FOREIGN MINISTER SERGEI LAVROV: WESTPHALIA, SOFT POWER, AND NEW ...
I have to apologize for devoting much of this weeks blogs to the remarks of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, but as I indicated in part one, so many people sent the transcription of his remarks to the Military Academy of the Russian General Staff, reported on The Sakers website, that I had to comment. And certainly his remarks warrant the extended treatment, for they outline the salient feature of the Russian states political worldview and mentality in a way that few remarks from Russian leaders have. They deserve careful consideration and reflection, for the implications of Mr. Lavrovs remarks are both broad and deep, and very long-term oriented. (I hope, eventually, to do a webinar in the members area on the Russian cosmist philosophers as part of the culture webinars series, for it is in that body of work from the Russian intelligentsia that one sees clearly how closely allied culture and politics are in contemporary Russian thinking.) In part one, I reviewed the implications of Mr. Lavrovs extended references to the Peace of Westphalia, implications that spell out certain long term objectives of Russian foreign policy. Yesterday in part two, I reviewed the soft power/culture power connection of Russias foreign policy to that first Westphalian emphasis. Today I would like to focus on the third area: nuclear weapons and new non-nuclear strategic weapons. Heres the link to the article once again:
I want to direct your attention today toward the end of Mr. Lavrovs remarks, and to some truly astonishing implications contained in them: Recently, there has been a push towards forcing the nuclear states to abandon their nuclear arsenals and banning nuclear weapons altogether. It is crystal clear that this is premature. Let me remind you that it wasn’t for nothing that the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty wrote into it that the nuclear arsenals had to be fully scrapped but only in the context of general and complete disarmament. We are prepared to discuss the possibility of further gradual reductions in nuclear capabilities but only if we take all the factors influencing strategic stability into account and not just the quantity of strategic offensive weapons. Another reason why we’re prepared to discuss this issue is the growing sense of urgency about making this process multilateral. The restrictions on nuclear capabilities which Russia and the United States have repeatedly accepted for many years have led them to a situation where, essentially, they cannot proceed doing this on the bilateral basis. (Emphasis added) A little further on, Mr. Lavrov adds this: The formation of a polycentric international order is an objective process. It is in our common interest to make it more stable and predictable. In these conditions, the role of diplomacy as a tool to coordinate balanced solutions in politics, economics, finance, the environment, and the innovation and technology sectors has increased significantly. Simultaneously, the role of the armed forces as the guarantor of peace has increased too. Observe that these two statements are the logical implications of the whole soft power culture power Westphalian emphasis; in effect, Mr. Lavrov has stated that the old Cold War conceptions of armaments reduction talks - with their emphasis on bean counting the number of tanks, warheads, missiles, aircraft &c - is simply no longer viable, for the other components of stability are cultural in nature, and lest one misunderstands his statements, he spells out what culture in this context means: it means the whole constellation of domestic and international political institutions, historical memory and traditions, finance and economics, technological innovation and so on. Mr. Lavrov is correct here, for it is that constellation of factors that leads to the development of armaments and more importantly, the circumstances in which they are used.This brings us to remarks that Mr. Lavrov made in response to a question, and these are worth pondering long and hard: To a very large extent, President Trump’s position on the majority of key issues on the foreign policy agenda, including further steps to limit strategic nuclear weapons as you’ve mentioned, has yet to be finalised. By the way, if I remember right, Donald Trump mentioned the issue of cooperation with us in this field as an example. He was asked whether he would be prepared to lift sanctions on Russia. I believe that was the way the question was formulated. He responded by saying they should see if there were issues on which they could cooperate with Russia on a mutually beneficial basis in US interests, in particular, mentioning nuclear arms control. At the same time, as you know, the US president said the Americans should modernise and build up their nuclear triad. We need to wait until the military budget is finally approved under the new administration and see what its priorities and objectives are and how these funds will be spent.As for our further conversation, I briefly mentioned in my address that we are ready for such a conversation but it should be conducted with acknowledgment of all strategic stability factors without exception. Today, those who propose implementing the so-called nuclear zero initiative as soon as possible, banning and destroying nuclear weapons and generally outlawing them absolutely, ignore the fact that since the nuclear bomb was made and this new kind of weapon began to be produced on a large scale in the USSR, the US, China, France and the UK, colossal changes have taken place in military science and technology. What is being developed in the US under the codename Prompt Global Strike are non-nuclear strategic weapons. If they are developed (and this work is moving forward very actively, with the objective of reaching any point in the world within an hour), of course, they will be more humane than nuclear weapons, because there will be no radiation, no Hiroshima or Nagasaki effect. However, in terms of military superiority, my friends at the Defence Ministry tell me the effect will be more devastating than from a modern nuclear bomb. (Emphasis added) Note again that Mr. Lavrov has stated the Cold War Bean counting method of armaments limitations talks is not workable without a discussion and agreement on all factors - again the culture factor - are had. Note also that in his remarks Lavrov has ruled out nuclear disarmament, even on a bilateral US-Russia basis, since (1) there are other nuclear powers, but more importantly because (2) there is a whole class of non-nuclear strategic weapons, equally destructive as nuclear weapons for bombardment purposes. For those familiar with it, this is similar to the position that former US Army Lt. Col Tom Bearden maintains was a negotiating position of the former Soviet Union in arms negotiations, namely, that they wanted to ban weapons even more destructive than nuclear weapons, because of their sheer destructive power. The American negotiators, Bearden maintains, did not have a clue what the Russians were then talking about.This is a crucial factor, for what it indicates is that Russia is well aware of a whole class of secret weaponizable technologies -again, alluded to by Lavrov in his previous remarks - that have to be taken into consideration. In this specific instance, Mr. Lavrov is possibly referring to the rod of God kinetic space-based orbital bombardment technologies which literally propel an inert projectile at such extreme velocities to a surface target that the impact yields a colossal thermonuclear-sized explosion, but without any radioactive aftereffects. In short, think of a nuclear war, without radioactivity. Wars are thinkable again, and this is a de-stabilizing factor. This could also indicate that, at present, Russia is not involved in the development of a similar capability, but that if such weapons are not up for negotiation with western powers, then it will perforce have to develop them. (And there is an important side issue here, for two powers - Germany and Japan - have undertaken not to develop thermonuclear or nuclear strategic weapons, which they could easily and very quickly do. Such technologies afford an end-run around their treaty obligations, and since both are space-faring powers as well, this potentiality exists, and is yet another de-stablizing factor in Russias strategic calculations).If one parses Mr. Lavrovs concerns here closely, it is almost as if he is stating, as openly as he can, that negotiations on nuclear weapons is almost a moot point, since technological developments is quickly rendering them obsolescent if not obsolete. Its the secret stuff that Russia is (rightly) concerned about, and its the secret stuff that also is a de-stablizing factor and needs to be put on the table.If one now takes the concerns of all three parts of this blog together, then what at first might appear to be a kind of random grab bag of unrelated concerns is really a well-thought out connected policy. And that policy is one which, at its central core, is uniquely based in cultural concerns. And in this, in my opinion, its light years ahead of the create a crisis and then solve it approach of the West.
See you on the flip side...
Help the Community Grow
Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.
There is an ultimate “weapon” never discussed, one that the military/industrial/intelligence masters want never to be revealed. It has been demonstrated and recorded in military accounts of our nuclear missiles being literally “turned off” by ET craft paying visits to our missile silos. Saber-rattling and continual war are required for a healthy US and Russian economy (and, therefore, that of the world): these two are the world’s major sellers of military equipment to the world and their respective GDPs thrive on it, not to mention the appetite of the oil cartels and the global corporate/banking oligarchy. Therefore, possessing the ultimate “turn off” technology would be a well-kept secret so that the war fears can be used profitably. What would happen to the global economy if N. Korea’s missiles could all be turned off? Or, for that matter, if any nation’s missiles could be left dead in their launchers with the flip of a switch? It is a double game the corporate-dominated nations must play to maintain the illusions that keep them in power. They need a crazy dictator. They need sectarian hatreds. They need a continuing conflict between Islam and Christianity/Judaism. Business depends on them. Keeping the people frightened and obedient requires continual conflict. In all probability, Russia possesses the “turn-off” technology. They have demonstrated it. The U.S, probably does too. If delivery systems are obsolete, then a more sophisticated form of weaponry will be developed. Scalar? Weather? X-ray and mind control beams? These are already in arsenals. The technology exists to not only turn off N. Korea’s missiles, but to put the entire country to sleep from above while taking over their infrastructure without firing a shot. Destroying the enemy is no longer necessary. But this must never be made public knowledge. The game of conflict must be kept going. Profits demand it. Until the entire system of lies collapses. Let there be light.
There is a Rogue power that is beyond common sense. Russia takes the stage to try and bring some light to those that are operating in the dark, pretending to be that which is a 180 degrees from their globalized TV/Media side.
SANITY NEEDS TO FIND SOLID FOOTING ON THIS WORLD STAGE BEFORE THE MADNESS PLUNGES THE WHOLE CIVILIZED STAGE BACK TO THE STONE AGE; OR, SOME DYSTOPIAN FUTURE NO HUMAN BEING WOULD WANT/CONDONE FOR HIS LOVED ONES.
a whole class of secret weaponizable technologies…along with Prompt Strike, we should include genetic bioweapons and tectonic weapons, no?
As always arms control debate is just the tip of a much deeper iceberg. Of which weapons are the sexy part it’s a mindset the says torture and murder is considered cool and gives meaning to existing to our degenerated elites to paraphrase a character in the movie “Apocalypse Now” I love the smell of napalm in the morning.
After reading this one carefully a few times I was impressed in a myriad of ways. This speech was given to a group of senior military officers and educators, which means its an official, public statement of the military’s role in geopolitics for now and the future. But its more than that simultaneously. FM Lavrov is probably aware that foreign listeners of all stripes are listening in on this conversation. This speech contains official policy statements that contain announcements that bypass state intelligence service’s filters and appeal to their citizen’s common sense. This speech contains a broad historical sweep describing the how Russia came to its present position while pointing their fingers squarely at the West for the excessive use of force in a geopolitical context–especially against Russia and her neighbors. His constant use of state on the surface can be applied to nation states but not necessarily so. If one is talking about nations exclusively, one would probably use nation as the context. In modern times we have seen the rise of corporations that function more like states than companies. (This could be a translation thing, but I wonder.) Finally, FM Lavrov’s use of historical argument to buttress his position while juxtaposing the infancy of the American contribution is a rather interesting criticism that many citizens in the US now share with respect to our own inane foreign policy decisions for the past many decades. If his references to oligarchs were superimposed on top of this matrix we can, once again, see clearly that FM Lavrov is pointing his fingers squarely at a small group of policy makers and economic powerhouses for most of these problems rather than common peoples. Yet it’s common peoples who are more often the primary casualties of collateral warfare. Otherwise, he would not have spent so much time defining chaos management in response to a question.
Why am I mentioning this? How long has it been since a US politician or policy proponent has demonstrated a molecules worth of historical perspective in such a speech? Can one be found? Does one exist? Apparently not. If the Rockefeller education paradigm is the soil from which our speakers emerge, then the only content available is the minimal propaganda necessary to inhabit the basement of human emotions. If FM Lavrov is speaking propaganda only, at least it’s sophisticated enough to persuade at many levels. With policy makers like our own and speakers such as this, one really doesn’t need to resort to propaganda anymore!
If Tom Bearden was correct, the Russians may be well ahead of the West in their development of these “new secret technologies” which are far more destructive than nuclear weapons. Some of these capabilities have already been demonstrated, it seems, recently with the USS Donald Cook and in the Middle East.
This has to have some of our military leaders worried, the ones with the cooler heads, not under the control of McCain and his ilk. The Russians know we are attempting to catch up and surpass them in this field and probably know more than they are revealing through this speech. There is also the question of just what the X-37 space plane has been up to on its secret missions over the last several years.
We do, indeed, live in interesting times…
As I read this one repeatedly I knew we were looking at an iceberg of revelations with many peaks peering above the ocean surface. He is saying a lot while not saying much. I share your suspicions regarding weapons development. They’ve demonstrated just enough capability to sober up many of the egotists within our government’s chambers of horror. About time, too. It would do them some good to know they have met a power with the weaponry to target and isolate them with maximum force with minimum effect on the casual bystander. They really do need to increase the stock price of adult diaper producers by their own purchase of these products for their use!
Tom Bearden is not correct about the Soviets/Russians being ahead of the west, US, UK, etc in those weapons.
As for the “Donald Cook Incident”, any active phased array radar can do that. It’s not new. Nor Russian only. (Odd that the Russians would tip their hand, suggesting it didn’t happen, or didn’t happen in the way it is rumored.)
Now, which parties around the world control these various weapons and, other systems, is a bit more of a mystery.
Space planes, and secret ones certainly exist, are just a variation of early 1960s technology. The Aurora is one. There’s a small space shuttle, robot likely, launched by a B70. They’re great for quick reconnaissance, satellite retrieval/launch/ or delivering say 2 nuclear weapons–which no one wants to use. But they are fundamentally trivial compared to AG tech–and that’s been around for a long time. Then there are more reality altering things.
You must be privy to information Tom was not then, and no Phased Array radar cannot do what was done to the USS Donald Cook. You need to recheck your sources.
I’m privy to sources that Bearden is not. Note how I put “active” in front of phased. (Also much of what Bearden writes is meant to be a distraction–not all.)
If you will, and I think Bearden makes this point somewhere too, from Ghost Busters, the film:
“Don’t cross the beams”.
“What do we do now?”
“Cross the Beams”.
Bearden talks about Moray demonstrating a beam weapon to some interested Japanese party in about 1939, not active phased array radar though.