Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

The evidence of President Biden’s corrupt ties to China continues to mount.

The discovery of sensitive national security documents placed by Joe Biden in a university center with major financial ties to China has made an intensive investigation of the 46^th president’s financial  ties to America’s chief adversary a matter of urgent necessity.

The National Legal and Policy Center is filing Freedom of Information Requests with the Department of Justice and the National Archives to determine how approximately a dozen classified documents and other presidential records of the Obama-Biden Administration have been stored at the Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement in Washington, D.C. The Biden Center is a think tank funded by the University of Pennsylvania, which has received over $60 million in donations from Chinese entities, of which approximately $22 million is anonymous.

The document issue is, of course, not the first questions raised about Biden ties to China.  In September, House Committee on Oversight and Reform Ranking Member James Comer (R-Ky.) today is pressing Department of the Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen for information about the Biden family selling American natural gas to China in 2017 and Joe Biden’s involvement. Documents and communications obtained by Committee Republicans reveal Joe Biden was involved in the arrangement as a business partner, had office space, and may have benefitted financially from his family’s transaction selling American energy to a Chinese business closely affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party.

In November, that same Committee’s members also revealed evidence of President Biden’s involvement in his family business schemes and several federal crimes that may have been committed by members of the President’s family. During his remarks, Ranking Member Comer pointed to documents, communications, and information revealing the extent of the Biden family’s influence peddling to enrich themselves to the detriment of U.S. interests. Comer emphasized that the evidence raises troubling questions about whether President Biden is compromised or swayed by foreign dollars and influence.

On the Senate side,  Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley is calling on the FBI to produce specific records in its possession indicating potential criminal activity in the Biden family’s foreign business deals. It remains unclear whether those FBI records, which have been reviewed by Grassley’s investigative staff, have been shared with the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office as part of its ongoing criminal investigation into Hunter Biden. Since first raising concern about bias by senior leadership and a double standard by the FBI in politically sensitive investigations, numerous whistleblowers have made legally protected disclosures substantiating these concerns. “Notably, the Justice Department and FBI have not disputed the accuracy of the allegations that I have made public since May 31, 2022. The Justice Department’s and FBI’s continued silence on these matters is deafening and further erodes their credibility.  

Grassley revealed a contract, signed by Hunter and James Biden and three other business associates. The contract was part of an arrangement designed to funnel $5 million from the Chinese communist government-connected CEFC to Hunter and James Biden to compensate them for work done while Joe Biden was vice president, according to an FBI interview summary of Tony Bobulinski. But other records held by the FBI reveal frustration by the Bidens about CEFC’s payment being elayed. Records previously released by Grassley and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) show James and Hunter Biden ultimately profited from a $5 million payment from a company connected to CEFC via a separate arrangement.

Documents also indicate that Joe Biden was aware of Hunter Biden’s business arrangements and may have been involved in some of them. It remains unclear whether the FBI took appropriate steps to follow up on this information or passed it to the Delaware U.S. attorney’s office.

Illustration: Pixabay

Ten years ago, most demographers studying global population trends failed to pay close attention to what was occurring inside the world’s two most populous nations, India and China. Few analysts  recognized that both nations were on a highly destructive path that would eventually lead to the demise of their economies and cultures. One of the states recognized the situation in time to reverse its social policies; the other did not acknowledge the trend. India’s population curve is about 25 years behind China’s. Mumbai recognized it and made the decision to vacate its family planning policies in time to save the country. China did not and today is facing a grave situation that is irreparable. 

“With this historical turn, China has entered a long and irreversible process of population decline, the first time in China and the world’s history,” according to Wang Feng, a sociology professor at the University of California. The situation in China is so severe that Wang and other researchers point out that in less than 80 years China’s population could be reduced by 45%. China will become unrecognizable to the world. Although China’s population in 2021 increased by 480,000, the United nations predicts it will begin its decline this year as India takes over as the world’s most populous nation. According to UN population experts, by 2050 China will lose 109 million. 

Covid sped up the process and continues to impact predictions. Forecasts about the size and speed of the decline have tripled since 2019. Last year’s fertility rate in China was well below the OECD’s standard of 2.1 births required to maintain a stable population. Of the 10 most populous nations in the world, China’s rate of 1.18 was the lowest. Even if every woman in China, throughout her entire child-bearing years, had as many children as physically possible, China cannot make up the deficit create by CCP policies.  

Chinese President Xi Jinping assumed power over a decade ago, during a period when the narrative depicted China as a land so filled with people that it required severe family planning measures to limit the growth of its population, or it would face starvation. Without the population control programs in place from 1980-2015, leaders believed China would be unable to produce enough food to feed itself in the future. India was on a similar path but soon recognized the fallacy of the argument in time to remedy their situation. It can recover. China has failed and is experiencing a terminal decline that will change the economy for the next 100 years. The Chinese people are paying the price for the CCP’s failed policies. The National Health Commission in Beijing acknowledges that the country can expect to see the decline begin as early as next year.

India’s population also is greying, but at a much slower rate, which will allow it to recover. Farah Master, writing in Reuters, points out that “Google Trends show a 15% year-on-year increase in searches for baby bottles in 2022” in India and searches for cribs increased almost five-fold. Baby stroller searches online in China dropped last year by 17% and are down 41% since 2018. More dire yet is that searches on China’s Baidu indicates that searches for elder-case exploded by eight-fold in 2022. 

Demographer Yi Fuxian expects China’s over 65 population will be close to 37% in 2050. This is a dramatic increase from last year when it was only 14%. Even that number represents an increase of 9% over 1980 numbers. Yi says that the declining birth rate means that “Rapid aging is slowing China’s economy, reducing revenues, and increasing government debt… China is getting old before it gets rich.” That puts Xi Jinping in a tough position. CCP policies encouraging couples to have additional children have rendered few positive results. Consumer prices, along with the cost of child-rearing in cities, remains high. There is also a shortage of middle-class housing and a younger population uninterested in sacrificing their lifestyle to raise a large family. Many in Shanghai and Beijing are foregoing children altogether. The only way for China to increase its numbers is to acquire new citizens that resemble the native population. Xi will have a difficult time attracting young women from other countries in Asia to move to China. His legacy may be one he never intended: the fall of the CCP.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

As the US-China relationship continues to deteriorate intelligence and military analysts in the Washington, DC area are asking if 2023 will mark the start of a new Cold War or heat up one almost forgotten in the West from an earlier century? They are voicing their concerns in closed circles, sharing their thoughts only with the few who are not Chinese apologists inside the Biden Administration. With the war in Ukraine holding the world’s attention for almost a year, some are questioning if the distraction will provide China enough leeway to act up in Asia without much pushback from the United States. Others, however, are suggesting that cracks are emerging among players in China’s domestic economy and the political sphere containing Xi Jinping’s cadre of loyal followers in the CCP leadership. Could they successfully check him from making more aggressive moves this year? The reality is that, like the weatherman delivering the evening report, there is a 50-50 chance the analysts are correct about the conditions that will exist in the bilateral relationship tomorrow. 

Robert Daly, Director of the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States and Rui Zhong, of the Wilson Center, suggest this week that the best policy is for the Biden Administration to “keep cool” when it comes to China. It appears the president’s men in the White House, however, intend to continue denying that it relishes a new cold war with China, although it is prepping for one. Sanctions imposed on China’s advanced semiconductor industry by the Commerce Department last October will take time to impact the country’s military computing and artificial intelligence capabilities and its increasingly harsh surveillance state. But sanctions do suggest at least some in Washington are willing to force China to look elsewhere to obtain the technologies needed by its medical researchers, supply chain managers, communications specialists, and a host of other fields relying on American technology. Daly and Rui argue that this is evidence that Washington’s strategy is to “hamper China’s further economic and technological development for the sake of security [and] is a clear indicator of cold war conditions.” Military analysts suggest that China is quite capable of withstanding the impact of sanctions and has planned “work arounds” to negate its effect.

Although policymakers in Beijing are intent on isolating the state from Western influences, the CCP leadership has yet to characterize the bilateral relationship as one of fierce competition or diametrically opposed ideologies. Daly and Rui argue that both capitals are “failing to manage their relations within a realistic framework” and that it “matters not only to national leaders, but also to the corporations, communities, college and universities, and other institutions that have played major roles in Sino-US interaction over the past 40 years.”

What will happen in 2023? The Wilson Center argues there are several things to watch in the coming months. Many states are wavering between the two superpower camps. This may be the year that a choice is forced on them. If the new cold war is played out in the realm of technology and geoeconomics and China surpasses the United States, the world could see a shifting global economic order that favors the Chinese viewpoint. Beijing is pushing for a larger international role in global rulemaking. It also appeals to the global south who do not oppose the idea of absolute sovereignty, non-interference, and a more pluralistic international discourse that is rejected in the more advanced Western democracies. Xi Jinping’s Global Development Initiative (GDI) and Global Security Initiative (GSI), according to Daly and Rui, are so vague as to be “nearly non-existent” yet many developing countries are considering signing on as they did with the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). One political analyst specializing in West Africa notes countries need the money Beijing offers and they are delighted that China doesn’t care about human rights, corruption, or other systemic abuses that prevent the United States from liberally allocating funds. If Washington remains the dominant player, the set of rules, beliefs, norms, and global economic order could remain the same. Many question if Biden Administration officials have the gravitas to make the calls needed to secure a stable, Western-led, international order in the future in a cold war environment. Although a start, a few sanctions that can be bypassed are not sufficient to check China’s aggressive behavior in 2023. Too few are studying Chinese history or reading Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. Perhaps Winston Churchill said it best: “The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.”

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

Photo: Airmen assigned to an airborne brigade of the PLA Air Force queue up for boarding during a parachuting training exercise in late December, 2022. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Ma Pengfei)

Not many can identify where Belarus is located on a map despite its growing importance to the outcome of Russia’s war in Ukraine. Once a satellite of the former Soviet Union, Minsk has maintained close, if at times strained, relations with Moscow. Early in Russia’s war in Ukraine, Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka offered to allow Putin to again stage nuclear missiles in their silos. It is an offer that Putin has yet to act on. The silos have been empty, but maintained, since the end of the Cold War. Grigory Ioffe is a Russian born professor at Radford University in Virginia, and a graduate from Moscow State University. He suggests the ground truth is that “If there is any leitmotif to the current developments in Belarus, it would be mostly rooted in attempts at socioeconomic survival while avoiding immediate participation in Russia’s war effort against Ukraine.” He points to lingering misapprehension of the country’s character by the exiled opposition to the Lukashenka regime. 

Over 90% of the émigré population, according to Ioffe, are indifferent to actual Belarusian national life. He argues the diaspora mirrors the country itself and that “national life” may be misconstrued to fit the taste of a minor group with an indefensible self-esteem. Domestic politics in Belarus belie a regime claiming to welcome back the opposition from overseas while at home “paving over” the country with repressive measures that have contributed to its shrinking economy. Sanctions are expected to contribute to cutting the 2022 GDP by 4% when the final numbers are published. They were imposed on Belarus due to the dictatorship’s support of Russia’s war, have impacted companies, and complicated the Russia-Belarus bilateral relationship. Yury Drakakhrust of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, however, is “convinced” that conditions inside Belarus today may end up making it a good negotiating platform for ending the war in Ukraine in 2023.

Lukashenka must do something for Belarus in the coming months to improve the domestic economic environment. The war is increasing domestic tensions, causing the country to lose IT companies and personnel which contributes to the negative growth in the economy, and narrowing Lukashenka’s options. Recently gains in the IT sector have disappeared as between 16,000 to 32,000 IT specialists have fled the country. Ioffe says that “ To keep the outflow in check, the authorities in Minsk prohibited companies of “unfriendly” countries from withdrawing their shares from those businesses registered in Belarus. Those who stayed and those who left turned out to be vulnerable to Western sanctions.” 

Last week government authorities in Minsk decided to legalize “parallel imports,” a term coined to refer to the obtaining, importing, and selling of intellectual property without the consent of copyright holders from foreign countries. Law 241-3 is an indirect result of sanctions placed on Russia. 

The publication Svaboda, on January 2, reported that recently, two opposition-minded analysts, Artyom Shraibman and Pavel Matsukevich, debated whether it is expedient for the West to open up a dialogue with Lukashenka and loosen sanctions in exchange for the release of political prisoners. Ioffe  says that what both debaters came to a consensus about is that the West has always applied a double standard to human rights, whereby “what it forgives Turkey, Azerbaijan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, it does not forgive Lukashenka’s Belarus.” They additionally emphasize, he says, that a consistent focus on principles at the expense of interests would have never resulted in Churchill and Roosevelt becoming allies with Stalin in World War II. Drakakhrust writes that he is convinced Belarus’ negotiations with the West over Russia’s war in Ukraine have never stopped. According to Ioffe, that means that the categorical stand of Belarusian democrats-in-exile—that is, no negotiations with Lukashenka—is “not exactly the standpoint of the West, which usually takes guidance from its own interests.” This is similar to 2008 and 2015 when political prisoners were in fact released by Minsk in exchange for the removal of Western sanctions. This could present a potential change in bilateral Russia-Belarus relations and an opening for negotiations to end the war if the Lukashenka regime believes it must respond to the deteriorating economy.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

America’s foreign policy need not be directed by opinion polls. However, it should at least be guided by the actual current needs and general philosophy of the nation.

In the face of massive and growing external threats, combined with mounting economic challenges, a nonpartisan foreign policy does not appear out of reach. The basics are clear.  Discourage armed assaults on the U.S., its allies, and interests by maintaining superior armed strength, diplomatic influence, and economic resources. Ensure that the commerce and supply required for prosperity is maintained. Secure the borders to prevent hazardous problems from infiltrating. Deal as much as possible with nations that respect freedom and human rights.

The Biden approach does not reflect this.  Instead, it appears geared towards projecting support for his internal political base, motivated not by achieving security and prosperity for the country but by appeasing the left wing of his own party. Given the financial relationship now being made clear following the confirmation of the information found on the Hunter Biden laptop, it is not inappropriate to question whether Biden family finances play a role as well.  

The problem can be seen in the current White House approach to several issues.  Many have been deeply disappointed at the very low-key response the Administration has had to the horrific human rights abuses seen daily in the headlines about China and Iran. It was observed in the reluctance it had to take steps to discourage Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. (The billions now spent by the West, and the lives lost by so many Ukrainians, might have been saved if Biden had telegraphed its determination to counter the Kremlin’s plans.)

It is also noticeable in the comparatively conciliatory attitude it has had towards Venezuela, as the Administration seeks Caracas’ help to mask the energy problems Biden has created.

Massive lockdowns of whole communities provoked widescale outbreaks of protests throughout China, despite the severe repercussions the participants face.  The situation became so intense that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been forced to at least partially back down. Despite obvious appeals to U.S. sentiment by Chinese activists, including quoting from American Revolutionary War sayings, Biden’s response has been, at most, low key. It did not prevent a planning meeting between Biden and Xi, or, apparently, become a major issue at the gathering. There is no expectation that the U.S. would directly intervene in the matter; that would hand a propaganda victory to the CCP, which habitually labels any dissent as foreign inspired.  But it would have been a welcomed and rewarding move for the White House to be more emphatic in condemning the CCP’s repression.  Think of the dramatic impact of President Ronald Reagan’s “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” speech. It is difficult to cite a legitimate reason for Biden’s reluctance

A very similar argument could be made about the unspeakable repression now occurring in Iran.

While paying less than necessary attention to the devastation of human rights in China and Iran, the Administration has been intensely enthusiastic about concentrating on LQBTQ+ issues overseas. Secretary of State Antony Blinken authorized American embassies around the world to fly the Gay Pride flag on the same flagpole as the American banner.  This plays well with the activist wing of the Democrat Party that Biden desperately curries favor with.  It’s an easy publicity stunt that looks good in leftist journals, and deflects attention away from the Administration’s lack of substantive support for freedom fighters, including oppressed gays,  in Iran.

The Biden Administration’s domestic missteps play a role that should not be ignored. The inexplicable destruction of American energy independence explains why the White House has cozied up to the criminal regime in Venezuela.  It also describes why, after harshly condemning Saudi Arabia, the President has now gone hat-in-hand to that nation’s rulers begging for oil favors. His Administration’s incompetence in that region may lead to further dire consequences. The massive Trump-era Middle East gains could now being replaced by Chinese advances, thanks to Biden’s missteps.

Most fundamental to any international policy is the control of one’s own borders. For reasons that have never been explained, the Biden Administration has rejected the practice of meaningful border control. Chinese-made, Mexican Cartel-wholesaled fentanyl devastates the U.S., a foreign policy crisis utterly ignored by Biden.

America is in the midst of a rolling descent into an era of increased popularity for socialism, both at home and in its foreign policy abroad. The Biden Administration has been more heavily influenced by socialist-leaning progressives than any other. It is a reflection of the extraordinary strength of the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

The expanded meddling of Washington into the once-dynamic American economy has produced the same results found in other socialist states: unnecessary shortages of basic goods, dramatic inflation, reduced personal freedom, and a lack of confidence in the future.

A 2021Axios poll notes that “Just half of younger Americans now hold a positive view of capitalism — and socialism’s appeal in the U.S. continues to grow…socialism has positive connotations for 60% of Black Americans, 45% of American women and 33% of non-white Republicans. Those numbers have grown over the past two years from 53%, 41% and 27%, respectively. Only 48% of American women view capitalism in a positive light, down from 51% two years ago. Today, 18-34 year-olds are almost evenly split between those who view capitalism positively and those who view it negatively (49% vs. 46%). Two years ago, that margin was a gaping 20 points (58% vs. 38%).”

The leftward lurch is unsupported by any record of success for the debunked philosophy.

In a Forbes interview, Kristian Niemietz, raised a salient point

“Over the past hundred years, there have been more than two dozen attempts to build a socialist society. It has been tried in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Hungary, China, East Germany, Cuba, Tanzania, Laos, South Yemen, Somalia, the Congo, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua and Venezuela, among others—not counting the very short-lived ones. All of these attempts have ended in varying degrees of failure.”

Some have attempted to point to China as a socialist nation that has attained some measure of economic success. They ignore the reality that the Communist giant only prospers by selling to capitalist nations, frequently using underhanded methods such as slave labor, and downright illegal methods such as intellectual property theft and industrial espionage.

Examine a closer example. As Venezuela fell more completely under socialism’s sway, the results were dire.  “According to Gallup, 71 percent of Venezuelans say they can’t afford food, 47 percent say they can’t afford shelter, just 15 percent say they are satisfied with the availability of quality health care, and 35 percent say they are satisfied with their standard of living. Thirty-six percent of Venezuelans, 51 percent of those between 15 and 29, say they would leave the country permanently if they could,” reports Star Parker.

As socialism becomes more popular at home, Progressive politicians have pushed the White House into friendlier ties with socialist regimes abroad.

Biden administration officials met with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in Caracas earlier this Spring. They ignored Juan Guaidó, the opposition leader whom the United States recognizes as this South American nation’s rightful president, who wasn’t even informed of the meeting.

The rather humiliating reversal of U.S. policy towards this odious socialist dictatorship has long been a goal of the Progressive left. In a letter to President Biden, several progressive Democrats commended him for his diplomatic overture to the South American totalitarian regime.

There can be little doubt that Venezuela under socialism is both an economic and human rights disaster. A recent U.S. State Department analysis found that “the authoritarian regime led by Nicolas Maduro usurped control over all branches of government: executive, judicial, legislative, the offices of the prosecutor general and ombudsman, and the electoral institutions. In December 2020 the Maduro regime organized parliamentary elections that were rigged in favor of the regime, and approximately 60 countries and international bodies publicly declared the elections were neither free nor fair… There were credible reports that members of security forces committed numerous abuses, and a 2020 United Nations report concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe that Maduro regime authorities and security forces committed crimes against humanity.”

Hopefully, as Americans endure the results of this disturbing trend, the majority can reverse the trend before the political and economic results become too deep.

Illustration: Pixabay

There was a lot more to the tumultuous race for Speaker of the House than the media reported.

On the surface, and as generally discussed by political analysts, it appeared to be a contest to become the 55^th Speaker of the House of Representatives between Kevin Owen McCarthy, a moderate Republican from California’s 20^th District, and group of conservative colleagues.

It was more than that, and even more than just a clash between different wings of the same party.  Behind the scenes, deep concern about a federal budget that is out of control, irrational funding decisions, and even the national defense of the United States were underlying issues.

McCarthy was first elected to Congress in 2006, meaning that he has been in the House for 17 years. The national debt in 2006 was $10 trillion.  The current national debt is approximately $34 trillion. In 2006, the United States was the undisputed global superpower. Today, China is challenging that role.

None of those developments can be blamed on McCarthy.  Indeed, as a member of the GOP, he emphasized fiscal restraint and strong defense far more than Democrats in Congress.  However, his conservative colleagues believe he, like some others in the Republican leadership, were too quick to compromise with Democrats, leading to excessive debt and inadequate defense funding, particularly during the Obama and Biden Administrations.

There are many factors at play here.  The Great Recession, COVID, expensive wars abroad, and ten years of Democrat control of the White House occurred during that period.  But far more than those singular events is the manner in which governmental budgets have been decided, not only at the national level but also in state and city jurisdictions as well.

Frankly, there is very little opportunity for rational decision-making in setting governmental budgets. Those voting are generally presented with thousand-plus page documents at the last minute with practically no time to examine the contents.  Because of that, all that is generally done is to breeze through the document, make sure that one’s own key issues or pet projects are properly treated, and then cast a vote accordingly.

Much of this came to light most significantly not during a budget contest but in the battle to enact ObamaCare, properly known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,  a highly controversial federal statute enacted by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010.

In addressing the 2010 Legislative Congress for the National Association of Counties, the then-speaker stunningly stated “Congress “[has] to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it, away from the fog of controversy.”  That was a clear admission that members of the House of Representatives could not know the details of what they were voting on, despite the massive implications the legislation had for the American population and the United States Treasury.

The lack of true participation by most members of Congress, the determination to enact programs regardless of fiscal realities, the massive growth of federal power, and the lack of priorities as set by the Constitution are the cause for a long-simmering anger on the part of many.  That erupted, fairly or not, in the contest for Speaker that was recently resolved. 

Frustration over their lack of power, an unmanageable level of debt that threatens to bring great harm to the national interest in the very near future, and the looming need to provide major financial assets to urgently needed challenges including national defense in the face of major threats, and even the potential bankruptcy of Social Security have all come to a boiling point.

Photo: Pixabay

Turkey has the fastest growing energy demand among all of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) states during the last two decades. It ranks second in the world only to China in its increase in electricity and natural gas demand. In a surprise move, Putin recently proposed to develop Turkey into an energy hub for Russia so that its gas may be transited to Europe via Turkey. The government in Ankara says that the versatile structure of its energy strategy and its energy import dependency brings international relations into prominence in this field. In 2022 Turkey had to import 74% of its energy needs. In a positive response to the Russian move, the Turkish Minister of Energy and National Resources Fatih Donmez said in a statement that the project should be seriously evaluated. Turkish President Recep Tayyip also reacted well to the unexpected overture saying that the Trakya region was being evaluated as a potential site for the energy distribution center. According to a Jamestown Foundation report “It is quite clear that the project’s realization also depends on the interests and approaches of the European states, a fact that both Russia and Turkey understand well.”

After Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the European Union (EU) vowed to reduce the supply of energy resources (including gas) from Russia and diversify its energy sources. By October, European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen announced a 40 per cent reduction in Europe’s purchase of Russian natural gas cent to 7.5 percent of its previous purchases.  Nuray alekberli, of Jamestown Foundation, says it is unrealistic to expect a positive attitude to emanate from Europe regarding new pipeline projects that involve Russia, given European opposition to the South Stream pipeline in 2014, Putin’s frequent use of energy blackmail vis-à-vis the EU and the adoption of a much tougher stance toward Russia today. The Biden Administration also supports Europe’s diversification of sources away from its dependence on Russian energy sources.

It is likely to take between three to four years to complete construction of new infrastructure between Turkey and Russia, according to Zongqiang Luo, a senior analyst with Rystad Energy. A pipeline would have to be built in the deep waters of the Black Sea with special production pipes delivered from Germany and Japan. It is uncertain if either country would be willing to supply the physical resources needed, according to the publication Indyturk. The total cost, even if Russia was able to supply the pipes remains an unknown factor given Moscow would face enormous transit and economic issues.

Aydin Sezer, former Turkish trade representative to Russia, says it would be “impossible for Turkey to become a hub with Russian energy resources alone, any extensive development of energy infrastructure in the country will need to have access to other suppliers.” An examination of sources indicates that Ankara is acquiring natural gas from multiple locations, including Azerbaijani and Iran. By 2024 Turkey expects to begin production at the offshore Sakarya gas field. The geopolitical implications extend beyond the Turkish border into the Central Asian states that appear to be supporting Turkey in both gas production and sales. Ankara knows it can’t rely solely on Moscow as an energy source and is laying the groundwork for an expanded base. In Novamber Erdogan announced he planned to discuss the creation of a natural gas hub with the leaders of Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan during his visit to Ashgabat in early December 2022. Then, on December 14, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Turkmenistan signed a memorandum of understanding to further develop energy cooperation and infrastructure among the three countries.

Although Europe is disinclined to buy natural gas directly from Russia, it appears EU countries may be willing to make purchases through a third country, such as Turkey, even if the original energy source is Russia. The long-term continuation of the conflict in Ukraine “could serve to aggravate the attitude of Western countries regarding any Russian involvement in the project,” says Alekberli. Finally, financial considerations are likely to play a key role in determining the hub’s overall viability. 

Analysts suggest it is highly likely that other gas suppliers, such as Azerbaijan and the Central Asian states, will support Turkey in this project. Alekberli argues that while political and economic difficulties remain, “the realization of such a project could bring some additional comfort to both buyers and sellers in the region, provided Russian gas does not become the focal point for the proposed hub.” Putin may be counting too heavily on his country’s participation in an energy project that the Central Asian states will likely boycott if Moscow becomes involved.

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