Daily News

HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY: CHINA AND RUSSIA INDICATING NEW SPACE ...

Here  is a very important article that was sent to me by Mr. G.B., indicating the newest developments in Russo-Chinese cooperation within the BRICSA bloc. And this one deserves some careful attention:

Russia may join forces with China to compete with US, European satnavs

First, you'll note that the Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitri Rogozin has made the geopolitical context for the technological collaboration very clear:

The range of prospects was outlined on Friday by Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who met Chinese Vice-Premier Wang Yang in Siberian Novosibirsk. Rogozin said Russia would develop cooperation with BRICS members in defiance of any possible Western sanctions.

“Our technological partnership should be directed at the countries that are close to us in mentality and which in general constitute an emerging geopolitical force that we could rely on in opposing the monopolar world. Those are BRICS countries first and foremost,” he said. (Emphasis in the original)

Within this context, the article goes on to mention the following area of collaboration for which memoranda have already been inked and an additional one:

"Rogozin set examples of several joint projects Russia has or may have with China. The most concrete is the project for a new long-range wide-hull airliner with an estimated development cost of $7-8 billion. Russia and China have already signed a memorandum on it in May.

"Another aviation project the countries may pursuit is the modernization of Mil Mi-26 heavy transport helicopter. The aircraft design would be altered for smaller weight, but without compromising its capacity too much. The new helicopter would be able to carry up to 15 tons of cargo as opposed to 20 tons of the original"

Then, if these two projects work out, there's two more possibilities that are in the cards according to RT:

"If both pilot projects do well, Russia and China may form a permanent cooperation consortium similar to Europe’s Airbus, Rogozin said.

"China and Russia may also find synergy in space by making their respective satellite navigation systems, Glonass and Beidou, more compatible, the Russian official said"

And of course, there was the parting shot at Washington regarding US refusal to allow Russia to base some of its Glonass stations on American soil:

   He also commented on Russia’s downgrade of the work of ground stations of the Differential GPS network based in the Russian territory. This week’s move was Moscow’s response to Washington’s failure to allow deployment of similar Glonass stations in America.

“When we have 11 American GPS stations operating in Russia since early 1990s, we are entitled to expect a right to deploy similar Glonass stations in the US,” Rogozin said. “But here we faced an obvious trend to politicize the issue. There were some statements that the Russian stations would act as some sort of spies.” (Emphasis in the original)

Look closely at what we have, for what is being suggested might be a carefully outlined plan:

  1. Bi-lateral Russo-Chinese collaboration in the development of a jumbo-jet, presumably as a competitor to Boeing's and Airbus' entries: in other words, a direct BRICSA challenge to western domination of the civil aeronautics industry might be in the cards. If the Russians and Chinese can produce a good product that is cheaper, this could be a boon to international air carriers;
  2. Bi-lateral Russo-Chinese collaboration on military hardware that, while not a weapons system per se, could be envisioned, and I strongly suspect is being envisioned by Beijing and Moscow as a test bed for expanded collaboration on other military hardware;
  3. The mention of Airbus suggests a wider long-term collaboration in civil aeronautics might be envisioned to incorporate the other major BRICSA nations, as Airbus is an international European consortium, consisting of areospace firms from France, Britain, Germany, and Spain, much like the consortium that was designed to produce Europe's "Tornado" fighter in the last decades of the 20th century. In other words, if the Russo-Chinese collabroation is successful, the RT article is hinting that this could be expanded to include the other two major players in the current BRICSA line-up: Brazil and India (and do not forget, Argentine has signaled it wants to join)
  4. Russia and China are clearly now talking about combining efforts to intergrate their current GPS systems, and this combined with the suggestions of an "Airbus" project suggests that India and Brazil might eventually be included. We could, in other words, be looking at two things hereL (a) eventual joint military exercises involving the militaries of the BRICSA bloc, coordinated by such a system, and a potent demonstration and message to the USA-led Western bloc, and (b) the first steps toward a rival space-based system of international financial clearing, as I've been arguing the BRICSA bloc, if it is to be an effective counterpoise to "unipolarism", must be an inevitable component of BRICSA planning.

Now note finally the barb at the USA about Russia's glonass GPS stations. As I've said before, "covert ops" is a game two people can play. North America is a big place. Can you say, Canada and Mexico and secret agreements?

See you on the flip side...

 

17 thoughts on “ HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY: CHINA AND RUSSIA INDICATING NEW SPACE ...”

  1. Dr. Farrell, would the goal of forming a Sino-Russian version of the Airbus consortium be in any way be inspired by a concern that western airliners are vulnerable to being remotely controlled / taken over, as is speculated to be the case?

  2. I’m sure the Russians and Chinese joint efforts will be accomplished a lot more frugally than US space efforts. They have no choice in the matter. Uncle Sam does not play well with others. If technology Verbotten in the US is unveiled to the World, it will have to come from the efforts of the BRIIICSAA alliance. Which I believe represent ~105 member nations. If a BRIIICSAA effort releases suppressed tech, it will be a sign the AngloSphere is losing it’s control. To be filed under “We’ll see.”

  3. I smell a rat, why would Russia and China develop a commercial aircraft to go up against Boeing’ 747 and Airbus’ A380, it doesn’t make sense. Unless they can come up with a new type of propulsion. Plus the time frame would be probably four to five years to get it in the air and tested, STRANGE.
    Now maybe there is another scenario here, maybe they already have it on the drawing board, and only have to build it. Or are we talking about a “smokescreen” here, and they have something so NEW it will make 747′ and A380′ look like toys. They are not doing this for nothing, and by flagging this are sending “high tech” signals to the west BIG TIME!!!!

  4. all these public announcements are just ways of sending “certain messages” across to the west, while Russia et. al. appear to downplay their strategies, and actual capabilities, not to mention their knowledge of the elite’s real agendas

  5. For anyone how has any illusions about celebrating the fourth today I was reading a article on the Global Research website on Thomas Jefferson’s rap sheet. And I assure you it was nothing to be proud of. He screwed Haiti the effects which last to this day and paved the way for the Civil War who’s effects like Haiti last today. As for the China-Russia air-space cooperation I wish it all success it’s long overdue with the long screw job I think Mexico and long suffering Haiti Dominican Republic maybe more than willing to help host the China-Russia space navigation post if they can be ensured of protection from US interference.

    1. Just read that India Mars probe has passed the seventy five percent mark and will arrive at Mars September twenty fourth. Anyone wants to bet that it will suffer the fate of the Soviet nineteen eighty eight Mars probes taking bets now.

  6. New independent airliners being built? I somehow think that they will not use those Rolls-Royce engines that apparently transmit signals from “disappeared” aircraft…

  7. Of course that’s what capitalism is supposed to be about: competition. But I imagine the reality: Monopolies & Oligopolies are unhappy about “real” capitalism, even the hint of competition. Of course as these BRICS move up to the pinnacles of the high-value-economic-food-chains, & all the whistles & toys that go with it…
    There is still that other…
    The Ben Rich’s ET technologies of & for the less than 1%. You know, the puppet masters, literally above it all.
    And then, …the overall march, in tandem goose steps, towards a globalized privatized hell on Earth…
    and as Buzz Light Year might intuit,

    “To Infinity & Beyond!”.

  8. But the trend in commercial aircraft is away from huge planes.

    The Soviets already had huge transport aircraft, made in the Ukraine I believe, so of course it could be done, but why?

    And Russia is already well acknowledge to be a leading supplier of helicopters. But even where used for civilian transport, helicopters are incredibly expensive to run and maintain.

    So that only leaves the satellite navigation thing as making much sense.

    1. I was wondering about the same thing, it seems so often that Purin is still living in the past century and isn’t very aware of the current trends.

  9. Happy Fourth of July to you and all, too.

    I’d be a bit cautious again when extrapolating about covert strategies using publicly announced military-industrial initiatives. One would hope that both Russia and China have long since established navigational satellite systems with offensive and/or defensive capabilities entirely independent of American support. Perhaps those wry Russians may have even named one such satellite the “Donald Cook”.

    But clearly this move threatens the “overt” resources of funding for the American military-industrial sector. And this would seem to “put the squeeze” upon what must be their already-strained covert resources.

    1. I would certainly hope China and Russia have not established navigational satellite systems. China is an extremely repressive society whose leadership killed tens of millions of its own citizens while establishing immense power. A similar slaughter toke place in Russia also during the twentieth century. Luckily nothing such as this has occurred in the US. Thanks to the ( I can’t or don’t have time to decide how to characterize him) US president the cold war has been revived. Just because the Western power structure is corrupt doesn’t make these other countries any less culpable for their treatment of their fellow citizens. Happy 4th-there’s a little freedom left and what’s wrong with not being a pessimist.

      1. I’m far from a pessimist. Underestimating the know-how of other nations is itself a form of pessimism — pessimism concerning the universality of human nature. Wouldn’t the Russians and the Chinese have geniuses among their scientific populations? Or master strategists? Have they not also both proven to be quite accomplished at espionage — perhaps more so than we are? How could they NOT have navigational satellite technology at this point?

        I think I’m more of a realist — enough so to accept that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I therefore wouldn’t like to see any nation dominate all others, the U.S. included.

        Were the Russians or the Chinese intent upon nuking the U.S., they surely could have done so by now, via submarines off our coasts. And if the American PsTB were so much better than the above two, they’d have shared with their citizens the secret technologies that don’t involve burning oil or gas.

        Imagine the wars that could have been avoided. Perhaps America has “only” been responsible for the unnecessary deaths of millions of NON-Americans. But this does not make this nation morally superior to those countries who kept the killing “in-house”.

        In fact, I find the struggle with “oneself” the more moral means by which to change the rest of the world.

        1. Daryl Davis, I agree with most of what you say.
          To enriching the talk by adding some nuances,
          I’ll quote Joseph P. Farrell (link below):

          ….It is not so much, I think, that power tends to corrupt, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. But rather, that in a culture of corruption – with the well-manicured hands and tailored gray business suits that love to hide immortality behind the cloak of “legality,” thus making something immoral acceptable if it is legal – the tendency to accept the ultimate alchemical political androgyne, “totalitarian democracy,” becomes evident, and indeed, not only evident, but positively parades itself in a stupefying media-driven mob mentality to accept the very pronouncements of the corrupt without question……

          Until we understand that Lord Acton’s dictum is in fact false, we will not understand why this apocalypse theater looks increasingly absurd, and increasingly obvious, for when corruption is so far gone, it loses its grip on reality and humanity, and doesn’t even realize how ridiculous it looks.

          http://gizadeathstar.flywheelsites.com/2011/05/apocalypse-theater-thoughts-on-lord-actons-dictum/

          1. I appreciate the reply, Levantine. For a relative newcomer like myself, both to this blog and to Dr. Farrell generally, I’m not as well versed in his many points of view as I ought to be.

            I would, however, like to comment upon Dr. Farrell’s rejection of Lord Acton’s dictum. While I would agree with him that ambition and corruption, at least in politics, go hand in hand, I do not believe that there could EVER be a representative political system that was NOT based upon corruption. (It isn’t just a characteristic of ours — or the West’s.)

            It is unnatural for ANY human to exercise ANY power over another. So, even among those rare, naive young politicians who arrive in Washington to do good and to play fair, I would suspect that less than five percent remain uncompromised thereafter.

            With power one is afforded an ease with which to cut corners and grant favors — where once-noble ends begin to justify “alternative” means — and where one exhibits a growing tendency to ensure the continuation of one’s own “good fight”, even at the expense of the fight for all. Thus, even the strongest idealists are brought low.

            And thus I made a quixotic and perhaps amateurish attempt to design a better political system, rewriting the U.S. Constitution in order to establish a healthy, stable direct democracy, i.e. a system with as few elected representatives as possible and with as much accountability — both for the politicians and for the citizens — as could be conceived.

            http://whatdirectdemocracymightbe.wordpress.com/constitution-of-the-united-states-direct-democracy/

Comments are closed.