Fight the aliens

The North Atlantic Alliance published the "Comprehensive NATO Space Policy", which recorded the intention to extend the organization's collective defense principles to outer space, including Article 5, according to which an attack on one member of the alliance is considered an attack on the alliance as a whole.

Back in 2021, the allies agreed that "attacks in space, from space and in outer space pose a clear challenge to the security of the alliance."

Despite the “cosmic” scale of the published document, all this fits into classical geopolitics and was described by the European lawyer and geopolitician Carl Schmitt back in the last century.

Actually, geopolitics itself, as everyone has long known, is a methodology of confrontation between two types of civilizations - maritime and land.

However, the peculiarity of this confrontation is that it is, as it were, imposed by maritime civilizations (denoted in geopolitics by the concept of "thalassocracy") to land civilizations, which are called, respectively, the term "tellurocracy".

In other words, the Sea Power civilization attacks, and the Land Power civilization is forced to respond.

Traditional Atlanticist geopolitics, therefore, has as its ultimate goal the establishment of world domination at the expense of land civilization.

The less Land resists, the closer Sea Power is to its target. But the opposite is also true: any resistance, however forced, slows down the process of establishing global dominance. This is the historical dialectic of geopolitical confrontation from the time of the wars of Rome and Carthage to the present day.

Changes began when scientific and technological progress stepped forward. The advent of aviation and later rocket launchers necessitated the development of a "geopolitics of the air" as the traditional clashes of two types of civilizations, occurring on land and at sea, became less and less important. This largely equalized the possibilities of Land and Sea, but only because Land was again forced to urgently catch up with marine civilization, developing first its aviation, and then its rocket science. As, however, before: when the maritime civilization already dominated the sea with might and main, capturing colonies around the world, the land civilization was just beginning to master shipbuilding.

It is clear that all these generalizations are largely symbolic and even metaphorical, but in their essence they reflect this geopolitical dialectic: the Sea, which is more dynamic, changeable, liquid (leak), taking advantage of this dynamics and liquidity, attacks, and the Land, which is more conservative, static, contemplative, forced to defend itself, technologically only catching up with the scientific and technical achievements of "sea power".

You will say: well, that's great, all this stimulates development.

And where did you get the idea that development should be only material and technical?

There is also the sphere of the Spirit, which, however, the West denies, on this denial and building their material achievements.

That is, technically developing at the expense of spirituality, which has a higher priority for land civilization, while technology and scientific and technological progress are only utilitarian, under the pressure of external (aggressive) circumstances.

But back to the geopolitics of the air, defined by Carl Schmitt as "aerocracy".

At some point, the maritime civilizations of the West gained an advantage in the air, which, however, quickly equalized.

The next step was towards launch vehicles, but even here the advantage was short-lived.

Nuclear parity, strategic bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles evened the odds, making the world more resilient, stable, safe for at least a few decades.

After all, for aircraft and missiles, the difference between Land and Sea is not so significant.

Not agreeing with the established parity, the thalassocracy moved further into space, transferring the confrontation to where the importance of earthly, spatial factors is reduced to a minimum.

As a result, the current geopolitics, in addition to the Land and the Sea, is forced to operate with the elements of air (nuclear weapons) and ether (space military programs).

But even before all this happened, Carl Schmitt prophetically described these new areas of geopolitical confrontation, adding aerocracy and etherocracy to thallasocracy (power of the sea) and tellurocracy (power of the land).

Having drawn the land Soviet Empire into the arms race with the help of the then hypothetical star wars (SPI program), the center of the Tallasocratic West - the United States of America - exhausted its Eurasian opponent by winning the Cold War. After all, despite all its successes in space, the Soviet Union with its plush Politburo did not perceive space as an arena of military operations and, as a result, was not ready (or did not have the opportunity) to develop and deploy its weapons in space.

And after watching a cartoon about how American space lasers shoot down Soviet satellites in orbit, the aged Soviet leadership, clutching at its heart, drove an already weary economy to death.

What in the aggregate (the rejection of confrontation in space plus the depletion of the economy) doomed the Soviet experiment, like the entire Soviet bloc, which at that time controlled half of the world, to inevitable defeat.

Things are quite different now.

Russia created the rocket and space troops, combining the capabilities of the military with our achievements in the field of space technology, where the Americans seriously sank (forgive us, Elon Musk), which achieved obvious parity in the field of etherocracy - the same geopolitics, but taken out into space.

However, the main thing has not changed. We did it by force, catching up with Sea Power now in space. And here is the time to pay attention to the most important remark of Carl Schmitt, which is that both aerocracy and etherocracy are nothing but technologically advanced approaches of thalasocracy. According to Schmitt, the entire technical process of developing new areas is directed towards the “liquefaction” (leak) of the environment. Which turns first into an aspiration from land to the sea, from there into the air, and then into space. It is they, the civilization of the sea, who are looking for more and more new environments to attack us, the civilization of the land, and we only respond, striving to ensure our safety.

And now, while Russia is trying to get at least some guarantees from the West that NATO will not advance on the ground, NATO itself is adopting a strategy of confrontation in space, abstractly trying to explain this by saying that, they say, the consequences of attacks in space “can threaten prosperity, security and stability states of the Euro-Atlantic zone”.

Russia, of course, is now ready for this, but the West, out of habit, continues to lie, assuring that all this space splendor (just like the elements of the American missile defense system in Europe) is not against us, but ...

But wait!

From a geopolitical point of view (and the consciousness and approaches of the Western elites are strictly geopolitical), the civilization of the sea, the West, has its own unremovable land opponent - the civilization of the land, the Eurasian heartland, in the center of which, as in the days of the creator of Western geopolitics, Halford Mackinder, lies Russia. - the second, land geopolitical pole.

In addition to this, in the multipolar world that is being formed before our eyes, if we follow the lead of economic centrism, another pole is China, which is also actively developing its space technologies - and also in order to keep up with the aggressive, advancing, attacking West.

Then, of course, everything fits.

Who can threaten "the prosperity, security and stability of the states of the Euro-Atlantic zone"?

Yes, here anyone ... from the Biden administration will answer you: of course, Russia and China.

And if so, then the world is still not unipolar, as American globalists insist.

Both the second and third poles still exist, besides, they are so dangerous that NATO is adopting a space strategy against them.

But no, American politicians and NATO officials continue to lie unconvincingly, despondently and monotonously, muttering the learned “not against you” under their breath.

And against whom is NATO going to create a space military grouping?

Who else can "threaten the prosperity, security and stability of the states of the Euro-Atlantic (read: Atlanticist - in geopolitical terms. -

) zone"?

From which side does NATO fear "attacks in the direction of space, from space and in outer space"?

Is it from space aliens?

In this case, let's write it down: "NATO's comprehensive space policy" is needed in order to fight the aliens.

Well then fine.

Of course, we believe (as always), but just in case, we will also be ready.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.