Month: May 2022

Conventional war costs money and lives. Russia is losing on both fronts as the war passes the 80-day mark. Putin’s military expenditures have increased over 40% since the beginning of his “special military operation” in Ukraine. As Putin ramps up spending on conventional warfare in Ukraine evidence also indicates that Russia is developing a second “agricultural front” that may be more dangerous the the kinetic warfare inside Ukraine. Officials in Kyiv estimate that Russian military forces have seized between 400,000-500,000 tons of the country’s grain, mostly wheat, while its navy is blockading it from exporting 90 million tons of cereal from its ports as of this week. Ukraine is known as the bread  basket of Europe. Putin knows destroying its agricultural economy will also wreak havoc on global food security.

The Russian President is pursuing a dual course on the agricultural front, according to Jamestown Foundation’s Sergey Sukhankin. First, six weeks ago Putin ordered the destruction of all agriculture-related infrastructure inside Ukraine. The Luhansk Oblast, center of the “most advanced production farms and largest food storage/preservation sites—has sustained the worst harm due to the war,” according to Sukhankin. In one air strike, Russia obliterated a modern grain elevator capable of storing 30,000 tons. Sergei Gaidai, chairman of the Lugansk regional military administration, said “The goal is the Holodomor. The occupiers bombed the grain elevator in Rubizhne with planes.” From 1932-1933 Soviet Russia created a man-made famine in Ukraine that caused mass starvation in grain-growing areas of the country. The term Holodomor is derived from the Ukrainian words for hunger (holod) and extermination (mor). Millions died during the famine. 

Putin’s second angle of agricultural attack centers on stealing grain and other foodstuffs and farm machinery to sell overseas to marginalize Ukraine’s role as a global supplier. In April Russia, failed in an attempt to offload stolen grain in Cairo, Egypt. The Russian-controlled ship then sailed on to Syria, which accepted the shipment despite warnings from the international community. Other shipments of Ukrainian-grown grain were seized and sent to Siberia for distribution. The European publication UNIAN last week reported that GPS was able to track modern farm machinery being transported by Russian forces to Chechnya from Melitopol. Of the 106 million tons of grain produced by Ukraine in a record-breaking year in 2021, most remains stuck at seaports, depriving the country of needed revenue. 

Over the last 15 years Russia has emerged as one of the top grain exporters and third largest exporter of fertilizer. Grain production and fertilizer make up Russia’s fastest growing raw-materials sector. With Putin’s “special military operation” he may intend to secure his country’s position in the global food market using his “Back Sea Pool,” according to a report by the Jamestown Foundation. Oleksander Perehozuk, of the Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies, suggests Putin only can succeed if he controls Ukrainian grain and also that coming out of Kazakhstan. Perehozuk points out that Russia first attempted this in 2007, when Moscow called for the creation of a Black Sea “grain OPEC” consisting of Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan. Ukraine refused to comply in 2007. This year Putin didn’t ask Ukraine if it objected to his plan. 

If successful this time, Putin would gain near hegemonic control over grain heading to parts of sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and Asian markets. The potential starvation and instability that could occur should Putin decide to further weaponize food production, could send the world economy into a tailspin in the coming years. He could end up recreating the empire he desires even if he suffers a great loss in the war in Ukraine. Although the possibility remains that Putin could “go nuclear” in the future according to one Washington analyst, “it isn’t necessary for him to use WMD” to achieve his long-term objective of recreating the Russian empire and forcing the West to capitulate on sanctions against his country.

Daria Novak Served in the U.S. State Dept.

Photo: Pixabay

The advent of mass communications through multiple channels, including internet, satellite radio and other means, has made it harder for governments to censor news that leaders do not want their populations to access.

Officials seeking to limit news to their citizenry have been forced to find other methods to combat unwanted information.  A key solution they are resorting to is through the implementation of “anti-disinformation” campaigns.

While one would have assumed that this tactic was restricted to the usual suspects, nations such as Russia, China, Iran or North Korea, the reality is that even the United States, globally renowned for its unique First Amendment guarantee of free speech, is falling victim to the disturbing trend.

America’s Homeland Security Department’s “Disinformation Governance Board” (DGB)is a key example.   The name has already been mocked due to its initials which are similar to the old Soviet “KGB,” which ruthlessly suppressed political dissent in the former USSR.

According to a release, “The working group is co-chaired by the DHS Office of Policy and Office of the General Counsel, and includes other DHS leaders from CISA, FEMA, CBP, the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Office of Intelligence and Analysis, Science and Technology Directorate, and Privacy Office.”

The actual purpose of this move, which has been justifiably been called unconstitutional, can be seen by examining who was selected to head it.  Executive director Nina Jankowicz is a deeply partisan politico who has been a leading spokesperson for some of the worst propaganda moves by leftist Democrats. She was part of an effort to coverup the Hunter Biden Laptop story.

Ms. Jankowiscz was a leading advocate of the demonstrably false charges of “Russian Collusion” with Donald Trump.

The timing of this censorship effort is highly suspect. The social media Twitter cite played a key role in the last election, by not only censoring specific news stories that discussed the wrongdoings of leading Democrats, but by also closing down the accounts of major news sources that discussed them.  The New York Post’s coverage of the Hunter Laptop is a key example.

While allowing noted terrorists to use their service, Twitter censored the account of Donald Trump.  It’s not just limited to big names. Non-leftist users find many of their contacts deleted after posting tweets that do not dovetail with the organization’s left-wing philosophy.  Another social media giant, Facebook, places users “in jail,” temporarily banning or limiting their accounts, for similar reasons. One of the most popular search engines intentionally downplays websites that

The overwhelming capability of these services to black out contrary views was challenged when Elon Musk began the process of purchasing a controlling share of Twitter. The establishment of the Disinformation Board was a direct result.

The development  of the DGB, led by the deeply partisan Ms, Jankowicz, sends a clear message: the power of the federal government will be used to suppress those who dissent from the views of leftist Democrats.

It is a follow-up to efforts by the former Obama-Biden Administration. That White House used the IRS to assault the Tea Party. The Department of Justice attacked critics of the president, which issued subpoenas to think tanks for merely disagreeing with Obama on climate change.   The Federal Communications Commission attempted to commence an effort entitled “critical information needs” (known as CIN) involving Washington oversight of broadcasters and journalists throughout America. It would have placed government employees in the private internal conversations and meetings of journalists, media organizations, and even internet sites.

The DGB is part of the larger Progressive attempt to shut down opposing arguments, an attempt that often involves violence and threats of violence.  Examples of that are clearly seen on college campuses, where conservative speakers are chased out with force, and in the urgings of some elected officials such as Rep, Maxine Waters, (D-Ca.) who called on followers to confront Trump appointees.

All of these efforts are a direct assault on the First Amendment.

Photo: Nina Jankowicz

Top U.S. intelligence officials, Army Lt. Gen. Scott Berrier, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and Avril Haines, Director of national intelligence testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 10, providing deeply disturbing insights into threats from China, Russia, Iran and various terrorist organizations. 

General Berrier stressed that “The [Ukranian] invasion has demonstrated Russia’s intent to overturn the U.S.-led, rules-based, post-Cold War international order, expand its control over the former Soviet Union and reclaim what it regards as its rightful position on the world stage.” He noted that Russian military capabilities pose an existential threat to U.S. national security and that of our allies.  

While some in the U.S. mistakenly think of China as a “competitor” rather than a military threat, the ruling Chinese Communist Party considers America  a strategic enemy.

General Berrier reported that China’s military, which has already fielded sophisticated weapons and instituted major organizational reforms to enhance joint operations, is a credible, peer competitor in the Indo-Pacific region, He also emphasized that “China’s current nuclear force expansion is historic.”

“The United States faces military and intelligence threats from competitors, particularly Russia and China, who have, and are developing, new capabilities intended to contest, limit or exceed U.S. military advantage,” Berrier said. “State and non-state actors are selectively putting these capabilities into play globally and regionally. These capabilities also span all warfighting domains — maritime, land, air, electronic warfare, cyberspace information and space.” 

The Senate Armed Forces Committee was informed that Russia’s and China’s capabilities include more lethal, ballistic and cruise missiles. China is growing nuclear stockpiles of modernized conventional forces and a range of gray-zone measures, such as the use of “ambiguous unconventional forces, foreign proxies, information manipulation, cyber-attacks and economic coercion.”

Director Haines told the Senate that China remains an unparalleled priority for the intelligence community. “The governments of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea have all demonstrated the capability and intent to promote their interests in ways that cut against U.S. and allied interests. ”  

She reported that “The PRC is coming ever closer to being a peer competitor in areas of relevance to national security and is pushing to revise global norms and institutions to its advantage… They are challenging the United States in multiple arenas — economically, militarily and technologically.”

Russia’s failure to timely defeat Ukrainian forces could lead to escalation flashpoints, including increasing Russian attempts to interdict Western security assistance, and retaliation for Western economic sanctions. 

Haines stated that “We believe that Moscow continues to use nuclear rhetoric to deter the United States and the West from increasing lethal aid to Ukraine…if Putin perceives that the United States is ignoring his threats, he may try to signal to Washington the heightened danger of its support to Ukraine by authorizing another large nuclear exercise, involving a major dispersal of mobile intercontinental missiles, heavy bombers strategic submarines…[However] We otherwise continue to believe President Putin would probably only authorize the use of nuclear weapons if he perceived an existential threat to the Russian state or regime.”  

Haines said the danger from Moscow goes beyond Ukraine. “Moscow presents a serious cyber threat, a key space competitor one of the most serious foreign influence threats to the United States.”

A Department of Defense summary of the testimony warned that the “Russian government seeks to not only pursue its own interests, but also to divide Western alliances, undermine U.S. global standing, amplify discord inside the United States, and influence U.S. voters and decision making.”

Russia and China are not the only threats. Haines warns that the ” Iranian regime continues to threaten U.S. interests as it tries to erode U.S. influence in the Middle East and trench its influence, … project power in neighboring states and minimize threats to regime stability. Meanwhile, Kim Jong-un continues to steadily expand and enhance Pyongyang’s nuclear and conventional capabilities, targeting the United States and its allies, periodically using aggressive potentially destabilizing actions to reshape the regional security environment in his favor, and to reinforce its status quo as a de facto nuclear power.”  

Photo: A fighter jet attached to an air force aviation unit under the PLA Southern Theatre Command takes off in an around-the-clock flight training exercise on April 18, 2022. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Huang Rongkai)

Earlier this year, we discussed two decisions from the US Supreme Court that had an impact on the vaccine mandates put into place by two different federal agencies.    In one decision, Biden v. Missouri, “the Supreme Court decided that the Secretary of Health and Human Services had the power, delegated to him by Congress, to require healthcare workers to submit to a Covid-19 vaccine.” Conversely, in  National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. the Court held that the Department of Labor, through OSHA, did not have the authority to order private employers to mandate their employees receive a Covid-19 vaccination. 

In one case, it was among the powers delegated to HHC by Congress which allowed it to provide for a vaccine mandate to the healthcare industry; in fact, other vaccines have been required of nurses, doctors and other medical personnel in the past.  In the other, as the Court stated, “(p)ermitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.” 

Shortly after the National Federation decision, the Biden Administration dropped its “emergency rule that required all large private employers to require Covid-19 vaccines or regular tests…(t) he Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) decided to drop the policy ‘after evaluating the [Supreme] Court’s decision,’ the Labor Department said.”   

In both August and September of last year, we discussed whether private employers have the right to mandate vaccines for their employees.  “In general, the practice is legal, so long are employees can seek either a medical or religious exemption.”  

In February of this year, the Fifth Circuit gave a warning to employers who do not provide their employees with a fair and reasonable religious exemption policy.  The case is limited to a particular set of circumstances; but a review of the case will give hope to those facing an onerous and over-burdensome process in securing a vaccine exemption on religious grounds.

Sambrano v. United Airlines, decided in February, was brought by a group of employees who had asserted religious exceptions to the airlines’ vaccination mandate.  According to the decision, “a United employee could apply for an exemption from the vaccine mandate for either religious or medical reasons. But at a town-hall meeting, United’s CEO warned that not many exemptions would be granted and remarked that any employee who ‘all the sudden decid[ed],”I’m really religious”‘ would be ‘putting [her] job on the line’ by requesting an accommodation. Once an employee requested a religious exemption, United would ask the employees about their past vaccinations, the use of stem cells in those vaccines, and ‘why receiving such vaccines or medications were not a violation of the employees’ “sincerely held [religious] belief”’ on those prior occasions. United also asked why the employees’ religious beliefs prevented them from receiving the Covid-19 vaccine ‘but not taking other types of medicine.’ Some employees were asked to provide a letter from a pastor or other third party attesting that the employee actually held religious beliefs.” 

As harsh and intrusive as this questioning sounds, it is within the employers’ rights under federal law to make these inquiries.  We noted in August that while “the employer ‘should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief,’ according to the EEOC, ‘however, if an employee requests a religious accommodation, and an employer is aware of facts that provide an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, practice or observance, the employer would be justified in requesting additional supporting information.’”

The issue in Sambrano revolves around the steps United took with their employees who were granted a religious exemption.  “After United would determine which employees were sufficiently religious, it provided those employees with an ‘accommodation.’ The employee could keep her job, but could not go to work, would not be paid, and would not receive company-paid benefits. To go back to work, the exempt employee had to get the Covid-19 vaccine. And if the employee would not, she could instead wait it out and start work again after the pandemic ‘meaningfully recedes’ (which United guesses could be another ’72 months’ or so).”

As if these measures weren’t obnoxious enough, “United’s campaign was not limited to forcing employees to choose between the vaccine and indefinite unpaid leave. For example, in August 2021, United began sending postcards to unvaccinated employees stating that United had not received evidence of their vaccination and they needed to get vaccinated to avoid being ‘separated from United.’ Plaintiffs credibly contend that United sent postcards rather than letters in order to broadcast employees’ unvaccinated status to family members and enlist those family members in coaxing employees to receive the vaccine.”

The lower court had denied a preliminary injunction to the unvaccinated employees who had received religious exemptions from United, and were subjected to the terror tactics described above.  According to the Fifth Circuit,  “(t)hough the district court noted that plaintiffs’ claims were ‘compelling and convincing,’ it ultimately concluded that plaintiffs could not establish irreparable injury,” and did not stop United from continuing their policies during the pendency of the lawsuit.  On this narrow basis, the Firth Circuit reversed the lower court, and sent the case back to the District Court for a further review.

“Plaintiffs are being subjected to ongoing coercion based on their religious beliefs. That coercion is harmful in and of itself and cannot be remedied after the fact,” the Fifth Circuit wrote.  “Properly understood, the plaintiffs are alleging two distinct harms…(t)he first is United’s decision to place them on indefinite unpaid leave; that harm, and any harm that flows from it, can be remedied through backpay, reinstatement, or otherwise. The second form of harm flows from United’s decision to coerce the plaintiffs into violating their religious convictions; that harm and that harm alone is irreparable and supports a preliminary injunction.”

Though the court itself was careful to limit their ruling, the Fifth Circuit was nonetheless very clear in their finding of an undue burden placed by United on the exercise of their employees’ exercise of their religious freedom under the First Amendment to the US Constitution.  “This court and the Supreme Court have held that ‘[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury’…under both the constitutional and statutory provisions a plaintiff demonstrates irreparable harm by alleging a violation of her rights to freely exercise her religion.”  

“Here we are considering only whether plaintiffs have shown substantial likelihood of irreparable injury. We believe that they have. United has presented plaintiffs with two options: violate their religious convictions or lose all pay and benefits indefinitely. That is an impossible choice for plaintiffs who want to remain faithful but must put food on the table. In other words, United is actively coercing employees to abandon their convictions.”

While the Fifth Circuit ultimately sent the case back to the lower court, the language quoted above is clear and unmistakable.  An employer who does not allow for a fair opportunity for an employee to assert a religious basis to refuse the vaccination will face that employee in court.  And more likely than not, that employer better be ready to pay damages.

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC.

Illustration: Pixabay.

Last August, the failed US withdrawal from Afghanistan led the news with images of young children being handed over barbed wire walls by parents to American soldiers guarding the airport in Kabul, in hopes of saving their lives. Families fearing for their lives huddled in masses for days outside the Hamid Karzai International Airport hoping for transportation out of the country. Throughout the fall the Biden Administration continued to proclaim the situation across Central Asia was under control. Yet it was only a few weeks after the Taliban regained power that videos and reports about ethnic Pushtun Taliban evicting ethnic Turkmen and Uzbeks from their homes and seizing their livestock started coming in from northern Afghanistan, according to the Foreign Policy Research Institute. 

Today it is evident that the security environment is continuing to deteriorate further from the events of last August. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan rely heavily on the Taliban to prevent non-state actors from operating in northern Afghanistan and launching cross-border attacks. Bruce Pannier, a longtime journalist working in the region, writes that the ground truth reveals extensive regional instability. “In recent months… the Islamic State has bombed mosques near the border with Central Asia, and [has] claimed to have launched a rocket attack into Uzbekistan.” He points out that “The contest for control of northern Afghanistan between the Taliban, the Islamic State, and other terrorist groups is a major security concern for the states of Central Asia.”

Ethnic minority groups are suffering as the Taliban lose more control to the Islamic state in the northern border areas. As of this week females in Afghanistan are once again forced to wear veils and fully cover their bodies. A modern secondary education is no longer available to girls as it was under the previous regime. Parks are segregated by sex and men who work in government and have a female relative who fails to abide by the rules could lose their jobs. The security situation, compared to that in the late 1990’s when the Taliban were in control, is more dangerous today. 

Trade and connectivity among the Central Asian states has evolved over the last 30 years making it almost impossible for the countries to ignore the deteriorating conditions threatening the regions around Afghanistan. The combination of challenges may be well beyond the ability of the Taliban to control it in the coming year. Pannier points out that “Since regaining power, the Taliban have repeatedly assured the governments in Central Asia that they would not allow Afghan territory to be used for attacks against Afghanistan’s neighbors. That is really the foundation of the understanding the Central Asian states have with the Taliban.” 

If the Taliban are unable to tamp down the violence in northern Afghanistan, or if a nearby Central Asian state is attacked by terrorists from inside Afghanistan, it is likely to change the political relationships in the region. Pannier suggests it will be very difficult for the Taliban to restore trust or its foreign policies should the Islamic state shatter the fragile truce and be unable to control its territory. Secretary of State Antony Blinken called the situation  “extremely mixed to negative,” with complications from the blooming meth industry in Afghanistan and increasing demand for the drug from foreign markets. Gandhara News reports that Afghanistan’s Taliban-led Defense Ministry has established several new military units in three border provinces in the country’s north, northeast, and west, and is deploying an estimated 4,400 additional troops in the region in response to outbreaks in violence. Farangis Najibullah, a reporter with Radio Free Afghanistan, points out that various warlords just inside Afghanistan’s borders are rearming and causing concern among the Central Asian states who see this as similar to troop deployments in the past. It raises suspicion among neighboring countries, especially Tajikistan, which frequently voices concern about security issues in Afghanistan and their potential impact on Central Asia. Since the Taliban placed new “special forces” in the border areas, the nearby states are growing more concerned about potential infiltration into their countries. At the same time, they do not want to see drug or religious conflict spread to their states. The dictionary defines a powderkeg as a “dangerous” or “volatile situation.” It is an apt description of the region nine months after the US withdrawal. Any one factor could set off a regional conflict.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept

Illustration: Pixabay

The principle of “indivisibility” is critical to American citizens. It is written into our Pledge of Allegiance and enounces that although we may come from many places, no one can pull us apart. Chinese President Xi Jinping used this concept in past years to refer to his country’s relations with Russia and Ukraine, calling their ties “indivisible.” He expanded it in his April 21, 2022, speech, when for the first time he applied the idea beyond the framework of relations with those two states. While speaking at a virtual foreign minister’s meeting of the nine Caribbean states maintaining diplomatic relations with Beijing, Xi proposed a “global security initiative” to uphold the principle of “indivisible security.” According to the Jamestown Foundation, this is the first time China has argued for “indivisible security” outside of the Russia-Ukraine context. It may represent the opening of a new front in China’s attempt to remake the world order in its favor.

Caribbean states are crucial to China’s commercial access to the Atlantic coast of the US and South America. Over 6 percent of global maritime trade passes through the Canal. Last year Hutchison Balboa, a Chinese owned company, received a 25-year extension on its contract to administer the ports on either end of the Panama Canal despite some opposition due to its ownership. Evan Ellis, in a Wilson Center report, notes that the Caribbean “sits between multiple US military and commercial logistics hubs and potential destinations in the Americas, Africa and Europe,” making it an important waterway for China and a flashpoint for US-China competition. Cargo traveling to and from China composes about 13% of the canal’s annual traffic. Daniel Runde, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, points out that “China’s influence in the Panama Canal has only grown since 2017 when then-president [of Panama] Carlos Varela severed diplomatic ties with Taiwan and recognized China, further opening the door to China’s expanded footprint in critical Canal infrastructure and laying the groundwork for alignment with the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).”

The Caribbean region provides China with one-third of its food imports, lithium for batteries, and other critical products. As China’s commercial interest in the Caribbean grows, so does American security concerns over the potential of China building a permanent naval base in the area. As in many developing areas of the world, China is financing infrastructure projects that in the Caribbean total more than $7 billion in loans and investments in six Caribbean countries since 2005. Two years ago, China Merchants Port Holdings acquired the Kingston, Jamaica, container port and committed to invest $2.7 billion to improve it. 

During a 2019 trip to China, Prime Minister Andrew Holiness, and his Jamaica Labor Party (JLP), claimed to have played a key role in China’s significant expansion in the country and to have created the closest ties ever between the two countries. The narrative is similar in the Bahamas where the Chinese firm Hutchison operates the Freeport container port.  “In Trinidad and Tobago, China Harbor, which has multiple projects in the country, has proposed a $500 million regional drydock facility in La Brea, while a consortium of Chinese investors has promised a $102 million industrial park to be populated by Chinese companies,” according to Ellis. In Suriname, the Chinese Greenheart Company owns a significant portion of the nation’s timberlands. The Dominican Republic broke relations with Taiwan in 2018 when China promised it $3 billion in credits and investments. In Guyana, the Chinese oil company CNOOC has a 25 percent interest in the Exxon-Mobil-led consortium that controls over 6 million barrels of recoverable oil. The narrative of expanding Chinese investments is similar across the region.

As US-China competition intensifies, Beijing is further opening its pocketbook throughout the Caribbean to convince them it simply wants to “benignly aid” the region by building port facilities, mines, airports, and other infrastructure projects. The area also is becoming a key battleground for China in its struggle to isolate Taiwan from its remaining ties by permanently creating “indivisible” links to the island countries just south of the United States. “China and/or its partner nations in Latin America and the Caribbean could construe just about any US defense policy or military action, from budgets to aid to exercises, as a violation of indivisible security and whatever agreements emerge from [China’s] Global Security Initiative,” according to the Jamestown Foundation’s Stealth War newsletter. It is beginning to appear that a new and dangerous front may be opening in China’s struggle for future leadership of the global world order right in our backyard.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Don’t be fooled.” That is the advice many military analysts watching the Russia-China relationship are espousing this week. While China publicly is distancing itself from Russian aggression in Ukraine to buffer itself from Western economic sanctions, it still is helping Moscow on a number of fronts that will enable Russia to project hard power far beyond its shores into Central Asia. How long and solid the relationship remains may be determined by their joint hatred of the United States.

Putin quietly sought $10 billion in Chinese assistance this spring to widen and deepen the Volga-Don Canal. The water in the inland waterway is only deep enough to float large naval vessels about eight months out of the year. Paul Goble, of the Jamestown Foundation, suggests that “even amidst the war and tightening Western sanctions, [the canal] highlights how important riverine traffic is for Russia economically, geopolitically, and militarily.” Putin is willing to accept economic assistance from China to strengthen his own military position. Three weeks ago, Evgeniy Gaiva, writing in the Russian publication rg.ru attempted to cast the canal project solely in economic terms. “It may be more profitable to develop year-round navigation on inland waterways in southern Russia than to expect the construction of a lock at the Gorodetsky hydroelectric complex to solve the problem of the Volga shallowing, according to the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs.” In March, representatives of China’s CCCC Dredging Group traveled to “Russia…to discuss…the possibility for Chinese firms to take part in dredging operations,” according to Goble. The project is taking on a security tone. It may become even more important in the coming decade it Putin is less than fully successful in his current war in Ukraine. Goble points out that “Such cooperation will enable Russia to use the canal not only to promote a role for itself in China’s east-west trade but also for military and security purposes.”

Although it will take years, once dredged, the canal will provide Moscow with an enhanced ability to put pressure on Ukrainian territory using its navy. It also will be capable of carrying containerized shipping at a lower price than China-backed railways can offer in the area. A Jamestown Foundation article reports that “it will not only boost economic traffic in the south but allow Russia to achieve two goals. First, it will open up a path for the Caspian Flotilla to leave that sea and supplement Russia’s hard-pressed navy in the Sea of Azov and Black Sea. And second, it will enable the integration of river and canal traffic in southern Russia into Moscow’s broader, oft dismissed, plans for using its rivers and canals to the north and west to project Russian influence.” 

China’s Foreign Ministry recently called its relationship with Russia a “new model for the world” and announced there are “no limits” to the friendship. It may be one part convenience and one part alliance but, it certainly is rooted in behind-the-scenes security issues and not simply economic ties. What is most important in the long run is to examine where Russia is colluding with China when it comes to international affairs. Yun Sun, of War on the Rocks, suggests “Their alignment is based solely on their shared anti-U.S. agenda and leadership preferences.” Xi is powerful because China is powerful, but Putin is seen as powerful even when Russia is weak,” according to Yun. Xi nicknamed Putin “the Great Emperor” as he is considered intelligent, decisive, manipulative, and powerful. It is a status that Xi deeply desires. Russia needs China today. But it is Xi Jinping’s “Russia complex” and admiration for Vladimir Putin that results in a selective bias in his judgement about Russia’s national power. Yun says that Xi is prone to “overestimating Russia’s strengths and reliability, while underestimating its weaknesses.”  They are held together, in large part, by their adversarial relationship with the United States. Behind Putin’s back Xi Jinping has commented that he is concerned Russia will become a “gas station disguised as a nuclear power.” It appears Putin is willing to take what he can get from China to make sure that this doesn’t happen. 

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Photo: Volga River (Pixabay)