Re: Digest for vietnam-old-hacks@googlegroups.com - 2 updates in 1 topic

[Dawson]

Carl, it's been a long time since I defended the AP, if I ever did, but one quickie on your Substack rant.

Bangkok is a regional headquarters of the AP, so a huge amount of the agency's Asian reports carry that dateline.  There are others that do the same. A recent piece by The New York Times had Bangkok as the placeline even though no NYT reporter was near the place and the story "about Thailand" actually originated in Singapore.

73

On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 3:13 AM <vietnam-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

vietnam-...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Topic digest
View all topics

• AP Exclusive throws its source in Vietnam under the bus. - 2 Updates

AP Exclusive throws its source in Vietnam under the bus.

Carl Robinson <robinso...@gmail.com>: Sep 27 03:24PM +1000 Hi, everyone:   There was something about this story from AP's Bangkok Correspondent that really bothered me. Nothing like blowing a source's cover, the way I see it.   And so, I wrote an upset Substack.   AP throws its Vietnam source under the bus. <https://carlrobinson.substack.com/p/ap-throws-its-vietnam-source-under>   Cheers,   Carl     And as it's not that long, here's a copy too:     AP throws its Vietnam source under the bus.A leaked Vietnam–Russia sanctions busting arms deal, a scramble to match the NYT, and one casualty of careless journalism. <https://substack.com/@carlrobinson2> Carl Robinson <https://substack.com/@carlrobinson2> Sep 26, 2025 <https://carlrobinson.substack.com/p/ap-throws-its-vietnam-source-under/comments> [image: FILE- Russian President Vladimir Putin, right, and General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam To Lam attend a signing ceremony following their talks at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, on Saturday, May 10, 2025. (AP Photo/Pavel Bednyakov, File)] <https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!apDu!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F9aaa5a96-82ab-4676-9de4-3aaa9c72e63d_599x399.jpeg>   *Associated Press has published what it calls a scoop—internal Vietnamese documents detailing a workaround for Russian arms payments. But in doing so, AP has crudely exposed the very official who gave them the story, with enough triangulation for Vietnam’s dreaded internal security apparatus to pick him up in a flash. Is that how you protect your source, AP?*   Sure, the piece ends with the cardboard disclaimer: *“He provided the documents on condition of anonymity to protect himself from possible reprisals from Vietnam’s authoritarian government.”* But before that—and most unnecessarily—it identifies the official as part of a pro-U.S. faction opposed to closer ties with Russia. Other details nail down his access and link him to previous leaks.   This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.   And then there’s the dateline: *Bangkok, Thailand.* A safe remove. Not Hanoi, where the documents originated. Not Washington, where the sanctions loom. Bangkok is the classic regional foreign correspondent perch—close enough to claim regional insight, far enough to avoid accountability.   This isn’t journalism—it’s choreography. The AP builds its narrative on the back of a source who, by their own admission, feared reprisals. Then it hands Hanoi a dossier of clues: factional alignment, ministry access, prior leaks. The anonymity disclaimer reads like a disclaimer on a landmine—too late, too obvious, too performative.   The real story isn’t the workaround. It’s the abandonment. The source shaped the arc from 2023 to 2025, fed both AP and *The New York Times*, and now finds himself profiled in the very exposé he enabled. That’s not protection. That’s institutional self-preservation.   Don’t get me wrong about what I was trying to say in my *‘A Stalinesque Vietnam?’ <https://carlrobinson.substack.com/p/a-stalinesque-vietnam>*Substack the other day. I’m deeply pro-Vietnam. That piece was a *cri de cœur*—a plea for things to be done differently, more kindly, more humanely. Quite simply, I’m protective of the place.   What really grates, though, is how damned proprietary America still acts about Vietnam. After all these years, after all that history, Washington still behaves as if Vietnam is a client state in waiting. And given my long experience with the place, that attitude feels not just presumptuous—but corrosive.   And the damned media is still faithfully playing along—for something, until they aren’t anymore, like all through the Vietnam War. Right now, it’s all about Russia as the enemy, and anyone dealing with them is enemy-adjacent: China, India, and—oops, almost forgot—Vietnam too. How dare they go off and do side deals with the Russians to keep their Soviet-era military gear up to date, when they should be siding with us against China. What, they’re not using SWIFT? How dare Vietnam think for itself.   The entire tone of AP’s story reeks of presumption—a judgmental narrative padded out with facile, exaggerated claims about a “growing relationship” between the U.S. and Vietnam. Growing? After Trump slapped Hanoi with a 46% tariff in April, then unilaterally dialled it back to 20%—40% on trans-shipments—with no talks allowed? That’s not partnership. That’s punishment.   Then there’s the breathless labelling: Vietnam as “one of the most capable militaries in Southeast Asia.” Compared to who? And supposedly gearing up for a fight with China, while the U.S. is now “increasingly important in supplying defence goods.” What goods, exactly? Oh, and just for good measure: *“The U.S. government also sees Vietnam as an important strategic partner as it seeks to counter China.”* That line’s been recycled so many times it should come with a disclaimer.   And then, of course, the usual journalistic device to back up the narrative. What? Laughably, really. An “expert” on Russian sanctions from the Kyiv School of Economics (USAID-funded, natch) who “analyzed” the documents and concluded—quite rightly—that it’s essentially a barter arrangement designed to minimize risk and dodge sanctions. Other dubiously funded think tanks also step up for comment, each offering the expected soundbite to keep the framing intact.   But as an old AP hand from war-time Saigon, I couldn’t help wondering how much of this was the old itch to match a scoop from the dreaded *New York Times*—those “rockets” from the Foreign Desk in New York still echo. *(Need matcher soonest!)*   Last year, just before then U.S. President Joe Biden’s September visit to Hanoi to sign a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership—the highest tier in Vietnam’s diplomatic hierarchy—the *New York Times* broke a story based on leaked Vietnamese documents. They warned that continued arms purchases from Russia could trigger U.S. sanctions under CAATSA, the 2017 Trump-era law designed to penalise countries engaging in defense or intelligence transactions with Russia, Iran, or North Korea. For Vietnam, that means even buying spare parts or upgrades for its Soviet-era military gear could invite punishment. It was a quiet bombshell—revealing Hanoi’s internal calculus, its balancing act between Moscow and Washington, and its fear of being sanctioned for simply maintaining what it already owns.   The visit itself went off without a hitch. Smiles, handshakes, and the signing of the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership—no mention of sanctions, no awkward questions about Russian arms. And while Washington celebrated the upgrade, Hanoi quietly continued its arrangement with Moscow. No fanfare, no press release—just the slow, pragmatic work of keeping Soviet-era gear operational. The AP’s story <https://apnews.com/article/vietnam-russia-money-transactions-united-states-a71a83e7d60672a63565cc9fe28945d7?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email> confirms what was already underway: Vietnam didn’t flinch, didn’t pivot, just moved ahead on its own terms.   Fast-forward to now, and AP’s follow-up feels like a scramble to reclaim narrative ground. More leaked documents, more triangulation, more framing Vietnam as the wayward partner. But this time, the source isn’t just quoted—he’s profiled. And the story isn’t just about sanctions—it’s about editorial choreography, institutional memory, and the old reflex to match the *Times*, no matter the cost. (I feel really sorry for the source. What ignorance, really.)   And so, just a sideshow to the larger war playing out between the West and Russia—on the battlefields of Ukraine, in the corridors of sanctions, and across the chessboard of global alliances.   But back in Vietnam, far from the headlines, one source has been well and truly thrown under the bus.   The worst part? The story never got a run. No impact, no fallout—just one man exposed, and gone.

Donald Kirk <kirkd...@gmail.com>: Sep 27 07:51AM -0400 Carl, How about sending a link tlo the story? Thanks!   On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 1:24 AM Carl Robinson <robinso...@gmail.com> wrote:

Back to top

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to vietnam-old-ha...@googlegroups.com.