Author: Daria Novak

Oh, what troubled webs China and Russia weave….

Last week China abstained from voting to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the United Nations. Domestically the CCP is curtailing discussion of the invasion on Chinese social media sites. At the same time this week Beijing pledged $790,000 in aid to Ukraine. It isn’t the only pledge Beijing has made to the country. In December 2013, President Xi Jinping met with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in Beijing and signed a promise to defend the independent European country if threatened with a nuclear attack. Although the agreement was not specific in its guarantees, it was typical of Chinese pledges of protection to other non-nuclear states. The reason behind the nine-year-old agreement, only available in Chinese, still baffles nuclear experts. Now that Russia has moved its nuclear forces to a high alert level China faces the potential of responding to Russian aggression toward Ukraine or reneging on its unconditional pledge of support if an invasion of Ukrainian sovereign territory morphs into a nuclear conflict. Putin can’t be happy with China taking a back seat as the world unites against Russia.

A review of Chinese media indicates that Beijing is attempting to back peddle on its commitment to Ukraine by using nuanced language to cloud the issue. Beijing is known for using the connotative meanings of words to interpret documents to China’s advantage. The 2013 agreement with Ukraine is no different. The Chinese government security document uses the word “bao zheng” or “guarantee,” to describe the agreement rather than a more vague term meaning only to “make an assurance.” Today Xi Jinping is moving toward public descriptions more akin to Chinese assurances than an actual guarantee of assistance. While this is of help to Russia, it is not a strong policy of support for Moscow.

Western and Chinese legal agreements differ in many respects. One divisive area typical encountered encompasses the Chinese notion of the “spirit of an agreement.” Intention is a legally binding concept under Chinese law that allows for violations of a written document under certain circumstances. Unlike Western contracts that include extensive Terms and Conditions detailing the possible issues in a dispute, China’s agreements typically are not strictly adhered to by either the government or business community. In China, the “spirit” of an agreement refers to the notion that the parties intend to abide by the agreement unless conditions referred to change from the time of its signing. In China the legal system recognizes changes in environment and, thus, the “spirit of the agreement” to provide flexibility in the terms without Western-style penalties. China is looking to the “spirit” of the agreement with Ukraine as circumstances have changed.

Today Russia maintains a strategic partnership of convenience with China. Nine years ago, Moscow had a similar relationship with Ukraine while China was working to establish its first Belt and Road Initiative in Europe. At the time it appeared China was ready to reap the benefits of aligning with Ukraine. There was no Russo-Ukrainian conflict brewing yet over Crimea to complicate the bilateral relationship. In 2015 China formalized the Kiev agreement when the National People’s Congress rubber-stamped it. However, Ukraine has moved toward improving its relations with NATO and the European Union. China views this as Kiev making changes to the surrounding circumstances while Moscow recognizes it as an increased threat environment impacting Russia’s national security. 

The publicity generated from the China-Ukraine agreement recently may be driving a small wedge into the China-Russia relationship. Analysts in the West are not sure. The BBC is reporting that Douyin, China’s version of Tiktok, removed 498 videos and 2,657 conflict comments in the last week. When Chinese media does report on the situation in Russian engagement in Ukraine it does not call it a “war” or an “invasion.” 

Disinformation campaigns out of Russia are repeated on Chinese platforms as the truth. Russian state-controlled media is on air in China, where most others are blocked. China Digital Times is reporting that instructions issued to media by the central regulator the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) this month call on “commercial websites, local and self-published media” not to “conduct livestreams or use hashtags” about the Ukraine conflict. 

Chinese leaders are not comfortable taking sides this week. Xi Jinping is a strategic thinker who sees that Putin is in trouble and he is distancing China from Russia. He does not want the same negative commentary to befall the leadership in Beijing, especially as it appears Putin is not winning the war as easily as expected. Walking along the top of a fence without falling off on one side or the other is difficult. So far, China has adeptly steered clear of the worst scenarios. Putin may not be so lucky if the world continue to stand strong against the dictator from Moscow.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin have developed a convenient and close relationship in recent years. When Putin was planning to invade Ukraine, he first consulted with the Chinese leader. Analysts report that Xi asked Putin to wait until after the conclusion of the Olympic games being held in Beijing. Putin obliged. As the Russian invasion of Ukraine drags into its third week, Russian soldiers are starting to run out of food rations, with some looting homes for any food they can find to survive. It suggests Russia was not prepared for an extended period of conflict. 

This week Moscow was forced to reach out to China to request shipments of MRE rations for its soldiers in the field. Given the cold weather in Ukraine and the physical exertion of the fight, soldiers need 4,000 – 6,000 calories a day. According to James Palmer, writing in Foreign Policy, China doesn’t have a large enough stockpile of MRE’s to fulfill Russia needs. The US developed self-heating MRE’s in the late 1970’s. China’s version was not ready until 13 years ago. It was considered inedible and contained only 1,000 calories. Chinese soldiers normally are fed cooked meals by one of the 10,000 chefs that graduate from the PLA cooking school each year. 

While something as simple as a hot meal on a battlefield may not appear powerful enough alone to cause Russia to lose a war, it may be enough to push Xi Jinping into reconsidering his immediate urge for military adventures outside of Chinese territory. Logistics and wartime experience can determine who wins a conflict. Xi may be coming to the realization that while China possesses modern weapons system and advanced technologies, it is not ready to go to war with untried troops and questionable supply lines against a foreign military power.

China’s last foreign expedition ended in failure in northern Vietnam in 1979. China was so ill-prepared that when its soldiers left bags of cement in their “hidey holes” high in the jungle mountains to go out on patrol, they often got lost. In the meantime, Vietnamese soldiers took over the positions, used the cement to reinforce the emplacements, and routed the Chinese when they wandered back. The odds of China providing support to Russia in Ukraine appear to be moving in favor of China distancing itself from Russia’s invasion. Earlier this week, senior Chinese diplomat Yang Jiechi and US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan met in Rome for seven hours of discussions. Ukraine dominated the conversation, according to those close to the meeting. 

China does not appear ready to fully back Russian aggression. At home the country is facing a new round of Covid with a high Omicron infection rate and a stagnating economy. Xi Jinping also has some in the CCP who are arguing that a third major issue is too much for Beijing to handle right now. The global outbreak of strong support for Ukraine also may be contributing to Chinese caution. Xi Jinping, arguably, is a better strategist than Vladimir Putin. Odds are he understands that China’s best course of action right now is to remain neutral. Beijing’s ambassador in Washington wrote in a Washington Post OpEd this week that to think otherwise is the result of disinformation. 

In another article by Hu Wei, vice-chairman of the Public Policy Research Center of the Counselor’s Office of the Chinese State Council, he argues that “Being in the same boat with Putin will impact China should he lose power. Unless Putin can secure victory with China’s backing, a prospect which looks bleak at the moment, China does not have the clout to back Russia.” Hu suggests that China needs to avoid being isolated if Russia fails to secure a victory. Moving away off from Putin and giving up neutrality will help build China’s international image and ease its relations with the US and the West. China’s window of opportunity will only be open for another two weeks or so. It will require determination on the part of Xi and the senior CCP leadership. China cannot walk the fencepost for much longer. Palmer suggests that there are three main opinions inside the Chinese government at the moment. There are those in the diplomatic corps who recognize that China signed a pledge to defend Ukraine only a few years ago. 

Nationalist entrepreneurs form a second opinion group as they have done well by taking strong anti-US positions in the past. Third, is the PLA who from their military academies to their high command, believe in the conspiracy theories espoused by Moscow. Xi Jinping has little time left to sort out his country’s position regarding Russia’s invasion and just as short a period to determine if it is the optimal time to act aggressively toward Taiwan or conduct military operations elsewhere in the South or East China Seas.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department, specializing in China

Photo: PRC Soldiers assigned to a combined-arms move forward in coordination with infantry fighting vehicles in a tactical exercise on February 18, 2022. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Yuan Kai)

In what may prove to be a watershed moment in the debate over the Biden Administrations’ border policy, the Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Mark Brnovich, has issued a formal legal opinion on whether “the federal government has failed—intentionally or unintentionally—to uphold its obligations to protect our state from invasion under Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.” That provision states that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.”

The legal findings of the Opinion conclude that the vast numbers of aliens entering the nation illegally, and the violence and lawlessness at the border caused by transnational cartels and gangs satisfies the definition of an “invasion” under the U.S. Constitution.

The document quotes a former Acting ICE Director who said “[t]his isn’t just about illegal immigration. … this is about public safety, because the Border Patrol has arrested over 12,000 … convicted criminals. So how many of the … almost 500,000 ‘gotaways’ based on camera traffic, based on sensor traffic, based on drone traffic that the Border Patrol couldn’t respond to … were criminals or gang members? Also, Border Patrol has already arrested 16 people on the FBI screening database. How many of that 500,000 are known or suspected terrorists? We don’t know. I’m afraid someday we’re going to find out. So this isn’t just an illegal immigration problem. It’s a public health crisis because of COVID. It’s a public safety crisis. And there’s a national security crisis of huge proportions.”

The Opinion goes on to stress that “Arizona is facing an unprecedented crisis at its 370-mile border with Mexico. Acting as if they are above the law, Mexican and Central American cartels are engaging in brazen attacks on Arizona, trafficking in drugs and human beings. President Biden himself has affirmed that ‘drug cartels and human traffickers’ are ‘actual threats’ to our country.” While admitting this, however, Biden has failed to take appropriate action to defend the nation from this criminal invasion.

 The legal document stresses that the “federal government’s failure to secure the border and protect Arizona from invasion is dangerous and unprecedented.” It also maintains that, in the absence of appropriate protection from the federal government, the state has the right to defend itself.

The Opinion states that “Thankfully, the Founders foresaw that States might need to protect themselves from invasion and made clear in the Constitution that States retain the sovereign power to defend themselves within their own territory. As discussed above, “actually invaded” and “invasion” in the State Self-Defense and Invasion Clauses is not limited to hostile foreign states but includes hostile nonstate actors. Arizona therefore has the power to defend itself from this invasion under the Governor’s authority as Commander-in-Chief. An actual invasion permits the State to engage in defensive actions within its own territory at or near its border.”

Brnovich is not alone. In September, Florida’s Attorney General Ashley Moody sued the Biden Administration.  The complaint stated that “The Southwest border is in crisis, with record numbers of migrants illegally entering our country. While some arriving migrants have legitimate asylum claims, many do not. Some are gang members and drug traffickers exploiting the crisis at the border, as evidenced by the skyrocketing amount of Fentanyl seized at the border this year… While some arriving migrants have legitimate asylum claims, many do not. Some are gang members and drug traffickers exploiting the crisis at the border, as evidenced by the skyrocketing amount of Fentanyl seized at the border this year… The Biden Administration is ignoring … requirements. It has released at least 225,000 illegal border crossers since taking office including ‘[a]bout 50,000’ whom the government released without initiating immigration court proceedings as required by law. This practice was apparently authorized by ‘[g]uidance sent to border patrol . . . from agency leadership,’ which has not been made public, and which appears to claim broad “prosecutorial discretion” to ignore the requirements of the immigration laws. The government is not free to ignore the clear commands of Congress. It has claimed that it lacks the resources and detention capacity to process the surge of migrants arriving at the border. But the Biden Administration has actively sought to eliminate measures that increase its resources and detention capacity, such as the Migrant Protection Protocols (also known as the ‘wait in Mexico policy’,) and has even asked Congress to reduce the number of immigration detention beds available to it. Further, it is the Biden Administration’s misguided policies that have encouraged more migrants to make the dangerous journey to the United States. The government cannot, therefore, use a purported lack of resources as an excuse to ignore congressional mandates.”

Picture: Rio Grande (Pixabay)

The United States faces an increasingly profound threat in its own hemisphere. Russia is significantly engaged in military activities aimed at the U.S., and is preparing for even more worrisome moves.

In testimony to Congress, Admiral Craig S. Faller, the Commander of the United States Southern Command  stated that “Russia doubled its naval deployments in this region, going from five (2008-2014), to 11 (2015-2020). Russia is trying to make inroads in the hemisphere by providing security training and has conducted $2.3 billion in weapons and military equipment sales in the last 10 years. At the same time, Moscow is working to discredit the U.S. by flooding the region’s information space with disinformation, to include hundreds of articles distorting U.S. security actions. In 2020, Russian Spanish-language media outlets more than doubled their social media followers from 7 million to over 18 million.”

The Russian news source RT, which generally speaks directly for the Kremlin, recently proclaimed that Moscow is considering a “drastic response” to Washington’s concern about recent Russian aggression in Europe, stating “…as Russia and China assert their opposition to the US-led world order, American dominance in the [Latin American/Caribbean] region is beginning to look a little shaky… In the past few weeks, President Vladimir Putin has held telephone conversations with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, all countries with whom Washington has very poor relations. According to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, agreement was reached with all three “to deepen our strategic partnership, with no exceptions, including military and military-technical…”

A much-discussed extreme option would involve going back to 1962 and placing missiles in Cuba or Venezuela. Given that Russia now has missiles with hypersonic capabilities, this would give it the capacity to strike the US in a matter of minutes, rendering any defense impossible.

In a recent phone call, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel, the Kremlin discussed a “strategic partnership.” Similar to what Nikita Khrushchev and Fidel Castro engaged in the 1960’s, leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis.  A similar relationship has developed between Moscow and Venezuela. The Center for Strategic Studies reports  that “Since 1999, Venezuela has borrowed billions of dollars from Russia to finance the buildup of its military arsenal. Though not a comprehensive list, Venezuela has purchased S-300 anti-aircraft missiles, Igla-S man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS), and multiuse aircraft, helicopters, and T-72 tanks.”

Putin is clearly envisioning even further military relations, as Caracas and Moscow agree to allow each other’s Navy to visit eacvh other’s ports.

Research by the U.S. Army War College notes that “Russia has reactivated and built upon relationships with Soviet-era client states of Nicaragua and Cuba, as well as leveraging countries which purchased Russian military goods during the Cold War and which have maintained some ties with the Russian armed forces. These countries include Peru, as mentioned previously, and to a lesser extent, Brazil and Mexico. With respect to arms sales and associated maintenance and training support, between 2001 and 2013, Russia sold Latin America $14.5 billion in arms, representing approximately 40 percent of the $35.5 billion in arms purchased by the region from external sources during the period.”

The Global Americans research group  found that In 2008, and 2013,  Russia deployed Tu-160 nuclear-capable bombers to Venezuela. “Russia’s military and political interactions in the region during the Cold War allowed the country to build relationships in the region, as well as specialized knowledge to support its current re-engagement. This includes some older Latin American military officers and political leaders who trained in Russia or were educated in Russian institutions such as Patrice Lumumba University..Russian military industry, and its associated support organizations Rosboronexport and Rostec create the basis for engagement through arms sales and support services with both anti-U.S. regimes and those with legacy equipment or mid-capability products.”

Illustration: Pixabay

On February 27, and again on March 5, North Korean President Kim Jong Un ordered the launching of an unidentified medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM)-class booster with the goal of moving Pyongyang’s imagery satellite up into a new operational orbit for testing. In doing so he made good on an objective he presented to his country’s January 2021 Eighth Party Congress, according to Vann Van Diepen, of Organization 38 North. What is of concern to military analysts is that the test of the military reconnaissance satellite may precede flight testing of other capabilities mentioned in the Congress’ report. Van Diepen noted that in the future North Korean launches could include multiple-warhead missiles, solid-propellant intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and ICBM-range solid-propellant submarine-launched ballistic missile capabilities. 

South Korea’s Joint Chief of Staff notes that Kim may be signaling to the world that the North intends to conduct a satellite launch via a space launch vehicle (SLV). Such a launch would be a significant advance in the state’s space weapons program. On the day following the February launch North Korea issued a short statement saying it conducted  “an important test…under the plan of developing a reconnaissance satellite” and that it “is of great significance in developing the reconnaissance satellite.” Van Diepen points out that in addition to helping test future military capabilities, the launches have “propaganda value” and showcase the “regime’s technological prowess and effective leadership.” Pentagon officials described the launches as a “serious escalation” that will result in new sanctions. Spacewar.com is reporting this week that the “Pentagon said rigorous analysis concluded they were actually experimental precursors to a likely full-range ICBM launch.” 

DOD Spokesman John Kirby said the tests “involved a new intercontinental ballistic missile system” that Pyongyang had first showcased in October 2020 and that they were intended “to evaluate this new system before conducting a test at full range in the future, potentially disguised as a space launch.” AFP reports that the Treasury Department plans to announce fresh measures at the end of the week to help prevent Pyongyang accessing “foreign items and technology” to advance that program. Quoting an unnamed US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, it adds that such measures underline that the North’s “unlawful and destabilizing activities have consequences” and that diplomatic negotiations are the only viable path forward for Pyongyang. Japan’s Ministry of Defense also called the tests a “threat to peace and security… that can never be tolerated.”

This year alone, amid Chinese aggressive in the Indo-Pacific and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, North Korea test-launched nine missiles with little international objection. Starting this January North Korea began dropping hints it might completely lift the moratorium on banned hypersonic and medium range ballistic missiles. AFP notes that “A fresh ICBM launch would be an early challenge for South Korea’s new president-elect, Yoon Suk-yeol, who has vowed to take a hard line with the North’s provocations.”

At a time when the world simultaneously  watching developments in Ukraine and potential aggression by China toward Taiwan, Kim Jong Un is attempting to regain the spotlight in what may be opening moves to re-open negotiations over aid to North Korea or it may indicate that the North is serious about ramping up aggression on the peninsula under the cover of other international conflicts. The West is not certain about Kim’s intentions. What is known is that the North continues to disguise long-range ballistic missile tests. It must be seen in Beijing as raising the specter of the United States increasing the quality and quantity of missiles it has in South Korea. That can’t be making Xi Jinping smile this week.

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

Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine tops the headlines of every major newspaper and television broadcast pushing Covid and China to the sidelines. Leaders around the world this week are watching to see how far Russia will go… this time. Xi Jinping is no different. He is carefully following Russian progress in the conflict with particular respect to its potential impact on Chinese national security and domestic stability. One area of high concern for him is the country’s dependence on foreign agricultural products. 

Food security has long plagued the country. Since the communist takeover in 1948, China has suffered a number of severe famines supplanted by poor economic policy planning that made conditions worse throughout the country. In the early 1980’s, when China was opening to the West, the world discovered a new market with 800 million customers who needed imported grain to survive. Western farmers were enthusiastic to sell to the country during the Cold War. Although China’s self-sufficiency improved for a while, it once again has reverted to a grain importing nation. Xi knows China could face economic sanctions in the future over its belligerent behavior in East Asia and support for Russia. He is urging the population to ration their food supplies and to increase  domestic crop production. Some Western economic analysts are downplaying the importance of food imports as China is growing more at home. The current source of its food imports can’t be overlooked, however, nor can its potential impact on domestic politics and stability of the CCP at home.

Vladimir Putin, China’s latest “old friend” in the small club of autocratic leaders in power, is causing Xi Jinping a number of challenges lately. Ukraine is a major wheat supplier to China. Although last year China only imported 5.9% of its wheat and 9.4% of its corn, it is not immune to the surging price of food commodities or the instability in its food supply chain. Chinese economic analysts like to cite the country’s increasing reliance on domestic production. They don’t like to admit that even a small change in the quantity available or the price of commodities can have a destabilizing domestic effect among a population already experiencing inflation, higher unemployment, lower wages, and a tainted Olympics intended to showcase Chinese achievements. 

Last year Chinese buyers diversified their market purchases by turning away from American corn. China emerged as Ukraine’s largest buyer of the staple, accounting for a full third of China’s corn imports in 2021. The planting season for wheat in Ukraine, which begins in three weeks, is unlikely to occur. Black Sea wheat prices in general, since the Russian invasion, have soared. At the same time estimates for China’s wheat imports for marketing year 2021-22 (July-June) are at 9.5 million metric tons, which is 48.9% higher than the last three years’ average, according to the US Department of Agriculture. That doubled with trade tensions with Australia, its second largest supplier of imported wheat, have created an economic policy challenge for Beijing. Last summer, in anticipation of ongoing trade issues with Australia, Beijing signed a new memorandum with Ukraine on strategic bilateral co-operation and agricultural development. Economists last July expected China to double or even triple its purchases from Ukraine this year. With that now unlikely to happen, China has turned to Russia to fill its grain silos.

On February 23, only a day after China’s National Food and Strategic Reserves Bureau ordered the release of some edible oils, the country’s custom agency approved imports of wheat from Russia. Xi Jinping and the CCP economic planners are well aware of the political costs of a food shortage. In recent years China consistently has missed its 95% target for domestic production of grain by an average of 15% annually. As the Western world refines and imposes additional sanctions on Russia, China may find it difficult to import the grain it needs to feed its 1.3 billion population. Chinese banks are increasingly concerned about the risk of evading sanctions by handling food commodities trade deals. According to James Palmer, writing in Foreign Policy this week, “US Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo has issued a clear redline to Chinese technology firms that might seek to supply Russia, warning that they will be cut off from the services and supplies they need to continue operating.” As sanctions potentially impact grain imports from Russia, China may have a challenging time finding a way to pay Moscow for the grain it needs this season. More severe food shortages in China will not play well among the population, which already is feeling the weight of international scorn from its actions surrounding the Covid virus, military aggression in the South and East China seas, and its predatory loan programs in the developing world. With Putin bogged down in Ukraine and Xi facing a potential increase in food instability at home, the world is a more dangerous place in 2022.

Daria served in the U.S. State Department

Photo: China Defence Ministry

As the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine extends from days into weeks, Putin is changing tactics in an attempt to alter the course of the conflict. Turning to terrorist-style tactics aimed at forcing the Ukrainian citizenry into submission, the Russian leader has initiated a campaign of attack against the country’s waterways. While at first glance it may seem an unlikely course of action, Ukraine’s waterways are tightly linked to its critical riparian infrastructure. The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and the Chernobyl exclusion zone are both located on the Dnieper River, or one its important tributaries. It underscores, according to Andrii Ryzhenko of the Jamestown Foundation, an increasingly desperate strategy by Moscow. 

In December 2020 Ukraine adopted “On Inland Water Transport,” a policy designed to permit foreign vessels to access the country’s interior waterways with the goal of improving its transportation sector and general economy. Ryzhenko points out that “the government underestimated how much significant and sensitive infrastructure, including power plants, strategic lines of communication, as well as industrial and agricultural sites, lies along the banks of Ukraine’s riverine network.” Putin today is attempting to bring about maximum civilian deaths and ecological damage by destroying structures on or around rivers as his troops get bogged down elsewhere in Ukraine. The pre-war plans to open up the country’s rivers for foreign vessels may end up being “exploited by Russia to deploy and deliver sabotage teams onto government-controlled Ukrainian territory,” he adds. Putin knows Russia will be able to employ personnel or passenger vessels as cover and that they could store and carry substantial quantities of weapons, explosives, or poisonous materials deep into Ukrainian territory. Andrii Ryzhenko is a former Captain in the Ukrainian Navy with over 35 years at sea and ashore. He also worked on Ukrainian Navy transformation to Euro-Atlantic standards and on the contribution to NATO-led operations and NATO Response Forces.  He knows the waterways well and argues that the Ukrainian government considered the economic implications of the law but failed to consider security concerns surrounding opening up the country’s waterways.

With Putin’s forces in pitched battles around sensitive areas and indiscriminately shelling and bombing civilian targets, Moscow may soon turn to unconventional warfare out of desperation. Russian operations could significantly damage the Ukrainian economy as well and intimidate its neighboring states into further concessions to Putin. Such sabotage tactics are not new to the Russian autocrat. Since 2014 in the Donbas region and elsewhere in Ukraine Putin has employed diversionary tactics and sabotage. Russia blew up a natural gas pipeline in the Poltava region and destroyed railway bridges in Luhansk. Russia also destroyed military ammunition warehouses in eastern, northern, and central Ukraine. He also ordered the use of assassination as a weapon against Ukrainian military personnel and supporters in Kiev, Odesa, Kherson, Mykolaiv and Mariupol in 2014. 

Over the last eight years Russian agents have infiltrated into Ukraine to carry out clandestine missions as they did on August 18, 1941, when they blew up a dam and the Dnipro hydroelectric plant (Dniproges), located on the Dnieper River in Zaporizhzhia. It let loose a 90-foot water wave from the damaged dam that carried away whole villages around Zaporizhzhia and killed around 120,000 people, civilians, and military. As Putin’s war machine churns ahead in fits and starts, or if it gets completely bogged down, we can expect to see more desperate tactics from the Russian leader. “In November 2016, the Security Service of Ukraine detained several people who were preparing to sabotage another nuclear facility, in Zaporizhzhia, the most powerful nuclear power plant in Europe” according to Ryzhenko. Last month the world witnessed Russian forces enter the Chernobyl exclusion zone and they continue to occupy it today. Over a dozen explosions have rocked Ukrainian arms warehouses and arsenals over the last eight years in its eastern and northern regions. Several of those cases of sabotage were alongside navigable rivers and many of them were close to population centers, requiring the evacuation of tens of thousands of Ukrainians residents in the area. Russia is the only likely culprit although the immensity of the explosions destroyed most of the proof. 

During a period when Ukrainian forces used only 70,000 tons of ammunition on the front line, these Russian-caused explosions and resulting fires, destroyed 210,000 tons of ammunition. Putin is getting backed into a corner now as the world unites against his unprovoked and aggressive war in Ukraine. He doesn’t have to “go nuclear” to create havoc in Ukraine. The free world needs to recognize Putin remains very dangerous. He could tomorrow put a saboteur on a vessel to do again what he has done in the past as Ukraine is a highly vulnerable nation-state. Putin is not above creating significant civilian casualties, harming the environment, or wrecking Ukraine’s economic infrastructure. This time the  world cannot afford to blink.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Photo: Kyiv (Pixabay)

In mid-February, Federal District Court Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York, “ruled that a libel lawsuit former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin filed against the New York Times over a 2017 editorial should be thrown out because her lawyers failed to produce adequate evidence that the newspaper knew what it wrote about her was false or acted recklessly toward indications it was false. The ruling…came as a Manhattan jury was deliberating on Palin’s suit, which claimed the Times and former editorial page editor James Bennet defamed her by unfairly linking her to a 2011 shooting spree in Arizona that killed six people and gravely wounded then-Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.).” At first glance, it would have seemed that Palin had a good case against the Times.  But upon closer inspection, the reasons for her loss become evident. “On January 8, 2011,  Gabrielle Giffords, a U.S. congresswoman from Arizona, (was) critically injured when a man (went) on a shooting spree during a constituents meeting held by the congresswoman outside a Tucson-area supermarket. Six people died in the attack and another 13, including Giffords, were wounded. The gunman, 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner, was taken into custody at the scene.” “Contemporaneous news reports noted that Giffords was one of 20 Democrats targeted in a map circulated by Sarah Palin’s political action committee in March 2010. The map portrayed stylized crosshairs to mark each of their districts, in a ‘Take Back the 20’ campaign to reclaim seats in the 2010 midterm elections…(i)t’s unclear whether Loughner even knew of Palin’s map, but it probably would not have changed the outcome. His focus on Giffords began as early as 2007, long before the map was published…Loughner had no clear political views. Instead, he was a troubled man who abused alcohol and drugs, and whose mental illness was apparent to his classmates and family even before he was diagnosed as schizophrenic during his court trial.” Fast forward to June 14, 2017, when “a gunman walked onto a baseball field at Eugene Simpson Park in Alexandria, Virginia, opening fire on politicians and wounding House GOP Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana and four others. The representatives had been practicing for the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity. James Hodgkinson, a 66-year-old man, asked…whether Republicans or Democrats were on the field practicing. Once he received confirmation that the Republican representatives were the ones playing ball, Hodgkinson fired off 60 rounds into the unsuspecting elected officials…When officers arrived on the scene, they exchanged fire with the suspect, running towards him while dodging the spray of bullets, and eventually killing him….(s)ubsequent investigations revealed Hodgkinson as a man with a clear hatred for Republicans. He had arrived at the field…with a list of six conservative members of congress, presumably his targets.” Despite the shooter’s clear motive to attack Republicans, the New York Times ran an editorial shortly after the shooting “that broadly condemned political violence but… claimed that maps circulated by Sarah Palin’s PAC amounted to ‘political incitement,’ which the authors said was clearly linked to the subsequent 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords” a Democrat. “‘In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear,’ the uncorrected editorial read. ‘Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.'” Of course, the “link to political incitement” and Loughner’s shooting of Gifford was not clear, as discussed above, and the Times was forced to make a correction of their editorial, not once but twice. First, “staffers removed the language about the clear link between political incitement and Giffords’ shooting, and issued the following correction: ‘an earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords,’ the correction reads. ‘In fact, no such link was established.'” Later that same day, “the New York Times amended its correction to clarify its description of the maps distributed by Sarah Palin’s political action committee. ‘The editorial has also been updated to clarify that in a map distributed by a political action committee before that shooting, electoral districts, not Democratic lawmakers, were depicted beneath stylized cross hairs,’ it read.” Despite these corrections, as in 2011, Palin was again heavily criticized by much of the media and public for allegedly “targeting” Giffords.  Her lawsuit against the Times followed. To understand how the Court could find for the Times before the jury had completed their deliberations, it is necessary to realize just how difficult it is for a public figure like Palin to win a case against a news publisher.  The standard was established in New York Times Company v. Sullivan, 376 US 256 (1964).  There, the US Supreme Court ruled that “(t)o sustain a claim of defamation or libel, the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate.  In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Brennan, the Court ruled for the Times. When a statement concerns a public figure, the Court held, it is not enough to show that it is false for the press to be liable for libel. Instead, the target of the statement must show that it was made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for its falsity.” In his ruling, Judge Rakoff stated “that during the trial, Palin’s attorneys failed to elicit enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee had met the ‘actual malice’ standard…Rakoff said, ‘I don’t think a reasonable juror could conclude that Mr. Bennet either knew the statements were false or that he thought the statements were false and he recklessly disregarded that high probability’…Testimony at the trial exposed sloppy practices at the Times, with…a fact-checker skipping over the language that gave rise to the suit and an editorial writer failing to closely read all of Bennet’s changes when they were sent to her. Still, the judge said the key question was whether Bennet harbored serious doubt about the truth of his statements at the time they were published. Rakoff said there was no evidence the editor had any concern about the accuracy of the statements until a colleague emailed him after the editorial was posted online.” A day after Judge Rakoff indicated his intention to dismiss the lawsuit, the jury came back with a verdict in favor of the Times. Obviously, the Times acted in reckless disregard of the truth.  Rather than investigate whether Palin had actually targeted Giffords in 2011, and whether Palin’s actions had actually led to Giffords being shot, the Times went ahead and made the comparison in print.  But when it comes to a public figure, reckless disregard is not enough.  A public figure like Sarah Palin must show that the publisher knew the information they published was false, and printed it anyway.  A high bar to pass, indeed. This has been the legal standard for more than 50 years.  However, Palin’s case, and the mainstream media’s treatment of former President Donald Trump has raised questions about whether or not the Times v. Sullivan standard should remain in effect.  As discussed by Jonathan Turley in The Hill, “Journalists and schools of journalism have embraced the model of ‘advocacy journalism.’ Some writers and academics now reject the very concept of objectivity in journalism. For example, Stanford journalism professor Ted Glasser has explained that journalism needs to ‘free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.’ He insists that ‘journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity’…(w)ith market pressures transforming media in the advocacy journalism model, defamation lawsuits could now be the vehicle to protect rather than destroy journalism. The Times and other media outlets have shown they are unwilling or unable to resist demands for unbiased coverage. As sacrilegious as it may sound, a little liability may now be just what journalism needs.” Was the Times engaged in “advocacy journalism” when Bennet wrote his editorial about Palin? Probably not.  More likely, Bennet sought to offset the violence perpetrated against Republicans with a “look, Republicans support violence too,” sort of analysis.  Unfortunately for Bennet, his unconsciously biased example was not applicable – In fact, all the best examples advocating violence are from the left; “Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), for example, notably called for her supporters to harass Trump administration officials in public during a rally in 2018…(and) in 2019, (Sen Jon) Tester (D-MN) said on MSNBC that the way to beat Trump in the election was to ‘punch him in the face.’” Palin will probably appeal, and the odds are high, she will lose her appeal, and the Times v. Sullivan standard will stand.  But at this rate, it is only a matter of time before another public figure, most likely one on the right, will be able to show actual malice against a publisher like the New York Times. Judge John Wilson (ret.)  served on the bench in NYC. Illustration: Wikipedia

It is time that the Democratic Party leadership, particularly Barrack Obama and Joe Biden, explain their foreign policy goals and methods.

In April 2014, the military newspaper Stars and Stripes reported a story almost totally ignored by the media: all American tanks had been withdrawn from Europe under orders from President Obama.

According to the Department of Defense, at its peak, Germany, the main center of NATO activity during the first Cold War, was home to 20 U.S. armored divisions, with about 6,000 tanks. Despite the glaring revival of threats from Moscow, the United States no longer had any tanks, the pivotal weapon in land combat, stationed on the entire continent.

Mr. Obama’s extreme views on the lack of need for tanks became an issue in the 2012 campaign, when vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan  criticized the President’s attempt to shut down the only American plant that produces them.

Russia had invaded and annexed Crimea in March 2014.

As the Obama Administration concluded its tenure, major reversals by the succeeding Administration were required to undo the extraordinary foreign and defense policy errors that were committed during Barack’s tenure in Europe, the Middle East, the Pacific and within the Western hemisphere including its precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, leaving no residual force behind, which gave rise to the ISIS Caliphate, a move duplicated when Biden withdrew from Afghanistan leaving vast amounts of military equipment behind in the hands of the Taliban.

Since the inauguration of Joe Biden and the takeover of Congress by Democrats, America has projected weakness at home and abroad.

The Biden Administration intentionally destroyed American energy independence, thereby enriching Russia. It surrendered Afghanistan to the Taliban. It weakened the U.S. military. It has made it easier for China’s spies to steal from the U.S. 

In response to the assault on Ukraine, the sanction that would most immediately and effectively impact Putin would be one placed on Russia’s energy sector.  Biden has resisted doing this.  Indeed, his Administration has noticeably taken a back seat to Europe in opposing Moscow’s aggression.

It’s more than just questions of events occurring abroad. Recently, the Biden Justice Department has ended the “China Initiative,” a program aimed at reducing the impact of Beijing’s massive espionage efforts in the United States. 

As threats from China and Russia have grown more intense, the Biden Administration’s response was to cut the Pentagon’s spending power.  Indeed, its initial Defense request to Congress would have sliced 3% of the military’s purchasing power. Congress had to restore some of that in a common-sense move.

Vladimir Putin has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, thanks to a deal Obama made with him in the early days of his presidency. China has been dramatically increasing its nuclear forces.  It has also ordered the building of multiple launch sites. One military analyst in Washington suggested that the density of each silo field indicates that these are intended to be used for a first strike.

RealClearDefense reports that “On August 12, 2021, the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command Admiral Charles Richard stated, ‘We are witnessing a strategic breakout by China….The explosive growth in their nuclear and conventional forces can only be what I described as breathtaking.’He added that ‘…frankly, that word ‘breathtaking’ may not be enough.’ Admiral Richard characterized China as a ‘peer’ nuclear competitor and noted that we now face two nuclear ‘peer’ competitors, Russia and China, compared to one during the Cold War.”

For the first time, America faces not one but two nuclear adversaries, one, Russia, with a larger arsenal and the other, China, that will soon equal or exceed U.S. atomic capabilities. Putin has openly stated that he would have no reservations about using nukes both on the battlefield and across the globe. China continues to develop first-strike capabilities.

In response to these clear and unequivocal threats, Democrats continue to underfund America’s defense.

illustration: Pixabay