Sovereignty in space

A truly sovereign state is one that is not forced to do the bidding of any other state. When is a state forced to do the bidding of another state? A state is forced to do the bidding of another state if it is not strong enough to retaliate or if it is dependent on this other state for survival. To be genuinely sovereign a state needs to have nuclear armament with missiles capable of delivering the mortal load and economic near-autarky. Today’s economy cannot be reduced to mining natural resources or producing automobiles or having a well-developed agriculture. Today’s economy – indeed, today’s world – is all about information. Strictly speaking: about access to information or lack thereof. Today’s world is all about the exchange of information that is: communication. This includes the internet but also the telecommunication networks that can operate around the globe. All of this is grounded in a network or constellation of satellites: they secure swift communication, they enable positioning systems, and as such they can be used as spies for military purposes. An army or an economy cut off from this source of information and communication becomes to a greater extent blind, and dumb, and numb.

Yes, Americans allow the whole world to use their GPS (Global Positioning System), but the system is theirs and and theirs alone, so once a nation falls foul of Washington, the system can be used against this nation or this nation can be deprived access to it. The leaders of the Middle Kingdom understand it full well, which explains why Beijing has committed the country’s resources to space exploration and to building and strengthening China’s presence on orbit. And with success.

BeiDou is a Chinese counterpart of the American GPS. It took a few years to make it operational but the effort has been crowned with success. At present, BeiDou has 56 satellites in orbit, which is approximately twice as many compared to the 31 operated by the GPS. BeiDou also has almost ten times more monitoring stations around the world than GPS does. BeiDou’s positioning accuracy? One meter for public use and down to one centimeter for military use! The GPS system can only boast 3 meters for public use.

Apart from China and the United States, only Russia, the European Union and India have or are in the process of developing their own positioning systems. These are, respectively, GLONASS Galileo, and NavIC.

Russia’s GLONASS (Global Navigation Satellite System) has a constellation of 24 satellites at an altitude of approximately 12.000 miles (more or less just like GPS), and positioning accuracy comparable to that of GPS. Europe’s Galileo with its 27 satellites is said to be the most accurate with a constellation of satellites at roughly 20.000 kilometers.

The United States, Russia and China are sovereign players in outer space. India’s project is only developing. We have counted out Europe from the list of independent players. Why? Galileo may be European in name but whose it is in fact? British? French? German? Certainly not Hungarian or Slovenian or Portuguese… Just as the smaller euriopean nations are regularly punished for disobedience by having their financial means withdrawn or withheld from them, so, too, they might be punished by having no say over Galileo.

1812 – 202? Following in the Footsteps of the Great

Before Napoleon entered Moscow and established his headquarters in the Kremlin, he won a few campaigns against Russia and imposed some of his rules upon the country ruled by tsars. One of those rules was the continental blockade aimed against England. Though the blockade was aimed against England, it also had a deteriorating effect on the countries that observed it, hence also on Russia. The said blockade was no other thing as what we know as sanctions nowadays. It was as successful, but we digress.

In the beginning of 1812 the French emperor ruled over almost the whole of the Old Continent. As is known, it did not satisfy him. He needed more. He needed more and so he began an invasion of Russia. allegedly the Russian tsar did not comply with the blockade against England. The French emperor would have thought that if he had the whole of Europe at his disposal, he would be able to beat Russia within months or weeks. He would have thought that he was fighting against a backward country. He certainly thought it would be enough to have one, two or three decisive battles and the problem with the Russia would be solved.

At first it looked like he had a great success. His armies crossed the state border and moved eastward. The emperor is said to have asked about which way he ought to choose to reach Moscow. It is said that someone told him that – as it is in the case of Rome – all roads in Russia would lead him to Moscow, and that of the many he could choose, led through the town of Poltava, present-day Ukraine. Being knowledgeable about history, Napoleon grasped the hint. It was near Poltava that Swedish king Charles XII was beaten by Tsar Peter I in 1709 when he was criss-crossing Russia’s vast territory. That was the beginning of the end of the Swedish preponderance in north and eastern Europe, and the beginning of the ascendancy of Russia as a European power.

Almost the whole of Europe, including yesterday’s enemies of Napoleon, set foot on Russian soil. The emperor had his decisive – as he had hoped – battle near Moscow, and he captured the city. What did he do next?

He waited for the tsar, who had moved to St Petersburg, to request peace. He waited, and waited, and waited. And then he sent two envoys in succession, signalling that he was ready to accept such a request for peace. The request never came.

Was Napoleon not a spiritual predecessor of Biden-cum-Trump, or of von der Leyen? They, too, have the whole Western world at their disposal, they, too, have taken over yesterday’s allies of Russia/the Soviet Union, they too had hoped to make short shrift of Russia. They dismantled much of the Soviet Union, they created a big anti-Russian coalition (NATO), they imposed a blockade, and they ultimately moved to make the kill through Ukraine, through Poltava. They repeated the route of Charles XII and in a way of Napoleon I.

The war that began in 1812 finished for all practical purposes only in 1815, when Napoleon was ultimately defeated at Waterloo. It took three years to reshuffle Europe’s political scene. France – yesterday’s superpower – began a political slide, Russia – ascendancy. Europe got rid of the anti-Russian alliance and… continued to exist. Though the Russian troops wended their way to Paris, the city’s occupation was temporary. Europe was not invaded by the tsar. The propagandists and warmongers of that time might have threatened Europeans with such a perspective, but it never materialized.

And, truth be told, even if such a scenario had materialized, the Europeans were too exhausted by constant Napoleonic wars to even care. Everybody wanted just to live.

There was then a difference in the way nations accepted the French troops once those troops conquered a country. Europeans greeted and saluted them. Once Napoleon entered a city or a town, he was recognized as a new ruler. He was, too, admired as a great general. Now in Russia, everything was different. No warm acceptance, no acceptance at all. No riots on the part of the peasantry against their own ruler although they were allegedly severely exploited by the Russian gentry. To the contrary, the peasants and the gentry hand in hand took part in a guerrilla war against the invaders. There was no such movement in the German countries, nor was there anything comparable in the Hapsburg Empire. Once battles decided the course of the hostilities – be it Austerlitz (1805) or Wagram (1809), be it Jena or Auerstedt (1806) – these battles opened the roads up for the French to the capitals – Vienna or Berlin – and compelled the vanquished sit at the negotiating table. In Russia it was all different. The presence of the French troops in Moscow meant nothing whatsoever. Napoleon found himself in a different civilization. Most of the town-dwellers had left the city before the French came. The few that remained began setting the city’s buildings on fire. Russians preferred to set their holy city on fire rather than let it be occupied by the enemy.

What beat Napoleon ultimately? Self-pride and misinformation. He thought Russians would behave the way Europeans did. They didn’t.

A third of all goods are manufactured in China

So who would dare to go to war with China? It would be a shot in the West’s own knee. War with China would mean the introduction of numerous sanctions/lockdowns and, as a result:
① enormous inflation in the West (caused by shortages of goods);
② enormous unemployment in China (caused by the closure of many factories due to a lack of orders from the West);
③ an enormous strengthening of Russia and Iran through direct, massive arms supplies from China;
④ Emergence of new frontlines (possibly: Strait of Hormuz, the Baltic States, Taiwan, North Korea, islands in the South China Sea);
⑤ Conversion of the world economies to war production;
⑥ Social unrest;
⑦ Rise of the South American countries that would serve as “reservoirs”.

Who would dare? Perhaps Trump, as it is reported that he is keen on war against Iran. Beijing, however, proudly sides with the Persians and condemns Israel’s latest attacks. And rightly so, as they violate international rules. This could easily lead to a clash between the world powers.

Perhaps Trump wants war to cause hyperinflation, to weaken the dollar, to cure American companies of the sin of outsourcing and to bring all production back to America? Yes, and Europe would also become totally weak this way… Two birds with one stone. And he probably wouldn’t care that thousands of young Americans would die in the process, just as Zelenskyy and Putin don’t care that their youth are dying senselessly.

Gefira 93: A big picture of purpose

When it comes to the war in Ukraine, Europe – the European Union along with the United Kingdom – is in a fight mode while the United States is not. Europe is still flaunting its so-called human and democratic values, while the United States has just reversed the course of wokeism and genderism. European leaders have shut themselves off from the outside world in their echo chambers and surround themselves with like-minded bellicose individuals, while the United States is trying to find a balance in its foreign policy. Europe is still objectifying Ukraine – the country and the nation are only viewed as a battering ram against Russia, Europe’s topmost foe, while the new American administration seems to be red-pilled to for-ever wars and has become to deal with reality on the ground as it is. European and American ways have ceased to align.

Europe has a history of aggressiveness directed towards the east, which was encapsulated by the notorious German political catchphrase Drang nach Osten or Drive to the East. Indeed, wars between the western and eastern parts of the Old Continent were invariably initiated by its western part. These were the military raids of the Teutonic Knights, these were the invasions launched by Sweden or France, by imperial Germany and the Third Reich. For all that historical record, it is Russia that is credited with aggressive intentions. Why, Europeans, including those with university degrees, are not familiar even cursorily with their own past. Schools are not there for the Europeans to let knowledge sink in; schools are for mind shaping.

Europe obsessed with Russia and Putin appears to be overlooking the worldly political and economic trends. The developing countries are slowly but steadfastly gaining economic and – what follows – political momentum. The United States has broken with globalism and is focusing on its own affairs, recognizing that its role as a global hegemon has come to an end. Not that Washington has given up on exerting leverage here and there in the world: the action to control the Panama Canal or the plans of taking control over Greenland show that the American empire is alive and kicking. Yet, the United States needs to reckon with powerful rivals and concede them some political room on the world stage. It is not only Russia, it is China as well.

Europe has let itself be pushed out of Africa, Europe has developed a guilt complex towards Africans for all the failures of the latter and Europe embarked upon letting itself be colonized. The vacuum created on the Dark Continent has attracted the attention of the Middle Kingdom. China is taking Africa over from degenerating Europe. China’s population is numerically almost a perfect match to that of Africa, while Europe’s dwindling indigenous population is on a slippery road to nothingness. While European influence in Africa is often denounced in European capitals as neo-colonialism, China’s take on its presence on the Dark Continent is framed by Beijing as Going Global. Europe, riddled with guilt and shame, cannot stand up to the Middle Kingdom with the latter’s political ambition. Europe has become irrelevant, while China is a rising star. Also on the Dark Continent.

Gefira Financial Bulletin #93 is available now

Russia – a stumbling block of nations
Greenland
Europe out, China in
The Mar-a-Lago plan

Military (mis)calculation

Recently, Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk quoted the International Institute for Strategic Studies according to which Europe together with Ukraine has a strength of 2.6 million troops, the United States has 1.3 million troops, while China – 2 million and Russia barely 1.1 million. Then the Polish prime minister pathetically suggested that Russia should be crushed under such a force and should fear the West. Wow!

You know, Donald Tusk was a student of history. He must have been absent-minded during the lectures or he may have forgotten every bit of what he may have learnt. When throughout the history of humankind has it ever been a rule that sheer numbers always prevail in conflicts? An example from European history.

The Kingdom of Prussia comprised basically two relatively small territories, one around Berlin and on both sides of the Oder estuary, and the other on the Baltic Sea (present-day north-eastern Poland plus the Kaliningrad province that since World War Two belongs to Russia). These two territories were even not connected by land: they were flat, with no resources, and scarcely populated This small Kingdom of Prussia threw down the gauntlet to a huge Habsburg Monarchy (yesterday’s European Union in the centre of the Old Continent, made up of present-day Austria, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, and a huge part of Romania) and won the wars of 1740-42 and 1744-45, tearing away from the Habsburg monarchy Silesia (today’s south-western Poland). In an attempt to regain the lost province, yesterday’s European Union, i.e. the Habsburg Empire, allied itself with Russia and France – two superpowers of that day – and again went to war against the little Kingdom of Prussia – the Seven Years’ War of 1756-63 – and… lost it a third time. The numerical advantage of the anti-Prussian coalition was enormous (the Habsburg Monarchy, France and Russia along with Saxony, not to mention many other German principalities) and yet it turned out the be of no use. Towards the end of that costly and protracted war Russia decided to withdraw its troops (just like today the United States is disengaging from the crusade in Ukraine), and since Russia left the battlefield, the alliance was soon dissolved.

Another example, an example from today, an example that everybody, not even one interested in politics, is aware of. The tiny state of Israel that is located in the sea of – nay – in the ocean of the hostile Arab, Islamic world. The state of Israel stands its ground, and has stood its ground since its inception. True, it has been supported by the United States, but even then: Israel is a tiny country surrounded by usually unfriendly, much more densely populated Arab states. Egypt alone has some 100 million inhabitants, while Israel merely 10 million of which 2 million are Arabs!

That’s the numerical part of the problem. The Polish prime minister did not take into consideration other factors, especially the factor of motivation. Why should the Portuguese or the Norwegians, the Greeks or the Swiss go to war with Russia over Ukraine? Why should they sacrifice anything for this war? Why should they compromise the quality of their life because of Ukraine of which they know next to nothing, of which the older generations did not even learn at school as a separate state because thirty years ago there was no Ukraine on the political map of Europe? Even if forced, Portuguese, Greek or Norwegian soldiers are not likely to really fight somewhere in the East, somewhere in Ukraine. Do you remember the Italian, Hungarian and Romanian soldiers that fought hand in hand with Germans on the eastern front during World War Two? They were usually more of a burden rather than real aid. Was it not the same with Napoleon’s incursion into Russia? The French emperor led troops from almost all of Europe. His numerical advantage was more than obvious. How did he fare?

What do numbers mean? Numbers only have their abstract value in abstract mathematical considerations. It is only in maths that every one and every other one is always the same two. In real life these two soldiers are by no means the same as those two soldiers, the military value of these two tanks and their crews is not comparable to the military value of those two tanks and their crews, and so on, and so forth. There are so many factors that matter that it is almost impossible to take them all into account. Numbers only win when other major factors are more or less comparable. Numbers in themselves are just stats, abstract metrics. Europe and the United States – to quote again Donald Tusk or the International Institute for Strategic Studies – have altogether 3.9 million of professional troops, Russia – 1.1: a proportion of roughly 4 to 1. What is reality? Reality demonstrates that Russia is holding a quarter of Ukrainian territory while Europe is flexing its flaccid muscles and issuing threatening statements – now from Paris, now from London – and becomes ever more livid with its helpless – childlike – hatred of Russia.

Freaking out in a meltdown

The news was a bombshell! President Donald Trump called President Vladimir Putin! Worse, President Donald Trump and the closest men in his administration have made overtures to negotiations with Russia in that Ukraine will not be a member of NATO nor of the European Union, nor regain its territories (US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth’s speech in Brussels, Feb 12, 2025). Still worse, it looks like the negotiations between the United States and the Russian Federation might take place without the European Union! That they will take place without Ukraine goes without saying. Three years of muscle flexing on the part of the European Union, three years of warmongering, three years of sanctions, three years of the rabidly anti-Russian agitprop, three years of lavishly honouring President Zelensky, three years of this and that have been thrown out the window, have gone into the gutter, have gone down the drain.

Take a look at the livid outraged infuriated hopping-mad wrinkled formal manageresses of the Union: Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas; take a look at that bellicose boss of NATO: Mark Rutte! They all somehow did not expect it, and yet they did, once Donald Trump had won the election. They know not what to do now. They are likely – as said above – to be left out of the equation, chased away from the negotiating table. As the saying goes, those who are not sitting at the negotiating table are lying on it. Ukraine certainly will be lying on the table and be operated on. An organ or two for Russia, an organ or two for the United States. An organ may be territory, natural resources, political control, whatever. Certainly, Ukrainians will have no say. And most likely Europeans won’t have a say either!

SecDef Pete Hegseth

Couldn’t it all have been foreseen right at the start, three years back? Does one need to be an experienced politician to figure out the military and economic disproportion of the players involved in the hostilities? One must have been fed on egregious glaring lies to have believed that Russia was about to collapse with the first wave of sanctions while confronting gallant Ukrainian soldiers! One must have been on a dope to have imagined that Ukrainians would cross the border and march into Russian territory! One really must have been out of his senses to have assumed such a scenario!

Three years, allegedly half a million killed in action, hundreds of thousands maimed, tens of thousands missing, a country experiencing wide-spread damage, devastated families, decimated generations of young men… What has been achieved? How can the Western leaders soothe their conscience? You know how: they have no troubled conscience. They are like Madeleine Albright (just look at her kind face) who justified the death of half a million of raqi children; they are like Zbigniew Brzezinski, for whom the world was a chess board and nations – consequently – chess pieces; they are like Henry Kissinger, who left a legacy of bombs and chaos in Cambodia.

Chancellor Scholz says Germany is in danger because of the talks between President Donald Trump and President Vladimir Putin! In danger? What does he mean? Is Russia going to march across Poland and assault Germany? Why? Because Russia is desperate to take care of the millions of the Third Worlders and thousands of sexual perverts between the Oder and the Rhine? My oh my!

Ukraine will follow in Syria’s footsteps

What do Syria and Ukraine have in common? What do these two countries, separated from one another by thousands of miles, characterized by a different culture and religion, share? Oh yes, they share the same fate, albeit not played out concurrently.

Syria. We have all been notified of the collapse of the “Assad regime”. How did that come about? In a simple way. The Russian support for President Assad was withdrawn, leaving the rebellious forces free to act and that was it. The state of Syria fell like a house of cards.

Ukraine. We will soon be notified of the collapse of the “Zelensky government”. How will it come about? In a simple way. The American support for President Zelensky will be withdrawn, leaving the Russian forces free to act and that will be it. The state of Ukraine will fall like a house of cards.

Sure enough, the details differ. It is a bunch of states – Israel, Turkey, the United States – that were Syria’s enemies, it is one state – Russia – that is Ukraine’s enemy. The territories captured by Turkey and Israel in Syria may be held by the respective countries for good or temporarily; the territories captured by Russia in Ukraine are captured for good. Syria’s president has been and is going to be referred to as dictator by the Western media and politicians; Ukraine’s president, however, has been and is going to be called a heroic fighter for freedom and democracy by the same media.

There are also phenomena that are similar. Syria after Assad is going to remain a destabilized country, just like Libya, just like Iraq, just like Afghanistan. Ukraine after Zelensky, too, is going to be a destabilized country, though surely in a different way due to its different ethnic composition and its heritage. Syria has lost a huge number of its citizens, and so has Ukraine. Neither Syrians, nor Ukrainians are going to go back to their countries: especially those Syrians and those Ukrainians who have settled in Europe.

Assad’s fall has been heralded as the West’s victory, Russia’s defeat. Zelensky’s fall will be heralded as Russia’s victory and the West’s debacle. Except that it won’t. The Western media and politicians will continue their mantra of “Putin has lost this war.”

Why will Ukraine follow in Syria’s footsteps? Why has Syria preceded Ukraine? Because both states have been created artificially. Upon the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War a few million Arabs inhabiting the Middle East have been made to become Syrians while other millions of Arabs have been made to become Jordanians or Lebanese. Upon the disintegration of the Russian Empire after the First World War a few million Russians have been made to become Ukrainians, while other few million have been made to become Belorussians. During their supposedly independent existence both Syria and Ukraine have been playthings at the hands of their neighbours and the world’s hegemons.

Ah, one more peculiar difference. Terrorist organizations fought against Assad, while other terrorist organizations fought for Zelensky. That is to say, whether those organizations are terrorist depends a lot on who labels them terrorist. Terrorists who fight for us are no terrorists, as the well-known diplomatic maxim says. Similarly, presidents who are with us are democratic leaders who manage democratic governments; presidents who are against us are – yes! yes! – dictators and their governments are regimes. Simple, is it not?

So long as Russians were capable of supporting Assad that long he could be the country’s president. The moment that support was withdrawn, he fled to Moscow. So long as Americans are capable of supporting Zelensky that long he will be the country’s president. The moment that support is withdrawn, he will flee to somewhere in the West. Or will be killed. No, he will be involved in an accident. He will be killed in that he will be involved in an accident. Or maybe there will be an attempt at poisoning him, which he will miraculously survive to eventually die under mysterious circumstances.

Two countries, two chessboards. The big players will eventually shake hands over those chessboards, establishing a new pecking order between them. For a time being, that is. The two chessboards will be left with but few playing pieces, with most of the others being destroyed or dispelled in the world. The two chessboards – Syria and Ukraine – are just two entities in a larger set of chessboards: Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, you name it. The big players will find new chessboards to settle their accounts. New rogue states will appear, a new mantra of “this or that dictator must go” will be heard. It might be Iran, it might be Turkey; it might be Belarus, it might be Georgia. There are many chessboards around the globe with which the big players can settle their accounts.

Ukraine’s President Zelensky seems to be glad of the fall of President Bashar al-Assad. Has president Zelensky given it a thought? If he is clever enough, he ought to see in President Bashar al-Assad himself, he ought to see in President Bashar al-Assad’s fate his own fate. If he is clever enough and sufficiently judicious, he ought to be making arrangements for a quick plane flight from Kiev to Washington, or Paris, or London. With the whole family. It is not that President Zelensky needs to fear Russians: he needs to fear Ukrainians. He does not need to fear the dead – though, who knows? they may come to haunt him in his night dreams – but he needs to fear the living. Those with amputated limbs, those whose sons and brothers, husbands and fathers have fallen. President Zelensky needs to fear the millions of relatives of those who have lost their lives and their health in order that the West might spite Putin and Russia, in order that Ukraine might lose a quarter of its territory, in order that he might travel the world over away from, far away from, the hostilities on the ground.