Pentagon Generals, News Writers Abuse Chinese Test Flight To Argue For More Weapons

The generals in the Pentagon want to get rich. Most strive to take this or that board position at one of the large weapon manufacturers after they retire. But to get there requires that the generals, while still in the military, promote more weapons sales.

Big newspapers are another party with interests in promoting weapon manufacturers and wars. They pay for quite a lot of advertisement. News of weapons and wars also nice clickbait which brings more paying subscribers and again additional advertisement.

These two forces collaborate in their weapon and war promoting efforts which in the best case result in the plundering of the common people. In the worst case the end result is the slaughter of many innocent humans for no sensible cause or reason.

Here is a recent example by the well known warmongers David E. Sanger and William J. Broad of the New York Times:

China’s Weapon Test Close to a ‘Sputnik Moment,’ U.S. General Says

A Chinese test of a hypersonic missile designed to evade American nuclear defenses was “very close” to a “Sputnik moment” for the United States, Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Wednesday, the first official confirmation of how Beijing’s demonstration of its capabilities took American officials by surprise.

The authors, as well as Milley, are of course wrong.

Cont. reading: Pentagon Generals, News Writers Abuse Chinese Test Flight To Argue For More Weapons

On The Delusion In U.S. Foreign Policy And What Might Change It

The current U.S. foreign policy is delusional. Its attempts to command the world are getting laughed at. How did this happen and what might change it?

Here are excerpts from two smart essays which discuss the theme.

Alastair Crooke asks why somehow nothing seems to be working within Joe Biden's United States. He then observes of its global policies:

At the international geo-political plane, things don’t seem to be working either. Team Biden says it wants a ‘managed competition’ with China, but why then send Wendy Sherman (who is not noted for her diplomatic skills) to China as Biden’s envoy? Why has there been this continuous chip-chipping away at the 1972 ‘One China’ policy with a series of small, seemingly innocuous moves on Taiwan if Team Biden wants contained competition (what he said he wants in a recent call with President Xi), but falters, time after time, to instigate a serious relationship?

Does the Team not understand that it is not ‘containing’ competition, but rather playing-with-fire, through its’ opaque hints that the U.S. might support Taiwan independence?

And then, why of all people, dispatch Victoria Nuland to Moscow, if the competition with Moscow was to be quietly ‘balanced out’ as Biden’s face-to-face with Putin in Geneva seemed to signal? Like Sherman, Nuland was not received at a senior level, and her ‘Maidan arsonist’ reputation of course preceded her in Moscow. And why decimate Russia’s diplomatic representation at NATO HQ, and why have Secretary Austin talk in Georgia and Ukraine of NATO’s ‘open door’?

Is there some hidden logic to this, or were these envoys intentionally sent as some kind of ‘kick-ass’ provocative gesture to underline who’s boss (i.e. America is Back!)? This is known in Washington as ‘capitulation diplomacy’ – competitors are presented with only the terms of their capitulation. If so, it didn’t work. Both envoys effectively were sent packing, and Washington’s relations with these key states are degraded to near zero.

The Russia-China axis have come to the conclusion that polite diplomatic discourse with Washington is like water off a duck’s back. The U.S. and its European protégés simply do not hear what Moscow or Beijing says to them – so what is the point to talking to ‘tin-eared’ Americans? Answer: None.

Prof. Michael Brenner recently sent a longer diagnose of the U.S. political sphere to his mailing list. He sees the same foreign policy problems as Crooke does and tries to answer some of the questions Crooke is asking:

Cont. reading: On The Delusion In U.S. Foreign Policy And What Might Change It

Microsoft Blames Russia For Failure To Enforce Its Vendors Account Security

There are again claims that a run-of-the-mill computer incident was caused by 'Russian hacking' even as no evidence is provided for it.

The New York Times hacks immediately turn that evidence free claim that into a 'challenge' for the U.S. president even as there is nothing political about the incident.

Russia Challenges Biden Again With Broad Cybersurveillance Operation

Russia’s premier intelligence agency has launched another campaign to pierce thousands of U.S. government, corporate and think-tank computer networks, Microsoft officials and cybersecurity experts warned on Sunday, only months after President Biden imposed sanctions on Moscow in response to a series of sophisticated spy operations it had conducted around the world.

The new effort is “very large, and it is ongoing,” Tom Burt, one of Microsoft’s top security officers, said in an interview. Government officials confirmed that the operation, apparently aimed at acquiring data stored in the cloud, seemed to come out of the S.V.R., the Russian intelligence agency that was the first to enter the Democratic National Committee’s networks during the 2016 election.

While Microsoft insisted that the percentage of successful breaches was small, it did not provide enough information to accurately measure the severity of the theft.

Earlier this year, the White House blamed the S.V.R. for the so-called SolarWinds hacking, a highly sophisticated effort to alter software used by government agencies and the nation’s largest companies, giving the Russians broad access to 18,000 users.

As typical for such incidents they get exaggerated - "very large, and it is ongoing" - and downplayed - "the percentage of successful breaches was small" - at the same time. The attribution to Russia - "seemed to come out of the S.V.R." - is extraordinary weak.

Cont. reading: Microsoft Blames Russia For Failure To Enforce Its Vendors Account Security

The MoA Week In Review - OT 2021-082

Last week's posts at Moon of Alabama:

• Oct 18 - The New Chinese Wonder Weapon Which Likely Isn't One
  Related:
  - China’s Tests Are No Sputnik Moment - Carnegie
  - America Is Turning Asia Into a Powder Keg - The Perils of a Military-First Approach - Van Jackson / Foreign Affairs
  - The U.S. ‘Longer Telegram’ Is Hostile Interventionism in China, Posing as Competition - Alastair Crooke / SCF

• Oct 19 - More Brain Death At NATO
  Related:
  - NATO agrees master plan to deter growing Russian threat - MSN
  - German defense minister warns Europeans: Don’t detach from NATO - Politico
  - German DM must know result of pulling forces to Russian borders: DM Shoigu - Sify

• Oct 21 - Some Musings On 'Wokeness'
• Oct 22 - Putin's Musings On 'Wokeness'
  Related:
  - How ‘Diversity’ Turned Tyrannical - Lawrence Krauss / WSJ
  - A Chicago museum 'fired' its volunteers. Why diversity consultants say it was the right move. - USA Today
  - Cancel Culture Takes a Big "L" - The press tries and fails to hype a crisis into existence over Dave Chappelle's new Netflix special - Matt Taibbi
  - Woke is the roar of smug, entitled mediocrities everywhere: The insanity of a world where Thomas The Tank Engine, craft beers and even country walks are branded racist drives JULIE BURCHILL to despair - Mail on Sunday

• Oct 22 - How Biden's Too-Clever-By-Half Iran Strategy Failed
  Related:
  -UN watchdog says it no longer has access to cameras in key Iran nuclear facility - The Hill

---
Other issues:

Cont. reading: The MoA Week In Review - OT 2021-082

How Biden's Too-Clever-By-Half Iran Strategy Failed

Last week I remarked on the Iran talks:

The diplomatic talks with Iran will fail only if the Biden administration fails to return to the nuclear deal and does not lift the sanctions imposed on Iran by the Trump administration. The sole problem is that Biden wants more concessions from Iran than it had given under the JCPOA agreement.

We now learn that Biden not only wants more concessions from Iran but he also wants to be able to reimpose sanctions even when concessions are given.

Biden wants his cake and eat it too.

Trita Parsi, who has excellent sources on the nuclear deal (JCPOA) issues, writes for Responsible Statecraft:

A crucial turning point in the negotiations occurred earlier in May of this year. The Iranians had insisted on legally binding commitments that the United States would respect its signature and not re-quit the JCPOA, were it to be revived. Though the U.S. team found the Iranian demand understandable, it insisted it could not bind the hands of the next administration, nor guarantee that a future administration hostile to the JCPOA wouldn’t again abandon it.

But according to both Western and Iranian diplomats involved in the negotiations, the Iranians then lowered their demand and requested a commitment that Biden would simply commit to staying within the deal for the rest of his own term, granted that Iran also would remain in compliance. According to these sources, the U.S. negotiation team took the matter back to Washington but to the surprise of Tehran and others, the White House was not ready to make such a commitment, citing legal obstacles. Instead, it offered changes to the negotiating text that fell short of a legal commitment. 

This is something Iran can not agree to. The U.S. would rejoin the nuclear deal and lift some sanctions. Iran would in parallel dismantle the progress in nuclear developments it had made over the last three years and thereby lose its leverage. Biden would then reimpose the sanctions he had lifted to demand a lengthening of the restrictions on Iran's program and more on other issues like Iran's missile program and its support for Syria, Hizbullah and Yemen. This is of course not acceptable and the reason why Iran is currently slow-walking its return to the talks:

Cont. reading: How Biden's Too-Clever-By-Half Iran Strategy Failed

Putin's Musings On 'Wokeness'

While I mused about 'wokeness' yesterday a smarter and more important man than me discussed it in a wider context. Russia's president Vladimir Putin spoke at the yearly Valdai Discussion Club meeting where he drew parallels between the Bolshevik revolution and what is currently happening in the 'west':

The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs.

This, I believe, should call to mind some of what we are witnessing now. Looking at what is happening in a number of Western countries, we are amazed to see the domestic practices, which we, fortunately, have left, I hope, in the distant past. The fight for equality and against discrimination has turned into aggressive dogmatism bordering on absurdity, when the works of the great authors of the past – such as Shakespeare – are no longer taught at schools or universities, because their ideas are believed to be backward. The classics are declared backward and ignorant of the importance of gender or race. In Hollywood memos are distributed about proper storytelling and how many characters of what colour or gender should be in a movie. This is even worse than the agitprop department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause, but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into ‘reverse discrimination’ that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin colour. I specifically asked my colleagues to find the following quote from Martin Luther King: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by their character.” This is the true value. However, things are turning out differently there. By the way, the absolute majority of Russian people do not think that the colour of a person's skin or their gender is an important matter. Each of us is a human being. This is what matters.

In a number of Western countries, the debate over men’s and women’s rights has turned into a perfect phantasmagoria. Look, beware of going where the Bolsheviks once planned to go – not only communalising chickens, but also communalising women. One more step and you will be there.

Zealots of these new approaches even go so far as to want to abolish these concepts altogether. Anyone who dares mention that men and women actually exist, which is a biological fact, risk being ostracised. “Parent number one” and “parent number two,” “'birthing parent” instead of “mother,” and “human milk” replacing “breastmilk” because it might upset the people who are unsure about their own gender. I repeat, this is nothing new; in the 1920s, the so-called Soviet Kulturtraegers also invented some newspeak believing they were creating a new consciousness and changing values that way. And, as I have already said, they made such a mess it still makes one shudder at times.

Not to mention some truly monstrous things when children are taught from an early age that a boy can easily become a girl and vice versa. That is, the teachers actually impose on them a choice we all supposedly have. They do so while shutting the parents out of the process and forcing the child to make decisions that can upend their entire life. They do not even bother to consult with child psychologists – is a child at this age even capable of making a decision of this kind? Calling a spade a spade, this verges on a crime against humanity, and it is being done in the name and under the banner of progress.

Well, if someone likes this, let them do it. I have already mentioned that, in shaping our approaches, we will be guided by a healthy conservatism. ...

Putin's speech was much longer and touched on many other issue. I recommend to read it in full.

Some Musings On 'Wokeness'

For some time I have been trying to get my head around 'wokeness'. It seems to be a typically 'liberal' U.S. phenomenon that has not (yet) been picked up elsewhere. I find it to be an illiberal doctrine that attempts to prescribe how one has to think and talk about certain issues.

What the 'issues of the day' are one has to be 'woke' about seems to change every few weeks. Before the last U.S. election it was 'bend your knee' and 'defund the police' which predictably ended with higher police budgets as soon as the liberals had won the elections.

Currently some U.S. media are enraged about Dave Chappelle, a standup comedian who made jokes about people during a Netflix special. I had guessed that is something one should expect from a comedian. But some of Chappelle jokes were about transgender people which is somehow supposed to be bad. (Why?) At least that is the point the people who now want to cancel his show are trying to make.

I am bit suspicious about this reason as during his show Chappelle also made a good point about UFOs and how many thousand years ago people flew off from this planet to another one. They screwed it up over there and then decided to come back to now make a claim on this one. Chappelle calls them 'space Jews' (video).

What a wonderful aphorism for Zionism. I had a hearty laugh when he made that joke though the audience in the studio seemed awfully quiet.

Now a handful of Netflix workers publicly demand to cancel Chappelle's show allegedly because he made jokes about transgender people and, more generally, about the fuss some of them make. But I wonder what is really happening behind the scenes with this. Who is really pulling the strings here? Who really wants to cancel Chappelle? Space Jews?

A more serious danger of 'wokeness' and 'cancel culture' is its invasion of science:

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology invited the geophysicist Dorian Abbot to give a prestigious public lecture this autumn. He seemed a natural choice, a scientific star who studies climate change and whether planets in distant solar systems might harbor atmospheres conducive to life.

Then a swell of angry resistance arose. Some faculty members and graduate students argued that Dr. Abbot, a professor at the University of Chicago, had created harm by speaking out against aspects of affirmative action and diversity programs. In videos and opinion pieces, Dr. Abbot, who is white, has asserted that such programs treat “people as members of a group rather than as individuals, repeating the mistake that made possible the atrocities of the 20th century.” He said that he favored a diverse pool of applicants selected on merit.

He said that his planned lecture at M.I.T. would have made no mention of his views on affirmative action. But his opponents in the sciences argued he represented an “infuriating,” “inappropriate” and oppressive choice.

On Sept. 30, M.I.T. reversed course.

M.I.T. canceled a scientific lecture because the lecturer has opinions on other issues. What has happened to academic freedom of speech?

They canceled a lecture because some nitwits are hyping the 'woke' issue of affirmative action. These people are willing to accept less than the best qualified scientists because the lesser qualified person may have certain not science related attributes. Well folks - I agree with Dr. Abbot. That's not how academia is supposed or can work.

Luckily Princeton jumped in and Dr. Abbot's lecture will be held there.

The craziness behind of all of this is exposed further down in the NYT's reporting of the issue:

Phoebe A. Cohen is a geosciences professor and department chair at Williams College and one of many who expressed anger on Twitter at M.I.T.’s decision to invite Dr. Abbot to speak, given that he has spoken against affirmative action in the past. Dr. Cohen agreed that Dr. Abbot’s views reflect a broad current in American society. Ideally, she said, a university should not invite speakers who do not share its values on diversity and affirmative action.
...
What, she was asked, of the effect on academic debate? Should the academy serve as a bastion of unfettered speech?

“This idea of intellectual debate and rigor as the pinnacle of intellectualism comes from a world in which white men dominated,” she replied.

Whoa. What a catastrophic non-answer. That woman is supposed to do science?

How would science happen if we stop to use intellectual debate and rigor? What shall decide the veracity of a theory, the rightness of a formula or the correctness of a scientific fact? The height, color or gender of the person who utters it? The emotions of those who hear of it?

Where is this supposed to end?

Open Thread 2021-81

I've got nothing ...

More Brain Death At NATO

Two years ago France President Macron diagnosed NATO's 'brain death':

"What we are currently experiencing is the brain death of Nato," Mr Macron told the London-based newspaper.

He warned European members that they could no longer rely on the US to defend the alliance, established at the start of the Cold War to bolster Western European and North American security.

Since then NATO's condition has further deteriorated.

The second biggest army under NATO command, Turkey's, is now hostile to the U.S. which continues to support PKK terrorists who are fighting against the Turkish state. Since the 2016 coup attempt against President Erdogan Turkey had leaned towards Russia. It has bought Russian air defense systems which enables it to defend itself against NATO attacks. The relations with the U.S. and with NATO have since further declined.

Macron's diagnose came when the U.S. pulled some forces out of Syria. The NATO allies had not been informed about the move. This year's U.S. retreat from Afghanistan was likewise not communicated before its announcement even as NATO had an official mission in Afghanistan. Getting ignored by the U.S. does not create the trust needed for an enduring military partnership.

Then came the new AUKUS alliance which put the U.S. focus on China while screwing France out of a huge submarine contract with Australia.

When U.S. President Biden called Macron to apologize for the insult Macron gained a statement of U.S. support for an independent European army:

The United States also recognizes the importance of a stronger and more capable European defense, that contributes positively to transatlantic and global security and is complementary to NATO.

The folks at NATO's headquarter in Brussels will have read that with deep fears. A separate European Union army, which France has long promoted, will inevitably diminish NATO's role.

Cont. reading: More Brain Death At NATO

The New Chinese Wonder Weapon Which Likely Isn't One

On Saturday the Financial Times published a sensational piece on alleged Chinese testing of a new weapon system:

China tests new space capability with hypersonic missile
Launch in August of nuclear-capable rocket that circled the globe took US intelligence by surprise

China tested a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile in August that circled the globe before speeding towards its target, demonstrating an advanced space capability that caught US intelligence by surprise.

Five people familiar with the test said the Chinese military launched a rocket that carried a hypersonic glide vehicle which flew through low-orbit space before cruising down towards its target.

The missile missed its target by about two-dozen miles, according to three people briefed on the intelligence. But two said the test showed that China had made astounding progress on hypersonic weapons and was far more advanced than US officials realised.

The test has raised new questions about why the US often underestimated China’s military modernisation.

“We have no idea how they did this,” said a fourth person.

That fourth person must be part of the U.S. 'intelligence' community which is know for its lack thereof. Or some know nothing political editor:

Cont. reading: The New Chinese Wonder Weapon Which Likely Isn't One