20 ms·

Why is Chinese army propaganda on this site? It's not news that the PLA will oppose technology that gives the US military an advantage.

parker-3461 7mo ago
> The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is a bipartisan, nonprofit policy research organization dedicated to advancing practical ideas to address the world’s greatest challenges. Sorry, may I get more information on why this is considered Chinese army propaganda? My understanding is that CSIS (https://www.csis.org/about https://www.csis.org/about) is an US based organisation that provides analysis on topics which include Chinese organisations/military.
- modeless 7mo ago
  Did you read the first sentence? > In this piece, two researchers from PLA-affiliated National University of Defense Technology argue that
  - cwillu 7mo ago
    Did you stop reading at the first sentence??
    - jas- 7mo ago
      Yes. It is the equivalent of reading a technical review of a product by the product owner
  - cwillu 7mo ago
    When you were a kid, did you stop listening when your parents said “Santa”, or did you keep listening in order to glean useful information from their propoganda, even knowing that Santa isn't real?
    - stinkbeetle 7mo ago
      Were you under the impression the Chinese Communist Party has been telling you sweet lies only because they find joy in seeing your childlike naivety and wonder?
      - cwillu 7mo ago
        The general principle of extracting useful information from the scenario “(party a) tells lies because (ulterior motive b)” transcends the particular values of party a and motive b
      - tbossanova 7mo ago
        That’s it, you’re on my naughty list! —Santa
  - oscaracso 7mo ago
    Thanks; I missed that and almost sullied my mind reading an argument formulated by a potential adversary to the United States of America.
    - Erem 7mo ago
      Isn't sully your mind a bit harsh? As long as you read with the article's authorship in mind, it's useful to learn what thoughts your adversary wishes to influence and why.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 7mo ago
  Not specific to this article, but I generally like to find third party sources to confirm or deny the "bipartisan" and "nonprofit" parts of their about page. I've seen too many where that turned out to be false.
  - Lerc 7mo ago
    Just today I tried an experiment asking the YouTube Ai question bot "where on the political compass are the opinions expressed in this video?" The chatbot couldn't get past the fact that the video said it was non-partisan and if they said it it must be true.
- holoduke 7mo ago
  Csis is everything but neutral.
wavefunction 7mo ago
I haven't read it fully but it doesn't seem to be promoting any sort of falsehoods. As an American I consider any reliance on Starlink and the thoroughly compromised Elon Musk to be a weakness rather than a strength.
- inemesitaffia 7mo ago
  So, you disagree with the paper and think what the Pentagon did with Anthropic is right.
  - wavefunction 7mo ago
    The paper argues that the militarization of space is inevitable. I agree based on it being a self-fulfilling prophecy by paranoids and not the charming type.
croes 7mo ago
But does that mean they are wrong?
- RivieraKid 7mo ago
  Usually yes.
- margalabargala 7mo ago
  Certainly not. Some propaganda is made up, some just highlights some convenient truth. Trouble is it's hard to tell the difference.
- tw-20260303-001 7mo ago
  From whose perspective?
fakedang 7mo ago
Last I attended a CSIS event, it was filled with US intelligentsia (including the famed Zbigniew Brzezinsky, Polish spellings be damned).
RobotToaster 7mo ago
It makes a change from the US Military propaganda I suppose.
- stinkbeetle 7mo ago
  No no, American media corporations are virtuous courageous freedom fighters intent on "speaking truth to power" and "standing up for democracy" and "science". To suggest otherwise makes you a something something denier, a dangerous conspiracy theorist, a puppet of fascism, etc.
themgt 7mo ago
Interpret: China is a CSIS project aimed at facilitating a more nuanced understanding of global strategic issues through a library of translated materials matched with expert commentary. Americans are so propagandized and paranoid that they see a DC blob foreign policy think tank translating Chinese PLA source documents and start wondering if there's a nefarious plot afoot. "Understanding the enemy?! That sounds like an axis of evil conspiracy!"
icegreentea2 7mo ago
CSIS is republishing work from PLA affiliated writers from PLA affiliated think tanks, published an a PLA affiliated journal because it does in fact capture aspects of internal PLA thinking. This article is from 2023, it's not written in the context of the current administrations policies and rhteroic. While we can always be certain that there are aspects of external facing PR/propaganda, we also should consider "how does China view the militarization of Starlink and Space". And to that end, we can clearly see that the PLA sees Space Dominance as being strategically destabilizing. They see threats to their ability to disperse and hide their nuclear launch systems. In fact, from a 2026 lens, the best way to read this paper would be "the PLA has mapped out its vulnerabilities, and all of its risk control and escalation options (basically its suggestions in the conclusions) are basically off the table. Therefore, it's very obvious that the PLA will attempt to compensate through simultaneously achieving its own space based capability similar to Starlink, develop additional ways to hold US strategic assets (read nuclear strike platforms) at risk, and find asymmetric means of deterrence". EDIT: Just made a connection in my head - there's been a lot of news about Chinese nuclear arsenal increases in recent years, with a uptick starting around 2023, and the DoD estimating a rough tripling from 2025-2035. I suspect these developments might be connected. EDIT2: I think to summarize what I think would be important take away from reading this paper is that while the most immediate examples of militarized Starlink use are all very tactical level (thinking about drones in Ukraine), this piece clearly signals that the PLA also believes that Starlink militarization poses treats at the strategic (read nuclear) level. And therefore, if we think purely in terms of tactical/operational capabilities, we may be caught off guard by certain reactions by the PLA/China.
- nine_k 7mo ago
  I don't think that Starlink affects nuclear deterrence / the MAD doctrine in any meaningful way. But it does seriously affect "conventional" warfare. And China is rather visibly preparing for a conventional war.
  - icegreentea2 7mo ago
    I believe it's exactly that thinking that CSIS was trying to check when they chose to translate and publish this specific article. They are trying to get analysts and policy makers to think through, and make an active decision on if they believe that China will treat military/militarized mega constellations as destabilizing in a nuclear/strategic sense. It's fair to decide that that is not major factor, but it should be an informed decision. It requires looking at the nuclear risk issues that the piece raises, and finding reasons to dismiss them.
mdni007 7mo ago
Americans propaganda has completely brainwashed you
hereme888 7mo ago
It really is that simple. Straight up CCP propaganda translated from a Chinese journal, written by Chinese professors worried about Chinese national security.

parker-3461 7mo ago

> The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is a bipartisan, nonprofit policy research organization dedicated to advancing practical ideas to address the world’s greatest challenges. Sorry, may I get more information on why this is considered Chinese army propaganda? My understanding is that CSIS (https://www.csis.org/about https://www.csis.org/about) is an US based organisation that provides analysis on topics which include Chinese organisations/military.

modeless 7mo ago
Did you read the first sentence? > In this piece, two researchers from PLA-affiliated National University of Defense Technology argue that
- cwillu 7mo ago
  Did you stop reading at the first sentence??
  - jas- 7mo ago
    Yes. It is the equivalent of reading a technical review of a product by the product owner
- cwillu 7mo ago
  When you were a kid, did you stop listening when your parents said “Santa”, or did you keep listening in order to glean useful information from their propoganda, even knowing that Santa isn't real?
  - stinkbeetle 7mo ago
    Were you under the impression the Chinese Communist Party has been telling you sweet lies only because they find joy in seeing your childlike naivety and wonder?
    - cwillu 7mo ago
      The general principle of extracting useful information from the scenario “(party a) tells lies because (ulterior motive b)” transcends the particular values of party a and motive b
    - tbossanova 7mo ago
      That’s it, you’re on my naughty list! —Santa
- oscaracso 7mo ago
  Thanks; I missed that and almost sullied my mind reading an argument formulated by a potential adversary to the United States of America.
  - Erem 7mo ago
    Isn't sully your mind a bit harsh? As long as you read with the article's authorship in mind, it's useful to learn what thoughts your adversary wishes to influence and why.
kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 7mo ago
Not specific to this article, but I generally like to find third party sources to confirm or deny the "bipartisan" and "nonprofit" parts of their about page. I've seen too many where that turned out to be false.
- Lerc 7mo ago
  Just today I tried an experiment asking the YouTube Ai question bot "where on the political compass are the opinions expressed in this video?" The chatbot couldn't get past the fact that the video said it was non-partisan and if they said it it must be true.
holoduke 7mo ago
Csis is everything but neutral.

wavefunction 7mo ago

I haven't read it fully but it doesn't seem to be promoting any sort of falsehoods. As an American I consider any reliance on Starlink and the thoroughly compromised Elon Musk to be a weakness rather than a strength.

inemesitaffia 7mo ago
So, you disagree with the paper and think what the Pentagon did with Anthropic is right.
- wavefunction 7mo ago
  The paper argues that the militarization of space is inevitable. I agree based on it being a self-fulfilling prophecy by paranoids and not the charming type.

croes 7mo ago

But does that mean they are wrong?

RivieraKid 7mo ago
Usually yes.
margalabargala 7mo ago
Certainly not. Some propaganda is made up, some just highlights some convenient truth. Trouble is it's hard to tell the difference.
tw-20260303-001 7mo ago
From whose perspective?

fakedang 7mo ago

Last I attended a CSIS event, it was filled with US intelligentsia (including the famed Zbigniew Brzezinsky, Polish spellings be damned).

RobotToaster 7mo ago

It makes a change from the US Military propaganda I suppose.

stinkbeetle 7mo ago
No no, American media corporations are virtuous courageous freedom fighters intent on "speaking truth to power" and "standing up for democracy" and "science". To suggest otherwise makes you a something something denier, a dangerous conspiracy theorist, a puppet of fascism, etc.

themgt 7mo ago

Interpret: China is a CSIS project aimed at facilitating a more nuanced understanding of global strategic issues through a library of translated materials matched with expert commentary. Americans are so propagandized and paranoid that they see a DC blob foreign policy think tank translating Chinese PLA source documents and start wondering if there's a nefarious plot afoot. "Understanding the enemy?! That sounds like an axis of evil conspiracy!"

icegreentea2 7mo ago

CSIS is republishing work from PLA affiliated writers from PLA affiliated think tanks, published an a PLA affiliated journal because it does in fact capture aspects of internal PLA thinking. This article is from 2023, it's not written in the context of the current administrations policies and rhteroic. While we can always be certain that there are aspects of external facing PR/propaganda, we also should consider "how does China view the militarization of Starlink and Space". And to that end, we can clearly see that the PLA sees Space Dominance as being strategically destabilizing. They see threats to their ability to disperse and hide their nuclear launch systems. In fact, from a 2026 lens, the best way to read this paper would be "the PLA has mapped out its vulnerabilities, and all of its risk control and escalation options (basically its suggestions in the conclusions) are basically off the table. Therefore, it's very obvious that the PLA will attempt to compensate through simultaneously achieving its own space based capability similar to Starlink, develop additional ways to hold US strategic assets (read nuclear strike platforms) at risk, and find asymmetric means of deterrence". EDIT: Just made a connection in my head - there's been a lot of news about Chinese nuclear arsenal increases in recent years, with a uptick starting around 2023, and the DoD estimating a rough tripling from 2025-2035. I suspect these developments might be connected. EDIT2: I think to summarize what I think would be important take away from reading this paper is that while the most immediate examples of militarized Starlink use are all very tactical level (thinking about drones in Ukraine), this piece clearly signals that the PLA also believes that Starlink militarization poses treats at the strategic (read nuclear) level. And therefore, if we think purely in terms of tactical/operational capabilities, we may be caught off guard by certain reactions by the PLA/China.

nine_k 7mo ago
I don't think that Starlink affects nuclear deterrence / the MAD doctrine in any meaningful way. But it does seriously affect "conventional" warfare. And China is rather visibly preparing for a conventional war.
- icegreentea2 7mo ago
  I believe it's exactly that thinking that CSIS was trying to check when they chose to translate and publish this specific article. They are trying to get analysts and policy makers to think through, and make an active decision on if they believe that China will treat military/militarized mega constellations as destabilizing in a nuclear/strategic sense. It's fair to decide that that is not major factor, but it should be an informed decision. It requires looking at the nuclear risk issues that the piece raises, and finding reasons to dismiss them.

mdni007 7mo ago

Americans propaganda has completely brainwashed you

hereme888 7mo ago

It really is that simple. Straight up CCP propaganda translated from a Chinese journal, written by Chinese professors worried about Chinese national security.