US-Russian Cooperation in Space Pokes Holes in Conflicts on Earth

April 3, 2021 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - A last minute request from NASA to fly an American astronaut on Russia's Soyuz rocket opens up a wide array of interesting points. 

Space.com in an article titled, "Here's how NASA just booked a last-minute trip to space on a Russian Soyuz," would note: 

"The crew composition change came as a result of an earnest request from the U.S. side," Roscosmos personnel wrote in Tuesday's statement. "NASA voiced its request only in the end of 2020, meaning the Russian side had to change the already confirmed and approved launch program. Roscosmos has taken this decision confirming its adherence to the joint agreements and the spirit of joint usage of the International Space Station."

NASA's last-minute booking of a flight on Russia's Soyuz rocket for US astronaut Mark Vande Hei is a testament to Russian launch capabilities and the dependability and flexibility of the Soyuz launch system.

It is also a testament to US-Russian cooperation and what is possible when both nations work together. 

Russia Transported US Astronauts for Years 

For nearly a decade Russia had flown all US astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) after the 2011 retirement of the US space shuttle fleet. US dependence on Russian crew-launch capabilities ended when US-based aerospace company SpaceX made operational its Crew Dragon spacecraft. 

Crew Dragon flew a test crew and a crew of 4 to the ISS last year on two separate missions. 

Despite NASA's new US-based crew-launch option, the recent booking of a Soyuz for one of its astronauts demonstrates why cooperation is still important. 

Crew Dragon will of course continue sending astronauts to the ISS, and in the future will increase its flight cadence and its flexibility, but having a reliable backup is essential to maintaining and supporting crews in orbit. 

If and when Boeing's Starliner becomes operational, the US will have two crew-launch capable spacecraft, and together with Russia's Soyuz, this will mean even greater flexibility and reliability in getting crews to and from space, with cooperation being key to maximizing the benefits of these capabilities. 

This cooperation also pokes holes in narratives emanating out of Washington and across the US corporate media, depicting the Russian government as villainous, untrustworthy and even an "adversary." 

How exactly could that be true rather than a politically-motivated narrative if the US is willing to entrust the lives of its astronauts to such a nation (and having done so for a decade)? 

Cooperation between NASA and Roscosmos in orbit above Earth, both of which are government space agencies of their respective nations, proves that neither nation is truly the enemy of the other and that only certain circles within the US are driving conflict here on Earth and for the benefit of a very narrow segment of America's population (less than 1%). 

US-Russian cooperation in Earth's orbit, targeted  by Washington in a bid to end it, will serve as one of several key ties that could help the US and Russia move forward in the future if and when certain circles in Washington and on Wall Street shrink from power and are replaced by more constructive interests determined to find a  role for the US among other nations rather than attempting to impose US interests upon all other nations. 

If these few last remaining, constructive ties between the US and Russia are cut, with some future US space projects already seemingly attempting to cut out any possible Russian role (i.e. the Lunar Gateway) the US will only find itself further isolated, not Russia. With that isolation will come a decrease in flexibility and reliability for the US and its astronauts. 

For Russia, it is already exploring closer cooperation with China and its increasingly capable space program and ecosystem of private space firms, several of which are already capable of launching useful payloads into Earth orbit. 

Plans for joint space stations and even lunar bases are being discussed. Chinese cooperation with Russia may in the future be a good substitute for lost opportunities with the US, but these are projects that would obviously still benefit from wider participation from nations like the US.

Unfortunately, as long as Washington insists on choosing conflict over cooperation, US-Russian cooperation in space and all of the immense achievements accomplished because of it are at risk. This recent demonstration of US-Russian cooperation in getting US astronaut Mark Vande Hei will hopefully serve as a reminder of why cooperation should be chosen instead of conflict, and hopefully not serve as one of the last examples of this constructive cooperation as Earth-bound conflict gets the better of space-bound cooperation. 

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Nations Race Toward Reusable Rockets

March 12, 2021 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - The original space race was a bipolar affair with mostly political implications for the United States and the Soviet Union. Out of that space race, commercial and military capabilities began to grow in the realm of communication satellites, collecting intelligence, and global navigation. 

We are now looking at an emerging new space race, one significantly different than the competition of last century. 

Now, it is no longer just the US and Russia, it is also China, India, Japan, Europe, as well as more recent newcomers like Iran. There are also a large and growing number of private companies not only involved in supporting state space programs, but possessing their own space launch capabilities. 

These companies include SpaceX in the United States, Rocket Lab (based in the US with a New Zealand subsidiary), but also private companies in China like iSpace and Galactic Energy. All of these companies have successfully placed payloads into orbit, with SpaceX also capable of resupplying the International Space Station (ISS) and also launching crewed missions with its Falcon 9 rocket and its Dragon 2 spacecraft.   

The Importance of Reusability and Access to Space 

These newer space companies, free of legacy hardware and starting from a clean slate, have looked seriously into varying degrees of reusability. 

Access to space generally involves rockets that are expendable. They are launched once and either burn up in the upper atmosphere or crash down onto Earth, never to be used again. This expendability is why access to space is extremely expensive. Each payload launched into space must account for the fact that the entire launch system will be discarded, and a new launch system built to launch future missions. 

Companies with capable reusability will outcompete competitors, offering access to space at drastically lower costs than companies using expendable rockets. 

For nations with capable and reliable reusability, their access to space will be cheaper. Because reusable rockets are able to be turned around faster than building a new rocket from scratch, a nation's launch cadence will be much quicker. This would allow a nation to build and maintain constellations of satellites essential for economic and military purposes faster and cheaper than other nations, granting them an obvious advantage geopolitically.  

With competition for low-earth-orbit (LEO) communication and internet satellites heating up, and requiring large numbers of satellites to be launched to build and maintain global coverage at low latency, companies and nations with reusable space launch capabilities will stand the most to gain, both by putting these constellations into orbit, and from the benefits of building and maintaining the constellations themselves. 

The Players 

SpaceX has pioneered rocket reusability with its Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch systems. The first stage returns to Earth under the power of its own rockets, touching down vertically either on a land-based pad, or at sea on a drone ship located down range. They can be reused up to 10 times before major overhauls are required.

The spectacular engineering feat accomplished by SpaceX and the economical paradigm shift it has introduced into the aerospace industry has sent out shockwaves, inspiring other space launch concerns around the globe to begin seriously investigating their own reusable launch systems. 

State space programs in both Russia and China are seriously investigating reusability. 

Russian state media, TASS, in an article titled, "Russia to spend $880 mln on Amur reusable space rocket," would note that: 

Russia’s State Space Corporation Roscosmos and the Progress Space Rocket Center signed a contract on Monday on the conceptual designing of the Amur-SPG space rocket center for a new Amur reusable methane-fueled rocket.

The Amur rocket's first stage looks very similar to SpaceX' Falcon 9, but its engines will burn methane and oxygen. The commonality of landing legs and grid fins are not, as some critics suggest, copying SpaceX, but are practical considerations when building reusable rockets with today's technology, similar to all aircraft having wings, a fuselage and landing gear. 

Roscosmos reports that initially, Amur's first stage will be designed to be reused 10 times but hopes that up to 100 flights or more will be possible in the future. 

While reusability is not a trait associated with the Russian space program, Russian rocket engineers are among the best in the world, with America's United Launch Alliance (ULA) using Russian-designed RD-180 engines on its Atlas V launch vehicle serving as a testament to this fact. It is highly likely that Russia will succeed in implementing Amur, with budget and political issues the only potential obstacles. 

The China National Space Administration is also looking into reusability for its Long March 8 rockets. 

NasaSpaceFlight would report in its December 2020 article, "Long March 8 – a future reusable rocket – conducts debut launch," that: 

China debuted the new Long March-8 – Chang Zheng-8 – launch vehicle out of Wenchang on Tuesday. This vehicle marks China’s move towards a reusable launch vehicle, with the recovery of the first stage and side boosters planned for a latter variant.

But China's ambitions toward reusability is not confined to its state space program. The government is also promoting private space companies including the above mentioned iSpace and Galactic Energy who have their own reusable designs in the works. 

Both companies have already successfully placed payloads in orbit using expendable rockets and both are developing and testing prototypes to eventually reuse the first stages of future vehicles, again, in a similar fashion to SpaceX. 

US-based Blue Origin is also working on a similar (but much larger) rocket called New Glenn and already operates a small reusable suborbital rocket design called New Shephard.

Rocket Lab currently operates a small satellite launch system called Electron which recently was redesigned to be partially reusable. More recently, Rocket Lab announced that it will be developing a medium lift rocket called "Neutron" very similar to SpaceX' Falcon 9, but filling a smaller launch market niche. 

And finally, with private companies and nations planning to match or best SpaceX' Falcon 9, SpaceX itself has continued to innovate at a break-neck pace. 

Its new Starship program features a fully reusable first and second stage that, when combined, will be the largest most powerful rocket ever built and capable of putting massive payloads into orbit. The second stage is not only capable of placing massive payloads into Earth orbit, but is designed to send people and cargo to other destinations in the solar system as well including to the Moon and eventually to Mars. 

SpaceX has already built and flown 3 prototypes of Starship's second stage (also called "Starship") to an altitude of 10 kilometers, before flipping horizontally, falling back to Earth using control surfaces to guide it to the landing pad, before reigniting its engines, flipping back vertically and landing. This is a feat the third test flight successfully achieved, raising the bar for the global aerospace industry once again. 

The economic and military benefits of accessing space will only be further enhanced by cheaper, more reliable, and more rapid access to space. Nations leading in this regard stand to enhance their wider geopolitical influence. And with dropping costs and growing capabilities in terms of reaching space, the prospect of tapping the vast amount of resources in space becomes possible. 

The economic importance of navigational satellites and the constellations maintained by the US, Europe, Russia and China alone illustrate just how important being able to access space is. Dropping costs will also allow other nations lacking their own state or private space launch capabilities to place a larger number of satellites into orbit to enhance their own space-based capabilities, further levelling the playing field and contributing toward a multipolar future, both here on Earth and up above it too. 

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

A Nation's Cyberspace Must Also be Defended

February 6, 2021 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - In recent months the role of powerful US-based transnational tech corporations has taken center stage. From censoring national leaders to purging entire political movements and discussions from their platforms, never has the power to influence what people can say, see, and hear been held in so few hands. 

Beyond this threat is a new form of information warfare where nations like the United States are able to enter into and dominate the information (or cyberspace) of a targeted nation, both by controlling traditional media, but also by using networks controlled by US-based social media corporations manipulate public perception, promote particular political agendas and silence critics of US foreign policy and interests. 

The US-engineered "Arab Spring" in 2011 was a dramatic example of how this type of information warfare could be used to help pave the way for more traditional (and more destructive) forms of warfare. 

Today, we are seeing entire conflicts play out online where not only influence is being sought - but entire nations are being cut-off, silenced, or otherwise impacted. 

The Need to Defend Cyberspace

In the 29th century, a nation needed an army to protect its borders and a navy to protect its shores. In the 20th century, with the invention of the airplane, air forces were required to protect this new frontier of warfare, a nation's airspace. 

Today the importance of cyberspace for communication, business and governance cannot be argued. But there appears to be a lag throughout the world in understanding the importance of this new frontier and the need to protect it just as vigorously as a nation protects its borders, shores and airspace. 

However, there are a few exceptions. The US clearly understands the potential threats to its own cyberspace since it is the primary threat to the cyberspace of nations globally. 

Nations like China and Russia have led the way in developing alternatives to US-based social media networks that have been weaponized and work hand-in-hand with the US government in executing foreign policy. 

Both nations also have protections about what sort of information can and cannot flow in and out of their borders, with China having clearly the most formidable defense in this respect. 

More recently, Russia has announced its ability to shut itself off from the wider, US-dominated Internet under extreme circumstances. 

Russian state media would report in an article titled, "Russia has plan to cut off country from ‘US-controlled’ global internet, but only as ‘last resort,’ says former President Medvedev," that: 

Former President Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chairman of the country’s Security Council, told local media on Monday that, as a drastic last resort, Russia could cut off access to servers beyond its borders. According to him, with the way the internet is currently set up, “the key rights to control are in the United States of America.”

The article would also note: 

In recent years, Russia has made significant investments in developing its domestic online infrastructure, and Medvedev pointed to regulations that would allow the country to limit the web to its own autonomous networks. The politician was at pains to emphasize that these plans were contingencies, and that Russia would “really not want to” shut itself off from the digital world.

In many ways, developing a nation's domestic online infrastructure and ensuring independence especially during a crisis is similar to establishing well-controlled borders within the physical world. They are not borders any nation would ideally want to close or control too strictly, but having the ability to defend them when under attack is clearly a necessity. 

Russia's example is an example other nations should be taking to heart. Nations should also note the success Russia and China have had in defending their respective nations and interests within information space and cyberspace. 

A nation today without defenses for these new frontiers of social, economic and now military activity are like nations in the 20th century without air forces, or nations in the 19th century without standing armies and capable navies. Such nations open themselves up for "virtual" invasions and the disruption and destabilization of both political and economic activity. 

Examples of this are rife around the globe where US-backed regime change is now always accompanied by attacks on and invasions of a targeted nation's information space and cyberspace. Lessons are being learned the hard way that even small nations need to build up their own infrastructure as well as social media networks to fill up their respective spaces before an adversary does. 

Historically, those who control the lines of communication held a distinct, even pivotal advantage upon the battlefield. Today, these "lines" are now entire spaces permeating virtually every aspect of daily life. 

Considering all of this, nations that still do not take this threat seriously and do not define and then pursue the defense of their national information space and cyberspace place themselves, their people and their future in grave peril. 

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

SpaceX and America’s Potential

December 17, 2020 (Brian Berletic - LD) - US-based aerospace company SpaceX recently tested a prototype of a revolutionary, fully reusable space launch vehicle called "Starship" in Boca Chica Texas in recent weeks. 

The mostly successful flight - which will be followed up in quick succession - is an example of the sort of innovation and progress the United States is still very much capable of offering the world. 

I explain in this video how old entrenched special interests in the US had previously tried to hinder SpaceX's rise as a premier aerospace company through lobbying and legal maneuvers (instead of just building better rockets) and how other nations in the multipolar world are responding to SpaceX's innovations with constructive competition instead. 

Check below the page break for references. 

References for Today’s Review: 

NASASpaceflight (YouTube): 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSUu1lih2RifWkKtDOJdsBA

SpaceDotCom - Russia planning to go reusable in 2026 with new Amur rocket: 

https://www.space.com/russia-announces-reusable-rocket-amur

SpaceNews - Chinese Linkspace reaches 300 meters with launch and landing test:

https://spacenews.com/chinese-linkspace-reaches-300-meters-with-launch-and-landing-test/

National Defense - Launch Contract Dispute Pits SpaceX Against Air Force, ULA: 

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2014/7/1/2014july-launch-contract-dispute-pits-spacex-against-air-force-ula

 

Social Media as a Weapon

November 16, 2020 (Brian Berletic - LD) - One strongpoint of these US-funded anti-government protests here in Thailand is their social media game.

They claim it's is because it’s a “youth movement” and they are simply better at using technology than the so-called “old” establishment. But this isn't true. The US-funded anti-government protests are so successful on social media because the US-based social media networks they are using have tilted the entire game in their favor. References:

Land Destroyer - Weaponized Social Media Fuels "Youth" Protests:

https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2020/08/weaponized-social-media-fuels-youth.html

The Nation - Twitter takes on the Army, bans over 900 accounts:

https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30395911

The Guardian - Ex-Facebook president Sean Parker: site made to exploit human 'vulnerability': 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/09/facebook-sean-parker-vulnerability-brain-psychology

BBC - Facebook emotion experiment sparks criticism: 

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28051930#:~:text=Facebook%20is%20facing%20criticism%20after,the%20users%20were%20exposed%20to.

New York Times - U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html

US State Department - Announcement on Alliance of Youth Movements Summit, December 3-5:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090205204156/http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2008/November/20081120122321eaifas0.3440363.html

Forbes - Facebook, Instagram And YouTube Will Now Be Banned, Russians Warned:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/09/13/putin-now-plans-100-facebook-instagram-and-youtube-bans-russians-warned/?sh=4de3adf857ff

Reuters - Vietnam's social media crowd swells with new entrant to take on Facebook, Google: 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vietnam-cybersecurity-idUSKBN1W20NH

Battlefield Social Media: The West's Growing Censorship

Censorship in the West flourishes as tech giants turn social media back into traditional programmed media. 

October 9, 2020 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - The United States, United Kingdom and the European Union are fond of passing judgement on nations around the globe regarding "free speech."

While it is increasingly clear to a growing number of people that this "concern" is disingenuous and aimed at merely defending agitators funded and directed by Western special interests in these targeted nations, the West still likes to fashion itself as a sort of champion of free speech.

Yet back home the Internet has been taken over by social media and tech giants like Google, Facebook and Twitter.

Their platforms clearly serve as online public squares where everything is discussed and even election campaigns play out. Yet these companies have, over the years, begun to eliminate voices of dissent against a notion known as "consensus."

If you are speaking out against "consensus" you are in real danger of disappearing from these platforms. Some of these platforms, like Google-owned YouTube, serve as the livelihood to people who have for years built up their audiences, produced hundreds of videos and when their accounts are deleted for speaking out against the "consensus," they have their livelihoods destroyed.

In the wake of these incremental "purges" is a chilling effect with content creators self-censoring or even withdrawing entirely from Western social media.

It is the sort of very real censorship the West has crusaded against in fiction around the globe for decades. 

Concensus or Else 

A more recent example is Google's decision to ban ad revenue for those going against the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) "consensus."

CNBC in their story "Google will ban ads from running on stories spreading debunked coronavirus conspiracy theories," would claim:

Google next month will ban publishers from using its ad platform to show advertisements next to content that promotes conspiracy theories about Covid-19. It will also ban ads that promote those theories. In cases where a particular site publishes a certain threshold of material that violates these policies, it will ban the entire site from using its ad platforms.

Those "conspiracy theories" might include questioning the official death rates of COVID-19. Yet even the British government itself has been recently forced to investigate its statistics regarding death rates, vindicating the very sort of people who would have been either forced into silence or forced to give up ad revenue.

The London Guardian in its article, "Matt Hancock orders urgent review of PHE Covid-19 death figures," would admit:

The UK health secretary, Matt Hancock, is ordering an urgent review of the daily Covid-19 death statistics produced by Public Health England, after it emerged that they may include recovered former sufferers who could have died of other causes.

False reporting over deaths to hype COVID-19, induce greater public panic and pave the way for billions in government handouts to pharmaceutical giants is at the very core of many of these so-called "conspiracy theories" Google seeks to silence through its campaign of financial coercion.

Imagine if this chilling effect was achieved sooner. Would the British government have even bothered investigating its faulty statistics if there weren't people suspicious of them?

The chilling effect this has over openly discussing something as serious as COVID-19 considering its socioeconomic impact is truly alarming and much more so because it is happening in the so-called "free world" overseen by its self-appointed arbitrators in the US, UK and EU.

A similar campaign was carried out to purge Google, Twitter and Facebook of anyone allegedly connected with "Russia" who also so happened to be anti-war and anti-NATO for waging those wars.

Entire lists are compiled by Western government-funded organizations which are then submitted to these tech giants for purging. The Western media writes accompanying articles announcing, justifying and spinning the purges... but also sending a warning to those left about what is and isn't going to be tolerated on these platforms.

Social Media Transforming Back into Programmed Media 

Content creators are faced with two decisions; to either self-censor themselves to protect their work, their audiences and their livelihood, or to accept the possibility they will eventually be "purged" (censored) and need to rebuild their audiences from scratch on platforms with far fewer potential readers, viewers and patrons.

Social media, of course, is no longer social media in this sort of environment, but more akin to the sort of programmed media giant Western special interests built their power on over the course of the 20th and early 21st century.

Private Public Squares? 

Of course the defense is that Google, Facebook and Twitter are "private companies"and can do as they please with their platforms. In reality, these companies work in tandem with Western governments whether it is fomenting political destabilization abroad or creating "concensus" at home.

The notion that censorship is "ok" because the US, UK and EU governments launder it through private companies ignores the close relationship these companies have with the government and how their platforms have been transformed into defacto public squares and critical channels of public communication and participation.

The West's growing overt censorship leaves it with a choice; to either accept that it is in reality as guilty of censorship and manipulating the public as it has claimed its opponents are, or continue pretending it isn't but at the continued cost of its legitimacy upon the global stage.

There is a very good reason the West is in decline around the globe and why its attempts to leverage notions like "human rights" and "free speech" against nations like China or Russia are increasingly impotent. That reason can be found, at least in part, among the growing number of purge lists, censorship campaigns and calls for "consensus" across Western social media.

Finally, the increasingly overt nature of censorship and controlled narratives promoted by tech giants like Google, Facebook and Twitter should have them facing restrictions and bans around the globe. Why should any nation host a "public square" where discourse is entirely controlled by interests oceans away? Why shouldn't a local alternative be created instead where the revenue is kept locally and if narratives are to be controlled, controlled in a way that best suits people locally?

It is ironic that, China for example, is condemned for not allowing Google, Facebook and Twitter to operate freely within their information space because it is a violation of "free speech," even as Google, Facebook and Twitter cudgel free speech on their own respective platforms.

How much longer will the world tolerate these double standards? How long until individuals, organizations and even entire nations begin creating alternatives to Google, Facebook and Twitter to at the very least balance out the lopsided power and influence they have collectively accrued and abused? 

Gunnar Ulson, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.   

AI Arms Race: Future of Warfare

April 2, 2020 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - The truth about artificial intelligence (AI) and the process of machine learning (algorithms which learn on their own rather than perform tasks based on human programming) is somewhat less spectacular than depicted in Hollywood movies. Yet the impact of advanced information technology on modern warfare will be significant nonetheless.

Already, machine learning is allowing automation including self-driving cars and analysis by computers that by far surpass average human abilities. It is development that is already having a significant impact on national and global economics. If we translate this process to various aspects of modern warfare, it becomes clear that whomever does so first and most effectively, will have an immense advantage over their adversaries.

This may explain why there is an AI "arms race" so to speak. The US, Russia and China are all racing to develop not only applications in AI and machine learning, but also investing in the human resources and building the infrastructure to continue to do so at accelerated rates.

China already has the second largest number of researchers involved in AI, second only to the United States. Both it and other states are continuing to invest in AI and its various sub-disciplines, fully aware of the impact this technology is increasingly having on economics as well as national security.

The OODA Loop 

US Air Force Colonel John Boyd developed what is now known as the OODA Loop. OODA represents the process of observing, orienting, deciding and acting. This process is not only one still employed by the US military (all branches) but also a process adopted by many businesses.

It requires first and foremost the ability to not only accumulate immense amounts of information during the "observe" process, but also requires the ability to make sense of that information. Human analysts are limited by the amount of information they can sift through, and even then they are limited by various human flaws that may prevent the successful interpretation of information they do sift through.

AI on the other hand, is able to sift through immense amounts of information, at incredible rates and with accuracy repeatedly proven to be superior to human analysts.

To get a grip on the scale we're discussing, consider the fact that Facebook has AI algorithms that sift through, identify the faces and objects within and accurately tag a monumental 350 million photographs... daily.

In a 2017 talk at the US Naval War College, Admiral John Richardson would impress upon the audience two key points.

First, today with information technology and sensors (including satellites, ground sensors and information available across the Internet), a massive amount of information is now available strategically and tactically for military commanders. Second, whichever nation is able to accumulate and make sense of this information the fastest will have an edge over its adversaries.

The "observe" and "orient" processes of the OODA loop currently and in the future depend on the ability to acquire and make sense of this information, providing commanders with the most crucial information from among the vast amount of info available in order to "decide" and "act."

An AI algorithm able to process images, text and other forms of information by the hundreds of millions within a single day and accurately categorize and prioritize it is clearly a tool that will be essential for future warfare.

The United States, both across public and private institutions and enterprises, is investing deeply in developing the ability to do this and to do it better than other nations.


AI Arms Race: Racing Toward Global Balance? 

The OODA Loop was originally conceived as a means of creating an agile military able to overcome the brute force of a much larger but less agile enemy. Today, it is a blade that cuts both ways. The US, which conceived and openly develops the OODA Loop, continuing today to augment it with AI and machine learning, could find itself either the agile military outcompeting larger but less agile enemies, or outcompeted by nations who are more successful at integrating AI and machine learning into their own intelligence and decision making processes.

Currently it is not clear who has the greatest advantage regarding AI. Even with the US possessing the largest number of total AI researchers as well as the largest number of top researchers, AI has not been able to make a significant difference for the US in terms of its declining economic and military might.

With other nations fully aware of the impact AI is having and will have in the future, all while fully investing in this discipline and attempting to catch up to the US, it is doubtful the US ever will acquire a significant advantage in terms of AI alone. And integrated together with other aspects of military and economic activity, it appears that a balance of power is developing between nations that no amount of innovation within the US alone will yield the sort of technological edge the US used to dominate the planet for nearly a century.

This is perhaps a hopeful development. It means that the US will need to reorient itself, to constructively compete and collaborate among other nations rather than operate above them. But in order to ensure this much more appealing future, other nations must continue investing in and developing tools and capabilities like AI to ensure such a balance of power emerges and is sustainable.

Gunnar Ulson, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. 

Big Pharma: Dangling Life Over the Dying

January 9, 2020 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - There are very few who have yet to come to the realization that Western pharmaceutical corporations and the health care systems they have created, control, manipulate and exploit represent not only a particular pinnacle of corruption, but also threaten rather than preserve the health of the many millions who fall within their reach.

They not only threaten the West by undermining what should be otherwise healthy and thriving populations, but their tentacles reach deep into Eurasia, South America, Africa and beyond.

At Face Value...

Pharmaceutical corporations, or big-pharma, have been embroiled in one scandal after another from everything including rigging research trials and efficacy studies, to peddling dangerous medications to children.

Some of the largest Western pharma corporations on the planet have been caught in multinational multi-billion dollar bribery rackets.

The US' own Justice Department in a statement titled, "Justice Department Announces Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History," would admit:

American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. (hereinafter together "Pfizer") have agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, the Justice Department announced today.

Pfizer would be caught up in similar criminal proceedings around the planet, with the Washington Post in its article, "Pfizer agrees to pay $60M to settle foreign bribery case," admitting:

Pfizer Inc. agreed Tuesday to pay $60 million to settle charges alleging that some of its foreign subsidiaries bribed doctors and health-care officials in order to gain regulatory approval for the company’s drugs and boost sales in those countries.

Countries mentioned in the article included Bulgaria, Croatia, Kazakhstan and Russia.

British pharmaceutical giant GSK would also be caught in a massive bribery racket. The New York Times in its article, "Drug Giant Faced a Reckoning as China Took Aim at Bribery," would claim:

The Glaxo case, which resulted in record penalties of nearly $500 million and a string of guilty pleas by executives, upended the power dynamic in China, unveiling an increasingly assertive government determined to tighten its grip over multinationals. In the three years since the arrests, the Chinese government, under President Xi Jinping, has unleashed the full force of the country’s authoritarian system, as part of a broader agenda of economic nationalism.

GSK's bribery racket in China wasn't merely an isolated incident for the company. It has been engaged in rampant and dangerous corruption for years and across various continents. 

The London Guardian would report in its article GlaxoSmithKline fined $3bn after bribing doctors to increase drugs sales that:

The pharmaceutical group GlaxoSmithKline has been fined $3bn (£1.9bn) after admitting bribing doctors and encouraging the prescription of unsuitable antidepressants to children. Glaxo is also expected to admit failing to report safety problems with the diabetes drug Avandia in a district court in Boston on Thursday. 

The company encouraged sales reps in the US to mis-sell three drugs to doctors and lavished hospitality and kickbacks on those who agreed to write extra prescriptions, including trips to resorts in Bermuda, Jamaica and California.

In early 2014, the London Telegraph would report in its article, "GlaxoSmithKline 'bribed' doctors to promote drugs in Europe, former worker claims," that:

GlaxoSmithKline, Britain’s largest drug company, has been accused of bribing doctors to prescribe their medicines in Europe. 

Doctors in Poland were allegedly paid to promote its asthma drug, Seretide, under the guise of funding for education programme, a former sales rep has claimed. 

Medics were also said to have been paid for lectures in the country which did not take place.

The Pfizer and GSK cases tell us that massive corruption isn't isolated to a single incident or even a single pharmaceutical corporation but is a norm across the entirety of Western big-pharma.

In many ways, Western big-pharma represents drug dealers in lab coats armed with massive lobbying resources, public relations and marketing departments to create the illusion of legitimacy where in reality, and as revealed by a trail of massive scandals, no legitimacy actually exists.

But as bad as bribing doctors and pushing dangerous drugs onto children may seem, Western big-pharma is so much worse.

Dangling Life Over the Dying 

Headline-grabbing scandals emanating from big-pharma happen so often and on such a scale that the general population seems desensitized to them. The fact is the very corporations for some reason charged with the research, development, manufacturing and distribution of life-saving medications are apparently run by criminals who enjoy near impunity hasn't registered as the human healthcare crisis that it truly is.

But there are other, far worse rackets big-pharma is working on that illustrate the true depravity of not only the pharmaceutical industry itself, but of Western academia, Western healthcare professionals and of course the Western mainstream media, all of whom play a role in perpetuating or excusing well-known scandals as well as well-hidden scandals.

Gene therapy represents a paradigm shift in human healthcare. Rather than using pharmaceuticals to treat a condition, gene therapy alters the very DNA of a patient and cures them permanently at the very source of the disease or condition a patient suffers from.


For example, the deadly blood cancer leukemia has been cured by adjusting the DNA of human immune system cells. The newly programmed cells can detect and destroy leukemia and place a patient into permanent remission. The initial trials were carried out on patients who had failed to respond to approved forms of therapy and who would have otherwise died had the gene therapy not worked.

What's more incredible about gene therapy is that it is administered once and continues to work throughout a patient's life. This is because as the reprogrammed cells copy and divide themselves, they also copy the new DNA code included in them to find, fight and eliminate leukemia.

For a patient suffering from a deadly disease, the notion of a single infusion curing their condition permanently is a miracle of modern medicine.

For a profit-driven pharmaceutical industry, the notion of permanently curing a disease with a single infusion that is cheaper than conventional and less-effective therapies is a nightmare.

This is why gene therapy developed by charity and a medical team from Pennsylvania University led by Dr. Carl June that literally cured leukemia was bought up Norvartis and a massive price tag slapped on it to ensure the breakthrough remained unrealistic and out of reach to most patients.

Denying Cures, Ensuring Profitability 

The New York Times in a 2012 article titled, "In Girl’s Last Hope, Altered Immune Cells Beat Leukemia," reported on this impressive breakthrough made by charity-funded research and development, claiming (my emphasis):

Dr. June said that producing engineered T-cells costs about $20,000 per patient — far less than the cost of a bone-marrow transplant. Scaling up the procedure should make it even less expensive, he said, but he added, “Our costs do not include any profit margin, facility depreciation costs or other clinical care costs, and other research costs.”

Yet by July 2017, the Washington Post in its article, "First gene therapy — ‘a true living drug’ — on the cusp of FDA approval," would note Novartis buying out the gene therapy and reported on its pricing that:

Novartis has not disclosed the price for its therapy, but analysts are predicting $300,000 to $600,000 for a one-time infusion. Brad Loncar, whose investment fund focuses on companies that develop immunotherapy treatments, hopes the cost does not prompt a backlash. “CAR-T is not the EpiPen,” he said. “This is truly pushing the envelope and at the cutting edge of science.”

This pattern of big-pharma buying-out and jacking up prices has impacted gene therapies of every kind. Big-pharma has snatched up one government or charity-funded project after another, raising prices to ensure they remain out of reach of dying and desperate patients, and their other, much more profitable products, remain the only "viable" choice for the vast majority of the population. 

This is an illustration of everything right and wrong about the West at the moment.

There is an incredible capacity in the West for innovation and improving life on this planet, yet it is so walled-in by corrupt, deeply entrenched and apparently unopposed monopolies that it has no means of ever doing so.

Newspapers like the NYT and Washington Post are complicit, having previously reported on the true costs of these breakthroughs and then presenting their buy-out and mark-ups as reasonable and "commonsense" to unsuspecting readers.

Universities, academics and healthcare professionals, likely the benefactors of either coercion or bribery, bribery we know comes as second nature to big-pharma, also impede the alarm being sounded to not only the danger big-pharma is putting current human healthcare in, but what big-pharma is denying people who need treatment and cures the most.

For the rest of the world, a healthy population is key to economic, political and military success. Keeping an industry as corrupt and as dangerous as Western big-pharma as far away as possible seems like it should be a key pillar in any nation's national defense strategy.

Gunnar Ulson, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.  

West's "Fake News" Begins to Backfire

September 5, 2019 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - Western special interests have used the term "fake news" as a pretext for widening censorship, particularly across US-based social media networks like Facebook and Twitter as well as across Google's various platforms.

In a move of political judo, many nations are citing the threat of "fake news" to in turn deal with media platforms, often funded and supported by the US and Europe, operating within their borders and often targeting sitting governments to either coerce or unseat them in pursuit of Western interests.

A recent example of this is in Thailand where the government has announced plans for measures to combat what is being called "fake news."

A Bangkok Post article titled, "Digital Economy and Society Ministry outlines fake news crackdown," would report:

The Digital Economy and Society Ministry (DE) is seeking to counter fake information shared online through the Line app because urgent issues could potentially incite mass public misunderstanding.

The article also makes mention of the Thai government's plans to approach tech-giants like Facebook, Line and Google, urging each to establish offices in Thailand for the specific purpose of confronting "fake-news."

Facebook and Google already have a well-oiled process of identifying and removing content both platforms deem "fake news" or "coordinated, disingenuous behaviour," but this is a process that focuses solely on deleting narratives from their networks that challenge US interests. Both platforms, as well as Twitter, are more than happy to otherwise allow false narratives aimed at governments around the world to flourish with impunity.

The offices the Thai government seeks to establish are described as a shortcut for the Thai government to contact these foreign tech companies and spur them into action. However, similar arrangements have already been tried with mixed results and ultimately, with large foreign tech-giants like Facebook, Google and Twitter enjoying net influence over Thailand's information space at the Thai government's and the Thai people's expense.


Genuine Cooperation and Non-Interference Requires Thai Leverage 

Google's adherence to Chinese conditions for operating within Chinese territory resulted not from Google's good will, but from China's sufficient leverage over the tech-giant. China maintains its own tech corporations which dominate China's information space. China's Baidu is an equivalent to Google. Weibo is a Chinese equivalent to Twitter. And RenRen is a Chinese version of Facebook. All three dominate their respective target markets within China.

China doesn't need Google. Google needs China. And because of this leverage, China is able to bend Google to conform to its conditions while operating within China. At any time China can remove what little of Google's business remains there because of this fact.

For smaller nations like Thailand, tech-giants like Google face little to no competition. They are able to exert influence over Thailand's information space with virtual impunity. The Thai government may "ask" for cooperation, but lacking any indigenous alternative, requests for cooperation lack the sufficient leverage necessary to receive it in full.

Thailand's latest plans will likely backfire if not linked to serious efforts to establish Thai versions of Google, Facebook, Twitter and other platforms operated by foreign tech giants currently dominating Thailand's information space.

Such efforts have been hinted at.  In 2017 there were talks between the Thai and Russian governments regarding Russian assistance to develop local Thai alternatives to US-based social media platforms.

So far, no tangible progress has been made. But should concrete plans be rolled out alongside requests that foreign tech giants concede control of Thai information space to the Thai government, the threat of local alternatives displacing foreign social media platforms just as they did in China or Russia could give Bangkok the leverage it needs to have its requests met.

The West's Surreal Hypocrisy 

In the wake of Thailand's announcement  to fight "fake news," Western media platforms began decrying the proposed plans.

The Diplomat's article, "‘Fake News’ and Thailand’s Information Wars," would attempt to claim:  

Identifying what is considered “fake news” has become a political weapon for authoritarian consolidation after the 2014 military coup. The regime has relentlessly accused its critics of spreading false information while claiming that it is the only official source of true facts.

The author, Janjira Sombatpoonsiri, appears entirely unaware the term "fake news" was first coined in the West specifically for this purpose and the tech-giants Thailand proposes to lean on to enforce its own definition of "fake news" have already scoured their networks of tens of thousands of accounts in a politically-motivated censorship campaign propped up by claims of fighting "fake news."

Janjira also complains that the Thai government's proposal puts first and foremost US-backed political parties like Future Forward at risk. She never mentions Future Forward is a political proxy of foreign interests and glosses over its links to political parties guilty of mass murder, street violence and terrorism. She also attempts to imply US designs for primacy over Asia is a threat imagined by Thailand's current government and its supporters despite a half century of US policy papers, US-led wars and standing armies placed in the region proving just how real this threat is.

If a campaign aimed at confronting "fake news" was ever really needed, it is for parties like Future Forward, the foreign special interests it works for and the networks of violence and terrorism it works with.

As Asia Rises, Western Influence in Physical and Information Space will Wane

Thailand is not alone. Other nations across Southeast Asia have already passed laws regarding what they define as "fake news," much of which targets US-funded media platforms seeking to influence regional public perception, policy and economic decisions.

Reuters in its article, "Thailand asks tech firms to set up centers against 'fake news' in Southeast Asia," would note:

Other Southeast Asian governments have also recently made efforts to exert more control over online content and taken a tough stance against misinformation. 

Singapore passed an anti-fake news bill in May, forcing online media platforms to correct or remove content the government considers to be false. 

Vietnam said its cybersecurity law, which was passed last year and banned posting anti-government information online, would guard against fake news. 

Whether or not Thailand's current plans succeed, what is certain is that the balance of power in the region is shifting. Nations once powerless to compete against US economic, political, military and information supremacy are now moving individually and in unison to chip away at US hegemony in the region.

Thailand will eventually develop its own alternatives to Facebook, Twitter, Google and others which will not only be a benefit to Thai national security, but also to the Thai economy. Much of Thailand's nearly 70 million strong population is online (including 46 million on Facebook alone) and keeping the money generated by their online activity inside Thailand's borders can only be a positive thing.

It's not a matter of if but of when US-based tech giants lose their grip on information space abroad. The only question that remains is how much damage they'll be able to do in each respective country, including Thailand, before that grip loosens.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.     

Geopolitical Impact of Elon Musk's AI "Neuralink"

August 29, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - Elon Musk has recently unveiled during a launching event technology he hopes will link the human mind to computers and eventually, link humans with artificial intelligence.

The technology can be used to help restore function for victims of brain diseases but can also eventually be used in the future as a form of human enhancement.

Forbes would report in a recent article that:

Artificially intelligent brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) may soon become more than fantasy as Musk announced plans to go to human trials with Neuralink by the end of 2020, aiming to “achieve a sort of symbiosis with artificial intelligence” and to give people “better access to their brain information in order to repair broken brain circuits,” according to the presentation.

Technology linking the human mind to computers, especially the leveraging of artificial intelligence would be a force multiplier for individuals, businesses, nations and beyond. Its impact on business, society, and politics might be as significant as the emergence and adaptation of computers and the Internet. Some predict it will be many times more significant. 

The company Musk helped co-found, Neuralink, has a working prototype of technology known as a "brain-machine interface" (BMI) and hopes to begin human trials as early as next year.



While Neuralink is not the only company by far working on this technology, Musk's energy and approach has attracted attention not only to the company itself, but to the concepts and goals the company is pursing.

Potentially "Disruptive" Technology 

This is not the first time Elon Musk has endeavored toward goals that will, if successful, undoubtedly shift or "disrupt" global trends. His electric car company, Tesla, has shaken up the auto industry, prompting entrenched corporate monopolies who sat on electric car technology for decades to finally begin serious efforts to produce and sell electric vehicles.


His aerospace venture, SpaceX, has challenged equally entrenched aerospace corporations who have for decades overcharged corporations and governments for access to space all while impeding human spaceflight.

Both ventures have become the target of coordinated campaigns to undermine Musk's success and defend the entrenched interests threatened by the swift progress his ventures are making into previously lethargic, exclusive industries. A common theme of these attacks are claims that Musk's goals are "impossible."

Industry "insiders" had - for example - claimed attempts by SpaceX to land the first stage of its Falcon 9 launch system under its own power was "not possible," a 2014 Aviation Week article would report. As of the time of this writing, SpaceX has recovered first stage rockets 44 times and re-flown them 24 times. At least one SpaceX Dragon spacecraft used to resupply the International Space Station has been flown 3 times. 

Thus, as far-fetched and as much as what Neuralink's goals may seem merely science fiction, considering Musk's track record, these goals should not only be taken somewhat seriously, government and business leaders as well as policymakers around the world should begin preparing for a world where such goals are realized and become mainstream.

AI: Impending Paradigm Shift

It is easy to dismiss yet-to-be mainstream technology and its implications, yet as history has repeatedly proven, those who come late in adopting and adapting to paradigm-shifting technology can at best expect to lose their competitive edge upon the global stage, and at worse, suffer at the hands and mercy of those who do adopt, adapt to and monopolize such technology.

A sobering example is nuclear weapons. The US monopoly over nuclear power saw atomic bombs dropped not once but twice on the civilian population of Japan in 1945. Until the US monopoly was decisively challenged and disrupted, Washington considered using nuclear weapons again in Korea, against China and even during the Vietnam War.

Artificial intelligence, and the prospect of merging with it as Musk has alluded to during his recent presentation, presents another potential inflection point. Those who find themselves on the wrong side of it stand to lose out significantly.

This has not been lost on various centers of global power.

The Washington DC-based Center for a New American Security (CNAS) has recently rolled out its Artificial Intelligence and Global Security Initiative.

The initiative seeks to bring together technology experts, policymakers and the media to explore the impact AI will have on all aspects of security from more indirect threats to infrastructure, the flow of information and economics, to AI deployed directly on the battlefield in the form of autonomous weapon systems.

CNAS’ early November 2017 Artificial Intelligence and Global Security Summit included Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Alphabet Inc. (Google), Andrew Moore of Carnegie Mellon University, Dr. Dario Amodei of OpenAI and Dr. Kathleen Fisher of Tufts University’s computer science department.

Together in a series of talks and sessions, the summit discussed the current state of AI, the potential benefits and threats the technology presents and the best way to remain competitive as other nations adopt and develop the technology further.

More recently CNAS would discuss the US President's "Executive Order on Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence."

Russian media would report regarding Russian President Vladimir Putin’s understanding of the significance of leading in the sphere of AI that:

“Artificial intelligence is the future, not only for Russia, but for all humankind. It comes with colossal opportunities, but also threats that are difficult to predict. Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said.

Regarding Beijing’s view on AI, Chinese media would report that:

China unveiled a national artificial intelligence (AI) development plan on Thursday, aiming to build an AI technologically world-leading domestic industry by 2030. 

Released by the State Council, the plan formulates the key strategy for the development of China’s AI industry.

Musk's Neuralink represents a private business wading into BMIs and eventually linking the human mind to AI, a technology nations around the globe are already racing to adopt, adapt to and dominate. In many ways, Musk's involvement with Neuralink represents his own personal contribution toward trying to maintain a balance as AI rolls out, as his involvement with OpenAI indicated.

BMIs and AI are individually "scary" enough to many, and when used together even more so. But as history has also proven, technology cannot be indefinitely delayed nor can it be "uninvented." BMIs like Neuralink's prototype unveiled recently and the mainstream devices it is poised to lead to, are wake up calls to individuals, businesses and governments around the world to prepare for a future where human intelligence and longevity may drastically increase and the balance of power throughout human society may drastically shift.

We are faced with a choice of waiting to see what the winner of the AI race does with the monopoly it seizes over the rest of humanity, or ensuring a balance of power between individuals, corporations and nations is maintained to prevent the AI equivalent of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from ever coming to pass.

This cannot be done by hiding from this technology. It can only be done by embracing it and ensuring it is in our collective hands, rather than in the hands of the few.

Gunnar Ulson, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.   

US War on Huawei is a War on Tech Sovereignty

June 5, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - Unable to compete on equal terms with Chinese telecom giant Huawei, the United States and the corporations that influence its domestic and foreign policy have decided instead to simply cut Huawei off from its many monopolies including chip manufacturing and mobile phone operating systems.

But US measures come at a time when Huawei is already well on its way to unseating US tech monopolies. US measures may only spur Huawei (and many other companies and countries) to further work toward creating alternatives to current US tech monopolies and establishing enduring technological sovereignty from US control.

US Cites False Pretext to Cripple a Competitor 

The US Department of Commerce claims:

...Huawei is engaged in activities that are contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interest. This information includes the activities alleged in the Department of Justice’s public superseding indictment of Huawei, including alleged violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), conspiracy to violate IEEPA by providing prohibited financial services to Iran, and obstruction of justice in connection with the investigation of those alleged violations of U.S. sanctions.

Evidence (as is the case with most US allegations) is lacking, yet US measures prohibiting "the sale or transfer of American technology" to Huawei coincidentally gives a boost to US tech companies unable to compete against Huawei in free and fair global markets.

Fortune, in its article, "Huawei Wants to Play Nice With Google and Microsoft, But Has Its 'Last Resort' Ready," elaborates further on what this ban means to Huawei.

Microsoft removed Huawei laptops from its online store, while chip manufacturers including Qualcomm, Intel, Nvidia, Lattice and ARM are poised to stop supplying Huawei assembly lines.

Google is also reportedly preparing to cut Huawei off from its Android mobile phone operating system. Android and Apple's iOS, both US-based, currently dominate the markets and without access to either, Huawei would face significant challenges, giving US tech companies a chance to catch up. This, more than any sort of ambiguous "security threat" explains the motivations of the US Department of Commerce.

Self-Inflicted Wounds Amid a Senseless Fight

US bans targeting Huawei will not be painless for US corporations involved. Huawei currently occupies second place, just behind Samsung, in the smartphone market. Depriving Huawei of US-made components will deprive US corporations of associated profits at least in the short-term. How fast other corporations fill the void left behind by Huawei, if a void appears, is hard to say. If US corporations are counting on US corporations and US-friendly nations and the respective telecom industries filling a potential void, it is a long bet.

It is clear that Huawei, if accusations by the US of its close association with the Chinese government are true, will have the support, resources and impetus required to begin developing alternatives to Microsoft, US chip designs and Google's Android operating system. In the long-term, US corporations may find themselves faced by renewed competition, not only in terms of smartphones this time, but also in terms of everything in and on them.


Articles like, "Can Huawei make a phone without US parts?," and "Huawei developed its own operating systems in case it’s banned from using Android and Windows," go into detail regarding all the alternatives Huawei already has at its disposal and possible future alternatives that will further mitigate US bans.

US bans aimed at maliciously targeting and eliminating competitors will only make these competitors stronger in the long run. US bans aimed at Chinese tech companies will also give other companies in other industries and even in other countries pause for thought when depending on the US for anything. This may be the beginning of a global move to hedge against other unpredictable moves made by the US Department of Commerce and US corporations.

It may also be the beginning of a move toward greater global technological sovereignty.

Technological Sovereignty 

For as important as technology is to a nation's economy and security, depending on foreign corporations to manufacturer and use it seems recklessly irresponsible.

This realization has prompted many nations to begin building up their own domestic alternatives and depending less on foreign corporations for their technological infrastructure.     

Russia, for example, has its own mobile phone operating system called Aurora it runs government devices on. Russia has also passed legislation to begin creating an independent Internet that can operate on its own entirely within Russia. Russia also has its own social media network, VK, as an alternative to US-based Facebook as well as its own alternative to Google, called Yandex.

Russian journalist Dmitry Kiselyov (video) compared a nation's ability to develop and deploy its own technology to having a light switch either outside or inside a bathroom. When outside the bathroom, anyone for any reason, including spite, can switch the lights off leaving the occupant helplessly in the dark. With the light switch inside the bathroom, the occupant has full control.

This point rests at the very center of technological sovereignty.

Russia's moves illustrate a trend toward treating a nation's information space and technological capabilities with as much seriousness as it treats its physical territory and defense industry.

For China and Chinese companies, this process is also well underway, with US measures likely only to temporarily set back China's rise as a global leader in technology. If anything it is most likely helping pave the way for China's technological leadership to be more complete and even less dependent on the US.

The US has an opportunity to use its technology as a means of developing constructive and lasting partnerships as well as ensuring US influence over technology used globally, but instead it seeks to use its advantages as a means of coercion.

The US "flipping the bathroom lights off" on China is a warning for anyone else around the world who might become targets of US spite. Nations going along with US bans against China will only make it that much easier for the US to target other nations, any nation, in the future. For as important as technology is, there is no nation big or small that can afford to allow the US to continue wielding such power uncontested.

The US war on Huawei represents the opening salvo of a much wider US war on technological sovereignty. It is a war the world must win and a crucial building block toward establishing multipolarism in favor of America's current, unipolar international order.

Gunnar Ulson, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.