Equation
Lieutenant General
I never said his analysis was stupid, just that it's the typical cookie cutter piece you can expect from 99% of western defence pundits.
What makes a western defence pundit? They need to have good contacts with western defence firms.
Why are western defence pundits typically useless on Chinese defence related matters?
1) they have zero contacts within the Chinese defence establishment. Meaning they almost never bring any new information to the debate. Instead all they do is take open source information and add their own analysis, which is just their own feelings and opinions.
2) by the necessity of their jobs, they develop close links to western and sometimes Russian arms makers, so all too often end up as glorified salesmen for those defence companies, trading puff pieces for inside information and exclusive scoops through conscious choice or unconscious group think.
Since they have no Chinese contacts, they often turn to these same western and Russia defence company contacts for their views on Chinese products. Needless to say, these western, and especially Russian defence companies sees Chinese arms as a serious and growth threat to their own business and bottom line. Which is why as Chinese weapons improved over the years, western defence publications have gradually gone from real curiosity and interest to near open hostility in most cases in their tone regarding Chinese arms.
I had a brief skim, and that piece is pretty much your typical cookie cutter pro forma example of what you would expect from the vast majority of western defence writers these days.
A brief, selective regurgitation of commonly know facts paving the way for them to add their own 'analysis', which invariably focuses heavily on any and all perceived difficencies with the token plus thrown in for the pretence of balance.
Once you read one such piece, you read them all.
Of course Western pundits are hoping that when one repeats a lie long enough it became truth.
