Author: Daria Novak

Commander Sergei Postnov’s name may not be familiar to those outside of his immediate family and fellow soldiers but, in Russian history he will be remembered as the 53^rd Russian colonel killed in Putin’s war in Ukraine. His death is in addition to those of at least 11 Russian generals and over 30,000 soldiers of lower ranks. Putin’s “special military operation” is taking a personal toll not only on the Russian people but it also is having a devastating impact on the population of Ukraine. The demographic news for the country is not positive. Over the last 30 years Ukraine’s population declined by approximately 19%. The war this year has accelerated those numbers with the loss of soldiers and the millions who have emigrated to escape the Russian invasion. The death rate is rising and the birthrate is decreasing in the worn-tern country. Russian, Ukrainian, and western demographers are in agreement that Ukraine is facing a full demographic collapse within the next 80 years. A population of 53 million (1993) is expected to drop to as low as 30 million by 2030 and 22 million by 2100.  

Ella Libanova, director of the Institute of Demography and Social Research at Ukraine’s National Academy of Sciences and a leading demographer on this issue, argues that a combination of factors led by Putin’s war will impact the social and political atmosphere in the country for decades, including Kyiv’s ability to raise future armies. Libanova points out that “the war has inflicted a crushing blow on Ukrainian demography. In addition to military losses, the total number of which is still unknown, no fewer than 4,000 civilians have died and approximately 5 million have saved themselves from death by fleeing abroad. Some of these people have already rooted themselves in other countries and will not return home. There are too few young men, too small a tax base to rebuild, and without massive support from abroad no way to revive the country. With women of child-bearing age permanently fleeing the region, no post-war baby boom is expected in Ukraine.

Putin has bombed hospitals, schools, and other public facilities needed to maintain a semblance of life in Ukraine. Health care will continue to deteriorate for those who return and attempt to rebuild lives in an environment of extreme stress. These are not even the worst factors. Putin’s war has sent millions of educated and young Ukrainians fleeing to other parts of Europe and beyond in search of safety and social programs for their families. With nothing left to go back to they will end up permanently rebuilding their lives elsewhere. Eventually their men will join them making a return to Ukraine even less likely. “The key takeaway from her observations and those of other demographers is this: Vladimir Putin has inflicted even more terrible losses on the Ukrainian population than war-time casualties and structural damage. And these losses will cast a horrific shadow on Ukraine not only in the immediate future but for as far ahead as anyone can project,” according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation.

Russia’s population also is falling, making a win in Ukraine for Putin even more critical. There were 148.2 million Russians when the Soviet Union fell in 1991. By the end of last year the number had decreased to 146.1 million and is expected to drop to as low as 130 million by 2050, according to the Russian statistical agency Rosstat. French demographer Laurent Chalard says Putin is obsessed with the demographic numbers. It may be part of why he has forcibly removed many young Ukrainians and resettled them inside Russian territory. In January 2020 Putin called Russia’s demographic challenge a “historic” crisis. By gaining control over a population with characteristics similar to those of the Russian population, he may be trying to avert a demographic collapse of his country. Alexey Raksha, a Russian demographer living in Moscow, predicts a sharp drop in childbirth over the coming months as a reaction to the war in Ukraine and the economic crisis linked to the sanctions. “During economic crises, people are less inclined to have children, which is logical,” he explains to a France 24 reporter. “Trust in the future plays a key role in a country’s birth rate.”

According to Rosstat, Russia already is experiencing a 5% drop in births in the first quarter of this year compared to the same period in 2021. “I think that everything will depend on who wins the war,” notes Chalard. “If Russia wins, the resulting joy could lead to a boom in births. But losing and getting bogged down in an economic crisis will have the opposite effect,” he says. “What is certain is that Putin has his back against the wall. From a demographic point of view, he has no other choice but to win.” Unfortunately, it appears that no matter who wins Russia’s “special military operation,” Ukrainian society will lose the war.

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

Photo: Pixabay

According to the Centers for Disease Control, “Omicron infection generally causes less severe disease than infection with prior variants. Preliminary data suggest that Omicron may cause more mild disease…only a small percentage of people with Omicron infection need hospitalization.”    Further, “(r)esearchers in a multicentre UK team led by Imperial College London, the MRC Biostatistics Unit at the University of Cambridge, the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, and the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA)” have concluded that “(t)he Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 is associated with significantly lower risks of hospitalisation and mortality compared with the Delta variant…the risk of hospital admission for Omicron was found to be 59% lower, and the risk of dying 69% lower for individuals with Omicron compared with those with Delta infections.” 

In fact, “(a)mong unvaccinated people, the risk of hospital admission was 70% lower and the risk of death 80% lower with Omicron compared with Delta. ‘This finding indicates that the Omicron variant has a lower intrinsic severity than the Delta variant,’ the authors (of the multicentre UK study) said.” 

Based on this science, in March, a letter, “signed by executives at Alaska Air, American Airlines, Atlas Air, Delta Air Lines, FedEx Express, Hawaiian Airlines, JetBlue Airways, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines and UPS Airlines…called on President Biden to end pandemic-related travel policies, including the federal mask mandate.” 

“In making their case, executives cited the ‘persistent and steady decline’ of hospitalizations and death rates related to the coronavirus…'(i)t makes no sense that people are still required to wear masks on airplanes, yet are allowed to congregate in crowded restaurants, schools and at sporting events without masks, despite none of these venues having the protective air filtration system that aircraft do,’ the letter said.”

Sounds reasonable?  Not to the US government.  In mid April, the “Biden administration (extended) its face mask requirement for public transit for another 15 days…(t)he Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (kept) in place its mask order ‘in order to assess the potential impact the rise of cases has on severe disease, including hospitalizations and deaths, and health care system capacity,’ according to an agency spokesperson. The spokesperson also confirmed that the Transportation Security Administration, which handles enforcement of the order, is extending its security directive and emergency amendment for another 15 days.” 

Would the Biden Administration have found an excuse to extend the mask mandate beyond the 15 days?  We’ll never know for sure –  at the beginning of May, federal District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of Tampa, Florida struck down the mandate.  Her reason?  “The Court concludes that the Mask Mandate exceeds the CDC’s statutory authority and violates the procedures required for agency rulemaking.” 

This is not the first time rules promulgated by Biden’s Cabinet members have been found to exceed the authority granted to federal agencies by Congress.  In January, we discussed the US Supreme Court ruling in National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. in which the Secretary of Labor was found to have acted in excess of his authority in establishing vaccine mandates for private employers. 

Now, in Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Biden, Judge Mizelle conducted an extensive review of the authority granted to the CDC by Congress (there is also a second basis for the Court’s ruling, that being the violation of agency rules and guidelines in the establishment of the public transportation mask mandate.  This issue will not be the focus of this analysis).   “(T)he Director of the CDC relied on a section of the Public Health Services Act of 1944 (PHSA) for authority… (t)hat provision empowers him to promulgate regulations aimed at ‘identifying, isolating, and destroying’ diseases,” the Court wrote.  “Other sections of the PHSA also provide the CDC with a limited power to apprehend, detain, examine, or provide conditions for the release of individuals ‘coming into a State or possession from a foreign country’ or traveling between States but only when the CDC ‘reasonably believe[s]’ that the person is ‘infected with a communicable disease’ and is a ‘probable source of infection’ to others…In that latter situation, the CDC may detain the individual ‘if upon examination’ he is ‘found to be infected.’” 

The Court continued: “Since Congress enacted it in 1944, the PHSA has ‘generally been limited to quarantining infected individuals and prohibiting the import or sale of animals known to transmit disease.’ (Citation omitted) It ‘has been rarely invoked’…(a)t least until recently. Within the past two years, the CDC has found…the power to shut down the cruise ship industry, stop landlords from evicting tenants who have not paid their rent, and require that persons using public conveyances wear masks. Courts have concluded that the first two of these measures exceeded the CDC’s statutory authority….”

 Judge Mizelle states that if the CDC has the authority to issue masking regulations for public transportation,  “the power to do so must be found in one of the actions enumerated in the (PHSA, in particular the) sentence (which) provides for ‘inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction . . . and other measures’…(a) requirement that individual travelers wear a mask is not inspection, fumigation, disinfection, destruction, or pest extermination, and the government does not contend otherwise…(i)nstead, it argues that the  Mask Mandate is a ‘sanitation’ measure or an ‘other measure’ akin to sanitation.”

It is at this point that Judge Mizelle makes full use of the concept of “original intent,” that is, interpreting a statute by reviewing the objectives and aims of those who drafted the legislation, at the time the law was written.   

“The PHSA does not define ‘sanitation,” the Court notes. “If ‘a term goes undefined in a statute, [courts] give the term its ordinary meaning.’ (Citation omitted) Courts often start with dictionaries. Given that the statute was enacted in 1944, the Court looks to dictionaries from the early and mid-20th century to begin its analysis. They provide two senses of sanitation that are relevant here. First, sanitation may refer to measures that clean something or that remove filth, such as trash collection, washing with soap, incineration, or plumbing. (Citations omitted) Second, sanitation may refer to measures that keep something clean.”

Based on these definitions, Judge Mizelle concluded that “(t)he context of  (the PHSA) indicates that ‘sanitation’ and ‘other measures’ refer to measures that clean something, not ones that keep something clean. Wearing a mask cleans nothing. At most, it traps virus droplets. But it neither ‘sanitizes’ the person wearing the mask nor ‘sanitizes’ the conveyance. Because the CDC required mask wearing as a measure to keep something clean-explaining that it limits the spread of COVID-19 through prevention, but never contending that it actively destroys or removes it-the Mask Mandate falls outside of (the authority granted to the CDC by the PHSA).”

The review of the use of the word “sanitation” is not the only issue addressed here by the Court.  “The history of (the PHSA) is another clue….(t)he federal government’s use of the quarantine power has been traditionally limited to localized disease elimination measures applied to individuals and objects suspected of carrying disease. (Citation omitted) The federal government’s authority to inspect and quarantine was used to assist States, which held the primary authority to institute public health measures. (Citation omitted) (T)he government…now finds a power that extends far beyond it to population-wide preventative measures like near-universal mask requirements that apply even in settings with little nexus to interstate disease spread, like city buses and Ubers. Such a definition reverses the import of history as well as the roles of the States and the federal government.”  

This language is reminiscent of the concerns expressed in the National Federation case, where the Supreme Court noted that “(t)he Secretary (of Labor) has ordered 84 million Americans to either obtain a COVID–19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense. This is no ‘everyday exercise of federal power’…It is instead a significant encroachment into the lives—and health—of a vast number of employees… (p)ermitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.”

Immediately following Judge Mizelle’s ruling, “American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Southwest Airlines and United Airlines all announced…that they would end their masks requirements. Some airlines announced the change mid-flight as documented by passengers in social media posts.”  Yet, while the Department of Justice filed a Notice of Appeal, the Biden Administration did not request a stay of the Florida federal court’s ruling.

Why not request an immediate stay of the District Court’s order?  Theories vary, the most obvious being that the Biden Administration doesn’t want to make its position any weaker by losing a motion to stay Judge Mizelle’s order.  Law Professor Stephen Vladek of the University of Texas believes the Justice Department intends to argue at some point that Judge Mizelle’s ruling is “moot” – that is, no longer relevant or applicable. 

Of course, this view would only be correct if the government planned to give up on the idea of imposing mask mandates – something the Biden Administration and the CDC have not said.  Instead, after the Court’s ruling, the CDC issued this statement; “It is CDC’s continuing assessment that at this time an order requiring masking in the indoor transportation corridor remains necessary for the public health,..CDC will continue to monitor public health conditions…CDC believes this is a lawful order, well within CDC’s legal authority to protect public health.”  Further, Jen Psaki made this statement on behalf of the Biden Administration; “(W)e think it’s entirely reasonable, as does the Department of Justice, for the CDC, the health and data experts — health experts most importantly in our administration — to be able to have that time to evaluate. But also because they want to fight to ensure the CDC’s authority and ability to put in mandates in the future remains intact,” 

That sure doesn’t sound like the government thinks this issue will be moot anytime soon – in fact, it sounds more like the Biden Administration plans to absorb this loss while continuing to fight for the future ability to exercise powers not granted to the Executive Branch by the Legislative Branch. 

But before it does, perhaps Joe Biden, facing midterm elections in November, should listen to the American people;

“Jose Hernandez was on his way to Las Vegas on a Southwest flight when someone announced on the intercom that the passengers were free to remove their masks. “We started cheering,’ he said…’a few’ passengers kept their masks on, (but) Hernandez…ripped his off immediately. ‘I was happy. I could breathe better,’ he said. ‘I think it should have been optional the whole time. If you want to take the risk, take the risk.'”

Obviously a realist, though, Hernandez expressed the concern all Americans should have as the Justice Department pursues an appeal of Judge Mizelle’s ruling;

“I hope everyone takes advantage now before they sneak up on us again and try to mandate it again.”

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

Photo: Pixabay

In the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, many believed that the former totalitarian state would become more like the western democracies.  A similar view was expressed when the Clinton Administration ended most restrictions on trade with China.

Those hopes have been clearly dashed.  Even more disturbing, it is the United States that is changing, increasingly resembling in its economics and in the unethical conduct of far too many leading politicians, those two socialist giants.

Politics in America, as in all other nations, is a tough practice, with frequently vicious name-calling and occasionally underhanded practices.  Never before, however, have the powers of the federal government been so openly deployed for partisan purposes. Never before has the use of outright lies been so accepted a practice.

There is a specific reason why this has occurred.  In the past, the press has always acted as a safety valve when one side or the other broke the rules. The wrongdoers were exposed, and the abuses were curtailed. That safeguard has been abolished as the overwhelming majority of news, search engine and even entertainment outlets have openly and vehemently abandoned both bipartisanship and respect for accuracy or honesty. 

The current crisis began during the Obama Administration.  To a far greater measure than had ever occurred previously, the 44^th president used the assets of the federal government to suppress and attack contrary views.  The IRS assaulted the Tea Party. The Department of Justice attacked critics of the president. In what may be one of the most controversial programs ever initiated by a federal agency, the Federal Communications Commission attempted to commence an effort entitled “critical information needs” (known as CIN) involving Washington oversight of broadcasters and journalists throughout America. It would have placed government employees in the private internal conversations and meetings of journalists, media organizations, and even internet sites. The message was clear: you must agree with the Left or face the consequences. Fortunately, the attempt was defeated.

Lies that would have humiliated any other President were wholly ignored by the media. (Remember “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?”)

The flip side of harassing opponents of the Democratic Party leadership was in allowing that party’s leaders to violate the law and ethical practices with impunity.  Hillary Clinton destroyed federal evidence, profited from the sale of uranium to Russia, and lied about Benghazi. She was given a free pass for practices that would have landed any other American in federal prison.

Groups supportive of the Left received a free pass. Antifa and Black Live Matter activists burned buildings, looted stores, took over police precincts, established “Autonomous Zones,” and assaulted innocent bystanders. Even as fires raged in the background, network reporters assured viewers that these were “peaceful protests.”

These practices did not reach its inappropriate and unlawful crescendo, however, until the election of 2016. What has now been completely proven to be an utterly false narrative was, with the assistance of biased members of the FBI, a former CIA head, and Department of Justice partisans, gleefully foisted on the public by the media.  Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Ca.) assured all that he had “incontrovertible evidence” of a link between Donald Trump and the Kremlin. When it became evident that Schiff clearly lied, and that officials of the FBI and the Department of Justice acted falsely, few press outlets called for their prosecution, or at least their public humiliation.  

Those same media, political, and Democrat Party officials deluded the public in the 2020 election.  The voters were assured that their candidate, Joe Biden, was a moderate who failed to campaign in the usual manner due to COVID concerns. It has become evident that mental health issues which should have disqualified his candidacy were being hidden. His administration’s policies are the most extreme in U.S. history. Voters thought they were getting an old-time, experienced centrist. What they got was an administration devoted to the principles of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Freed from the exposure an honest media would provide, the language of oppression is getting more severe.  Parents who seek to stop the use of Leftist propaganda in schools are labelled “domestic terrorists.” Speakers not devoted to Leftist ideas are chased out of public forums, sometimes violently. White House officials openly mock reporters who ask probing questions.

Despite the unprecedented failures of the Biden Administration, the press continues its completely partisan stance of downplaying its overwhelming disasters at home and abroad.

Putin puts his opponents in jail. The Chinese Communist Party “disappears” dissidents. The U.S. media simply ignores facts, refuses to report the truth, and overlooks the abuse of federal power to harass Administration opponents. It may not be long until those more violent practices from the Kremlin and Beijing are employed here if current trends continue.

Illustration: Pixabay

How many unnecessary disasters must the nation endure before very fundamental questions about the Biden Administration are asked and answered?

Writers and broadcasters generally should refrain from broad statements about the intentions of leaders. Frequently, those descriptions can too easily devolve into armchair psychology or, even worse, conspiracy theories. However, the dire consequences of the Biden Administration’s policies require intensive review. Individually, they could represent serious errors of judgement and policy. Collectively, they could be something far worse.

At a certain point, it is reasonable to examine whether absurd actions such as killing U.S. energy independence, opening up the southern border, continuous emphasis on racial division, leaving weapons for the Taliban, bankrupting the federal budget, and underfunding the military are merely foolish, or moves designed to weaken America.

These inexplicable policies present a serious challenge and pose an almost unthinkable question. Is this White House adhering to policies advocated by those who mistakenly believe the world would be better if America was knocked down several pegs?

Start with energy policy.  There is no way that alternative energy sources can, with current technology, meet world needs; Biden’s assault on U.S. production is bizarre. Taken in isolation, one could say that it is merely excessive, if mistaken, green enthusiasm. No matter how much one loves “green” energy, there is no viable means that it can produce more than 20% of our needs with existing technology. That’s clearly unwise.  But when it is replaced by fuel from nations like Venezuela, possibly Iran and previously Russia, it is utterly irrational. Those countries are on the same planet. How was replacing U.S. energy with foreign and dirtier supplies helping the environment? Now that the full impact of destroying American energy independence has produced extreme hardship for the citizenry and the worst inflation in decades, why will the White House not take immediate steps to relieve the suffering of both Americans and our allies?

Oklahoma Congressman Kevin Hern (R) notes that “Biden’s embargo on Russian oil must be partnered with an immediate reversal of his anti-American energy policies…companies are ready and willing to provide oil and gas to the American people, but Biden handcuffed them on Day 1 of his presidency. Instead of looking for energy in his own backyard, Biden is begging Iran, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia for oil. We must stop the flow of American dollars to Russia, but we can never allow ourselves to become dependent on foreign autocrats for our energy supply again.”

Both Democrats and Republicans wanted to leave Afghanistan. But no one, other than the most anti-American extremists, wanted to leave U.S. weapons to the Taliban. This clearly borders on negligence at best, and malfeasance at worst. 

Putin made no secret of his plans to invade Ukraine. For a considerable period of time, the Kremlin’s military openly prepared for war. Rather than timely respond to this with sanctions against Moscow as it prepared its invasion, or to provide arms to the Ukrainians to deter Putin,  Biden choose to do very little until it was too late. Why?

To even the most casual observer, China’s growing power and belligerence, Russia’s nuclear threats, and more signaled a need for a more powerful U.S. military. Biden’s first defense budget was essentially a 3% cut in spending. How is that justifiable?

It is obvious that the hard left dominates the policy choices of the current leadership in Washington, as well as in major cities. It’s adherence to the same socialist policies that have failed for over a century is intellectually unjustifiable. Similarly, no rational observer could deny that concepts such as no bail, releasing dangerous criminals, and ignoring the past successes of “three strikes and you are out” sentencing policies helped slash crimes down to a minimum in the past. Why were those ideas cast aside?

It is neither conspiratorial or inappropriate to demand that the motives of those responsible for the current policy choices of those on the Left be carefully examined.

Illustration: Pixabay

It is looking more likely the developing world will face a major famine later this year as Ukrainian ports remain unable to export the agricultural commodities their populations need to survive. As international forums filled with policy makers and agricultural experts debate the impact of food shortages, they are only recently beginning to discuss the technical complications related to reopening Ukrainian ports on the Black Sea. Ukraine needs safe maritime routes in the near future to meet the demand for its grain. Although some overland routes are available, far less grain can be shipped safely across Ukrainian territory during the war with Russia. 

“Everyone has already understood that there are mere weeks to unlock the seaports, including by military means, and recommence exports. We do have [non-maritime] alternatives that allow for export, but it is small cargo volumes compared to ports,” said Ukraine’s First Deputy Minister of Agrarian Policy and Food Taras Vysotsky, according to a report by Bohdan Ustymenko of the Jamestown Foundation. Between March and May over 70 merchant vessels loaded with grain were unable to leave port due to the danger of armed attack by Russian forces. 

One option used throughout history, although not without risk, is to create a naval convoy to protect shipments of grain. Vysotsky suggests a more viable option is for Ukraine to acquire a number of anti-ship weapons that can be deployed domestically and used to deter the Russian navy. Captain (ret.) Andrii Ryzhenko, a former officer in the Ukrainian Navy who served over 35 years at sea and ashore, says Ukraine needs a convincing sea denial capability; but to develop it, Kyiv will require assistance from its strategic international partners, including the United States. Andriy Klymenko, a Ukrainian expert said “There is no military solution to this problem now. To resolve the issue, the [Russian] Black Sea Fleet must be destroyed. Harpoon [anti-ship] missiles will not help.”  As the summer heat increases in the coming weeks, shipments of wheat will begin rotting. He argues that it is time to build out critical railway infrastructure as other options may not work in the immediate future. 

It appears unlikely NATO will risk unblocking the maritime routes by force. So far, the Royal Navy and the US have no immediate plans for a naval operation. The UN, according to one Ukrainian official, is considering a multilateral naval force to ensure safe passage of the grain through the Black Sea. The EU also is considering the possibility of establishing a naval mission to lift the Russian blockade on Ukrainian agricultural commodity exports, according to Eurointegration.com.au. Both plans, however, remain unlikely in the near future and may come too late for this year’s crops. At the end of May the Turkish government rejected the idea of US or British ships entering the Black Sea to escort Ukrainian ships carrying grain. Achim Steiner, the administrator of the United Nations Development Program, said that 70 poorer countries could end up in financial default over the grain, inflation, and other issues caused by the war in Ukraine. Although unlikely, perhaps some form of a humanitarian corridor protecting grain shipments in the Black Sea will work.

Other remaining challenges include the risk from the large number of Russian underwater mines that are floating freely in the Black Sea basin near Romania and Turkey, according to the Secretariat of the International Maritime Organization. The mines raise the risk to maritime crews of large and small vessels. Ships Russia sunk near Ukrainian ports also need to be raised and cleared by Kyiv, but the country lacks the type of equipment needed to remove them. The complicated technical dimensions of how to resolve this problem remain tantamount to populations throughout the developing world that depend on grain supplies from Ukraine. “In order to unblock Ukrainian seaports, a combination of various types of principal measures will have to be applied. These will arguably need to include providing Ukraine with a sufficient number of anti-ship weapons, reaching arrangements with Turkey on humanitarian demining in the Black Sea, and finding effective technical solutions for how to lift the sunken barges and cranes from the sea floor at port exits. No one “silver bullet” exists, but the window to act is closing rapidly,” according to Ustymenko. 

Although developing countries will be the hardest hit, droughts and floods in various other grain growing regions around the world this year are further stressing global grain supplies. Sarah Menker, the CEO of the agricultural analytical company Gro Intelligence, testified recently before the United Nations Security Council that the “world has only 10 weeks of stored wheat reserves left” in warehouses. It is inexcusable that Western media has given little coverage to the impending famine. 

World leaders will have their answer in the next two months.

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

Photo: Pixabay

Several hundred intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) silos are buried at three sites in the sands of China’s western deserts near Yumen, Hami, and Ordos. Beijing touts additional road mobile intercontinental missile launchers it says are capable of carrying advanced weapons of great destructive power and able to reach the continental US. Recently Beijing launched its third aircraft carrier. Add to that list Beijing’s advancements in ground-based, large-phased array radars, and space-based assets capable of detecting ballistic-missile launches, among other modern weapons. Together they represents a concerted effort by China to move to a Launch-on-Warning posture. According to Admiral Charles Richard, Commander of the US Strategic Command, China’s self-defense claims are inconsistent with the qualitative and quantitative programs under way. 

This Wednesday marks the ceremonial announcement by China of a new emerging offensive threat to SE Asia. It comes from the sea as the PLAN is breaking ground on new facilities at the northern end of Ream Naval Base in Sihanoukville, Cambodia. It is located on a peninsula southeast of the provincial capital of Krong Preah Sihanouk and will offer China expanded access to the Gulf of Thailand and the southern region of the South China Sea. US naval experts predicted for years that Xi Jinping would establish an overseas naval outpost in the region. Washington is concerned, in part, because of the extraordinary efforts China made to conceal its plans prior to this week’s announcement. Ellen Nakashima and Cate Cadell, writing in the Washington Post, reported that anonymous American officials said it “is part of Beijing’s strategy to build a network of military facilities around the world in support of its aspirations to become a true global power.”

The base will be capable of hosting large China naval bases and is Beijing’s second overseas facility. Its first naval base outside China is located in Djibouti in East Africa. China will have exclusive use of the base which will allow it to increase access to and put pressure on countries in the region. Base visits to the area under construction are restricted. Chinese military working at the site over the last year wore uniforms similar to their Cambodian counterparts or none at all to avoid suspicion.

Last year, according to a Pentagon report, a US offer to pay to renovate part of the base was rejected by Phnom Penh. The Cambodian government followed up by demolishing two US-funded facilities at the port. The DOD report suggests that “Cambodia may have instead accepted assistance from the [People’s Republic of China] to develop the base.” A Vietnamese facility at Ream also was relocated off site as China and Vietnam have a tense relationship. 

At the opening session of the National People’s Congress in March, China announced it intends to boost the country’s defense budget by 7.1 percent, to a total of 1.45 trillion yuan ($230 billion) in 2022 in the sixth consecutive year of massive increases in military funding. The government called for enhanced spending and advances in military technology to increase side-by-side with the domestic economy. The PLA will be 100 years old in 2027. China intends by that date to have a completely modernized army and by 2035 to have modernized all its national defense programs. Military analysts suggest that the types of programs and amount spent is not in line with a defensive program but represents an aggressive  offensive policy.

In 2019 President Xi Jinping called on the PLA to “thoroughly implement” the “military strategic guideline for the new era.” It appears China is taking the next step forward this week with its ground-breaking ceremony at the Ream Base. In April, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Mark Milley, said to Congress “We are entering a world that is becoming more unstable, and the potential for significant international conflict between great powers is increasing, not decreasing.” China is doing nothing to assuage his statement. 

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Illustration: DF-41 road-mobile missile (Wikipedia)

Passing the 100-day mark of war in Ukraine last week Russian troops losses have now mounted to levels unseen since WWII. As with deaths from the earlier war the conflict in Ukraine is again decimating the male population in a country where the birth rate already is among the lowest in the world, at 1.5 births per woman. The loss of additional males fighting inside Ukraine, on top of those lost in the pandemic, is likely to hurt Russia’s chance to reverse the negative, longer-term demographic trends in the coming years. Some analysts are calling Putin’s capturing of Ukrainians and moving them into Russian territory an attempt to repopulate the country.

Although the final numbers for the 2020 Russian census have not yet been released, there are preliminary statistical readouts that are troublesome for the Russian economy. The “early census figures show that the populations of two-thirds of the country’s federal subjects have declined. Only one-third saw any sort of increase, and this was almost exclusively in regions like Moscow, St. Petersburg and other megalopolises where surging urbanization pulled people out not only of the countryside but out of smaller cities,” according to the Jamestown Foundation.

Since April, the government in Moscow has instituted plans which require the drafting of just over 134,500 military recruits. However, during the same period it also is scheduled to release from service a similar number. This twice-a-year draft of 18-27-year old men is compounded by two serious challenges for Putin. Many families fear that their sons will be sent to the front in Ukraine and die. Second, is that a large number of young, highly educated males have fled Russia for safe countries in Europe and elsewhere. The brain drain, especially among those with IT and other technical expertise, is not only impacting military recruiting of the good talent needed to handle sophisticated weapons system but also commercial industries in the country. The Kremlin is providing “deferments” to many IT specialist to encourage them to remain in Russia as it fears that those who leave never will return. The result is an even smaller cohort of young men to draft.

Jozef Davydowski reports in The Insider, a Russian language publication, that “Russia has practically exhausted its resources in missiles and trained military, does not have a clear strategy and is completely disorganized, and therefore suffers huge losses.” Anger among Russian families and new recruits is rising as Putin is using heavy-handed methods to press the country’s youth into military service to meet its quota. According to Paul Goble, of the Jamestown Foundation, Russian leaders hoped to end the war by June to avoid the failure of meeting its military recruiting numbers and ongoing  disobedience among its troops. 

 The Central Asian Bureau for Analytical Reporting at the Institute for War and Peace Reporting is saying that Central Asians working in Russia in lower-paying jobs are leaving the country by the millions and pay is decreasing by up to 50% as demand for products goes down due to global sanctions against Russia. At the same time food and other prices have risen dramatically in the country. Some reports, according to the Institute suggest that foreign labor are down by more than 40%, making it impossible for these laborers to repatriate funds to their families abroad. Another impact is that Russian men who might have enlisted in the army are now taking jobs once were held by the lower-skilled foreign labor force. Although young men became ill with Covid less often that other demographic groups, those with lingering effects from the virus may still be called up to meet the army’s enlistment quotas.

The long-term impact on the Russian economy, the ethnic makeup of its population, and victory in the war in Ukraine remains unknowns. Demographers familiar with similar environments suggest that Russia may be facing a crisis greater than first realized and longer-term in its nature. Putin’s response may be to view a win in Ukraine as the only possible solution. If he views this as his only option for saving the motherland, it makes him an even greater danger to the Ukrainian people and the free world.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Photo: Pixabay

Thanks to Vladimir Putin, NATO has experienced a revival, as nations realize that the powerful deterrent it provides is vitally necessary.

For several decades following the collapse of the Soviet Union, many questioned the relevance of NATO. Far too many members, especially Germany, failed to live up to their obligation to maintain an adequate defense posture necessary for the alliance’s credibility.

That issue was eventually raised by the Trump Administration, when it protested that Berlin essentially relied on the American taxpayer to fund NATO’s deterrent capability. But it was the various acts of aggression by Vladimir Putin that jolted errant members back to reality.

Ambassador Julianne Smith, U.S. permanent representative to NATO, told the Defense Writers’ Group that Moscow’s challenges had forced members to awaken to the obvious danger. “Even before February 24, she noted, that “there was a deep appreciation across the alliance that the language on Russia from 2010 was sorely outdated and needed a significant upgrade and needed to reflect the current environment,” Smith said. “There was also an appreciation that China, for the first time, needed to be part of the strategic concept.”

China’s threatening stance has been illustrated by Beijing’s naval maneuvers alongside Russia in the Mediterranean. That growing problem has brought distant nations, including Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea into closer consultations with NATO’s members.

China is increasingly agitated about NATO’s awareness of Beijing’s growing military might, and its aggressive actions. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin commented in April “Since the Cold War was long over, NATO, as a product of the Cold War and the world’s largest military alliance, should have made necessary adjustments in accordance with the changing times. However, NATO has long clung to the old security concept, engaged in bloc confrontation and become a tool for certain countries to seek hegemony…NATO, a military organization in the North Atlantic, has in recent years come to the Asia-Pacific region … The impact of NATO’s eastward expansion on the long-term peace and stability of Europe is worth reflecting upon.”

As the two totalitarian nations move closer together, formerly neutral nations are seeking admission.

Another response to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is applications by Sweden and Finland to join the alliance. The two nations, long NATO partners, have military capabilities that would fit seamlessly into the alliance. Smith stresses that “It’s been interesting for me to watch countries in the Asia-Pacific talk about hybrid threats on their side of the Pacific: how they are grappling with disinformation, cyberattacks, the aggressive tactics that they’re seeing, acts of intimidation from China,” Smith said. “Then, you pair that with an Estonian or a Lithuanian, and they talk about some of the same challenges that they’re seeing from Russia.”

In April, the alliance agreed to step up practical support to other partners at threat of Russian aggression, including Georgia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, to help strengthen their resilience. Allied Foreign Ministers were joined by their counterparts from Ukraine, Georgia, Finland, Sweden, and the European Union, and by NATO’s Asia-Pacific partners, Australia, Japan, New Zealand and the Republic of Korea. NATO will increase its cooperation with Asia-Pacific partners in areas like cyber, new technologies, disinformation, maritime security, climate change, and resilience, “because global challenges demand global solutions,” according to General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg. While in Washington on June 1, the NATO chief stated “more and more Allies are meeting our guideline of spending 2% of GDP on defence. President Putin wanted less NATO. He is getting more NATO. More troops and more NATO members.”

At the end of this month, the Alliance will meet in Madrid to outline plans for the future, and develop a new “strategic concept,” a concept renewed every ten years.

Photo: Secretary of State Blinken greets NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg (DoD)

From college dorm posters of the murderous Che Guevara to the fawning comments of American leftists, Cuba has long been the darling of Progressives. The truth is rather ugly, however.  We present the State Department analysis of human rights in the island nation.

Cuba is an authoritarian state. The 2019 constitution codifies that Cuba remains a one-party system in which the Communist Party is the only legal political party. On April 19, President Miguel Diaz-Canel replaced former president Raul Castro as first secretary of the Communist Party, the highest political entity of the state by law. Elections were neither free nor fair nor competitive.

The Ministry of Interior controls police, internal security forces, and the prison system. The ministry’s National Revolutionary Police are the primary law enforcement organization. Specialized units of the ministry’s state security branch are responsible for monitoring, infiltrating, and suppressing independent political activity. The national leadership, including members of the military, maintained effective control over the security forces. There were credible reports that members of the security forces committed numerous abuses, and the number of political prisoners increased dramatically, with many held in pretrial detention under extremely harsh and degrading conditions.

On January 28, security forces violently arrested more than 20 artists and journalist peacefully protesting in front of the Ministry of Culture for the release of detained artists. On July 11, spontaneous peaceful protests broke out across the island. In the largest and most widespread demonstrations in decades, tens of thousands of citizens across the country poured into the streets to demand an end to repression as well as to criticize the government’s failure to meet their basic needs and its poor response to COVID-19. Social media posts helped spread news of the protests among citizens. Security forces responded with tear gas, beatings, and arrests. First Secretary of the Communist Party and President Miguel Diaz-Canel went on national television to call on “all revolutionaries and communists to confront these protests,” a reference to Article Four of the 2019 constitution, which gives citizens the right to “combat through any means, including armed combat” any who “intend to topple the political, social, and economic order established by this constitution.” Many of those arrested reported cruel and degrading treatment in prison. In October authorities denied permission for a protest planned for November 15 and threatened organizers. The government conducted summary trials for some protesters; sought long prison sentences, some up to 30 years, in hundreds of cases; and held other protesters in extended pretrial detention. Some activists chose to go into exile, and the government forced others to do so.

Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings, by the government; forced disappearance by the government; torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of political dissidents, detainees, and prisoners by security forces; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrests and detentions; political prisoners; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; reprisals against family members for offenses allegedly committed by an individual; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media including violence or threats of violence against journalists, censorship, and criminal libel laws used against persons who criticized government leadership; serious restrictions on internet freedom; severe restrictions on the right of peaceful assembly and denial of freedom of association, including refusal to recognize independent associations; severe restrictions on religious freedom; restrictions on internal and external freedom of movement; inability of citizens to change their government peacefully through free and fair elections, including serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; serious government corruption; a lack of investigation of and accountability for gender-based violence; trafficking in persons, including forced labor; and outlawing of independent trade unions.

Government officials, at the direction of their superiors, committed most human rights abuses. As a matter of policy, officials failed to investigate or prosecute those who committed these abuses. Impunity for the perpetrators remained widespread, as was impunity for official corruption.

Illustration: Pixabay

American progressives have long idolized Leftist regimes in Latin America. Hollywood producers and celebrities have spoken glowingly of these governments.

It is instructive to see how they actually perform in terms of human rights.  For the next two days, we will present the official State Department reviews of Cuba and Venezuela. Today, we focus on executive summary of Venezuela.

While Venezuela is legally a multiparty, constitutional republic, the authoritarian regime led by Nicolas Maduro usurped control over all branches of government: executive, judicial, legislative, the offices of the prosecutor general and ombudsman, and the electoral institutions. In December 2020 the Maduro regime organized parliamentary elections that were rigged in favor of the regime, and approximately 60 countries and international bodies publicly declared the elections were neither free nor fair.

Civilian authorities’ control over the security forces continued to decline and was deeply politicized. Increasingly unpopular with citizens, the Maduro regime depended on civilian and military intelligence services, and to a lesser extent, progovernment armed gangs known as colectivos, to neutralize political opposition and subdue the population. The Bolivarian National Guard – a branch of the military that reports to the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Interior, Justice, and Peace – is responsible for maintaining public order, guarding the exterior of key government installations and prisons, conducting counternarcotics operations, monitoring borders, and providing law enforcement in remote areas. The Ministry of Interior, Justice, and Peace controls the National Scientific Criminal, and Investigative Corps, which conducts most criminal investigations, and the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service, which collects intelligence within the country and abroad and is responsible for investigating cases of corruption, subversion, and arms trafficking. Police include municipal, state, and national police forces. Mayors and governors oversee municipal and state police forces. The Bolivarian National Police report to the Ministry of Interior, Justice, and Peace. The national police largely focused on policing Caracas’ Libertador municipality; patrolling Caracas-area highways, railways, and metro system; and protecting diplomatic missions. The national armed forces patrolled other areas of the country. There were credible reports that members of security forces committed numerous abuses, and a 2020 United Nations report concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe that Maduro regime authorities and security forces committed crimes against humanity.

Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings by regime forces; forced disappearances by the regime; torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment by security forces; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest or detention by security forces; political prisoners or detainees; serious problems with independence of the judiciary; unlawful interference with privacy; punishment of family members for offenses allegedly committed by an individual; serious restrictions on free expression and media, including violence or threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organization, funding, or operation of nongovernmental organizations and civil society organizations; inability of citizens to change their government peacefully through free and fair elections; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; serious government corruption; serious restrictions on or harassment of domestic and international human rights organizations; lack of investigation of and accountability for gender-based violence; significant barriers to accessing reproductive health; trafficking in persons; crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting indigenous persons and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex persons; and the worst forms of child labor.

The Maduro regime took no effective action to identify, investigate, prosecute, or punish officials who committed human rights abuses or corruption.

There were numerous reports that the Maduro regime committed arbitrary or unlawful killings. Although the regime did not release statistics on extrajudicial killings, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) reported that national, state, and municipal police entities, as well as the armed forces and regime-supported colectivos, carried out hundreds of such killings during the year. In September the UN Independent Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) on Venezuela also noted, for the second consecutive year, concern regarding “extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearance, arbitrary detentions, and torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, including sexual and gender-based violence.” The FFM report stated “real and perceived opponents or critics” of the Maduro regime increasingly included individuals and organizations that documented, denounced, or attempted to address human rights or social and economic problems in the country. The FFM concluded that it had reasonable grounds to believe the justice system had played a significant role in the state’s repression of government opponents.

The Public Ministry is responsible for initiating judicial investigations of security force abuses. The Office for Protection of Human Rights in the Public Ministry is responsible for investigating cases involving crimes committed by public officials, particularly security officials. There was, however, no official information available on the number of public officials prosecuted, convicted, or sentenced to prison for involvement in extrajudicial killings, which, in the case of killings committed by police, were often classified as “resistance to authority.”

Illustration: Pixabay