The returner of the Chang'e-6 lunar probe is opened during a ceremony at the China Academy of Space Technology under the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation in Beijing, capital of China, June 26, 2024. The returner of the Chang'e-6 lunar probe was opened at a ceremony in Beijing on Wednesday afternoon. During the ceremony at the China Academy of Space Technology under the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation, researchers opened the returner and examined key technical indicators. Photo: Xinhua As the US space industry recently faced yet more delays and stagnation with key components including manned spacecraft and space suits "going wrong," NASA has once again resorted to its "sour grapes" rhetoric upon seeing China's successful retrieval of fresh lunar soils from the far side of the moon, by claiming that China did not directly invite its scientists to participate in the lunar soil research. This behavior is a typical blame-shifting trick, Chinese experts said, noting it is clear to all that it is the US' own laws, not China, that are restricting space cooperation between the two sides. Instead of deceiving themselves by distorting the truth, the US should face up to its own problem of overall weakening engineering capability and the lack of long-term planning in its space industry. After the Chang'e-6 samples, weighing nearly 2 kilograms, were safely transported to a special laboratory for further study on Friday, NASA spokesperson Faith McKie told media that while China worked with the European Space Agency, France, Italy and Pakistan on this mission, "NASA wasn't invited to take part in the moon probe." NASA also didn't get "any direct invitation" to study China's moon rocks, after it welcomed all scientists from around the world to apply to study them, McKie told NatSec Daily. Responding to the remarks, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told the Global Times on Monday that China is open to having space exchanges with the US, and we also welcome countries around the world to take part in the study of lunar samples. "However, the US side seems to have forgotten to mention its domestic legislation such as the Wolf Amendment. The real question is whether US scientists and institutions are allowed by their own government to participate in cooperation with China," Mao said. "The existence of the Wolf Amendment has basically shut the door to space collaboration between the two countries," Wang Yanan, chief editor of Beijing-based Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told the Global Times on Monday. Even if research institutions of the US have the willingness to work with China on opportunities such as lunar sample research, institutions there must obtain special approval from the US Congress due to the presence of this amendment, Wang explained. Currently, no such "green light" is in sight from the Congress. Furthermore, China's collaboration with international partners is based on equality and mutual benefit, leveraging their respective scientific resources, facilities, and expertise. However, the US only wants what it doesn't have, and its engagement with China would be advantageous only to itself, Wang noted. NASA has found itself embroiled in a number of thorny issues recently, with the latest being Boeing's Starliner manned spaceship experiencing both helium leaks and thruster issues during a June 6 docking with the International Space Station (ISS), which led to an indefinite delay for its crew's return to Earth, despite NASA's insistence that they are not "stranded" in space. The return of the Starliner capsule, while has already been delayed by two weeks, will be put on hold "well into the summer" pending results of new thruster tests, which are scheduled to start Tuesday and will take approximately two weeks or even more, per NASA officials. Previously on June 24, NASA cancelled a spacewalk on the ISS following a "serious situation," when one of the spacesuits experienced coolant leak in the hatch. While being broadcast on a livestream, the astronauts reported "literally water everywhere" as they were preparing for the extravehicular activity, space.com reported. The report said that this is the second time this particular spacewalk was postponed, after a June 13 attempt with a different astronaut group was pushed back due to a "spacesuit discomfort." The recurring issues with the spacesuits are due to their much-extended service lifespan, media reported, as the puffy white ones US astronauts currently wear were designed more than 40 years ago. Despite the pressing need to replace them, NASA announced recently that it is abandoning a plan to develop next-generation spacesuits, which had been committed to be delivered by 2026, CNN reported on Thursday. One of the root causes for such problems is that the US has developed many large technology conglomerates, which for a long time have benefited significantly from government orders and industry monopolies. Consequently, in many complex engineering fields, the level of attention given is greatly insufficient, Wang noted. It also reflected the US' lack of long-term strategic planning for its manned space program. For instance, the ageing spacesuits should have been replaced a decade ago to ensure that operational suits remain in usable condition. Failure to address this issue results in a hindrance to the space station's necessary maintenance tasks and even poses life-threatening risks to astronauts in emergency situations, experts said. The issues with Boeing's spacecraft and the spacesuits are not isolated problems, but reflected a systemic issue in the US space industry - the overall weakening of engineering capabilities, they noted.

More than 6,500 employees at South Korea's Samsung Electronics began a three-day mass strike on Monday (July 8), demanding an extra day of paid annual leave, higher pay raises and changes to the way performance bonuses are currently calculated. This is the largest organized strike in Samsung Electronics' more than half century of existence, and the union said that if this strike does not push employees' demands to be met, a new strike may be called. One of the core issues of the current dispute between the labor union and Samsung Electronics is raising wages and increasing the number of paid vacation days. The second demand is a pay rise. The union originally wanted a pay rise of more than 3% for its 855 employees, but last week they changed their demand to include all employees (rather than just 855). The third issue involves performance bonuses linked to Samsung's outsized profits - chip workers did not receive the bonuses last year when Samsung lost about Won15tn and, according to unions, fear they will still not get the money even if the company manages to turn around this year.

Iran's President-elect Masoud Pezeshkian reiterated Iran's anti-Israel stance on Monday, saying resistance movements across the region will not allow Israel's "criminal policies" against Palestinians to continue. Pezeshkian told Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Iran-backed Lebanese Hezbollah, that "the Islamic Republic will always support the people of the region in their resistance against the illegal Zionist regime." This suggests that the incoming government will not change its regional policy under the relatively moderate Pezeshkian, who defeated his hard-line opponent in a runoff election last week. Pezeshkian was quoted as saying by Iranian media, "I am sure that the regional resistance movement will not allow this regime to continue its militant and criminal policies against the oppressed people of Palestine and other countries in the region." The Shiite Muslim Hezbollah and the Palestinian Sunni Muslim Hamas are both part of the local "resistance axis" faction organization supported by Iran. Israel did not immediately comment on Pezeshkian's speech. Hamas led an attack on southern Israel on October 7. According to Israeli statistics, Hamas killed 1,200 people and kidnapped about 250 hostages, triggering the Israeli-Palestinian war. The Gaza Health Ministry said that the Israeli military attack killed more than 38,000 Palestinians and injured nearly 88,000 people.

A couple of days ago, a Quad summit meeting in Sydney scheduled for May 24 was abruptly canceled. The US president had to pull out of his long-anticipated trip to Australia and Papua New Guinea. Instead, the heads of the four Quad member states got together on the margins of the G7 Summit in Hiroshima on May 20. The main reason for the change of plans was the continuous struggle between the White House and Republicans on the Hill over the national debt ceiling. If no compromise is reached, the US federal government might fail to meet its financial commitments already in June; such a technical default would have multiple negative repercussions for the US, as well as for the global economy and finance at large. Let us hope that a compromise between the two branches of US power will be found and that the ceiling of the national debt will be raised once again. However, this rather awkward last-minute cancellation of the Quad summit reflects a fundamental US problem - a growing imbalance between the US geopolitical ambitions and the fragility of the national financial foundation to serve these ambitions. The Biden administration appears to be fully committed to bringing humankind back to the unipolar world that existed right after the end of the Cold War some 30 years ago, but the White House no longer has enough resources at its disposal to sustain such an undertaking. As they say in America: You cannot not have champagne on a beer budget. The growing gap between the ends that the US seeks in international relations and the means that it has available is particularly striking in the case of the so-called dual containment policy that Washington now pursues toward Russia and China. Even half a century ago, when the US was much stronger in relative terms than it is today, the Nixon administration realized that containing both Moscow and Beijing simultaneously was not a good idea: "Dual containment" would imply prohibitively high economic costs for the US and would result in too many unpredictable political risks. The Nixon administration decided to focus on containing the Soviet Union as the most important US strategic adversary of the time. This is why Henry Kissinger flew to Beijing in July 1971 to arrange the first US-China summit in February 1972 leading to a subsequent rapid rapprochement between the two nations. In the early days of the Biden administration, it seemed that the White House was once again trying to avoid the unattractive "dual containment" option. The White House rushed to extend the New START in January 2021 and held an early US-Russia summit meeting five months later in Geneva. At that point many analysts predicted that Biden would play Henry Kissinger in reverse - that is he would try to peace with the relatively weaker opponent (Moscow) in order to focus on containing the stronger one (Beijing). However, after the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, it became clear that no accommodation with the Kremlin was on Biden's mind any longer. Still, having decided to take a hard-line stance toward Moscow and to lead a broad Western coalition in providing military and economic assistance to Kiev, Washington has not opted for a more accommodative or at least a more flexible policy toward Beijing. On the contrary, over last year one could observe a continuous hardening of the US' China policy - including granting more political and military support to the Taiwan island, encouraging US allies and partners in Asia to increase their defense spending, engaging in more navel activities in the Pacific and imposing more technology sanctions on China. In the meantime, economic and social problems within the US are mounting. The national debt ceiling is only the tip of an iceberg - the future of the American economy is now clouded by high US Federal Reserve interest rates that slow down growth, feed unemployment and might well lead to a recession. Moreover, the US society remains split along the same lines it was during the presidency of Donald Trump. The Biden administration has clearly failed to reunite America: Many of the social, political, regional, ethnic and even generational divisions have got only deeper since January 2021. It is hard to imagine how a nation divided so deeply and along so many lines could demonstrate continuity and strategic vision in its foreign policy, or to allocate financial resources needed to sustain a visionary and consistent global leadership. Of course, the "dual containment" policy is not the only illustration of the gap between the US ambitions and its resources. The same gap inevitably pops up at every major forum that the US conducts with select groups of countries from the Global South - Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America or the Middle East. The Biden administration has no shortage of arguments warning these countries about potential perils of cooperating with Moscow or Beijing, but it does not offer too many plausible alternatives that would showcase the US generosity, its strategic vision, and its true commitment to the burning needs of the US interlocutors. To cut it short, Uncle Sam brings lots of sticks to such meetings, but not enough carrots to win the audience. In sum, US foreign policy under President Joe Biden reminds people of a very advanced and highly sophisticated smartphone that has a rather weak battery, which is not really energy efficient. The proud owner of the gadget has to look perennially for a power socket in order not to have the phone running out of power at any inappropriate moment. Maybe the time has come for the smartphone owner to look for another model that would have fewer fancy apps, but a stronger and a more efficient battery, which will make the appliance more convenient and reliable.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken declared at the Munich Security Conference: "If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu." The arrogant thinking of American political elites is evident: Whoever does not comply with the US will be excluded from the table of the American-led system and put on the menu. How arrogant. The US is actively pushing for "decoupling" from China and trying to persuade the entire West to "decouple" from China, using the term "de-risking." Washington hopes to ultimately contain China's development in order to maintain American hegemony. However, this time, Washington is facing a historically experienced and strategically rich Eastern civilization. Previous opponents targeted by the US have chosen to confront the US strategically. The US not only has the strongest technological and military capabilities but also controls global financial and information networks with a large number of allies. Those countries that had engaged in direct confrontations had suffered losses. Some of them had disintegrated, some had been weakened, and some had fallen into difficulties. However, what Washington sees from China is strategic composure and resilience. China is now staging an unprecedented and grand "Tai Chi." However, some Chinese people feel that this is not enough: Why can't we confront the US head-on? But I want to say that this is precisely the brilliance of China. This grand "Tai Chi" is about dismantling the pressure the US is putting on China. Europe is different from the US. A European diplomat once said in private that the topic of China has become toxic in the US, but in Europe, it is still possible to openly display friendliness toward China. There is genuine competition between the Europe and China despite Europe leans more toward the US between China and the US. Only in terms of ideology does the term "West" truly exist. In terms of fundamental economic interests, Europe has considerable independence. In terms of security, their attitude toward China also differs greatly from that of the US. In the Asia-Pacific region or China's periphery, the US wants to create an "Asian NATO." The specific situations of countries in dispute with China are very different. China has enormous influence in the region, is the largest trading partner of the vast majority of countries in the region and has friendly relations with most countries in the region. The disputes with countries are not fundamental strategic conflicts, and China has the ability to manage disputes with each specific country and push them to move toward neutrality to varying degrees without being tied to the US' policy toward China. China has a lot of trading partners and stakeholders in the US. The trade volume between China and the US, despite the decline, reached $664.4 billion in 2023, which shows China's huge presence in the US, and is the bond of the two countries in the current situation. The US is not a country where the political elites can have absolute say, and the huge interests have forced the US president and senior officials to repeatedly proclaim that they "don't want to decouple from China" and instead they want to "manage the US-China competition" and see "preventing a war with China" as clearly in everyone's best interest. China should engage in a "strategic battle" with the US at the closest possible distance. We need to maintain friendly relations with certain forces within the US, speed up the resumption of flights between the two countries, increase personnel exchanges and completely reverse the downturn of China-US contacts during the pandemic. In addition to the above dismantling, we also have the huge increment in the "Belt and Road." This initiative will increase China's power to compete with the US, greatly extending the front line that the US needs to maintain in containing China, making the US more powerless. In order to dismantle the US strategy toward China, China must become more diversified while maintaining strategic consistency. Our national diplomacy toward the US is very principled, rational and determined, which is clearly different from other countries targeted by the US. Our public diplomacy toward the US needs to be unique, with both "anti-American voices" and efforts to maintain friendly relations between the two societies and further expand economic and practical cooperation with the US. Just as eagles have their own way of flying and doves have their own formation, just as we see the US as complex, China must also be seen as complex in the eyes of the US. China is both a geopolitical concern and a profitable investment destination for them, and is one of the largest trading partners that is difficult to replace. Some American political elites proclaim China as an "enemy," but it is important to make the majority of Americans feel that China is not. No matter how intense the struggles between China and the US may be, we cannot shape the entire US toward an enemy direction. China has to make the US political elites recognize that it is futile to deal with China in the same way as it historically dealt with the Soviet Union and other major powers. Furthermore, willingly or unwillingly, coexistence and cooperation with China will be their only choice.