Grant Anderson
One of the more interesting aspects of geopolitical study is that specific and notable events rarely, if ever, happen in a vacuum – and placing events against a wider context and background is often important if one is to ever make sense of things on a broader scale. In other words, events don’t just happen on their own or completely separate from some larger imperative, issue, or objective.
Such is possibly the case with Russia’s recent anti-satellite (ASAT) test, a defiant demonstration of kinetic capability that has rightfully earned the scorn of the global community. On Monday, November 15th, the Russian Ministry of Defense launched a direct-ascent anti-satellite missile at the COSMOS 1408, one of Russia’s own defunct, but fairly large satellites. Notably, this was Russia’s first official strike with its current ASAT capability, a system known as Nudol. The interception caused a wide dispersion of over 1,500 pieces of trackable orbital debris throughout low-Earth orbit. Never mind the fact that the detritus from the satellite imperiled the International Space Station – with both Americans and Russians currently onboard – to the point that the crew on the ISS had to be awakened and warned to prepare for potential debris impact.
Following the test, General James Dickinson, Commander of U.S. Space Command, concisely and directly summed up the implications of the action, “Russia has demonstrated a deliberate disregard for the security, safety, stability, and long-term sustainability of the space domain for all nations. The debris created by Russia's DA-ASAT will continue to pose a threat to activities in outer space for years to come, putting satellites and space missions at risk, as well as forcing more collision avoidance maneuvers.”
Brazen as it was, we need to ask if Russia’s ASAT test was simply a demonstration of a new and threatening capability – or if it was a purposeful display conducted at a precise time in a specific manner as part of a larger campaign of strategic geopolitical influence and maneuver. After all, recent weeks have also seen Russia pursue a number of concerning actions and activities in regions key to the Kremlin’s geopolitical ambitions. Tens of thousands of Russian troops – perhaps upwards of 90,000 or more – have been reported to be massing along the border with Ukraine and conducting drills, an occurrence that is raising alarms about a potential invasion. And near Belarus – where an enduring immigration crisis has unfolded between Poland and Belarus – increased Russia military activities have consisted of everything from the deployment of special operations troops to overflights of strategic bombers. While Russia’s test may have been long-planned, it is hard to ignore the timing of provocative military demonstrations when they occur against the backdrop of so many other consequential strategic security issues.
Certainly, this was not the first time that one of America’s peer competitors destroyed a satellite with a missile, likely as a show of force – China conducted an ASAT test in 2007 which also generated a major field of orbital debris. Nor will it be the last time either of these two nations will execute such operations. China – which has also kept mum in the wake of Russia’s test – has in fact been reported by the U.S. Dept. of Defense to be amassing a significant arsenal of ASAT capabilities.
Of note, there is an engineering equivalent for these and other similar “demonstrations.” In engineering a design solution, very often we apply a “forcing function” to a complex system to see how it responds. And in this way, how we respond – and continue to respond – provides vital feedback. On the geopolitical scale, these demonstrations often act as forcing functions, stimulating reactions and testing responses – giving all audiences an opportunity to gauge both capability and counter-measures. Moreover, it is often during times of inward distraction, or times where a nation is consumed with multiple crises and tribulations that adversaries deliberately seek to probe defenses, test reactions, and push buttons.
Predictably, Russia has downplayed the concerns about the threat of collateral damage in orbit – stating that, “the U.S. “knows for certain that the resulting fragments, in terms of test time and orbital parameters, did not and will not pose a threat to orbital stations, spacecraft and space activities.” And Yuri Shvytkin, the Deputy Chairman of the Russian Parliament’s Committee on Defense, suggested that, “The fantasy of the [US] State Department knows no bounds. Russia is not militarizing space.”
But despite these trivializing remarks, the truth is that space is becoming increasingly militarized. Moreover, we can only expect that strategic competition here on Earth between the globe’s major players will also play out in space. At the very least, this new space race that we find ourselves engaged in – much like the space race of the Cold War – is part of a much more profound contest between the U.S. and our allies on the one hand, and adversarial powers on the other. In acknowledging the quickly growing importance of space in a larger geopolitical and global security context, Russia’s destructive ASAT operations are more than just a test.
No comments:
Post a Comment