By Tony Cartalucci

The tentative first beginnings of a long-awaited US-backed color revolution has begun in Thailand, with a small protest of under 100 protesters in the downtown district of Thailand’s capital Bangkok.

Image: Media outnumbers “protesters” in downtown Bangkok nearby the scene of previous protests in which similar US-backed mobs fought gun battles with troops before burning sections of the city down in 2010.

Despite the diminutive nature of the protest, the Western media and Western-funded organizations posing as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) transformed the event into headline news.

The protest leaders vowed to gather weekly until their demands were met. This is a thinly veiled threat, with the protests taking place precisely where previous protests organized by the same interests carried out gun battles with government troops, mass murder against counter-protesters, and committed widespread and devastating arson in the surrounding areas.

The protesters seek to overthrow Thailand’s independent institutions including its military and constitutional monarchy, and return US proxies to power, particularly billionaire and former prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra and his Pheu Thai Party (PTP). Thaksin Shinawatra is a convicted criminal who fled Thailand to evade a two year jail sentence and a myriad of court cases still pending trial.

In essence, US-backed protesters seek to return a fugitive to power by proxy, a similar scenario to 2011 when Thaksin Shinawatra’s sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, openly ran as his proxy in elections his political party won. The 2011 campaign slogan, “Thaksin Thinks, Pheu Thai Does” openly flaunted the extralegal nature of PTP’s bid for office. After assuming power, senior PTP members would regularly leave Thailand to consort with Thaksin Shinawatra in person, further highlighting the fact a convicted criminal and fugitive was running Thailand’s government rather than his nepotist appointed sister – a fact either omitted by Western media reports, or excused.

Image: A 2011 PTP campaign poster claims in Thai, “Thaksin Thinks, Pheu Thai Does,” an open admission that a convicted criminal and fugitive hiding abroad openly runs a political party attempting to contest elections.

By 2014, after over half a year of protests and the collapse of PTP’s rice subsidies it used in 2011 to lure voters, the military once again staged a coup and ousted Yingluck Shinawatra from office. Since the coup – Yingluck Shinawatra, like her brother – has been convicted of corruption and sentenced to 5 years in prison. She too has fled Thailand and joins her brother in exile as a fugitive.

Despite a political party run by convicted criminals and fugitives, Western diplomats and a collection of faux-activists they fund and organize in Bangkok demand expedient elections in which Thaksin Shinawatra’s Pheu Thai Party will still run in and will likely win. Elections have been repeatedly delayed precisely to prevent this scenario from happening, with each delay designed to give the government more time to diminish the power, wealth, and influence Shinawatra and his foreign backers still wield to grant themselves impunity from the rule of law.

While a party openly run by a fugitive contesting elections in the United States or Europe from abroad would be unthinkable, this is precisely the proposition US and European diplomats demand of Thailand to accept.

Who are the Protesters?

The Western media has intentionally covered up the true nature of Thailand’s protesters, just as they have done throughout other US-organized regime change campaigns around the world from the so-called “Arab Spring” in which “pro-democracy activists” turned out to be members of extremist groups including the Muslim Brotherhood and even Al Qaeda, and in Ukraine where “Euromaiden” mobs were led by literal Neo-Nazi fronts, particularly Svoboda.

Admitting who Thailand’s supposedly “pro-democracy activists” are would immediately dash the nascent protest’s legitimacy against the rocks of international public opinion, which is precisely why the Western media is intentionally mischaracterizing the protests.

In 2014, the day after the military officially removed Yingluck Shinawatra from power, the US Embassy in Bangkok helped organize the creation of the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) front. Funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) – appearing on NED’s Thailand 2014 list – the front is one of several components of Washington’s regime change machinery in Thailand.

TLHR itself specializes in advocating and defending other US-funded agitators seeking regime change. TLHR members themselves have been repeatedly arrested for serial acts of subversion. In answering the question of who defends those charged by the West to defend its agitators, the answer is foreign embassy staff themselves from the US, Canada, UK, and EU.

TLHR head Sirikan “June” Charoensiri has repeatedly posed in pictures with foreign embassy staff on her way to face questioning regarding her foreign-funded activity. In many instances, foreign embassy staff will actually accompany her – and other recipients of foreign funds – to police stations in a sign of open support for their ongoing sedition.

Supporting [ Sirikan Charoensiri] from [TLHR] in Thailand as she faces criminal charges for doing her job as a [human rights] lawyer.

Fieller and others, including Charoensiri herself, have refused to respond to multiple questions concerning the conflict of interest of posing as human rights lawyers while receiving foreign funding and representing foreign interests unrelated, even opposed to real human rights advocacy. This is particularly so when considering those these “human rights lawyers” are defending and the fact that they are supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra, his political party, and his street front, the so-called “red shirts” who have regularly resorted to intimidation, violence, mass murder, and systematic terrorism which included the bombing of a hospital just last year.

In addition to individual diplomats working at Western embassies in Bangkok, the UK Foreign Office itself has openly and repeatedly provided support for Charoensiri and others across its official social media accounts.

Like in Syria and Libya where crackdowns on overt terrorism were condemned by Western governments, Western media, and Western-funded fronts posing as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), the West is hiding a violent movement and its supporters behind the thin veil of “democracy” and “human rights” advocacy.

Despite denials and deflections regarding US funding, all three platforms are openly listed as NED recipients on NED’s Thailand 2011 and Thailand 2017 lists. In addition to Prachatai’s extensive NED funding, its “executive director” Chiranuch Premchaiporn is also officially an NED fellow.

And while the actual protest leaders themselves – including Sirawith Seritiwat and Jatupat “Pai Dao Din” Boonpattararaksa of the “New Democracy Movement” and Rangsiman Rome of the “Democracy Restoration Group” – have not disclosed financial support provided to them by foreign governments, they openly consort with, receive political support from, and eagerly represent the interests of foreign governments – particularly the US, Canada, the UK, and the EU.

Sirawith Seritiwat, alongside fellow foreign-backed agitators Arnon Nampa, Than Rittiphan, Songtham Kaewpanpreuk, posed with Sandra De Waele, an EU diplomat. The official “European Union in Thailand” Facebook account published the following caption under the photo:

The head of the Political Section of the Delegation, Sandra De Waele, met with a group of students and activists, namely Songtham Kaewpanpreuk, Sirawith Seritiwat, Arnon Nampa and Than Rittiphan. Arnon and Sirawith were briefly detained on 14 February for peacefully expressing their political opinion. The European Union is strongly committed to the principle of freedom of expression and has consistently called upon the Thai authorities to respect that freedom.

The EU delegation regularly and very openly supports and collaborates with pro-Shinawatra supporters posing as “activists.” When Shinawatra’s supporters attacked anti-Shinawatra protesters in 2014 with assault rifles, hand grenades, and 40mm M-79 grenade launchers, Western diplomats were either entirely silent, or worse, attempted to defend the violence as mere expressions of “frustration.”

Honoured to meet with parents of Pai Dao Din. Pai’s 200 plus days in detention shows challenges to rule of law and due process in Thailand.

Rangsiman Rome, in addition to allegedly seeking “democracy,” in no coincidence attempted to pressure the current Thai government regarding rail project deals being struck with Beijing that the United States also wants delayed or entirely disrupted.

While the thin pretext this collection of faux-activists and NGOs is “democracy” and “human rights,” it is clear that they serve as an extension of Western influence in Thailand. While they demand “elections,” it is clear that they merely demand elections they are confident will return Western political proxies like Shinawatra and his PTP to power. And in addition to demanding regime change, these proxies are also openly assisting the US in attempts to disrupt growing ties between Bangkok and Beijing, serving Washington’s interests, not Thailand’s.

Why Thailand?

US designs aimed at Thailand are part of a much larger strategy of encircling and containing China either with US-controlled proxy states, or a ring of destabilized nations incapable of providing China constructive economic, military, and political ties.

The “activism” of supposedly “pro-democracy” groups funded and/or backed by Western governments in Thailand are already openly questioning, condemning, and actively seeking to disrupt these ties.

Thailand is a pivotal Southeast Asian state with a large population and a strong economy that has been incrementally building ties with Beijing at the expense of US regional hegemony.

Once considered a stalwart ally of the United States, since removing Thaksin Shinawatra from power in a 2006 military coup, the Thai establishment has begun a sweeping shift in foreign policy, replacing its aging arsenal of US military hardware with Chinese, Russian, and European equipment, including hundreds of Chinese tanks and armored personnel carries and even Chinese naval vessels including the nation’s first acquisition of submarines.

Image: A Chinese-built VT4 main battle tank conducts exercises in Thailand’s Saraburi province.

Bangkok has inked deals with China regarding metro rail systems as well as national rail networks including high speed rail systems that will connect not only Thai cities, but connect Thailand to its neighbors to the north and south, and to China’s Yunnan province.

Thailand has also begun conducting joint military exercises with China, balancing what had been for years Washington’s exclusive domain represented by its annual Cobra Gold exercises.

Under Thaksin Shinawatra between 2001-2006, Thailand pursued a decidedly pro-US foreign policy, which included sending Thai troops to participate in the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the hosting of the US CIA’s rendition program, attempts at sealing a US-Thai free trade agreement without public or parliamentary support, and the selling off of Thailand’s nationalized natural resources to Western oil corporations.

It is clear that the United States would like to return to such an arrangement. After providing over a decade of support via Washington’s largest lobbying firms, allowing Shinawatra free travel across the US and Europe despite his criminal conviction and his status as not only a fugitive, but as a human rights violator, and the mobilization of the Western media in support of Shinawatra’s multiple bids to seize back power – it is clear that should Shinawatra or his proxies ever return to power, they have an immense debt to Wall Street, Washington, London, and Brussels to pay back.

Part of repaying the West – including for the current color revolution the US is attempting to organize in Bangkok – will be reversing growing ties with Beijing.

Future Scenarios

It is unclear precisely how the current government will handle these protests. The government allowed the protests to go forward with the only stipulation being to avoid violence and disrupting the public.

One scenario is that elections are likely to be postponed until next year, and possibly even later than that.

Image: This stunning image taken during Thaksin Shinawatra’s UDD “red shirt” protests in 2010 shows the first shots fired during what would end up being weeks of gun battles between armed terrorists and Thai troops in Bangkok’s streets. The violence ended with nearly 100 dead and the UDD carrying out widespread arson costing property owners billions in damages. Since then, the UDD has carried out a campaign of sporadic terrorism and has threatened to wage “civil war” to seize power. While current protests feature supposedly “student activists,” it is clear they are merely rebranded UDD “red shirts.”

The longer these protests continue, the more difficult it will be for the Western press, Western embassies, and their collection of faux-NGOs to cover up the nature of who is leading them and why. Over this period of time, the government and media can begin exposing and undermining the credibility of claims these protests are “pro-democracy” and not merely foreign funded mobs seeking to place a party run by Shinawatra – a fugitive hiding abroad – back into power.

It will also be difficult to sustain the protests without expending larger amounts of money and resources and thus exposing those financing them. While the alleged protest leaders pose as “students” and “independent activists,” it will become abundantly clear that large well-financed interests are really organizing and sponsoring them.

Ultimately, the protests can be perpetually ignored by the current government, unless protesters decide to disrupt local businesses, the public, and/or once again resort to violence as the UDD has done repeatedly throughout its existence. However, as in the past, the use of violence by supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra will simply deepen the crisis of legitimacy the opposition already suffers from and perhaps even provoke a much larger, publicly supported backlash against the protesters as was seen in 2013-2014.

In this scenario, the government may simply give the protest the time necessary to destroy itself while continuing to fulfill its pledge to delay elections as long as necessary to carry out reforms – in other words – make it impossible for Pheu Thai to win elections as long as Shinawatra – a fugitive hiding abroad – openly runs the party.

The second scenario is where elections are eventually held, and if Shinawatra’s proxies come back into power, Thailand’s institutions patiently wait for the government to once again misstep and provoke protests, and once again invite the military to intervene. With each intervention – while there carries a variety of risks – the military has successfully cut down Shinawatra’s political power and influence while exposing the role of Western interests meddling in Thailand’s internal political affairs.

In the case of either scenario, one factor remains constant – the rise of China and with it the rest of Asia. Each passing year marks a decline in US regional primacy and a more equitable balance of regional power driven by Asia’s interests, not Washington’s.

In either scenario, as long as Thailand’s independent institutions avoid a major misstep and patiently and carefully deal with Western-backed subversion, the shifting dynamics of geopolitical power in the region will eventually make Western-sponsored regime change altogether impossible.

However, with the prospect of regime change taken off the table as an effective tool of coercion used by the US, Thailand is likely to suffer greater incidents of terrorism, as seen in 2015 during the Erawan Shrine bombing carried out by Uyghur terrorists linked to NATO’s “Grey Wolves” militant organization. Western-funded faux-NGOs are already increasingly shifting their attention toward Thailand’s ongoing turmoil in its deep south, attempting to leverage the isolated conflict into a national crisis used to divide and destroy the nation just as Western interests are doing in neighboring Myanmar.

US color revolutions depend on widespread public ignorance, lightning fast chaos, and inexperienced governments unable to cope with the instability and eventually violence the US uses to pursue regime change. Thailand’s government has had plenty of time to contemplate its strategy with examples around the world of how to successfully defeat US-backed subversion, and how not to. Only time will tell how much Thailand has not just learned, but mastered in repelling this type of geopolitical attack.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”., where this article first appeared.

(activistpost.com)

© Reuters

The modern form of the Western denial of an opponent’s human qualities is to make them “non-eligible” for expressing their views via global media, for holding votes that the West does not approve of, or even for participating in international sports events. This article will consider the forms of this denial.

Clapper’s foray into genetics

There are some old-fashioned forms of dehumanization, when an opponent is declared “genetically” inferior or dangerous. When former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper last year spoke about “the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique,” he used exactly that old method.

Clapper himself was visibly unhappy with his utterance and probably received a moral dressing-down from his curators – not for the substance, but for the form of his attack on the Russians. In the modern world, there are lots of ways to demonize your enemy without using ethnic slurs. But are other kinds of “group demonization” (or, in fact, dehumanization) any better? One of the subtler methods of such dehumanization nowadays is to deny your opponent certain group credentials, putting in doubt his or her status as a journalist, soldier, citizen, etc. – it also helps to avoid accusations of racism. So, Clapper should probably learn from the subtler European demonizers.

Read more

Macron accuses RT and Sputnik of ‘behaving like deceitful propaganda’

Sub-journalists?

Here’s an example. Speaking in early January, French President Emmanuel Macron called for vigilance against “fake journalists” when addressing a crowd of loyal media.

“It is you, the journalists, who are the first victims of this propaganda. It [the propaganda] imitates your tone of speech, it may even adopt your formats, it uses your vocabulary. Sometimes, it may even recruit its employees among you. Very often, it is financed by certain illiberal democracies, which we condemn every day. It spreads itself, it becomes banal and accepted, and in the end it flourishes on the confusion which we have ourselves gradually accepted,” he said.

Macron did not name Russia directly, but people familiar with his earlier statements could figure out that at least one of the “illiberal democracies” he referred to was in fact Russia. In 2017, Macron even ordered RT and Sputnik to be denied accreditation to events with his participation during his election campaign.

The tradition of denying essential human qualities to perceived Russian rivals has a long history in France. Jules Michelet (1798-1874) was a French historian specializing in what NATO strategists would today call “the protection of Poland from Russian aggression.” Michelet did it by lionizing a hero of the Polish 1794 uprising against Russia, Tadeusz Kosciuszko, and denigrating his enemies. In a pamphlet headlined “Poland and Russia: the legend of Kosciuszko” (1851), Michelet described Russians as creatures which have not yet become entirely human: “These are not yet human beings, these creatures with their thin eyes of lizards… What they miss is an essential prerequisite of humanity: the sense of morality, the ability to tell the good from the evil… They lie innocently and steal innocently, and they lie and steal all the time.”

Read more

Facebook pretending to care about democracy now is the height of hypocrisy

‘Looking like humans’

There is a certain similarity in the ways Macron describes ‘fake journalists’ and Michelet describes ‘fake humans.’ Both demonized groups are accused of looking like humans, but not being actual humans, and denied the ability to take conscious moral decisions, “to tell the good from the evil.” This is supposed to put “Europeans” (who obviously can tell good from evil) in a position of moral superiority over Russians. And not only over ethnic Russians, but also those in the West who show understanding for Russians. Moral superiority is a typical and comfortable position for Russia’s critics from the EU, who drove the theme of “difference in values” between Russia and the EU to the point of racism.

“Racism is pervasive for the society that we live in,” Immanuel Wallerstein, the famous American sociologist and founder of the world-systems theory, told the author of this article during his recent visit to Moscow. “In the old times, racists boasted of richer biological, genetical heritage. When this became indecent, racists boasted of older and richer cultures. When this started to sound absurd too, racists started saying that they have better moral values than the supposedly inferior groups. But the driving force behind all of these comparisons is the same – racism.”

In our times, this “values-based” racism is often used for political purposes. The ongoing Russiagate saga is a perfect example of such a use. In the end, James Clapper’s diatribe about Russians being “genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate and gain favor” was aimed at driving the much-needed message about Russia’s alleged meddling in the US election: “If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to interfere with the election… We were concerned.”

Alarming historic parallels

This position of moral superiority towards opponents (not necessarily Russians), which the modern European and American leaders ascribe to themselves in some of its aspects reminds us of the darkest pages of Western history. It should not be forgotten that the German Nazis denied the human nature of the people opposed to their regime. Here is the famous excerpt from the manual handed out to SS servicemen during World War II: “A subhuman is only by appearance biologically similar to humans, in reality it is a very different creation of nature. It has hands, feet, a kind of brain, eyes and a mouth, but spiritually and psychologically it is further removed from us than any animal… Not everyone that has a human appearance is actually human. Woe to those who forget it!” (Source: Walther Hofer, “Nationalsozialismus. Dokumente 1933-1945” Frankfurt am Main, 1959, p. 280.)

The modern West’s new “value-based” racism is certainly not as crude and brutal as German Nazism was: today’s politicians prefer to avoid open ethnic slurs and are acting along the softer lines of declaring certain people non-eligible for certain activities. In the last few weeks alone, groups of Russians and their sympathizers were declared by Western officials to be non-eligible for journalism, for the Olympic Games (out of about 500 Russian athletes who had been preparing for the Winter Games, only 169 were allowed by the International Olympic Committee to go to South Korea) and for international trade.

READ MORE: US adds 21 individuals, 9 companies to anti-Russian sanctions list over Ukraine crisis

The US State Department makes no secret that its goal is to discourage foreign governments from interacting with Russian defense industry companies.

“Today, we have informed Congress that this legislation and its implementation are deterring Russian defense sales,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said in a statement on Monday. “Since the enactment of the CAATSA [the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act] legislation, we estimate that foreign governments have abandoned planned or announced purchases of several billion dollars in Russian defense acquisitions.”

Read more

US adds 21 individuals, 9 companies to anti-Russian sanctions list over Ukraine crisis

The policy of ‘non-eligibility’

But the peak of this policy of “non-eligibility” for Russians is the recent resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) “On Humanitarian Consequences of the War in Ukraine.” The resolution in fact denied the results of the Crimean referendum, held in 2014, on the peninsula’s reunification with Russia. Crimea’s Russian majority, in the view of PACE, apparently wasn't entitled to decide on their future.

The document declares Crimea an “occupied territory” and calls the onslaught of the Ukrainian army on the rebellious Russian-speaking regions in the east of the country (Donbass), which refused to recognize the self-imposed post-Maidan regime in Kiev, “the ongoing Russian war against Ukraine.” The fact that the Ukrainian army in 2014 used aviation and hit densely populated cities, killing thousands of civilians in the areas that had predominantly voted for the ousted president, Viktor Yanukovich, did not produce any impression on Western parliamentarians.

Again, European parliamentarians are demonizing Russia and Russians from the position of innate moral superiority. They forget the multiple reports in the Western media in the 1990s and 2000s about the desire of Russian-speaking Crimeans to be a part of Russia again.

PACE’s bigwigs also forgot that even the New York Times’ pre-Maidan reports on Crimea mentioned the continuous attempts of the Ukrainian government to liquidate the Russian-speaking region’s autonomy – even under the supposedly “Russia-friendly” former President Leonid Kuchma. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian nationalist parties that formed the post-Maidan Ukrainian government declared this goal as one of their top priorities.

The European parliamentarians seem to have also wiped out from their memory the violent scenes of the seizure of government buildings by Maidan activists in 2014, which even Western television could not ignore at the time, while hypocritically calling that act, coupled with the killings of policemen, a part of “peaceful protests” against a “pro-Russian regime.”

And of course no mention is made in PACE’s resolution of the food, energy and banking blockade, which the regime in Kiev has imposed on the rebellious eastern regions since 2014, prohibiting any supplies of food and money transfers. In 2017, the supplies of electricity and water from Ukraine were also terminated.

Read more

‘Son of b***h got fired’: Joe Biden forced Ukraine to sack prosecutor general ‘in six hours’

And in this situation PACE’s resolution “On Humanitarian Consequences of the War in Ukraine” calls on the Russian government to stop supporting the rebellious territories economically. That, in the absence of food, electricity and water from Ukraine, would mean starvation and freezing for 4 million people, who are locked by the Kiev government on just 3 percent of Ukraine’s territory. Suggesting this cruel move to Moscow, PACE declares itself “concerned about the alarming humanitarian situation on the occupied territories.” Obviously, the people of Donbass, in the view of the modern European “humanists,” are eligible to eat food only after they return to the embrace of the West-supported nationalist regime in Kiev.

Not just against Russians

Let’s not delude ourselves: the new “values-based” racism is directed not only against Russians. To a no lesser extent it is directed against those people and political forces in the West which refuse to toe the line of the ruling circles in the US and the EU. European history provides lots of examples of the following situation: when an authoritarian “Euro-centrist” ideology comes to power in Europe, the “inner enemy” is being dealt with by means no less severe than those used against Russians or other outsiders. The periods of the Napoleonic wars and Nazi and fascist domination of Europe in the 20th century are just the most vivid examples. Journalists and the non-mainstream media are usually the first victims in such situations. The ongoing pan-European craze about fighting “fake news” is not coincidental. Let’s not forget that the only two regimes in human history which decided to eradicate “fake news” completely, declaring non-authorized information a crime, were Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union. Back then is was called "hostile propaganda".

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

NASA put 12 astronauts on the moon between 1969 and 1972. With the death Friday of Apollo 16’s John Young, only five of those astronauts are still alive, and they range in age from 82 to 87. No human being has been beyond low Earth orbit since the end of the Apollo program.

NASA acting administrator Robert Lightfoot told The Washington Post that the agency will partner with other countries in the return to the moon, but he did not say which ones. He said the moon plan will be a public-private partnership, but did not name any companies that might be involved. Details will emerge with the president’s annual budget request to Congress, he said. He provided no specifics about the architecture of a moon program.

“We have no idea yet,” Lightfoot said.

NASA is trying to do this without additional funding or a permanent administrator — another top science position that hasn’t been filled in the Trump administration. NASA’s ongoing challenge in recent years has been reconciling the orders of politicians with the hard realities of flat budgets and the immutable laws of physics. This is the third time this century that NASA has been ordered to make a major shift in the focus of its human spaceflight program.

“We’re always asked to change directions every time we get a new president, and that just causes you to do negative work, work that doesn’t matter,” former astronaut Scott Kelly, who spent nearly a year on the International Space Station in his last spaceflight mission, told The Post. “I just hope someday we’ll have a president that will say, ‘You know what, we’ll just leave NASA on the course they are on, and see what NASA can achieve if we untie their hands.’”

Scott Hubbard, former director of the NASA Ames Research Center, said he has heard grumbling in the space community about this latest change in NASA strategy. He said people are saying, “Please don’t push the reset button again, because you’re just going to waste billions of dollars of previous investment.”

NASA’s long-term human spaceflight strategy still includes a Mars mission in the 2030s, starting with a mission to orbit the planet and return home, followed by landing astronauts on Mars at an unspecified future date. Hubbard said that’s still doable — “but not if NASA does a major re-pivot and goes all-in on a base on the moon. Then clearly Mars is pushed way off into the future.”

But Lori Garver, the NASA deputy administrator during President Barack Obama’s first term, said the people who don’t want to see changes at NASA are “whiners.” She has experience with implementing a major strategic shift, because after she and her fellow political appointees arrived at NASA headquarters in 2009, they upended the plans of George W. Bush for a return to the moon.

“This is a democracy,” she said. “Elections matter.”

She noted that NASA is already building a jumbo rocket and crew capsule that could be used in a moon program. And she said NASA hasn’t built anything yet that’s specifically designed for a Mars mission.

“Mars was more of a talking point,” she said. “It’s out there as an aspirational goal.”