Month: June 2022

Russia’s weaponization of food through its destruction of the Ukrainian agricultural sector this spring is expected to result in famine and starvation for millions in the developing world. President Vladimir Putin is deepening the crisis further by rapidly raising prices on what food remains available. Since February the price of wheat has increased dramatically. This June it is 16% higher than in February and 33% higher over March 2021 prices.  Putin is attempting to force western nations to lift the sanctions imposed on Russia in response to its invasion of Ukraine. According to Patrick Tucker, writing in Defense One, Russia is “blocking grain exports, targeting grain storage facilities, and even stealing food.” At the same time Moscow is attempting to blame the United States for the food shortages. In April the World Bank forecasted that this will be a multi-year event.

US State Department Special Envoy for Global Food Security, Cary Fowler, said at an Atlantic Council event Wednesday “We were dealing with climate change, dealing with COVID and supply-chain problems. We’re now dealing with conflict, and we also have historically low grain stockpiles. And we’re in the high point of a cycle for fertilizer prices.” Fowler added, “So if you really wanted to have a huge impact on food prices, you’d probably have to be dealing with all of those. Unfortunately, that’s rather difficult and can’t be done overnight… I think we’re dealing with a multi-year crisis, and we ought to plan in that regard.” In what Tucker calls a battle of narratives, Russia’s diplomats are meeting with officials across Europe in an effort to convince them of America’s responsibility for the food crisis. 

At the G7 meeting in Schloss Elmau, Bavaria, Germany this week, leaders discussed the Russian caused energy and food crisis. In a communique issued at the end of the meeting G7 officials stated  “We will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes, providing the needed financial, humanitarian, military, and diplomatic support in its courageous defence of its sovereignty and territorial integrity.” Acknowledging the worsening food environment, the G7 agreed in a communique issued at the end of the multi-day meeting to “provide an additional USD 4.5 billion to this end, stand by our commitments to keep our food and agricultural markets open and step up efforts to help Ukraine produce and export.” Russia has shown no signs off cooperation toward combatting the food or energy crisis it exacerbated this year. The G7 was unified in its position on Russia and Europe is expected to keep the sanctions in place. 

Amanda Sloat, of the US National Security Council, says that the world is at a very critical point in opposing Russian aggression in Ukraine. “We recognize the global dimensions of this, and right now are continuing to explore the various pathways of getting the grain out [of Ukraine], including through the EU over land including the Odessa route,” Sloat notes. Michael Scannell, deputy director-general of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, points out that getting what grain is harvested in Ukraine out of the country remains a massive challenge. He says that “You simply cannot overnight replace the Ukrainian Black Sea ports. These were geared up to move huge volumes. Finding alternatives in the short term is very, very challenging, but that’s the task we’re setting ourselves.” No one is giving up yet, however, the Russians bombed the silos needed to store the grain. One concern by world food experts is that Russian ongoing war is leading to nations hoarding their grain supplies, which further exacerbates the situation. With approximately 131 countries net importers of food, Putin’s war in Ukraine is impacting countries across the globe. 

A statement by the White House this week said “Vladimir Putin’s actions have strangled food and agriculture production and have used food as a weapon of war, including through the destruction of agricultural storage, processing, and testing facilities; theft of grain and farm equipment; and the effective blockade of Black Sea ports. Russia’s choice to attack food supplies and production have an impact on markets, storage, production, negatively impacting consumers around the globe…Estimates suggest that up to 40 million more people could be pushed into poverty in 2022 as a result of Putin’s war in Ukraine and its secondary effects.” Since Putin’s invasion of Ukraine United States has provided $2.8 billion to scale up emergency food operations in countries impacted by the food security crisis. It continues to look like a multi-year event is the most likely scenario as the Russians mined Ukrainian fields, have stopped shipments, and the farmers are off battling the invading forces and unable to plant what areas still are viable for a second crop this year. Western food experts are predicting a harsh winter for much of Europe and the developing world.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

In 2010, former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin  made a comment that touched off a debate that has continued until the present day; “‘Lest anyone try to convince you that God should be separated from the state, our Founding Fathers, they were believers,’ Palin (said). ‘And George Washington, he saw faith in God as basic to life.'”

While Palin’s comments are truthful on their face, it is equally true that the First Amendment to the US Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Known as the Establishment Clause, this language has been used for years to support the notion of a “separation of church and state” – a phrase which does not appear in the Constitution, but is based on a “wall of separation” described by Thomas Jefferson in an 1802 letter replying to  “Baptists in Danbury, Conn., who chafed under the authority of the established Congregational Church. ”

The idea of the Establishment Clause requiring a strict separation of church from state became enshrined in case law. “For example, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black famously stated in Everson v. Board of Education that ‘[t]he First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state,’ and…'[t]hat wall must be kept high and impregnable.’” The majority view of the Establishment Clause can be summed up in this way; “The ‘Establishment Clause’ was intended to prevent any government endorsement or support of religion. This means no governmental favoritism of one religion over another or none. Just as there is no governmental favoritism for a Christian, there is to be no governmental favoritism for an atheist. This is called religious liberty.” 

But is that the end of the analysis?  What about the very next line of the First Amendment, which states that Congress  is also not to make any laws “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion? Known as the “Free Exercise Clause,” this language “protects the religious beliefs, and to a certain extent, the religious practices of all citizens…(d)ecisions involving the free exercise clause have not been as controversial as those involving the establishment clause.  It is clear that all individuals have an absolute right to hold any religious belief, which may not be interfered with by the government…application of such general prohibitions in cases that affected people’s religious practices (have) to undergo ‘strict scrutiny.’  That is, the state (has) to show that there was a very important government purpose to the law, which could not be met in other ways.” 

In May, we examined the case of Sambrano v. United Airlines, a decision by the Fifth Circuit which concluded that United Airlines had placed an undue burden on the religious freedom of employees who had asserted religious objections to the company’s vaccine mandate.   According to the Fifth Circuit, “United’s decision to place (these employees) on indefinite unpaid leave (was intended) to coerce the plaintiffs into violating their religious convictions…”

Now, the US Supreme Court has also weighed in on the very important topic of free exercise.

In the State of Maine, a program was established to provide school vouchers to parents who wished to send their children to private schools rather than public.  However, this law specifically excluded  vouchers for parents who wished to send their children to religious schools.   Recently, in the case of Carson v. Makin, the US Supreme Court declared this law unconstitutional as an undue burden placed upon the free exercise of religion.   

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts stated that The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects against ‘indirect coercion or penalties on the free exercise of religion, not just outright prohibitions’…we have repeatedly held that a State violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits.” (Citation omitted.)   

“(A) neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of private benefit recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause” the Court stated.  “Maine’s decision to continue excluding religious schools from its tuition assistance program…thus promotes stricter separation of church and state than the Federal Constitution requires.”

This decision follows two other decisions from the Supreme Court that received less attention than Carson, but follow the same line of reasoning.  As described by Justice Roberts in Carson;

“In Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U. S. ___ (2017), we considered a Missouri program that offered grants to qualifying nonprofit organizations that installed cushioning playground surfaces made from recycled rubber tires. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources maintained an express policy of denying such grants to any applicant owned or controlled by a church, sect, or other religious entity. The Trinity Lutheran Church Child Learning Center applied for a grant to resurface its gravel playground, but the Department denied funding on the ground that the Center was operated by the Church. We deemed it ‘unremarkable in light of our prior decisions’ to conclude that the Free Exercise Clause did not permit Missouri to ‘expressly discriminate[] against otherwise eligible recipients by disqualifying them from a public benefit solely because of their religious character.’”

Further, in “Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 591 U. S. ___ (2020) (we) held that a provision of the Montana Constitution barring government aid to any school ‘controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect, or denomination’…violated the Free Exercise Clause by prohibiting families from using otherwise available scholarship funds at the religious schools of their choosing…(t)he application of the Montana Constitution’s no-aid provision, we explained, required strict scrutiny because it ‘bar[red] religious schools from public benefits solely because of the religious character of the schools’…'(a) State need not subsidize private education,’ we concluded, ‘[b]ut once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.’” (Citations omitted.)

While these decisions may seem reasonable and consistent, the hysterical dissent of Justice Sotomayor would rule otherwise. “This Court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build,” she writes. “(T)oday’s decision directs the State of Maine (and, by extension, its taxpaying citizens) to subsidize institutions that undisputedly engage in religious instruction…while purporting to protect against discrimination of one kind, the Court requires Maine to fund what many of its citizens believe to be discrimination of other kinds. See…Bangor Christian Schools’ and Temple Academy’s policies denying enrollment to students based on gender identity, sexual orientation, and religion.”

For years, parents have fought for the right to educate their children as they see fit.  Public schools have not always been the choice for many parents, especially those concerned about schools which teach children to question their gender identity and sexual orientation.  These parents pay taxes which support those schools, while at the same time, having to pay out of their own pockets for an education that reflects the values they wish to inculcate in their children.

Maine tried to give parents a choice in their children’s education…up to a point.  No religious schools, the state said.  Meaning, a parent who wanted their child to have an education based on time honored, fundamental religious principles would be prohibited from Maine’s tuition assistance program, further meaning that parent would have to pay for their child’s tuition out of their own pocket while still paying taxes to support the school they did not use.

Justice Sotomayor (a graduate of Cardinal Spellman High School in the Bronx, by the way), believes that ordering Maine to give parents the right to send their child to a religious school is the establishment of religion.  Is it?  Or, as Chief Justice Roberts states, is it allowing for the free exercise of religious choice?

“Regardless of how the benefit and restriction are described,” Roberts wrote, “(Maine’s) program operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise.”  Notice that unlike Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, Chief Justice Roberts opinion seems more neutral and evenhanded – a clue as to the more reasonable approach.

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

Photo: Pixabay

Recently, the White House endorsed a three-month suspension of the gas tax, a move that will cost billions of dollars. The plan will result in even higher inflation as more dollars will have to be printed to finance it.

Americans are intensely suffering from high energy prices, a direct result of President Biden’s deliberate elimination of the nation’s energy independence. The cost hikes were not unexpected. Indeed, as former President Obama once said, for the Democrats’ energy policies to work, “Prices must necessarily skyrocket.”

Closing down the Keystone Pipeline, preventing drilling in ANWAR, stopping fracking on federal lands, pressuring banks to not lend to energy companies, and more, not only resulted in a dramatic increase in fuel prices, but led to massive inflation, since every commodity is both manufactured using energy and transported to consumers using energy.

Investopedia’s Nick Lioudis points out the direct link between inflation and high energy costs. Among the key points: “Energy accounted for about 7.3% of the CPI as of December 2021, including the index weighting of about 4% for energy commodities. In addition to that direct effect on inflation, higher oil prices raise inflation indirectly because crude oil is a key ingredient in petrochemicals used to make plastic. So, more expensive oil will tend to increase the prices of many products made with plastic…Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said in his semiannual testimony before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee in March 2022 that, as a rule of thumb, every $10 per barrel increase in the price of crude oil raises inflation by 0.2% and sets back economic growth 0.1%.”

Many addressed the irrationality of the move. . House Committee on Natural Resources Ranking Member Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) stated at the time “We’ve made incredible progress over the years, making our energy cleaner, cheaper, and safer than ever. We should continue producing it here at home, where we can regulate the environmental standards and pollution requirements. Instead, President Biden is cutting off our supply while the demand continues to grow, forcing us to depend on energy from overseas where we can control none of these environmental regulations. Energy policy should be a rational, long-term plan not a knee-jerk, unscientific decision that does absolutely nothing to help the environment.”

The move emboldened the nation’s enemies.  Russia’s most important asset is its energy sector. It profited immensely from Biden’s war on fossil fuels, allowing it to finance its war on Ukraine.  China, where most solar panels and windmills are created, also benefits.

The Administration still has not answered the most basic question: since renewables can only meet about 20% of energy needs for at least several decades, where will the rest come from?

Despite the deep pain and international crises resulting from his energy policy, Biden shows no sign of addressing the crisis, other than temporary gimmicks. On September 9, 2019, then-candidate Joe Biden made a clear and unequivocal promise:  I want you to just take a look. I want you to look into my eyes. I guarantee you; I guarantee you, we are going to end fossil fuel, and I am not  going to cooperate with them.” 

Nick Lioudis, writing in Investopedia points out the direct link between inflation and high energy costs. Among the key points: “Energy accounted for about 7.3% of the CPI as of December 2021, including the index weighting of about 4% for energy commodities. In addition to that direct effect on inflation, higher oil prices raise inflation indirectly because crude oil is a key ingredient in petrochemicals used to make plastic. So, more expensive oil will tend to increase the prices of many products made with plastic…Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said in his semiannual testimony before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee in March 2022 that, as a rule of thumb, every $10 per barrel increase in the price of crude oil raises inflation by 0.2% and sets back economic growth 0.1%.”

The Administration has clearly failed to be truthful about its actions. The Maciver Institute takes Biden to task for his allegation that the oil industry is not using 9,000 drilling permits currently available. “If that number is correct (and it may not be since Fiscal Year 2021 data is not yet available), it would mean that a record-high percentage of active drilling leases are being used. According to Western Energy Alliance, an energy industry trade association, there are 37,496 leases in effect. If only 9,000 are not being used, then a record 76% of them are. In other words, the American oil industry is using more approved leases than ever before. One of the major reasons many are not being used is litigation by environmentalist groups trying to stop drilling. Western Energy Alliance alone is currently in court defending more than 2,200 leases—a full 24% of those that are not being used (because they obviously can’t be used while lawsuits against them are still pending).

The White House’s  distinct lack of concern for the unnecessary economic suffering of the American people is deeply disturbing.

Photo: Pixabay

Surprisingly, given the massive challenge from Beijing, President Biden’s 2023 budget proposal called for decommissioning 24 ships next year — and all of the Navy’s 22 cruisers by 2027

Representative Rob Wittman (R-VA), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Sea Power and Projection Forces, is sounding the alarm on America’s increasingly outnumbered Navy.

In a statement to Congress, he warned that “Great Power Competition is already here and we’re currently not setup to prevail.  With President Biden’s inept withdrawal from Afghanistan, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and Xi’s continued Chinese expansion both in terms of military size and political will, we have arrived at a new period of international instability.  Our desire to maintain strategic advantage and tactical overmatch is being challenged.  A change in our national security strategy is solely needed that prioritizes warfighting IN the near term.:
 
In addition to budgetary issues, Rep. Wittman objected to the Department of Defense’s priorities, noting that priorities such as tackling COVID, building diversity and elevating climate change as a “national priority”, appear to outweigh defending the nation.

He believes this emphasis is based on an unsubstantiated belief that there is no significant danger of significant naval conflict this decade.

Wittman states that “The lack of urgency in national security planning is particularly disheartening.  Last year, the Navy requested only one destroyer, no amphibs and proposed to retire 7 large surface combatants whose firepower exceeded that of the entire British Navy.  The Navy provided a “30 year shipbuilding plan” that was only good for one year. The Navy submitted a shipyard recapitalization plan with little financial backing.  And the Navy continues to underman our surface Navy who currently is lacking over 5,000 sailors…this lack of national security planning unsettles our allies and unnerves the industrial base that craves real leadership.  Our Navy needs to wake up and change their calculus to support our new strategic reality.”
 
The danger continues to grow. Even as the U.S. Navy hovers at about 290 vessels with little prospects for growth, China’s 355 ship maritime force is schedule to grow to 460 ships by 2030.  Those aren’t small craft.  Beijing is fielding new, modern aircraft carrier battle groups.

Wittman’s concern is matched by that of Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL.)  In a National Review article, Rogers notes that  “It is in America’s interest to prevent China from taking Taiwan by force or coercion. If Taiwan fell, U.S. allies and territories in the region would face a greatly increased threat from Beijing. China would also gain control of about half of the global semiconductor industry, including the world’s largest chip-maker, TSMC, which would be a massive blow to the global economy and cybersecurity efforts.”
 
How, then, can the U.S. prevent Taiwan from falling? We must invest in hard-power capabilities to deter the CCP. Our military must expand forward deployments to the region and continue its freedom-of-navigation operations in the South China Sea. To that end, it is critical that the U.S. Navy gets the funding and tools it needs to deter China — and the latest Biden budget fails on both of those priorities.

Recently, the Senate has propsed tacking on $45 billion to the Pentagon budget, essentially to address the effects of inflation.  That amount will not be adequate, however, to address the growing numerical inequality the Navy faces with China.

The unconcern is not just about ships.  The Department of Defense warns that The Chinese are activity seeking a military naval base in Africa on the Atlantic coast, which would threaten U.S. national security, according to U.S. Army Gen. Stephen J. Townsend, commander of U.S. Africa Command. Beijing is also working towards building a naval basing agreement with Cambodia, and has increasingly gained influence in the Caribbean.

Photo: The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Tripoli and USS Abraham Lincoln steam in formation in the Philippine Sea, June 12, 2022, during Valiant Shield, a field training exercise.

One upmanship among nuclear-armed nations is dangerous. When the game is played by a third world autocrat of an autarkic state intend on getting the attention of the free world, it is a calamity waiting to happen. North Korean President Kim Jung Un recently ordered his military to test fire a series of eight ballistic missiles. Unchecked since the failed Clinton Administration policy, Kim has continued to build and test nuclear-capable missiles that have according to arms experts, “the potential to reach the continental United States in the near future.”

In response to this latest test, a day later South Korea and the US test-fired eight ballistic missiles. This unofficial arms race has been going on for several years. In 2019, North Korea lifted a “self-imposed” ban that had been in effect for two years. In the first half of 2022, Kim already has launched over 30 missiles, breaking its previous record of 25 in 2019. Arms experts are predicting that he is getting ready to conduct another nuclear test soon. Each time North Korea launches a missile or explodes a nuclear bomb it accelerates the development of its nuclear weapons and provides the North with valuable information to enhance its ballistic missile program. As the arms race heats up it brings the world closer to potential nuclear war if Kim Jung Un’s threats are to be believed.

Last week, at a Central Committee meeting of the Worker’s Party, Kim defended his country’s military buildup, which now includes development of submarine-launched ballistic missiles, hypersonic cruise missiles, and according to Lami Kim of the publication War on the Rocks, a sophisticated national defense system. “Driving the arms race on the Korean Peninsula is what I call a “double asymmetry of power”: an asymmetry at both the nuclear and conventional levels,” he says. Lacking a nuclear weapons program South Korea is enhancing its conventional capabilities. Without any method to accurately assess the security domain or intent of each country both are continuing to build more weapons in a classical security dilemma. 

What is significant about the North’s May 25 missile test is that it appears aimed at fixing the re-entry problems discovered in its 2017 tests. The Hwasong 17, nicknamed the “monster missile,” is capable of carrying a large payload typically needed for a multiple re-entry vehicle. This test was conducted from a mobile launcher which experts say makes it even more difficult to target, according to Lami Kim. What is perhaps mots disconcerting is that the aim is to enhance North Korea’s second-strike capability.

Seoul is totally dependent on a credible US nuclear umbrella to protect the country. Since the Korean conflict in the 1950’s the US has provided Seoul an extended deterrence which eliminated the need for it to develop its own nuclear program. A recent Chicago Survey conducted among South Koreans found that an astonishing 71% supported nuclear armament for the country. There are significant obstacles to creating a nuclear program, including the lack of a fissile material production capability, the loss of US protection, especially during the years its takes to develop a program, and potential global sanctions that could destroy its export-led economy. 

Another avenue the South may pursue, given the enormous security and economic costs of a military program, is nuclear hedging, which Lami Kim says is “a viable option for the relatively rapid acquisition of nuclear weapons but stopping short of their development. Though it’s hard to prove, President Moon Jae-in seems to have pursued such an option by preparing to build nuclear-powered submarines, ostensibly to counter North Korea’s submarine-launched ballistic missile capability.” Since the US objects to such a program the South has deterred it to date. Most likely Seoul will continue with its three-pronged defense strategy. This strategic strike system consists of a Kill Chain strategy of preemptive strikes against North Korean nuclear missiles prior to launch, the Korean Aerial Missile Defense system, and the Korean Massive Punishment and Retaliation strategy (KMPR). The goal of KMPR is to take out the North Korean leadership.  Lami Kim says that “under these conditions of double asymmetry, a continued, unabated arms race on the Korean Peninsula is a near-certainty.” 

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

A rising China does not foretell a disaster in the Indo-Pacific unless the United States decides not to compete in the region. Last week Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA) published a commentary in Defense News calling on the Biden Administration “to answer fundamental questions about how it intends to support Taiwan and secure a free and open Indo-Pacific for generations to come.” The tide is changing in favor of Beijing. In September 2012 China launched its first aircraft carrier, a refit of an old, Soviet era ship. In 2019 the PLAN launched its second carrier and earlier this month floated a third. Its latest carrier, the Shandong, is an indigenously built, advanced ship. In just under a decade China has emerged as a major sea power in the Indo-Pacific region threatening to control close to 90% of the South China Sea. 

During the same period the number of US naval forces in the Indo-Pacific Command barely rose above those assigned to it in 2012. The US today fields 167 lethal ships while China floats 285 modern naval combatants and smaller warships. While Biden Administration officials point out the president’s commitment to stability in the region, Rep. Wittman points out inconsistencies in US policy. 

“The Biden administration does not want to build an ‘Asian NATO’ or an anti-hegemonic coalition, but neither does the administration intend to rapidly arm Taiwan, allowing it to serve as its own credible threat against Chinese aggression. If the US will not harden Taiwan or work more closely with allies in the Indo-Pacific, while still seeking to prevent Beijing from subjugating Taiwan, then more US forces should be committed to the Indo-Pacific,” according to Wittman, the Vice Ranking Member of the House Armed Service Committee and Ranking Member of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.  

Numerically China now has the world’s largest naval and standing ground forces, as well as the largest air force in the Indo-Pacific region. China outnumbers the US in hypersonic weapons, which are capable of evading current missile defenses and are fueled by stolen US technology.  It has completed hundreds of new silos capable of launching nuclear-armed missiles. It also is closing the gap in qualitative factors. Wittman points out that China is fielding anti-ship missiles capable of holding US ships at risk far offshore. President Xi Jinping has pledged that by 2030 China will be the world leader in artificial intelligence technology. It already is making strides in this area and is competitive with US teachnology.

Where does that leave the United States and other free democratic states in the Indo-Pacific? Recent People’s Liberation Army (PLA) publications claim that “as soon as Taiwan is reunified with Mainland China, Japan’s maritime lines of communication will fall completely within the striking ranges of China’s fighters and bombers.” Wittman argues that the time has arrived for the US to begin making the hard decisions about how to treat the Chinese existential threat. He offers several areas where the Department of Defense (DOD) can make immediate improvements. He says the Department can be directed to “identify how more varied and expansive regional military training exercises might be conducted to more aggressively operationalize our friendships.” On the Congressional side he suggests the US must “lend support in efforts to enhance cooperation with Taiwan’s military — particularly via programs involving the US National Guard.”

Perhaps what will be most important in the US-China competition for leadership in the Indo-Pacific in the coming year is the Biden Administration’s recognition that that United States cannot afford to shrink the size of the US Navy at a time when China is expanding the quantity and quality of its forces, the geographic area in which they are active, alongside a more aggressive military policy toward Indo-Pacific states refusing to comply with Chinese demands. “Congress must prevent the Biden administration from pursuing a dangerous path that would shrink our military forces, corrode our readiness and prematurely cede the Indo-Pacific to China. The 2022 National Defense Strategy agrees that China is the pacing threat in the priority theater,” notes Wittman.

The US must accept that China is not backing down. After President Biden’s remarks in late May that the US would defend Taiwan should China invade, PLA Eastern Theater Commander Col Shi Yi retorted, “On the Taiwan issue, the US side says one thing and does another, giving repeated encouragement to ‘Taiwan independence’ forces. This is hypocritical and futile and will only lead the situation to a dangerous situation, and it will also face serious consequences.” Soon China will be capable of delivering the “unbearable cost” it promises the United States.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Illustration: Pixabay

Is Russia’s Ukrainian war really an undeclared global conflagration? Food insecurity is a phrase often tossed around in past years. In the past it typically referred to the lack of nutrition available in the developing world. Although the kinetic aspects of the war are being played out on Ukrainian soil, its impact is being felt around the world. The war is coming to our shores, too, as the fractured critical food chain is part of the conflict’s global collateral damage. Prior to this decade most Americans were not accustomed empty store shelves. In the coming months it will emerge as a stark reality in much of the world. On May 18, 2022, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken said, “As with its decision to start this unjustified war, responsibility for the disruption of these supplies and the suffering that it’s causing around the world lies squarely and solely with the Russian Government.”

Ukraine, known as the “breadbasket of Europe,” is unable to plant its wheat crops since the Russian invasion in February. The country’s men are off defending their country and those who remain are unable to safely enter the Russian-mined wheat fields. As the top grain supplier to dozens of African and Middle Eastern countries, officials report that critical food supplies for over 400 million people are threatened by Russia’s war. As the world puts the spotlight on Putin, he is attempting to contort the situation by blaming international sanctions on Russia. The State Department points out that the Russian government is using disinformation to mislead the world about the cause of this crisis.

Food insecurity, already on the rise before the February invasion, is exacerbated by a number of factors. Russian mining of Ukrainian wheat fields is only one factor. Putin also is blocking the maritime transport of grain across the Black Sea. What little is grain harvested is pilfered by Russian forces from warehouses and sold overseas or transported back to Russia. The United States and its partners have “taken great care to avoid exacerbating food insecurity. US sanctions, for example, are specifically written to prevent food insecurity: they include carveouts for agricultural commodities  and permit transactions for the export and re-export of food to and from Russia, even with a sanctioned individual or entity,” according to Blinken. So far this year the US has pledged over $3.6 billion in humanitarian food assistance to help alleviate starvation in the developing world. Over the next five years Washington is adding an  additional $5 billion in aid to stop world hunger. Russia is costing the economies of the world an enormous financial burden, whether or not they have troops on the ground inside Ukraine.

While Russian heavy weapons bombard Ukraine, it state-funded media, according to the State Department, along with Kremlin-aligned proxy disinformation actors are attempting to deflect attention from the war and worsening food crisis by blaming the West. Putin is targeting the Middle East and Africa in an expansive disinformation campaign with false narratives from RT Arabic and RT en Francais, along with help from China’s state media. 

The false claims are extensive and pervasive. The methodology is to flood the news with stories that appear to confirm Russian claims so that the targeted audience begins to believe the repeated messages.  These are only a few of recent claims:

• Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called Russia’s blockade of Ukrainian grain “Western and Ukrainian disinformation.”
• In his May 19 United Nations Security Council speech on conflict and food security, Russia’s UN Ambassador Vasiliy Nebenzya accused Europe of “hoarding” Ukrainian grain and engaging in “grain for weapons ” exchanges with Kyiv.
• Russia’s embassy in Egypt blamed “illegal unilateral sanctions,” while Russia’s embassy in Zimbabwe claimed “Western interference ” in the Global South.
• In his May 25 Africa Day speech, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov attempted  to de-legitimize Ukraine and urged African ambassadors in Moscow to demand the removal of “illegal, anti-Russian” sanctions in order to strengthen food security.
• OneWorld , a website with ties to Russia’s military intelligence, according  to U.S. officials, echoed Lavrov’s claims, accusing President Zelenskyy of supporting a U.S.-led “global food cartel ” that will wield control over global food supply as a “new hybrid weapon ” against the Global South.
• In his May 26 interview with RT Arabic, Foreign Minister Lavrov accused  the West of neo-colonialism and of blackmailing African and Arab countries to join “anti-Russia” sanctions, in a bid to build solidarity against what Russia’s propaganda calls the “imperial West.”

Russia’s goal is to use its disinformation skilled to both hide Russia’s culpability and persuade leaders of at-risk countries to support an end to sanctions. The State Department said that “blaming others for the worsening crisis in the global food system are reprehensible.” According to the World Food Program, millions are at risk of a full-scale famine. Putin’s weaponization of food is bringing malnutrition to the most vulnerable populations around the world. His “special military operation” in Ukraine is not only a border war, it is a threat to the entire global community.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Illustration: Pixabay

In riveting testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Admiral John Aquilino, who leads the U.S. Indo Pacific Command, outlined the danger in a part of the world that America had previously dominated since the end of World War 2.

He noted that “The [Defense] Department has identified the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the most consequential strategic competitor to the United States and our allies and partners throughout the world. The PRC is in execution of a dedicated campaign utilizing all forms of national power to uproot the rules-based international order in ways that benefit themselves at the expense of all others. Their will and their resources to contest long standing international norms are evident across every regional and functional domain.”

Aquilino pointed out that The PRC seeks to become a global military power and acquire the ability to seize Taiwan, while developing conventional weapons that can reach the U.S. Homeland. The PRC also seeks to establish a network of overseas military installations that would extend its reach, allowing support for an increasingly global People’s Liberation Army (PLA) capable of power projection far beyond the Indo-Pacific. Beijing’s entwined economic and military influences are apparent in the coercive economic actions the PRC has taken against U.S. allies and like-minded partners.

He emphasized that The PLA Navy (PLAN) boasts a battle force of 350 ships and submarines, including more than 130 major surface combatants. Already possessing the largest navy in the world, the PRC is expanding this formidable force by adding new capabilities to a fleet expected to grow to 420 battle force ships by 2025. The U.S. has 297 ships, a number that may shrink due to budget constraints. The PLAN’s priorities are delivering aircraft carrier groups, building expeditionary warfare capabilities with Marine-like forces, expanding their surface force, and increasing undersea capacity.

 The PLA’s aviation force is the largest in the Indo-Pacific. More than half of its operational fighter force utilizes 4th generation aircraft or better, and the PRC commenced mass production of its first 5th generation J-20 aircraft. The PLA Air Force is also fielding the nuclear-capable H-6N, the first PLA bomber capable of aerial refueling. Overall, aircraft modernizations and improvements are increasing PLA’s offensive air capabilities.

 In addition to an extensive arsenal of advanced ballistic missiles, the PLA Rocket Force is pursuing land-attack, supersonic cruise missiles and other advanced weapons. The PLA’s new generation of mobile missiles uses multiple independently targeted reentry vehicles (MIRVs) and highly capable hypersonic glide vehicles (HGV) designed to evade U.S. missile defenses. The PLA is developing a nuclear triad designed to ensure a survivable, second-strike capability. This capability includes JIN submarines equipped with long-range sea-based nuclear missiles, H-6N bombers with air-delivered nuclear weapons, and a growing land force of mobile and silo-based nuclear missiles.

The PRC is expanding and maturing its space and counter-space programs, including intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) constellations, particularly its Beidou-3 global satellite navigation system.

Beijing has conducted 55 space launches in 2021, the most launches by any nation. The PLA is also developing a robust counter-space program by delivering directed-energy weapons, jammers, a direct-ascent kinetic kill capability, and on-orbit capabilities with the intent to employ these capabilities to deny U.S. and our allies access to space during a conflict or crisis. PLA development of cyber capabilities are in direct support of intelligence collection against the United States, advanced PLA modernization goals, and intellectual property theft. From denial-of-service attacks to physical disruptions of critical infrastructure, the PRC desires to shape decision-making and disrupt military operations at the initial stages and throughout conflict.

China’s power grows, while the America’s, constrained by budgets that continue to lose ground to inflation, contracts.  It is a crisis that requires immediate attention.

Picture: The launching ceremony of China’s 3rd aircraft carrier was held at the Jiangnan Shipyard of China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation on June 17.  Featuring flat flight deck, the carrier, named after the Fujian Province, is China’s first domestically-made carrier that uses catapults. With a full-load displacement of more than 80,000 tonnes, the carrier is equipped with electromagnetic catapults and arresting devices. (China Defence Ministry)

For decades, since the fall of the Soviet Union, there were questions about the need for NATO. Indeed, even some member nations appeared to lose faith in the necessity of its existence. President Trump famously chided Germany and other nations for their failure to contribute to the alliance’s upkeep.

That situation has dramatically altered. Russia’s renewed aggressiveness and the rise of China as an existential threat has essentially renewed and even expanded NATO’s mission.

A NATO release detailed the new thinking.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine dominated the NATO defense ministers’ meeting in Brussels.

Not since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 has there been as serious a threat as Russia’s unprovoked invasion of neighboring Ukraine, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said yesterday at a press conference. This drastically changed the security environment in Europe and the globe, he said.

“We must set out NATO’s response for the longer term,” he said. “At the summit, we will take decisions to make NATO even stronger and more agile in a world that is more dangerous and more competitive. I am confident that the Madrid Summit will be a transformative summit.”

The secretary general said there are a number of areas where the heads of state and government will make decisions in Madrid. He expects the 30 NATO nations to significantly beef up deterrence and defense.

“We will also decide on a new NATO strategic concept, setting out our position on Russia, on emerging challenges, and — for the first time — on China,” he said. “And in this context, I welcome that the leaders of our Asia-Pacific partners will take part in our summit for the first time.”

The Indo-Pacific nations that will attend the summit are Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea.

The leaders will also look at better burden-sharing and resourcing for the alliance.

Finally, they’ll discuss the historic applications for NATO membership by Finland and Sweden, he said.

The defense ministers looked at all these areas and made progress, the secretary general said.

The ministers met with Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov and got an update on the situation in the embattled country. “We addressed the imperative need for our continued support, as Russia conducts a relentless war of attrition against Ukraine,” Stoltenberg said. “NATO allies and partners have been providing Ukraine unprecedented support, so that it can defend itself against Moscow’s aggression.”

Many NATO countries — including the United States — have announced additional assistance, including much needed heavy weapons and long-range systems.

But as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war continues, the ministers discussed plans to support Ukraine for the long haul. “We are putting together a NATO comprehensive assistance package for Ukraine, helping Ukraine improve interoperability with NATO, transitioning from Soviet-era to modern NATO equipment, and further strengthening security institutions,” Stoltenberg said.

“Russia’s aggression is a game-changer,” he said. “So, NATO must maintain credible deterrence and strong defense.”

The defense ministers addressed the scale and design of our future posture — the so-called footprint of NATO forces in Europe. They also discussed how the alliance can work in all domains of warfare: land, sea, air, cyberspace and space. 

On land, the idea is “more NATO forward-deployed combat formations to strengthen our battlegroups in the eastern part of our alliance,” Stoltenberg said. He said there will be more air, sea and cyber defenses, as well as pre-positioned equipment and weapon stockpiles.

The strategy calls for a new force model, “with more forces at higher readiness and specific forces pre-assigned to the defense of specific allies to enable much faster reinforcement,” he said. “A number of allies have committed to contribute to our stronger presence in the eastern part of our alliance.

As Russia continues its inhumane assault on Ukraine and China relentlessly pursues dominance in the Indo-Pacific and a massive arms buildup, the danger of a third world war escalates to frightening levels.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), Lead Republican of the House Armed Services Committee, has warned that “The threats we face now are more formidable than at any point in the last 20 years. Unprecedented Chinese military modernization has enabled them to leapfrog us in key capabilities. The Chinese Communist Party now controls the largest army and navy in the world.  It has more troops, more ships, and more hypersonic missiles than the United States… Putin’s catastrophic invasion of Ukraine has proven to the rest of the world that’s he’s nothing more than an unhinged crackpot. The problem is this crackpot has his finger on the world’s largest nuclear arsenal and an illegal stockpile of chemical and biological weapons, which he hasn’t hesitated to use against his perceived enemies. Emulating Putin’s desire to undermine democracy are the despotic leaders of North Korea and Iran.”

Recently, U.S. Representative Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, warned that “The threats we see from China and Russia have only increased since … last year.” The dangers are not just on land, sea, and air.  Cyberspace and outer space are now battlefields, as well. Rep. Lamborn reports that “China has demonstrated on orbit the ability to grapple with another satellite and drag it to another orbit. Russia has demonstrated a ground launched anti-satellite weapon against one of its own satellites resulting in a dangerous field of debris that the world is still dealing with.  These are just the public examples of China and Russia pushing for dominance in space. Their efforts in space are especially concerning when considering the provocative actions they are taking in other domains. Top of mind for all of us is Russia’s unprovoked war with Ukraine that has resulted in the indiscriminate deaths of thousands of civilians.”

Army Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Armed Services Committee that the world is getting more unstable, “and the potential for significant international conflict between great powers is increasing, not decreasing.”

The threat is not restricted to weapons development or theoretical future conflicts. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is already the largest conflict in Europe since World War 2. Iran is clearly engaged in terrorist attacks on U.S. interests and allies in the Middle East. After a four year hiatus during the Trump Administration, North Korea has resumed testing missiles that could reach the American mainland.

Looming over all of these issues are the actions of China.  In a significant report, the Gatestone Institute warns that Beijing, “after years of persistent commercial, diplomatic, and military efforts, is taking over the Pacific. China is moving from island group to island group, and soon the People’s Liberation Army will be in striking distance of Hawaii…There is now talk that China will ink a security agreement with Papua New Guinea, just north of Australia…Moreover, China wants to upgrade an airstrip in Kiribati. Beijing says the improvements are for civilian purposes only, yet the military uses are apparent and no one believes the Chinese assurances. The facility is just 1,900 miles south of Hawaii. In Pacific terms, Kiribati is America’s next-door neighbor.”

Jean-Pierre Lehmann, writing for IMD, notes that “There are many signs that the ‘post-war’ period after World War II has finally come to an end and that we are now in a pre-war era. Many of the factors that define the times were present before many of the large-scale wars of the previous century: populism, nationalism, territorial disputes, ethnic and religious conflicts, terrorism, economic depression, high youth unemployment, corruption, pretty lamentable political leadership everywhere…”

Photo: China’s J-15 carrier-borne fighter jet