Follow us on social

google cta
Politico’s defense industry funded newsletter hypes banal news about China's military

Politico’s defense industry funded newsletter hypes banal news about China's military

Beijing built a base for some of their nuclear weapons we already knew about and apparently that’s a big scoop.

Reporting | Media
google cta
google cta

Politico’s foreign policy newsletter National Security Daily on Monday published what appeared to be somewhat of a scoop: “Suspected new Chinese missile garrison found by commercial satellite,” the headline blared. 

NatSec Daily had apparently combed through the Pentagon’s new report on China’s military and found "the existence of a new People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF) bomber brigade stationed near the city of Xiangyang,” noting that it didn’t appear in last year’s report. 

The newsletter then noted that an analysis by Janes, an open source intelligence firm, of commercially available satellite imagery taken on October 25 indeed shows that a new missile garrison was built in the area between 2019 and 2021. And according to the author of that report, the “unit assigned to the Xiangyang garrison is unknown, but the garrison may be intended to house 664 Brigade. 664 Brigade is a mobile intercontinental ballistic missile unit equipped with the DF-31AG and previously thought to be garrisoned at Yiyang.” 

NatSec Daily then points to a report from the Federation of American Scientists from last December which said that the 664 Brigade had been stationed nearby. 

But … that was it. 

Politico’s big scoop essentially boiled down to: China built a base for a nuclear weapons brigade that we already knew about. 

That may be interesting to a small group of people who follow the Chinese military’s comings and goings fairly closely. But why is such banal information being hyped as big news in mainstream media outlet?

NatSec Daily then tried to put the information about this new base in some kind of wider anti-American context, saying the “revelation” adds to news of “recently captured pictures of a fake U.S. aircraft carrier in the northwestern desert of China, which might be used by Beijing’s forces to practice battling the United States.”

It probably is being used by Beijing’s forces to practice battling the United States but how these two things are related at all is unclear. 

But this sort of national security threat-inflation isn’t new for Politico. This summer, the outlet spent about a week following around some Iranian oil tankers — which Politico referred to as “warships” — that may or may not have been heading to Venezuela, making it seem like they were part of some grand naval armada coming to the Western Hemisphere to challenge American regional hegemony. (They actually ended up landing on the west coast of Africa.)

Oddly enough though, there actually is potentially alarming news about recent developments from the Chinese military — but that’s about recently discovered missile silos that are part of what experts believe is a nuclear modernization plan, not some new base to house a nuclear brigade that we already knew about. 

FAS called it a “worrisome development” but the group didn’t hype the threat. Instead, FAS said that it’s “important to exercise caution” and the news “may ironically also create new opportunities for arms control discussions and potential agreements.”

Perhaps the FAS report didn’t hype these revelations because, unlike Politico, it isn’t funded by the defense industry. Indeed, NatSecDaily is brought to you by Lockheed Martin. And only those who build the bombs meant to be aimed at the Chinese could be happy with a headline like this: 

Screen-shot-2021-11-09-at-4.17.40-pm-1024x521


Photos: OleksandrShnuryk and Sharaf Maksumov via shutterstock.com|
google cta
Reporting | Media
Trump $1.5 trillion
Top image credit: Richard Peterson via shutterstock.com

The reality of Trump’s cartoonish $1.5 trillion DOD budget proposal

Military Industrial Complex

After promising on the campaign trail that he would drive the war profiteers out of Washington, and appointing Elon Musk to trim the size of government across the board, some will be surprised at President Trump’s social media post on Wednesday that the U.S. should raise the Pentagon budget to $1.5 trillion. That would mean an unprecedented increase in military spending, aside from the buildup for World War II.

The proposal is absurd on the face of it, and it’s extremely unlikely that it is the product of a careful assessment of U.S. defense needs going forward. The plan would also add $5.8 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Budget.

keep readingShow less
Trump Venezuela
Top image credit: President Donald Trump monitors U.S. military operations in Venezuela, from Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, on Saturday, January 3, 2026. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

Trump's sphere of influence gambit is sloppy, self-sabotage

Latin America

Spheres of influence stem from the very nature of states and international relations. States will always seek to secure their interests by exerting influence over their neighbors, and the more powerful the state, the greater the influence that it will seek.

That said, sphere of influence strategies vary greatly, on spectrums between relative moderation and excess, humanity and cruelty, discreet pressure and open intimidation, and intelligence and stupidity; and the present policies of the Trump administration in the Western Hemisphere show disturbing signs of inclining towards the latter.

keep readingShow less
 Ngo Dinh Diem assassination
Top photo credit: Newspaper coverage of the coup and deaths, later ruled assassination of Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu. (Los Angeles Times)

JFK oversaw Vietnam decapitation. He didn't live to witness the rest.

Washington Politics

American presidents have never been shy about unseating foreign heads of state, by either overt or covert means. Since the late 19th century, our leaders have deposed, or tried to depose their counterparts in Iran, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, and elsewhere.

Our presidents indulge in regime change when they perceive foreign leaders as inimical to U.S. security or corporate interests. But such efforts can backfire. The 1961 attempt to topple Fidel Castro, organized under President Eisenhower and executed under President Kennedy, led to a slaughter of CIA-trained invasion forces at the Bay of Pigs and a triumph for Castro’s communist government. Despite being driven from power by President George W. Bush in retribution for the 9/11 attacks, the Taliban roared back in 2023, again making Afghanistan a haven for terrorist groups.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.