Month: April 2022

The original Iran nuclear deal was seriously flawed. The new version currently under consideration is even worse.

Robert Satloff, writing for the Washington Institute, described the first deal:

“Originally, diplomacy with Iran was supposed to be based on a straight trade-off: America (and its partners) would end nuclear-related sanctions while Iran would end its domestic nuclear program. Then, the United States conceded to Iran the right to have its own nuclear reactors but not to develop indigenous capacity to enrich nuclear fuel, which doubles as the core element of nuclear weapons. Then, the United States conceded to Iran the right to enrich but under strict limitations. Then, the United States conceded to Iran that the strict limitations on enrichment would expire at a certain point in the future. The result was that a deal originally conceived as trading sanctions relief for Iran’s nuclear program evolved, over time, into a deal trading sanctions relief for time-limited restrictions on Iran’s ambitious nuclear plans.”

The Obama White House glossed over the fact that the inspection regime was going to be inadequate, and that Iran would be free to develop nuclear weapons in about a decade. Since the deal was completed, Iran’s supposedly forbidden testing of extended range missiles proceeded unchallenged. Obama lied—there is no gentler way of stating this—about a “moderate” faction in the Tehran regime. It lied about the fact that Obama had a long-standing desire to conclude a deal, that would lift the economic sanctions on Iran.

Even news outlets normally favorable towards the White House criticized Obama’s deception. The NY Daily News, a pro-Democrat outlet, editorialized: “Iranian propaganda went as the mullahs hoped for relief from economic sanctions via a nuclear deal with the U.S. and Western powers. Why would anyone believe such obvious nonsense? One reason — in fact the key reason — is that Obama joined Iran in knowingly peddling the same false propaganda to America”

The Trump Administration rejected the measure due its lack of merit.

Then came its replacement, now being pursued by President Biden.  An open letter, signed by 46 retired generals and admirals, outlines the reason it is even worse than the already terrible version it replaces.

They note that the new deal is shorter and weaker than the original 2015 agreement. It could leave Iran twice as close to a nuclear weapon as its predecessor. It enables the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism to cast its own nuclear shadow over the Middle East. It is poised to instantly fuel explosive Iranian aggression and pave Iran’s path to become a nuclear power.

It will (foolishly) pay Russia to store Iran’s enriched uranium. It does not prohibit Iran’s development of intercontinental ballistic missiles, allowing it to acquire the means to target the American homeland with nuclear weapons.  It would, if Iranian demands are met, take the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran’s main terrorist wing responsible for the deaths of at least 600 American troops—off the U.S. terrorist list. It lifts sanctions, earning hundreds of billions of dollars for the radical regime in Tehran to fuel greater aggression against U.S. soldiers and our allies in the region.

The 46 retired top officers stated that “In Ukraine, we are bearing witness to the horrors of a country ruthlessly attacking its neighbor and, by brandishing its nuclear weapons, forcing the rest of the world largely to stand on the sidelines. The new Iran deal currently being negotiated, which Russia has played a central role in crafting, will enable the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism to cast its own nuclear shadow over the Middle East.”

Illustration: Pixabay

1. U.S. State Dept. Statements on Ukraine

The United States, along with its allies and partners, works to ensure the Russian Federation and the Lukashenka regime in Belarus pay a severe economic and diplomatic price for their unprovoked aggression against Ukraine.  
 
With our allies and partners, we have taken these actions: 

• Applied powerful sanctions on Russia’s largest financial institutions and its sovereign wealth fund. 
• Made it difficult for Russia to find funding for its war beyond its borders. 
• Choked off Russian imports of key technologies. 
• Targeted the financial networks and assets of Russian and Belarusian elites, including President Putin and members of his security council. 

There is nowhere for individuals or entities who support the unprovoked war to hide. We already see the effects of these actions, as the Russian and Belarusian economies stumble. With our allies and partners, we will continue to take strong economic and diplomatic actions. 

We are also working with partners, including the Ukrainian authorities and international institutions, to pursue justice and accountability for war crimes and other atrocities committed in Ukraine. We will use every tool available to promote accountability for these acts, including criminal prosecutions.

Analyzing a fake Kremlin video used to justify war with Ukraine

The Kremlin is claiming the atrocities committed by Russian forces in Bucha, Ukraine — documented by satellite imagery — were a provocation staged by the West. Here’s what a staged provocation really looks like.

Evidence suggests Russia used a staged incident to justify its full-scale further invasion of Ukraine on February 24.

The Kremlin has ramped up its disinformation campaign since Russia began its unprovoked war with Ukraine, but there were plenty of false claims leading up to it.

One video was so suspicious — and so gruesome — that it drew scrutiny from Bellingcat, a Netherlands-based investigative journalism group that specializes in fact-checking and open-source intelligence.

The incident in question allegedly took place on a highway between Donetsk and Horlivka on February 22 at approximately 5 a.m. local time. An improvised explosive device (IED) was reported to have detonated on the highway, destroying a van and a car.

The video showed three charred bodies from two vehicles, apparently from a roadside bomb, in the Donbas region, which Russia-backed forces have controlled since 2014, when Russia first invaded Ukraine.

Using state media to spread the falsehoods

Vladimir Putin loyalists and pro-Kremlin media reported that Ukrainian armed forces were behind the alleged IED and targeted a military commander affiliated with the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) in eastern Ukraine.

Among those posting the images on social media and the claim: the state-controlled daily newspaper Izvestiya and the pro-Kremlin DNR People’s Militia.

Bellingcat relied on an explosive weapons expert and a forensic pathologist during its investigation, and what they saw didn’t add up.

• Neither vehicle had number plates.
• Neither vehicle appeared to have moved from the point of detonation, suggesting they were both static when the IED detonated.
• The damage seen on both vehicles was inconsistent with an IED blast.

“In my opinion the images do not represent credible scenario,” Chris Cobb-Smith, an explosive weapons expert and director of Chiron Resources, told Bellingcat. “I believe the incident has been manufactured to give the appearance of an IED blast in which three individuals died.”

Relying on experts

The injuries to the skulls also appeared inconsistent with an IED blast. The skull of one of the bodies appeared to have clear cuts on both sides of the head, cleanly separating the skull cap from the rest of the skull.

Bellingcat looked at open sources and discovered these cuts are more consistent with a procedure carried out during an autopsy. The organization asked Lawrence Owens with the University of Winchester in England to analyze the images. He concluded the people were already deceased before their bodies were placed in the vehicles.

Bellingcat’s final report concludes that the incident involved “the staged use of cadavers and likely faked IED damage.”

The bottom line: the Kremlin used a fake story about a fake IED that didn’t kill anyone to drum up support back in Russia for a war it provoked. The war has killed more than 1,600 civilians and injured more than 2,000 since it was launched more than a month ago.

Xi Jinping’s draconian “Zero Covid” policy is in place as Covid cases in Shanghai top 25,000 on Tuesday. The strict, extended lockdown is taking on new meaning in cities across the country this month as President Xi continues his April 5 order effectively shutting down the Shanghai metropolis, among other major urban areas. The unintended consequences of Xi’s action are reverberating among a population already reeling from global supply chain issues. Children are being separated from parents. Truckers who regularly haul food into Shanghai are refusing to travel into the city over concerns they will be caught in a net and unable to leave once inside it. Many drivers are refusing to make any urban deliveries, leaving residents to scramble for goods and scarce staples in local food stores. Authorities imposed a “two-phase lockdown on its 25 million residents” and extended an existing lockdown in eastern neighborhoods with positive cases by up to nine days, according to Laura He, writing for CNN Business. People who once trusted the government in Beijing to look out for their welfare are increasingly suspicious of Xi’s ability to handle the latest Covid outbreak.

Shanghai, the hardest hit city, is an important container shipping and logistics hub that supplies goods throughout the country. Shànghǎi Gǎng (上海港),the city’s deep-water seaport, is considered the world’s fastest growing port facility and a center for foreign trade with China. It serves as an important link in China’s 21^st century Maritime Silk Road that connects the country to Singapore. This week more than 300 ships are stalled waiting to discharge their cargo. According to Maersk, one of the world’s largest shipping companies, “Trucking service in and out [of] Shanghai will be severely impacted by 30% due to a full lockdown on Shanghai’s Pudong and Puxi areas.” Beijing commonly lies about the country’s economic data. It will be harder now as the government can’t easily conceal the lack of critical food supplies its urban residents need to survive. 

The Chinese government is projecting a 5.5% national growth rate for 2022. As of April, according to Zhuang Pinghui of the South China Morning Post, “Strict pandemic measures across the country could cost US $46 billion per month in lost economic output as social acceptance also wears thin.” It appears that Beijing “will need to fudge its numbers,” according to one analyst, “to reach its target.” People who have not been free to leave their homes in a month are openly angry at the government. Medical care issues, according to Foreign Policy’s James Palmer, are so acute that foreign consulates in Shanghai are relocating staff outside the city. Yet despite over 150,000 recorded Covid cases in the city, China has not reported a single death, casting further doubt on the CCP leadership’s credibility. Palm points out that “One underrated factor shaping the impact of these lockdowns is how many Chinese still live in collective housing. Students are trapped in six-person dorms, migrant workers in temporary shelters at building sites, and waiters or shop staff in employer-provided apartments. Along with limited space and lack of freezers, that has limited the ability of households to effectively stockpile resources for lockdowns.”

The combined pressures are creating and exposing cracks in the image China intends to project to the world. Domestically, rifts are opening between the citizenry and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This places Xi Jinping and the CCP leadership in a difficult balancing act between keeping his promise of a Zero Covid policy in place and reducing the tensions among the populace inside China. If Xi abandons his program, he will be viewed as failing to keep his word. In a society still adhering to a culture based on “saving face,” Xi’s legacy as a paramount leader is at risk is he misses this year’s GDP figures or allows the virus to spread. The Covid pandemic, coupled with a domestic economic downturn and Xi Jinping’s close relationship with Vladimir Putin, may be enough to raise questions about the stability and legitimacy of the CCP leadership and Xi Jinping himself. That could portend more pressive measures ahead of the people of China.

Photo: Shanghai (Pixabay)

In December of 2020, after the election of his father, “Hunter Biden...announced…that federal prosecutors in Delaware (were) investigating his ‘tax affairs’…looking into Hunter’s business dealings in China and elsewhere, including scrutinizing whether he may have committed tax crimes stemming from those overseas business dealings.” 

That investigation dated back to 2018, and “has expanded to include potential violations of foreign lobbying and money laundering laws. Prosecutors called on Biden’s associates and other witnesses to testify before a grand jury…on whether Biden broke the law through his business relationships in Ukraine, China, Kazakhstan, and elsewhere…”

Once the existence of the laptop was revealed, “(t)he FBI subpoenaed (that) laptop and hard drive…in connection with (the above-described) money laundering investigation, according to a new report…’The FBI cannot open a case without predication, so they believed there was predication for criminal activity,’ a government official told Fox News. ‘This means there was sufficient evidence to believe that there was criminal conduct…(i)f a criminal case was opened and subpoenas were issued, that means there is a high likelihood that both the laptop and hard drive contain fruits of criminal activity,” the official said.” 

As noted with undisguised glee by the New York Post, “(i)n the heat of the presidential race of 2020, the (New York) Times never missed a chance to cast doubt on the laptop, saying the information was ‘purported’ and quoting a letter from former Democratic officials who claimed — with no evidence — that it was Russian disinformation. As recently as September 2021, the Times called the laptop ‘unsubstantiated’ in a news story…(t)hen…in passing, (The Times) notes that Hunter’s laptop is legitimate. ‘People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity,’ the Times writes. ‘Those emails were…from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation.’ Authenticated!!! You don’t say. You mean, when a newspaper actually does reporting on a topic and doesn’t just try to whitewash coverage for Joe Biden, it discovers it’s actually true?” 

There are several reasons the information contained in Hunter Biden’s laptop has been dismissed for so long.  Media support for Joe Biden (or more specifically, disdain for President Trump) is one probable answer; Left-leaning sentiment and support for Democratic policies and politicians by much of the legacy media is another.  There are also a variety of reasons for the sudden acceptance of the Hunter Biden story by media outlets who actively suppressed the initial revelation – among these, increased disappointment in the Biden Administration’s competence, and growing doubt in Biden’s personal capacity to fulfill the duties of his office.  Both of these issues are increasingly the subject of public outcry and dissatisfaction. 

But of more significance is the fact that the revelations of corruption contained in that laptop are now evidence in a federal investigation and Grand Jury presentation, which may lead to the indictment of the President’s son.  Even more important; the evidence gathered from that laptop points to the sins of the son involving the father.

As noted above, these investigations involve the Ukrainian business deal initially reported by the New York Post in 2019.  However, more recently, the focus has shifted to Hunter Biden’s activities in China.  “According to a report last week from The Washington Post, the president’s son signed a contract with an executive with the Chinese energy company CEFC in August 2017. According to the newspaper, ‘Over the course of 14 months, the Chinese energy conglomerate and its executives paid $4.8 million to entities controlled by Hunter Biden and his uncle, according to government records, court documents and newly disclosed bank statements, as well as emails contained on a copy of a laptop hard drive that purportedly once belonged to Hunter Biden.’ Hunter’s uncle James Biden is the president’s brother, and the contract in question, according to The Post, provided Hunter Biden a one-time retainer of $500,000, in addition to monthly stipends of $100,000 for him and $65,000 for his uncle… 

“As the report explains, CEFC, which is financed by Chinese government development banks, is tied to China’s Communist Party and linked to the People’s Liberation Army… Hunter Biden’s contract with CEFC is questionable not only because of the large sums involved in return for services that he appears ill-suited to provide, but also because of the characters it brought him in contact with…Hunter Biden was contacted by an intermediary looking to arrange a meeting between him and Ye Jianming, the chairman of CEFC. Ye had been the deputy secretary of the China Association for International Friendly Contact, which a 2011 U.S. congressional report called ‘a front’ for the People’s Liberation Army. CEFC may claim it’s a ‘private’ company, but when it comes to major Chinese entities, there’s no such thing as private and no way to politely decline the strong arm of the Chinese intelligence services.” 

In an email discovered on Hunter Biden’s laptop, “one of Hunter Biden’s business associates, James Gilliar, pitched the equity stakes for key players in a firm created for a joint venture with CEFC China Energy Co. in March 2017. It read, ’10 held by H for the big guy?,’ suggesting that this person would get 10 percent of the deal. Biden business partner Tony Bobulinski, who was brought in to structure the deal, publicly identified ‘the Big Guy’ as Joe Biden when the emails came to light in the run up to the 2020 election.” 

“Although the White House has disputed the email was a reference to Joe Biden,” according to the Daily Mail,  “others use the same moniker for him going as far back as 2013. A trade union lobbyist referred to President Biden as the ‘big guy’ when he emailed Hunter trying to arrange a meeting between his union boss and the then-vice president in 2014. And an executive at a wealth management firm used the moniker for Joe when he wrote to Hunter about the vice president’s appearance at a 2013 private club dinner in Delaware…. (a) witness testifying to a grand jury in Hunter’s probe was asked who the ‘big guy’ was in the Chinese deal, a source told the New York Post.” 

This matter is now in the hands of a federal Grand Jury.  It seems highly likely that Hunter Biden will be indicted for several counts of money laundering, tax fraud, and failure to register as a foreign agent charges.  Is it also possible that Joe Biden, the “big guy,” will at the very least be named an “unindicted co-conspirator,” if not indicted himself? 

If so, than Donald Trump was right again – Joe Biden is nothing more than another “corrupt politician.” 

Illustration: Pixabay

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC.

Putin expected to spend a few days marching his troops into Kiev and then occupying the whole of Ukraine without much resistance from Ukrainian military forces. Some in Moscow’s political elite went so far as to argue that they would be welcomed there as heroes. It soon became apparent Putin’s “special military operation” was not going to be a simple or short one. As the days turned into weeks, and the weeks developed into months, Western military analysts began reevaluating the real strength of Russia’s military.

One analyst in Washington suggested this week that if Putin was unable to take Ukraine soon, Russian troops certainly could not win a future war against well-disciplined Finish or Swedish forces should Moscow alter plans and try instead to invade Scandinavia. Russian heavy military equipment also receives a failing grade as it is not holding up well on the battlefield. Ukrainian troops, many using donated Western guns, have destroyed large numbers of Russian armored vehicles and tanks and captured or killed several high-ranking Russian military officers. Recently captured Russian drones revealed that they did not contain advanced technology. Their imaging technology was unsophisticated and similar to that of a hand-held Cannon camera. Putin’s miscalculation of the readiness of his forces, the capability of the country’s military technology, and the reaction of the world to his war crimes, has destabilized the region and lad some to call this a post, post-WWII period leading into a pre-WWIII era. 

Putin’s options are narrowing. One unanswered question is: what is the Russian leader capable of doing if faced with the reality that he can’t win in Ukraine? He already is committing atrocities unseen since Hitler’s acts of genocide during WWII. One former US military analyst with an expertise in Russian affairs  suggested examining statements Putin made about his childhood. The Russian leader grew up in a housing project filled with rats, which he passed on a regular basis going to and from school. As he tells the story, one day he encountered a cornered rat facing certain demise. Putin says he learned then that a cornered rat will fight to the very end and its own death rather than be captured. That may be how Putin views the war in Ukraine today.

The Russian president has been unable to locate enough Ukrainians to stage even one small rally in support of Russian occupying forces. Teachers resigned en masse when ordered to change the language in which school children are educated from Ukrainian to Russian. In Melitopol some school directors resigned too, despite offers of bonuses to be paid in Russian denominated rubles, according to a report this week from the Jamestown Foundation. Despite the challenges, Putin appears like the cornered rat he recalled from his childhood, to willingly fight until the bitter end.

Forty-seven days into its invasion of Ukraine, Defense One says, “Russia is regrouping for another battle for the Donbas—and has named a Russian general known for his brutality as head of operations in Ukraine.” His name is Gen. Alexander Dvornikov. He also is known as “the Butcher of Syria” for the indiscriminate killing of civilians in Aleppo and Homs. 

Pentagon press secretary John Kirby says that “Sadly, we can all expect that the same brutal tactics, that same disregard for civilian life and civilian infrastructure, will probably continue as they now focus in a more geographically confined area in the Donbas” under Gen. Dvornikov.

Most analysts in Washington this week seem to agree that Russia is not retreating but simply reorganizing its forces to prepare for a new major assault. Last weekend satellite imagery indicated the massing of large Russian convoys along routes leading to the occupied Donbas region of Ukraine.

In a speech posted to his Facebook account, Ukrainian president Zelensky told his country’s assembly: “Russia wants to dominate and believes it can do this in only one way… Sending its army that was brought up in total lawlessness to destroy everything that allows other nations to live.” If Putin does succeed in capturing more areas in the Donbas, he still will face an indigenous insurgency movement in the region in the coming years. Western government leaders are calling for Putin personally to face war crimes charges after the recent discovery of a number of mass graves. The war is far from over, even if there is a cessation of hostile fire.   

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department. She currently teaches at a major university.

Shortly before the 2020 election, the New York Post broke a story that was promptly suppressed by Facebook and Twitter.  “Both social media companies said the moves were aimed at slowing the spread of potentially false information…(b)ut (each) gave few details about how they reached their decisions, sparking criticism about the lack of clarity and consistency with which they apply their rules.” 

What was the substance of the story the Post had published that was so quickly labeled “potentially false information?”  “Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, according to emails obtained by The Post…(t)he blockbuster correspondence — which flies in the face of Joe Biden’s claim that he’s ‘never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings’ — is contained in a massive trove of data recovered from a laptop computer.  The computer was dropped off at a repair shop in Biden’s home state of Delaware in April 2019, according to the store’s owner.” 

That October,  “(f)ollowing the purported revelations about Hunter Biden’s allegedly corrupt foreign business dealings…criticism of the story rained down. It was widely argued, especially among Democrats, that the laptop and its emails were nothing less than fake Russian disinformation meant to meddle with the upcoming U.S. presidential election. ‘We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions,’ said NPR’s Managing Editor for News Terence Samuel. ‘(T)his was a politically driven event and we decided to treat it that way.’” 

The “Russian disinformation” narrative was the party line for much of the media.  “CNN’s ‘The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer’ was particularly egregious on Oct. 16, 2020 when Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., joined the liberal network to discuss the Post’s reporting…’We know that this whole smear on Joe Biden comes from the Kremlin. That’s been clear for well over a year now that they’ve been pushing this false narrative about the vice president and his son,’ Schiff told Blitzer. ‘Clearly, the origins of this whole smear are from the Kremlin.'” 

At one point, “(m)ore than 50 former senior intelligence officials…signed on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son ‘has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation’… Former CIA directors or acting directors (John) Brennan, Leon Panetta, Gen. Michael Hayden, John McLaughlin and Michael Morell also signed the letter, along with more than three dozen other intelligence veterans. Several of the former officials on the list have endorsed Biden.” 

The support of these 50 or so “senior intelligence officials” was significant enough to be mentioned by Joe Biden himself during the October 22, 2020 Presidential debate; 

“TRUMP: If this stuff is true about Russia, Ukraine, China, other countries, Iraq — If this is true, then he’s a corrupt politician. So don’t give me the stuff about how you’re this innocent baby. Joe, they’re calling you a corrupt politician…

BIDEN: Look, there are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what this, he’s accusing me of is a Russian plan. They have said that this has all the characteristics — four– five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except him and his good friend Rudy Giuliani.
TRUMP: You mean, the laptop is now another Russia, Russia, Russia hoax? You gotta be–
BIDEN: That’s exactly what — That’s exactly what–
TRUMP: Is this where you’re going? This is where he’s going. The laptop is Russia, Russia, Russia?”

Indeed.  And this remained the position of much of the media and Democratic Party through Biden’s election victory, and for the past year and one half.

Until now. 

Judge Wilson’s (ret.) report concludes tomorrow

Illustration: Pixabay

NATO has released it’s long-awaited statement on Russia’s Ukraine invasion:

We, the Heads of State and Government of the 30 NATO Allies, have met today to address Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, the gravest threat to Euro-Atlantic security in decades.  Russia’s war against Ukraine has shattered peace in Europe and is causing enormous human suffering and destruction. 

We condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in the strongest possible terms. We call on President Putin to immediately stop this war and withdraw military forces from Ukraine, and call on Belarus to end its complicity, in line with the Aggression Against Ukraine Resolution adopted at the UN General Assembly of 2 March 2022.  Russia should comply with the 16 March ruling by the UN International Court of Justice and immediately suspend military operations.  Russia’s attack on Ukraine threatens global security. Its assault on international norms makes the world less safe. President Putin’s escalatory rhetoric is irresponsible and destabilizing.

Ukrainians have inspired the world with heroic resistance to Russia’s brutal war of conquest.  We strongly condemn Russia’s devastating attacks on civilians, including women, children, and persons in vulnerable situations. We will work with the rest of the international community to hold accountable those responsible for violations of humanitarian and international law, including war crimes. We are deeply concerned about the increased risk of sexual violence and human trafficking. We urge Russia to allow rapid, safe, and unhindered humanitarian access and safe passage for civilians, and to allow for humanitarian aid to be delivered to Mariupol and other besieged cities. We also condemn attacks against civilian infrastructure, including those endangering nuclear power plants. We will continue to counter Russia’s lies about its attack on Ukraine and expose fabricated narratives or manufactured “false flag” operations to prepare the ground for further escalation, including against the civilian population of Ukraine.  Any use by Russia of a chemical or biological weapon would be unacceptable and result in severe consequences. 

Russia needs to show it is serious about negotiations by immediately implementing a ceasefire. We call on Russia to engage constructively in credible negotiations with Ukraine to achieve concrete results, starting with a sustainable ceasefire and moving towards a complete withdrawal of its troops from Ukrainian territory.  Russia’s continuing aggression while discussions are taking place is deplorable.  We support Ukraine’s efforts to achieve peace, and those undertaken diplomatically by Allies to weigh in on Russia to end the war and relieve human suffering.  

We stand in full solidarity with President Zelenskyy, the government of Ukraine, and with the brave Ukrainian citizens who are defending their homeland.  We honour all those killed, injured, and displaced by Russia’s aggression, as well as their families. We reaffirm our unwavering support for the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders extending to its territorial waters.

Ukraine has a fundamental right to self-defence under the United Nations Charter.   Since 2014, we have provided extensive support to Ukraine’s ability to exercise that right.  We have trained Ukraine’s armed forces, strengthening their military capabilities and capacities and enhancing their resilience.  NATO Allies have stepped up their support and will continue to provide further political and practical support to Ukraine as it continues to defend itself.  NATO Allies will also continue to provide assistance in such areas as cybersecurity and protection against threats of a chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear nature.  NATO Allies also provide extensive humanitarian support and are hosting millions of refugees.  Foreign Ministers will discuss further our support to Ukraine when they meet in April.

We are united in our resolve to counter Russia’s attempts to destroy the foundations of international security and stability. We are holding Russia and Belarus to account.  Massive sanctions and heavy political costs have been imposed on Russia in order to bring an end to this war. We remain determined to maintain coordinated international pressure on Russia. We will continue to coordinate closely with relevant stakeholders and other international organizations, including the European Union. Transatlantic coordination remains crucial for an effective response to the current crisis.

We call on all states, including the People’s Republic of China (PRC), to uphold the international order including the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, as enshrined in the UN Charter, to abstain from supporting Russia’s war effort in any way, and to refrain from any action that helps Russia circumvent sanctions. We are concerned by recent public comments by PRC officials and call on China to cease amplifying the Kremlin’s false narratives, in particular on the war and on NATO, and to promote a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

We remain committed to the foundational principles underpinning European and global security, including that each nation has the right to choose its own security arrangements free from outside interference. We reaffirm our commitment to NATO’s Open Door Policy under Article 10 of the Washington Treaty.  

We are providing tailored support to partners affected by Russian threats and interference and will step up our assistance to help them resist Russian malign influence and strengthen their resilience, based on our partners’ requests and our long-standing partnership programmes. In April, Foreign Ministers will consider concrete proposals for enhancing our support to these partners.

We will continue to take all necessary steps to protect and defend the security of our Allied populations and every inch of Allied territory. Our commitment to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty is iron-clad. 

In response to Russia’s actions, we have activated NATO’s defence plans, deployed elements of the NATO Response Force, and placed 40,000 troops on our eastern flank, along with significant air and naval assets, under direct NATO command supported by Allies’ national deployments. We are also establishing four additional multinational battlegroups in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia. We are taking all measures and decisions to ensure the security and defence of all Allies across all domains and with a 360-degree approach.  Our measures remain preventive, proportionate, and non-escalatory. We will now accelerate NATO’s transformation for a more dangerous strategic reality, including through the adoption of the next Strategic Concept in Madrid. In light of the gravest threat to Euro-Atlantic security in decades, we will also significantly strengthen our longer term deterrence and defence posture and will further develop the full range of ready forces and capabilities necessary to maintain credible deterrence and defence. These steps will be supported by enhanced exercises with an increased focus on collective defence and interoperability. 

We are increasing the resilience of our societies and our infrastructure to counter Russia’s malign influence. We are enhancing our cyber capabilities and defences, providing support to each other in the event of cyber-attacks. We are ready to impose costs on those who harm us in cyberspace, and are increasing information exchange and situational awareness, enhancing civil preparedness, and strengthening our ability to respond to disinformation. We will also enhance our preparedness and readiness for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats. We will take further decisions when we meet in Madrid.  

The steps we are taking to ensure the security of our Alliance and of the Euro-Atlantic area will require adequate resourcing.  Allies are substantially increasing their defence expenditures. Today, we have decided to accelerate our efforts to fulfil our commitment to the Defence Investment Pledge in its entirety. In line with our commitment in Article 3 of the Washington Treaty, we will further strengthen our individual and collective capacity to resist all forms of attack. At our meeting in Madrid, we will submit additional plans on how to meet the Pledge.

Russia’s unprovoked war against Ukraine represents a fundamental challenge to the values and norms that have brought security and prosperity to all on the European continent. President Putin’s choice to attack Ukraine is a strategic mistake, with grave consequences also for Russia and the Russian people. We remain united and resolute in our determination to oppose Russia’s aggression, aid the government and the people of Ukraine, and defend the security of all Allies.

Most Americans know the Mediterranean Sea is located between Europe and North Africa. In comparison, few know the location or importance of the nearby Black Sea, which sits between Asia and Europe and serves as a drainage basin for 24 countries across Europe. There are six nation-states along its coastline, including Ukraine, Russia, Georgia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey. The Turkish Straits, consisting of the Bosporus and Dardanelles, serves as a gateway into the eastern Mediterranean. The Black Sea itself contains over 30 operating merchant seaports, including 12 in Ukraine, and forms a strategic corridor for trade, moving legal and illegal goods, alongside radioactive materials. Today oilfields and natural gas resources in the western portion under Ukraine’s exclusive economic zone are in danger due to Russia’s invasion of the country. According to John Daly of the Jamestown Foundation, Putin has turned the northern Black Sea into a de facto war zone, putting the entire region at risk.

The director of the Institute for Agricultural Market Studies, Dmitri Rylko, points out that the conflict has doubled the insurance premiums for merchant vessels entering the Black Sea and is likely to “result in massive unsold grain stocks.” Bulgaria and Romania, NATO Member states, normally receive Black Sea shipments of approximately 200,000 barrels of crude oil per day via their coastal terminals. Putin’s war, Daly says, has left Black Sea maritime trade in limbo. Although Russia has not formally declared a blockade of the Ukrainian coast along the Black Sea, insurance companies remain unsure whether to guarantee the safety of shipments, while foreign companies are uncertain about assuming the additional risk themselves. Since the end of February four cargo ships traveling in the Black Sea were either sunk or damaged by Russian missile attacks.  

With grain shipments stopped and well over 90 foreign-flagged ships remaining in the line of fire, NATO’s Shipping Center is defining the Black Sea as “very high risk.” Tethered mines in the waters around Odessa, in particular, have broken free and are floating in the currents. As of last week, Turkish authorities, with assistance from Bulgaria and Romania, disarmed several of the naval mines drifting near the Bosporus. Daly points out that “foreign interest in utilizing Georgian seaports grew by 250 percent, mainly from European and Chinese shippers, since the start of the current Russo-Ukrainian war” as it is one of the safer areas located on the eastern side of the Black Sea. NATO announced recently, that “the threat of more drifting mines cannot be ruled out.” 

The Financial Times is reporting that the conflict has severed Moldova’s normal import channels via maritime and Ukrainian overland corridors and ruptured exports to Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine. “This has forced the country to utilize more costly alternative routes and suppliers, aggravated by rising prices and energy deficits.” Naval mines, although outlawed in 1907 under the Hague Convention, have created an area of undeclared war in the Black Sea. 

The Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) completed a 12-month study on security in the Black Sea region in which it concluded it is a critical but “largely overlooked component in Russia’s military strategy” in the context of Moscow’s revisionist geopolitical ambitions in the Central and Eastern European region. According to the CEPA report, Moscow’s increased militarization of the Black Sea has altered the balance of power in the region, restored Russia’s dominion in Eastern Europe and Eurasia, and enabled Putin to project power into the Mediterranean and Middle East. 

In a CEPA document released this week, Lauren Speranza and Lt. General (Ret.) Ben Hodges argue that “Going forward, much more is needed to boost defense in the Black Sea region to support Ukraine, reassure vulnerable allies, and push back on Vladimir Putin’s unjustified aggression. Home to three NATO allies and two close partners, the Black Sea is a strategically important arena for the West to not only contain Russia, but counter China and defend against Iran. 

The region also holds significant economic potential as the east-west corridor between Europe and Eurasia.” One solution, they suggest, is that NATO establish a “continuous blue water NATO naval presence in the Black Sea 365-days-a-year, with naval support infrastructure in Romania, Ukraine, Georgia, and Bulgaria that enables the maximum US naval presence within the parameters of the Montreux Convention.” The Black Sea was a critical frontier for a new European new security architecture before Putin invaded Ukraine. Today it is even more important if the West is to contain Russian imperialist ambitions. 

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

Illustration: Wikipedia

 Xi Jinping and the CCP leadership are watching events unfold in Russia’s war in Ukraine. As the days pass into weeks, Beijing is growing more concerned that spillover effects from the war could eventually impact China’s domestic economy and its political standing in the world. Over the last decade relations between Putin and Xi have evolved into a close strategic partnership based on mutual convenience. With the world uniting in condemnation of Putin, and sanctions against Russia mounting, Xi is starting to back pedal in China’s public support of Russia by intermittently distancing his country from its companion. 

There are other signs, however, that behind-the-scenes Beijing is continuing to strongly back Putin’s efforts. China, like Russia, employs a sophisticated propaganda and disinformation bureaucracy that currently is tasked with helping to shape China’s global image and limit fallout from its partnership with Russia. The world is seeing and hearing the message China intends, while Xi continues his strategic partnership relatively unimpeded with Putin. Xi is a world-class strategist who knows that maintaining a position Western leaders find reasonable is key to not getting dragged into a whirlpool of economic sanctions from which China might not readily escape.

At last week’s China-European Union virtual summit, European leaders pressed China hard to remain neutral and stop actively assisting China. They warned the communist giant against continuing to sustain normal economic relations with Russia while the world is attempting to target and isolate it to force an end to the war. While most of the West is united in its stance, a few European Summit participants still, however, suggested that China could play a mediating role. It is evidence of the effectiveness of the Chinese propaganda machine.

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang told EU leaders that his country would seek to advance peace in “its own way.” Previously, at the end of March in a press conference, Foreign Minister Wang Yi stated that Russia is China’s “most important close neighbor and strategic partner.” When he met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Wang Yi hailed efforts to advance bilateral cooperation to “higher levels.” China also inked a deal to buy Russian wheat that it no longer can sell elsewhere due to economic sanctions. Zhang Jun, China’s envoy to the United Nations, told the Security Council on Tuesday that all parties should exercise restraint and then followed up by calling for the world to avoid “groundless” accusations. He then added that “Reports and images of civilian deaths in Bucha are very disturbing, and the circumstances and specific causes of the incident must be ascertained.” Foreign policy analysts in Washington this week are pointing out that China is playing a destabilizing role in its relationship with Europe rather than a mediating one. 

Despite pressure from the West, China has not condemned Russian atrocities in Ukraine or called for Putin to be held accountable for war crimes. China has a hidden agenda. Zhang argued at the UN that countries not directly involved in the war should not be held accountable or forces to bear the consequences of geopolitical conflicts. The China-EU summit was a success from Beijing’s perspective as it ended without a commitment from the Chinese leadership to withhold military and economic support from Moscow. The EU’s top diplomat Josep Borrell told the European Parliament on Tuesday that “The Chinese side stuck to their general statements of wishing to see peace, we are a peaceful people, we don’t invade others, asking for de-escalation, but avoiding specific commitments or avoiding any sort of line on Russia.” It is over 40 years since China opened to the West. During that time China’s envoys have gained diplomatic skills and learned to manipulate the global media and world leaders. Beijing continues to pose a fundamental challenge to democratic states, despite China’s propaganda machine moderating its public position. 

Larry Diamond and Glenn Tiffert, co-chairs of the Hoover Institution’s project on China’s Global Sharp Power, this week reminded the world that “China’s leaders have a grandiose vision of ‘national rejuvenation.’ The CCP’s ultimate goal is global hegemony – to make China the world’s leading power, dominating not only global trade (and, someday, finance) and resource flows but contested spaces like the Arctic, outer space, and international institutions.” That requires secret diplomatic moves, generating propaganda, and back-room deals with Putin. Western democratic leaders must come to terms with how China operates in the real world and learn to recognize that Xi and the CCP are playing the long-game. China still finds Russia useful for supplying energy, AI technology, and missiles. Xi and the CCP leadership will say and do what is necessary to obtain the advanced technologies needed for its hegemonic goals. Even China would admit that there are two side to every coin. Right now that means avoiding economic sanctions and global condemnation that could deprive the communist regime of the short-term resources it needs to meet its long-term goals. 

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Illustration: Pixabay