Author: Daria Novak

“Bullets accidentally ended up on the territory of Tajikistan” after a shootout between Taliban and the Islamic State – Khorasan Province (ISKP) forces near the Afghan-Tajik border, according to Nurbek Bekmurazev, of the Jamestown Foundation. Last month Radio Ozodi reported that several rockets were launched from the Hojagor district of Takhar province, Afghanistan into the neighboring Panj district in Tajikistan. Bekmurazev says that a “GKNB [Tajikistan State Security Committee] statement… argued the situation on the border was stable, and the Taliban was conducting operations to locate and disarm the perpetrators.” Western analysts following Central Asia are growing increasingly concerned about intensifying ISKP activities in Afghanistan and neighboring states. The recent rocket attack was the second in three weeks in Tajikistan. Conflicting reports coming out of Central Asia attribute the attacks to both Taliban and ISKP forces. 

Taliban leaders, according to Bekmurazev, are frustrated by what they call “false accusations.” They have been targeted by the ISKP terrorists in the past. In November 2019 terrorists attacked the Ishkobod border station as a sign of loyalty to the new caliph and in August 2018 four tourists in the Dangara region of Tajikistan were killed and three foreign citizens injured. The UN Security Council reports that recent attacks continue the trend of Islamic State – Khorasan Province.  ISKP power is growing since the US withdrawal from Afghanistan last August. Since then, the number of its operatives has “increased from 2,000 to roughly 4,000, with some new recruits coming from recently released prisoners in Afghanistan,” according to an early May 2022 NY Times article. In recent weeks the violence has drawn the attention of both China and Russia.

The Taliban want to be viewed as a security partner. These attacks are straining its credibility and undermining “its promise that the territory of Afghanistan will not be used for launching terrorist attacks on foreign countries,” says Bekmurazev. Central Asian military analysts are concerned that the deep mistrust between Tajikistan and other Central Asian states and the Taliban could further destabilize the region. The level of violence has risen dramatically over the last two weeks in the Pamir region of Tajikistan and is now higher than any period since the 1997 civil war ended. 

Radio Ozodi reports that on May 16 law enforcement used tear gas and snipers to break up protests and quickly cut off the region’s internet connection. The following day the government launched a “counter-terrorism” operation, killing dozens and arresting hundreds. While the numbers killed, injured, or arrested may not be large in comparison to the war in Ukraine, it marks an increase in violence covering almost half of Tajikistan’s territory. In 2015 the government used the violence to justify silencing the opposition Islamic Renaissance Party. 

Unrest in the Pamir region of Tajikistan, in particular, is strategically significant as it is located along the border area with China and contains the only open crossing between the two countries. It is a lucrative commercial trade route and one the Chinese watch carefully due to its use as a drug transit route into Western China.  Edward Lemon, writing in the Eurasia Daily Monitor, reports that although the US has provided Tajikistan with over $364 million in security assistance since 2000, Dushanbe “leans increasingly on China and Russia for patronage, [and] the Tajikistani government is scapegoating the West for the violence its own policies have helped create or amplify.” Analysts monitoring the violence suggest that the situation has deteriorated to the point that ever more “people in Dushanbe and Moscow are openly talking about the risk that conditions there may soon trigger a full-scale civil war.”

Paul Goble, of the Jamestown Foundation, points out that “Dushanbe’s problems have compelled it to publicly ask Moscow to be ready to send forces into the region, just as [Moscow] did in Kazakhstan last January.” Tajikistan’s President has formerly requested Russian President Vladimir Putin be prepared to quell violence as it destabilizes the whole Central Asian region. 

Although the war in Ukraine has overshadowed many of the recent events in Central Asia, Xi Jinping is monitoring the situation. A sect of Islam led by the Aga Khna, an Ismali, is gaining influence in the area and could provoke a response from China. Beijing considers him a dangerous threat. Xi has placed military capabilities inside Tajikistan, and is prepared to act, if necessary. The Chinese government has made it clear in recent statements that it would like to take control of the Pamir region. The region is a powder keg that could blow, according to one analyst familiar with the environment on the ground.

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

Photo: Tajikistan (photo)

China is a dangerous and complex puzzle the democratic world must deal with in the coming years. Many in the West, upon hearing Chinese officials reference a “third child,” will assume the discussion concerns Beijing’s archaic population policy. In reality, officials are using the term today to reference China’s latest accomplishment… the upcoming launch of its third modern aircraft carrier. The ship, a Type 003 carrier, is being readied for its initial launch for sea trials, possibly as soon as this weekend. As the shipbuilders in Shanghai’s Jiangnan Yard prepare for the event, military analysts in Washington note that the ship will be the most advanced produced by China and contain electromagnetic catapult aircraft launchers to provide an extended strike range for its fighter jets. China’s first two carriers employed a ”ski ramp” style launch system which limited the amount of fuel and weapons jets could carry. The US maintains a qualitative advantage over China’s large maritime fleet; however, Beijing is closing the gap. Given recent annual increases in Chinese military spending, defense analysts expect China to advance beyond the US in many areas in the next few years. While the latest carrier is good military news for Xi Jinping, not all is not going well politically for China in the Indo-Pacific region. 

Earlier this week in Fiji Chinese Foreign Affairs Minister Wang Yi, and other officials from Beijing negotiating a mutual trade and security agreement with 10 Pacific Island nations, failed to secure a deal. American Military News is reporting that during the Summit China attempted to bring together the Federated States of Micronesia, the Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, Niue, and Timor-Leste. Wang’s goal was thwarted when the independent countries refused to join a pact that included law enforcement and fishing cooperation along with port calls for PLAN security forces and ships. The United States also is countering China’s Indo-Pacific efforts by forming its own trade and diplomatic alliances and partnerships in the region. Recently several Pacific states signed the US-led Pacific Economic Framework (PEF), including Fiji, which had hosted China for the 10-country Summit.

Further south in the Pacific puzzle, Australia is holding elections for its Prime Minister. China is closely watching those events while simultaneously trying to infiltrate and control the public discourse to direct it away from Beijing’s previous attempts to influence Australian election results. According to John Garrick of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), Xi Jinping is an oligarch who seeks to forcefully influence international financial, legal, and trade systems. He argues that Xi’s dream of a national rejuvenation for China extends to “exerting global leadership and shaping international institutions to better reflect China’s great-power status.” This includes a desire to control Australia’s politics and economy at every level of society. 

Domestically the puzzle is no less challenging for Xi Jinping. A major cache of internal reports recently leaked from the Xinjiang Police Department reveal an inside view of the environment and scale of Beijing’s secretive campaign interning almost 2 million Uyghurs and other minorities in northwestern China. The number of files exposed is mind-boggling. There are over 300,000 verified personnel records, more than 23,000 detainee files, and 2,884 images of detainees themselves. Adrian Zenz, an international expert on internal Chinese government documents and the Xinjiang internment campaign says they were hacked directly from Chinese police databases in two ethnic minority counties in Xinjiang. Zenz says this is the first time the world has a first-hand account of police operations from police computer centers. The records include statements and speeches by the former Xinjiang Party Secretary Chen Quanguo, who talks about the oppressive attitude of the Chinese government toward the Muslim minorities located in the region. He says the camps need to be defended and explains why the government has to move against the entire population. Xi Jinping will be challenged to explain these documents to a world already reeling from event in Ukraine.

China is both a complex and dangerous puzzle that no one is close to solving. It has strengths but also pervasive weaknesses and paranoia that could be exploited by the West. It may be time for democratic nations to use those weaknesses to teach China a lesson in how to behave as a responsible member in an international rules-based system. 

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Photo: Chinese aircraft carrier (China Defence Ministry)

The macro-Arctic geographic area is heating up politically this year with Russia announcing that it must meet two strategic goals to maintain its dominance over the northern region. The first is exploiting the overall region’s economic potential, according to Sergey Sukhankin of the Jamestown Foundation. He argues that Russia intends to accomplish this “through an intensification of exports of non-renewable energy resources and liquefied natural gas (LNG) in particular.” The second, just as concerning to Arctic Council states, is the development of a new Northern Sea Route. This evolving maritime transportation corridor is tangential to Russia’s coastline and will serve as a substitute for linking Asia to Europe in lieu of transiting the Suez Canal. 

While the concept of a year-round, open water route across the northern Arctic is not new, it does point to Russia’s reorientation toward Asia and key to it emerging as a major trading and geopolitical partner with China in the coming years. With Russia struggling to win its war in Ukraine, increased sanctions by Western states, and general world condemnation of its human rights abuses, Putin may find China one of the few countries willing to conduct business with his country. After Moscow released the first strategy document labeled “On the Development of the Arctic Zone and Ensuring National Security Until 2035,” it appeared Putin would be able to implement his strategy, according to Sukhankin. In January 2022, he points out, Russia’s gas giant Novatek concluded a long-term deal with China’s ENN Natural Gas and Zhejiang Energy. It commits Moscow to supplying 1 million tons of LNG per annum to the Chinese market for the next 15 years. A year before Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, Novatek had signed another LNG contract with the Chinese Shenergy Group. Although it appeared Russian strategy was working, since the February invasion of Ukraine, the Arctic policy has stalled.

As the war drags into it fourth month, Putin is facing four major challenges to his ambitious Arctic policy. Western sanctions, which restrict its supply of the advanced technology components needed for LNG production. In its fifth round of sanctions the European Union barred EU producers from directly or indirectly supply Russia, unlike the 2014 rules which allowed the world’s largest industrial gas company German Linde, to supply Putin with critical production technologies. In particular, the current sanctions are a major obstacle to Putin’s strategic Arctic LNG2 mega-project. Sukhankin says that the single domestically supplied LNG  project in Russia, is suffering from technical difficulties. Only states unfriendly to Russia have the large-scale liquefaction technology its needs to become a major play in the LNG marketplace. Prior to sanctions Russia purchased all the required technology from the US and Western Europe. 

The second challenge facing Putin is how to encourage foreign investors not to pull out of Arctic-based energy projects like the 50-50 Gydan Energy joint venture that Gazprom Neft has with Shell. This project, originally planned as the center of an Arctic energy cluster, was scheduled to open in 2028. French Total Energies and the Japanese firm Mitsui and KOGMEC already announced their intention to withdraw, leaving Russia unable to carry out financial transactions related to the LNG2 mega project. As foreign investors lose interest in working with Russia, a newer player also appears ready to leave the scene. Last week, rumors inside China appear to confirm that three of its largest energy firms – Sinopec, China National Offshore Oil and China National Petroleum Corp, along with five other large Chinese engineering companies, all are stalling on future investments according to a May 23 story in the Moscow Times. 

Decreased LNG production in the Arctic is the third challenge, as Putin is finding it more difficult to secure foreign funding. Domestically, large Russian banks, including Sber, Gazprombank, VEB.RF, and Otkrytie FC Bank, having come under sanctions. So far, Moscow has not found other funding for the mega-project. Sukhankin points to a fourth challenge – restricted Russian access to delivery methods. Reports indicate that the three largest shipbuilders in South Korea recently cancelled their $872 million contract to partner with Russian LNG producers to build large LNG ships to work in the Arctic. Although the loss of six ships is a huge blow to Russia, Sakhankin says there may be an even greater impact as Russia was in discussions to build an additional 15 ships with Korean-based Samsung Heavy Industries. If talks fail, which is likely, Russia’s Arctic strategy may fail. Although China and India may fill the gap, Russia’s grad Arctic strategy is facing serious blows since Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Most nations appear willing to forego the economic benefits to try to force Putin to abandon his war in Ukraine. Putin is faced with two choices in the Arctic. It is highly likely that he will be forced to shut down his future plans. If not, he may emerge as a more dangerous adversary to the free world.

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

Photo: Pixabay

Americans flocked to see the sequel to Top Gun, the popular classic that has served as an ode to American air power.

China has been less than thrilled about that, and is using their already heavy influence on U.S. media to express its displeasure. According to the Wall Street Journal, The Chinese tech firm Tencent Holdings, which had originally agreed to co-sponsor the film “backed out of the $170 million Paramount Pictures production after they grew concerned that Communist Party officials in Beijing would be angry about the company’s affiliation with a movie celebrating the American military.”

While the blockbuster Tom Cruise was released anyway, “The Chinese are financing some of your favorite films, buying theater chains, it is a growing trend. Major Chinese production companies teaming up with Tinseltown, which is leading to concerns over pro-China propaganda making its way into major American blockbusters” notes a Heritage study.

The Wall Street Journal had previously reported that Chinese companies engaged in $4.5 billion in purchases of Hollywood assets. “The new dynamic highlights Hollywood’s dependence on China, where the slightest change in state policy has ripple effects across the entertainment industry. China’s deep pockets have become a frequent topic of speculation and intrigue among entertainment executives, some of whom see the country as full of prospective buyers willing to pay high premiums for flashy Hollywood holdings.”

Some of China’s influence has been very overt.  Several years ago, a remake of the cult classic “Red Dawn” was originally scripted to portray China as the villain.  Beijing cracked its financial whip, and another nation was substituted.

An NBC Today review notes that “If you got to a movie theater right now, there’s a pretty good chance that the film you see will have been partially financed in China.”

To understand how China’s investment provides influence for the Beijing government, it must be understood that Chinese companies are subservient to and work diligently for China’s foreign policy. That, however, is only part of the story.  The appetite for films in China’s largest-in-the world population is vast, and even those Hollywood studies not financially dependent on China have a significant financial interest in producing movies that appeal to their worldview, even if that is detrimental to American interests.

Politico provides another example of the interrelationship between Chinese companies buying major stakes in Hollywood and Beijing’s political goals. Dalian Wanda is a Chinese firm that has intimate ties to the Chinese Communist Party, and it is intent on making major purchases of Hollywood assets. The publication asks,  asks “For American moviegoers, the peril lies in the unseen. Would a war movie called South China Sea ever play in one of Wanda’s theaters? What about an action flick with a Chinese villain?…When you control the movie experience, you can subtly influence public opinion. And the Chinese government — Wanda’s staunch supporter — has been transparent about that goal. The Communist Party has banned or currently bans thousands of books deemed controversial. It heavily censors the Internet, while Facebook and Twitter remain prohibited in China — one of the reasons Freedom House ranked it a more restrictive society than Iran and Saudi Arabia.”

China has succeeded in influencing citizens of the West in ways the former Soviet Union never had the sophistication to understand. Moscow may have (and still does) finance anti-defense spending advocates and those seeking to destroy American energy independence, Beijing, with its huge cash reserves, buys influence in major  influencing outlets, including Hollywood and academia.

Even more directly, China buys influence in major sources of information. The Times of India reports that Beijing buys or otherwise recruits influencers on such platforms as Facebook and TikTok.

Illustration: Pixabay

January Littlejohn has a 13 year old daughter who attends Deerlake Middle School in Tallahassee, Florida.  When her daughter expressed “gender confusion,”  “she and her husband brought their daughter to a councilor to help her work through her confusion and began doing research to understand the subject…weeks later…her daughter happily told her she had spoken with (school) officials about changing her name, and they’d asked her which bathroom she wanted to use.”

When Littlejohn called the school to discuss the issue, “(s)he was told by the school guidance councilor…that they could not disclose what had been talked about…and that Littlejohn’s daughter needed to give consent by-law for her parents to be informed about or be present for future discussions. ‘My 13-year-old daughter who can’t vote, drink, or enter into any other legal contract without our permission or input,’ Littlejohn said…after several weeks of back-and-forths with the school district, the principal finally showed her a ‘transgender non conforming student support plan’ that the school had filled out with her daughter.”  According to Littlejohn, “This was a six page document that she completed with the vice principal the guidance council, and a social worker I had never met.”

After the Littlejohn’s brought a lawsuit against the school, the case came to the attention of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who cited the experience of the Littlejohn family as the basis for the Parental Rights in Education Bill.  “The bill, which some opponents have called ‘Don’t Say Gay’…reads, ‘Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.’ Supporters of the legislation say it’s meant to allow parents to determine when and in what way to introduce LGBTQ topics to their children. It also gives parents an option to sue a school district if the policy is violated.” 

For most people, it is alarming for a school to act in any regards towards a child without the knowledge or consent of a parent.  However, at this point, we have also become used to the idea of “experts” knowing more about the raising of our children than the parents of those children.   “There are many ‘quirky kids,’ as described by pediatricians Dr. Perry Klass and Dr. Eileen Costello… There are ‘all kinds of minds,’ as described by Dr. Mel Levine… (y)our child may fit the descriptions at specific times but not at others….” 

In the Littlejohn case, the Deerlake Middle School only went so far as to “assist” their daughter with what name to use and what bathroom to use.  But what if the Littlejohn’s 13 year old wished to go further in her transition to another sexual identity?  What if she wished to physically change from a female to a male?

Gender Dysphoria and Transgenderism are difficult topics, but when it comes to the diagnosis and treatment of these “conditions” in adults, most people are in agreement – an adult can pretty much do anything they want, including undergoing gender reassignment surgery (Who pays for that surgery is a different source of dispute, and not the focus of this analysis).  But what about cases involving children with gender dysphoria?  What sort of treatment is recommended and made available for a minor with this “condition” by the “experts?”

Our review should begin with the legal definition of a child or minor.  Under federal law, “(t)he term ‘child’ means an individual under the age of 13.”    On the other hand, the definition of a “minor” is more fluid.  In general, a minor is “(a)n infant or person who is under the age of legal competence,” and all 50 states usually define the threshold for “legal competence” as 18.  

According to the International Center for Transgender Care, “(c)hildren who are transgender or gender non-conforming often benefit immensely from gender therapy.  Talking with an expert can assist the patient to clarify and accept their gender identity, cope with stigma related to gender diversity, and better manage distress related to gender dysphoria.  Additionally, because anxiety and depression are common in gender non-conforming youth, therapy…often focuses on treatment for these conditions.”  Further, “(s)o called “conversion therapies”, in which gender non-conforming individuals are subject to treatments that attempt to change their gender identity, are both harmful and unethical.” 

The National Health Service of the United Kingdom states that “(t)reatment for gender dysphoria aims to help people live the way they want to, in their preferred gender identity…(w)hat this means will vary from person to person, and is different for children, young people and adults…If your child is under 18 and may have gender dysphoria…(y)our child or teenager will be seen by a multidisciplinary team…including a; clinical psychologist; child psychotherapist; child and adolescent psychiatrist; family therapist; (and) social worker.”  The treatment centers around counseling and psychotherapy, however, “a referral to a specialist hormone (endocrine) clinic for hormone blockers for children who meet strict criteria (at puberty)” can be made, however, the NHS warns that “(m)ost treatments offered at this stage are psychological rather than medical. This is because in many cases gender variant behaviour or feelings disappear as children reach puberty.”  

The NHS also gives a comprehensive review of the effects of puberty blockers on minors; 

“Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria. Although…this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be. It’s also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children’s bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations. From the age of 16, teenagers who’ve been on hormone blockers for at least 12 months may be given cross-sex hormones, also known as gender-affirming hormones. These hormones cause some irreversible changes, such as: breast development (caused by taking oestrogen) (and) breaking or deepening of the voice (caused by taking testosterone) Long-term cross-sex hormone treatment may cause temporary or even permanent infertility…(t)here is some uncertainty about the risks of long-term cross-sex hormone treatment.” 

American medical providers also admit that use of puberty blockers have unknown future consequences.  According to the Mayo Clinic, “Use of (puberty blockers) might also have long-term effects on…(f)uture fertility — depending on when pubertal blockers are started.”    The Children’s Hospital of St Louis notes that “(t)he U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved puberty blockers for children who start puberty at a young age,” however, “(w)hile puberty blockers are generally considered safe, they have some side effects< including “(l)ower bone density…(l)ess development of genital tissue,” and of course, “(o)ther possible long-term side effects that are not yet known.” 

In general, according to Politifact, “(p)rofessional organizations such as the Endocrine Society recommend against puberty blockers for children who have not reached puberty, and recommend that patients be at least 16 years old before beginning hormone treatments for feminization or masculinization of the body. The last step in transitioning to another gender, gender reassignment surgery, is only available to those 18 and older in the United States. The onset of puberty is the baseline for medical intervention. Puberty typically occurs between ages 10 and 14 for girls and 12 and 16 for boys.” 

Given the dangers inherent in the use of the puberty blocking drugs described above, at least 15 states have laws under consideration to restrict access to certain medical procedures by children identifying as transgender.    But of these 15, only one has actually passed such protection of children into law.

In April of this year, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey signed the Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act, “to prohibit the performance of a medical procedure or the prescription or issuance of medication, upon or to a minor child, that is intended to alter the minor child’s gender or delay puberty.”  Section 2 provides the rationale for the act; “The long-term effects and safety of the administration of puberty-blocking medications and cross sex hormones to gender incongruent children have not been rigorously studied. Absent rigorous studies showing their long-term safety and positive benefits, their continued administration to children constitutes dangerous and uncontrolled human medical experimentation that may result in grave and irreversible consequences to their physical and mental health.”

Given the medical opinions cited above, the Alabama law would appear to be a reasonable measure, intended to protect children from the admittedly unknown side and long-term effects of puberty blockers.  Reasonable minds should be able to agree that someone as young as 13 years old should not be prescribed a drug that could lower their bone density, or cause permanent infertility.  But the minds of those employed by the Department of Justice are not so reasonable.

“The Justice Department (has) filed a complaint…challenging Alabama’s (law) which bans transgender treatments for children. The DOJ asserts that criminalizing the sexual transition of children is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment on the grounds of equal protection…'(the Alabama law) discriminates against transgender youth by denying them access to certain forms of medically necessary care’ the Department of Justice wrote.” 

DOJ’s complaint cites to their own experts;  “The American Academy of Pediatrics agrees that gender-affirming care is safe, effective, and medically necessary treatment for the health and wellbeing of some children and adolescents suffering from gender dysphoria… (a)s transgender youth reach puberty, puberty delaying therapy may become medically necessary and appropriate for some minors according to the Endocrine Society’s clinical practice guidelines.” 

The complaint does not deny the side effects and long term issues described by other medical groups – instead,” during puberty suppression, an adolescent’s physical development should be carefully monitored, preferably by a pediatric endocrinologist, so that any necessary interventions can occur.” How that pediatric endocrinologist will prevent permanent infertility, or other unknown side effects remains unclear. 

Nonetheless, the heart of the complaint filed by the DOJ is an allegation that the Alabama law  “discriminates both on the basis of sex and on the basis of transgender status, each in violation of the Equal Protection Clause (of the United States Constitution).”  Further, Alabama’s Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act “is not substantially related to achieving Alabama’s articulated important governmental interests…(and) is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.”

To most reasonable minds, the protection of children from the unforeseen consequences of puberty blockers would appear to be a “legitimate government interest,” and a law designed to criminalize the prescription of such drugs “substantially related to achieve” that interest.  But don’t count on Alabama’s law being upheld.  Alabama falls under the 11th Circuit, and there the leading case is Glenn v. Brumby.  Though the case involved an employee fired by his employer once the employee announced their intention to undergo gender transition surgery, the principal is the same: 

“The Equal Protection Clause requires the State to treat all persons similarly situated alike or, conversely, to avoid all classifications that are “arbitrary or irrational” and those that reflect “a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group” (citation omitted)… The question here is whether discriminating against someone on the basis of his or her gender non-conformity constitutes sex-based discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause…we hold that it does… discrimination against a transgender individual because of her gender-nonconformity is sex discrimination, whether it’s described as being on the basis of sex or gender… a government agent violates the Equal Protection Clause’s prohibition of sex-based discrimination when he or she fires a transgender or transsexual employee because of his or her gender non-conformity.” 

Whether or not this analysis will apply to a law meant to protect children from being rendered permanently infertile remains to be seen.  But there is little cause for optimism.

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

Photo: Pixabay (Alabama State Capital)

Aggressive and dangerous threats from Russia, China, and to a lesser extent North Korea and Iran threaten America’s defense space infrastructure.

More than any other nation, the U.S. is dependent on orbital assets for defense.  Civilian life is tied in, as well. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) notes that “Space-based capabilities impact many day-to-day aspects of the American way of life. They enable functions that affect our homes, transportation, electric power grids, banking and communications. From watching television, to predicting weather patterns to avoiding traffic on our daily commutes, satellites enable many real-time conveniences that have become integral to our daily lives. On the national security front, space-based capabilities afford the United States and our allies with crucial ability to project combat power to areas of conflict and instability. They enable our armed forces to collect vital intelligence on foreign threats, navigate and maneuver rapidly, and communicate with one another to support global military and humanitarian crises.”

America’s adversaries fully comprehend this reality. They are taking steps to undercut the United States and our allies in the space domain. According to the DIA, China and Russia, in particular, are developing various means to exploit the perceived U.S. reliance on  space-based systems and challenge the U.S. position in the space domain.² Beijing and Moscow seek  to position themselves as leading space powers, intent on creating new global space norms. Through  the use of space and counterspace capabilities, they aspire to undercut U.S. global leadership. Iran and  North Korea will continue to develop and operate electronic warfare (EW) capabilities to deny or degrade  space-based communications and navigation.

The DIA acknowledges that Russia and China “view space as a requirement for winning modern wars, especially against Western nations, and look to prove themselves as world leaders. Since early 2019, competitor space operations have increased in pace and scope across nearly all major categories — communications, remote sensing, navigation, and science and technology demonstration.”

Senior defense analyst Kevin Ryder warns that “China and Russia value superiority in space. And as a result, they’ll seek ways to strengthen their space and counter-space programs and determine better ways to integrate them within their respective militaries…Beijing and Moscow have integrated space-based capabilities into their individual, national and warfighting strategies with the intent of denying the United States a space-enabled advantage. 

Evidence of both nations’ intent to undercut the United States and allied leadership in the space domain can be seen in the growth of combined in-orbit assets of China and Russia, which grew approximately 70% in just two years. This recent and continuing expansion follows a more than 200% increase between 2015 and 2018.”

In a troubling new report, “Challenges to Security in Space — 2022,” the DIA reveals that China has launched multiple missiles, capable of destroying satellites, and deployed mobile jammers to deny satellite communications and GPS. Moscow on the other hand, has developed a suite of counter-space weapons capabilities, including electronic warfare, to deny, degrade, and disrupt communications, and to not – to deny the use of space-based imagery. Russia is also developing a mobile missile that is able to destroy satellites and crewed space vehicles. The report stresses that “Now as the number of spacefaring nations grow, and counter-space capabilities become more integrated into military operations, the U.S. Space Posture will be increasingly challenged and orbit assets will face new risk.”

U.S. Representative Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces warns that “The threats we see from China and Russia have only increased since…last year. China has demonstrated on orbit the ability to grapple with another satellite and drag it to another orbit. Russia has demonstrated a ground launched anti-satellite weapon against one of its own satellites resulting in a dangerous field of debris that the world is still dealing with.”

 Illustration: Russia’s  Nudol PL-19, anti-satellite weapon (Russian Defence Ministry)

Advancing a political agenda using disinformation amounts to a form of non-kinetic warfare lethal to fledgling democratic institutions. In recent years the African continent has been the targeted by at least 16 separate disinformation campaigns by Russia, among others. The massive effort is inclusive of millions of false and misleading social media postings subtly designed to disable critical thinking in the population and instill confusion and mistrust of local, democratic-leaning, African leaders. Russia, the main culprit, employs a dezinformatsyia campaign strategy first initiated by Joseph Stalin. Today its tactics are fragmenting and weakening civil society in the region and destroying nascent democratic movements. Russia’s success in Africa has inspired other foreign governments and domestic actors to use a similar strategy for their own ends. 

Increasingly sophisticated influence operations are contributing to the current political instability across the continent. In the strategically important Sahel region of West Africa alone there have been a number of military takeovers during the last 19 months. “Campaigns on Facebook appear to have prepared the ground for many of the coups, pushing an anti-western, pro-Russian agenda that has undermined governments. The efforts are similar to the “hybrid warfare” campaign launched by Moscow in Ukraine and elsewhere,” according to the Guardian’s African Correspondent, Jason Burke. 

Digital Forensics Lab (DFL), a group run by the Atlantic Council, recently exposed pro-Russian Facebook groups coordinating support for anti-democracy protests. In some cases their actions go beyond virtual  campaigns. The online groups involved the secretive Wagner group, a controversial Russian private military contractor, that was invited into Mali last year after the overthrow of its President Bah N’daw by the country’s armed forces. Analysts in Washington point to Yevgeny Prigozhin, a well-positioned Wagner businessman closely linked to Vladimir Putin, as the source of funding for the mercenaries in Mozambique, Sudan, Libya and in Central African Republic. An independent group of UN specialists reports that approximately 400-600 Wagner group fighters are committing human rights abuses as they fight with government forces to suppress rebels in the area. 

Tessa Knight, a South Africa-based researcher with DFL said in an Africa Center for Strategic Studies (ACSS) report that every time she … “set[s] out to search for coordinated disinformation in advance of an election or around conflicts, I have found it. I have not investigated an online space in Africa and not found disinformation…a lot of people are not aware of the scale…that is happening in Africa and how much it is distorting information networks.” Knight says that Facebook places a lower priority on removing inauthentic material from disinformation campaigns on Africa pages. Removal also appears  to be a lower priority for Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, and WhatsApp. ACSS reports that allowing these networks to operate, including in the Sahel, is reflective of a larger disinclination by Facebook and other social media corporations to admit that are adding destabilizing and incendiary material to the information environment and at times aiding mercenaries in the region. ACSS notes that “In response to claims by social media giants that they are trying to be neutral, analysts contend that allowing intentionally false content to be amplified on their platforms is itself a bias and contributes to actively shaping information systems in a way that is damaging for informed democratic discourse.”

Documented pro-Russian campaigns beginning on March 2, 2022, in Ghana, South Africa, and Nigeria produced 23 million tweets with the hashtag “I stand with Putin” and “I stand with Russia.” In Nigeria, social media accounts of 618 legitimate journalists were hacked and used to post 766 unauthorized messages to spread pro-Kremlin narratives about the Ukrainian war.  In Kenya, 37,000 verified social media accounts received funds to push out 23,000 tweets under 31 artificial hashtags on one single network. The goal, according to Kenyan authorities was to distort public opinion, discredit journalists, and target activists. Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger also suffered attacks on Facebook. Accounts with over 140,000 followers had 24,000 messages inserted, one-third of which were posted within a 60-second period in a leadup to elections in Mali. Last year in Sudan the disinformation network campaign gained a following of over 440,000 user accounts. 

The Russian military strategy of “ambiguous warfare” is expansive across Africa and threatens to destabilize many of the movements for reform while also attempting to prop up old dictatorships friendly to Moscow. Joseph Siegle of ACSS noted that “While projecting the image of a Great Power, Russia relies on asymmetric tactics to gain influence and pursue its strategic objectives in Africa…. by capturing the allegiance of politically isolated leaders.” External actors like Russia are colluding with senior African political leaders and institutions, making huge profits, and leaving African citizens foot the bill. 

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Illustration: Pixabay

Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong is touring the Pacific and she is not alone.

Chinese Foreign Affairs Minister Wang Yi also is Island-hopping across the Indo-Pacific, visiting eight states in 10 days between May 26 and June 4, in a political influence competition between the two large Asian nations. He is working simultaneously to limit the US role in the Pacific east of Singapore. Beijing is not succumbing to the Biden’s Administration’s attempt to contain China but, instead, ramping up its efforts to contain democratic efforts. Wang Yi on Thursday arrived in the Solomon Islands to discuss the role of smaller states in the Pacific and how they can avoid the “domination” of the United States and other democratic countries. The Foreign Minister made the Solomon Islands government promises of extensive economic aid and security from Beijing without many of the restrictions demanded by western largesse. Wangi Yi  repeated his mantra at each stop that less free countries are not required to follow democratic practices to receive Chinese aid. Beijing’s offers are enticing to more authoritarian leaders with records of human rights abuses, corruption, and other issues of concern to the West that might eliminate their ability to receive aid from democratic states.

Wang Yi, along with an entourage of 20 other Chinese officials, are traveling to the Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, and East Timor. Although small in size, these islands are strategically located at ground zero in Indo-Pacific great power competition. Leaders of these countries see it as an opportune time to bargain for millions in aid from China to build infrastructure projects. Western aid tends to be centered more on humanitarian needs, including health care, education, and housing. Pacific leaders appear lately to be more intrigued by Chinese offers to build airports, stadiums, and cities. 

The region lies less than 1,200 miles from Australia and is vitally important to Canberra’s trade and maritime commercial transportation routes. The Australian Foreign Minister is dealing with Indo-Pacific states receiving lucrative Chinese offers that are difficult to match. While some leaders, such as David Panuelo, president of the Federated States of Micronesia, remain distrustful of Beijing’s motives for offering aid, others are tempted by the size of the funding and lack of restrictions. Reuter’s Kirsty Needham reports that “China will seek a region-wide deal with almost a dozen Pacific Island countries covering policing, security and data communication cooperation when Foreign Minister Wang Yi hosts a meeting in Fiji next week.” 

The Chinese government sent a draft communique to 10 Pacific Island states ahead of the May 30 Foreign Ministerial meeting in Fiji. It contained the China-Pacific Island Countries Common Development Vision, a five-year action plan that has raised concerns among some of the states who fear Beijing’s moves will destabilize the region and lead to conflict. Needham notes that “In a letter to 21 Pacific leaders seen by Reuters, the president of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), David Panuelo, said his country would argue the “pre-determined joint communique” should be rejected, because he feared it could spark a new “Cold War” between China and the West. State Department spokesman Ned Price said the US is concerned about the lack of transparency and rushed process. “We don’t believe that importing security forces from the PRC and their methods will help any Pacific Island country,” he pointed out. “Doing so can only seek to fuel regional and international tension and increase concerns over Beijing’s expansion of its internal apparatus to the Pacific.”

At a press briefing in Beijing prior to his departure Wany Yi refuted the idea that Chinese aid could lead to confrontation and insisted instead that it would “consolidate mutual political trust, expand practical cooperation, deepen people-to-people ties and jointly build a closer community of destiny among China’s Pacific Island countries.” In Washington, Price responded that “It’s worth noting that PRC has a pattern of offering shadowy, vague deals with little transparency or regional consultation in areas related to fishing, related to resource management, development assistance and more recently, even security practices.” 

Such a plan would intricately link the Pacific states to Beijing. The proposed action document itself is extensive and contains sections on law enforcement capacity and police cooperation, the development of Chinese forensics laboratories, cooperation on data networks, cyber security, smart customs systems. According to Needham, “The action plan outlines a ministerial dialogue on law enforcement capacity and police cooperation in 2022, and China providing forensic laboratories. The draft communique also pledges cooperation on data networks, cyber security, smart customs systems and, according to Needham, “a balanced approach” on technological progress, economic development, national security, a China-Pacific Islands Free Trade Area, and action on climate change. 

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

Photo: Pixabay

As Russian missiles rain down on Ukraine’s oil and fuel sector infrastructure, tensions between Moscow and the Circassians, both those living inside Russia and abroad, have reached a boiling point, according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. Located in territory inside Russia, north of Georgia, and extending down toward Armenia and Turkey, the indigenous Circassian population has longed for their freedom for well over a century. Last Saturday Putin prohibited the annual celebration commemorating the deportation of Circassians from their homeland inside Russia 168 years ago and threatened to arrest anyone who participated in events marking the date.

In 1864, the Russian Czar committed what the Circassian people call an ethnic cleansing or “genocide” of the minority population. Later, under the Soviet Union, the population was divided into various subgroups and multiple, artificially contrived administrative territories in an effort to suppress the Circassian’s desire for their own national identity in a single Circassian Republic. Today, Putin fears he is facing a reinvigorated population supported by overseas Circassians. He is determined to ensure that the 5 million living abroad cannot return to their homeland and change the ethnic mix in the North Caucasus region. Putin is using the Duma to try to pass legislation to keep the area permanently divided and the diaspora from returning home under the guise of maintaining stability in the region.

Circassians living inside Russia recently made strong public declarations of solidarity with the Ukrainian people who are resisting Putin’s “special military operation.” The population also is growing increasingly angry over Putin’s suppression of the identities of other minority peoples living inside the Russian Federation. Goble argues that the risk of armed conflict in the region is growing more acute and may develop into an outright clash in the coming weeks. “…the Circassians have fought back, viewing the much-delayed 2020 Russian census as a means to reunite Kabards, Cherkess, Adygeys and other parts of the Circassian nation under a single “Circassian” umbrella,” he says. 

Fewer than 700,000 Circassians live inside Russian territory today. In 1864 many fled to Syria to avoid genocide. Putin is concerned now that those Circassians living inside worn-torn Syria want to return to their homeland and will emerge as a long-term threat to Russian control of the territory and ultimately lead to its de-Russification. Stanislav Ivanov, a senior historian at IMEMO in the Russian Academy of Sciences, noted that “the project of a Greater Circassia has real support and a sufficient number of supporters abroad and in the North Caucasus.” In a February 22, 2022, Jamestown Foundation report, Goble pointed out that “If the two come together, he [Stanislav] warns in the influential Voyenno-Promyshlenny Kuryer, it will almost inevitably create serious problems for Russian rule.” 

Fatima Tlis, a longtime Circassian activist with the Voice of America, recently shared a copy of her remarks made in a video presentation to the European Parliament, notes Goble. She argued that “it is imperative for the restoration of peace and security in Europe that we understand the roots of Russia’s brutality and violence” in Ukraine “because the seeds of Bucha had been planted in Sochi and hundreds of towns and villages of Circassia that exist no longer… Russia shattered the Circassian territory into different artificial provinces to further marginalize the nation and break its unity and political significance.”

The new emerging political energy generated by movements in- and outside Russia concerns Putin, who fears that calls for independence will incite other populations to rebel against Russian authority. Putin is wrong in believing that inside the body of every Ukrainian beats a Russian heart. He also is wrong that he can suppress Circassians who view themselves, like Ukrainians, as a people distinct from Russians. As Russophobia spreads across the world, Western leaders must consider how far Putin is willing to go to achieve his territorial objectives. If the Russian leader cannot conquer Ukraine, he may choose instead to move east and south into the Caucasus and attempt a second annihilation of the Circassian population. Russia’s other “special military operation” in Syria cost hundreds of thousands of lives. It is not beyond the ken to be gravely concerned that Putin could move the war east and commit a new genocide. Strategically positioned between the European and Asian oil export markets, the region bridges the East with the West. NATO abuts Russia’s sphere of influence there and it is an oil-rich area which Chechen-trained fighters, along with their financial networks, are aiding jihadi groups fighting in and around Syria. Its importance to Russia is not lost on Putin.

Daria served in the U.S, State Department

Photo: Caucasus mountains

While the existential threats in the Indo-Pacific and Europe command the headlines, there are other significant hotspots across the globe that cannot be ignored.  Marine Corps Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., commander of U.S. Central Command, and Army Gen. Stephen J. Townsend, commander of U.S. Africa Command recently outlined threats in the Middle East and Africa.

They stressed that China, Russia, Iran and terrorist organizations continue to engage in malign activities in the Middle East and Africa.

In the Middle East, “Iran continues to pose the greatest threat to U.S. interests and the security of the region as a whole,” General McKenzie said. “They supply weapons to proxies and client states in an arc from Yemen through the Arabian Peninsula, across Iraq and Syria into Lebanon, and up to the very borders of Israel. Saudi Arabia endures regular attacks from the Houthis, who — courtesy of the Iranians — have some of the most advanced unmanned aerial systems and cruise missiles in the region. Recently, the Houthis have expanded these attacks to include urban centers and bases where U.S. forces reside in the United Arab Emirates.”

Iran’s ballistic missile forces can constitute a threat to the security of every state in the region, and perhaps globally, as well.  There are estimates that the terrorist state could soon have nuclear weapons.

U.S. intelligence sources note that “Iran will continue to threaten U.S. interests as it tries to erode U.S. influence in the Middle East, entrench its influence and project power in neighboring states, and minimize threats to regime stability.Tehran will try to leverage its expanding nuclear program, proxy and partner forces, diplomacy, and military sales and acquisitions to advance its goals. The Iranian regime sees itself as locked in an existential struggle with the United States and its regional allies, while it pursues its longstanding ambitions for regional leadership.

Tehran has a long-term vision of molding itself into a pan-Islamic power that will threaten U.S. persons directly and via proxy attacks, particularly in the Middle East. Iran also remains committed to developing networks inside the United States—an objective it has pursued for more than a decade.Iranian-supported proxies will launch attacks against U.S. forces and persons in Iraq and Syria, and on other countries and regions.

China and Russia are also watching closely for any sign that the U.S. commitment to the collective security of the region is wavering, and they’re poised to capitalize on whatever opportunities emerge.

Further south, Russia and China see Africa’s rich potential in terms of resources and strategic partnerships, note Department of Defense officials. Both countries seek to convert soft- and hard-power investments into political influence, strategic access, and economic and diplomatic engagements. They also seek to buttress autocracies and change international norms in a patient effort. The Pentagon notes that “terrorism has metastasized to Africa.”

Threats include terrorist groups al-Qaida and al-Shabab in East Africa and al-Qaida and ISIS in West Africa and elsewhere, representing one of the world’s fastest growing, wealthiest and deadliest terrorist groups.  They remain grave and growing threats that aspire to kill Americans, both abroad and within the U.S. itself.

Over 1 billion people reside in Africa, a figure that may double by 2050, when the continent will represent a quarter of the world’s population. 60 percent of that vast population will be under 25 years old.

Photo: Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy Harth 55 vessel, (background) conducted an unsafe and unprofessional action by crossing the bow of the U.S. Coast Guard patrol boat Monomoy, as the U.S. vessel was conducting a routine maritime security patrol in international waters in the southern Persian Gulf, April 2, 2021. (DoD photo)