At the National Interest John Austin and Elaine Dezenski claim that Germany is repeating its error in trading with Russia with China now:

For similar reasons, some German politicians now seek to forge new economic ties with China. German chancellor Olaf Scholz visited China in November in order to “further develop” cooperation between the countries—efforts that led to China’s purchase of 140 Airbus airplanes.

By tying itself to China, however, Germany risks making its Russia mistake all over again. It is doing so at a time when tensions are heating up between Beijing and the West. Moreover, Germany should be investing in unprecedented transatlantic cooperation and pan-democratic unity in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine, and as fears grow over a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

The reason the Russian gas supply has stopped was predictable but not inevitable. It occurred because Russia is a country that a single person controls—a person capable of horrific and violent blunders. Indeed, reliance on Russian gas was a vulnerability because Russia is non-democratic and capricious. Today, the country is engaged in the megalomaniacal war of one man who has unified much of the democratic world in opposition.

By turning to China, however, BASF and other German companies risk another major miscalculation—allowing the allure of cheaper energy to bind them to another autocratic and capricious regime controlled largely by one man. Germany, which enjoys alliances throughout Europe and North America, should recognize the risks. Xi Jinping’s saber-rattling in the Taiwan Strait could be a sign of things to come. China is capable of making the same mistake as Russia and paying even more significant consequences. China’s economy is entangled with many of its Western trading partners.

On top of that, German engagement with China always carries the substantial risks of technology theft and knowledge transfer—a risk that some scholars have described as Beijing’s “weaponization of cooperation.”

I think they’re dreaming. I see no prospect whatever that Germany will “decouple” from China. Chimany is stronger than Chimerica ever was. China is Germany’s largest trading partner and at present Germany, unlike most other countries in the world particularly the U. S., runs a trade surplus with China. That varies from year to year but Germany’s record has been pretty favorable to it. It is absolutely possible that Germany’s economy would collapse without Chinese trade. The risk averse Germans will not do it.

I thought you might be amused by this Chicago Tribune editorial drawing an analogy between President Joe Biden and Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot. On Biden’s part there’s this:

On Tuesday, Biden said that the discovery of the stash was a surprise to him but he remained woefully mum about a second trove of classified documents that already had been found in his Wilmington, Delaware, garage, apparently next to his gas-guzzling Corvette.

But by Thursday, as the White House should have predicted, that news (along with that of another document found in a storage room) was out, too, and Attorney General Merrick Garland was holding a hastily arranged news conference and announcing a special counsel and an investigation.

The issue was toxic for Biden, of course, because Democrats had been lambasting former President Donald Trump for absconding with classified documents, implying they would never do such a thing.

while on Lightfoot’s part there’s this:

Meanwhile, in Chicago, WTTW reported on Wednesday that an unspecified number of Chicago Public Schools teachers had received an email from Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s reelection campaign to their work addresses, asking them to recruit CPS students to help with the mayor’s effort to stay mayor.

The email, signed by a campaign staffer named Megan Crane, said participants in the “externship program” would be expected to volunteer 12 hours per week to the Lightfoot campaign and that students could expect to earn “class credit.”

This gaffe boggles the mind. Apparently, the campaign convinced itself that since no one was being coerced, and that the email addresses were generally accessible, this was a legitimate ask. It must further have convinced itself (how, bamboozles us) that the mayor’s rivals would not eventually find out about and pounce upon this issue.

And it must have made peace with the clear conflict of interest and ethical violation in “asking” either public school teachers or their students to “volunteer” to help their big boss retain her power.

Just like the White House, the Lightfoot campaign hemmed and hawed when asked for comment, only eventually coming to terms with the need for a full-throated mayoral apology and an assertion that this will not happen again. By Thursday, Lightfoot had a monster distraction on her hands, an escalation involving similar campaign emails also sent to City Colleges of Chicago, and two likely watchdog investigations to anticipate, potentially keeping the damaging story alive.

What’s the connection? As a piece at Reason.com put it, “shoddiness, carelessness, and hypocrisy”. They conclude:

Like Biden, Lightfoot was attacking much worse behavior than her own. But also like Biden, the mayor was caught on her own petard.

All either of them can do is apologize, vow to do better, and move on.

Frankly, I doubt that an apology will be forthcoming from either. Once you rise to a certain level of elective office apologies come hard. Mayor Lightfoot has already blamed an aide; I expect President Biden to do the same.

I don’t drive a lot these days but when I’m running my errands I avoid listening to the news or music. I listen to old radio programs. Right now I’m listening to a show called Bold Venture of which I was unaware until recently.

Bold Venture ran from 1951 to 1952 and stars Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. They portray Slate Shannon, owner of a Havana hotel and a boat, the Bold Venture and his ward/girl friend Sailor Duval. The characters are materially the same as those in their first movie together, To Have and Have Not. There’s also a character who’s a sort of proxy for Sam in Casablanca, calypso singer King Moses, memorably portrayed by the great Jester Hairston. The show’s music was by David Rose.

Humphrey Bogart is great as Slate Shannon. Lauren Bacall is, as usual, Lauren Bacall as Sailor Duval. If you like their chemistry together, you’ll like the show.

There are 57 of the episodes extant. At a half hour per program that’s 28.5 hours of Bogart and Bacall—significantly more all of their movies put together. Bogart and Bacall received $5,000 a week for their performances in the program. No wonder they made it.

I’m not particularly interested in many of the stories occupying the opinion pages these days but what I am interested in is the common thread that runs through them: most are missing the actual story.

Classified documents. All I have to say about the present kerfuffle is that while legally there may be a distinction between Trump’s handling of classified documents and Biden’s handling of classified documents politically there is no difference. The press and opinion writers are missing the story. The real story is twofold. First, a part that would be comical if it weren’t so tragic. The routine classification of documents by the federal government means that a document being classified is no particular distinction—it’s ordinary. No wonder the president doesn’t remember having these documents. It’s not that his memory is failing but that having classified documents in his possession is so routine as to leave no impression. Isn’t that the opposite of what classification should do? The other part is, as usual, the Congress’s fault. The Congress was, has been, and is unwilling to codify the process for a transition of power into law. The last three presidencies have made it clear that there really should be a process that is beyond doubt or question and that every president and vice president follows simply because it’s the process.

Harry and Meghan. I have less than no interest in them other than that they convince me that the French’s attitude towards royals was about right. The real story which I haven’t seen mentioned is that they’re telling their truth not the truth. I have no doubt they are telling their truth but we have no way of determining its relation to actual events.

The debt ceiling. Once again, the real story is that this is the Congress’s fault. Either there should be no debt ceiling or Congress should be bound by it. Until 1917 and Congress’s Second Bond Act there was no problem.

George Santos. The real story is not that politicians lie, that George Santos is a fraud, or that he’s a Republican. The real story is that until the Supreme Court stuck its nose in the practice was that Congress could “limit its own membership”, i.e. it could refuse to seat people after they were elected. Now the Congress is in a pickle. There’s nothing it can actually do.

The war in Ukraine. IMO the real story is the fog of war. We have no real idea what’s going on. What we’re getting is propaganda from one side or another.

I’m also seeing a lot of lamenting about replacing the family with the government. While we may not be able to replace families with the government, we can’t replace them with nothing, either, and that seems to be where we’re heading.

The foundation of the U. S. society has been what anthropologists call the “absolute nuclear family”. I’m sensitive to this issue because my Great-grandfather Schuler attempted, unsuccessfully, to continue the social strategy used in Switzerland which is different here in the United States. IMO the “absolute nuclear family” is in trouble in the U. S. I don’t see how it could be otherwise with 17-21% of college students identifying as LGBT+. That compares with 2-3% for older cohorts.

I’m seeing a lot of breast-beating about the second major disruption in air travel in less than a month. Apparently, the problems are not limited to Southwest Airlines.

My own view is that what we’re seeing is at least in part a generational shift. Keeping the society running can’t be done on the sort of schedule and the level of effort that the younger generations are willing to accept. If I’m right, expect a lot more disruptions in all sorts of areas in the coming years.

I suspect that Doug Bandow’s latest piece in 1945 will cause some people’s faces to turn purple and their heads to spin. He says that defense spending should be decreased:

Washington spent the succeeding three decades with an inflated sense of power and destiny—believing the endless cant about America being the unipower, essential nation, indispensable power, and more. Yet contrary to former secretary of state Madeleine Albright’s self-serving claim that she and fellow members of the Washington Blob “see further … into the future,” they intervened foolishly yet promiscuously. They ravaged multiple nations, caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands, or even more, of others, wasted money prodigiously, about $8 trillion, on “the global war on terrorism” alone, and left destruction and poverty in their wake.

Yet the bipartisan Washington War Party continues to engage in perpetual fear-mongering, claiming that the world is more dangerous than ever for America, as if the nation had not suffered through the Vietnam War, Cuban Missile Crisis, Cold War, Korean War, and World War II. In fact, the U.S. is the most secure great power ever, utterly dominating its own region and enjoying the protection of vast oceans east and west, and weak, pacific neighbors north and south.

along with this:

Change Washington’s behavior and most of its enemies would shrink if not disappear. Even before Russia’s disastrous invasion of Ukraine, Moscow posed no threat to the U.S. Russia and America had no clash of vital interests: to the contrary, Vladimir Putin once had adopted a friendly stance toward Washington, being the first foreign leader to call President George W. Bush after 9/11. In any case, Moscow lacked a truly globe-spanning military and had no means to attack the U.S. other with than nuclear weapons, which would result in its own destruction.

and this:

Which leaves China. It does not directly threaten the U.S. Beijing doesn’t plan a nuclear strike. It isn’t going to stage an amphibious invasion or burrow through the earth to launch a surprise attack. If there is going to be war with China, it will be over Washington’s determination to treat the Asia-Pacific as a U.S. sphere of interest. The American people should debate whether they believe imposing their will on that region is worth war and are willing to accept the high costs and risks of doing so, potentially forever.

In any case, the primary responsibility for defending the region should be borne by the nations located there.

I think he fails to understand the “grand strategy” that some have been quixotically pursuing for the last 30 years at least and probably going back all the way to World War II: keeping the U. S. secure by ensuring that it has the only military. Russia and China aren’t the only threats. So are our notional allies especially Germany and Japan. That they should be prepared to defend themselves flies in the face of.

Some consideration should be taken of the wargames I mentioned yesterday. One of the key findings was that Taiwan must be willing and able to defend itself for some period in the event of a Chinese attack. That’s in direct conflict with the “grand strategy” that’s dominated U. S. thinking for the last half century.

I also fail to understand the thinking of neocons and hawks. As I’ve said any number of times before U. S. military strength is downstream from U. S. economic strength and, simply stated, we can’t maintain that economic strength while buying most of what we consume from China.

I don’t know whether we should increase defense spending, decrease it, or keep it the same. I do think it should be re-oriented in directions other than its present course. Less spending for a standing army and more for a better, more resilient and durable navy and air force. But, of course, we’ll need to rebuild the stocks we’re dispatching to Ukraine. I doubt we can do that and reduce spending at the same time.

There is a beautiful sword, hanging from a tree, seemingly within reach. It can cut through anything without losing its edge. Do you seize it and wield it or destroy it?

There’s a brouhaha presently going on in Chicago around the Chicago mayoral elections. The Chicago Teacher’s Union is angrily denouncing Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot. From the official statement:

We learned today that Lori Lightfoot’s deputy campaign manager reached out to CTU members at their work addresses this morning, asking educators to help line up student ‘volunteers’ who will give at least 12 hours each week to the campaign. The campaign also claimed “Students are eligible to earn class credit through our volunteer program.”

This is unethical and wrong on so many levels — not least of which is our concern that CTU members who decline to volunteer for the mayor’s campaign or encourage their students to do so could face retaliation.

Their concern is not without basis. They’re already suing the mayor for just such “retaliation” in the past. Needless to say not just the CTU but the mayor’s opponents in the upcoming election are crying “Foul!”. It ain’t beanbag, folks.

Mayor Lightfoot must be bitterly disappointed that her predecessor, Rahm Emanuel, did not decertify the Chicago Teacher’s Union when he had the cause and the chance. Like her, Mayor Emanuel looked longingly at the sword presumably in the hope that he might wield it himself and not realizing that not only could it be wielded against him but that he would be the primary target.

Weapons that powerful should not be allowed to exist.

I found this article by bill Gertz at the Washington Times interesting:

The Center for Strategic and International Studies conducted 24 separate war game scenarios involving an amphibious assault by China across the 100-mile Taiwan Strait, setting off a war with Taiwan, the United States and Japan. U.S. military officials say Chinese strategists see a military “window” for action against Taipei in the next few years.

“In most scenarios, the United States/Taiwan/Japan defeated a conventional amphibious invasion by China and maintained an autonomous Taiwan,” the report concludes. “However, this defense came at high cost.”

The cost, even in the “optimistic scenarios,” according to the report: “The United States and Japan lose dozens of ships, hundreds of aircraft, and thousands of service members. Such losses would damage the U.S. global position for many years. While Taiwan’s military is unbroken, it is severely degraded and left to defend a damaged economy on an island without electricity and basic services.”

“China also suffers heavily,” the report noted. “Its navy is in shambles, the core of its amphibious forces is broken, and tens of thousands of soldiers are prisoners of war.”

The article did not include a direct link to the report on the exercise itself which is here.

The assumptions included conventional weapons only, participation only by China, U. S. Taiwan, and Japan, and no U. S. attacks on the Chinese mainland, all of which leave me skeptical. As I have pointed out ad nauseam in wargames in which it was allowed direct great power conflict inevitably led to a nuclear exchange. Here are the studies findings:

1. Taiwan must vigorously resist. If it does not, the rest is futile.
2. The United States must join hostilities within days and with the full range of its capabilities. Delays and half measures make the defense harder, increase U.S. casualties, and raise the risk of the Chinese creating an irreducible lodgment on Taiwan.
3. The United States must have use of its bases in Japan. Without them, the United States cannot use its numerous fighter/attack aircraft.
4. Finally, the United States must possess enough air-launched, long-range ASCMs.

I suspect that if anything the wargame underestimates the costs to both sides. Chinese military doctrine is almost completely untested. Its performance is likely to underwhelm. Conversely, damage to U. S. aircraft and ships is likely to be higher. Furthermore, I can’t help but imagine that if China were to actually invade Taiwan it would not attempt to disable U. S. airbases in Japan as a precursor. Somewhat similar to the Russian-Ukraine War the overwhelming likelihood is that Taiwan would not simply be harmed but economically destroyed.

Read the report for yourself. You might find it interesting.

Update

Here’s more commentary on the report from Blaise Malley at Responsible Statecraft:

The results of the simulations, and the recommendations offered in the report, in general reflect those found in the Quincy Institute’s earlier Active Denial report. Simulations conducted for that study produced similar results, and its recommendations were virtually identical, stressing the need for the United States to harden bases in Japan, employ smaller carriers, increase inventories of anti-ship missiles, and deploy more submarines and bombers equipped with missiles, among other things.

But even these actions will not by themselves ensure that China would be deterred from attacking Taiwan, if Washington backs Beijing into a corner. The ultimate lesson of these and other war games is that credible political and diplomatic assurances by the United States and China regarding, respectively, One China and the possibility of peaceful unification, are essential for keeping peace in the Taiwan Strait.

The only remark I can make about this is that China’s abandoning a claim to Taiwan is only slightly less likely than Russia’s relinquishing Crimea.