Follow us on social

Space Force wants to 'Fly Me to the Moon'

Space Force wants to 'Fly Me to the Moon'

It's mission may be to militarize the galaxy, but right now the branch hopes the new Johansson-Channing film will bring it a 'Top Gun moment'

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex

The Space Force wants its very own Top Gun. For now, the nascent military branch will have to settle for Fly Me to the Moon.

Filmed at the Patrick Space Force Base and Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida, Fly Me to the Moon depicts a budding romance between the Apollo 11 launch director (Channing Tatum) and a public relations specialist (Scarlett Johansson) during the 1960’s space race.

No, there won’t be Space Force Guardians playing volleyball in space. Nor does the film make any references to the Space Force at all, which was created in 2019, long after the space race. Plagued with negative public perception from the outset — most memorably by Netflix’s satirical 2020 show by the same name — the Space Force is leveraging its small role in the Fly Me to the Moon production in an attempt to make inroads with Hollywood.

The Department of Defense is well aware that Hollywood star power can be an influential mouthpiece for messaging, having helped to shape the narratives of some 2,500 movies and TV shows. After the release of the first 'Top Gun' in 1986, Navy recruitment reportedly boomed and so did public awareness of the Navy. Space Force — or any of the U.S. military services could only hope for that kind of attention today.

In celebration of the Fly Me to the Moon launch on July 12, the Space Force shared a video on social media of Johansson promoting the military branch. “Your dedication to secure our nation's interests in and to space is truly inspiring. Here’s to five amazing years and many more to come. Happy fifth birthday United States Space Force and Semper Supra!” declared Johansson.

At the premiere, Chief Master Sergeant of the Space Force John Bentivegna spoke on a panel with the film director, arguing that his branch is continuing the mission of the Apollo team of the 1960s. “The passion that was captured and what was going on in the nation as we were trying to get men to the moon — we have thousands of Guardians that have that same passion for space every day,” said Bentivegna.

But the Space Force and its contractors aren’t tasked with space exploration, but rather space militarization to compete with adversaries such as Russia and China. As Commander Chance Saltzman puts it, the mission is “space superiority—protect ours, deny theirs.”

As evidence, look no further than the sponsors of the film premiere, which included Space Force contractors Booz Allen Hamilton and Northrop Grumman. Last October, Booz Allen was awarded a $630 million contract from the Space Force for a space-based missile warning system to “maintain space superiority...no matter the domain.” That same month, Northrop Grumman was awarded a $730 million contract from the Space Development Agency to produce military satellites and is working with RTX (formerly Raytheon) to develop offensive missiles that can travel at hypersonic speeds.

On Tuesday, the Space Force even made a pitch for its very own blockbuster Hollywood hit. According to Military.com reporter Thomas Novelly, Chief Master Sergeant of the Space Force John Bentivegna told 20 Hollywood executives at Fox Studio that his branch has plenty to offer to the silver screen.

Bentivegna explained that the Space Force’s “mission isn’t to fight aliens, hunt Sith Lords or put combat boots on the moon,” making a reference to the fictional president of the “Space Force.” “In the real world, it's about securing America's interests against China and Russia, protecting the nation's use of GPS, and tracking orbital debris to keep it from harming assets such as the International Space Station.”

These ideas could be “compelling for movie plots,” he added.

Netflix goosed the Space Force’s reputation in 2020. Can Hollywood help redefine it in 2024? There’s plenty of money and corporate interest hoping it can, so that when the audience says “fly me to the moon,” they’ll not only be thinking of Johansson and Channing, but of the military recruiting office, too.


Channing Tatum and Scarlett Johansson in 'Fly me to the Moon' (Screenshot official trailer/Sony Entertainment)

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.