This morning Will Schryver is speculating along the lines we’ve been thinking, most recently, yesterday: the drip, drip, drip of revelations about the Zhou regime that could serve at a moments notice to remove Zhou from his occupancy of the Oval Office.
Scott Ritter is very gloomy about all this, convinced that we are headed for nuclear war. As he mentions, the only way this ends without that is for a total Russian victory and a recognition by Nato that it needs to dial down its megalomania. I would add that this is not enough: every current Western leader must also be kicked out. What is scary, is that there seems to be no viable opposition to any of them. Who is there to take over from Sunak? Nato Messenger boy Bojo? Starmer? Big Mike? Let's hope the Hersh story really is a sign that there are a few sane people in the Pentagon.
Shocking that BBC and CNN (and indeed most Western media) have not shown any of the enthusiasm about the Nord Stream explosive news as they displayed in the Chinese weather balloon.
Metrological predictions are reasonably accurate these days. The path of the 'evil balloon' may not have been fully intended when launched, not the point tho'. (The kerfuffle IS a point, per your post today).
The lack of awareness, lack of action by our 'Gov't protectors' demonstrate a weakness and avenue of significant destruction of in this US locale. (I suggested a couple Balloon-carried EMPs, blamed on N Korea would provide massive devastation and what are we gonna do to Kim? China would play protector and stalemate our response).
Our feckless leadership truly is a danger, extensile in fact, to each and every one of us. Weakness breeds attack. Here we are, feckless, weak and being led by the worst possible 'group' imaginable. (WRH)
Interesting post. I think the author misses the point that the "rules based order" is posited by and supports international extra-governmental (NGO) organizations such as the EU, ECB, IMF, WB, UN, etc. It is the proponents of those organizations who are threatened by a Russia that cleaves to international law. What percentage of the world has accepted governance by these organizations? And to what extent has that been because of U.S. hegemony? I happen to think that China, Russia, India, Brazil, Iran, etc. reject control by those organization in toto, not just because of the fact or likelihood of U.S. dominance over them.
Mead is right in that I think we tend to underestimate the Wilsonian thread in international relations that remains prevalent in liberal/progressive foreign policy circles and how Putin is a threat to that view. There is an element of idealism here that is leveraged by the totalitarians of Davos. Resistance to Putin is not just because of Davosian totalitarianism, it is a tenet of progressivism that has existed over the last 100+ years.
However one wants to construe a "rules based order" and how correlated it may be with U.S. hegemony, the following quote from the author of the post is most certainly true and of more importance: "Whatever the illusions of some Americans, we cannot preserve economic dominance on the basis of banking, retail, and services, relying on other countries to manufacture what our retailers sell. Without economic dominance we cannot preserve military dominance and without U. S. military dominance there is no rules-based order."
Good post at the Glittering Eye. I then went and scrolled through some of the olden-days blogs from The Watcher's Council; only a few are still up and running. I ended up following Instapundit's link to the WSJ for the latest essay by Holman Jenkins.
After chiding the government for not leveling with the public about Chinese spying, and for the Pentagon pushing UFO sightings to hide the fact that the Chinese have been spying on us with drones (and balloons?) for a while now, Jenkins ends with:
"Squandering public trust, though, is a bad habit for a government that will be needing our trust for high-risk ventures like the Ukraine war and managing the Chinese threat to Taiwan."
I sure do wish our government was only lying about UFOs.
Regarding those thirty-one M1 tanks that need to be built from scratch in order to finish them with only 1970s armor before sending them off to the black hole that is Ukraine, McGregor ends by saying
"We're preparing an apology. 'Well we did all we could look at all we sent.' In the meantime, millions of Ukrainian's lives are destroyed... Who will be held responsible for that? If they point the finger at Putin, he's the wrong man... Ambassador Burns, who is now the director of the CIA, wrote the famous memo, 'Nyet means no; don't advance the borders of NATO to Russia.'"
They didn't have to "blow up" the balloon. Just put a big enough hole in it and it floats down to the ground. Should have done that over Alaska. Recover the devices intact and examine them, then offer them back to China.
Reread. "Surprising" means unexpected, couldn't have been part of planning a route.
"Both the cold snap and the balloon's turn were surprising. The jet stream would usually have prevent both from happening. But this time the low pressure area proved to be stronger if only for a short moment. It is the reason why the balloon ended up crossing the U.S."
Seems to demote Alaska to something less than a full US state. It would appear overflight of Alaska (US) was intentional on the part of China. Our response seems to cede this right to China. Perhaps negotiated in advance? That would be news.
Saw the article. Russia will not win the war against Ukraine because they don't want to. The West is now locked into a war of attrition which they are losing daily. As long as they believe they are winning....
I sent the Hersh piece to a few ex-colleagues over in Germany, noting, for the sake of non-advocacy on my part of one view over the other, the U.S. government's refutation. No responses yet, other than to say that it wasn't picked up in their press and that they'd read.
China's approach was Fly first... Force majeure later. Where was their phone call to Zhou?
Scott Ritter is very gloomy about all this, convinced that we are headed for nuclear war. As he mentions, the only way this ends without that is for a total Russian victory and a recognition by Nato that it needs to dial down its megalomania. I would add that this is not enough: every current Western leader must also be kicked out. What is scary, is that there seems to be no viable opposition to any of them. Who is there to take over from Sunak? Nato Messenger boy Bojo? Starmer? Big Mike? Let's hope the Hersh story really is a sign that there are a few sane people in the Pentagon.
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2023/02/some-small-corrections-to-seymour-hershs-new-nord-stream-revelations.html#more
Chen Weihua （陈卫华）
@chenweihua
China state-affiliated media
Shocking that BBC and CNN (and indeed most Western media) have not shown any of the enthusiasm about the Nord Stream explosive news as they displayed in the Chinese weather balloon.
As always, thank you Mark.
Metrological predictions are reasonably accurate these days. The path of the 'evil balloon' may not have been fully intended when launched, not the point tho'. (The kerfuffle IS a point, per your post today).
The lack of awareness, lack of action by our 'Gov't protectors' demonstrate a weakness and avenue of significant destruction of in this US locale. (I suggested a couple Balloon-carried EMPs, blamed on N Korea would provide massive devastation and what are we gonna do to Kim? China would play protector and stalemate our response).
Our feckless leadership truly is a danger, extensile in fact, to each and every one of us. Weakness breeds attack. Here we are, feckless, weak and being led by the worst possible 'group' imaginable. (WRH)
List of examples of US doing whatever it wants in the comments is interesting.
The articles I link to is an analysis of The World Rejects the Liberal Wilsonian Order
Walter Russell Mead, Wall Street Journal February 8, 2023 article.
The World” Has Rejected the Rules-Based Order
Dave Schuler
https://theglitteringeye.com/the-world-has-rejected-the-rules-based-order/
Interesting post. I think the author misses the point that the "rules based order" is posited by and supports international extra-governmental (NGO) organizations such as the EU, ECB, IMF, WB, UN, etc. It is the proponents of those organizations who are threatened by a Russia that cleaves to international law. What percentage of the world has accepted governance by these organizations? And to what extent has that been because of U.S. hegemony? I happen to think that China, Russia, India, Brazil, Iran, etc. reject control by those organization in toto, not just because of the fact or likelihood of U.S. dominance over them.
Mead is right in that I think we tend to underestimate the Wilsonian thread in international relations that remains prevalent in liberal/progressive foreign policy circles and how Putin is a threat to that view. There is an element of idealism here that is leveraged by the totalitarians of Davos. Resistance to Putin is not just because of Davosian totalitarianism, it is a tenet of progressivism that has existed over the last 100+ years.
However one wants to construe a "rules based order" and how correlated it may be with U.S. hegemony, the following quote from the author of the post is most certainly true and of more importance: "Whatever the illusions of some Americans, we cannot preserve economic dominance on the basis of banking, retail, and services, relying on other countries to manufacture what our retailers sell. Without economic dominance we cannot preserve military dominance and without U. S. military dominance there is no rules-based order."
Thanks for the link, Ray!
Good post at the Glittering Eye. I then went and scrolled through some of the olden-days blogs from The Watcher's Council; only a few are still up and running. I ended up following Instapundit's link to the WSJ for the latest essay by Holman Jenkins.
After chiding the government for not leveling with the public about Chinese spying, and for the Pentagon pushing UFO sightings to hide the fact that the Chinese have been spying on us with drones (and balloons?) for a while now, Jenkins ends with:
"Squandering public trust, though, is a bad habit for a government that will be needing our trust for high-risk ventures like the Ukraine war and managing the Chinese threat to Taiwan."
I sure do wish our government was only lying about UFOs.
I recall that several attempts to balloon around the world ran into troubles because China wouldn't grant overflight permissions.
If China hadn't asked Canada & the US for permission beforehand, then China/US should absolutely have shot the balloon down. China would have.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighooper/2023/02/05/after-restricting-balloon-overflights-for-25-years-chinas-protests-wear-thin/?sh=130f401a2153
The period during which China prevented balloon overflights ended in 1999. Did you know that when you wrote your comment?
Nope. Running off memories.
Excellent presentation by Macgregor:
https://youtu.be/m0EeMr00BSM?list=PL20Ot3J1dJgG7XpqMJNa38houieHUYT9e&t=1180
Regarding those thirty-one M1 tanks that need to be built from scratch in order to finish them with only 1970s armor before sending them off to the black hole that is Ukraine, McGregor ends by saying
"We're preparing an apology. 'Well we did all we could look at all we sent.' In the meantime, millions of Ukrainian's lives are destroyed... Who will be held responsible for that? If they point the finger at Putin, he's the wrong man... Ambassador Burns, who is now the director of the CIA, wrote the famous memo, 'Nyet means no; don't advance the borders of NATO to Russia.'"
Good point Tamsin. Will someone forward Hersh to Macron, who just conferred the Legion of Honour on Zelensky.
Ha ha! Does that somehow guarantee him a post in the Foreign Legion if/when he loses his current gig? A fallback plan?
Don’t worry, il n’a pas le niveau!
Is there anyone--ANYONE--in the Democrat party who can be relied upon to be a grown up? Or is that the wrong question?
The last one in my memory was probably “scoop “ Jackson.
I think, after blowing up Nordstream with no consequence, its not particularly surprising to see the shoot first attitude from this administration.
They didn't have to "blow up" the balloon. Just put a big enough hole in it and it floats down to the ground. Should have done that over Alaska. Recover the devices intact and examine them, then offer them back to China.
Yep. They could have just jabbed it. They've jabbed everything else these last 3 years.
Reread. "Surprising" means unexpected, couldn't have been part of planning a route.
"Both the cold snap and the balloon's turn were surprising. The jet stream would usually have prevent both from happening. But this time the low pressure area proved to be stronger if only for a short moment. It is the reason why the balloon ended up crossing the U.S."
Seems to demote Alaska to something less than a full US state. It would appear overflight of Alaska (US) was intentional on the part of China. Our response seems to cede this right to China. Perhaps negotiated in advance? That would be news.
I would suggest that there's lots we don't know about Chinese as well as US balloons, but that hysteria is a foolish response:
https://www.reuters.com/world/what-we-know-dont-know-about-chinese-balloon-2023-02-08/
Saw the article. Russia will not win the war against Ukraine because they don't want to. The West is now locked into a war of attrition which they are losing daily. As long as they believe they are winning....
I sent the Hersh piece to a few ex-colleagues over in Germany, noting, for the sake of non-advocacy on my part of one view over the other, the U.S. government's refutation. No responses yet, other than to say that it wasn't picked up in their press and that they'd read.