While we’re on the subject of the BRICSA nations, it’s worth pausing to consider some developments in defense issues of the most prominent military power in that entente: Russia. You may recall that in the aftermath of the Chleyabinsk meteor, there were calls in Russia for the development of an asteroid defense system, a system that, it should also be recalled, the Russians were going to build, with or without Western participation. Suspiciously, then President Dmitri Medvedev stated that Russia needed such a system before the Chelyabinsk incident, raising the possibilities that the incident might have been conveniently provided to reinforce the point.
The perception exists – and it is an unfortunate and gravely misinformed one – that in the demise of the Soviet Union, Russia simply gave up and quit its massive spending on military research and development, while the exact opposite is actually the case, and, in a world where American foreign policy seems to be pitched just this side of hysterical insanity, and more particularly, when a completely irresponsible intervention in Syria is being contemplated for the flimsiest of reasons, against all this backdrop – Chelyabinsk, the Middle East, Arab Spring, American unipolarism, Syria - this article appears over at RT:
I want to point out two subtle messages being sent in this article. The first one is this, and the message, and the ultimate recipient thereof, is clear and really needs no commentary:
“With a fifth-generation PAK-FA heavy attack jet already developed and planned to enter service in 2016, Russian aviation is also looking to the future of air combat, conducting research and development for aircraft that can dominate airspace by the mid-21st century.”
In case the message is unclear, Russia is simply stating its intention to build technologically superior aircraft that can challenge US air supremacy, the crucial “air” based component of its “air-land battle” doctrine. This means, at a deeper level, the Russian military is most likely rethinking its own operational doctrines. But the message, coming at more or less the same time as the announcement of the BRICSA bank’s capitalization, is clear: Russia is not going to sit idly by and allow a unipolar Amero-centric world to emerge.
But there’s a second message in this article, and I must admit, I find the second message much more intriguing because of its opportunities for high octane speculation, coming as it does more or less a year and some odd weeks after the Chelyabinsk incident. That second message is this:
“’A promising anti-aircraft missile system S-500 is being designed now,’ the source said. ‘The Armed Forces may have it in 2017.’ The special feature of the formidable new lineup is the ability to lock on to and engage multiple targets in space, never allowing them to reach Russian airspace.
“Moscow has been making attempting leaps in combat technology – especially missile defense – given the uneasy international climate it finds itself in currently. The plan for a better missile defense is a direct answer to the United States’ idea for a missile shield in Europe, which it says is for defensive purposes against unpredictable regimes such as Iran and North Korea. Russia is not feeling very secure with the proposed system to be so close to its territories. ” (Boldface emphasis added)
The obvious reference to the US “missile defense” system for Europe is meant, I suspect, to cloak a deeper reason, suggested by President Medvedev approximately one month before the Chelyabinsk incident: Russia needed, and would build, a space defense system to protect itself from asteroids. In other words, my high octane speculation here is that behind the apparent competition between the USA, Europe, and Russia, to build “missile defense systems,” their may be an altogether different agenda, an agenda of deep cooperation masked behind the apparent theater and show of great power confrontation, for recall the Von Braun-Rosin affadavit for a moment. Von Braun, you will recall, allegedly informed his associate at Fairchild Industries, Dr. Carole Rosin, that there was in existence a long-term plan to weaponize space, and that the “threats” concocted to do so would be, in this order (1) communism and Soviet Russia, (2) terrorists, (3) Nations of concern (which is the exact reason the USA gives for its missile defense shield in Europe), (4) asteroids, the reason given by President Medvedev about a month prior to the Chelyabinsk incident, and finally, (5) extraterrestrials and the threat of invasion (i.e., a real live interplanetary war). We have, already, at least some evidence that someone is shooting at someone else out there in space, in the provocative STS-48 shuttle video.
In short, it appears on the scheme of the Von Braun-Rosin affadavit that the “timetable” of memes is different for the East and the West, for you’ll note that American rationalizations for missile or space defense systems is still that of “the nation of concern” phase(stage three), while Russia – pace Medvedev – has already advanced to the fourth stage, using the “asteroid threat” as a rationalization for deployment of a Russian system.
And that in turn suggests something else, namely, that perhaps there is some sort of secretly agreed upon role for each of the great powers in the gradual preparation for that event known in the ufology community as disclosure. Perhaps it will fall, not to the US President, but to the Chinese premier, or Indian Prime Minister, to take the final step and suggest that we need space based defense systems not only against asteroids, but against the threat of potential interplanetary invasion.
Bottom line: in my opinion, it is not so much the threat of American, British, French, or for that matter, German or Israeli missiles raining down on Russia that the Russians are building this. Such systems, like spy satellites, can do double duty, protecting not only against other potential great power threats, but against other types of threats altogether.
It is Chelyabinsk that is hovering in the background here. Not just American ICBMs.
See you on the flip side.