There is a stage that I (personally) applaud. I love sarcasm, because when it boomerangs (bites back) it becomes irony and the world at times needs a little sarcasm with loads of irony. And the world helped my out yesterday in the for of an article (at https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/18/microsoft-china-digital-escorts-pentagon.html). I had heard some of this before, but I didn’t know the source. As such I kept it at an arms length, because I don’t want my disdain for Microsoft colours my blogs into something else, something optionally ‘mismatching colored as hatred’ blogs. The world has enough of those. The news given here is ‘Microsoft stops relying on Chinese engineers for Pentagon cloud support’, so this is how I like my irony, a government with heavy anti-China tainting, sets its cloud support to the people of that very nation. And as I see it, this must have been happening for close to a year, if not longer. So when we think about it, the people who enacted the federal Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 are the ones requiring the Chinese to do the cloud support of their pentagon (that 5 sided building in Washington DC, erected 1941). A setting where we see the irony dripping of the icing. So what was that anti Huawei feeling that has been going on since 2018?
Oh, the delicious taste of sarcasm in that is almost better than a delicious Tiramisu. Ask such the two key points that are given to us are “Microsoft has changed its practices to keep engineers in China from getting involved in support for U.S. defense clients using the company’s Azure cloud services” and “The announcement came days after ProPublica published an extensive report describing the Defense Department’s dependence on Microsoft software engineers in China” the one settings I find hilarious are ‘Microsoft has changed its practices to keep engineers’ and ‘after ProPublica published an extensive report’. As I see it, if ProPublica had not informed the people, this might still be going on. I wonder if Microsoft informed the Pentagon and the fact that China was actively involved with the cloud support of the Pentagon. And as I see it, buckets of sarcasm and irony are available right here.
So when we get to “The company implemented the changes in an effort to reduce national security and cybersecurity risks stemming from its cloud work with a major customer. The announcement came days after ProPublica published an extensive report describing the Defense Department’s dependence on Microsoft software engineers in China” where we need to recognise the setting that someone wanted to set ‘The company’ instead of ‘Microsoft’, I reckon just in case that quotes were being used. The setting of ‘a major customer’ against ‘Pentagon’ or ‘Department of Defence’ I reckon a setting none of the players are happy about. So whilst the Pentagon was please to get a cheaper deal, I reckon that handing their settings to China was not in the books. I find this hilarious as Oracle was always going to be the better choice (best choice as I personally see it).
So we are also given “In 2019, Microsoft won a $10 billion cloud-related defense contract, but the Pentagon wound up canceling it in 2021 after a legal battle. In 2022, the department gave cloud contracts worth up to $9 billion in total to Amazon, Google, Oracle and Microsoft.” So we are given this, but as I see it, the ‘better’ phrase would be “In 2022, the department gave cloud contracts worth up to $9 billion in total to Amazon, Google, Oracle, Chinese Ministry of State Security and Microsoft” (Is that a little over the top?)
I was never in favor of the entire hatred of Huawei setting, especially as correct evidence was never supplied. So when we see this, I just have to wonder about the entire ‘shortage of resources in. Case setting’ for the corporations Micro and Soft. So is one going soft or is the other becoming tiny? In case you were wondering yes, I am writing this with a bucket of sarcasm on the right and a bucket of irony on the left.
And how did I get there? Well the next quote gives me that handle “ProPublica reported that the work of Microsoft’s Chinese Azure engineers is overseen by “digital escorts” in the U.S., who typically have less technical prowess than the employees they manage overseas. The report detailed how the “digital escort” arrangement might leave the U.S. vulnerable to a cyberattack from China.” This reminded me of an old joke (80’s) where the long serving man was promoted as head of IT because his son had a Commodore 64. I never get tired of reading that joke.
It is the last quote that gave me the giggle. It was ““We remain committed to providing the most secure services possible to the US government, including working with our national security partners to evaluate and adjust our security protocols as needed,” Shaw wrote.” It is worth giggling to as we might accept the quote by Frank Shaw, the Microsoft’s chief communications officer. Yet the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, was before 1900. Cloud computing as we know it now came into ‘fashion’ in the early 2000s. As stated “The concept of the Pentagon’s major cloud computing initiatives began with the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) cloud contract, with the final request for proposals issued in July 2018 and a subsequent award to Microsoft in October 2019. However, the Pentagon later scrapped the JEDI contract in July 2021 and initiated a new multi-vendor approach, the Joint Warfighter Cloud Capability (JWCC), in December 2022, dividing cloud work among Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Oracle.” As I see it, Microsoft has been supplying information to China as early as 2018. So why is Shaw throwing around terms like ‘Remain Committed’ are thrown around, all whilst this might be seen as a clear case for the Pentagon (and the White House) to throw Microsoft out of both buildings. Unless the anti-China sentiment of the United States is just a farce.
Have a great day and try to see the fun in matters.


