Is the space race back on?

The political neutrality that governs space puzzles me. All previous human expansion was combative, prioritizing strength and speed. Look at the Goths, Genghis Khan, the Scramble for Africa, the Oklahoma land rush. The early days of Russians and Americans "pushing the envelope" to be the first to do [x] in space reflected this trend. Then detente became de facto policy in the '70s, and both countries pulled back.

Why? Was it Mutually Assured Destruction? The ascendance of transnational post-war liberalism as the predominant ethos? The realization there's nothing strategically worth gaining or defending in space?

Perhaps all three. But conditions are changing. This article is dated last October:

Russia is unlikely to participate in the Moon-orbiting station planned by the United States, a Russian official said Monday, marking the probable end of the type of close cooperation seen for two decades on the International Space Station (ISS).

The proposed new station, called the Gateway, "is too US-centric, so to speak," Dmitry Rogozin, the head of the Russian space agency Roscosmos, said, adding Russia was "likely to refrain from participating in it on a large scale."

Here's Rogozin again in March:

Last week, Moscow and Beijing signed a memorandum agreeing to build a research station with a “complex of experimental and research facilities,” with the aim of an eventual human presence on Earth’s only natural satellite.

In response, an article published in the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post called the proposed lunar station “an ominous sign for the West.” According to Rogozin, this is a complete misunderstanding of the program.

“This is not true,” the Roscosmos chief tweeted on Monday. “The plans of Russia and China on the Moon are open to broad international participation. This is not about confrontation, but about cooperation in the exploration of the Moon.”

Cooperation implies shared goals. When goals are not shared, cooperation ends. This isn't hard. Frankly, I'm amazed America and Russia have managed to cooperate on space missions to the extent they've been able to, considering they are not cooperating in Georgia, or Syria, or Ukraine. Still, one can't fault Rogozin for trying to hide the obvious. The implications of this would undermine quite a few fictions that hold up the global power structure.

All the antipathy in the world doesn't account for the Russians siding with China vis-à-vis the Moon. It signals a change in the Russians' strategic assessment. Why might they want their own Moon base separate from the Americans'? The most obvious reason is they want to claim as much territory for themselves as possible. As to what purpose, who knows?

Of one thing you can be sure: For as long as space missions depend on their sponsors, they will continue to reflect the interests of those entities. In the near-term, the political landscape on the Moon will not be all that different than it is on Earth.

Looking ahead, mid-century perhaps, it will behoove sponsors to keep their colonies dependent so they continue to serve their interests. That could take the form of rationing meds, erecting barriers to trade, or holding back technological progress.

If that kind of stuff fascinates you, check out my books Seeds of Calamity and Tendrils to the Moon. You can find extended previews for each here and here.