop on behalf of Western handlers? Taking his own life? His death in prison has certainly provided the Western media with a bonanza opportunity to change the narrative and precipitate an avalanche of Russophobia, just as required.

As for the far-fetched Russian space nukes and the death of Navalny, the criminologist’s question of Who Gains? and the factor of timing are often reliable indicators.

By Caitlin JOHNSTONE

❗️Join us on Telegram , Twitter , and VK .

If Wednesday’s House Oversight subcommittee hearing on UFOs had happened ten years ago instead of today, it would have shaken the world. Imagine someone from 2013 hearing congressional testimonies about “routine” military pilot encounters with giant flying tic tacs, floating orbs, 300-foot red squares, and cubes in clear spheres zipping around in ways that surpass all known earthly technology by leaps and bounds, or about secret government possession of otherworldly aircraft they’re trying to reverse engineer and the dead bodies of their non-human pilots, or about the possibility that these creatures are not merely extraterrestrial but extra-dimensional. Their jaws would have hit the floor.

Now in 2023 we’ve been getting incrementally drip-fed bits and pieces of these stories for six years, so the scene on Capitol Hill on Wednesday didn’t have the impact it would’ve had in 2013. It’s making headlines and getting attention, but not as much as Sinead O’Connor’s death or people’s thoughts on Barbie and Oppenheimer. The response from the general public could be described as a collective nervous laugh and a shrug.

People scroll past the footage from the hearing on social media, go “Whoa, that’s weird,” and move on with their lives. The information’s going in, but just kind of on the periphery of mainstream consciousness. Maybe next year they’ll show us something that would’ve been even more shocking to someone in 2013 than Wednesday’s hearing would’ve been, and it will be met with the same nervous laugh and shrug by the people of 2024.

Of course in the circles I tend to interact with, the response is a bit different. People who are highly skeptical of the US war machine tend to also be highly skeptical of this UFO narrative we’ve been seeing since 2017.

“Distraction” is a word you hear a lot. “It’s just a distraction from ______”, where “______” is whatever hot story they personally happen to be fascinated by at the moment. I personally don’t buy that explanation; the new UFO narrative wasn’t just cooked up at the last minute to distract from current headlines, it’s been unfolding for six years, and people aren’t even paying that much attention to it. The empire doesn’t tend to orchestrate spectacular events as a “distraction” anyway; the adjustment of public attention tends to take the much more mundane form of agenda setting in the media, where some stories receive more attention than others based on what’s convenient for the oligarchs who own the press.

I also see people theorizing that this is all a ploy to ramp up the US military budget. There could totally be something to that, but again this narrative has been unfolding for six years and so far the military budget has just been swelling in the usual yearly increments as always.

Don’t get me wrong, though — I’m as skeptical about this thing as anyone. For one thing the origins of the mainstream UFO narrative which began in 2017 were steeped in extensive distortion, dishonesty and journalistic malpractice, and were carried forward by shady intelligence operatives like Lue Elizondo. David Grusch, who made by far the most sensational claims at Wednesday’s congressional hearing with his tales of dead aliens and reverse-engineered UFOs, is himself an insider of the US intelligence cartel.

But for me what really stinks about all this UFO stuff is the timing. Here we are in the early stages of a new cold war which features a race to militarize space, and we’re hearing congressional testimony about mysterious vehicles posing a threat to US airspace which have the ability to go up and down between earth and space very quickly. That smells off.

I mean, does it really sound like a coincidence that we’re seeing all these news stories about UFOs and aliens at the same time we’re seeing news stories about a race between the US and China and Russia to dominate space militarily? A Foreign Policy article from last year blares the headline “China and Russia Are Catching Up to U.S. in Space Capabilities, Pentagon Warns” with the subheading “The militarization of space is picking up pace.” These warnings are echoed in articles by Defense One and Time. An article on the United Nations website from last year carries the title “‘We Have Not Passed the Point of No Return’, Disarmament Committee Told, Weighing Chance Outer Space Could Become Next Battlefield.” A 2021 report from the war machine-funded Center for Strategic and International Studies titled “Defense Against the Dark Arts in Space: Protecting Space Systems from Counterspace Weapons” warns of the urgent need to build more space weapons to counter US enemies. A Global Times article from last year carries the title “Chinese experts urge avoidance of space weaponization amid commercial space capability deployment in Ukraine.”

These stories about the space militarization race aren’t getting the attention the much more entertaining UFO stories are getting, but it seems likely that those who are responsible for moving the war machinery around are paying a lot more attention to the former than the latter. The US Space Force took its first steps toward becoming a reality in 2017, the same year these mainstream UFO stories started coming out, with the explicit purpose of countering Russia and China.

And it just seems mighty suspicious to me how we’re being slowly paced into this UFO narrative (or UAP narrative for those hip to the current jargon) right when there’s a mad rush to get weapons into space. I can’t actually think of any other point in history when the timing of something like this would have looked more suspicious.

So for me the most disturbing parts of the UFO hearing were the parts that could wind up facilitating the agenda to militarize space, like when this phenomenon was framed as a “national security” threat or when it was mentioned that they can transition from earth to space very rapidly.

When asked by congressman Glenn Grothman “do you believe UAPs pose a threat to our national security?”, former Navy commander David Fravor answered with an unequivocal yes. A few minutes later Fravor described these vehicles as being able to “come down from space, hang out for three hours and go back up.”

When asked by congressman Andy Ogles whether UFOs could be “collecting reconnaissance information” on the US military, all three witnesses — Grusch, Fravor, and former Navy pilot Ryan Graves — answered in the affirmative. Asked by Ogles if UFOs could be “probing our capabilities,” all three again said yes. Asked if UFOs could be “testing for vulnerabilities” in US military capabilities, all three again said yes. Asked if UFOs pose an existential threat to the national security of the United States, all three said they potentially do. Asked if there was any indication that UFOs are interested in US nuclear technology, all three said yes.

Ogles concluded his questioning by saying, “There clearly is a threat to the national security of the United States of America. As members of Congress, we have a responsibility to maintain oversight and be aware of these activities so that, if appropriate, we take action.”

When asked by congressman Eric Burlison if “there has been activity by alien or non-human technology, and/or beings, that has caused harm to humans,” Grusch said he couldn’t get into specifics in a public setting (a common theme throughout the hearing), but said that “what I personally witnessed, myself and my wife, was very disturbing.”

Grusch would complicate this cryptic statement a few minutes later by saying that he’s never seen a UFO. How this statement doesn’t contradict his previous statement about having witnessed harmful behavior from non-human technology and/or beings was not made clear.

So you’ve got US policymakers being told that there are vehicles using technology not of this world routinely violating US airspace and posing an existential threat to US national security, and that these craft can go from earth to space and back at will, and that they need to help make sure their nation can address this threat.

What conclusions do you come to when presented with that kind of information? If you’re a lawmaker in charge of facilitating the operation of a highly militaristic empire, you’re probably not going to conclude that it’s time to hold hands and sing Kumbaya. You’re probably eventually going to start thinking in terms of military technology.

One of the most important unanswered questions in all this UFO hullabaloo is, why now? Why are we seeing all this movement on “disclosure” after generations of zero movement? If these things are in fact real and the government has in fact been keeping them secret, why would the adamant policy of dismissal and locked doors suddenly be reversed, allowing “whistleblowers” to come forward and give testimony before congress? If they had motive to keep it a secret this entire time, why would that motive no longer be there?

If you ask the online UFO community, many will essentially take credit for the whole thing, saying the most powerful war machine ever assembled has reversed its policy of total opacity because of “pressure” applied by disclosure activists. This doesn’t pass the smell test; the most powerful empire in history isn’t reversing course on a longstanding policy of blanket secrecy because of internet forums and FOIA requests.

So why now? Why the drastic and sudden shift from UFOs and aliens being laughable tinfoil hat nonsense to the subject of serious congressional inquiries and widespread mainstream media coverage?

Well, the timing of the race to militarize space might provide an answer to the “why now?” question. Is it a coincidence that this new UFO narrative began its rollout in 2017, around the same time as the rollout of the Space Force? Are we being manipulated at mass scale about aliens and UFOs to help grease the wheels for the movement of war machinery into space? How likely is it that by pure coincidence this extraplanetary narrative timed out the way it did just as the US empire makes a last-ditch grab at unipolar planetary domination?

I don’t know. I do know that if I’m assigning degrees of probability, “Extraterrestrial or extradimensional beings are here and take a special interest in us and sometimes crash their vehicles and our government recovered them but kept them a secret but suddenly decided not to be so secretive about them anymore” ranks significantly lower than “Our rulers are lying and manipulating to advance their own interests again.”

I am 100 percent wide open to the possibility of extraterrestrials and otherworldly vehicles zipping around our atmosphere. What I am not open to is the claim that the most depraved institutions on earth have suddenly opened their mind to telling us the truth about these things, either out of the goodness of their hearts or because they were “pressured” by UFO disclosure activists.

I don’t know what the hell is going on with this UFO thing, but I do know the drivers of the US empire have an extensive history of manipulating and deceiving at mass scale to advance imperial agendas. And I do know that at this crucial juncture in history where the empire is clinging to planetary domination with the tips of its fingernails, there are a lot of imperial agendas afoot.

caitlinjohnstone