Espionage involving China

The Commerce employee eventually told U.S. diplomats that the Chinese officers’ questioning “focused heavily” on his U.S. military background rather than his work for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, a unit in the Commerce Department, the cable said.

Click to expand...

The man told the Chinese officers about an entry-level job he had held at a nuclear institute in China, his graduate studies in engineering at a university in Puerto Rico and his work maintaining Black Hawk helicopters while he was in the U.S. Army.

Click to expand...

gelgoog said:

Nah. US intelligence does dumb shit like this as well.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That guy is probably DIA too.

Click to expand...

Are we egging each other on now?

Could be fun, but might ruffle some feathers even if our inferences are drawn exclusively from open sources and methods, if not a lack of reasonable effort, care or even desire by some of these gentlemen to maintain their covers.

Probably not entitled to call for restraint, especially given the precedent that I may have set three months ago . . .

Laviduce said:

Fireside Chat With Stephen Kotkin & US House Select Committee on China | Hoover Institution​

Participants:

1) Committee Chairman John Moolenaar, US Representative for Michigan's 2nd congressional district Ranking Member
2) Raja Krishnamoorthi, US Representative for Illinois's 8th congressional district.
3) Professor Kotkin, Kleinheinz Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution

Arguments/Statements by Kotkin and the respective translation:

Kotkin:

“We’re in a second Cold War, but it’s better than a hot war. We must compete with China while preserving our way of life.”

Translation:

We want unchallenged global dominance, but we can’t afford another Vietnam or Iraq. So we’ll use economic, technological, and ideological warfare to contain China and Russia without admitting we’re the aggressors.

Kotkin:

“China’s Leninist system is inherently repressive. It fears political reform and liberalization, which would be suicidal for the regime.”

Translation:

Don’t expect China to adopt Western liberal democracy. They remember what happened to Gorbachev and the USSR — and they’re not stupid enough to fall for our color revolution playbook.

Kotkin:

“China wants to restore its perceived rightful place in the world.”

Translation:

China dares to believe it should not be subordinate to the U.S.-led world order. This is unacceptable. Their ambitions threaten our monopoly on defining what’s “normal” globally.

Kotkin:

“We must share the world with China — but on our terms. The current status quo is a win for us.”

Translation:

China can exist, but only if it obeys the U.S.-dominated global architecture: dollar hegemony, NATO’s umbrella, Western tech rules, U.S.-controlled internet, and subservience in trade policy. If they try to challenge this, we bring the hammer.

Kotkin:

“Appeasement doesn’t work. Transformation through engagement (Pygmalion) doesn’t work. Cold War is our best option.”

Translation:

Forget trade peace and cooperation. We’re doubling down on containment, information warfare, sanctions, asset seizures, blockades, and militarized alliance-building — just like with the USSR. We want permanent tension without accountability.

Kotkin:

“The U.S. must remain who we are — a free and open society — and not become like them.”

Translation:

We’ll still censor dissenting voices, blacklist anti-war figures, imprison whistleblowers, and expand surveillance — but we’ll pretend we’re defending freedom while doing it.

Kotkin:

“Xi Jinping might roll the iron dice and invade Taiwan. We must raise the risk for him.”

Translation:

We want to make sure any move China makes toward Taiwan results in massive political and military cost — to deter reunification or integration by any means, even peaceful ones.

Kotkin:

“Taiwan is democratic, vibrant, and wants no part of the Communist regime.”

Translation:

Taiwan is our unsinkable aircraft carrier off China's coast. We’re arming it, funding it, and using it to provoke China — while pretending we’re just innocent protectors of freedom.

Kotkin:

“The status quo is our win. Don’t give China a pretext to act.”

Translation:

We want to keep Taiwan semi-detached — not independent, not fully reintegrated — so we can use it to needle China without provoking all-out war (yet). It’s a frozen conflict we manage for strategic leverage.

Kotkin:

“Winning means investing in ourselves, education, allies, and playing to our strengths.”

Translation:

Let’s retool our domestic economy just enough to maintain global primacy — but only if it supports our strategic goal of locking China and Russia out of global influence.

---

TL;DR Summary of Kotkin's points on China in the video:

A) China is a Leninist threat: He asserts that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) cannot reform politically without collapsing—therefore, engagement with it will always fail.

B) The U.S. must remain the global hegemon: He believes the U.S. must preserve the status quo—meaning, its global preeminence and ideological model—against China’s ambitions.

C) The New Cold War is good: Kotkin frames the new U.S.-China rivalry as Cold War 2.0—and even calls Cold War an “achievement.” He warns against appeasement and believes strategic competition is the way to go.

D) Sacrifice is required: He says Americans must accept economic sacrifices (like higher prices or fewer apps) to preserve their system and “way of life.”

E) Taiwan is a red line: He insists that any Chinese move on Taiwan must be deterred not just militarily, but politically—by convincing China that its regime would fall if it acts.

F) We must never become like them: Kotkin draws heavily on Cold War-era George Kennan, warning that if America uses authoritarian tools to compete with authoritarian powers, it will lose by becoming what it opposes.

Disclaimer/Personal Opinion:

1) The Hoover Institution is a far-right/neofascist/neo-imperialist institution.

2) In his circles, Kotkin is a notorious neo-imperialist/American quasi neo-fascist ideologue. He repeats the same neocon/neolib tropes as the other far-right extremists/neofascist lunatics (e.g. Pompeo, McFaul, Pillsbury, Pottinger, Ward, Agent Chang, etc.).

Click to expand...

zyklon said:

Kotkin likes to pretend to be some sort of unbiased, well meaning academic. He is not.

He belongs to the US intelligence community. A senior and long term access agent at a minimum, if not a full blown NOC.

Just watch footage of Kotkin interacting with current and former senior US officials.

The amount of deference they tend to afford him should give you a good idea of who Kotkin really is, and where he stands on the totem pole.

Click to expand...

zyklon said:

Are we egging each other on now?

Could be fun, but might ruffle some feathers even if our inferences are drawn exclusively from open sources and methods, if not a lack of reasonable effort, care or even desire by some of these gentlemen to maintain their covers.

Probably not entitled to call for restraint, especially given the precedent that I may have set three months ago . . .





TBH, some of these public figures like Professor Kotkin who are rather blatant about their "clandestine" and "covert" contributions, if not careers may not necessarily object to, if not in fact appreciate acknowledgements of their good works.

As for the gentleman in purgatory: highly doubt he's DIA, a professional intelligence officer or an asset of some variety, unless the MSS flipped him or he's been one of theirs all along.

Otherwise, he'd be in custody in Chengdu rather than mingling with US embassy personnel of all stripes and colors in Beijing right now.

Click to expand...

CMP said:

He's either in denial of or completely not tuned into the changing trend lines. His default assumption is that the US will definitely win Cold War 2.0, but all facts point to the exact opposite. He's old enough that we can judge he is at or near the end of his career, and no matter how sharp he may have once been, all minds decline. He's basically just reenacting the best hits from Cold War 1.0, and the fundamental assumption is the outcomes will be the exact same because China is "Leninist". China is not Leninist, but I would not expect someone like him to understand that.

His is the same kind of nonsense argument I could make about Western powers. All Western powers descend from the principles and philosophies originally stemming from the Roman, Greek, and British civilizations. And since those all fundamentally collapsed into near-nothingness, the US will do the same

Click to expand...

siegecrossbow said:

Once the boomers die off things will probably improve a bit.

Click to expand...