Author: Daria Novak

The Correlates of War Project (CWP) is an academic study of the history of warfare. Since 1963, CWP  researchers have examined various hard factors that differentiate wars. Quantitative data is extremely useful in making predictions about military troop strength and types of hardware, but can’t easily quantify the predictive value provided by psychological profiles of the senior leaders who order and carry out the wars it studies. At a time when Russia is in a prolonged kinetic conflict in Ukraine; North Korea is lobbing missiles into South Korean territorial waters and over Japan; and China is threatening the stability of the international rules-based system, we need to more closely examine these soft contributing factors to improve our predictive ability to identify the level of aggressive behavior of foreign elites. How do these up-and-coming leaders make the policy decisions that lead to major wars or a fragile peace? 

In light of the war in Ukraine, one such leader in need of examination today is Nikolai Patruchev. He is a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin. As Secretary of the Security Council of Russia and formerly one of the longest serving heads of the Federal Security Bureau (FSB) from 1999-2008, he helped put and keep Vladimir Putin in office. His son, Dmitry Patruchev, serves as the current Minister of Agriculture and is mentioned as a potential successor to the Russian president. A recent report from the Robert Lansing Institute says it is “Putin’s country, Patrushev’s regime.” As a close confidant to Putin, Nikolai wields great influence in Moscow and is seen as the informal leader of the country. Who is this “influencer” we hear about in the news? The report says Putin and Patruchev share ambitions, but not a friendship. After the bloody Chechen conflict, one became president and the other head of the FSB. Each holds information on the other as insurance against a coup. Combined they make a treacherous pair.

As children both men suffered deep psychological traumas. The consequence is that as adults they continue to strive for absolute power to control their own destiny. The report points out the Kremlin is filled with such disturbed hawks waiting to take over, one worse than the next. “The opinion that Patrushev adheres exclusively to the despotic power, absolute totalitarianism with elements of conditional democracy, and not even hidden tyranny, obviously proves a psychologically sick worldview, formed by these very hawks.”

People become tools for these types of men, a means to achieve an end goal, and thus as individuals are disposable. “Having such a worldview and psychological attitude, the lust for power is still the main motivation; money and enrichment are dominant values,” according to the report. Although horrifying to imagine, such leaders could unleash a nuclear device on an unsuspecting population and justify it as the collateral damage necessary to remain in power. 

In the east there is also an important authoritarian leader in office. Chinese President Xi Jinping was elected recently to a third term as president after accumulating a historic number of titles and unprecedented power not seen since Mao Zedong held office. Military analysts in Washington count missiles, review China’s military technology, and some even review psychological profiles. But do we know enough about Xi Jinping to predict the level of aggressive behavior he could achieve in the future? Like Putin and Patruchev, he also experienced deep childhood trauma. “After his [Xi’s] father was jailed during the Cultural Revolution, Xi – only 14 at the time – was expelled from high school in Beijing and then arrested by the Red Guards, who accused him of crimes,” according to Kenneth Dekleva, writing in The Cipher Report. As a young teen Xi was threatened with execution. He wrote that “…to my mind there was no difference between being executed a hundred times or once, so why be afraid of a hundred times?” 

Ten years ago, in his election speech to the National People’s Congress, Xi said that “in the future, the Chinese nation will forge ahead like a gigantic ship breaking through strong winds and heavy waves.” It is a message to the world that he will do what needs doing, no matter how difficult the political environment. His announced goal is to reframe the rules-based international order to support China’s view of it. How far will Xi go to install himself as that hegemon? He is considered ruthless by colleagues and opponents alike. The world witnessed it recently when he had his elderly and frail predecessor, former president Hu Jintao, physically removed from the National Congress meeting after the cameras were turned on. Xi maintains power by eliminating his enemies or removing them from office. What if China stalls in its ascent? How far will Xi go? The free world needs to be concerned when such a state is armed with nuclear weapons. The free world can’t afford to use western logic and say It is too horrible a thing to ever happen again.

Can Russia, China, or any other authoritarian state be saved from the fate of such leaders? The Lansing report suggests that the only viable solution is the “fragmentation and dismantling” of such a country. Until such time as the indigenous populations of these states rise up against their authoritarian leaders, the democratic world needs to remain on high alert. Such leaders may not disappear from our world, but one day perhaps the populations of those nations will discover the value of a constitution like that of the United States’, which puts the people in charge and protects it population from tyrants. 

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

Photo: China war statue (Pixabay)

The repeated assaults on free speech can no longer be ignored.

Investigative reports have clearly demonstrated that despite widespread public outcry, anti-First Amendment moves by the Biden Administration and leading Democrats are ongoing.

Tactics include attempts by federal agencies to coerce social media to censor stories unfavorable to the current White House, the development of agencies designed to intimidate political opponents, “outing” of those donating to organizations with differing views, and weakening the interpretation of the First Amendment.

Early in the Biden Administration, the White House revived a much-reviled attempt by President Obama to influence how the news is reported. A so-called “Disinformation Governing Board” was proposed.  The idea was widely opposed, and, supposedly, the concept was shelved. 

Undaunted, the Biden Administration employed another tactic. According to investigative journalism by the Intercept , The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is quietly broadening its efforts to curb speech it considers dangerous. “Years of internal DHS memos, emails, and documents — obtained via leaks and an ongoing lawsuit, as well as public documents — illustrate an expansive effort by the agency to influence tech platforms…Behind closed doors, and through pressure on private platforms, the U.S. government has used its power to try to shape online discourse. According to meeting minutes and other records appended to a lawsuit filed by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt…discussions have ranged from the scale and scope of government intervention in online discourse to the mechanics of streamlining takedown requests for false or intentionally misleading information.

One tactic involve the creation of a special “portal”  for DHS and government partners to report disinformation directly.

An analysis by the Daily Mail based on the Intercept’s investigation revealed that the FBI official tied to suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story remains involved in influencing social media to avoid publishing stories the Biden White House dislikes. According to the article, FBI Foreign Influence Task Force Chief Laura Dehmlow is still briefing social media sites on foreign disinformation threats. Dehmlow is tied to the decision that led Facebook and Twitter to suppress the New York Post Hunter Biden laptop story in October 2020. Revelations were part of a lengthy report from The Intercept report notes that DHS continues  its efforts to ban particularly embarrassing contrary  political news

Unfortunately, the attempts aren’t limited.

Playing on the fear of intimidation created by pressure by progressives, there have been attempts to make public the names of those who contribute to organizations that oppose leftist causes. As reported by USATODAY in 2021,

“The issue of donor disclosure by nonprofit groups has once again surfaced in legislative form, as HR1, a bill passed by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives…applies new disclosure regulations to groups engaging in political speech.”

The developments are not new.  In 2014, Democrats introduced  S. J. Res. 19, which would amend the Constitution of the United States to allow the Congress to regulate free speech and activity in federal elections. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), the current Senate Majority Leader,  along with Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D.-Ill., backed Sen. Tom Udall’s (D-NM) proposal to amend the First Amendment.

It’s not just heavy-handed intimidation of social media outlets or attempts to weaken Constitutional protections. Outright violence is frequently employed. On college campuses throughout the nation,  Republican or conservative guest speakers are frequently subjected to mob assaults. At a recent event at the University of California, ANTIFA maced attendees. The incident wasn’t an outlier. Violent threats and actions in response to speakers who do not kowtow to the Left are a common occurrence.

Particularly on college campuses, the concept of “political correctness” has been used as excuse to condone the suppression of nonleftist ideas. A CATO Institute study found that Nearly three‐​fourths (71%) of Americans believe that political correctness has done more to silence important discussions our society needs to have. The consequences are personal—58% of Americans believe the political climate today prevents them from saying things they believe.

Illustration: Pixabay

In the past, Federal agencies, despite occasional lapses of ethics, mostly concentrated on doing their assigned tasks, rather than harassing Administration opponents.

That changed sharply during the Obama Administration. The criminal use of the IRS and the Department of Justice to harass groups that were critical of the President was horrific. Attempts to use the Federal Communications Commission to censor opponents were inexcusable.

It has only gotten worse during the Biden Administration. To cite just one example, A study by the Hillsdale College publication Imprimis found that “the DOJ [has been] in the midst of a … campaign of spying on (the Conservative investigative journalist group) Project Veritas—a campaign that involved no fewer than 19 clandestine subpoenas, orders, and warrants obtained from nine magistrate judges. The secrecy of this spying campaign was maintained through the use of wide-ranging gag orders, including at least two that were obtained without notice to the judge overseeing the Project Veritas case. Through this spying campaign, we now know that the DOJ obtained approximately 200,000 Project Veritas emails from Microsoft and countless text messages (and heaven knows what else) from Apple, Google, Uber, and other still unknown companies.”   

Heavy-handed Biden Administration efforts to subdue political opposition can also be found in the use of the FBI to persuade social media sites to censor the politically embarrassing news of the Biden Laptop scandal. Clear evidence on the laptop could lead not to criminal charges of tax evasion and punishment for  not registering as a foreign agent for China, America’s most serious enemy.

The politicization doesn’t stop there, or with the Department of Justice.  There has been an intensive effort to use military leadership to force-feed woke politics down the throats of service members.  That has caused a major crisis, as potential recruits shy away from the hyper-partisanship.  The Army has missed its recruiting goals by an astounding 25%, and the other branches are falling short as well.

The Pentagon has entered into the realm of elective politics, a serious legal violation. One example comes from American Military News, when it noted that “The Air Force has taken ‘full responsibility’ for leaking a confidential personnel file of a service member and Republican congressional candidate, which revealed a sexual assault she suffered on duty in Iraq, according to Indiana Reps. Jim Banks and Larry Bucshon. The Air Force leaker gave the files to a Democrat research firm in the lead-up to the midterm elections.”

The State Department has misused its assets to sponsor woke ideology as well. A recent Wall Street Journal report found that “The exportation of American culture has long been one of our nation’s greatest soft-power assets. But instead of using it to affirm Western values and U.S. interests, the Biden administration is proselytizing for woke ideology. In an effort to ‘promote diversity and inclusion,’ the State Department is funding ‘drag theater performances.’

The Department of Energy, according to a National Review study, will, begining in fiscal year 2023, require applicants for research funding to explain how their research projects will incorporate the tenets of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

The list goes on and on. These acts are not only criminal acts of embezzlement, an offense defined by Cornell law school as “the fraudulent taking of personal property by someone to whom it was entrusted. It is most often associated with the misappropriation of money. Embezzlement can occur regardless of whether the defendant keeps the personal property or transfers it to a third party.” The personal property in this case is the taxpayer’s funds.  This is dangerous to the nation, weakening our defenses, harming our foreign relations, violating the First Amendment, and further placing the government in debt.

Photo: U.S. Treasury Building

Objective reviews of how prepared the U.S. military is to defend the nation reveal the deeply disturbing conclusion that Americas’ armed forces are insufficient to meet the dire threats facing the nation.

The result shouldn’t surprise anyone.  After years of underfunding and numerous wars that drained the strength of American armed forces, the strength of the nation’s guardians has been severely drained. In addition to attrition by fighting in the Middle East and Afghanistan, significant underfunding during the Obama Administration, the Biden White Houses’ Inflation has taken its toll on the Pentagon, in the same way it has hit American families.

Numerically, the Army should have 50 brigade combat teams.  It has only 31.  The Navy should have 400 ships.  It has about 290.  The Air Force should have 1,200 fighter and ground attack aircraft.  It has only 1,174.  The Marine Corps should have 30 battalions.  It has 27.

Putin’s confidence in rattling his nuclear saber is buoyed by his lead in nuclear armaments. It’s not just in numbers, (5,977 nuclear warheads, compared to Washington’s 5,428) it is also in the reality that his force is more modern.  Moscow’s ally China has at least 350, although it is strongly suspected that it has far more.

Just one example, from Rep. Tom O’Halleran (D-AZ) of how lack of financial support is affecting one service: “Moderate Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Va., a retired Navy commander whose Norfolk district includes the world’s largest naval base: “I have delayed putting out a statement about the Defense Budget because frankly it would have been mostly full of words you might expect from a Sailor, but here goes: It sucks,” Luria said in a scathing Twitter thread objecting to Biden’s plan to decommission two dozen warships. “HINT: If you want to grow the Navy, stop decommissioning more ships than you build,” she said, adding that the Navy “has no strategy. Stop saying you do, because if you did you would be able to explain how this Fleet size will allow us to defend Taiwan.”

The crisis is getting worse. The Army has fallen short of its recruitment needs by 25%. The Air Force has barely met its personnel needs, and the Navy is lacking officers. Observers note that the emphasis on woke politics by politicized Pentagon leaders and what many believe to be a White House disregard for traditional American values and the has discouraged many likely recruits.

Writing in Real Clear Defense, Darin Gaub notes that “The Commander in Chief of the armed forces leads an administration targeting its own forces with friendly fire… The typical patriotic American signing up wants to be the wolf but is trained to be a sheep today.  Those conservative and often rural families where a large number of America’s servicemembers originate also provide the true warfighters in our military. They are the ones saying, “no thanks.”  Why join an organization to be told that your patriotic American beliefs are the problem and spend the term of an enlistment as a target of the chain of command?”

A study by the authoritative Heritage Foundation found that “As currently postured, the U.S. military is at growing risk of not being able to meet the demands of defending America’s vital national interests. It is rated as weak relative to the force needed to defend national interests on a global stage against actual challenges in the world as it is rather than as we wish it were. This is the logical consequence of years of sustained use, underfunding, poorly defined priorities, wildly shifting security policies, exceedingly poor discipline in program execution, and a profound lack of seriousness across the national security establishment even as threats to U.S. interests have surged.”

Photo: Members of the National Guard train at Fort Bliss, Texas, Sept. 13, 2022. (DoD)

China has launched a forceful attempt to aggressively influence people, sometimes using illicit means, across the world to overlook its concentration camps, massive military buildup, and international aggression.

Freedom House, a non-profit that conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom, and human rights warns that Beijing has a “High or very high” campaign to push its perspective.

The study found that “The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its proxies are using more sophisticated and coercive tactics to shape media narratives and suppress critical reporting. Mass distribution of Beijing-backed content via mainstream media, harassment and intimidation of outlets that publish news or opinions disfavored by the Chinese government, and the use of cyberbullying, fake social media accounts, and targeted disinformation campaigns are among the tactics that have been employed more widely since 2019.

Freedom House notes that Inadequate government responses leave countries vulnerable or exacerbate the problem. Declines in press freedom and gaps in media regulations have reduced democratic resilience and created greater opportunities for future CCP media influence. In 23 countries, political leaders launched attacks on domestic media or exploited legitimate concerns about CCP influence to impose arbitrary restrictions, target critical outlets, or fuel xenophobic sentiment. Democracies’ ability to counter CCP media influence is alarmingly uneven. Only half of the countries examined in this study achieved a rating of Resilient, while the remaining half were designated as Vulnerable. Taiwan faced the most intense CCP influence efforts, but it also mounted the strongest response, followed in both respects by the United States. Nigeria was deemed the most vulnerable to Beijing’s media influence campaigns.

Freedom House is not alone in issuing warnings. A Rand analysis stated:

“Imagine the United States allowing a rival unfettered access not merely to its marketplace, but to its media ecosystem—the fourth pillar of our already fragile democracy. And not just access, but the full-blown ability to own, control, and influence the content. You don’t have to imagine it, because it’s happened—and keeps happening. Chinese companies have successfully burrowed into the U.S. media ecosystem with little to no pushback from U.S. regulators, particularly when it comes to radio stations. A single Chinese state-run firm, China Radio International (CRI), has secured a controlling interest in at least 33 radio stations in 14 countries—including English language news broadcaster WCRW in Washington, D.C.—to broadcast native language news slanted to favor the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) preferred perspective on events. A 2020 report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that “Nearly every Chinese language news outlet in the United States is either owned by, or works closely with the Party—and it is making inroads into English language media as well. There are more than a dozen radio stations in cities across the country where Americans hear subtle pro-Beijing propaganda on their FM radio.”

Further warnings come from other media sources. Axios examined foreign-agent filings that disclosed a “massive Beijing propaganda operation that’s fueled a sixfold increase in disclosed Chinese foreign influence efforts.”

A Brookings report found that “In the United States, Chinese state-controlled media outlets like China Daily, CGTN and Xinhua clearly hope to influence the U.S. information environment. Several newspapers, including the Washington Post, carry inserts published by the China Daily. In addition, there is some evidence that United Front-linked donors have sought to support U.S. research institutions.”

News organizations such as Reuters note the success Beijing has had in this effort. 

The danger from the increasing hold the Chinese Communist Party has on American media cannot be overstated. Beijing uses its undue influence to obscure the very real armed challenge it presents, it’s massive human rights violations, and its terrible impact from its other actions, including the infliction of COVID on the world.  

Illustration: Pixabay

The Biden White House has failed to adequately address the fentanyl crisis. Indeed, its open border policy has made the crisis significantly worse. It has ignored the desperate pleas of lawmakers to respond more forcefully to the drug, which fatally poisons one person in America every 8.57 minutes, killing 175 people every single day. “Fentanyl kills more people age 18-45 than car accidents, suicide, or COVID-19,” according to Rep. Bryan Steil (WI-R).

There were 1,531 confirmed deaths for 2021 with an increase of 11.4% compared to the previous year, 2020 . Compared to 2019, drug overdose deaths increased 27.7% in 2021.

CDC statistics reveal that 107,375 people in the United States died of drug overdoses and drug poisonings in the 12-month period ending in January 2022.  A staggering 67 percent of those deaths involved synthetic opioids like fentanyl.  Some of these deaths were attributed to fentanyl mixed with other illicit drugs like cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin, with many users unaware they were actually taking fentanyl. Only two milligrams of fentanyl are considered a potentially lethal dose; it’s particularly dangerous for someone who does not have a tolerance to opioids.

The open southern border is the key factor in the increasing fentanyl challenge. U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) has described how the Biden administration’s deliberate refusal to secure the southern border has promoted the massive influx of fentanyl. “We are in the middle of a public health crisis. With thousands of unlawful migrants flooding our southern border, cartels are able to go unnoticed as they sneak deadly substances such as fentanyl across our border,” said Dr. Michael Burgess.

Currently, China remains the primary source of fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances trafficked through international mail to Mexican drug cartels, as well as the main source for all fentanyl-related substances trafficked into the United States.

The fentanyl crisis began in earnest during the Obama-Biden Administration. The Washington Post termed the issue the “Obama Fentanyl Failure,” noting:  “The fentanyl crisis represents an extraordinary public health challenge — and requires an extraordinary public health response… experts wrote to six [Obama] administration officials, including the nation’s ‘drug czar’ and the chief of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

According to Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) “Joe Biden’s open border policies have allowed criminal drug networks to flood the United States more easily with fentanyl, and now enough of this lethal drug has flowed across our Southern Border to kill every American seven times over… Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats turn a blind eye to this crisis by blocking critical legislation to classify fentanyl-related substances as a Schedule I drug.”

In February, Rep. Steil led 116 Republicans on a letter to President Biden urging the Administration to take immediate action to stem the fentanyl scourge coming from China and across the southern border.

Rep, Warren Davidson emphasized that “Border security is national security. Criminal cartels have more control over our southern border than our own Border Patrol, allowing fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances to flood our communities and kill Americans. It is time this administration obeys the law and uses enforcement to secure our border, [and] protect American lives…” 

The crisis has taken an even more sinister turn as deliberate attempts to attract children has become evident. In August, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) warned that there is an alarming emerging trend of colorful fentanyl available across the United States.  In August 2022, DEA and our law enforcement partners seized brightly-colored fentanyl and fentanyl pills in 18 states.  Dubbed ‘rainbow fentanyl’ in the media, this trend appears to be a new method used by drug cartels to sell highly addictive and potentially deadly fentanyl made to look like candy to children and young people. “Rainbow fentanyl—fentanyl pills and powder that come in a variety of bright colors, shapes, and sizes—is a deliberate effort by drug traffickers to drive addiction amongst kids and young adults,” said DEA Administrator Anne Milgram.”

Illustration: Fentanyl intentionally made to look like candy (CDC)

Military experts are watching Russia closely after Putin’s nuclear threat toward the West. Political analysts are looking eastward toward China after Xi Jinping’s unprecedented consolidation of power during last week’s National Party Congress. Few, however, are paying attention to the supercharged environment in Pakistan since April when then-Prime Minister Imran Khan was ousted in a parliamentary no-confidence vote.

He blames the United States, claiming Washington colluded with Pakistan’s Army to remove him from office. When he demanded the new government step down, it responded by cracking down on Khan and those attending his expansive rallies. A week ago, the Pakistan Election Commission found Khan guilty of corrupt practices and barred him from politics. The charge was that he allegedly failed to disclose money he received from gifts sold that were given to him by foreign dignitaries. 

“Two days later, Arshad Sharif, one of Pakistan’s most prominent journalists, was killed” by police in a case of mistaken identity in Nairobi, according to Reuters. “These developments not only threaten to intensify Pakistan’s political polarization, but they also increase the uncertainty swirling around its immediate political future,” according to Michael Kugelman, writing in Foreign Affairs. Although Khan acknowledges his opponents had a political motivation, there is less certainty about the length of time he is disqualified from the political arena. 

One High Court judge in Islamabad stated the punishment only extends over the present parliamentary term ending in fall 2023. If this is determined to be accurate, Khan would be free to run in  Pakistan’s next national elections. Sharif’s death hit the nation hard. He was known to be close to Khan. Kugelman points out that he also supported the military until he lost his position at ARY News this summer after allegedly criticizing the military on social media. There is widespread speculation the current Pakistan government was involved in the killing with Kenyan authorities. 

Pakistan has a history of assassinating Pakistani trust in the security institutions in the country has dramatically decreased recently while support for Khan is growing among his popular base. Despite the government offering to investigate the killing, few are satisfied that Islamabad will find the answer. This week Khan announced a modern “long march” of over 235 miles from Lahore to Islamabad, with supporters scheduled to arrive in the capital next Friday, November 4. They are demanding early elections. The government, fearing a loss, has rejected new elections.  The big question remaining is how the government will react to the protesters once they reach the capital. In the past, Khan backed down when the government threatened a crack down. There are concerns he may not back down next week.

Kugelman says that in an extraordinary press conference on Thursday, “Pakistan’s army spokesperson and spy chief both denied many of Khan’s allegations about the military and the US government colluding in his ouster.” Analysts see this as an indication that the government will take a hard line when Khan and supporters arrive. Further confusing politics is Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa’s decision not to seek another term next month in what is essentially the government’s most powerful position. The current government has yet to announce who will replace him, although it is unlikely to be a Khan supporter. Kugelman says the political atmosphere lately has the nation on edge. 

The country already is suffering from high inflation with millions still in need of help from catastrophic flooding earlier this year. Pakistan is reeling from one problem to another, making it a hotbed for instability in the region. According to the Economic Times, on October 21, Khan announced he will remain “silent” as he does not want to “damage” the country and its institutions. 

The question remaining is whether his statement is enough to keep a lid on potentially explosive violence in the capital once he and his supporters arrive. Khan says that although the government failed to protect protesters on May 25, his march will be peaceful and not enter the high security “red zone” in the capital. The government has yet to confirm its position on the march although Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah did tell reporters in Islamabad this week that if anyone is out of order the government plans to respond with an “iron hand.”

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Photo: Pixabay

Since the start of the war in Ukraine the world media has openly discussed Russia’s use of soldiers for hire. Few publications, however, have written about the extensive role China’s “security for hire” have played overseas during the last dozen years. Beijing augments its geopolitical ambitions with paid security, paramilitary, and non-state actors in support of its Belt and Road Initiative.  They protect Chinese citizens, assets, and resources that are located overseas. They are supposed to go where the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) can’t go. In some cases, this raises the risk when they are not considered private security but legally forbidden mercenaries as many of these forces are composed of PLA soldiers. They are becoming so powerful that some within the Chinese leadership view these paramilitary groups as a potential threat to China due to the power they wield. 

China appears to be adopting a hybrid model for the security industry that is neither Western nor does it follow the tainted Russian system of private military/security companies (PM/SCs). Western security groups protecting private interests are relatively open, under great public scrutiny, and often possess superior capabilities among team members. Beijing is relying on private security companies (PSCs) in areas as diverse as cybersecurity and humanitarian missions to achieve specific geopolitical and economic goals. Beijing’s agenda is tightly linked between the economic and military sectors. PSCs are in use where the country has significant interests and often are PLA soldiers working out of uniform. 

Known as the “Guardians of the Belt and Road,” these groups fill a gap with sophisticated security services, according to the Jamestown Foundation. A number of issues are emerging as China expands the use of these groups overseas. First, they lack true paramilitary experience and China has shown no indication that it intends to qualitatively train future groups to create a modern and private PM/SC system. As a result, China relies heavily on the PLA to fill a central role, which provides the government with multiple benefits. 

As these security providers in the short-to medium run can’t achieve the same level of proficiency as American or Western security providers in securing nationals overseas, China will likely continue to rely on its military to supplement them. Sergey Sukhankin of the Jamestown Foundation points out that  “…a combination of “soft power” and the economic side of “hard power” will remain key tools in China’s arsenal.” He adds that concerns have cropped up over the boundaries of influence that PM/SCs could enjoy in the future.

One key obstacle in the development of an effective Chinese “security for hire” industry is that the current Beijing political leadership is unlikely to favor the existence of private militarized structures in China that are not fully under its control. President Xi Jinping has unprecedented power in influencing the PLA and related military organizations. Any forces not directly controlled by the state, even if working overseas in China’s national interests, represent a potential threat to the Chinese central government. The result it that it is unlikely China’s political-economic model will permit the existence of truly “private” elements in its “security for hire” industry. It appears that the function will increasingly be controlled by the Chinese state and form an expanded arm of Chinese intelligence and security system although Asian-Pacific allies and partners already are criticizing the practice, according to Sukhankin. For now, the BRI transverses mostly non-democratic and non-Western states that tend to avoid criticizing Beijing’s militarization of the region.

One area of concern to the West is that China is increasingly using these so-called “private forces” in the cyber domain and developing capabilities in both offensive and defensive warfare. Sukhankin says that “given the talk of the emergence of the so-called “Cyber BRI,” as well as the fact that China has de facto become a key provider of cameras and means of intelligence collection in Central Asia, development of capabilities in new domains of war and security—in which information and cyber spaces have already emerged as crucial pillars [and] is a prospect that must not be ruled out.” He also points out that these entities could be used to gain a strategic foothold through UN-mandates humanitarian missions in Africa and Latin America. Increased employment of these teams could serve to enhance China’s reputation in strategic locations.

China is known for playing the “long game.” It uses a multipronged approach to extend its sphere of influence. Its “private” security forces are growing in sophistication and spreading out across the globe, yet virtually unnoticed by most governments. With Xi Jinping doubling down on his efforts to dominate the global world order, these security companies are filling a gap that sits below the threshold of a required Western response… for now. 

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

Is Russian president Vladimir Putin becoming more desperate? Four weeks ago, he signed a “partial mobilization” decree that called for Russian citizens across the country “who are currently in the reserve and primarily those who served in the army and have particular military specialties [to] be called up for military service.” The Russian president needed to replace troops killed in the war in Ukraine. Soon after the announcement tens of thousands of young Russian men fled the country to avoid going to war. Putin still needed more troops and recently decided to call on Abkhazians to help. It has not gone as planned.  

“Circassian activists have called on the leaders of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic to come out against Putin’s war in Ukraine and reject the partial mobilization,” according to Giorgi Manabde of the Jamestown Foundation. The publication Zapravakbr.ru reports that the Circassians are following the lead of Abkhazia, a small break away region of Georgia on the eastern side of the Black Sea, in rejecting Putin. Abkhazia was taken over by Russia after the 2008 war and has been formally blockaded by Georgia since that time. In 2014 Abkhazia signed a partnership with Russia. 

Some authorities in Abkhazia today, however, reject Putin’s plea, although a large percentage of the area’s 250,000 residents are of Russian heritage. Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister Nikolai Pankov simultaneously announced that the 90% of Abkhazians with Russian citizenship would now be subject to a forced mobilization. Pankov fell back on the false claim that Russia “saved” the population economically and they owed Russia. It was time to pay their debt.  Beslan Tarba, the pro-Russian military commissar of Abkhazia, responded  saying “Of course, we will do this. There are no debts to anyone, but we are always there, we are in favor.” 

Barba’s comment was not well-received by the local population. Dissenters from inside the Ministry of Defense in Abkhazia labeled it “Tarba’s private views” and pointed out that they do not reflect the position of the Abkhaz  government. The Foreign Ministry accused Pankov of attempting to “…sow panic in Abkhaz society.” To date, Abkhazia has not sent any military units to Ukraine to fight alongside regular Russian troops. In contrast, as of October, several thousand volunteers from Georgia have fought with Ukrainian forces. 

Abkhaz society so strongly rejected Putin’s call up that Moscow quickly relented, abandoned its recruitment plans, and backed away saying it was meant only for those Russian citizens who are registered in the officially recognized territory of the Russian Federation. Manabde says that almost all Abkhazians have a Russian passport but only a small part of them are registered in Russia and live in Moscow or other Russian cities. Most of the young men have returned to Abkhazia, he points out, where Russian military commissars would not be able to mobilize them. In South Ossetia, another Georgian province also seized by Russia in 2008,  dual Russian – Abkhazia citizens were barred from returning to South Ossetia. 

On October 13 Abkhaz President Aslan Bzhania announced a mobilization but stressed that its purpose is not a war against Ukraine but rather “protection against Georgian aggression.” What is perhaps most revealing in the war of words is that it appears Georgia may actually open a ‘second front’ against Russia in Georgia. Throughout history Russian leaders have feared two-front wars, even those they knew they could win. Georgia is now considering holding a referendum on the issue asking its citizens if they want war with Russia. If Georgia opens a second front, it will symbolically change the nature of Putin’s “special military operation” in Ukraine.  As such, Manabde says, “opposition to Moscow’s mobilization will only serve to further exacerbate tensions between the center and periphery.” The war in Ukraine may not stay contained for much longer. Harvard University News last month suggested that if Putin’s “losing streak” continues, Western Europe may see conflict. 

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Photo: Pixabay