Author: Daria Novak

As we move into July’s heavy heat in the northern hemisphere few are thinking much about how Europeans will heat their homes this winter. Northwest Europe is enduring an 80% cut in Russian energy exports. EU economic sanctions are hitting the region hard this summer as Europe is highly dependent on Russia energy supplies. Over 45% of EU gas, 40% of coal imports, and 27% of its petroleum imports derive from Russian sources. “Europe is facing a serious economic downturn, with industrial production and real wages both falling rapidly and factories in key industries such as chemicals, steel and machinery closing, according to Thomas Duesterberg and Angelique Tamor of the Hudson Institute. 

Europe is experiencing the impact of its dual-pronged, energy approach. A combination of the region moving quickly toward a carbon free economy at same time as the EU is imposing economic sanctions on Russian energy has produced “skyrocketing” prices, note Duesterberg and Tamor. For years American leaders have warned the EU about its dependence on foreign energy supplies from Russia. The EU still went ahead with its new “REPower EU” plan. Its ultimate goal is to achieve independence from Russian fossil fuels by 2030. However, if friendly markets are not able to supply energy to the EU countries due to the Russian war in Ukraine and competing energy demands from other economies sanctioning Russia, the result may be an inability to increase short-term production to meet increasing demand. Western Europe could be left in the cold this winter.

European leaders are beginning to recognize the extent of the risk. If the Russian government decides to completely shut down energy supplies, and Europe is not prepared, it could result in a serious recession. Consumers may be unable to heat their homes and prices will continue their meteoric rise. Duesterberg and Tamor say that Germany and other EU countries finally are beginning to implement crisis mitigation measures, including rationing gas supplies to manufacturers. Support for Ukraine may also suffer if leaders believe they are forced to choose between securing energy supplies for their economies and the war effort. 

The Biden Administration is ramping up American energy exports to Europe to stem the crisis, while ignoring high gasoline prices at home. The proportion of US LNG exports heading to Europe increased from 34% to 74% so far this year and monthly oil shipments to Europe jumped to their highest level in half a decade. Duesterberg and Tamor called the Administration’s policy “incoherent,” saying “…Biden’s current energy policy remains clearly opposed to increased fossil fuel production and processing and thus severely constrains capacity to help alleviate Europe’s mounting energy crisis.” In a June 15 June 15 interview US Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm simultaneously demanded that oil companies invest massively to increase oil production. At the same time, she spoke about the Administration’s ambitions to shut them down within the decade. Duesterberg and Tamor report that “America’s international efforts to increase global energy supply may also be detrimental politically and environmentally in the long run, as they have focused on expanding oil exports from hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. They say the President is now “having to do an embarrassing geopolitical turnaround to request increased production from Saudi Arabia.” It also is likely that idled oil refineries inside China may begin delivering the excess capacity to Western nations and raising energy dependence on the communist giant. “Without increased US production and exports to Europe, it will continue having devastating supply sourcing issues and increasingly become reliant on China’s growing capacity to export refined petroleum products using discounted Russian oil for competitive advantage,” according to a Hudson Institute report.  The European and US energy crisis may soon fracture the strong unity over the response to the war in Ukraine and undermine US-European relations on global issues, while simultaneously enhancing China’s position among western democratic states. The Biden Administration and EU leaders have a lot of homework to do in the coming weeks.

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

Photo: Pixabay

British MI-5 Director General McCallum announced this week his service has more than doubled the number of personnel working to constrain Chinese spying in his country. American FBI Director Christopher Wray, in a speech alongside McCallum in London, added that the US also considers the Chinese government the “biggest long-term threat” to the US economy and its national security. Other Western allies in Europe also identify China as an extremely dangerous regime to watch. Russia’s February invasion of Ukraine may have relegated headlines about the Chinese threat to the bottom of the news cycle, but the danger posed by  President Xi Jinping’s communist regime has not subsided to democratic states across the globe. 

In a Reuters interview this week Wray said that “The Chinese government is trying to shape the world by interfering in our politics…” and that there already was direct interference in New York in a 2022 US Congressional race. Beijing intended to covertly defeat a candidate it disliked. The unnamed candidate was seen by China as voicing criticism of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre in which its troops descended on the Square and murdered over 1,000 young people. It occurred when unarmed students occupying Tiananmen Square in Beijing participated in protests for freedom and then refused to leave the area. The CCP has censored information on the events surrounding the massacre so effectively that many young Chinese inside the country have never heard of it, the names of student leaders involved, or seen photos of those killed by Chinese troops.

On the economic side, even sophisticated American businesses are unaware of the level of threat coming from Beijing and the CCP leadership, according to Wray. He says that China is “set on stealing your technology.” Its hacking programs, he adds, are more extensive than those of every major country in the world combined. Reuters reports that in May Director General McCallum noted that the UK shared intelligence with 37 countries to help them defend against cyber espionage from China and other unfriendly nations. McCallum noted that the UK has disrupted a sophisticated threat targeting critical aerospace companies. Wray, in recent statements on Taiwan, said he believes China may try to forcibly take over the island. He notes that if it occurs “it would represent one of the most horrific business disruptions the world has ever seen.”

China is not liberalizing its economy or expanding domestic political freedoms, unlike predictions made by the Clinton Administration. The President granted China permanent MFN trade status during the Christmas holiday in 2001. It effectively eliminated the requirement that China show progress toward improved its domestic economic and political freedom. McCallum says the West was pure wrong when it assumed increasing connectivity to the world would lead to expanded political freedom. In response, the Chinese government defends itself by claiming the West has a “Cold War mentality” that is out of date.

Over the last three years, the UK has tightened its procedures to prevent the theft of sensitive academic research. It resulted in the expulsion of 50 Chinese students with links to the Chinese military studying in the country. The Guardian reports, however, that there still are over 150,000 Chinese studying in the UK. They made up the largest cohort of foreign students at 32% of the total number in the UK. The largest foreign component of students at American universities also comes from China. They compose 35% of the foreign student body in the US with 317,299 studying here during the 2020/2021 academic year. Over the past seven years the FBI has been opening one case against China every 12 hours. It represents a 1,300% increase over earlier periods. There are about 13,778 special agents in the entire FBI organization. In February Wray said he was blown away by the sheer numbers he learned when he took over as director. There currently are over 2,000 cases involving China underway in the FBI. He called China “more brazen, more damaging than ever before” in a speech at the Reagan Library earlier this year. The Russian invasion of Ukraine may be the immediate threat to stability in the world, but China has no equal according to Wray.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

President Vladimir Putin is deliberately torpedoing his country’s economy in a futile attempt to fragment Western unity on Ukraine. Pavel Baev, a senior researcher at the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo, Norway, says that is “exactly” what the Russian leader is doing in addition to his attempts to exploit European vulnerabilities. At the recent G7 meeting in the Bavarian Alps, Western leaders agreed to open-ended support of Ukraine in its fight to rid the country of invading Russian forces. After the G7, at the NATO summit in Madrid, there was a similar “unprecedented level of Western solidarity” among leaders, according to Baev.  Putin is betting heavily that the Western united front will be short-lived, although Russian media are admitting Western solidarity remains strong and determined. 

Even French President Macron has pulled back from his protracted conversations with Putin, says Baev, as he finds them pointless. In Norway, the government decided to disallow the cross-border transit of supplies to a Russian-populated settlement on the Svalbard archipelago, according to a recent Izvestia report. Lithuania, too, is abiding by European sanctions and, despite protests from Moscow, has not lifted restrictions on the rail transit of banned goods going to Kaliningrad. There is little Putin can leverage at this point. The Eurasian Daily Monitor notes that “the European Commission announced plans to cut European Union imports of Russian natural gas by two-thirds by the end of 2022.” In response Putin attempted to make cuts to natural gas supplies to Europe at a faster rate than the EU can diversify its supplies. Daria Korzhova, writing in The Bell, says that Putin’s decision caused severe disruptions in the Russian energy sector and resulted in Gazprom deciding against paying its shareholders any dividends in 2022.  A week ago, Putin signed a decree which effectively nationalized the Sakhalin-2 energy project, despite Mitsui and Mitsubishi’s plans to stay. The Japanese companies now face terms dictated by the Kremlin, according to Baev. Putin is not altering his plans.

Chinese giants Huawei and Lenovo both are pulling back on their activities inside Russia, although the economic data showing its extent is being camouflaged by Russian authorities. Putin needs Chinese support. To dull any fallout from NATO, the Russian publication Kommersant reports this week that the country is selling China large quantities of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from this well-functioning project instead of earning more by sending it to Japan. 

Kommersant also reported that there is a 96.7% decline in the production of Russian automobiles due to disruptions in the supply chain from Western sanctions. The Moscow Times called it “reminiscent” of the gray economy of the 1990’s when Western goods all but disappeared from Russian store shelves. Ekaterina Grobman notes in Vedomosti that Putin decided the country could not paralyze industries crucial to his “special military operation” in Ukraine so Moscow is drafting legislation that makes it compulsory for businesses to abide by prices and schedules set by state agencies and to deliver first on all military related orders. Putin, however, may still face production delays as the lack of parts prohibit the finished production of many advanced technology goods and the spare parts needed for industrial equipment.

“Putin can rely neither on business lobbies in Germany and France, since their investments in Russia are transferred to the “net losses” budget bracket, nor on the multiple trans-border channels for exporting corruption, which have been curtailed and are being investigated in the West with sudden keenness. His “messaging” to Western counterparts comes increasingly in the form of missile strikes on apartment buildings and shopping malls in Mykolaiv, Odesa or Kremenchuk—and the recurrent horrors of these war crimes only strengthen the conclusion within the transatlantic community that Russian aggression cannot be contained and must be defeated,” says Baev.NATO’s New Strategic Concept that emerged from the Summit further exacerbates Putin’s domestic economic problems. Jamestown Foundation’s Vladimir Socor writes that “Although the new Concept restates NATO’s 360° approach to the Alliance’s security, it is Russia and the gamut of threats emanating from it that hold the front and center….” The 2022 document says that “The Euro-Atlantic Area is not at peace. The Russian Federation has violated the norms and principles [of] a stable and predictable European security order.” Therefore, “We cannot consider the Russian Federation to be our partner.” On the contrary, it adds, “The Russian Federation is the most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area.” So far, Putin has failed to create even a minor chasm among Western nations, while instigating an economic crisis at home that could drive him from office in the coming year and sink the Russian economy. One US military analyst familiar with Putin said that like a cornered snake he will continue to strike out until he wins or dies trying. He may take down the Russian economy along the way.

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

Photo: Pixabay

Aficionados of the television show The X Files will recall the mantra most commonly attributed to FBI Special Agent Fox Mulder as he investigated paranormal phenomenon and other strange doings with the assistance of Physicist Dana Scully – the truth is out there.  “The quote does pop up from time to time and is actually said by members of the cast at certain times. However, most viewers remember the quote as the tagline from the show as seen during the opening credits of each episode.”  What does it mean?  “(T)he things that we believe to be fact right this very moment may turn out to be wrong once we discover the truth on how something actually works. We shouldn’t be complacent and be confident in what we currently know. We should always be searching for knowledge” 

Election integrity is one area where the quest for the facts must be a constant and on-going search for knowledge.  This is particularly relevant in regards to the questions which continue to surround the Presidential election of 2020.  

According to an ABC News Poll from January of 2022, “America’s faith in the integrity of the election system remains shaken…with only 20% of the public saying it’s very confident about the system…(t)he lack of strong confidence in the country’s ability to conduct an honest election crosses partisan lines. Among Democrats…(only) 30% say they are very confident in the U.S. election systems overall. Regarding independents, only 1 in 5 consider themselves ‘very confident’ in the nation’s elections. Even fewer Republicans (13%) are very confident, with a considerable majority (59%) having little faith in the system, responding that they either are ‘not so confident’ or ‘not confident at all…'” 

Though ABC News linked this lack of confidence to the “insurrection” of January 6, 2021, even ABC had to admit that “large shares of Republicans felt that Joe Biden’s election was not legitimate alongside feelings that those present at the Capitol on Jan. 6 may have been attempting to protect democracy, rather than threaten it.”  How to explain this belief among Republicans that something underhanded occurred in the 2020 election?  According to political scientist William Howell, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, “(w)idespread distrust in our electoral system overlays deep divisions over our democracy. Republicans lack confidence, in no small part, because of lies propagated by their leaders. And Democrats lack confidence because of ongoing efforts of Republicans to politicize the administration of elections. This is a bad equilibrium.”

So that’s the answer – Republicans are being misled!  There was no election fraud during the 2020 Presidential election! After all, shortly after the results were announced, “members of the Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council...and others called the 2020 election the ‘most secure in American history’…(t)he statement from the agencies said ‘there is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.'”  That should put an end to the issue, shouldn’t it?

And yet, despite these definitive statements from the experts, there are those who continue to have no confidence in the official position.  One of those is the filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza.

“A tactic of mass fraud was used in the 2020 presidential elections, where alleged paid couriers, called ‘mules,’ were traveling to various nonprofit groups and ballot drop boxes across county lines to stuff illegal ballots. This is the conclusion of a new documentary, 2000 Mules, from filmmaker and author Dinesh D’Souza, and supported by surveillance footage, massive amounts of data, and whistleblowers who agreed to go on camera….’We’re talking about very significant fraud…if you subtract the fraud from the Biden column, you begin to see Biden states moving into the Trump camp,’ D’Souza said.” 

In his latest film, D’Souza explores the method used to stuff absentee ballot boxes with thousands of ballots of questionable legality.  “True The Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht and 30-year election intelligence expert Greg Phillips… analyzed more than a petabyte (1,000 terabytes) of data from smartphones in Phoenix, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee, and Las Vegas, covering the time period from October 1 through Election Day (and through January 6 in Georgia to cover the Senate runoff). In Atlanta, the group says that by using that data, they identified 242 ‘mules’ who met their criteria (visited 10 different ballot drop boxes and at least five different nonprofit organizations identified as ‘stash houses’) during that time frame.” 

In coordination with the cellphone data, Engelbrecht and Phillips secured hundreds of hours of surveillance video for various ballot drop boxes.  D’Souza’s movie makes use of these videos, revealing footage of people placing multiple ballots in drop boxes, some in the early morning hours, one even wearing surgical gloves (which she discards immediately after dropping off her ballots), and in some cases, taking photos of the drop box. 

According to True the Vote, “(w)e do have video showing the same person at multiple drop boxes. Some of that footage was shown in the first trailer. It was taken out because the video is extremely poor quality. We address this issue in the film. Most jurisdictions had no video or if they did, it was (illegally) destroyed. Of what does exist, 85% of it is bad; the camera poorly positioned, out of focus, the video compiled out of chronological sequence, inexplicably missing blocks of days and times. This is why the geospatial evidence is the key.  One thing this exercise proved to us is that drop box surveillance video was never monitored, as voters expected it would be. Like so many other election processes, it was a false promise of security.”   

It didn’t take long for the attacks on D’Souza’s work to begin.  “2000 Mules is Plandemic for election truthers. For the non-insane, it’s a hilarious mockumentary,” writes Amanda Carpenter in The Bulwark. “(A)n investigative documentary in roughly the same way Reno 911 was a hard-hitting look at real-life police work…(i)t’s better to view the film as a performance piece, a comedic triumph where the joke is on the rubes gullible enough to give D’Souza their money.” 

More serious efforts at debunking the information detailed in 2000 Mules are contained in various “fact check” articles. “Politifact and (the) Associated Press led the charge, and many outlets ran the AP’s flawed and amateurish report, magnifying its reach. Of course, as RedState noted, the PolitiFact and AP pieces are nearly identical, almost as if they were coordinated… the hit pieces published by the mainstream media were not intended to find the truth but only to discredit the shocking findings presented in the film…”

For instance,”experts say cellphone location data, even at its most advanced, can only reliably track a smartphone within a few meters — not close enough to know whether someone actually dropped off a ballot or just walked or drove nearby. ‘You could use cellular evidence to say this person was in that area, but to say they were at the ballot box, you’re stretching it a lot,’ said Aaron Striegel, a professor of computer science and engineering at the University of Notre Dame. ‘There’salways a pretty healthy amount of uncertainty that comes with this.'”

But, according to True the Vote, “(t)hat’s simply not true. In the first sentence of the quote, the writer says that experts say that a smartphone can be reliably tracked within a few meters. Depending on what ‘a few’ means in this case, that could be six or nine feet. That’s hardly leaving a healthy amount of uncertainty. Also, we’re not just talking about one visit to a ballot box.”

Ironically, “(p)ieces in the Washington Post and the New York Times also characterize cellphone location data as quite specific and reliable. For example,(a) May 4 WaPo article stok(ed) fear that the Patriarchy could use phone data to determine who got an abortion should abortion become illegal in some states. The New York Times also admitted in a recent report that federal agents used geo-tracking to identify the protesters attending the January 6 protests in Washington DC. So the media is well aware of the usefulness and capability of geo-tracking. Their own reports explain and promote the technology.”

Rather than listen to “fact checkers,” see 2000 Mules.  Then decide for yourself.  The truth remains out there.

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

Those protesting recent Supreme Court decisions are unwittingly endorsing an ancient system of litigation, known as trial by combat.

Trial by combat was a practice in which litigants literally and violently fought each other rather than rely on law, precedent, or a judicial system to determine the outcome of a dispute. 

In recent years, whether in matters concerning alleged police misconduct or in the heated response by those opposed to recent Supreme Court decisions on Roe v. Wade, school funding, and concealed carry rights, protestors and rioters have taken to the streets, frequently in a violent manner, in an attempt to either influence the outcome of a trial or to seek to negate the implementation of a judge or jury’s decision. Missing in these upheavals is the concept of what’s actually in the law and the Constitution.

The verbal and threatened physical abuse heaped upon the U.S. Supreme Court collectively, and specific judges individually, makes a mockery of the entire concept of a nation governed by laws.

The Department of Homeland Security recently issued a warning, noting that “Some domestic violent extremists (DVE) … will likely exploit the recent US Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe V. Wade to intensify violence against a wide range of targets… Faith-based organizations across the United States continue to report numerous criminal incidents against religious institutions connected to abortion rights. We are aware of at least 11 incidents of vandalism threatening violence targeting religious facilities perceived as being opposed to abortion, and one threat to “bomb” and “burn” a church in New York. These incidents of vandalism against faith-based organizations could indicate future targets of DVE attacks.”

The examples are as numerous as they are stunning.

The Daily Mail reports that the activist group ‘Ruth Sent Us’ told protestors to target CHILDREN, home and church of Supreme Justice Amy Coney after Roe v Wade draft opinion was leaked. Associate Justice Kavanaugh was endangered when an armed man intent on harming him was fund near his home. Throughout the period of ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter riots, court buildings were targeted.

In March 2020, Senator Charles “Chuck” Schumer stated “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,” Schumer said at the rally. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Maxine Waters has stated “To hell with the Supreme Court.”  A similar comment was made by California Lt. Gov. (D) Eleni Kounalakis, who said Americans should “live in defiance” of the Supreme Court. “Jane’s Revenge,” which has been linked to arson attacks against the buildings of ideological opponents, shared a post online encouraging a “night of rage” following the Supreme Court announcement, stating, “we need the state to feel our full wrath” and “we need them to be afraid of us.”

Despite the increased danger to the nation’s highest judicial body, the deeply partisan Biden Justice Department was reluctant to provide appropriate protection.  The legislative branch was forced to write a law mandating such action, in response to Attorney General Merrick Garland’s failure to do his duty. Shockingly, 27 Democrats refused to endorse the measure, a clear rebuke to the entire concept of the rule of law.

The entire concept of a nation governed by laws and not violence is under clear and direct threat by all this. The Constitution provides clear and specific ways to address grievances, even in response to Supreme Court decisions. The rejection of these methods is part of a larger threat to America by leftist extremists, now so prominent in the Democratic Party, who seek to replace both the Constitution and the Bill of rights with a government subservient to their radical ideology.

Photo: Pixabay

As we celebrate our Independence Day, it is vital to recognize that it is vastly different than other government’s “National Holidays.”  Far more than just a commemoration of the founding of America, it is the recognition of a major advance, indeed, a turning point in human rights. 

That major advance is deeply threatened at home and abroad.

We are challenged overseas by the mightiest conglomeration of military power ever arrayed against us, as Russia has developed the world’s mightiest nuclear force and China has constructed the planet’s largest navy.  Both Moscow and Beijing have engaged in overt acts of aggression and hostility.

At home, the very principles which caused our Revolution to be so courageously initiated are being challenged as never before.  Censorship, the very antithesis of everything that is quintessentially American, is rapidly gaining acceptance. The repugnant effort to establish a “disinformation agency” which quite transparently has as its mission the suppression of views that oppose the current White House regime is but one part of that.

Hyper-partisan media moguls on the web, television, and print conspire to omit news that challenges their biases.  District attorneys and attorneys general elected with funding from villainous foreign billionaires ignore the rampage of crime and instead engage in political witch hunts against those they disagree with.  Leftist elected officials ignore and in some instances materially support those who for months on end riot, burn, assault, invade police stations and attack federal courthouses, but use a one-day, inexcusable, event by a small collection of idiots to persecute an entire political party.

In dramatic fashion over the past decade, we have endured relentless assaults on our Bill of Rights by some of the most powerful figures in the realm. An entire false narrative was developed and pursued by top bureaucrats and politicians in an attempt to overturn the 2016 election and destroy the subsequent presidency that resulted from it.

Even as we celebrate July 4, 1776 with fireworks and barbeques, we do so in an era when our centers of learning falsify the history of our nation’s founding, turning heroes into villains.  Indeed, those academics and progressives in power today would be far more comfortable, as this column has noted previously, with George III than George Washington.

As our experiment in freedom matured, it spread ever wider. Despite that, a sizeable fraction of Progressives ceaselessly strives to disunite the United States, in some cases contriving false grievances and in others rehashing wrongs that have long been rectified.

Those courageous colonists fought against the world’s mightiest empire to win their freedom (by the way, Mr. Biden, those farmers and tradesman DID have cannonballs and other weapons, despite your recent comments) against all odds to win their freedom. Despite the extreme power of the Progressive Leftists who currently dominate our society, patriots will prevail if we do not lose heart.

This fight is not unexpected. On January 5, 1967, Ronald Reagan, in his inaugural address as governor of California, warned: “Perhaps you and I have lived too long with this miracle to properly be appreciative. Freedom is a fragile thing and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people.” A little over a hundred years prior, Abraham Lincoln, speaking at Gettysburg, proclaimed that “Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure.”

The challenges today aren’t coming from armed Confederate slaveholders, but from politicians, billionaires and extremists who would turn us into slaves.

Since February much of the world’s attention has been focused on Putin’s war of aggression in Ukraine. That is not an indicator that political dictators and military leaders in other regions are quiet, less dangerous, or have stopped planning and plotting ways to undermine Western democracies.  Last month the chief of staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Mohammad Bagheri, traveled to Tajikistan to meet with President Emomali Rahmon and senior military officials. His trip drew little attention in western publications. 

Bagheri attended the inaugural opening of an Iranian Ababil-2 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) factory in the Tajikistani capital of Dushanbe, according to Tasnim News. The first series of these drone (Ababil-1) was built by the Iran Aircraft Manufacturing Industrial Company (HESA) and used during the later stages of the 1980–1988 Iran-Iraq War. This latest in the series is a low-cost, tactical drone designed for reconnaissance, surveillance, and attack missions. According to the Jamestown Foundation, it has a range of about 125 miles and can stay in the air for 1.5 hours. The Ababil-2 UAV is a serious weapon that can reach an altitude of 11,000 feet, monitor an area of ​​297 square miles, and take off from speedboats. Iran has a 30-year history of manufacturing drones. What is new and significant is that this is Iran’s first official, foreign-launched full production line. 

One year ago, Tajikistan’s Defense Minister, Colonel Sherali Mirzo, visited Iran to work on a bilateral agreement between the two countries, covering military and defense cooperation. According to Vali Kaleji of the Jamestown Foundation, “The factory is the result of the implementation of bilateral agreements reached by the Joint Defensive and Military Committee.” Military cooperation between Iran and Tajikistan, according to Kaleji, is “one of the most important results so far to come out of the lifting of Iran’s arms embargo.” Iran today can legally buy and sell conventional weaponry, including small arms, missiles, helicopters, and tanks. 

The world may be witnessing nascent efforts by Iran to emerge as a new competitor to Russia, China, Turkey, and Israel in terms of military equipment exports to Central Asia. Tensions between Tajikistan and Iran are de-escalating, and the breadth and depth of military and defense cooperation efforts is improving. Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in his first official foreign trip, visited Tajikistan last September. Then after General Bagheri’s visit, Tajikistani President Rahmon traveled to Iran for the first time in over nine years. The enhanced security cooperation is representative of Iran’s broader transition from observer to permanent member of the China-leaning, Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) last September, according to Kaleji.  

Afghanistan and Tajikistan share a 745-mile border that erupts often with minor clashes involving threats from the Islamic State and Taliban. This spring the Pamir Mountain region of Tajikistan suffered the most significant violence since the end of the civil war in 1997, according to the Jamestown Foundation. Since the fall of Afghanistan last September, the Russian 201^st Military base in Tajikistan received new tanks and missile-defense systems from Moscow. Now Dushanbe is acquiring improved military-grade UAV capabilities with help from Tehran. Tehran Times reports that Iran faces a similar security situation with Afghanistan along its 587-mile border. It notes that Ayatollah Khamenei cautions that “security concerns, especially about Afghanistan and the spread of terrorism, are important issues between the two countries.” Twelve months ago, Tajikistan was involved in several border incidents with neighboring Kyrgyzstan. Officials in Bishkek then bought Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 combat UAV’s, according to a November report in the publication Middle East Eye. All is not quiet in Central Asia, although Kaleji reports that that Moscow remains silent on the last year’s developments in the Central Asian states, despite the new drone factory in Dushanbe. He says that “Moscow’s reticence may, therefore, indicate a level of Russian satisfaction with this Iranian-Tajikistani security collaboration, especially for countering the threat of terrorism and extremism from Afghanistan.” 

So far, it appears that Russia prefers China and Iran to crowd out regional assistance from Turkey and Western countries. One unanswered challenge is that… as China and Russia increase their competitive positions in Central Asia there may be new dynamics at work in the near future should one of the nuclear powers decide that the other is gaining too much influence over the region. The geopolitical conflict of note today is in Ukraine. Some Washington military analysts are suggesting that the West cannot overlook the possibility that Putin’s war could expand, move eastward into Central Asia, and involve a nuclear-armed China intent on maintaining its position in the region as it continues building its BRI into Europe.

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

Twenty-five years ago, on July 1, 1997, the British handed over Hong Kong to the communist regime in Beijing. Today marks the halfway point of promised autonomous rule under the “One Country, Two Systems” framework. With years to go until full Chinese rule, there is little left to distinguish the repressive administration running Hong Kong today from that of authoritarian CCP rule in Beijing. Chinese President Xi Jinping is traveling to Hong Kong to celebrate the deprivation of democratic participation for its residents, the lack of fundamental freedoms, and the ending of an independent media. The hallmarks of individual freedom are more than abbreviated; they are gone. Managing strategic competition with China is more critical than in 2019.

Three years ago, Hong Kongers took to the streets in an attempt to halt the controversial extradition legislation. Beijing responded by disassembling the rights and liberties free people everywhere hold sacred. “Authorities have jailed the opposition, with many imprisoned for more than a year.  Hong Kong’s leaders have raided independent media organizations, shuttered museums, and removed public works of art, weakened democratic institutions, delayed elections, prevented vigils, disqualified sitting lawmakers, and instituted loyalty oaths.  Government officials have spread disinformation that grassroots protests were the work of foreign actors.  They have done all of this in an effort to deprive Hong Kongers of what they have been promised,” according to a statement released by Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Since then, China has not stopped its harassment at Hong Kong’s shores. Today the PLAN aggressively pursues a policy of provocation of foreign vessels in international waters in the South and East China Seas and the PLAAF stalks planes above in commercial airspace.  It enters Taiwanese air space regularly and its navy drills off the Taiwanese coast. Is Taiwan next?

Eight years ago, Chinese scholar Zheng Wang wrote in Never Forget National Humiliation: Historical Memory in Chinese Politics and Foreign Relations, that “if we want to figure out China’s intentions, we must first appreciate the building blocks of China’s intentions.” What are the assumptions that China makes about how the world works with a rising Chinese state? According to Chris Ford, author of a MITRE Corporation Occasional Paper on China published this week, the West needs to understand Chinese assumptions about “…the identity they claim for themselves on the basis of curated and cultivated foundations of Chinese historical memory, the role and mission they ascribe to themselves and to China in this context, and their vision for what the world will look like if Beijing “wins” the fateful competition with the United States upon which it has embarked.” 

China’s worldview combines a confidence in the inclusive nature of national power with a belief that the dominant state in the global system has the opportunity, right, and obligation to establish the norms and rules for the international system. The once proud “Middle Kingdom” 中王国 (Zhōng wángguó) suffered a century of humiliation by Western powers and Japan in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries. Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leaders today often reflect on this history in speeches and conversations to justify the country’s aggressive policies toward democratic states. To President Xi Jinping and the senior CCP leadership, its actions are righting an injustice and providing the basis for a “national rejuvenation.” Hong Kong was only the first step.

Ford points out that the strategic vision is built upon a “three-fold foundation: (1) a “comprehensive” conception of national power and its ingredients; (2) a monist theory of political authority and systemic dominance by the entity possessing such power in the greatest degree; and (3) an ideology of national grievance that provides an “engine” for aspirations to avenge past wrongs… [by] placing Beijing “once more” in a central and dominating role in the world system.” 

Chinese leaders are influenced by what they believe the state should look like in terms of a vertical hierarchy, focused on a powerful political center. The barbarous peripheral states remain less civilized in Chinese terms and thus need to acknowledge they are not equal to China. Modernization is not equal to Westernization from a Chinese perspective. Over time the leadership in Beijing believes the world will fall in line as the locus of power inevitably shifts eastward and the CCP sets new rules for operating in a Chinese-led global system. The free world needs to recognize that Hong Kong is the first to fall in a multi-step process to create a Sino-centric world.

Daria served in the U.S. State Dept.

Russia’s weaponization of food through its destruction of the Ukrainian agricultural sector this spring is expected to result in famine and starvation for millions in the developing world. President Vladimir Putin is deepening the crisis further by rapidly raising prices on what food remains available. Since February the price of wheat has increased dramatically. This June it is 16% higher than in February and 33% higher over March 2021 prices.  Putin is attempting to force western nations to lift the sanctions imposed on Russia in response to its invasion of Ukraine. According to Patrick Tucker, writing in Defense One, Russia is “blocking grain exports, targeting grain storage facilities, and even stealing food.” At the same time Moscow is attempting to blame the United States for the food shortages. In April the World Bank forecasted that this will be a multi-year event.

US State Department Special Envoy for Global Food Security, Cary Fowler, said at an Atlantic Council event Wednesday “We were dealing with climate change, dealing with COVID and supply-chain problems. We’re now dealing with conflict, and we also have historically low grain stockpiles. And we’re in the high point of a cycle for fertilizer prices.” Fowler added, “So if you really wanted to have a huge impact on food prices, you’d probably have to be dealing with all of those. Unfortunately, that’s rather difficult and can’t be done overnight… I think we’re dealing with a multi-year crisis, and we ought to plan in that regard.” In what Tucker calls a battle of narratives, Russia’s diplomats are meeting with officials across Europe in an effort to convince them of America’s responsibility for the food crisis. 

At the G7 meeting in Schloss Elmau, Bavaria, Germany this week, leaders discussed the Russian caused energy and food crisis. In a communique issued at the end of the meeting G7 officials stated  “We will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes, providing the needed financial, humanitarian, military, and diplomatic support in its courageous defence of its sovereignty and territorial integrity.” Acknowledging the worsening food environment, the G7 agreed in a communique issued at the end of the multi-day meeting to “provide an additional USD 4.5 billion to this end, stand by our commitments to keep our food and agricultural markets open and step up efforts to help Ukraine produce and export.” Russia has shown no signs off cooperation toward combatting the food or energy crisis it exacerbated this year. The G7 was unified in its position on Russia and Europe is expected to keep the sanctions in place. 

Amanda Sloat, of the US National Security Council, says that the world is at a very critical point in opposing Russian aggression in Ukraine. “We recognize the global dimensions of this, and right now are continuing to explore the various pathways of getting the grain out [of Ukraine], including through the EU over land including the Odessa route,” Sloat notes. Michael Scannell, deputy director-general of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, points out that getting what grain is harvested in Ukraine out of the country remains a massive challenge. He says that “You simply cannot overnight replace the Ukrainian Black Sea ports. These were geared up to move huge volumes. Finding alternatives in the short term is very, very challenging, but that’s the task we’re setting ourselves.” No one is giving up yet, however, the Russians bombed the silos needed to store the grain. One concern by world food experts is that Russian ongoing war is leading to nations hoarding their grain supplies, which further exacerbates the situation. With approximately 131 countries net importers of food, Putin’s war in Ukraine is impacting countries across the globe. 

A statement by the White House this week said “Vladimir Putin’s actions have strangled food and agriculture production and have used food as a weapon of war, including through the destruction of agricultural storage, processing, and testing facilities; theft of grain and farm equipment; and the effective blockade of Black Sea ports. Russia’s choice to attack food supplies and production have an impact on markets, storage, production, negatively impacting consumers around the globe…Estimates suggest that up to 40 million more people could be pushed into poverty in 2022 as a result of Putin’s war in Ukraine and its secondary effects.” Since Putin’s invasion of Ukraine United States has provided $2.8 billion to scale up emergency food operations in countries impacted by the food security crisis. It continues to look like a multi-year event is the most likely scenario as the Russians mined Ukrainian fields, have stopped shipments, and the farmers are off battling the invading forces and unable to plant what areas still are viable for a second crop this year. Western food experts are predicting a harsh winter for much of Europe and the developing world.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

In 2010, former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin  made a comment that touched off a debate that has continued until the present day; “‘Lest anyone try to convince you that God should be separated from the state, our Founding Fathers, they were believers,’ Palin (said). ‘And George Washington, he saw faith in God as basic to life.'”

While Palin’s comments are truthful on their face, it is equally true that the First Amendment to the US Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Known as the Establishment Clause, this language has been used for years to support the notion of a “separation of church and state” – a phrase which does not appear in the Constitution, but is based on a “wall of separation” described by Thomas Jefferson in an 1802 letter replying to  “Baptists in Danbury, Conn., who chafed under the authority of the established Congregational Church. ”

The idea of the Establishment Clause requiring a strict separation of church from state became enshrined in case law. “For example, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black famously stated in Everson v. Board of Education that ‘[t]he First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state,’ and…'[t]hat wall must be kept high and impregnable.’” The majority view of the Establishment Clause can be summed up in this way; “The ‘Establishment Clause’ was intended to prevent any government endorsement or support of religion. This means no governmental favoritism of one religion over another or none. Just as there is no governmental favoritism for a Christian, there is to be no governmental favoritism for an atheist. This is called religious liberty.” 

But is that the end of the analysis?  What about the very next line of the First Amendment, which states that Congress  is also not to make any laws “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion? Known as the “Free Exercise Clause,” this language “protects the religious beliefs, and to a certain extent, the religious practices of all citizens…(d)ecisions involving the free exercise clause have not been as controversial as those involving the establishment clause.  It is clear that all individuals have an absolute right to hold any religious belief, which may not be interfered with by the government…application of such general prohibitions in cases that affected people’s religious practices (have) to undergo ‘strict scrutiny.’  That is, the state (has) to show that there was a very important government purpose to the law, which could not be met in other ways.” 

In May, we examined the case of Sambrano v. United Airlines, a decision by the Fifth Circuit which concluded that United Airlines had placed an undue burden on the religious freedom of employees who had asserted religious objections to the company’s vaccine mandate.   According to the Fifth Circuit, “United’s decision to place (these employees) on indefinite unpaid leave (was intended) to coerce the plaintiffs into violating their religious convictions…”

Now, the US Supreme Court has also weighed in on the very important topic of free exercise.

In the State of Maine, a program was established to provide school vouchers to parents who wished to send their children to private schools rather than public.  However, this law specifically excluded  vouchers for parents who wished to send their children to religious schools.   Recently, in the case of Carson v. Makin, the US Supreme Court declared this law unconstitutional as an undue burden placed upon the free exercise of religion.   

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts stated that The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects against ‘indirect coercion or penalties on the free exercise of religion, not just outright prohibitions’…we have repeatedly held that a State violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits.” (Citation omitted.)   

“(A) neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of private benefit recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause” the Court stated.  “Maine’s decision to continue excluding religious schools from its tuition assistance program…thus promotes stricter separation of church and state than the Federal Constitution requires.”

This decision follows two other decisions from the Supreme Court that received less attention than Carson, but follow the same line of reasoning.  As described by Justice Roberts in Carson;

“In Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U. S. ___ (2017), we considered a Missouri program that offered grants to qualifying nonprofit organizations that installed cushioning playground surfaces made from recycled rubber tires. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources maintained an express policy of denying such grants to any applicant owned or controlled by a church, sect, or other religious entity. The Trinity Lutheran Church Child Learning Center applied for a grant to resurface its gravel playground, but the Department denied funding on the ground that the Center was operated by the Church. We deemed it ‘unremarkable in light of our prior decisions’ to conclude that the Free Exercise Clause did not permit Missouri to ‘expressly discriminate[] against otherwise eligible recipients by disqualifying them from a public benefit solely because of their religious character.’”

Further, in “Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 591 U. S. ___ (2020) (we) held that a provision of the Montana Constitution barring government aid to any school ‘controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect, or denomination’…violated the Free Exercise Clause by prohibiting families from using otherwise available scholarship funds at the religious schools of their choosing…(t)he application of the Montana Constitution’s no-aid provision, we explained, required strict scrutiny because it ‘bar[red] religious schools from public benefits solely because of the religious character of the schools’…'(a) State need not subsidize private education,’ we concluded, ‘[b]ut once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.’” (Citations omitted.)

While these decisions may seem reasonable and consistent, the hysterical dissent of Justice Sotomayor would rule otherwise. “This Court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build,” she writes. “(T)oday’s decision directs the State of Maine (and, by extension, its taxpaying citizens) to subsidize institutions that undisputedly engage in religious instruction…while purporting to protect against discrimination of one kind, the Court requires Maine to fund what many of its citizens believe to be discrimination of other kinds. See…Bangor Christian Schools’ and Temple Academy’s policies denying enrollment to students based on gender identity, sexual orientation, and religion.”

For years, parents have fought for the right to educate their children as they see fit.  Public schools have not always been the choice for many parents, especially those concerned about schools which teach children to question their gender identity and sexual orientation.  These parents pay taxes which support those schools, while at the same time, having to pay out of their own pockets for an education that reflects the values they wish to inculcate in their children.

Maine tried to give parents a choice in their children’s education…up to a point.  No religious schools, the state said.  Meaning, a parent who wanted their child to have an education based on time honored, fundamental religious principles would be prohibited from Maine’s tuition assistance program, further meaning that parent would have to pay for their child’s tuition out of their own pocket while still paying taxes to support the school they did not use.

Justice Sotomayor (a graduate of Cardinal Spellman High School in the Bronx, by the way), believes that ordering Maine to give parents the right to send their child to a religious school is the establishment of religion.  Is it?  Or, as Chief Justice Roberts states, is it allowing for the free exercise of religious choice?

“Regardless of how the benefit and restriction are described,” Roberts wrote, “(Maine’s) program operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise.”  Notice that unlike Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, Chief Justice Roberts opinion seems more neutral and evenhanded – a clue as to the more reasonable approach.

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

Photo: Pixabay