alternative news

RUSSIA’S SPUTNIK: MISSILE TESTS AND DE-DOLLARIZATION…

December 18, 2015 By Joseph P. Farrell

Many of you sent these two articles to me, though did so without suggesting they might be connected, which I am going to argue in today's blog, and I hope people will remember yesterday's blog about the recent factory explosions in China and Russia in the context of today's high octane speculations, for I believe these two articles, which were posted by Sputnik within a day of each other, and approximately a week before said factory explosions about which I blogged yesterday, does put everything into a very intriguing context. Here's the two articles:

Gold-Backed Ruble, Yuan to Trigger Global De-Dollarization

Washington Left in the Dust: Russia Flies Strategic Space Warfare Missile

For sometime we've been tracking the emergence of the BRICSA bloc on this website, and arguing that any moves to introduce the Chinese reminbi as an alternative currency system, will require concensus within that bloc, and more importantly, an alternative or parallel system of international financial clearing, which in turn will require a system of space-based assets to do so, and this in turn will require the ability to defend them. As we've noted in articles on this website, the moves to such a system have been proceeding at an accelerated pace over the past year, with the announcement of China's Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank(AIIB), and prior to this, a number of bi-lateral currency exchange deals between various BRICSA bloc nations by-passing the dollar.

I've also pointed out, in agreement with financial experts such as Catherine Austin Fitts, that reserve currency status accrues, historically, to the nation with the strongest navy, which in modern terms translates not only to the actual sea lanes, but to space-based assets and the ability to defend them.

But equally, one may extrapolate from that proposition to the form of "reserve currency status begins to change when any given nation demonstrates a capability to interdict the navy of the current reigning reserve currency nation."

On the basis of that principle, consider the second Sputnik article concerning the successful test of a ground-to-space anti-satellite missile:

Russia's direct ascent anti-satellite missile, known as Nudol, was successfully tested on November 18, according to defense officials familiar with reports of the test. It was the first successful test in three attempts, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

Russia now joins China as the only nations with strategic space warfare weapons. In October, China conducted a flight test of its anti-satellite missile, the Dong Neng-3 direct ascent missile.

Analysts say anti-satellite missiles could cripple US intelligence, navigation, and communications capabilities that are critical for both military operations and civilian infrastructure.

Sputnik, of course, is not mincing its words, and spelling it out clearly and precisely, so that even a Washington DC military and/or financial affairs expert can understand it. And consider the context of recent events in which this "plain talk" occurs:

  1. Russia recently demonstrated an ability to interdict and interfere with NATO communications systems by essentially blacking them out in Syria in their entirety, and no counter-measures - if any were tried - were apparently successful. Indeed, there is a rumor circulating on the internet that the downing of the Russian Su-24 by Sultan Erdogan was in effect an attempt to goad the Russians into using these systems again, so that more might be learned about them. Whether that's true or not remains unknown, but the curious incident in Syria does follow on the now well-known USS Donald Cook incident in the Black Sea, when a similar Russian SU-24 approach the American missile frigate - supposedly of America's most-sophisticated missile frigate - and allegedly completely shut down its electronics, while the Su-24 then made no less than a dozen mock attacks on the vessel, which then beat a hasty path to the Romanian port of Constanza, where, we were told, it underwent "maintenance" or, in some versions of the story, it made a scheduled port call to rest the crew and show the flag in Romania.
  2. Russian then launched cruise missiles from the Caspian Sea successfully against ISIS targets over a thousand miles away in Syria with a missile that wasn't supposed to reach that far nor perform so accurately, so we can scratch that "Russian missiles aren't as accurate as our missiles and hence have to have much bigger megatonnage than ours" Cold War analysis right off the list. They more recently followed this up with submarine launched cruise missiles on ISIS targets, while China, you'll recall (which Sputnik helpfully reminds us has also successfully tested similar ground-launched anti-satellite missiles) has quietly opened a new military base at the southern tip of the Red Sea on the African cost, conveniently close by to "you-know-who." And finally, let us not forget that
  3. Russia and China are both rumored to have long range "anti-aircraft carrier missiles - so called carrier killers - that can strike from a great distance, rendering the question of "who has the most aircraft carriers" about as practical as "who has the most battleships" during World War Two, a moot and ineffective, but very expensive, point.

All of this, I suspect, has analysts in the Pentagram burning the midnight oil in a bit of "anxiety," but the real message here I suspect is financial every bit as much as it is military, for what is being demonstrated is a capability to interdict communications, and therefore, command and control, both by soft and by hard means. This, let us take careful note, must be down if any BRICSA based system of financial clearing is going to be attractive to potential customers. To put it country simple, what is being demonstrated is a minimization of risk. And if one is, so to speak, sitting on the financial and geopolitical fence, observing all of these developments, where are you going to park your money? With the big expensive shiny aircraft carriers which might be horribly vunerable, and with a system that appears to be increasingly at risk? or with the cheaper and apparently effective systems its opponents have designed and more importantly, demonstrated?

So what's the bottom line? If the current system is to be maintained, there will have to be some counter-demonstrations...

... and soon...

See you on the flip side...