Exclusive: Leaked meeting notes show Boris Johnson said Trump was 'making America great again'

The Prime Minister is quoted telling the US ambassador in August 2017, when foreign secretary, that Mr Trump was doing 'fantastic stuff'

By Ben Riley-Smith,

 US EDITOR

5 September 2020 • 9:38pm

Boris Johnson and Donald Trump

Boris Johnson privately told US diplomats that Donald Trump was “making America great again”, according to a cache of official notes taken during high-level UK-US meetings whose details have leaked to The Telegraph.

The Prime Minister is quoted telling the US ambassador to Britain in August 2017, when he was foreign secretary, that Mr Trump was doing “fantastic stuff” on foreign policy issues like China, Syria and North Korea.

Other records show Mr Johnson claimed the US president was becoming “increasingly popular” in Britain in 2017 and spoke warmly about how under his leadership America was “back and engaged in the world”.

Mr Johnson's praise for Mr Trump in private goes much further than he usually does in public, and is eye-catching given polls consistently show a majority of the British people disapprove of the US president. Its disclosure could see the Prime Minister get dragged into the US election campaign, with the president eager to tout overseas support and Democratic nominee Joe Biden already on-record once calling Mr Johnson a Trump "clone".

The contemporaneous notes were taken by US officials during seven meetings and calls involving either the leader or top foreign minister of Britain or America.

Additionally this newspaper has spoken to more than 20 people who saw the UK-US relationship up-close under Mr Trump, including from senior posts in the White House, Downing Street, Foreign Office and State Department.

Taken together, they paint one of the most detailed pictures to date of how strained the 'special relationship' has been behind closed doors during Mr Trump’s first term.

It can also be reported:

Mr Trump pushed back hard on Theresa May’s pleas to expel Russian diplomats after the Skripal poisoning, saying “I would rather follow than lead”

 

The US president wondered why there was so much “hatred” in Northern Ireland and asked Mrs May during a lunch why Mr Johnson was not prime minister

 

Mr Johnson built close working relationships with Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, and adviser Stephen Miller, while forging ties with the Trump inner circle

 

The president was at times "hectoring" towards Mrs May in "nightmare" phone calls and would ask other world leaders what they thought of her

 

Mr Trump cancelled his planned first visit to Britain as president at the last minute over the schedule and scrapped a call with Mrs May due to a foreign policy clash.​

 

Since taking office in January 2017 Mr Trump has dealt with two prime ministers, first Mrs May until she stood down in July 2019 and then Mr Johnson, her successor.

While his personal relationship with Mrs May was strained at times, he has developed a warmer bond with Mr Johnson, who he has called a friend and “Britain Trump”.

The information leaked to The Telegraph includes details of three conversations Mr Johnson had with senior US officials when foreign secretary, and shows how he praised Mr Trump away from the cameras.

One meeting described in the notes saw Mr Johnson meet Woody Johnson, the then newly appointed US ambassador to the UK, in the Foreign Office on 29 August 2017.

Excellent 1st meeting w/ Sec. @BorisJohnson at the @foreignoffice. The U.S.-UK relationship remains a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. pic.twitter.com/xrTmEnl116

— Ambassador Johnson (@USAmbUK) August 29, 2017

“We were initially anxious about the US foreign policy but Trump has been doing fantastic stuff on Syria, North Korea, China, Afghanistan”, Mr Johnson said, according to the notes. “America is back under Trump”, Mr Johnson is quoted saying at one point. At another he said “we’ll solve problems together”, adding: “The president is making America great again”.

Mr Johnson’s echoing of Mr Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan, Make America Great Again, or MAGA for short, will raise eyebrows given it is the rallying cry for the president’s supporters, who wear red baseball caps bearing the words.

A second conversation was between Mr Trump and Mike Pompeo, the US secretary of state, when they spoke on the phone on June 7 2018, right before the president's trip to Britain.

“The visit’s going to be very important. We’re going to give him a great time,” Mr Johnson said, according to the notes, adding later: “The president is increasingly popular in the UK.” Mr Pompeo is quoted responding: “We’ll put him on a street corner of Piccadilly. He can shake hands with people. That would be great.” Mr Johnson added: “That would be crazy.”

The tone of the last comments described is unknown but appears to be tongue in cheek. It is also unclear whether there was evidence backing up Mr Johnson’s ”increasingly popular" claim.

A poll of Britons conducted by YouGov the week before found 74 per cent of respondents had an unfavourable view of Mr Trump while just 16 per cent had a favourable view. A third meeting involving Mr Johnson came on May 26 2017.

He met Rex Tillerson, then the US secretary of state, at 1 Carlton Gardens, the foreign secretary’s official residence in London. At one point, according to the notes, Mr Johnson said: “It’s great to see America is back and engaged in the world with a different tempo. We think that is going to have an impact, especially on Russia’s thinking.”

Mr Tillerson is quoted responding: “Russia needs to receive a consistent message from everyone. The future is not with Iran and not with Assad [the Syrian dictator].”

In all three meetings Mr Johnson pushed the UK’s foreign policy positions despite differences with the US - something his supporters will likely point to as an advantage of having a good relationship with Mr Trump.

According to the notes Mr Johnson told Ambassador Johnson not to scrap the Iran nuclear deal, pressed Mr Tillerson on the importance of securing peace in Syria and expressed regret to Mr Pompeo that the US could leave the United Nations’s Human Rights Council.

The other four meetings at which notes were taken are a May-Trump lunch in January 2017, a May-Trump call in March 2018 and two briefings Mr Trump got in the White House, one ahead of a call with Mrs May and the other before a UK visit.

Approached for comment, a Number 10 spokesman said: “The Prime Minister is committed to the extremely important relationship between the UK and US and to enhancing the work we do together to ensure the prosperity and security of our citizens.” The White House declined to comment.

The White House lunch 

One of the most eye-catching meetings came in January 2017. Mrs May had jetted out to Washington DC just days after Mr Trump’s inauguration, seeking to put past criticism of the new US president behind her and build a strong working relationship.

Becoming the first world leader to be hosted by Mr Trump in the White House was a diplomatic coup, part of a deliberate strategy to get close to the world’s most powerful politician early and, if possible, shape his thinking.

Now, as the two leaders settled down with a handful of their closest advisers for lunch in the president’s residence on January 27 2017, here was a chance to strike up a rapport away from the more formal policy discussions.

“Isn’t this place great? It’s so great,” Mr Trump began, enthusing about his new home as his guests settled in for the meal. “I’ve been to Buckingham Palace before and that’s greater." Only a few days into the job, Mr Trump was still seething over claims his inauguration had been poorly attended.

He defended the size of the crowd and then compared the anti-Trump Women's March with the anti-abortion March for Life. The president then picked up the theme. “Abortion is such a tough issue”, he said, touching on a topic that has been a dividing line in US politics for decades.

He wanted to know where Mrs May stood. Pro-choice or pro-life?

“Imagine some animal with tattoos raping your daughter and then she gets pregnant”, the president said, according to the notes, graphically outlining the case for allowing abortion.

Mr Trump then pointed at Mike Pence, the US vice president known for being deeply religious. “He’s a really tough one on abortion”, he is quoted saying, before again Mrs May for her view. The then prime minister offered a careful response - “diplomatically threading the needle” according to one source familiar with the conversation - before shifting the discussion back to safer ground.

“We should look at a UK-US trade agreement”, Mrs May said, according to the notes, bringing up something held by Brexiteers as a great prize awaiting Britain once the country left the European Union. The problem, as explained to the president, was that London and Washington could not start negotiating formally until Britain was outside the EU, which could take two years.

“That is so unfair, how can the EU limit you?" Mr Trump is quoted asking. But he was already making preparations. Gary Cohn, the former president of Goldman Sachs who was then Mr Trump’s top economic adviser, would lead talks for the US.

“The guy from our side on trade would be Gary Cohn,” Mr Trump said, according to the notes, name-checking his new hire. “That guy used to pay $175 million in taxes a year and now makes $170,000 a year. Incredible.”

Brexit and Tory scheming

Mr Trump, a longtime critic of the EU, wanted to know if more member countries would quit the block. “No I don’t think so and we don’t want them to,” Mrs May is quoted saying. “It’s better for the EU to stick together but the EU does need reform.”

The president had been a prominent supporter of Brexit and appeared eager to understand better the origins of the referendum. “What about Brexit? Did Cameron make a mistake?” he asked Mrs May, according to the notes. 

“Look, it’s Conservative Party politics”, she is quoted responding, urging Nick Timothy, her joint chief of staff who was present, to explain how Mr Cameron felt forced to call a vote because of Tory splits on the issue.

“Why isn’t Boris Johnson the prime minister? Didn’t he want the job?” Mr Trump then asked, according to the notes, probing about the political career of the man who headed up the Leave campaign and would ultimately play a part in toppling Mrs May.

When Mrs May explained how the Tory leadership race played out - which saw Mr Johnson withdraw after losing the support of Michael Gove - Mr Trump is quoted responding: “Oh, so you were drafted like in baseball. But really I think you were plotting this all along.”

Then came a discussion about how immigration impacted the Brexit vote. Mrs May said it was a factor but “part of a larger issue about borders and sovereignty”.

Once again, the US president picked up a theme and ran with it. “We are going to get tough on immigration,” Mr Trump said, according to the notes. “The Europeans have opened their doors to bad people. We will not have a Paris."

That line appears to be a reference to past terror attacks in the French capital. “Crime is way up in Germany. Women are getting raped all over the place,” Mr Trump is quoted continuing, singling out Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, for criticism. “Merkel will lose her next election.” Mrs May disagreed.

“No, I don’t think she will. She’s the best politician in Europe right now,” the British leader said, according to the notes. Later that year Mrs May was proved right. Mrs Merkel was re-elected.

Northern Ireland 'hatred' 

 

At one point during the lunch Mr Trump wanted to know about Northern Ireland. How it would fare after Brexit, given its position inside the UK but sharing a land border with Ireland, an EU member, was a critical issue in talks.

“What about Northern Ireland?” Mr Trump asked, according to the notes. “There’s such hatred there. I just don’t understand where it comes from." Mr Trump is quoted then jumping to Scotland and calling Alex Salmond a “loser”.

He had a long-running feud with the former Scottish first minister over wind farms construction near one of his golf Scottish courses. As the lunch neared its end the conversation turned to relations with Russia, an issue that hung over Mr Trump’s early presidency given the FBI investigation into Kremlin interference in the election he won.

Mr Trump asked his national security adviser Michael Flynn why he had not been informed of a call from Vladimir Putin, the Russian president - a fact mentioned briefly in the notes but which others present have since called a heated exchange.

Mrs May, a critic of the Russian leader, then offered the US president a warning. “You have to engage with Putin but beware,” she said, according to the notes. “He only respects strength. You have to be tough.” Offering a different opinion that foreshadowed future tensions, Mr Trump waved away her concerns.

“I have to talk to this guy,” the president said. “He has a thousand nukes. This isn’t the Congo.”

The Telegraph read out the notes to two people in the room for the lunch who confirmed their accuracy. A third person who did not attend but is familiar with the US record of the meeting said likewise.

Skripal poisoning clash

One of the most testing times in UK-US relations under Mr Trump came after Sergei Skripal, the former Russian spy who defected to Britain, and his daughter Yulia were poisoned with the nerve agent Novichok in Salisbury.

Mrs May publicly accused the Russian government of being behind the attack and spent much of March 2018, the month of the attack, rallying Western allies to jointly expel Russian spies in retaliation. It was a major test for the new UK-US relationship.

Mrs May was seeking solidarity from the White House over a chemical attack on British soil. But leaked notes from one call between Mr Trump and Mrs May reveal how hard he pushed back. “We really need your leadership on this”, Mrs May said, according to the notes. “No, I would rather follow than lead,” Mr Trump is quoted responding.

The call was in March, though the exact date is unclear. They talked more than once that month. The president is quoted carrying on: “Angela [Merkel] is doing nothing. She is feeding the beast. I have done stuff and the EU has to do something. We are paying for their defence.” Mrs May tried again.

“Three children fell ill after feeding ducks there”, she is quoted saying, referring to the hospitalisation of children who had been in the park where Mr Skripal was found. “Yes, it’s horrible and disgusting”, Mr Trump agreed. “The US and the UK must stand together on this”, Mrs May said, according to the notes.

Mr Trump is quoted countering: “No, all of us have to be together. Germany has to do something. You have to put together a coalition.” According to the notes he went on: “I’m not willing for the US to go first and then have others not to do anything. Germany has to do something.”

The exchange reveals how firmly Mr Trump argued against expelling Russian spies. At a moment of vulnerability for Mrs May, when she sought allies to stand by her side to show solidarity against Russian aggression, Mr Trump demurred.

One US official who listened to the call told a colleague Mrs May got so frustrated her voice cracked and that at two points the person thought she would either "scream or start crying". Former May aides and White House figures have dismissed the idea she came close to tears in any call with Mr Trump, speculating that Mrs May's voice cracking, as it did sometimes regardless of emotion, had been misinterpreted.

Eventually the president agreed to expel 60 Russian diplomats - more than any other country. He was, according to The Washington Post, later infuriated when Germany and France only expelled four each, accusing aides of misleading him.

Eye rolls and cracked voices

Almost every UK and US source who discussed the Trump-May relationship with The Telegraph said the two leaders did not have a natural chemistry and at times their telephone calls could be trying. More than half a dozen people who listened to their calls shared thoughts.

Mr Trump’s tone was at times described as “bullying” and “mansplaining”. He often ignored the agreed topics of discussion, going on long monologues. Mrs May sometimes sounded “bemused” and exasperated, trying to bring Mr Trump back to the issues at hand.

She also stood her ground, sources on both sides say, willing to tell the president he was wrong during policy disagreements. During some calls they had pleasant conversations, such as when he said Mrs May could become the new Winston Churchill if she pulled off Brexit.

Most often they simply “talked past each other”. Occasionally, though, the calls were “nightmarish”.

“It is hectoring, it is relentless, it is forceful, it is difficult to get a word in,” one ex-May adviser who listened in said of Mr Trump's speaking style on the phone. “She would go, ‘yes Donald, Donald, Donald’”, attempting to interrupt.

Advisers heading to the secure room in the Number 10 basement used for Trump calls would pick up non-verbal signs Mrs May knew what was coming. “Every now and then you might get an eye roll”, one said, or a raised eyebrow. Aides called it "the look".

At times advisers would be told to see what Mr Trump had done recently that he viewed as a success so that Mrs May could begin the call with a compliment in an attempt to massage the president’s ego, but it rarely worked. Mr Trump, on the other hand, would ask world leaders for their views on Mrs May.

"He would say to Merkel or Macron about Theresa May 'Well, what do you think now? She's blown it with that election. What do you think about Boris Johnson?'” said a former White House adviser, who stressed he did the same about other leaders too.

The same source said: "He thought she made two big mistakes. Having a general election [in 2017] and losing her majority and not being bold enough to pull off the band aid and go over the cliff on Brexit.”

Cancelled meetings and calls

On December 6 2017 Mr Trump was due to call Mrs May about his decision to move America’s Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, delivering on a campaign promise but risking inflaming tensions in the region.

Told by advisers during a pre-call briefing that Mrs May would likely express opposition to the move, the president abruptly cancelled the appointment, according to the notes.

Mr Trump was due to call Mrs May about his decision to move America’s Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Told by advisers during a pre-call briefing that Mrs May would likely express opposition to the move, the president abruptly cancelled the appointment 

One US official in the room told a colleague Mr Trump had a “hissy fit”. The following month the US president was getting briefed on his upcoming UK trip, the details of which had been largely locked in. It would have been his first visit to Britain since taking office and had been long-awaited.

White House National Security Council officials, running through the itinerary, told Mr Trump he would lead an opening ceremony for the new US embassy, which had moved from Grosvenor Square, in central London, to south of the Thames.

“I don’t want to go," Mr Trump interjected, according to notes of the meeting on January 10 2018. "I hate the new embassy which was a terrible real estate decision. So I will not go and do a ribbon cutting." The sudden about-turn sent officials in the State Department scrambling to work with Downing Street counterparts on a public statement explaining the trip's collapse.

Spinners on both sides agreed to downplay just how far along plans for the visit were. Mr Trump became fixated on the cost of the new embassy, claiming his predecessor Barack Obama had wasted money on it. One May aide recalls the president spending 20 minutes on the phone telling Mrs May why it was such an "idiotic" project. It would be another six months before Mr Trump made it to Britain.

Boris woos team Trump

Away from the more formal channels, Mr Johnson had success getting close to members of Mr Trump’s inner circle, thereby improving his standing and influence with the US president, according to numerous sources on both sides.  

Mr Johnson was one of the first UK government figures to meet Mr Trump’s team after his shock White House victory in November 2016, flying across for meetings in the president-elect’s New York base, Trump Tower, in January 2017.

While Mr Johnson was ordered not to meet Mr Trump during the trip - Mrs May’s top aides were suspicious of Mr Johnson and wanted her to be the first UK minister to meet the president-elect - he did build contacts with key Trump advisers.

One influential figure Mr Johnson has had repeated discussions with is Stephen Miller, the US president’s adviser credited with driving his hardline immigration policy agenda. When Mr Trump announced his so-called “Muslim ban” shortly after taking office, it was Mr Johnson who managed to carve out a British exemption over a frantic weekend that followed.

Some UK and US officials believe it came through talks with Mr Miller. Mr Miller would often see Mr Johnson when he visited. One former White House official recalled Mr Miller describing Mr Johnson as a “friend” and claiming the then foreign secretary had helped him with speeches.

Mr Miller once asked for an internal briefing for what a White House official believed was an “off the books” one-on-one meeting with Mr Johnson, though if it happened numerous UK embassy figures were unaware. The pair did meet in May 2018 when Mr Johnson held a reception at the British ambassador's residence in Washington DC during a visit.

Only around 20 Republican operatives were invited, including Mr Miller, who is aged 35. Mr Miller and Mr Johnson were seen chatting warmly together, discussing plans for Mr Trump’s upcoming trip to Britain. "They were all totally dazzled by him,” said one attendee of the guests and Mr Johnson.

Similarly Mr Johnson struck up a relationship with Jared Kushner, Mr Trump’s son-in-law and a senior White House adviser often credited with influencing the president’s thinking on foreign policy matters, especially the Middle East. Multiple US and UK officials believed the men were in regular text contact.

John Bolton, Mr Trump’s former national security adviser, recalls in his book being surprised to discover Mr Johnson called Mr Kushner, now aged 39, to discuss a potential Syrian air strike. The connections have allowed Mr Johnson, who once called Mr Trump “unfit” to be president over comments made about London’s safety when he was mayor, to be seen not as a 'never Trumper' but a like-minded ally.

“Boris is not Steve Bannon or a Trump ideologist,” one well-placed UK source said. "But Stephen Miller probably thinks that. They believed he was part of their grand world view". It is a belief still held in the White House to this day. 

 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/05/exclusive-leaked-meeting-notes-show-boris-johnson-said-trump/

Review – War in Space: Strategy, Spacepower, Geopolitics
Augusto Dall’Agnol
Sep 5 2020

Image by Edinburgh University Press


War in Space: Strategy, Spacepower, Geopolitics
By Bleddyn E. Bowen
Edinburgh University Press, 2020

Bowen’s newest book, War in Space: Strategy, Spacepower, Geopolitics, is the result of his revised and expanded PhD dissertation and provides an original and compelling theory of spacepower that focuses on the conduct and exercise of military force and space technology. It offers a holistic view of the vast possibilities granted by spacepower. Through seven propositions, Bowen gives solid answers on how to think about what warfare in space looks like and what it means for military planners and strategic thinking. Simply put, his spacepower theory provides useful starting points for space strategy-making as it creates conceptual anchors to investigate the challenges of conducting, understanding and scrutinizing strategy and warfare, an activity that defies excessive prescription and linear war planning.

His spacepower theory embraces the instrumentalisation of violence with space technology, as it positively focuses more on war than on the entirety of relations between actors in space. It covers classic strategic concepts such as commanding a medium, lines of communication, friction, concentration and dispersal into orbit and how those concepts may shift in practice on Earth in light of the diffusion of spacepower. In brief, the book helps to think critically about the use of space systems in warfare – satellites, their infrastructure, methods of attacking them, as well as their influence on modern warfare and strategy.

A Clausewitzian spacepower theory

One of the most significant contributions of Bowen’s book is its Clausewitzian way of thinking about the conduct of war. Besides stating that “space warfare is the continuation of Terran politics by other means” (p.3), his theory is well rooted in a Clausewitzian approach to theorizing war as a political activity. In Bowen’s words, spacepower refers to the use of outer space’s military and economic advantages for strategic ends, whereas a space power would be a country that uses outer space for its political objectives. Bowen also argues that any tactical action “must contribute to something on the strategic level to meet political goals on Earth, otherwise it is a mindless act of wanton violence and destruction” (p.6) and that acts of space warfare “do not suspend political intercourse or change the conduct of politics into something entirely different” (p.6). Such a view aligns with Sheehan’s idea developed on The International Politics of Space in which space and politics have always been inseparably interlinked.


Bowen also advocates against the general idea that controlling space leads to a domination of Earth, mentioning that naval powers did not always dominate the destiny of continents. He warns against an over focus on seeking the destruction of space systems as an axiom for strategists and war planners who often seek the center of gravity of the opponent. The author keeps his Clausewitzian approach throughout the book as he moves away from the Jominian notion of decisive battles and quick victories that often overrun to astrodeterminist approaches available in International Relations and Strategic Studies. Although Bowen recognizes that spacepower influences the conduct of tactics and operations, he mainly focuses on strategy. His theory highlights that spacepower and operations in Earth orbit must be seen as “primarily a supporting force or capability, not a direct war-winning capability or a scene dominated by spectacular battles” (p.7).

Therefore, Bowen defies the hegemonic perception of outer space, or a domination-based thinking, that presumes the ability of an actor to act with practical impunity in a medium at a time of its choosing. For him, the command of a medium is normally in dispute. As an analogy, Bowen mentions that even a hegemon at sea could not unilaterally determine the ultimate fate of land-based states. Hence, “continental powers, being weaker naval powers, took steps to ensure the Royal Navy did not have free reign in their coastal waters in a time of war” (p.33). In sum, the author correctly rejects the idea that the control of Earth orbit by one dominant state will confer dominance over Earth.

Bowen also devotes great attention to the logistical aspects of spacepower. He argues that logistics imply “understanding the effects of celestial lines of communication upon Earth as well as how spacepower depends on terrestrial lines of communication and objectives” (p.142). In short, spacepower logistics must be understood along with terrestrial logistics. By advancing Castex’s argument about coastal defenses, Bowen maintains that the logistical support from celestial lines of communication matters for wars on Earth in a conceptually similar way to how logistical support from sea lines of communication matters for continental wars.

The most innovative contribution of his new vision of spacepower to the field is the idea that Earth orbit resembles a coastal zone and a secondary theatre of operations, rather than a vast ocean. Drawing on authors of the “continental school”, such as Menon’s Maritime Strategy and Continental Wars, Gorshkov’s The Sea Power of the State and Castex’s Strategic Theories, Bowen posits that spacepower would remain inherently geocentric. Bowen’s spacepower theory provides new insights based on the experiences of seapower in continental rather than maritime wars. Hence, the author argues that what flies in orbit is within reach of Earth-based countermeasures, similarly to coastal defenses against naval forces and intrusions. Unlike interplanetary space, Earth orbit would compare to a proximate, crowded and contestable coastline and a littoral environment, rather than a vast, remote, distant and expansive ocean. Such an analogy makes a constructive review of existing spacepower theories, especially bluewater seapower approaches, based on the experiences of island powers who must engage with the seas to project their own power and deflect that of others, as Dolman’s Astropolitik and Klein’s Space Warfare. In short, for Earth-based polities outer space resembles what coastal waters and oceans have been for former continental powers such as Sparta, Carthage, Rome, Russia and India

Bowen’s effort to develop an explicitly pedagogical approach also has great merit. The author promptly acknowledges to the readers that those “seeking a war winning strategy or prophecy of future war from this book will be disappointed” (p.2). Fortunately, the author does not cover space regulatory frameworks or issues related to space governance. Moreover, he avoids a technocentric understanding of spacepower that takes technology away from political contexts. Bowen emphasizes that strategic problems will not be settled with simple space technologies solutions, cautioning the reader against common understandings that view space-based weapons as silver bullets.

Throughout his seven propositions, Bowen assists the reader’s self-education about space, warfare and strategy. His War in Space does not provide policy prescriptions or a winning strategy. Neither does it address only scholars, policy-makers and officers from the United States and its allies. The author reserves a few pages to advance his understanding of a pedagogical theory and how analogical thought about space works. Bowen’s theory clearly stems from the essential elements of Clausewitz’s pedagogical thinking and his seven propositions are organizing principles for critical application and self-education. He describes strategic analogies as “the transposition of a strategic theory or concept derived from any particular case of warfare or strategic dilemma to another” (p.45). The author has consciously avoided an uncritical exercise in analogical reasoning successfully. In sum, Bowen’s strategic analogies are valuable pedagogical tools and he is very cautious in terms of transparency while constructing and using them.

Strategic Studies and spacepower diffusion

Bowen’s War in Space unquestionably settles his spacepower theory within the larger context of International Relations and Strategic Studies. As an example, his theory reinforces Biddle’s contribution on Military Power by assessing the influence of spacepower on modern warfare as a dispersing influence. Bowen makes two compelling arguments that greatly contribute to the field. First, spacepower in Earth orbit resembles the use of seapower by continental states, rather than maritime powers. Second, spacepower is a more subtle, secondary and supporting form of power. While deeply engaging with existing spacepower debates, Bowen also provides a pleasant bonus to the reader by slightly discussing issues such as the diffusion of military power and balance of power in his conclusions.

While Horowitz’s The Diffusion of Military Power masterfully discusses the spread of military innovations, Bowen paves the road to further discussions on the diffusion of spacepower. Since the deployment and use of machines in Earth orbit greatly influences the conduct of modern warfare, it is of the uttermost importance to understand the implications of the diffusion of satellites and anti-satellite capabilities for politics and strategy. As space technologies and space systems diffuse away from the United States and its allies, Earth orbit may become a hostile littoral zone even for the most capable space powers. Moreover, Bowen rightly calls the development and improvement of other states’ ability to undermine or mitigate United States’ command of the commons through the development of counterspace weapons and long-range strike weapons by its name: hard balancing

Despite control measures and efforts by the United States to constrain the spread of sensitive rocket and satellite technologies, Bowen posits that affordable space related technologies will continue to diffuse and that “developing counterspace measures are easier and cheaper than developing space systems” (p.112). This has a direct impact on the international balance of power. Since Bowen’s spacepower theory acknowledges that the command of space refers to those who can control or deny space infrastructure in a time of war to varying degrees, a country only able to deny celestial lines of communication and elaborate space infrastructures “still possesses a degree of the command of space” (p.59). Other authors should not overlook such a statement. Another of Bowen’s analogies is that continental sea powers could achieve several degrees of the command of the sea in coastal regions without using large ocean-going fleets. Therefore, it is worth challenging long-lived balance of power notions in which third countries must possess a carbon copy of all top-platforms and advanced weapons systems of the leading state in order to catch up with it successfully.

Finally, War in Space is unquestionably a must-read book to all those interested in spacepower beyond Netflix’s Space Force series. Through its fluid writing and pedagogical character, the book is certainly accessible to non-experts readers. Nevertheless, the field of Strategic Studies is the one to be benefited the most from Bowen’s masterpiece, although International Relations scholars would also greatly benefit from joining such strategic debate. At first glance, the book’s repeated mentions of Jomini’s, Mahan’s and Dolman’s works may cause some strangeness to a reader waiting for a much-promised Clausewitzian spacepower theory. However, by combining a robust critical view on former spacepower theories with his deep understanding of the “continental school”, Bowen now offers the public a vigorous and brand-new Clausewitzian spacepower theory that definitely establishes itself side by side with previous well-known contributions on the field, such as those of Dolman, Sheehan and Klein

 

'Freeing the truth' – Extinction Rebellion activists on their week of action

From blockading printers to meditating outside Barclays, the climate crisis campaign has drawn a variety of participants

Extinction rebellion protesters blockade Newprinters publishing factory in Knowsley, Liverpool, last Friday. Photograph: Kenny Brown/Rex/Shutterstock

Mattha Busby

Mon 7 Sep 2020 

Thousands of Extinction Rebellion (XR) activists and supporters have been staging “die-ins”, preventing copies of newspapers from being distributed and meditating outside banks over the past week in a series of actions aimed at highlighting the worsening ecological crisis.

At printing plants in Merseyside and in Hertfordshire on Friday evening, many trucks carrying newspapers were unable to deliver to shops. The prime minister, Boris Johnson, accused XR of seeking to limit the public’s access to news amid suggestions that the environmental group could subsequently be treated like an organised crime group by the authorities.

Amanda, 23, a barista from Liverpool, was among those stopping newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch from leaving Newsprinters’ Knowsley plant, and said she was motivated by frustration about how some of the media have reported on the environment.

“I’m increasingly realising some newspapers don’t report on the climate crisis accurately,” she said. “With some of the billionaire owners climate change sceptics, how can you expect what they write to really represent what is happening?”

For Amanda, who did not wish to give her surname, the action highlighted the importance of “freeing the truth” and showed how people can take direct action to significant effect.

“I joined XR about 18 months ago out of despair and helplessness in the face of the terrifying prospect of runaway climate change. I realised anything I was going to do in my personal life wasn’t going to cut it, the system is the greatest problem.”

Activist John Lynes from Extinction Rebellion at a protest in Parliament Square, London, on 1 September. Photograph: Tolga Akmen/AFP/Getty Images

Hundreds of XR supporters have been arrested over the last seven days – believed to be significantly fewer than in previous “rebellions” – the oldest of whom was 92-year-old retired engineer John Lynes, from Hastings.

“I don’t enjoy being a nuisance,” he said following his second arrest after protesting with XR and refusing to cooperate with the police on Parliament Square in London. “But we’ve tried everything else, there’s no sense of urgency; they’re talking about 2050, but by then it will be a bit late to do anything.”

He said it was crucial to keep pressure on the government ahead of the UN climate change conference next year, which the UK is chairing. “It’s my generation that has caused all this and we have a responsibility which I can’t duck,” Lynes said.

“The government response to climate heating is pathetic, that’s why we’re protesting. They’re doing so little and nothing in proportion to what’s needed.”

XR Youth activist Poppy Silk outside the office of her MP, Robert Courts, in Witney, Oxfordshire. Photograph: Guardian Community

In Cardiff, 19-year-old Poppy Silk and her XR Youth comrades have been protesting to urge MPs to support the passage of the climate and ecological emergency bill, introduced to parliament by the Green party MP Caroline Lucas on Wednesday to reflect the urgency of the escalating climate emergency.

If passed into law, it would help ensure the UK has a comprehensive strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, amid frustration over inaction.

“We see how the government has dragged its feet and reacted slowly to the coronavirus pandemic, and it’s the same with the climate,” said Silk, who also protested outside her local MP’s office in Witney, Oxfordshire, this week.

“Neither of my MPs from home or where I study have backed the bill yet. Climate heating is the biggest threat to humanity and we need to act now. We’d far rather be having fun than putting our civil liberties at risk.”

An XR Buddhists demonstration outside a Barclays bank in central London last week. Photograph: Jeremy Peters

Back in London, Barclays bank – which lends money to fossil fuel companies – was the object of activists’ ire. Katja Behrendt, 35, a non-clinical NHS doctor, was part of an XR Buddhists demonstration outside one of its branches by Tottenham Court Road.

“Often we meditate as part of our protests,” she said. “It takes some getting used to but I’ve found these are the moments I feel really connected to my values.

“I find in activism sometimes it can be a bit ‘us and them’ and that people burn out so I was really happy to find other Buddhists interested within XR because it’s about how do we participate and protest and not further division.”

Chidi Oti-Obihara speaking at a protest in the City of London last week. Photograph: Guardian Community

However, Chidi Oti-Obihara, a former banker and 2017 Green party parliamentary candidate in East Ham, who protested outside Downing Street and in the City of London last week – making a speech calling for ecocide to be made a crime – said promises had been made by the government and others that were not being fulfilled.

“It’s incredibly important to keep the issue of climate change firmly on the agenda because so much has been done to deal with one emergency without contextualising it properly in terms of another emergency,” he said, contrasting the government’s dual responses to the pandemic and the climate emergency.

“The government has dropped everything, ignored due process and thrown everything at Covid-19 without considering the longer-term environmental impact of such bailouts.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/07/freeing-the-truth-extinction-rebellion-activists-on-their-week-of-action

]

French 'anti-maskers' most likely to be educated WHITE women in 50s, says study

Results show 94% of Covid sceptics would refuse vaccine and most describe themselves as free-thinkers

Kim Willsher in Paris

Mon 7 Sep 2020 

 

An anti-mask protest at the Place de la Nation in Paris where hundreds of demonstrators chanted ‘liberté, liberté’. Photograph: Kamil Zihnioglu/AP

French people who reject mask-wearing are more likely to be older, educated women who support the gilets jaunes (yellow vests) protest movement and the controversial virus specialist Didier Raoult, and would refuse to have a coronavirus vaccination if one were available, according to a new study.

They also describe themselves as free-thinkers who believe the government is meddling too much in their lives, have a distrust of public institutions and often support conspiracy theories, it found.

The French thinktank the Jean-Jaurès Foundation suggested “anti-maskers” were spread across the political spectrum, with the research results showing a slight tendency towards the right.

Antoine Bristielle, a social sciences professor who carried out the study, said he examined a number of Facebook anti-mask groups and that his findings were based on just over 1,000 responses to an online questionnaire.

The findings come after a demonstration in Paris by anti-maskers at the end of August at which hundreds of protesters chanted “liberté, liberté”. It is mandatory to wear a mask outside across the French capital.

Bristielle said four main objections to masks emerged from the respondents: that they are useless in preventing Covid-19 contamination; that they are dangerous because they cause breathing difficulties and are a “hive of bacteria”; that the epidemic is over or never existed and the governments have lied to the people; and that masks are being used to subjugate the people.

“While these four arguments methodically clash with the body of scientific facts,” the study says, “they nevertheless already say a great deal about the profile of the individuals who argue them: distrust of institutions, refusal of constraints, belief in conspiracy theories.”


Researchers found anti-maskers were likely to reject the political “elite” and traditional political parties and have more faith in the ordinary people to make decisions. In the first round of the 2017 presidential election, which resulted in a second round run-off between Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen, a total of 40% of those who are against masks either abstained, spoiled their ballot paper or were not even on the electoral register. Of those anti-maskers who did vote, 20% voted for the hard-left candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon and 27% for the far right’s Le Pen.

Above all, those who reject the enforced wearing of masks consider themselves free thinkers and 87% said society works better when people are responsible for their own lives, and 95% declared the government meddles too much in their daily existence.

Asked a series of questions about popular conspiracy theories, 90% of anti-maskers said the health ministry was in league with ”big pharma” to hide the poisonous effect of vaccines, 52% thought Princess Diana, who died in a car crash in Paris in 1997, had been assassinated, 56% signed up to the far-right conspiracy “replacement” theory and 57% believed there was a worldwide Zionist plot.

The study found 63% of those quizzed who were anti-mask were women, the average age was 50, and most had been in higher education. Only 2% had confidence in Emmanuel Macron and 3% in the prime minister, Jean Castex, and 94% said they would refuse to be vaccinated against the coronavirus. Most said they obtained their information from the internet and 51% said they trusted this information; 22% said they had taken part in gilets jaunes protests and 57% said they supported the movement.

Raoult, a controversial infectious diseases expert from Marseille, was well regarded by 87% of those asked who opposed masks, and almost all of them (98%) said patients infected with Covid-19 should be allowed to be treated with hydroxychloroquine as Raoult has suggested, despite claims the treatment could be dangerous

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/07/french-anti-maskers-see-themselves-as-free-thinkers-study-shows