|
The MoA Week In Review – Open Thread 2020-61
Last week's posts at Moon of Alabama:
> Most troubling of all, perhaps, was a sentiment the expert said a member of Kushner’s team expressed: that because the virus had hit blue states hardest, a national plan was unnecessary and would not make sense politically. “The political folks believed that because it was going to be relegated to Democratic states, that they could blame those governors, and that would be an effective political strategy,” said the expert. <
—
Other issues:
From the UCSF Grand Round video (~1:20 h) – Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard of testing pharmaceutical effectiveness. In six such trials given at various stages of Covid-19 Hydroxychloroquine showed none.
bigger
The NSA's favorite browser and network …
Multiple Tor security issues disclosed, more to come – ZDnet
The 'anti-imperial' PKK Kurds …
US oil company signs deal with Syrian Kurds – AL-Monitor
U.S. Civil War of 2020:
I’m in Minneapolis. First place I stop, most of the block is still boarded up. This grocery and tobacco store is owned by an Iranian, neighbor tells me. “They took everything.” Owner is deliberating whether to permanently close after the riots … – Michael Tracey
Two months since the riots, and still no “National Conversation” – Michael Tracey
In Portland, some Black activists frustrated with white protesters – Reuters
Use as open thread …
This is hilarious:
Ladakh: The Anatomy of a Surprise — Was India caught off guard along the Line of Actual Control? Why?
Without mentioned any source, the author – who’s credited as an “independent New Delhi-based security analyst, researcher, and consultant” – states that:
We now know that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) mounted a large operation starting early this year to shift the Line of Actual Control (LAC) between India and China in eastern Ladakh, across a front spanning hundreds of kilometers. In order to do so, the PLA moved artillery and armor, along with divisions worth of troops, into forward positions as a deterrent.
This led to the largest standoff between the Indian and Chinese armies in more than half a century. On the night of June 15, the two armies at one of the locations where the PLA had intruded, in the Galwan Valley, got into a major melee that left at least 20 Indian soldiers dead. As The Diplomat went to publication, the process of military disengagement had begun. It is not known, however, whether India will eventually have to live with a LAC shifted in its adversary’s favor.
Why did the author felt the necessity to write down (or was his editor?) that bizarre, absolute random excerpt that I highlighted here?
The answer is very simple: The Diplomat is a monthly magazine. The Ladakh incident happened in mid-June, which would put it in the July magazine the soonest. But that would be a stretch, because, by mid-June, the July edition must’ve already be well into its finishing stages. We know with absolute certainty the Ladakh incident wasn’t covered in the July issue because the summary is available at their website.
This serendipity of the magazine format left the Ladakh incident to the August issue. But by August, the conflicted had already died down.
Why did it die down? For another very simple reason: the author is lying. Not only the PLA didn’t advance to Indian positions in the LAC – but the exact opposite happened: India was building up to advance to the Chinese side since April:
CCTV exposes India’s border provocation against China
These CCTV images (they are available in the video in the link) came to the forefront at July 6th. They unequivocally prove it was India – not China – the aggressor.
The very same day, it was announced the situation was “eased”, after both countries reaching a “positive consensus”. That is fancy diplomatic wording that means the conflict was effectively over because the Indian government was caught red-handed:
China, India reach positive consensus on easing border situation
By July 7th, the Diplomat’s piece probably was already ready or commissioned, so it was too late to call it off (assuming the magazine has a professional editorial corps on the publishing side, the August issue was already entirely commissioned by the beginning of the previous month, as is or should be common practice).
However, the author’s lie is just to big to accept this mundane explanation.
The main reason I think The Diplomat decided to keep the piece was this paragraph:
The LAC is neither demarcated on the ground, nor do both countries agree on where it lies in terms of a common official map. In many ways, it is the perfect place for China to test its incremental land-grab strategy along the lines it had first perfected in the maritime space in the South and East China Seas.
“In many ways” is the adverb the author uses to conjecture China did the aggression – even if just in thought (as a dress rehearsal to the South and East China Seas!!!). He says that because the LAC is not official at all: by that technicality, he can claim that, when India built up in the region, China automatically became closer to them!
He then changes the subject about how the Indian intelligence is an absolute failure, which then connects the rest of the piece with the headline. The piece is the cut off after two paragraphs by a USD 30.00 paywall.
My guess is the piece originally was commissioned as a virulent fake news propaganda against Chinese aggression. It should be a piece for the ages: a call for the entire Indian people – and all its Western friends – to a hot war against China. But when the truth came out and the piece already was in the works, they changed to a piece over Indian intelligence ineptitude as an emergence plan B.
Posted by: vk | Aug 4 2020 14:09 utc | 173
|
