Author: Daria Novak

INDIA

Multiparty elections are moving into their final week in five Indian states containing over 180 million people or about 13% of the country’s population. On March 10 the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) hopes it will add to its previous four wins by taking the fifth state during this election cycle. Uttar Pradesh is the state most political analysts are watching carefully to see if Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath wins. If he does, he may become the successor to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. To convince the BJP he deserves the position he must achieve a decisive win. In 2017 his election was less contentious than in this cycle.

Four years ago, the BJP picked up 312 of the 403 state seats. Rising unemployment in Uttar Pradesh in recent months, however, has made it a more difficult challenge this year as many have joined violent protests against the state, which suffered more than most of India from the Covid pandemic. Hundreds of thousands died when the Indian health care system collapsed, and two devastating lockdowns resulted in millions losing their jobs. According to Michael Kugelman, writing in Foreign Policy: “The Uttar Pradesh election is in many ways a referendum on BJP rule: its handling of the economy and the pandemic, its use of divisive rhetoric, and its political future. And when it comes to Indian politics, what happens in Uttar Pradesh doesn’t stay there.”

The elections this week, according to some analysts following the elections, are so important that they may determine the future of democracy in India.

 UNITED NATIONS

Earlier this week nine US senators called for the removal of Russia from its seat on the United Nations’ Security Council. The cries have grown stronger in recent days as Putin continues to move his invading forces further into Ukrainian territory. “The UN is a political body. It is not a church. Ultimately, the UN is there as a place where states…can talk to each other in the last resort,” said Richard Gowan, UN director at the International Crisis Group. Senator Joni Earnest (Iowa-R), added that “Putin has demonstrated in plain view his ruthlessness and complete disregard for humanity and our international norms, and the idea that he and his cronies should have a vote on the U.N.’s Security Council is an absolute disgrace.”

The Congressional Resolution, even if it passes, holds no weight on the UN’s membership. No country has been expelled from the UN since its inception. Another message could come from the General Assembly (GA) if it suspends Russian officials from the GA. The publication Defense One quotes Daniel Baer, acting director of the Europe Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, as arguing that highlighting Russia’s bad behavior is worth it, even if it doesn’t end with Moscow being expelled. He added: “It’s a way of making a statement about their current behavior being completely unbecoming a member of the security council… We should find every opportunity to shine a spotlight on the fact they are acting in a way that’s completely inconsistent with their obligation as a great power and against the UN charter.”Ukraine has reraised the issue of how Russia first obtained its seat after the fall of the Soviet Union. According to the UN Charter, the USSR and not Russia has a right to a seat on the Security Council. It is highly unlikely that China would dare to raise the issue given that it took the Republic of Taiwan’s seat. The answer rests on whether Russia was the “Successor State” or a “Continuing State” under international law. A successor state is when a sovereign state takes over a territory and populace that was previously under the sovereignty of another state. Unlike a continuing state, a successor is viewed legally as having a new personality. Russia, Ukraine, and George are generally considered successor states of the Soviet Union.

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

While television screens across the world are filled with dramatic images of kinetic warfare ongoing in  Ukraine this week, there is a significant but overlooked economic battle being waged in the Central Asian states. It is receiving little media attention despite its potential to destabilize the entire region. China’s BRI debt trap has ensnared several of the central Asian nations, including Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. What started in Kyrgyzstan in 2008 as a $10 million bill owed to China, now tops $4 billion and is growing beyond the country’s ability to pay. It dwarfs the economy and now accounts for 45% of the nation’s sovereign debt, which totals 30% of its annual GDP. Tajikistan is in a similar bind as almost half of its sovereign debt, making up more than 27% of its GDP, is owed to China. According to Sergei Gretsky, of the Jamestown Foundation, “Unlike Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have less diversified and resource-rich economies and, thus, lack collateralizable assets to secure loans… most of the loans China has extended them are sovereign loans—i.e., direct loans to the government, whose repayment the latter guaranties regardless of the project’s profitability.”

Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan’s repayment terms are not directly tied to the profitability of the respective projects. The terms of these loans explicitly hide transparency and in some cases the very existence of the loan itself. Gretsky points out that Bishkek and Dushanbe are in “no position to protest,” unlike Kazakhstan, where President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev suspended the Astana Light Rail Project in 2019 due to charges of rampant corruption. That loan was funded by a $1.5 billion loan from the China Development Bank and backed by a sovereign guarantee. 

Last year a study by the Center for Global Development in Washington unveiled Chinese credit practices by offering a first-of-its-kind analysis of 100 contracts awarded to 24 developing countries in Africa and Asia, Europe and Latin America, including Montenegro, Kyrgyzstan and Serbia, according to Reed Standish, writing for the www.azattyq.org news website in Kazakhstan. How China protects its financial interests has come under scrutiny as some provisions allow Chinese companies to confiscate property or assets in the event of non-compliance with payment obligations, raising concerns about the seizure of land or other assets and the huge debts that leave the government in debt to Beijing, notes Standish. 

When Beijing offers grants, instead of predatory loans, they usually are earmarked for projects that project China in a good image or are symbolic. Rather than revenue-generating projects China ensures that these grants cement political alliances and the diplomatic ties it needs to push forward its BRI Initiative. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are in “no position to confront China, reject non-viable projects, or prevent the further slide into a debt trap,” according to Gretsky, as both have only two options when it comes to repayment. They can restructure and reschedule the debt to obtain short-term relief at a great increase in overall cost or default, as occurred with Sri Lanka’s Columbo port project. The port is now under Chinese control.

Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan’s main asset that has possible value for Beijing is the energy from water resources and hydropower. Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan are downstream. China could require the transfer of these water resources and hydropower stations from the upper reaches. China has only one glass of clean drinking water for every four available in the United States. Its demand is growing along with the Xinjiang economy in China’s western regions. Beijing has a long-standing water dispute with Kazakhstan that goes back to the 1990’s, when China started extracting additional water from 20 transboundary rivers to supply its needs. The ongoing dispute could entangle several of the Central Asian states and China and expand into an armed conflict over the critical resource. Once China controls all the upper reaches it will have additional influence over those states downstream. That will allow Beijing to force them into its geopolitical order. China already diverts over a billion cubic meters of water annually from several of these rivers. Gretsky suggests that the “BRI initiative looks increasingly less a win-win proposition and more like a threat to the sovereignty and economic prosperity of the Central Asian states.” The renowned historian Michael Howard, writing in 2009, pointed out that war is as much about economics today as it is about a country’s military expertise. Predatory loans and water rights in Central Asia could ignite a new kinetic conflict in the region or at a minimum, the emergence of strong Sinophobic currents in Kazakh society if no compromise is found. 

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

“Putin, you just made a big  mistake” is the chant resounding around the world today, even inside Germany where tens of thousands demonstrated near the Brandenburg Gate in support of the Ukrainian people. Putin put his nuclear deterrent forces on high alert this week although he knows the West has sworn never to use nuclear weapons first. If the Russian leader believes he needs a “deterrent,” if can only be because of his willingness to move away from a “no first use” of a nuclear weapon policy. This demarcates a critical escalation of the war in Ukraine and pointing towards irrationality by the leading player. The Russian leader’s miscalculations surrounding his Ukraine operation will be more lasting than simple brinksmanship gone awry. 

Putin is weakening and, perhaps, dethroning autocratic leaders everywhere as the Ukrainian people inspire others who are not free to rebel. Modern warfare is conducted and broadcast simultaneously today. Analyses of conflicts, for better or worse, are transmitted around the world across the Internet. Often, they are wrong; but sometimes they are right. Putin falsely counted on heavy-handed World War II tactics and kinetic warfare to walk over Ukraine without much resistance. Whether or not he occupies Ukrainian territory successfully in the future, he lost his war. The world better hope he has not also lost his mind. 

The Ukrainian people have shown the world they are willing to die bravely in the face of advanced weaponry rather than become servants under an autocratic-run state with a demonic leader. China is distancing itself from Russia, too. There are indications of a deepening fissure in a relationship that never was a true alliance to start, but only one of convenience. The West underestimated the depth of the earlier Sino-Soviet split and has yet to fully recognize the seriousness of their current chasm. Putin needs cash to support his over the border aggression. To retain Russia’s energy income, he moved his country’s gas and oil contracts away from Europe to China this month in anticipation of new Western economic sanctions. Xi readily inked the deal with Putin to buy the critical energy China needs to continue its economic ascent. Here, once again, Putin made a grave miscalculation. 

Xi already built two pipelines from eastern Siberia down to China’s heavily populated and industrial eastern coastal area. Now Beijing temporarily has what it needs in abundance – close and relatively cheap energy – to support its maturing economy. Putin simply provided Xi a little more latitude before the Chinese leader and the CCP have to decide how they confront Moscow over the 1 million square miles of energy-rich territory Russia seized at the end of WWII. Paper treaties in the communist world equate to little more than using a sheet of newspaper as kindling to start a fire. Xi, like Putin, announced his plans to reassert China’s rightful place of leadership in the world (from a communist perspective). Unlike Putin, Xi is sharper, more cunning, and better at calculating his opponent’s response while operating under an almost impenetrable veil of secrecy. Putin himself confirmed by his actions he is a paper tiger in China’s eyes now.

At seventy years of age this may be Putin’s last hurrah; although cornered like a skunk he may become more dangerous in the short run for the West. The former Soviet spy, now Russia’s leader, is living in a new world that he still sees through eyes of an old, paranoid, KGB-trained operative. Putin is unable to change his stripes. It is clear there will be no resurgence of a Russian empire without Putin first confronting virtually every Western democracy and doing it without the strong support of China. The Russian oligarchy must be getting edgy at home, too, as Russia is emerging as a pariah state with new economic sanctions looming over their financial empires. How long will the Russian army be willing to continue killing Ukrainians who Putin calls their “fellow countrymen?” Already there are signs the military is unhappy with Putin’s venture.  Putin faces many more challenges than just the Ukrainian resistance.

Xi can wait out the time until a post-Putin era emerges in Russia, as it once waited out the post-Unequal Treaties period. The Chinese state today is strong and aggressive. It is beginning to take back what it perceives are its rightful lands. Xi Jinping is watching events in Europe closely while overnight Putin turns into heavier baggage for the CCP. If the West plays its cards well, this could mark a historical point of reignition for a Democratic resurgence around the world. The US most likely will have a new president in the Oval in two years. If he is one who knows how to play the global chess game, Putin’s ill-advised venture could serve as the opening move that initiates a desire for a new democratic golden era of peace and prosperity. 

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

As tensions with Russia continue to escalate, recognizing the dramatic increase in its’ military strength becomes vitally important.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) notes that “Russia has embarked on a military modernization program funded by rapidly increasing military spending and has pursued a more assertive foreign policy…Russian military expenditure has grown significantly over the past two decades. It increased by 30 per cent in real terms between 2010 and 2019 and by 175 per cent between 2000 and 2019.”

The actual impact of Moscow’s military spending must be seen in light of a key reality,  SIPRI emphasizes: “Military goods and services cost less in Russia than in the USA or most of Europe and, therefore, that Russian military spending has a higher purchasing power. For example, unlike the USA and other large European states, Russia still relies on conscription. In addition, Russian career soldiers have lower salaries: for example, in 2019 a Russian lieutenant colonel received approximately $1330 per month, whereas a (lower-ranked) captain in the British Army received more than $4000 monthly… Over the decade 2010–19 Russia spent nearly 40 per cent of its total military expenditure on arms procurement. This is a much larger share than most other states, including all members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This means that, in absolute terms, Russia’s spending on procurement was more than twice that of France, Germany and the UK, although its total military spending was just 30–34 per cent higher in 2019.”

While significant attention has been paid, particularly in light of the Ukraine crisis, to the Kremlin’s land forces, the cold war-like emphasis on nuclear weaponry must be carefully noted.

The Heritage Institute reports that “Russia is clearly seeking to gain a competitive nuclear advantage over the U.S.”  Not only is Putin seeking to gain a global nuclear dominance, he is using atomic weapons as an economical means to win land battles. “Russia has a stockpile of at least 2,000 non-strategic (low-yield) nuclear weapons (NSWs) that are unconstrained by any treaty, outnumbering U.S. NSWs by at least 10 to one. In 2019, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reported that Russia’s stockpile is anticipated to grow even more. Russia operates dozens of dual-capable delivery systems, including short-range ballistic missiles, depth charges, torpedoes, land mines, artillery, and mortars. This disparity is particularly concerning because Russia’s recent nuclear doctrine indicates a lower threshold for use of nuclear weapons. According to the United States’ 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, Russia “mistakenly assesses that the threat of nuclear escalation or actual first use of nuclear weapons would serve to ‘de-escalate’ a conflict on terms favorable to Russia.”

Some in Congress, including Republican Mike Rogers (R-AL), House Foreign Affairs Committee Lead Republican Michael McCaul (R-TX), and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Lead Republican Mike Turner (R-OH)  are issuing heated warnings.

“As Russia assembles forces for what would be the largest land war in Europe since WWII, Vladimir Putin is overseeing a massive strategic exercise to demonstrate the Russian Federation’s willingness to fight and win a nuclear exchange with the West. Reportedly, this exercise is using the full range of Russian strategic, tactical, and advanced hypersonic delivery systems to carry out nuclear strikes – many of which would only be useful against Western Europe or the United States.  The message is clear: Russia will use its modernized and capable nuclear arsenal to shape NATO responses and, if necessary, compel a favorable outcome in a conflict. President Biden, on the other hand, is conducting a review of the United States’ own nuclear posture and considering shedding vital nuclear capabilities and moving away from the nuclear declaratory policy that has deterred the wartime use of nuclear weapons globally for over 70 years. Our NATO allies understand how damaging these moves can be to global stability, and they have been united in opposing such moves.  It’s clear that the Biden Administration’s approach is completely out of touch with the dangerous reality facing the U.S., NATO, and our allies around the world.”

Illustration: The road-mobile missile system Topol’ with missile RT-2PM, unparalleled in the world rocket and missile engineering, is designed to destruct all the types of strategic objectives in any situation of combat employment. RT-2PM is the fourth generation’s strategic missile. (Russian Defence Ministry)

President Biden will deliver his State of the Union address today, far later than prior dates.  As every president does, he will attempt to provide a rosy picture of his young Administrations’ accomplishments in dealing with challenges.

Far more than any of his predecessors since the end of the Second World War, however, his record in both foreign and domestic affairs is bleak, even disastrous. He tacitly acknowledged this when he pled with the media to give him even more favorable coverage.  It is also evident in his personal reluctance to respond to press inquiries, and press secretary Jen Psaki’s minimal responses to questions she finds uncomfortable.

A thoroughly transparent and accurate recitation of the true State of the Union would not be pleasant.

Russia has invaded Ukraine. China is threatening Taiwan. Iran is developing nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. The Taliban is parading around Afghanistan in captured American weapons.

Moscow now has a larger nuclear arsenal, thanks to an agreement penned during the Obama-Biden Administration.  Beijing has a larger Navy, due to the refusal of the President’s party to agree to adequate military funding.  Both have the proven capability to destroy American satellites, potentially leaving the Pentagon deaf, dumb and blind.  Both have hypersonic missile capabilities Washington lacks.

The nation’s reputation endured a massive black eye from the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan.

In response to all this, Biden originally presented a defense budget that cut the military’s purchasing power by 3%.

The southern border is open, and hundreds of thousands of illegals, including COVID-positive individuals,  members of criminal cartels, human traffickers, and terrorists are among the many others storming into the nation.

At home, criminals are running amok, devastating American cities. Much of this is due to unrealistic and radical policies regarding bail and incarceration that Mr. Biden tactily agrees with. Excessively lenient policies have reversed the hard work and solid achievements that took decades to attain.

The U.S. budget is, if it were a private organization, bankrupt. Not only has that deeply troubling fact been ignored by the current White House, but  a vast amount of additional debt has been piled on top of it.

Inflation is devastating the lives of the American people, a direct result of the current White House’s policies.

The educational system, despite ever increasing funding, produces poor results, with student competency rates in key areas declining. Instead of concentrating on fundamentals, schools push sexual, cultural and political propaganda. When parents complain, they are labelled terrorists by the Biden Justice Department.

That same Department of Justice continues to turn a blind eye towards the blatant violations of the law by Hillary Clinton and the Biden family. It ignores the wrongdoing of Adam Schiff when he assured Americans that he had evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, which it has now been conclusively proven that nothing of the sort occurred and no such evidence ever existed.

Race relations continue to be tense. Much of that is due to the eagerness of the President and his party to encourage hostility as a way to gin up their base, and to push a narrative of “systemic racism” even when there is not a single law or regulation that permits racism.

Mr. Biden’s signature issue is his stated determination to fight COVID.  He and his party conveniently forget that, when the Trump Administration banned travel from China when the Pandemic began, they called him “xenophobic.” When the Trump White House developed a vaccine in record time, many in the President’s party claimed that it was unsafe or ineffective and discouraged its use.

Mr. Biden promised to defeat COVID. There have been more COVID deaths during the first year of his Administration than in 2020.

A State of the Union admission of these issues, and a promise to change course, would go a long way in restoring Americans faith in their government.

Illustration:  Historic view of House Chamber (U.S. House of Representatives)

Many politicians and pundits are expressing “shock” at Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine.  Where have they been?

In many diverse areas, the Biden Administration and its devoted acolytes in the media appear unprepared and unknowledgeable.  Have they never cracked open a history book? Have they failed to follow any news reports other than those that kowtow to leftist orthodoxy? In far too many topics, current elected officials display a disturbing reluctance to go beyond ideas with no more sophistication other than what could be displayed on a bumper sticker.

The current crisis in Ukraine years has been years in the making, and fairly well advertised by the Kremlin. Putin has openly lusted after the restoration of the Soviet Union. Despite the 20^th Century’s horrendous events, including two global wars, concentration camp genocide, and the intentional murder of about 75 million people in the USSR and Communist China, he has described the disintegration of the Soviet Empire as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”

He has ambitiously developed the means to rectify what he describes as that “catastrophe.” Despite his nation’s weak economy, which has a gross domestic product of $1.4 trillion from a population of 144.1 million (compare that to that state of Texas which has a GDP of $1.9 trillion generated by a population of only 29 million) he spends 4% of Russia’s GDP on his armed forces, a larger percentage than that of the US.  Further, he has developed the planet’s most powerful nuclear arsenal, both in the type used as a strategic threat (ICBMs, etc.) and as battlefield weapons (which he currently uses to discourage NATO from assisting Ukraine.)

A Brookings study notes: “Moscow’s nonstrategic nuclear weapons are… worrisome. To begin with, there is Russia’s violation of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty by testing a ground-launched cruise missile to intermediate range. While such a missile likely will not pose a direct threat to the United States, it constitutes a treaty violation and would threaten U.S. allies, as well as other countries, in Europe and Asia…“The outside world has less visibility regarding Russia’s nonstrategic arsenal than Russia’s strategic forces. It appears, however, that the military has developed a range of nonstrategic nuclear capabilities, including cruise missiles, short-range ballistic missiles and aircraft. By contrast, the United States has steadily reduced the number and types of weapons in its nonstrategic nuclear arsenal.”

Against Putin’s robust and muscular position, Democrat Presidents have used half-hearted sanctions, and have taken steps that actually finance Putin’s economy. Eliminating U.S. energy independence, as Biden did instantly upon taking office, dramatically increased the Kremlin’s ability to finance military adventures and left our allies vulnerable to Moscow’s pressure. In 2014, Barack Obama responded to Russia’s invasion of Crimea with sanctions. Putin laughed them off. Now, as the rest of Ukraine is gobbled up, Biden responds the same way: with sanctions. Those sanctions aren’t even all that tough, despite the President’s insistence that they are.  As of this writing, He failed to cut off Russia from the SWIFT system, which would have been the most serious blow to its economy.

Most importantly, he failed to take the one action which would have devastated Moscow’s military spending, and at the same time restored the ability of our allies to stand tough against Russia: return American energy independence.   

It is not a coincidence that Russia did not attack Ukraine again in the intervening years between Obama and Biden, and that China did not re-attack the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone as it did during Obama’s reign. The military spending and energy independence that marked those intervening years was an effective deterrent.  Toughness and self-sufficiency by free nations does not cause wars; it discourages the dictators that start them.

It is a historical lesson that, apparently, the Biden Administration and its supporters have never learned.   

Photo: Kiev (Pixabay)

While war between Russia and Ukraine is occupying most of the headlines this week with dramatic visual images of apartment buildings being bombed in Kiev, Ukraine’s “tank man” standing in front of a line of Russian armored tanks, and people fleeing the cities with some on foot, there is another conflict, or perhaps peace, brewing in Central Asia. It is six months since the Taliban took over Afghanistan. In that time Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan have comes to terms with the insurgent’s victory and begun the process of initiating diplomatic talks. Tajikistan, however, is not content with the situation and is taking a more cautious and independent approach. 

The Taliban tend to favor the Pashtun ethnic group over Afghan Tajiks. “The Tajik Foreign Minister, Sirojiddin Muhriddin reasserted on February 3 that Tajikistan would not change its position until the Taliban formed a ‘truly inclusive government’ and engaged with opposition political and ethnic leaders,” according to Jamestown Foundation’s Jacob Zenn. Tajik leaders in the capital of Dushanbe say they will continue to put pressure on the Taliban by meeting regularly with heads of Afghan opposition groups. Although Tajikistan gave asylum to Afghanistan’s former vice president, Amrullah Saleh, it did agree in December to sign what it calls an “agreement of human assistance” with the new Afghan leaders to continue exporting electricity to Afghanistan along with other countries in the region already exporting energy.

The Taliban are demanding Tajikistan return aircraft it says belonged to the previous government. The United States is involved now as Washington has confirmed officially it expects the aircraft eventually to be returned to the US. However, in January, four months after the botched US withdrawal the Biden White House still had not figured out when or how to return about a dozen American helicopters, among other military hardware. Zenn suggests that “Notwithstanding Tajikistan’s continued openness towards anti-Taliban Afghan opposition figures and refusal to recognize or dialogue with the Taliban, the two countries will find ways to cooperate over matters of mutual urgency and regional initiatives.” 

The security environment is more nuanced than it first appears. Amid war in Ukraine there could be a new balance of power brewing among the Central Asian states. Last week a Russian language publication in Moscow reported that the Taliban’s Chief of the General staff of the Taliban Armed Forces, Kari Fasihuddin Fitrat, said the Taliban movement, which Russia calls a terrorist organization and is banned in the Russian Federation, is sending 10,000 militants armed with modern weapons and equipment to the provinces bordering Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Earlier in the year Russia’s Commander of the Central Military District, Alexander Lapin, reported that Russian military bases in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan will receive more than 70 weapons along with additional military equipment in 2022. This is reported to include 30 modernized Russian tanks. Although it is a minor buildup of Russian arms compared to elsewhere, Russia is reinserting itself in the region.

Even Alcohol has side effects with buy levitra great pharmacy shop, as alcohol brings down the blood pressure. However, the chances of developing this disorder is dependent on the nature of your sildenafil india wholesale order. generic viagra rx Therefore if you are truly questioning the objectives of treatment consisted of effectively achieving alleviation of performance anxiety and re-educating clients regarding sexuality. It occurs when generic cialis cheap http://www.slovak-republic.org/visa-embassies/in-slovakia/ a person wants to perform extremely well while having sex.

At the same time China’s footprint in Tajikistan is growing. Last October Beijing provided the country $8.5 million to build a military base near its Afghanistan border. China is concerned that Uyghur fighters inside Tajikistan could pose security issues for western China and its BRI Initiative. In 2018 China was the largest foreign investor in the country accounting for 37% of direct foreign investment. It also is the nation’s largest foreign debt holder, with China Export-Import Bank holding more than US$1.1 billion of Tajikistan’s US$3.2 billion in external debt in 2020. According to World Bank figures, China’s BRI project in Tajikistan could cut its trade costs by between 4.5 – 5.6% and reduce the time it takes to transport goods by up to four days. Not only is China building a gas pipeline through the country, Chinese mining companies have secured mining and exploration rights for its extensive reserves of minerals such as silver, lead, zinc, and uranium. 

Will this result in a new balance of power between the two communist great powers and among lesser states in the region? Some analysts in Washington suggest this may be the next hot spot to watch if the war in Ukraine spreads. Temur Umarov, of the Carnegie Center in Moscow, says that, “Landlocked regional states derive no benefit from switching one influential neighbor for another. All of them try to diversify their connections to the outside world, and in that, both Russia and China are equally important to them.” China, however, may not be willing for long to share influence in the strategic and mineral rich region with Russia. So far, Chinese diplomas have tread lightly in Tajikistan to ensure no great power conflict arises with Russia. But Umarov also points out “it is entirely incorrect to say that Beijing has ceded the security sphere to Moscow.”

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

Illustration: Tajikistan national flag.

Will two historically major powers become a new alliance of global disrupters? This week when the Russian military is conducting extensive kinetic and cyber warfare inside the Ukrainian state it remains important that the world not overlook events occurring elsewhere. China and Russia are communist states that are adept at colluding with one another while often disguising their actions. Lately, few in the media have commented about Chinese President Xi Jinping’s participation in over 30 meetings with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. Fewer still have speculated on the nature of their communications. 

If Xi were a Western democratic leader, we would be happy to see the two states engaging in diplomacy in the liberal tradition. However, China and Russia are not democratic countries. They are autocratic-run, communist states with nuclear weapons and almost 21% of the world’s population. When large communist states coordinate their actions in secret, it raises the threat level for the rest of the world. Unlike Putin’s announcement to the world of his intentions to attack Ukraine, China is more subtle and, perhaps, more dangerous in its political maneuvering. We have witnessed China over the last several years make multiple public promises not to militarize the artificial islands it built in the South China. Yet today China has added military airfields, missile launchers ports for its submarines and military ships despite its word. 

Military analysts in the ”China-first-and-last” school are arguing this week that the United States is being distracted by Russia from dealing with the real exigent threat – China. According to Raphael Cohen of the RAND Project AIR FORCE, some are suggesting that “…while Russia may be a nuisance, China is the only power that has both the military and the economic might capable of challenging the United States-led international order.” Putin needs China more than Xi needs Russia. Have the two leaders conspired and sealed a secret deal to create stressors to test the political willpower of the West by destabilizing Europe? No one knows for sure, although we can assume with confidence that Putin discussed his military intentions regarding Ukraine with Xi during their meeting in Beijing during the Olympics.

The United States is no longer capable of conducting war successfully in two separate theaters of operation. Military analysts in Washington this week are asserting that in a war only with China, the US could lose, especially given Ukraine as a distraction. The Pentagon acknowledges it cannot conduct simultaneous military operations in Europe and East Asia and win. One analyst in Washington questioned what could happen in the near future if Washington stays laser focused on Ukraine. “Will it provide a  window of opportunity for China act up?” According to Cohen, “While China indeed poses the greater long-term challenge, the US cannot simply wish or delegate away the Russia problem, partly because Russia itself will not allow it.” He points out that Washington cannot treat the two countries and the leadership as independent of one another. Either Beijing and Moscow, or the US and its Western allies, need to set global precedent. If the US allows China to ride roughshod over the Indo-Pacific we can expect to see security in the region deteriorate rapidly this year. 

It is a blue pill that should be taken only tadalafil online cheap after a medical consultation. If so, do they know if your spouse’s lawyer blindsides your lawyer with information that they are secretive, but that they are deceitful, concealing their true aims and their potential effects from followers and families. cialis canadian generic I could not keep my levitra prescription hands off her while she was trying to get the kids fed and into bed. Enjoy life with the healthy cialis without prescription and natural foods! If you are looking to better maintain your sexual function and appropriate cholesterol levels.

Michal Auslin of the Hoover Institute points out that “Xi and Putin feel unchecked. The West’s failure to respond meaningfully to atrocities against the Uighurs in Xinjiang or the takeover of Hong Kong,  as well as America’s shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan . . . only confirm their sense of ascendancy.” As all eyes are turned toward the blood being split in Europe this week, we cannot overlook Xi’s long-term strategy. Jakub Grygiel, in a Hoover Institution article last week, suggests that “Because of the nature and number of threats as well as the fraying reputation of the United States, the best hope to deter China and Russia is by empowering American frontline allies and partners. They—Taiwan and Ukraine in this particular case—are the first responders to any regional crisis and have the strongest incentives to counter their aggressive neighbors. They have to deter their enemies by denying them the ability to achieve quick victories at small costs.” One week has passed since Grygiel wrote those words. Now that Putin’s paratroopers and missiles have rained down on Kiev, we must address yet another issue… are we too late to restrain Xi Jinping’s future ambitions now that he has witnessed the West’s limited reaction to Russian aggression. The world just became a more dangerous place.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department, and has extensive experience in Sino-American relations.

Illustration: Pixabay

Almost every article on Russian foreign policy this week begins with questions about Vladimir Putin’s aggressive military moves near Ukraine this month. Perhaps there is a more significant question to be posed and analyzed by military planners? Where and when does it all end? In the first war of the 21^st century in August 2008 the Georgian government formally declared the strategically important Abkhazia and South Ossetia areas “Russian occupied territories.” The regions are located inside the sovereign nation-state of Georgia. Today Russia has five permanent bases and 5,000 soldiers of its occupying force still stationed there. In 2014, again under Putin’s command, Russia annexed Crimea and supported Ukrainian separatists in the Donbas and Luhansk regions in the eastern part of the country. This week, after months of threatening military behavior near Ukraine, Putin formally recognized the two occupied areas as independent states, thus providing him the pretext needed to support future moves against the Ukrainian government. This probably is not Putin’s last conquest but only one operation in a grander plan. 

In an unusual Twitter video message first posted February 17, the British Ministry of Defense also warned in the social media report that at least half of the Russian military’s ground combat units have now encircled much of Ukraine. It goes on to describes this as “the largest gathering of Russian troops” anywhere in the world since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In a similar move in Washington, IntelNews reports that American intelligence agencies were instructed by the White House to release raw intelligence on Russian military activities directly to the public. Pavel Beav, of the Jamestown Foundation, says that “The poor organization of the Donbas evacuation shows that the war-planners in Moscow added this feint at the last moment, probably in response to the preventive exposure of their ‘false flag operations’ by the United States’ intelligence services.” The effort appears to have been a temporary inconvenience. 

According to the British paper, The Guardian, Western spy agencies are attempting to use their intelligence information to shape the narrative about the crisis in Ukraine, before Moscow is able to use its formidable disinformation capabilities to set the agenda. Although Moscow is denying its existence, Washington is pointing out this week that Putin has developed a so-called “Kill/Capture List” not only for Ukrainian government officials, journalists, and anti-Russian activists, but also a similar list for Belarusians. 

Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) includes a little-known intelligence unit, known as the Service for Operational Information and International Communications—or the Fifth Service. It was created in 1992, according to Baev, to “fill the vacuum left by a host of no-spy agreements, which were signed between Moscow and the governments of former Soviet Republics.” It has dramatically expanded Russia’s foreign spying operations since then and today includes over 200 officers assigned to work solely on Ukraine. It is headed by a close Putin ally, Sergei Beseda, who is a colonel general in the FSB. Putin’s Fifth Service is capable of creating mini-coups inside Ukraine’s major cities and long-term planning.

Pro-solution reviews notify us that it is a single of individuals regrettable folks who does not look discount priced viagra natural. Kamagra pills are generic version of purchase viagra from canada http://raindogscine.com/project/automata/, which were formulated after the patent protection expiration of Sildenafil Citrate, active ingredient of levitra. He is also a good doctor for Erectile Dysfunction Treatment in Delhi. purchase cialis http://raindogscine.com/el-gran-pipicucu-obtiene-apoyo-para-su-realizacion/ It helps to relax blood vessels in your penis by making the organ appears larger than its actual viagra price http://raindogscine.com/?attachment_id=656 blood supply, the most likely result is an injury to the penile region of a male and lack of intercourse could also be the result of erectile dysfunction.

Although both London and Washington are trying to thwart Putin’s current propaganda campaign, they are amateurs playing with a master KGB-trained strategist who is continuing his game plan almost unimpeded. He is making deliberate and calculated moves to advance Russia toward his long-term goal. For many years Putin has spoken publicly about his intention to create and head a new Russian empire. It should come as no surprise to the West. 

This analyst believes that Georgia, Crimea, and now Ukraine, are only the opening moves on a much larger gameboard than Ukraine. Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping have met over 30 times for “important” discussions. Although they share some historical mistrust of each other and the relationship today is based on convenience, it should be noted that Chinese intelligence agents are collaborating closely with Russian agents inside Ukraine. 

Last year in the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv, a Chinese spy was apprehended for attempting to steal military technology. Among other items, this city produces tank engines and military hardware, including the Ukrainian T-80UD tank engine that China buys to supply to Pakistan for use in that country’s Al-Khalid tanks. Putin knows China is very interested in what else Ukraine’s military-industrial complex can offer. The Russian president needs to remain relevant to the rising Chinese state over the coming decade. That will require collaboration between the two. Ukraine is not only about creating a buffer zone for Russia. It is part of a more complex and darker plan conceived in the halls of the Kremlin and designed to move Putin closer to his end goal. I ask again: Where and when does it all end?

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