Chinese “Spy Balloon” Spotted Over Montana

[James]

An Article on the Balloon
Furor Over Chinese Spy Balloon Leads to a Diplomatic Crisis —New York Times

Something—some things—about this are pretty curious to me.

It's kind of hilarious for the stigma of an unidentified flying object being identified as a “weather balloon” to now be an object that looks like a “weather balloon,” is called by the United States government a “spy balloon,” and called by the Chinese government a “weather balloon.”

It’s interesting to me that the initial messaging to the public on it basically said something along the lines of “it is not dangerous; we have taken steps to mitigate threat it may pose; no need to worry about it; we aren’t shooting it down because we don’t want it to land on people or property.” And meanwhile, there would have been no hope for something such as this to move over the United States undetected. Seems to be there is no dispute between the governments where it originates; just on purpose. The whole situation just seems odd.

[R.P. Gryphus]

This is called 'manufacturing consent'. Not sure if Sun Tzu ever theorized about that strategy/social engineering, but the USA is by far the most prolific manufacturer of consent of the 20th and 21st centuries. And as any serious student of history could attest, the Nazi almost wrote the entire rulebook on how it's done. And we know how the American elites love Nazis.

The US elites and big corps, the WEF fanatics and NATO members want a war. They need something as 'bad' as COVID to further their agendas. And Ukraine is too far from the US, the Ukrainian government too corrupt and incompetent, decentralized, to act as an effective extension of the American armed forces. Russia has too many allies and resources. Also no one ever beat the Russians, except Russians. Napoléon and Hitler's generals were by FAR more competent than any American or NATO members high ranking generals. If they couldn't invade Russia, these narcissistic clueless aristocratic idiots sure as hell won't.

China is another story though. It is VERY close to the US and MANY of its allied countries, in which they have STRONG military presence. They are only separated by an ocean and the US has the strongest navy in the world. Also, China is a FAR more important and consequential target than Russia (and the entire Eastern Europe combined) will ever be. Everything is made in China (including Taiwan of course). Having their government fall... damn, that would be the lottery for the western plutocracies.

All in all it comes down to influence and power and keeping it for themselves. The US Empire is crumbling and like every empire in history, it will go down in a bloodbath. But they need their sacrificial pawns and sheep to go along with it.

[James]

Hmm... not sure I’m on the same page with a lot of that.

If NATO/allies are “itching for a fight” it certainly isn’t with China. The western world’s dependencies on China put their dependencies on Russia to utter shame. I don’t think they’re “itching for a fight” with Russia, either. Certainly not a direct engagement as opposed to the present proxy war. For various reasons, including nuclear weapons and an unstable leader in the form of Putin.

Another contrast would be Russia’s army having demonstrated it to be ill-equipped, under-funded, dated and deteriorating, and incompetently-managed. In my opinion, I would bet a big part of that is Putin having gone down the path of surrounding himself with yes-men, disassociating himself with reality and the capabilities of his nation. It is hard to view the consequences of this engagement with Ukraine, from Russia’s perspective, in any sort of positive light.

China, by contrast, is bound to be a far more competent military threat in every context.

The dance between China and the West, and its neighbors such as South Korea and Japan, seems, to me, to be far more nuanced than this. Many countries depend on China, but China also depends on many of those countries. A great portion of the nation’s economic strength is tied to production and export. China wants to exert greater influence over oceanic regions to their east and fully absorb Taiwan, but much of the rest of the world is opposed to that for various reasons. Some ethical, such as respecting a sovereign nation, many based on geopolitics and self-survival (e.g. the world’s most advanced semiconductor manufacturer, TSMC, is based in Taiwan). So China and their competitors spy on each other; push and pull to see what is possible and what they can get away with, getting away with what they can; and each endeavors to angle itself to obtain its interests without actually collapsing components of the global market and economies they are both tied to. War would be disastrous for both. Which is why, I suspect, we see China trying to get what it wants politically as opposed to militarily, as Putin has attempted to do (with considerable success) though interfering with elections via social media and other means, or (with mixed results prior, disastrous now) with Ukraine.

I’m a bit at a loss at where to start in responding to the characterization of Ukraine’s government as corrupt. It has its issues, as does many other nations’ governments—certainly including the United States—but far shy of what has taken place in Russia. And it hardly seems relevant to the current circumstances where Russia has, quite simply, invaded a sovereign nation and is, at each step of the way, committing abhorrent atrocities. I am glad neighboring nations are intervening in this case, and, in my opinion, I also believe it is being handled relatively competently.

Back to the balloon...

This seems like a really crappy tool to manufacturer outrage and garner public support for something at this scale. Of course many politicians will employ it for hyperbole and propaganda—can’t say the state of many politicians in the Untied States is in a good place after the previous administration and increasingly untenable partisan divide—but this is just an unimpressive spectacle. Compared to something so base as highlight successful spying efforts with clear impact, support for Russia in their invasion of Ukraine, etc. That and the government’s initial response to the balloon wasn't so focused on making it out to be a horror.

That said... pushing boundaries? Endeavoring to foster new norms? That’s an interesting thought.

It kind of reminds me of teenagers and parents. Push every boundary in an effort to see what sticks and what can be broken. What can be gotten away with.

[R.P. Gryphus]

Just a premise to my long-ass answer, I accept that we can have divergent opinions and views on things and I am not judging you, or anyone, nor am I seeing anyone's perspective as less important or less worth expressing than mine. And at some point I don't have any issue agreeing to disagree and to leave it at that.

If NATO/allies are “itching for a fight” it certainly isn’t with China.

It is not 'itching for a fight' per se, it is more about staying the hegemon of the world, in practicality or symbolically. China is a communist nation, the US and western elites detest that. China is a provider, which makes the US and most countries in the world very dependant on them. The US and western elites detest that. China wanting to assert their legitimate and recognized authority over Taiwan, which is extremely valuable to big tech companies, is seen as a threat by the US and western elites (analogous to the threat of NATO expansion is to Russia). They don't care about Taiwan independency. They care about the resources, their private interests.

The western world’s dependencies on China put their dependencies on Russia to utter shame.

This means nothing. The US and western aristocrats have shown that they will allow the common people to go back living as caveman before allowing these dependencies to dictate how business is done with them.

I don’t think they’re “itching for a fight” with Russia, either. Certainly not a direct engagement as opposed to the present proxy war.

NATO was created to counter the Soviet Union sphere of influence. The Soviet Union was dissolved in 1990. So should have NATO. But NATO (an extension of the US armed forces) took advantage of this eastern crisis to encroach its influence even more and getting ever closer to Moscow. Russia has been the archenemy of the US aristocrats since WW2, being the most prolific provider of casus belli to wage war or enact anticonstitutional/hegemonistic domestic and foreign policies. The West has always found in Russia a counterbalance to their effort to dominate the world. Russia is one of the main reason why US hegemony doesn't cover the entire world. There has been a generational 'itch' to submit Russia since before we were both born into this world. The West doesn't 'itch' for a war, they would gladly submit Russia without a fight if they could, but they can't.

For various reasons, including nuclear weapons and an unstable leader in the form of Putin.

Nuclear weapon : It is a deterrent, but people have no clue the extent of it. Most nuclear weapon in existence are qualified as 'tactical nuclear warheads'. They are powerful, but not as catastrophically powerful as one might initially think. And as opposed to what is generally believed, there isn't enough nuclear warheads on this planet to significantly scratch its surface. If nuclear weapons were to be used, it would be way more contained than what we might think and it is very unlikely that the use of such weapons in Ukraine would mean the end of the world and provoke an all out nuclear war.

Unstable Putin : I have no clue how you can hold that kind of opinion, especially as someone that has an interest in history. Unstable rulers don't last and they cause havoc within their own realm. Russia is a very stable country and has been since a long time now. I have watched and listened to Putin speeches, as much as I have with Bush, Obama, Trump and regrettably, Biden. Putin is by far the most articulate, straightforward, logical and stoic politician I have ever listened to. And contrary to most Western politicians, Putin can actually held a press conference for hours and hours, without having his hands hold or reading cards. As far as it can be observed, Putin is a cunning and decisive leader and other than unsubstantiated propaganda, I have never seen or heard of anything credible to suggest otherwise.

Another contrast would be Russia’s army having demonstrated it to be ill-equipped, under-funded, dated and deteriorating, and incompetently-managed.

'Demonstrated'? That is not true. These are copy/pasted words from government owned mainstream medias. And every logistical issues the Russian army were having at some point, against a NATO funded, equipped and trained forces, the US army had them as well at some point in Irak and Afghanistan, against ill-equipped, ill-funded, ill-trained forces. As the first major conflict between two major powers (NATO vs Russia), I think Russia is doing pretty damn well.

In my opinion, I would bet a big part of that is Putin having gone down the path of surrounding himself with yes-men, disassociating himself with reality and the capabilities of his nation.

I have no clue how you got to that opinion. Biden is a senile yes-man being taken advantage of by the intelligence community and powerful aristocrats/lobbyists, whereas Putin is a strategist seeing his surrounding and the world as a chess board. He didn't got his position by luck. And we are not living in the 40s or 50s, such 'yes-men' as you might be referring to wouldn't be as much of an issue as it was back then (especially in Nazi Germany). Everything comes to light eventually, especially nowadays more than ever before, and I wouldn't want to be the man caught lying in his reports to the Putin administration.

It is hard to view the consequences of this engagement with Ukraine, from Russia’s perspective, in any sort of positive light.

It is not. Putin is saying 'f••• you NATO'. The statement is loud and clear. That has gathered Russia a lot of support. It's like the Harry Potter last scene, when Hogwart almost submit to Voldemort, until everyone see the courage of Neville and that Harry Potter is alive. Russia has shown that it can withstand and oppose the US hegemony. There is a lot of positive consequences for Russia. Another one of the them is having stopped the massacres in the Donbass, perpetrated by Ukrainian Banderas neo-nazis.

China, by contrast, is bound to be a far more competent military threat in every context.

I don't agree. China doesn't have 1/4 of the military experience of either Russia and the US/NATO. They are an untested and inexperienced military power and no amount of wargames, studies or funding come close to be worth real war experience. And I suspect this to be among the top-tier reasons why China still seem to be hesitant/shy/soft to assert its domination in its surrounding.

Many countries depend on China, but China also depends on many of those countries. A great portion of the nation’s economic strength is tied to production and export.

And that's not new and it never prevented a war to happen. Economies will be affected, but they will ultimately recuperate. Especially if there's a winner. Also wars profit individuals, and private entities. No war in the history of the world was ever good for the common people. So even when economies goes to shit, aristocrats always get their money. So that economic incentive/concern isn't one that is as strong as you might think.

China wants to exert greater influence over oceanic regions to their east and fully absorb Taiwan, but much of the rest of the world is opposed to that for various reasons. Some ethical, such as respecting a sovereign nation, many based on geopolitics and self-survival (e.g. the world’s most advanced semiconductor manufacturer, TSMC, is based in Taiwan).

The world isn't opposed to it. The vast majority of countries recognized Taiwan as being part of China. That's called the 'One China Policy'. Even the US recognize it (you can check it out on their Ministry of Defense website or something like that). The only reason the US is interfering in China domestic affairs is because of the resources they would lose hegemony over to China. It's not about morals nor human rights, even though the US love to virtue-signal standing on the bones and graves of the millions children, women, old people and young innocent men they butchered and massacred since WW2, 'to get the bad guys'.

War would be disastrous for both.

War is always disastrous in the short term. Aristocrats, CEOs and 3 letters agencies mostly care about long-term.

Which is why, I suspect, we see China trying to get what it wants politically as opposed to militarily, as Putin has attempted to do (with considerable success) though interfering with elections via social media and other means, or (with mixed results prior, disastrous now) with Ukraine.

That's the thing : China is politically very vocal, straightforward and stoic, just like Putin is, about their views and position and where their interests lie. But the US & NATO don't care about China and Russia concerns or interests. China and Russia are to the Western aristocrats what the Nanman, Shanyue and Xiongnu were to the Han, or what the Gaul, Picts, Numidians and Palestinians were to the Romans : uncivilised barbarians.

Also Russia didn't interfere with the election. This was proven to be an hoax orchestrated by Democrats, including Hillary Clinton. Democrats interfered with the election though. There's so many videos out there showing how ballots were being misused and added and so on.

I’m a bit at a loss at where to start in responding to the characterization of Ukraine’s government as corrupt. It has its issues, as does many other nations’ governments—certainly including the United States—but far shy of what has taken place in Russia.

I don't agree.

• Ukraine on fire, 2016 : https://youtu.be/pKcmNGvaDUs
• Why is Ukraine the West's fault, 2015 : https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4

And it hardly seems relevant to the current circumstances where Russia has, quite simply, invaded a sovereign nation and is, at each step of the way, committing abhorrent atrocities. I am glad neighboring nations are intervening in this case, and, in my opinion, I also believe it is being handled relatively competently.

The US have repeatedly invaded sovereign nation, with far less credible and reasonable justifications. As for the atrocities, Ukrainian neo-nazis are perpetrating them in order to manufacture and keep feeding the 'consent' momentum that has help fund their military. There are gore websites on which you can actually see the many footages and proofs of these atrocities and who committed or staged them, footages that aren't shown nor talked about on the mainstream news.

Also, you talked earlier about the concept of 'consequences of this war in any positive light'. What are the consequences of these atrocities, from both perspectives? Who does it serve the most? Who has an history of committing atrocities or the reputation of adhering to extremist ideologies? Asking these questions is answering them.

This seems like a really crappy tool to manufacturer outrage and garner public support for something at this scale. Of course many politicians will employ it for hyperbole and propaganda—can’t say the state of many politicians in the Untied States is in a good place after the previous administration and increasingly untenable partisan divide—but this is just an unimpressive spectacle.

Isolated, of course it is an unimpressive spectacle. Add it to everything else that serve to portray China as hostile though, now the effects are more felt. Concerns become annoyance, annoyance becomes frustration, frustration becomes hate. Manufacturing consent is a process, not an isolated and singular action/incident.

[Kong Wen]

An Article on the Balloon
Furor Over Chinese Spy Balloon Leads to a Diplomatic Crisis —New York Times

Something—some things—about this are pretty curious to me.

It's kind of hilarious for the stigma of an unidentified flying object being identified as a “weather balloon” to now be an object that looks like a “weather balloon,” is called by the United States government a “spy balloon,” and called by the Chinese government a “weather balloon.”

It’s interesting to me that the initial messaging to the public on it basically said something along the lines of “it is not dangerous; we have taken steps to mitigate threat it may pose; no need to worry about it; we aren’t shooting it down because we don’t want it to land on people or property.” And meanwhile, there would have been no hope for something such as this to move over the United States undetected. Seems to be there is no dispute between the governments where it originates; just on purpose. The whole situation just seems odd.

I was watching Mark Rober's recent video about dropping an egg from space, and the ways they attempted to engineer its survival. One of the things that stuck out to me was that weather balloons are essentially launched all over the world, multiple times per day, and they just... float away and eventually crash, eventually to be retrieved if any nearby hobbyist has the means or interest. I thought that was strange, that there's basically this huge network of floating garbage that no one ever thinks about.

Anyway, that's just one of the things this made me think about.

I'm not sure what anyone thinks China would have thought they could have accomplished if this were actually an act of espionage. It's not like something like this could ever escape detection more than, say, Chinese people going to the US and looking around and getting jobs and doing actual espionage. So the idea that it's a "SpY bAlLoOn!" or any kind of serious threat is worth a chortle. If China is doing anything scary, it's not going to be Saturday morning cartoon stuff.

[WeiWenDi]

This is called 'manufacturing consent'. Not sure if Sun Tzu ever theorized about that strategy/social engineering, but the USA is by far the most prolific manufacturer of consent of the 20th and 21st centuries. And as any serious student of history could attest, the Nazi almost wrote the entire rulebook on how it's done. And we know how the American elites love Nazis.

The US elites and big corps, the WEF fanatics and NATO members want a war. They need something as 'bad' as COVID to further their agendas. And Ukraine is too far from the US, the Ukrainian government too corrupt and incompetent, decentralized, to act as an effective extension of the American armed forces. Russia has too many allies and resources. Also no one ever beat the Russians, except Russians. Napoléon and Hitler's generals were by FAR more competent than any American or NATO members high ranking generals. If they couldn't invade Russia, these narcissistic clueless aristocratic idiots sure as hell won't.

China is another story though. It is VERY close to the US and MANY of its allied countries, in which they have STRONG military presence. They are only separated by an ocean and the US has the strongest navy in the world. Also, China is a FAR more important and consequential target than Russia (and the entire Eastern Europe combined) will ever be. Everything is made in China (including Taiwan of course). Having their government fall... damn, that would be the lottery for the western plutocracies.

All in all it comes down to influence and power and keeping it for themselves. The US Empire is crumbling and like every empire in history, it will go down in a bloodbath. But they need their sacrificial pawns and sheep to go along with it.

Damn, R.P., leave some for me, man! I'm supposed to be the contrarian-leftist critic of American foreign policy around here!

Seriously, though, welcome to the forum.

And naturally, I agree with a lot of this, including the Chomsky-esque angle which posits that the advertising of the Chinese balloon as a 'spy balloon' is essentially meant as consent-manufacturing propaganda for domestic consumption. Any objective take on the balloon would note that the lack of navigational control, high visibility and low speed of the craft are... mildly-put, not well-suited to espionage. Red China scares also generally play well to the tinfoil hat crowd domestically. There's also the unfortunate tendency of the Democrats and the Republicans to want to jockey for position as the 'toughest-on-Russia/China/designated enemy du jour' in their attempts to not appear weak in the eyes of the public.

The part where I tend to disagree is on the third paragraph. American corporations aren't necessarily doing the vulture circle around China just yet the same way they were around 1990s Yugoslavia or 2010s Libya and Syria (for example), though of course I wouldn't put it past them on principle. In general, I think American corporations still view China as a major export market and possible investment partner. The sole exceptions would be the military-industrial complex and cybersecurity firms, which have a profit-driven incentive to play up the China threat.

The ultimate goal of the American national-security state will be to balkanise China the same way they're now openly talking about doing to Russia. But that won't be for the primary purpose of benefitting MNCs. (That will be a secondary bonus.) It will be for the primary purpose of retaining political hegemony in Washington and financial hegemony in New York and London.

[WeiWenDi]

Couple points on the tangential Russia/Ukraine thing:

Which is why, I suspect, we see China trying to get what it wants politically as opposed to militarily, as Putin has attempted to do (with considerable success) though interfering with elections via social media and other means, or (with mixed results prior, disastrous now) with Ukraine.

This assertion seems particularly unfounded. I suspect Russia didn't put a great deal of energy into election interference in the first place, for one thing. If they spent $10,000 on such a social-media influence campaign I would be surprised. Also, a recent study by NYU shows that 'despite Russia’s influence operations on the platform [Twitter], there were no measurable changes in attitudes, polarization, or voting behavior among those exposed to this foreign influence campaign'. Sorry, but Clinton lost in 2016 on her own merits: the Russians didn't hurt her chances.

I’m a bit at a loss at where to start in responding to the characterization of Ukraine’s government as corrupt. It has its issues, as does many other nations’ governments—certainly including the United States—but far shy of what has taken place in Russia. And it hardly seems relevant to the current circumstances where Russia has, quite simply, invaded a sovereign nation and is, at each step of the way, committing abhorrent atrocities. I am glad neighboring nations are intervening in this case, and, in my opinion, I also believe it is being handled relatively competently.

Man, Ukraine is cartoonishly, astronomically corrupt. It's a total cesspit of bribery and graft, and has been for a long time. The country has been near or at the bottom of the Transparency Perceptions Index in Europe for practically the entire time it's been independent. To give just one small example: back in August, there were reports from CBS News to the effect that less than 30% of military aid and materiel being delivered to Ukraine was making it to the front lines. The rest was being sold off to various organised crime rackets. This is what you call 'relative competence'?

The more objectionable thing, though, is that Ukraine has essentially cracked down on all forms of political dissent since 2014 and outlawed or disbanded most of the opposition parties, including the major centre-left social democratic party. The country has been acting more and more like a dictatorship since that time, murdering or gaoling political dissidents and even straight-up assassinating political figures who speak out of turn. Look up what happened to the 42 people who got burned to death in the Odesa Trade Unions building fire, Denis Kireev, the Kononovich brothers, Alexey Albu, Elena Berezhnaya, Volodymyr Struk, Nestor Shufrych, Yan Taksyur, Aleksandr Matyushenko and Yurii Tkachev.

The Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts, by the way, went from being some of the most patriotic and pro-Ukrainian regions back in 2005, to being split down the middle in terms of their political allegiance in 2013, to being almost completely pro-Russian now. That is mostly owing to the fact that the Ukrainian armed forces (and the associated far-right paramilitary forces attached to them) have been carrying out essentially a campaign of ethnic cleansing in the region for nine years, which had killed anywhere between 2,000 and 9,000 civilians (depending on whom you ask) and displaced over 1,000,000 - mostly into Russia. There were quite a few 'abhorrent atrocities' being committed in these areas of Ukraine for years before Russia invaded, but no one seems to have spoken up or cared about them.

[James]

Just a premise to my long-ass answer, I accept that we can have divergent opinions and views on things and I am not judging you, or anyone, nor am I seeing anyone's perspective as less important or less worth expressing than mine. And at some point I don't have any issue agreeing to disagree and to leave it at that.

I suppose it is no longer a given, after so much downtime, but there has been a bit of a tradition in this forum of honoring that discussions on sensitive topics should take place and that strong disagreement may exist. It need not impact friendship. Hopefully!

So I hope that preface keeps in mind from my perspective as well.

I know there exists wildly divergent views on these topics among intelligent people who disagree.

[...]

[...]

Let’s see... I’m going to limit the scope of my reply a bit. Especially given we have a topic.

Hi WWD, my friend. Nice to see you around.

First, Ukraine. Discussion of its corruption, which I believe is present but being exaggerated in light of individual biases, is a red herring to the discussion about invading a sovereign nation. It does not justify Russia’s actions in this case, nor their war crimes. I wonder if WWD might appreciate some parallels to Bush and Iraq in this line of reasoning. This is also several layers removed from the topic.

"China wanting to assert their legitimate and recognized authority over Taiwan."
Strong bias here. This is not factual.

[Re: China and US dependence on China] "This means nothing. The US and western aristocrats have shown that they will allow the common people to go back living as caveman before allowing these dependencies to dictate how business is done with them."
This is not relevant to my response, and I’m not going to re-iterate my point. As to the comment, Capitalism fosters, at a deep level, a desire to promote self-interest over that of others. To fundamentally put profit over altruism. But this does not bridge so far into the ideology that seems to be implied, here. It is this keen interest in generating profit that has fostered a great deal of the financial investment and cooperation between Capitalist interests and Chinese production and resources. While some Capitalist interests may enjoy a war, for example, plenty of others do not want a war. Plenty of those Capitalist interests *do not want* to undermine economic function in the countries they are tied to.

[Reading down, it seems like WWD and I have some agreement on this point vis-à-vis Capitalism.]

And it is basically just a different but related sort of green as seen in authoritarianism. Or what you see with Putin and the Russian Oligarchs. It's a pretty base, human, "me first," and given power, more power is acquired, to further promote "me first."

NATO
Yep, founded to counter the threat posed by the Soviet Union. This doesn’t define the nature of their motivations today. It does not mean, for example, that they are itching for a war with, say, China. And if they were itching for a war with Russia, you’d have seen them maneuvering much more strongly in that direction with the annexation of Crimea. Putin just pushed too far, this time, with an open invasion.

"Nuclear weapon: It is a deterrent, but people have no clue the extent of it. Most nuclear weapon in existence are qualified as 'tactical nuclear warheads'. They are powerful, but not as catastrophically powerful as one might initially think. And as opposed to what is generally believed, there isn't enough nuclear warheads on this planet to significantly scratch its surface."
You are correct that tactical nuclear warheads are limited in scale. But I think you are inherently downplaying the 1) implications of their use by any nation, and 2) other consequences of their use. You are also dead wrong about your broader assertion regarding the capacity of nuclear weapons presently developed. We have, within our capacity, the capacity to wipe out human life on this planet, which nuclear weapons manufactured which make those used in Japan look like firecrackers.

I think it is now up for debate the state and health of Russia’s nuclear arsenal—we can see much of the rest of their military has fallen into a state of disrepair—but if even some 10% of thousands of warheads were to be effective, the potential result would be disastrous. And it does not seem so controversial to note that this is a point of concern regarding invasion. It is also a threat Putin likes to play on.

"Unstable Putin: I have no clue how you can hold that kind of opinion, especially as someone that has an interest in history. Unstable rulers don't last and they cause havoc within their own realm.
Be mindful of that “especially for someone that has an interest in history” line. When our biases prevent us from looking at a situation with a level head—when we have golden cows we do not wish to criticize—we also fail to see new information in disagreement.

Unstable rulers don’t last, sure. But rulers do become unstable, and cease to last. And the disastrous misstep with this war and Putin’s handling and responses—his utter failure to anticipate the consequences of what he is doing, including devastation to his country’s economy and military—does not leave me expecting him to be as sound of mind as he once was.

Now, if someone thinks his invasion was not a miss-step, they may see differently. But I would be quite interested to read a response, here, explaining how what he is doing is intelligent, mindful, and effective.

"'Demonstrated [that their military is ill-equipped, under-funded, dated and deteriorating, and incompetently-managed]'? That is not true.
Sure it is. How can you look at this invasion and see military or economic success? Nevermind stuff like the Moskva.

"It is not. Putin is saying 'f••• you NATO'."
He says that a lot. But the problem is that what he really said is, "f••• you, Ukraine. I am taking what you have by force." And no amount of disdain for NATO justifies, ethically, that choice.

"Economies will be affected, but they will ultimately recuperate."
Maybe... maybe not.

"War is always disastrous in the short term."
False equivalence. Some wars are profitable and elevate individuals to power. Other wars end nations.

"The US have repeatedly invaded sovereign nation, with far less credible and reasonable justifications."
The US has done a lot of crappy, awful, evil stuff. But this is a red herring.

WWD: "This assertion [Russian election interference] seems particularly unfounded."
You may choose to believe so, and I expect you will if you are interested in supporting Russia’s narrative. Except, no, their efforts via their threat actors are extensively documented and ongoing, including their meddling in United States politics (among other regions). Ties to the Trump campaign and individuals, breaches of both poetical parties, with very different handling of the RNC data. Advertising campaigns and misinformation campaigns. Information “leaked” to entities like WikiLeaks and through other means. It goes on and on and on. I’m pretty familiar with this because it is all related to what I do for a living, but the information has been openly published and disseminated at length. Not only well covered by publications like Ars Technica, but also documented in recent Senate hearings. I expect anyone who has a strong opinion on this matter, but does not believe Russia has endeavored expansively to interfere with US and other nation election politics, has simply chosen what they do or don’t feel like believing.

Which is not to imply that it is uniquely criminal in some capacity. The US also has a history of endeavoring to underline elections and the like (esp. through more boots-on-the-ground efforts in decades past), and espionage is par for the course between the US, Russia, China, Israel and other actors. But this is one area where Russia has, traditionally, been effective and successful.

As an aside... it amuses me a bit that whether Russia is good and effective at something in these contexts seems to be tied to whether or not the answer casts Russia in a negative or positive light.

And no more in my reply here on Ukraine. I don’t know why it is so important to argue that they have a corrupt government if not in a round-a-bout means of trying to justify Russia’s invasion. Without even touching up on extensive, deliberate civilian targeting.

[James]

I was watching Mark Rober's recent video about dropping an egg from space, and the ways they attempted to engineer its survival. One of the things that stuck out to me was that weather balloons are essentially launched all over the world, multiple times per day, and they just... float away and eventually crash, eventually to be retrieved if any nearby hobbyist has the means or interest. I thought that was strange, that there's basically this huge network of floating garbage that no one ever thinks about.

Anyway, that's just one of the things this made me think about.

I'm not sure what anyone thinks China would have thought they could have accomplished if this were actually an act of espionage. It's not like something like this could ever escape detection more than, say, Chinese people going to the US and looking around and getting jobs and doing actual espionage. So the idea that it's a "SpY bAlLoOn!" or any kind of serious threat is worth a chortle. If China is doing anything scary, it's not going to be Saturday morning cartoon stuff.

Reminds me of an evening I spent in the Utah West Desert earlier this year. A buddy and I were sitting on our chairs, with our telescopes set up, when we spotted a bizarre object in the sky. I got my camera and, after some efforts, managed to get a good photograph of it. Turned out to be a weather balloon. It was a really fascinating experience. I then looked into it and found out that they do tend to be deployed with some degree of frequency. And that they can be employed and directed quite effectively.

So this China balloon? Huh. I would love to hear what it was actually accomplishing, if such a thing can be known with some hope of accuracy. Presumably, nothing that could have been accomplish with satellites. Maybe the boundary-pushing I speculated on above. Or maybe the goal is to employ sensors for espionage (e.g. radio emissions, thermal imaging, etc.) that may be more effective with a tool like this.

Utterly baseless speculation on my part, though.

I read commentary about it correcting course, too. Haven’t endeavored to fact-check that. But that was also interesting.

Isolated, of course it is an unimpressive spectacle. Add it to everything else that serve to portray China as hostile though, now the effects are more felt. Concerns become annoyance, annoyance becomes frustration, frustration becomes hate. Manufacturing consent is a process, not an isolated and singular action/incident.

I’m not sure what meat there is to bite on in this reply. It is, fundamentally, a hostile act. It just—isn’t an especially dramatic one as far as things go. I mean—how many spy satellites are in orbit? And that’s why I am/was so curious about it. And it is a given that politicians and pundits in nations—especially disingenuous ones—will gnash their teeth in whatever manner they expect will further their narrative of achieve their goals.

The United States government’s response, however, has been far more measured.

And naturally, I agree with a lot of this, including the Chomsky-esque angle which posits that the advertising of the Chinese balloon as a 'spy balloon' is essentially meant as consent-manufacturing propaganda for domestic consumption. Any objective take on the balloon would note that the lack of navigational control, high visibility and low speed of the craft are... mildly-put, not well-suited to espionage.

We have it, apparently, as a given that it is a Chinese balloon. They called it a weather balloon, and then expressed that they were upset at it having been shot down. And the payload was far, far bigger and more sophisticated than what might accompany a weather balloon anyhow. The payload was also “two to three buss lengths” in size, which tracks reasonably. You don’t need anything like this for weather balloons. Also, deployment of whether balloons—let alone something much more sophisticated—is not a haphazard process.

And just did a bit more digging into some of the course correction claims. It does not appear to be a given that the balloon was incapable of course correction and direction.

I’m curious what you think this could be? Speculation across the board, of course.

[WeiWenDi]

Hi WWD, my friend. Nice to see you around.

Cheers, James! Good to be back, and thanks for the welcome!

First, Ukraine. Discussion of its corruption, which I believe is present but being exaggerated in light of individual biases, is a red herring to the discussion about invading a sovereign nation.

You make a fair point, but two considerations here:

a.) If the discussion of corruption was wholly lacking in terms of its germaneness to the discussion, why not simply say so in the first place rather than dismissing it? By tagging yourself to the 'being exaggerated' part, you're opening yourself up to charges of ignoring a significant body of data. Ukrainian corruption has been an even greater political problem domestically than Russian corruption has been since the 1990s.

b.) At the risk of hoisting myself on my own petard here, even the discussion of RU's invasion of UA is, from the point of view of the OP, kind of a red herring itself. No?

Unstable rulers don’t last, sure. But rulers do become unstable, and cease to last. And the disastrous misstep with this war and Putin’s handling and responses—his utter failure to anticipate the consequences of what he is doing, including devastation to his country’s economy and military—does not leave me expecting him to be as sound of mind as he once was. Now, if someone thinks his invasion was not a miss-step, they may see differently. But I would be quite interested to read a response, here, explaining how what he is doing is intelligent, mindful, and effective.

The war has, from a strategic Russian perspective, almost assuredly been a wash. Any victory they might score now will certainly be Pyrrhic.

The Russian army lost big after its first push against the north of the country (Kiev and Kharkov), and it's suffered a number of embarrassing setbacks and reversals since then, including the retreat from Kherson. I don't think any honest observer would dispute this. The handling of the 'SMO' was truly boneheaded in the first months, guided by some truly stunning miscalculations about the resiliency of the Ukrainian government.

In addition, they've lost quite a bit of infrastructure (NordStream 2) as well as the goodwill of much of that section of the EU that was still willing to play ball with them. That might not have hurt them as much in the short run as we thought it would, but it's certainly bound to limit their strategic outlook and flexibility in the long run.

At the same time, if one considers a certain set of limited goals on the part of the RAF being to secure a political settlement for the Donbass and to eliminate the openly-Nazi elements of the AFU/SBU (like Azov and Aidar), then one could say with some justification that they look to be succeeding.

You may choose to believe so, and I expect you will if you are interested in supporting Russia’s narrative.

Oh, please. Leave the personal well-poisoning bit out of this.

I quoted an NYU study on the specific degree of influence wielded by Russia's social media campaigns. New York University is hardly an outpost of Greater Trumpistan, much less a grim bastion of Russian disinformation and hackery. Do you have any response to this study, or any alternative set of data against which one might be able to make a comparison?

We have it, apparently, as a given that it is a Chinese balloon. They called it a weather balloon, and then expressed that they were upset at it having been shot down. And the payload was far, far bigger and more sophisticated than what might accompany a weather balloon anyhow. The payload was also “two to three buss lengths” in size, which tracks reasonably. You don’t need anything like this for weather balloons. Also, deployment of whether balloons—let alone something much more sophisticated—is not a haphazard process.

And just did a bit more digging into some of the course correction claims. It does not appear to be a given that the balloon was incapable of course correction and direction.

I’m curious what you think this could be? Speculation across the board, of course.

If you want my honest opinion, I think the Chinese government was essentially trolling us with the balloon and seeing what we would do. I truly don't think they would have risked putting meticulous labour-intensive espionage equipment on such a vehicle. However, as a strategic sacrificial goat and a news cycle attention-grabber, it seems to have worked rather well.

EDIT: I think the thing may also have been intended to test how far up American air sovereignty doctrine extends. I believe I read somewhere that it was flying at 60,000 feet: higher than practically all civilian and commercial aircraft as well as the vast bulk of American military craft.