«Это перевод моей статьи о глобальных парадоксах коммуникации...»
Full title of the article:
The Babel Confusion - a global paradox of global economic integration, illustrated by the modern example of total ignoring of concept GITS (Global Intelligent Transportation System)
Preface
First and foremost, a brief introduction: I am an Engineering Systems Architect and the developer of the Global Intelligent Transportation System (GITS), which I first presented at the 2010 ITS World Congress in Busan.
Since the original publication of this article, I have found myself continually reflecting on this global paradox. It is, perhaps, only natural for an engineer to remain preoccupied with a problem that defies resolution. While a definitive solution still eludes me, I have identified a historical analogy that necessitated a change in the article's title.
The term "The Confusion of Babylon" (or the Babel Confusion) serves as a metaphor for the systemic breakdown in communication we see today. In the Russian tradition, this biblical event is often associated with the "building of the pillar" (stolpotvorenie), but the English term "confusion" (or "bewilderment") more accurately captures the current state of global discourse regarding GITS. In the postscript, I will elaborate on the striking similarities between the ancient confusion at Babel and the modern-day inertia surrounding the GITS concept.
The Global Paradox
I wish to examine a paradox—not merely a problem, an antinomy, or a contradiction, but a truly global paradox. It lies in the stark divergence between my technical assertions and the prevailing paradigm regarding the development of a unified global land transportation system.
I believe my position is supported by compelling arguments. While the "conventional wisdom" may hold its own counter-arguments, they have yet to be articulated. It is entirely possible that the fault lies not with the world, but with my own perspective—I accept that possibility. That is precisely why I have written this article: to present my reasoning for open scrutiny.
To demonstrate that such paradoxes are more than mere figments of imagination, let us examine a historical precedent: the emergence of oil supertankers.
In June 1967, the Six-Day War resulted in the total blockage of the Suez Canal. This forced the industry to develop supertankers capable of transporting oil from the Persian Gulf to Europe and the US by navigating around Africa. When the canal finally reopened in 1975, the industry was met with a surprising revelation: the cost per barrel on a supertanker via the Cape of Good Hope was actually lower than using standard tankers through the Suez Canal.
In this instance, only a geopolitical crisis—a matter of pure chance—was able to overturn the prevailing "conventional wisdom." It raises a critical question: why must we wait for a crisis to adopt a more efficient paradigm? Unfortunately, as the English saying goes, "We only fix the roof when it starts raining."
Is it a paradox what I want to talk about here? I think, it is.
In 2010, I presented the GITS concept at the 17th International ITS World Congress in Busan [1], and later expanded it at the EVER11 forum in Monaco to include maritime SFTS cargo modules [2].
Despite the technical soundness of the project, it was met with total institutional inertia. Meanwhile, the world's attention was captured by Hyperloop. In 2016, the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) and other global entities poured vast resources into Elon Musk’s vision of a "solar-powered vacuum train" twice as fast as an airplane.
While the media enthusiastically praised this modern version of "the emperor's new clothes," the GITS project was dismissed as "prosaic" due to its reliance on realistic speeds and proven, though "unfashionable," technologies.
Today, with the Hyperloop project effectively defunct and billions in investments written off, the damage extends beyond lost capital. The failure of such high-profile "hype" projects has cast a shadow of skepticism over all innovative transportation initiatives, GITS included.
The paradox remains: while my peers—engineers and technical specialists both in Russia and abroad—consistently validate the logic of GITS, the actual decision-makers remain unresponsive. It is a classic case of institutional ostracism, where the "noise" of speculative technology drowns out the "signal" of viable infrastructure solutions.
Observing China’s rapid infrastructure expansion, I identified the country as a primary stakeholder for the GITS project. Following a period of hiatus from professional activities due to health reasons, I returned to find the global landscape significantly altered. By 2023, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) had entered a new phase, driven by two geopolitical shifts: the search for routes bypassing conflict zones in Eastern Europe and a strategic pivot toward the Global South.
In response, I proposed a novel transcontinental corridor at the third BRI Forum: China (Tanggu Port) – Kazakhstan – Uzbekistan – Turkmenistan – Iran – Iraq – Saudi Arabia – Egypt.
1. Strategic and Topographic Advantages
Unlike traditional routes, this corridor establishes a direct overland trade link between Asia and Africa. While the Mediterranean Sea remains a natural break, the topography of Southern Europe allows for highly efficient maritime integration from Alexandria to various European ports.
2. The "Shortest Path" and Desert Integration
A core principle of GITS is that transcontinental routes must follow the shortest geographic path between extreme points, rather than weaving through existing population centers. Our route intentionally traverses arid regions—including the Gobi, Karakum, Greater Nefud, and Libyan deserts. This approach offers several advantages:
- Minimal Land Acquisition Costs: Building on "greenfield" desert land significantly reduces the capital expenditure (CAPEX).
- Optimal Terrain: Flat desert topography allows for higher speeds and simpler engineering.
- Economic Stimulus: These under-developed regions will receive the necessary impetus for integration into the global economy.
Cities wishing to connect to the main artery can do so via dedicated spurs (tie-ins), ensuring the main transit flow remains uninterrupted and efficient.
3. The Sinai-Nile Link: A Gateway to Africa and Beyond
The route crosses from Saudi Arabia to Egypt via the Straits of Tiran (utilizing the bridge project announced in 2016). By bypassing the densely populated Nile Delta and heading toward the Nile between El Minya and Asyut, GITS can merge with the future Trans-African Meridian Route.
Looking further, a latitudinal corridor at 10°N would lead to West African Atlantic ports, where Submarine Ferry Terminals (SFTS)—the maritime subsystem of GITS—would bridge the ocean to South America. By utilizing equatorial countercurrents, these "ferries" could significantly reduce energy consumption on the route to Belém, Brazil, and onward to São Paulo.
Next, I propose to dwell on geography and talk about the feasibility study of the project.
I am not presenting a mere fantasy, but a proposal for a targeted R&D program. The technical feasibility of GITS is high because it does not rely on speculative "breakthroughs." Instead, it represents a synergy of proven rail and road technologies.
Conceptually, GITS is as modular and logical as a LEGO set. While the world currently struggles with fragmented rail gauges and differing road standards (LHD/RHD), GITS offers the first opportunity to create a single, unified, global ground transportation system. It is designed to be the most environmentally sustainable, economically viable, and safest transit network in human history.
The technical feasibility of GITS is further underscored by my professional correspondence with industry giants in late 2010. Below is an excerpt from my communication with Lars Mårtensson, Director of Environment and Innovation at Volvo Trucks:
From: Vladimir Postnikov
Date: December 13, 2010
Subject: Global Intelligent Transport System (GITS)"Dear Mr. Mårtensson,
I am enclosing the GITS concept as published at the recent ITS World Congress. It provides a comprehensive overview of the 'self-propelled container' framework. I would like to invite your specialists, along with representatives from Siemens Corp, to discuss a collaborative approach to this solution..."
From: Lars Mårtensson
Date: January 21, 2011
Subject: RE: ITS"Dear Mr. Postnikov,
My colleagues have reviewed your documentation with great interest and will keep it in mind for future developments. However, at this stage, we will not be pursuing this further. I wish you the best of luck with your work."
Strategic Implications
This exchange confirms that both Volvo Trucks and Siemens—global leaders in energy and transport infrastructure—were formally introduced to the GITS architecture as early as 2010.
A notable development occurred in the spring of 2012, when Siemens unveiled its eHighway prototype. While I will not dwell on the technical overlaps between GITS and eHighway, the emergence of such systems shortly after my proposal serves as a definitive validation of the GITS concept. It proves that the "self-propelled" modular infrastructure I proposed is not only technically feasible but is already being explored by the world's most sophisticated engineering firms.
My stance is one of collaboration, not competition. I envision a future where the unified standards of the GITS system are built upon the pioneering work of companies like Siemens and Volvo. By aligning our efforts, we can transition from fragmented, "hostile" proprietary systems to a synergetic global standard that benefits all stakeholders.
Economic Viability and Operational Efficiency
1. Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) vs. Long-Term Value
While the initial construction of a GITS route may exceed that of traditional highways due to its isolated environment, this investment is justified by a dramatic reduction in operating costs and a quantum leap in safety. Unlike open systems, the GITS "closed-loop" environment protects passengers, cargo, and vehicles from external factors, ensuring rapid amortization. By adopting unified international standards for modular construction, we can further drive down global implementation costs.
2. Throughput Capacity: A Technical Analysis
To illustrate the efficiency of a single GITS track, consider the following conservative calculation:
- Vehicle Length: 13 m
- Cruising Speed: 100 km/h
- Safety Buffer (Braking Distance): 87 m (conservative estimate)
Based on these parameters, a single track can accommodate 1,000 vehicles per hour. With each vehicle carrying 2 TEUs (Twenty-foot Equivalent Units), the capacity reaches 2,000 TEUs per hour per track. In a dual-track configuration (round-trip), this effectively meets or exceeds current major trade flow requirements between Asia and Europe. It is important to note that with advanced automated spacing, these distances can be halved, effectively doubling the capacity to 4,000 TEUs per hour without additional infrastructure.
3. Strategic Advantage Over Maritime Routes
The proposed Trans-Asian GITS corridor is significantly shorter than traditional sea routes, offering superior delivery speeds. In many cases, the total landed cost per ton for general cargo via GITS will be lower than maritime transport. While bulk commodities (oil, ore, liquids) should remain with sea transport where justified, GITS will revolutionize the movement of containerized and high-value goods.
4. Seamless Border Crossings and Transit Security
GITS introduces a revolutionary approach to international transit. The isolated, continuous-flow nature of the system allows goods to cross borders without stopping for inspection, provided they remain within the "closed" transit corridor.
- Automated Monitoring: Transit states retain the right to monitor flows and perform inspections based on specific grounds.
- Integrity Assurance: The sealed environment prevents unauthorized access to cargo within the transit territory.
- Emergency Protocol: Any unscheduled stop or route deviation triggers an immediate inspection at the nearest customs point, ensuring national security without compromising transit speed.
Conclusion: A Call for International Collaboration
The economic prerequisites outlined here provide a robust foundation for initiating a comprehensive, international R&D effort. A detailed feasibility study will require the synergy of global experts, but the potential is clear: a transit route that is economically transformative not only for the participating nations but for their entire regions.
International Outreach and Strategic Consultations
Over the course of the GITS development, I have conducted extensive consultations with governmental bodies and transport ministries of the key transit nations. These communications were aimed at synchronizing the GITS framework with national economic development goals and the broader Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
A comprehensive log of these diplomatic and technical proposals, addressed to representatives of the transit-aligned nations, is available for review [4].
These records demonstrate the readiness of the GITS architectural framework for high-level intergovernmental discussion and subsequent R&D implementation.
The Geopolitical Paradox: Beyond Engineering
The GITS framework poses no threat to national sovereignty. However, it introduces a unique psychological factor: a system that benefits one nation inevitably benefits its neighbor—even if their relationship is adversarial.
This brings to mind the classic parable of the Genie: when a man is granted any wish on the condition that his neighbor receives double, he chooses to have one of his own eyes put out. This "spiteful" logic brings us to the very heart of the Global Paradox. The technical and economic hurdles are surmountable; the true barrier is political.
Defining the Political Barrier
According to the Philosophical Encyclopedia, politics is the sphere of activity concerned with the relations between nations and social groups, centered on the acquisition and exercise of power. As Karl Marx noted, any social issue becomes political when its resolution is linked to class or state interests.
As an engineer, I observe that the construction of an interstate transit corridor is inextricably tied to both internal class interests and external national interests—even those of countries far removed from the physical route.
The Essence of the Global Paradox
While the political motivations of individual nations may diverge, the outcome remains tragically consistent. We are faced with a project of undeniable economic benefit to all participating parties, yet it is met with collective inertia.
This is the Global Paradox: a scenario where a "win-win" infrastructure solution is rejected not because it fails, but because its success is shared. The motives for opposition vary, but the result is a stalemate that halts global progress. It is a modern-day Babel Confusion, where the inability to find a common language of cooperation prevents us from building the "pillars" of future global integration.
A Call for Strategic Dialogue: The Cost of Inaction
If my reasoning is flawed, I invite a rigorous technical critique. In the world of engineering, silence is not an argument—it is a missed opportunity. I am not seeking validation for its own sake; I am seeking a professional dialogue. If the GITS concept is fundamentally broken, let the experts demonstrate why. If it is viable, then the current silence is a form of collective negligence.
The Opportunity Cost of Current Projects
Consider the current rail expansion from China through Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan. While this provides an immediate commercial outlet for Chinese rail technology, is it the most efficient long-term solution for the transit nations? These countries will bear the debt for infrastructure that may be technologically superseded before the loans are even repaid. Why settle for today's "available" solution when a generational leap like GITS could offer far greater regional integration?
Saudi Arabia: NEOM and the Tiran Bridge
In Saudi Arabia, the NEOM (The Line) project and the Tiran Straits Bridge represent massive capital investments. GITS is not a competitor to these visions; it is their logical backbone.
- NEOM Integration: Even as NEOM undergoes budget revisions, the GITS framework could provide the functional utility needed to justify the project's sunk costs.
- The Tiran Straits Bridge: This is a critical engineering window. If the bridge is designed without GITS-compatible tracks now, the cost of retrofitting it later will be astronomical. To ignore this discussion today is to bake massive future inefficiencies into the very concrete of the bridge.
The Hubs of the Global South: Iran and Egypt
Iran, with its challenging terrain, stands at the crossroads of several global routes. A detour around the Caspian Sea is inefficient; the real question is what to build through these mountains. Only a detailed GITS feasibility study can determine if this is the superior alternative to traditional, more expensive rail projects. Why the silence from Tehran?
Similarly, Egypt sits at the confluence of the Trans-Asian and the meridional Trans-African routes. For Cairo, GITS represents a permanent, high-yield revenue stream from global transit. Yet, here too, we encounter the Global Paradox.
Conclusion: The Requirement for Discussion
We have a concept for a unified global transportation system with sound economic and technical foundations. Yet, the states that stand to benefit most refuse to engage in a formal technical discourse. The barrier is not the terrain, nor the technology, nor the capital—it is political will.
We are not just building a road; we are attempting to resolve the Babel Confusion of the 21st century.
The Crisis of Competence: "Deep State" or Institutional Decay?
The question remains: To be or not to be? Who, ultimately, is steering the ship of state?
Is the resistance to GITS a manifestation of what is now commonly termed the "Deep State"? Or are we witnessing a cyclical decline in the fundamental competence of global bureaucratic apparatuses? While it may sound provocative, there is a visible erosion in the intellectual and educational caliber of contemporary world leaders and their subordinates. Politicians, after all, are susceptible to the most destructive of human vices for any state: institutional egoism.
A Comparison of Eras
When comparing current leadership in the US, Germany, France, and the UK to their predecessors of thirty or forty years ago, the contrast is stark. This "competence gap" may well be the root of the Global Paradox. In Russia, we have seen the rise of a class of "effective managers" whose specific skills often have little to do with the core essence of their formal responsibilities.
The Chinese Enigma
Against this backdrop, the leadership of China has historically stood out, evoking the strategic depth of Deng Xiaoping. Yet, even here, the silence regarding GITS is deafening. Has the global virus of bureaucratic stagnation infected China as well? Or is China playing a more calculated, long-term game—quietly developing its own iteration of GITS only to unveil it later as a "Chinese eHighway" standard?
Looking Ahead: The Global Forum on Green Transport
A Global Forum on Green Transport is scheduled for September 2024 in China. It is mathematically improbable that a system more environmentally sustainable than GITS will be presented there. However, the world will be watching to see if the "Green" agenda remains a collection of slogans or if it will finally embrace a unified, high-efficiency architectural reality.
If the goal is truly a green future, GITS is not just an option—it is the logical conclusion.
The Constance Lake Postulate: The Foundation of Autonomous Safety
What fundamentally distinguishes the GITS framework from all other contemporary ground transportation systems?
Beyond its technical architecture, GITS introduces a unified international standard that eliminates the inherent inefficiencies of fragmented systems—such as differing railway gauges or the global divide between right-hand and left-hand driving. However, its most critical innovation is its adherence to a principle I have formulated as the Constance Lake Postulate.
The Core Principle
The postulate states: An automated transport system must rely exclusively on automated control. If a system permits human intervention (drivers or dispatchers), then fully autonomous vehicles must be excluded from that system. The two cannot safely coexist in the same operational environment.
The tragic 2002 mid-air collision over Lake Constance remains a haunting validation of this principle. The catastrophe, which claimed the lives of a large group of children, was a direct consequence of the conflict between automated safety systems and human decision-making. While the world focused on the subsequent personal tragedies, the most vital lesson for systems engineering was largely overlooked: hybrid control is the enemy of safety.
Comparative Analysis
When Siemens unveiled its eHighway concept in 2012, it deviated from this principle by attempting to integrate with existing road traffic. In this regard, GITS and eHighway are fundamentally different architectures. While we await the developments from the upcoming forum in China, I remain skeptical of any true breakthrough that fails to address this core postulate.
Isolation as a Systemic Advantage
By being almost entirely isolated from external variables, GITS achieves a level of stability and reliability that mimics an underground metro system—but at a fraction of the cost and with significantly higher efficiency.
Summary
In conclusion, while we have established the technical, economic, and ethical superiority of the GITS framework, one question remains unanswered:
What are the true root causes of the Global Paradox?
The Human Cost of the Global Paradox
I have proposed my theories, yet they remain without formal validation. Perhaps the most bitter evidence of the Global Paradox is not found in engineering blueprints, but in the treatment of the individuals behind them.
As a direct consequence of the ongoing ostracism I have described—where a project is ignored and its author silenced—I found myself facing a court ruling on April 17, 2024, that rendered me homeless at the age of seventy. Even in this extremity, the focus was not on the person, but on the material resources I utilized. The ostracism persists, and at my age, the chances of survival are diminishing.
I have appealed for assistance to authorities in various nations potentially involved in future global transport, including China. The response was a unanimous, echoing silence. In essence, they have collectively repeated the punchline of that dark joke: "Next one, please."
Eight years ago, already a pensioner, I approached the Russian authorities for support; I was rudely dismissed. It seems there is a time to unpack one’s life's work, and a time to pack it away for good.
A Final Question
A haunting question remains: How will these nations implement the GITS framework after they have ostracized its architect and denied him even the most basic assistance in his hour of need? I suspect the answer will be the same as it has always been: Silence.
This is the ultimate manifestation of the Global Paradox: a profound desire for economic expansion coupled with an absolute refusal to integrate with one's neighbors or value the human intellect that makes such expansion possible.
To those who find this article of interest: I recommend saving it. Many hypotheses are tested only by the passage of time—and as history often shows, the time required for such verification frequently exceeds the lifespan of a single human being. Yet, as the saying goes, "Time is an honest man."
Postscript: The Babel Echo
According to biblical tradition, the construction of the Tower of Babel was not halted by a physical act of destruction. Instead, the divine intervention was purely communicative: God "confused" the languages, disrupting the participants' ability to understand one another. Without communication, the construction became an impossibility.
The GITS Analogy
How does this ancient myth mirror the reality of the GITS project? Since 2010, there has been a profound and absolute silence. Despite presentations at world congresses, there hasn't been a single open, critical, or even negative discussion from the European Commission on Transport, nor from a single nation across the proposed Trans-Asian or Trans-African corridors.
We exist in a state of total communicative failure. While various regional transportation systems function today, they do so in fragmented "languages" (incompatible standards). Just as the Tower could not be built without a shared tongue, a unified global ground transportation network cannot exist without a shared technical and political dialogue.
The Fragmentation of Will
A similar fragmentation can be traced in the history of Ancient Rome, where a once-unified Latin splintered into the Romance languages, leaving its speakers unable to fully comprehend one another. This "Confusion of Tongues" is not merely linguistic—it is a fragmentation of the Unified Will (as formulated by Schopenhauer).
To implement a project of such magnitude—whether it be the pyramids, the Great Wall, or GITS—there must be a singular, collective will. Without it, there can be no unified standards, no shared language, and no common progress. Today, we lack even the desire to discuss the possibility of such a union.
The Nature of the Paradox
What is the essence of this "Babylonian Confusion" in the 21st century? It is possible that the vast majority of human reasoning is inherently irrational. Yet, perhaps what appears irrational from my perspective is, in fact, part of a larger, inscrutable rationality.
If humanity is a creation of God or Nature, it would be sheer impudence on my part to accuse either of a flaw in design. Perhaps it is not the world that rejects me. Perhaps it is I who am the anomaly—a "error of nature" attempting to impose order where the universe intended only silence.
This is the ultimate Global Paradox.
References:
[1] - https://trid.trb.org/view/1137431
[2] - https://yadi.sk/i/nJhNoO003VbgY2
[3] - https://ria.ru/20161119/1481723352.html
[4] - https://disk.yandex.ru/i/8QhLlVbUjjkCBA
