Author: Daria Novak

International sanctions against a nation-state take time to impact its economy. Since Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, under Putin’s so-called “special military operation,” it has faced increasing economic sanctions. One result is that Russia is “hemorrhaging” foreign firms currently based in the country, according to John Daly of the Jamestown Foundation. These companies are moving to former Soviet states, including many that are choosing Kazakhstan. At a government meeting in Astana on April 19, Prime Minister Alikhan Smailov said 43 firms are considering moving to Kazakhstan and 24 already have done so. Tengri News reports that those moving their base of operations include: Honeywell, InDriver, Weir Minerals, Ural Motorcycles, Fortescue, TikTok, Koppert and Emerson. Boeing, EPAM System, Youngsan, Skoda Transportation, GE Healthcare and Philips remain in discussion about the details of a similar move. As Putin’s war drags on into its second year, more foreign firms in Russia are growing concerned about the impact of increasingly harsh sanctions on their viability if they remain there. Kazakhstan recognized it as an opportunity for the Central Asian state and is courting these firms, hoping to attract large amounts of foreign direct investment (FDI) into the country to help modernize it. 

Kazakhstan, as the largest and most prosperous of the Central Asian states, is using its economic power to attract these firms. It started the campaign to attract Russian-based companies one month after Putin invaded Ukraine. By the end of last year, Kazakh Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Almas Aidarov says Kazakhstan was negotiating with hundreds of Russia-based foreign firms about their possible relocation to his country. He noted in December that “Since the beginning of the conflict and the announcement of sanctions against the Russian economy, we have identified 362 companies that have publicly announced their withdrawal or reduction of their activities in the Russian market. These 362 companies are foreign companies that have operated in Russia and are of interest to us.”

Kazakhstan is attractive as an alternative platform. Kazakh President Tokaev’s administration is putting extensive effort into diversifying its economy. He wants to delink its over-reliance on hydrocarbon exports as well as attract more FDI. Tokaev considers the response to Russia’s invasion an unexpected  windfall for his country. The US Department of State reports that according to official Kazakh central bank statistics, as of October 2021, FDI in Kazakhstan totaled $170 billion, including $40.4 billion from the US.

A Kazakh delegation traveling to Washington, DC and New York last year held meetings with Boeing, Valmont Industries, Honeywell, Pfizer, Champion Foods, Paramount, SMP Robotics, LA Solar Group, Ardmore Capital and JPMorgan Chase & Co. officials. Daly quotes Merzhan Iusupov, Chairman of the Board of Kazakh Invest, a national company responsible for attracting FDI to the country, as saying that “In connection with the relocation of many companies to Kazakhstan, we express our readiness to create all the institutional conditions for establishing direct interaction with foreign companies by providing opportunities for moving to Kazakhstan or opening joint ventures.” Since the US trip the flow of businesses leaving Russia has turned into a deluge of companies scrambling to leave.
 
Last week, in response to the loss of FDI, Putin signed a decree —  “On the temporary management of certain property,” which established a mechanism for the introduction of temporary management of foreign assets in Russia, according to Daly. Vedomosti reports that it provides for the temporary management of Russian held subsidiaries of Finland’s Fortum Oyj and Germany’s Unipro (both energy companies) by the Federal Property Management Agency, to generate assets “of paramount importance for the stable functioning of the Russian energy sector.” Putin’s decree essentially establishes the government’s right to externally manage foreign assets inside Russia if Russian legal entities or individuals are deprived of the right of ownership of property abroad.

Putin’s actions are likely to encourage other foreign firms to leave Russia later this year, with Kazakhstan as the likely relocation site. Lloyds Bank in April reported that 70 percent of total regional FDI inflows in post-Soviet Central Asia go into Kazakhstan. As the leading Central Asian state continues down a path to reforming its legal and economic structures to attract more FDI, it appears the country will become the permanent base for many large firms once located inside Russia. The cost of Putin’s military incursion will have large and long-lasting impact on the Russian economy.

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

There is little doubt that the United States faces unprecedented military threats. Questions are being raised about whether the current and proposed defense budgets reflect the current and prospective challenges.

Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va) notes that “We are at a critical juncture in our nation’s history; we must decide if the United States will retain its global primacy, or if we will concede our position to the malign intent of Communist China. [We must meet] the reality of the threats facing the United States and to project power around the globe to deter our adversaries.”

Concern over the inadequacy of the Pentagon budget proposed by President Biden last year was reflected in the fact that there was a bipartisan consensus in Congress to add $16.7 billion to the figure he submitted.

Recently, Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have stressed that “ The White House’s proposed figure for the coming year repeats the same poor judgement.” GOP leaders in the Senate state that “As threats to The United States proliferate, President Biden’s defense budget is woefully inadequate. [His] defense budget yet again fails to keep pace with the inflation… His proposed spending increases for the IRS and EPA vastly outpace the Pentagon, all while China continues its torrid pace of military modernization and expansion.”

Think tanks and media analysts concur with concerns about inadequate funding.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board reports that The White House’s Pentagon’s budget request, which doesn’t account for inflation, results in a 2.8% cut in spending power. At the same time, Biden advocates a 13.6% for both the Education and Energy Departments; 11.5% for Health and Human Services. For all the talk about a bloated Pentagon, defense in 2022 was only about 13% of the federal budget. It’s about 3% of GDP, down from 5% to 6% during the Cold War, even though America’s challenges today are arguably more numerous and acute. China is building a world-class military to drive America out of the Pacific. Russia is committed to grinding down Ukraine and then moving its military to the Polish border; Iran may soon have a nuclear bomb; North Korea is lobbing missiles toward Japan. Hypersonics and missiles threaten the U.S. homeland.”

Similarly, the American Enterprise Institute reviewed unfunded priorities in the proposed budget, which reach $16.9 billion.   “… it is important to note that …the FY2024 lists do not yet include submissions from the Missile Defense Agency and US Cyber Command. … What is surprising is that the [unfunded priorities] do not include what will be necessary budget adjustments to account for realistic inflation projections, which will require at least another $21 billion to keep the budget equal in buying power to the start of FY2021 in September 2020.”

 The United States Navy has been hit hard by underfunding at precisely the time when China and Russia have made serious bids to challenge it across the globe. Author Jerry Hendrix, in his Atlantic study published in March, warns that, starting with the Obama Administration, “both China and Russia developed systems that would challenge the U.S.-led regime of global free trade on the high seas. Russia began to invest in highly sophisticated nuclear-powered submarines with the intention of being able to disrupt the oceanic link between NATO nations in Europe and North America. China, which for a time enjoyed double-digit GDP growth, expanded both its commercial and naval shipbuilding capacities. It tripled the size of the People’s Liberation Army-Navy and invested in long-range sensors and missiles that could allow it to interdict commercial and military ships more than 1,000 miles from its shores. Both Russia and China also sought to extend territorial claims into international waters, the aim being to control the free passage of shipping near their shores and in their perceived spheres of influence. In short: Autocratic powers are trying to close the global commons.” 

The nuclear threat is accelerating rapidly. China Is on pace To triple Its nuclear arsenal To 1,500 Warheads By 2035. Russia’s atomic weaponry already surpasses America’s in both numbers and modernization.

The White Houses’ proposed defense budget place the Unites States in immediate danger.

Photo: Army Spc. Christian Jaen Morales walks through dense foliage while conducting dismounted land navigation during a Non-Commissioned Officer of the Year and Soldier of the Year competition at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash., April 4, 2023.

Relations between Manila, a long-time U.S. ally, and Washington deteriorated dramatically during the Obama Administration. The failure of the Obama Administration to respond to China’s 2013 aggression towards the Philippines was a crucial factor in the alienation.

The facts are harsh and undeniable. China took possession of almost every off-shore Philippine oceanic economic claim, although some access has been allowed.  From the 2011 attack on Philippine fishing boats within Manila’s Exclusive Economic Zone and throughout the Obama Administration, America was essentially missing in action in response to the aggression. Overall, the Obama Administration did nothing, not evening lodging a diplomatic protest, to assist one of America’soldest regional allies.

Relations between the two nations improved markedly during the Trump Administration.  That trend continues as China engages in increasingly belligerent actions in the region.

In April, U.S. and Philippine leaders met to discuss the nations’ military, economic and humanitarian partnership at a meeting in Washington.

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, Philippine Officer in Charge of the Department of National Defense Carlito Galvez Jr. and Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs Enrique A. Manalo gathered at the U.S. State Department in Washington D.C.

The Mutual Defense Treaty between the U.S. and the Philippines, signed in 1951, “remains the bedrock of our cooperation,” Austin said, noting that the treaty applies to armed attacks on either nation’s armed forces or public vessels anywhere in the South China Sea.

At the meeting, discussions included modernizing the Philippine armed forces and operationalizing the four new sites in Palawan and northern Luzon under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, which was signed on Feb. 1. 

Those four new sites are Naval Base Camilo Osias, Camp Melchor Dela Cruz, Balabac Island and Lal-lo Airport. The five existing sites are Cesar Basa Air Base, Fort Magsaysay Military Reservation, Lumbia Air Base, Antonio Bautista Air Base and Mactan Benito Ebuen Air Base.

These nine sites will support combined training exercises and military interoperability, Austin said, adding that by the end of fiscal year 2023, a forecasted $100 million in infrastructure will be invested at the sites. 

The discussion also focused on “near-term plans to complete a security-sector assistance roadmap to support the delivery of priority defense platforms over the next five to 10 years, including radar, unmanned aerial systems, military transport aircraft and coastal- and air-defense systems,” Austin said.  Talks included planning combined maritime activities with the U.S., Philippines and other ally and partner nations in the South China Sea later this year to enhance collective deterrence.

Austin mentioned that more than 17,000 troops are participating in Exercise Balikatan. It is the largest and most complex iteration of that annual exercise which began 38 years ago. 

Blinken touted the economic partnership, including the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity with the Philippines and other partners across east and south Asia, as well as Australia and New Zealand. 

Not unexpectedly, China has reacted angrily.  According to Radio Free Asia, Beijing insists that “Granting the United States greater access to Philippine military bases will drag the Southeast Asian nation into ‘geopolitical strife.” to contain its growing regional influence.

The moves follow a statement in December by the U.S. State Department that “The United States supports the Philippines’ continued calls upon the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to respect the international law of the sea in the South China Sea, as reflected in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and its legal obligations pursuant to the 2016 arbitral ruling. The reported escalating swarms of PRC vessels in the vicinity of Iroquois Reef and Sabina Shoal in the Spratly Islands interfere with the livelihoods of Philippine fishing communities, and also reflect continuing disregard for other South China Sea claimants and states lawfully operating in the region. Furthermore, we share the Philippines’ concerns regarding the unsafe encounter that the PRC Coast Guard initiated with Philippines naval forces in the South China Sea, as documented before the Senate of the Philippines on December 14.”

Photo: U.S., Philippine officials meet (DoD )

The federal government is addicted to spending. The vast amounts it outlays is less about making the nation better than it is about getting politicians re-elected.

The Tax Foundation reported in late 2022 that “federal tax collections are up 21 percent over the last year, according to the latest data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Federal tax collections hit a record high of $4.9 trillion in nominal dollars for the fiscal year (FY) 2022 that ended September 30, which is $850 billion more than last year’s $4.05 trillion in collections (also a record). As a share of GDP, federal tax collections are at a multi-decade high of about 19.6 percent in FY 2022, up from 17.9 percent last fiscal year and approaching the last peak of 20 percent set during the dot-com bubble in FY 2000. There are only two other years in U.S. history when federal tax collections exceeded this year’s level, both during World War II: in 1943, federal tax collections reached 20.5 percent of GDP before falling to 19.9 percent in 1944. Compared to average federal tax collections in the post-war era of 17.2 percent of GDP, this year’s collections are set to exceed that level by 2.4 percentage points.”

Despite that, in FY 2022 there was a deficit of $1.38 trillion. Washington’s debt now stands at over $31 trillion, and, having reached a borrowing capacity of over $38 trillion, the White House is demanding an increase in that astronomical debt limit be raised without any considerations of cuts in future spending. That debt limit has been raised about eighty times since 1960. Despite the dire burden placed on taxpayers, President Biden is seeking even greater spending to be paid for by even higher taxes, and wants to hire more IRS agents to insure collections. Despite claims to the contrary, those agents will not be targeting the wealthy, who have attorneys and accountants on staff to  defend them.  They will be targeting small business owners, free-lance workers in the “gig” economy, and folks like waiters and waitresses whose income comes from  tips. The Washington Times noted recently that “citizens reporting anywhere from no taxable income to $200,000 a year will experience the full force of the new IRS agents — a little less than a million more audits per year — compared with about 250,000 a year projected to be conducted on those making more than $200,000.”

The General Accounting Office has long warned that Washington’s spending addiction is a path to disaster, noting that “Growing debt is not just a number—it represents a threat to our economy and our ability to meet national needs and priorities…Rising federal debt could constrain Congress’ ability to support the economy or address other national priorities, reduce private investment & overall economic growth, erode confidence in the U.S. dollar.”

Much of that spending is not geared towards meeting real national needs. One example: Biden’s unconstitutional proposal to spend taxpayer dollars to forgive students loans was a bid to get support in the 2022 elections.  Liz Wheeler, writing for Newsweek, called it a “desperate attempt to buy votes.”

A substantial portion of the $1.2 trillion dollar “infrastructure” package went to needs other than roads and bridges, transit and rail. The CATO Institute notes that rather than make decisive improvements, Biden seeks to “remake the nation’s infrastructure on the basis of his beliefs about labor unions and the environment,”  essentially playing to his political base.

Don’t blame defense spending for the deficit. As war clouds undeniably gather, only about 13% of federal spending goes to the Pentagon. That’s actually less than what it was in many years over the past half century.

The sums extracted from taxpayers to Washington’s treasury should not be used as personal piggybanks for politicians. Neither the citizenry nor the nation can survive this massive descent into bankruptcy.

Illustration: Pixabay

Few deny China is a serious threat to the free world and the international rules-based economic system. It possesses advanced military technologies and is growing exponentially in military power, but is it ready to challenge the United States for world leadership? Or is the world witnessing a blustering China that has reached its apex? Despite CCP propaganda and misinformation, the reality is that China and its communist leaders are not destined to lead a new world order, according to most political analysts in Washington, although the country remains a serious threat. 

The leadership in Beijing touts big advances in its economy; and it has advanced significantly from a developing nation into an industrialized state. There are signs, however, that it may not continue its ascent in future decades. Foreign policy analysts note that a developing state’s economy is typically expected to expand more than a mature economy, like that of the United States. That expectation does not make the communist giant less dangerous today and, perhaps, even increases the likelihood of it committing an egregious aggressive act against neighboring Taiwan or other Pacific Rim countries.

For the first time this year in March, the Chinese yuan became the most widely used currency for cross-border transactions in China, according to official data from Beijing. While it sounds impressive and does reflect Chinese efforts to internationalize use of the yuan, a closer examination reveals what this means in terms of the global economy. China’s State Administration for Foreign Exchange, according to a Reuters calculation, indicates that cross-border payments and receipts in yuan rose to a record $549.9 billion, up approximately 21% from $434.5 billion in February. 

Its use in global trade finance, although growing, remains very low. Reuters reports this week that data from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT), also referred to as a CIC Code, “showed that the yuan’s share of global currency transactions for trade finance rose to 4.5% in March, while the dollar accounted for 83.71%.” That does not even place China in the top eight that include the US Dollar in first place, followed by European Euro, Japanese Yen, British Pound, Swiss Franc, Canadian Dollar, Australian/New Zealand Dollar, and the South African Rand. According to the Global Times, the yuan now accounts for only 7% of all foreign exchange trades. It is impressive for a nation-state that 35 years ago could not feed its own population, but it is not a strong indicator that China is the up-and-coming global economic power it claims.

With 18% of the world’s population, the Chinese economy is expected to contribute a third of global growth in 2023. Again, it may sound impressive, but the United States with less than 5% of the world’s population generates more that 20% of the world’s total income, according to the US Trade Representative’s Office. America remains the world’s largest national economy, leading global trader, and that is not going to change in the near future. A February International Monetary fund report by Diego Cerdeiro and Sonali Jain-Chandra says that “With a shrinking labor force and diminishing returns to capital investment, [China’s] growth in coming years will depend on boosting declining productivity growth. Without reforms, we currently estimate growth to fall below 4 percent over the next five years.” This number falls well below the required minimum in China’s newest 10 Year Economic Plan. This is not the story China wants told to the world.

The IMF report adds that “Reforms such as gradually lifting the retirement age to increase labor supply, strengthening unemployment and health insurance benefits, and reforming state-owned enterprises to close their productivity gap with private firms would significantly help to boost growth in coming years. Undertaking such reforms would enable China’s income level to rise by around 2.5 percent in five years.” The population faces many unsurmountable economic obstacles. The greatest challenge may be one that demographers say can’t be changed. China’s population is declining. 

If the government were able to force every woman of child-bearing years to have as many children as possible of her lifetime, China cannot physically replace its population. Its decades long, draconian, one-child policy has doomed China’s future growth for generations. At the same time that its overall population size is decreasing, the percentage of those over 60 will increase from 17.8% in 2020 to 26.19% in 2030 and 38.81% by 2050. By 2100 over 47% of the Chinese population will be of retirement age. 

In comparison, by 2050, Statista demographic data estimates that only 22% of the United States will be senior citizens. The numbers look just as bleak when comparing annual salaries. The 2021 average US salary, according to Statista, is $71,456. In China there are great differences among the provincial areas from a low in Henan of $9,835 to $21,839 in Shanghai, a city that ranks the 12th most expensive to live in globally and Beijing at $24, 386 that ranks the 10th most expensive.

China is dangerous today for a number of reasons. Countries that are in decline, or near the precipice, will use all means possible to avoid the downfall. Last month China officially registered its first population decline data. The leadership in Beijing, some military analysts suggest, recognizes the need to act soon before it loses its ability to do so. There are no signs in Beijing that Xi Jinping or others in the  senior CCP leadership are looking toward reforms as the means of escape. Xi remains belligerent in his speech. His actions are defiant and he shows no intention of abiding by the global norms of behavior used in the international rules-based system that has brought great prosperity to so much of the world.

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

Illustration: China defence Ministry

US foreign policymakers refer to specific locations around the world with great potential for conflict as “flashpoints” where regional policy, including economic development, human rights practices, political stability, and the security environment intersect.  These tend to be areas where influence, power, and resources converge over the millennium and result in war. Periodically, the State Department updates those spots to reflect current threat conditions.

 On Monday, April 23, 2023, the State Department in Washington released a statement saying: “The United States is deeply concerned that Azerbaijan’s establishment of a checkpoint on the Lachin corridor undermines efforts to establish confidence in the peace process. We reiterate that there should be free and open movement of people and commerce on the Lachin corridor and call on the parties to resume peace talks and refrain from provocations and hostile actions along the border.” While such a statement may seem innocuous, it is an indication that Washington sees new trouble brewing for the 72 million people living in Central Asia. 

This region links East and West commercially and provides China an avenue for accessing European markets without transversing Russia. The Lachin Corridor itself is a “lifeline” that consists of a single mountainous road linking Armenia with the Nagorni-Karabakh territory.  The corridor is dejure, or legally recognized, as belonging to Armenia, but currently is under the control of Russian military forces. On Sunday, Azerbaijani officials set up a checkpoint there, claiming it was meant to prevent the “illegal transportation of manpower, weapons, [and] mines.” This region and others like it in Central Asia may not make front page news in the West, but each one serves as an important lynchpin holding the fragile peace together. It grows more complicated when considering that Russian and Chinese spheres of influence are tangent in Central Asia, with Beijing ascending as the dominant outside power in recent years. 

The Fergana Valley is another Central Asian location that has seen conflict in past years. It is a large triangular valley that formerly was divided into three republics of the former Soviet Union. It lies mainly in eastern Uzbekistan but crosses into southern Kyrgyzstan and northern Tajikistan. Its ethnically diverse history extends back more than 2,300 years to a time when Alexander the Great founded Alexandria Eschate in its southern end. Chinese explorers date its towns in the Valley as older than 2,100 years and call it the path between the Greek, Bactrian, Parthian, and Chinese civilizations. The Russian empire conquered the Fergana Valley at the end of the 19^th century, and it joined the Soviet Union in the 1920’s. The history of the peoples of Central Asia, like the political demarcations of many Middle Eastern nation-states, does not match well with political, tribal, and ethnic affiliations. 

Since the 2020 ceasefire agreement, tensions have escalated in Nagorno-Karabakh as Russia has accused Azerbaijan of numerous incidents violating the ceasefire.  Baku last month claimed Russian peacekeepers distorted the facts of a serious March 5 incident between Azerbaijani soldiers and de facto police which left 5 dead. Tensions increased again on March 25 when Azerbaijani forces cut off alternative roads to prevent transport of “manpower [and] military equipment” into Nagorno-Karabakh, with a formal blockade put in effect on March 30. Each side is calling for the other to recognize the area as its own.  

Rand Corporation notes that “The five former Soviet republics that constitute Central Asia—Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan… Together and separately… face and pose a range of challenges and opportunities as they define their relationships with neighbors such as China, Russia, and Afghanistan and partner countries in Europe, Asia, and the Americas.”  Three out of the five Central Asia’s countries, including Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, have experienced large-scale unrest last year. In each case the governments in the region blamed interference from foreign groups looking to create instability or weaken the cohesion among the five former Soviet satellite states. 

There is real concern for stability in the region as Central Asian governments tend to exacerbate the external challenges by blaming foreign sources as the ubiquitous root cause of their domestic problems. Central Asian governments need to address inadequate infrastructure, limited employment opportunities, high living costs, a lack of transparency and accountability, and human and political rights violations. The confluence of so many issues in one geopolitical area is a good reason for Washington and the world to be concerned about the fragile peace in Central Asia.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

Russia needs friends but since the dissolution of the Soviet Union has settled on the misdirected goal of attempting to dominate its neighbors and former satellite states. What Putin is attempting to acquire today could more correctly be termed borderless “special relationships,” not true alliances. That attitude is tolerated, but not well received in foreign state capitals across Eastern Europe. One of the more interesting, related events was virtually overlooked in Western media this month. It is the lingering, but evolving, bilateral integration between Russia and Belarus under the auspices of the Union State. 

On April 6, Russia’s Supreme State Council of the Union State met to discuss the political-military environment in Europe, among other topics, according to Yauheni Preiherman of the Jamestown Foundation. “The meeting’s agenda included a review of the progress on the Guidelines for Implementing the Provisions of the Treaty Establishing the Union State in 2021–2023, a document that envisages joint work under 28 sectoral Union programs” according to a Russian government press release. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov noted that, at the meeting, Russian President Vladimir Putin did not discuss the placement in Belarus, of Russian strategic nuclear weapons in talks with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko. Previously in March, however, there was an intensification of tensions between Russia and the West. Putin announced that he did intend to station Russia’s shorter-range, tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus. Russia’s propaganda machine has extensive  expertise in misdirection and uses it to further its goals. Preiherman says Moscow is now claiming this move was forced upon it by the expansion of the NATO military alliance towards Russia’s borders.

Minsk and Moscow have a long and complicated history. By the early 1990’s, Moscow began discussing the reintegration of Belarus. By the April 2019 Minsk Dialogue, the two states had already signed a number of unique agreements.  Preiherman says the 1999 Treaty on the Establishment of the Union State of Belarus and Russia was misinterpreted in the West as Belarus abrogating its sovereignty to Russia. He adds that, in reality, “the treaty itself did not facilitate the transfer of Belarus’s sovereignty either to Moscow or any supranational bodies. Instead, the 1999 agreement enshrined several checks and balances that provided for legal parity between the two countries and ensured that no Union State decision would pass unless accepted by Minsk.”

Many Belarusian leaders, however, grew concerned that the treaty and future subsequent agreements could evolve into a steppingstone approach by Moscow to draw Minsk closer and eventually incorporate it into the Russian state.  Kommersant reports that these worries were particularly acute after Russian President Vladimir Putin famously demanded in 2002 that “flies be separated from cutlets” and invited Belarus to join the Russian Federation. Minsk declined the offer. Then-Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, in December 2018, put out what became known as the “integration ultimatum.” 

It stated that the special relationship between Belarus and Russia could only be preserved if both countries returned to the full implementation of the Union State treaty. In response, Preiherman  says, Minsk agreed to launch structured talks but adhered to an uncompromising position on all issues that could potentially undermine its sovereignty. “Multiple asymmetries in Belarusian-Russian relations notwithstanding, Minsk could still allow for such a tough stance in those days thanks to what appeared to be expanding room for geostrategic maneuver and, most importantly, growing opportunities for diversifying foreign trade and investment, primarily through enhanced cooperation with the West,” he adds. Since the beginning of Russia’s war in Ukraine, Belarus’ pathway to avoiding sanctions narrowed. As a result, over the last 18 months the two countries announced they have initiated 28 sectoral programs to advance bilateral integration. A formal decree was signed in November 2021 to authorize the implementation of the integration programs. By January of this year approximately 70% of the 28 planned programs were in progress. 

As of this month that number has increased to 80%, according to the publication RIA Novasti. Belarusian Deputy Prime Minister Pyotr Parkhomchyk says this “will allow for achieving technological sovereignty within the Union State’s framework.” One result this spring is that economic cooperation between the two has dramatically increased. The volume of Belarusian-Russian trade increased by 35 percent in 2021 and by another 12 percent in 2022, amounting to $45 billion in goods and about $5 billion in services, according to Preiherman. As the two states become more isolated they are likely to become more dependent on each other. The voices of leaders in Minsk urging caution about becoming too engaged with Moscow, are drowning in the sound of goods exchanged and money transferred into its Belarus’ coffers.

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

Don’t turn around, look, look,
the Kommissar is out and about!
He’ll keep his eye on you
and you know why.

Der Kommissar, Falco, 1982 

Since its inception, the Biden Administration has issued a series of Executive Orders, all intended to foster “Equity, Diversity and Inclusion” across the federal government.  On the date of his Inauguration, Biden issued an Executive Order on “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,”  which declared that “the policy of my Administration (is to) pursue a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all…(a)ffirmatively advancing equity…is the responsibility of the whole of our Government.”  

Then,on June 25, 2021, Biden issued a further Executive Order, this time on “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce.“This order requires “a coordinated Government-wide initiative to promote diversity and inclusion in the Federal workforce, expand its scope to specifically include equity and accessibility, and…develop and issue a Government-wide Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Strategic Plan.”  

On February 16, 2023, Biden added yet another Executive Order – this time, on “Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through The Federal Government.”    According to this order, it “continues to be the policy of my Administration to advance an ambitious, whole-of-government approach to racial equity…and to continuously embed equity into all aspects of Federal decision-making.”

This order establishes “Agency Equity Teams” across a number of federal agencies, including State, Treasury, Defense, and Justice, “to coordinate the implementation of equity initiatives and ensure that their respective agencies are delivering equitable outcomes for the American people.”

 “Each Agency Equity Team shall be led by a designated senior official…charged with implementing my Administration’s equity initiatives…(t)he senior designee at each agency shall be responsible for delivering equitable outcomes…(e)ach Agency Equity Team shall support continued equity training and equity leadership development for staff across all levels of the agency’s workforce.”

The Department of Defense wasted no time in falling into step with the Biden Administration’s efforts to implement “equity initiatives.”  According to its website, the “Office for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (ODEI) is an organization aligned under the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) that develops and executes diversity management and equal opportunity policies and programs affecting active duty and reserve component military personnel, and DOD civilian employees.”  

The website details a number of personnel responsible for the implementation of these principles.  There is Cyrus Salazar, the Director of the ODEI, who “serves as the Department’s Chief Diversity Officer and the principal staff advisor to the Executive Director, Force Resiliency, on matters pertaining to oversight responsibility for the direction and enforcement of all…policies affecting civilian and military personnel worldwide.”  Then there is Norvel “Rock” Dillard, who “serves as the Director, Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) Management at the Office for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (ODEI).”  He is tasked with providing “advice and guidance to DoD leadership at the highest levels…concerning all diversity and inclusion management and compliance issues.”

There is also Colonel Mary L. Martin, the Commandant of the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute.  Originally known as the Defense Race Relations Institute, the DEOMI hosts “education and training programs in human relations, equal opportunity, equal employment opportunity, and diversity… to provide Service members in command or leadership positions with some level of equal opportunity and human relations awareness training…(t)hat mandate has been carried to the Services by over 50,000 DEOMI graduates.”   

One course available is the Equal Opportunity Advisors Course (EOAC).  According to the course offering, “(w)hen students graduate from this course, they will be prepared to serve as advisors to Commanders on Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) matters.”  What would be the skills they learn in this class?  “Possess conscious knowledge of one’s character, feelings, motives, and desires (self awareness)…Recall the DoD policy on extremism (dissident and protest activities); understand the impacts of extremism; and recognize how extremist ideology and groups are cultivated…(and) Prepare correspondence and recommend changes in policies and practices to eliminate barriers to diversity and EO matters,” among other skills.

There is also a “Special Emphasis Program Managers Course (SEPMC).”    This class allows “graduates to serve as effective…Special Emphasis Program Managers (Federal Women’s, Black Employment, Hispanic Employment, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Employment, Asian Employment, American Indian/Alaska Native Employment, and Program for People with Disabilities)…(t)raining introduces the causes and effects of discrimination…and managing diversity issues.”  In this class, the student learns to “(c)omprehend how cultural awareness can impact mission effectiveness…(c)omprehend how socialization can impact human relations…(and) Know the basics of power, prejudice, and discrimination and their relationship,” among a variety of other skills.

These are only two of the courses offered by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, courses which have been completed by at least 50,000 service members spread across all branches of the military.  These “Equal Opportunity Advisors” and “Special Emphasis Program Managers” serve as advisors to various active duty military commanders, and manage various programs designed to increase “Equity, Diversion and Inclusion” in the Marines, Navy, Army, Air and Space Forces.

Does this vast bureaucracy intertwined into our military remind you of anything?

“Political control of the military forces challenges all states, democratic, authoritarian, or totalitarian, to balance the need for an effective military against allowing the military to grow into a threat to the internal political order…(while) the military establishment of the USSR resembled in its organization and functions a typical army not unlike the militaries of other nations, the Soviet armed forces possessed a dual military-political command and control system unique to the Communist totalitarian state…in accord with its Marxist-Leninist principles and its Communist Party control of society. The Party’s preeminence in all public and private affairs had to be maintained in the military as it did in the Soviet society at large…the Party (also) needed to use the military as an agent of social control and change internally, as well as the primary means of external power projection in the competition of states.”

To this end, “what was the Soviet solution for ensuring total dominance of the military by the Party? The creation of a dual chain of military and political command throughout the armed forces, paralleling the military hierarchy from battalion to the Ministry of Defense, was established by appointing a political ‘deputy’ commander for each military commander. These ‘commissars,’ as they were first called, exercised specific official and unofficial control functions over their military command counterparts. The political officers also served to further Party interests with the masses of drafted soldiery of the USSR by indoctrination in Marxist-Leninism…(w)hile the zampolit wore the same uniform as other Soviet officers, he was not on the same career path as a regular officer. Devoted Communists selected for special schools and training entered the army..(t)he statute on commissars opened with this passage: ‘The military commissar is the immediate political representative of Soviet authority in the Armed Forces. The post of military commissar is of paramount importance, and is open only to revolutionaries who are above reproach and can be counted on to remain the incarnation of revolutionary duty even in the most trying circumstances.’

“Service as a political officer was on the resume of most of the high Soviet leadership. Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and others served as political officers at various points in their careers….Political supervision is the primary reason for the existence of and the first duty of the zampolit. He attested once a year to the political maturity and reliability of all the officers in the unit…Note that he attested to the political suitability of his commander for future promotion and advancement! He ensured the orders of the commander are in line with Party policy and doctrine, and he put the weight of Party authority behind the approved actions of the commander. This situation gave the zampolit tremendous informal power in the parallel Party control system of the armed forces…Indoctrination of the unit’s personnel was the second priority of the zampolit. The enlisted personnel endured lengthy and stupefying lectures on the Party, its goals, accomplishments, and plans for the future. Officers and sergeants were expected to study and learn the tenets of Marxist-Leninism in study groups overseen by the political officer. The Party thus used the military as an engine of social change and control in that the draftee enlisted men of the Soviet army were captive to relentless political education while the long service officers and sergeants were thoroughly indoctrinated into the Party concepts.”

Could the parallel be more clear?  Much like the Commissars of the Soviet military, the “Equal Opportunity Advisors” are responsible for the indoctrination of both their Commanders and the rank and file to the principles of “Equity, Inclusion and Diversity.”  These “Advisors,” and “Managers,” spread throughout every branch of our Armed Services, have been trained to “comprehend how cultural awareness can impact mission effectiveness,” and “recommend changes in policies and practices to eliminate barriers to diversity.”

Imagine the Commander who resists the advice of their “Equal Opportunity Advisor.”  Would that Commander be eligible for “future promotion and advancement?”  Consider also the efforts made to educate those entering into the Armed Forces in the doctrine of Equity.  Is this not reminiscent of the “relentless political education” described above?

As is also described above, Biden’s February Executive Order seeks to “continuously embed equity into all aspects of Federal decision-making” by the establishment of “Agency Equity Teams” to “coordinate the implementation of equity initiatives and ensure that their respective agencies are delivering equitable outcomes for the American people.” These teams have been placed in a number of federal agencies, including State, Treasury, Justice – and Defense.  They are “led by a designated senior official…charged with implementing (the Biden) Administration’s equity initiatives…(t)he senior designee at each agency shall be responsible for delivering equitable outcomes…(e)ach Agency Equity Team shall support continued equity training and equity leadership development for staff across all levels of the agency’s workforce.”

Clearly, Joe Biden has accomplished through Executive Order what no American believed could be possible – he has established political officers in the US military, each trained to insure orthodox adherence to the goal of “Equity.”

Now the nursery rhyme:
“Don’t turn around, look, look,
the Kommissar is out and about!
He has the power and we’re little and dumb;
this frustration makes us mum.”

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