Month: July 2022

For decades the Iranian regime’s belligerent behavior has elicited the concern of western world leaders. This summer is no different. As Iran moves closer to official completion of its nuclear weapons program its military remains active on other fronts, too. US intelligence is reporting that Tehran is prepping to deliver potentially hundreds of Iranian unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) to Moscow. Two weeks ago, Iran showcased the Shahed-191 and Shahed-129 drones during a visit from a Russian delegation. Sine Ozkarasahin, of the Jamestown Foundation, noted that Radio Farda is reporting that “Commercial satellite imagery allegedly confirmed that a delegation from the Kremlin had visited Kashan Air Base at least twice in the past month.” 

Disruption in the critical global supply chain inflated the cost to produce Russian drones domestically. According to the Russian publication Lenta, cost increases range from 30 percent to 200 percent. In June it reported that “The shortage of goods arose after the Chinese DJI, which occupies 90 percent of the market of ‘consumer drones,’ stopped supplying to Russia.”  Putin’s drones have proved weak against Western UCAVs. The drones have been particularly vulnerable against man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS), including Stingers and LLM Martlets, as well as optically guided Martlets and Starstreaks, according to Ozkarasahin.

He added that although Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian reassured his Ukrainian counterpart to the contrary in a recent phone call, the Kremlin might indeed find what it needs from its non-NATO ally’s combat solutions. The Iranian drones can serve as an intelligence platform, conduct surveillance and reconnaissance (IRS) and an asset to strike at high-value Ukrainian targets. It closes a gap in the Russian’s strike inventory with a precision-tool that is cost-effective and a force multiplier.

“Iranian drones can also overwhelm sensor networks, blurring the enemy’s line of sight. Yet, the West’s heavy counter-drone measures (supplemented by high-end, sophisticated systems, such as Starlink) coupled with the lack of deployment of some of Russia’s most promising electronic warfare (EW) capabilities, including the Krasukha-4, to suppress Ukrainian air operations render Iranian drones’ chances of making a grand impact relatively slim,” says Ozkarasahin.

Tehran recognizes that its UCAV capabilities will boost Moscow’s ability to deliver precision-guided strikes during a period when Russia is suffering from a munition’s shortage. Ozkarasahin says that while this is an improvement, Iran’s drones are a mismatch as they lack the desired interoperability. They cannot be efficiently integrated into Russian networks and datalinks without some form of database synchronization in place, nor can the Iranian drones operate as mobile base stations.

The drone sale will put Tehran in a difficult position as it appears likely that uniformed Iranian soldiers would need to be on the ground to operate the UCAVs, placing Iran in the middle of Putin’s “special military operation.” At that point Iran would become a direct party to the war in Ukraine. In the past it formed military-strategic relationships and supplied rogue states and non-state allies with its indigenously-built, drones that are part of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) program.

“Acting as the long-arm of Iran’s strategic outreach, IRGC members provided on-site, yearslong training and real-time support to Lebanese Hezbollah and Shia groups in Iraq concerning Iranian drone CONOPS” says Ozkarasahin. At the same time Iran is claiming to be neutral in the conflict. That stance will be difficult to maintain once its soldiers are in the field given the transparency provided by sophisticated open-source intelligence (OSINT) techniques. This is more that a simple defense transaction, according to analysts.

Obstacles still exist before any sale of Iran’s Shahad-191, Shahed-129, or other kamikaze drones is finalized. Ozkarasahin suggests that the difficulty of integrating systems without Iranian boots on the ground, and the potential political sensitivities still could prove too much and prevent any notion in Tehran of actively supporting Putin’s war in Ukraine. Other military analysts purport that the deal already is inked and ready to go. If Iran’s drones are used in the war in Ukraine, it will represent a widening of the conflict and present new challenges for the West in dealing with Iran at a sensitive time in Tehran’s nuclear development program.

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

Photo: Iran President Raisi meets with Putin, July 20 (Iran Govt. )  

China’s level of military posturing is reaching heights unmatched in recent times over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s potential trip to Taiwan in August. Currently she is leading a delegation on a trip in Asia. The question military analysts are asking this week is if Chinese belligerency over an official visit by Pelosi to Taipei indicates China is testing the waters for a more definitive military action at some future date. Beijing’s aggressive stance toward the trip is another example of the communist regime’s intolerance toward other state’s maintaining any official relationship with the island. Pelosi’s trip, rescheduled from April due to her Covid diagnosis, is raising so many hackles that Chinese defense analysts say the CCP leadership is promising to take strong action if she dares to travel to Taipei. 

Although for security purposes the US government does not confirm details of senior US officials’ trips, in response to the recent Chinese threats to “take resolute and forceful measures,” Chief of the US Joints Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, has promised publicly to do what is necessary to defend the Speaker should she decide to travel to Taipei. Security measures could include putting a double line of protection around the island while she is in Taiwan and sending advanced fighter jets to patrol the region, despite China’s warning not to do so. Although direct, intentional military conflict between the US and China is unlikely it raises concerns over the potential for an accidental encounter between forces that could spiral out of control. Pelosi will be the highest ranked US official to visit Taiwan since 1997.

The South China Morning Post is reporting that “The American aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan and its strike group, including a guided missile destroyer and a guided missile cruiser, set out from Singapore on Monday heading northeast towards the South China Sea, according to ship-tracking information provided by Beijing-based think tank the South China Sea Strategic Probing Initiative.” 

On Monday, Taiwan held its regularly scheduled air raid drills. Vox.com is portraying them as a “response” to the American official’s potential visit and suggesting it may cause China to escalate the situation into a military action. China is cuing on that line. Qin Gang, Chinese Ambassador to the US, delivered a speech at the Aspen Security Forum on July 20 that was inflammatory and claimed there would only be losers if US-China relations deteriorate. CGTN reports that “When asked directly about whether he thinks the US and China are entering a new Cold War, Ambassador Qin said that when people speak of the Cold War they are speaking of estrangement, division, confrontation and conflict, and that the question itself indicates that people are concerned that history may be repeating itself.” There is bellicosity coming from leaders on many fronts, which further exacerbates tensions in the US-China relationship at a time when stresses already are high. According to Qin, Beijing believes the one China policy is under attack. He did not explicitly address how China would respond to the perceived aggression in the future.

AP is reporting that a “more robust response could also be driven by Xi’s desire to bolster this nationalist credentials ahead of a party congress later this year at which he is expected to seek a third five-year term in office. Xi’s expansion of his powers into every sphere and his hardline zero-COVID response to the domestic epidemic has sowed a degree of resentment and appealing to raw patriots, particularly over Taiwan, might help him fend off criticism.” 

On Thursday morning Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping spoke by phone for over two hours. It is their fifth call since Biden assumed the presidency in January 2021. The Washington Post is reporting: “China’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement after the call that was littered with critiques of the US administration and its attitude toward Beijing.” It said Xi made “candid” comments on Taiwan during the exchange between the leaders. Earlier this month, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi delivered four lists of demands to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, including “guidance” on US wrongdoings that “must stop.” 

As China grows bolder in its moves, senior political leaders in Washington are calling on the Biden Administration to take stronger action against Chinese aggressive policies, including those in sovereign states in the South China Sea where Beijing is making inroads by offering convenient infrastructure loans in return for improved relations and potential military partnerships and bases. The game is complex and nuanced. It is hard to determine who is in the lead when officials in Washington appear to be following former President Obama’s call for the United States to “lead from behind.”

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

The war in Ukraine is keeping President Vladimir Putin busy but, not too busy to travel to Tehran only three days after President Biden’s failed Middle East trip. On July 19 the Iranian government hosted Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Russia President. The tripartite meeting was “held within the framework of the seventh summit of the heads of states of the Astana Peace Process for Syria,” according to Vali Kaleji of the Jamestown Foundation. Given the timing of this summit, Kaleji suggests that Putin used it as an opportunity to discuss Moscow’s challenges in the region. 

Three months ago the Financial Times, along with other local publications, reported correctly that Russian troops in Syria were being redeployed to the front lines in support of the war in Ukraine. Putin, it appears, is aware that this move could potentially create a power vacuum in the region and an advantage for the US, Turkey, and Israel. HE is determined to ensure that this does not occur. Kaleji argues that “In such a situation, Israel would increase air attacks on Iranian military positions and bases in Syria, as Tel Aviv worries that a military vacuum would be filled by Iran or proxy forces, such as Lebanese Hezbollah.” Some Middle East analysts in Washington are suggesting that such a void could allow the US to increase its military presence east of the Euphrates and also permit Turkey a free hand on conducting military operations in Kurdish-held areas in northern Syria. 

President Erdogan wants Putin to abide their previous agreement which calls for Moscow to work with  Washington to help push outlawed Kurdish militants 30 kilometers away from the Syrian-Turkish border. It has not occurred to date. Erdogan this week again publicly called it “long overdue.” Daily Sabah reported recently that the Turkish president informed Russian and Iranian leaders that he “expected their full support in Ankara’s fight against terrorists in Syria.” “Putin’s presence at the summit in Tehran,” according to Kaleji, “contained a message to all players in Syria: Russia has not lost its focus and military power in Syria because of Ukraine.” 

There is a large potential for Russia to build infrastructure and other economic projects inside Syria. Putin does not want to walk away from any financially lucrative deals. He is playing a strong poker hand, knowing he can use his military’s ongoing presence in the country as a pressure lever against the democratic West over his “special military action” in Ukraine.

Tehran and Moscow hold similar views on the security threat in the Levant region. Both also oppose Turkey’s military operations in northern Syria and the US military presence east of the Euphrates. Islamic Republic News Agency is reporting this week that Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, in a press conference with Putin and Erdogan, reinforced that “the US presence east of the Euphrates is unjustifiable, so the Americans should pull out.” All is not calm among the players. Differences surface between Russia and Iran over Israeli military operations in Syria. “Russia has not provided full air coverage of Iranian positions in Syria during Israeli airstrikes,” according to Kaleji. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, according to Islamic Republic News on July 19, “praised the Russian president’s recent anti-Zionist stance” in an escalation of the discord between Israel and Russia over Tel Aviv’s support for Ukraine. Iran is seeking Russian support to counter Israeli military operations in Syria. It appears that expanded consultations by Russia and Iran in the future may be used to dampen Turkey’s operations in Syria, according to TASS. Putin may be busy fighting in Ukraine, but it is not stopping his long-term strategic plans in the Middle East.

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

In what may be seen as a sharp rebuke of President Biden’s defense budget proposal, which actually cut the Pentagon’s spending power, The House has passed the Fiscal Year 2023 Defense Budget, known as H.R. 7900.

Rather than reducing defense purchasing ability, the House bill keeps it intact by adding about $37 billion to the White House version, for a total of $840 billion. Department of Defense spending accounts for about 14% of federal spending.

U.S. Representative Mike Rogers (R-AL), Lead Republican of the House Armed Services Committee, stressed that the measure puts “our servicemembers first, providing a 4.6 percent pay raise and expanding benefits for military spouses and families.” It provides a 2.4 percent bonus to enlisted members, adds It includes an additional $500 million for housing allowances to offset the cost of skyrocketing rents; and provides an additional $750 million to reduce the price of food and other necessities at military commissaries… It expands training availabilities for servicemembers and improves safety of U.S. ships, aircraft, combat vehicles, and facilities.”

 In recognition of the extraordinary advances made by China, Russia, and others, funding has been provided for emerging fields, such as AI, quantum computing, hypersonic weapons, and autonomous systems.

American defense took a major hit during the Obama presidency. Despite the unprecedented arms buildup and aggressive acts by Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, the Obama Administration chose to slash defense spending, and Congress, which had agreed to the sequester in response to the doubling of the national debt during the Great Recession, failed to respond.

It left America’s military in a sharply deteriorated state. Prior to the restoration of some funds during the Trump presidency, it had its last major upgrade during the Reagan years in the 1980’s, and equipment from that era became sharply worn down from repeated conflicts in the Middle East and Afghanistan. The same can be said for its personnel.

A Wall Street Journal analysis earlier this year noted that “The longer the U.S. waits to build a national defense adequate to the challenges it faces, the greater the danger and expense ultimately will be. Americans shouldn’t deceive themselves. The end of the post-Cold War era is a major setback. For 30 years the American intellectual and policy establishment mocked Russia, fantasized about China, and frittered the country’s resources away on ill-judged diversions. At the same time, opponents—clearer-eyed than the U.S. was about the foundations of international power—created new realities that Washington must confront.”

The unpleasant reality facing lawmakers is that the U.S. does not have the technological superiority it once enjoyed.   Russia and China have technology equal to, and in some cases surpassing, much of what the Pentagon can field. An American Enterprise Institute study has noted that “The diffusion of advanced military technology and the means to manufacture it have accelerated. Capabilities in which the United States once enjoyed a monopoly (e.g. precision munitions and unmanned systems) have now proliferated … to virtually all U.S. adversaries in short order; Nations such as China and Russia have made concerted efforts to outpace and counter the military-technological advancements of the United States.”

Additonally,the numbers no longer favor the U.S. Russia has a larger nuclear arsenal, and China has far more ships.  

Over the past several months, specific examples of the growing military danger to the U.S. have become clearer. China has started to develop naval bases directly aimed at threatening the U.S. Russia has launched a “doomsday” submarine capable of causing vast destruction to America’s eastern seaboard.

The House bill now requires approval by the Senate, and, following that, the White House.

Photo: Two fighter jets attached to a training base of the PLA Air Force fly in formation during a flight training exercise on May 26, 2022. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Wang Guodong)

The evidence of dire harm from extremist climate change policies is building, and not a moment too soon.

President Biden’s “Climate Change Emergency” executive order, proposed as of this writing, could potentially give the White House direct oversight not only over the entire American economy but over the daily lives of every inhabitant of the nation.   

According to The New York Times, John F. Kerry, Mr. Biden’s international climate envoy, said in an interview that Mr. Biden is ‘very close’ to taking that step and that the debate within the administration is over when the declaration should be announced and how it should be deployed, rather than if it should be done.

Across the globe, unsubstantiated claims about the impact of human activity are providing political cover to those who seek enormous profits from transitioning to inadequate substitute energy sources and ransacking the economies of free nations to prop up radicals, giving them the opportunity to replace largely successful (and, as evidence strongly suggests, more eco-friendly) capitalist economies to failed socialist experiments.

There can be no question that, for the next several decades, wind and solar cannot provide more than a small fraction of energy needs. Making the matter worse is that most of the manufacturing of wind and solar equipment is performed overseas, largely in China.

But all that may not matter, for more immediate priorities for green-loving politicians are at hand.

Open Secrets discloses that “Close to $1 million of the alternative energy industry’s donations went directly to Biden…Such groups also spent proportionately more on outside spending than ever before, giving $3.9 million to primarily liberal outside groups.”

It’s a scandal with a rich legacy. During the Obama presidency, Vast federal funds were sent to a private company which supported Democrats.  Newsmax Solyndra Scandal: 8 Facts About Barack Obama’s Green Energy Company Controversy | Newsmax.com reported that In 2009, the California-based green energy solar panel manufacturer Solyndra received a $535 million loan. It was revealed that the Office of Management and Budget officials felt pressured to approve the loan, despite an awareness of Solyndra’s financial instability. ABC News reported, “The deal later came under scrutiny from independent government watch dogs and members of Congress, which said the administration had bypassed key taxpayer protections in a rush to approve the funds.”

The Week The Solyndra scandal: A guide to the new revelations | The Week noted that “The family foundation of billionaire George Kaiser, an Obama fundraiser, is one of Solyndra’s big investors. The GOP says that Team Obama interfered to speed up the loan approval, cutting short due diligence so that Vice President Joe Biden could announce the loan at the Sept. 4, 2009, groundbreaking of a new Solyndra factory being financed by that government cash.”

Wikipedia notes that In September 2011 the company ceased all business activity, filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11, Title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, and laid off all employees. The company was also sued by employees who were abruptly laid off. Solyndra was raided by the FBI.

Soaring energy prices have not only made the costs of transportation and home heating and cooling unaffordable, it has triggered the worst inflation in half a century. Terrible enough, but its about to get even worse.

Sri Lanka offers a clear example. Climate extremists have dominated its government. In pursuit of their “green” goals, they banned chemical fertilizers. Vast swaths of land could no longer produce food, leading to a crisis. As the New York Post notes, “This is basically the Green New Deal in miniature.”

This coming winter, Europeans may face disastrous conditions due to their premature transition to green energy sources which are simply incapable of fulfilling their needs.

All of these hardships and scandals result from claims about global warming (from the same people who alleged that global cooling was going to be the problem previously) that ignore significant evidence of prior, naturally-occurring climate change. The planet has undone cyclical trends of heating and cooling without the help of factories or SUVs.

But in those prior periods, that took place without making politicians rich.

A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. –Second Amendment
to the United States Constitution 

For the balance of my legal career, I have believed New York’s
gun laws to be unconstitutional and overly restrictive.  Imagine my
surprise to find that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas agrees.

Recently, in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn v. Bruen, 
the US Supreme Court has once more supported a plain reading of the Second
Amendment, this time to invalidate one of New York State’s more onerous
impediments to a citizen’s right to bear arms.

 Under New York Penal Law Section
265.01(1), a person is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if “(h)e or she
possesses any firearm,” which is defined at 265.00(3)(a) as “any
pistol or revolver.”  There are a host of other definitions involving
rifles, shotguns and other weapons, but the reader will note that there is no
requirement that the pistol or revolver be loaded.

Then there is PL Section 265.01-b, enacted under former
Governor Andrew Cuomo, which makes it a Class E felony to possess “any
firearm.”  There is no qualitative difference between the language
used in the felony charge or the misdemeanor.  The reader will also notice
there is no defense to possession of a “firearm” until a person is
charged under PL Sec. 265.03(3).  Under this statute, it is a crime to
possess a “loaded firearm,” except  “(s)uch possession
shall not…constitute  a  violation  of  this 
subdivision  if  such  possession takes place in such person’s
home or place of business.”  

In other words, if you have a loaded firearm, and you are
not in either your home or place of business, you will be prosecuted under
265.03(3).  However, even if you are at home, or behind the counter of
your bodega, you could still be charged with a crime, whether the gun is loaded
or not.  

A violation of Penal Law Section 265.03 is a Class C felony,
which carries a longer jail sentence than the Class E felony of 265.01-b, or
the misdemeanor Section 265.01(1).  But whether you would be charged under
the misdemeanor or felony for the same gun possessed in your home or business
is anybody’s guess.

All this legislation is intended to force law abiding
citizens to register their guns.  But as every New Yorker knows, this is a
difficult proposition.  Under Article 400 of the Penal
Law, “No license shall issue” (a very negative way to start a
law) except if an applicant is 21 years of age; is of “good moral
character”; has not been convicted of a felony or “serious offense”;
is not a fugitive; has not had a dishonorable discharge from the Armed
Services; etc, etc, etc.

Even if an applicant can meet all this criteria (some of
which are admittedly reasonable), and get a permit for a pistol for their home
or business, there is one more hurdle the applicant must pass to get a
concealed carry license – the applicant must establish they have “proper
cause” to carry a firearm outside their home or office.  

What is “proper cause?”  Under
New York law, an applicant is required to demonstrate “a special need
for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or a
person engaged in the same profession.”  Self-protection alone was
not deemed sufficient “proper cause.”  Instead, an applicant
was forced to explain why their particular circumstances required them to
carry a gun; for instance, “I am in the business of selling widgets and
have access to a warehouse full of expensive widgets. I am in fear that I am a
target for attack by dangerous criminals who know I work for ACME Inc and want
to harm me to (steal) the widgets”. 

Even when an applicant makes the requisite showing, less
than 14 percent of gun permit applications were approved by the NYPD as of
March 2022.  “Gun
store owners said they’ve been hearing complaints from would-be customers
whose applications seem to have disappeared into limbo at the NYPD’s License
Division…'(t)hey just stopped doing the investigations and the processing,’
said a city gun dealer who spoke on condition of anonymity.  ‘It’s a
slowdown across the board. It’s every person that applies. Every day, I’m
speaking to frustrated people.’”

In its recent decision, the US Supreme Court invalidates the
use of the “proper cause” standard by New York.  “(T)he
Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear
arms for self-defense,” Justice Thomas writes. “(W)e hold that when
the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution
presumptively protects that conduct.”  

Justice Thomas relied heavily upon the Court’s 2008 decision
in District of Columbia v. Heller, “In
Heller,” Thomas states, “(our) analysis suggested that the Amendment’s
operative clause – ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed’ – ‘guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation’ that does not depend on service in the militia…We
reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows:
When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the
Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.”

“The test that we set forth in Heller and apply today
requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent
with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding,” the Court
states. “Heller itself exemplifies this kind of straightforward…inquiry.
One of the District’s regulations challenged in Heller ‘totally ban[ned]
handgun possession in the home.’ (Citation omitted.) The District in Heller
addressed a perceived societal problem – firearm violence in densely populated
communities – and it employed a regulation – a flat ban on the possession of
handguns in the home – that the Founders themselves could have adopted to
confront that problem. Accordingly…Heller concluded that the handgun ban was
unconstitutional.”

“New York’s proper-cause requirement concerns the same
alleged societal problem addressed in Heller: ‘handgun violence,’ primarily in
‘urban area[s]'”  However, Justice Thomas writes, “(i)t is
undisputed that petitioners…two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens..are
part of ‘the people’ whom the Second Amendment protects…(n)or does any party
dispute that handguns are weapons ‘in common use’ today for self-defense…(w)e
therefore turn to whether the plain text of the Second Amendment protects
(petitioners) proposed course of conduct – carrying handguns publicly for
self-defense.”

“We have little difficulty concluding that it
does,” the Court finds. “Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws
a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms. As
we explained in Heller…’the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed’ – ‘guarantee the individual right to possess and carry
weapons in case of confrontation.’ (Citation omitted.) Heller further confirmed
that the right to ‘bear arms’ refers to the right to ‘wear, bear, or carry . .
. upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of
being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict
with another person.’ (Citation omitted.) This definition of ‘bear’ naturally
encompasses public carry… To confine the right to ‘bear’ arms to the home
would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections.”

Since there is no distinction made by the Second Amendment
between maintaining a firearm in your home/place of business, or carrying that
same firearm on your person, New York’s requirement that an applicant for a
carry permit show “proper cause” is invalid.   “The
constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense is not ‘a
second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the
other Bill of Rights guarantees’ (Citation omitted)” Thomas writes.
“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise
only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not
how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free
exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to
a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how
the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self
defense.”

Naturally, New York State officials were not pleased to
discover they had been in violation of the Second Amendment for so many years.
New York Governor.
Kathy Hochul called the ruling “outrageous…that at a moment of
national reckoning on gun violence, the Supreme Court has recklessly struck
down a New York law that limits those who can carry concealed weapons.”

In that regard, the New York Legislature has already
“repealed a concealed-carry restriction that the court deemed
unconstitutional but voted to enact a new set of gun laws…including
designating many public places as gun-free zones and adding more permits requirements.”

“
Under the bill, which goes into effect Sept. 1, guns will be banned from
modes of public transportation, such as subways and buses, and from schools,
shelters, government buildings, poll sites, places of worship, health
facilities, establishments that serve alcohol, libraries, day cares, zoos,
museums, theaters and stadiums, public playgrounds and parks. Other sensitive
locations where firearms will be prohibited include Times Square, a popular
tourist destination in Manhattan. There will also be a ‘presumption’ statewide
that firearms are not welcome inside private businesses unless the property
owner explicitly states otherwise with a clearly visible sign.”

In explaining her justification for the new restrictions,
Governor Hochul used this example: “Imagine you’re in Times Square. You’re on
the way to a show with your family, and you’re surrounded by people with concealed
weapons…Does that make you feel more or less safe? I think we all know the
answer to those questions.”

But let’s rephrase the question.  Do you feel safer on
that subway knowing that the people with the concealed guns have been found by
the NYPD or other licensing agency to be of “good moral character,”
without felony records or other disqualifying conditions, or do you feel safe
knowing the only person with a concealed gun on that same subway is a criminal,
in flagrant violation of New York’s restrictive gun laws?

I think reasonable people know the answer to that question.

 

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

Photo: Pixabay

Nigeria is in the news for “all the wrong reasons” lately, according to several military analysts in Washington. The country, located on the west coast of Africa, is one of China’s closest trading partners and a strong ally. Earlier this month it welcomed a megaship registered in the People’s Republic of China at its new Lekki Port. It is the first vessel ever to berth at the modern, deep-water facility. It gives rise to questions about the long-term role of China’s naval forces in western Africa. Previously analysts assumed that other states, such as Equatorial Guinea, might one day host Chinese naval vessels. The China connection at the port facility is only one of many Beijing maintains in Nigeria.

In 2010 China’s Harbor Engineering, with funding primarily from the China Development Bank and a few smaller local African partners, began work on the project. As late as last year western security analysts presumed China would seek a permanent naval presence on the west coast, most likely at the port in Equatorial Guinea. It looks like the situation may be evolving or, perhaps, the US miscalculated Chinese intentions in the region. The Nigerian port is located less than an hour from Africa’s largest metropolitan area, Lagos (est. 21.3 million pop.), and is situated inside the Chinese-controlled Lekki Free Trade Zone. The Chinese-built port increases shipping container capacity from 3,000 to 20,000 containers and has space for five mega container ships to dock simultaneously at the port. Each container ship can carry approximately 20,000 shipping containers. 

What is of greater concern is its close location to a Nigerian-multinational oil refinery and new urea and ammonia fertilizer plant. The granularized urea producer is, during a time of global shortage of fertilizer, critical as it is the second largest in the world, according to the Jamestown Foundation. The oil refinery can produce 650,000 barrels a day. Bother are critically needed to help Beijing insure domestic stability in the communist state. This could become even more critical if President Xi Jinping’s foreign policy becomes more aggressive in the coming years and the communist regime faces economic sanctions from western, democratic states.

The Stealth Newsletter published by the Jamestown Foundation points out that “… given its state of completion, its controlling interests, and the potential debt-trap Nigeria may be in with Beijing, it is possible that this new port could be repossessed or repurposed for the People’s Liberation Army’s Navy (PLAN). Of particular note is a controversial “sovereignty clause” in which the PRC is entitled to reclaim whatever assets were given and whatever collateral Nigeria put forth to obtain the loan.” Nigerian journalists report that there is little transparency concerning the Chinese loan program. Some have questioned the long-term viability of the port loan given its similarities to other Chinese loans where “debt-trap diplomacy” ended with the loss of local control of facilities to China. Should China gain control over the Nigerian facilities it would have clear access to the Atlantic Ocean. In recent years Nigeria has become overly dependent on imports from China, creating a significant trade imbalance. Chinese exports account for approximately 80 percent of total bilateral trade volume between the two countries. Reuters reported that in September 2018, Nigeria signed a $328 million loan with China to heavily boost the development of telecommunication infrastructures in Nigeria. In 2020 China began supplying the Nigerian military with equipment. As the Nigerian economy and government become increasingly intertwined with China, it will be more difficult for it to resist pressure for concessions from Beijing and the PLAN. Last year marked the 50^th anniversary of formal relations between the two countries. In June 2022 the Defense News of Nigeria tweeted that “Chinese military hardware are competitive in price and loans are provided for countries that cannot afford it. Most African militaries are looking to modernise and China is interested to develop this aspect of relations to enlarge its presence in the African arms market.” Already Nigeria is promoting China to other African states. Oluwatosin Adeshokan, writing in The Diplomat, says that “For China the establishment of banks in Nigeria presents an opportunity to further integrate itself with the financial systems of the African continent.” He adds that “Since the early 2000s, China’s trade with Africa has increased by over 2,000 percent, reaching $200 billion in 2019. China has since announced its $1 billion Belt and Road Africa infrastructure development fund to help build roads and necessary infrastructure to aid trade on the continent. But the African continent has also seen a change in its business landscape. As of 2017, there were reportedly over 10,000 Chinese-owned firms operating across the continent.” As African states turn away from former colonial powers to trade with the communist state, the risk of Chinese militarization grows in the region. The China connection at Lekki port facility is significant but, it clearly represents only one prong in China’s long-term African strategy.

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

Defining war is more nuanced today than on December 6, 1941, despite attempts by academics and policymakers to create descriptive labels encompassing a definition of modern warfare. Putin declared his February invasion of Ukraine a “special military operation.” The rest of the world identified it as a blatant “undeclared war” with tens of thousands killed in the kinetic conflict and innumerable physical damage done to the sovereign nation’s infrastructure. It is more challenging to recognize and label a country’s aggressive actions overseas that don’t involve kinetic warfare but do injure a foreign state, commercial entities, or a targeted population. Chinese foreign policy and military actions today represent a greater long-term threat to the free world than Putin’s special military operation in Ukraine. The communist regime in Beijing threatens the safety and stability of foreign governments and economies across the globe with, at times, 100% impunity. The CCP, using Huawei as one of its instruments, aggressively targets western regimes and other entities using its advanced technologies. 

In response to the Chinese threat this week, the Biden Administration announced it is investigating Huawei’s operations inside the United States. Reuters is reporting that two US individuals with knowledge of the case admitted that Washington has concerns that American “cell towers fitted with its [Huawei’s] gear could capture sensitive information from military bases and missile silos that the company could then transmit to China….”

Due to the confidentiality and sensitive nature of the investigation, notes Reuter, the identity of the investigators remains protected. What is known is that US authorities are concerned that China could obtain sensitive data on military drills and the readiness status of American bases and personnel via Huawei’s equipment used on cell towers in the US. It is an almost invisible national security threat to our country but one that typically falls below the threshold for most definitions of war. Several policy analysts in Washington argue that the breadth of China’s intrusive operations in the US are reaching a critical point and may be preparation for more overt aggressive action in the future. 

“The previously unreported probe was opened by the Commerce Department shortly after Joe Biden took office early last year, the sources said, following the implementation of rules to flesh out a May 2019 executive order that gave the agency the investigative authority,” writes AP’s Alexandra Alpers. Eight current and former US officials said the probe reflects lingering national security concerns about the company, she added. The Trump Administration imposed a series of restrictions on Huawei over concerns of espionage involving Chinese military-connected operations aimed at the United States. The current probe by the Commerce Department, if it determines Huawei poses a national security threat, could extend beyond existing restrictions imposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the US telecoms regulator.

The Trump Administration created encompassing rules permitting the Commerce Department to ban potentially all US transactions with Huawei. If a telecom carrier still relies on Huawei technology it could be forced to remove it or face fines or other penalties, according to the Reuters report. In a 2020 speech FBI Director Christopher Wray said: “If Chinese companies like Huawei are given unfettered access to our telecommunications infrastructure, they could collect any of your information that traverses their devices or networks.” The danger level increases dramatically when Huawei’s equipment is located next to a US military installation. Capturing data enables China to make predictions about US capabilities, readiness levels, and other vital national security-related information. Under Chinese law Huawei is required to spy for the government and must turn over whatever information it collects when Beijing demands it. The civilian-military fusion program in China virtually eliminates any line dividing the private and public sectors. “If you can stick a receiver on a [cellphone] tower, you can collect signals and that means you can get intelligence. No intelligence agency would pass an opportunity like that,” said Jim Lewis, a technology and cybersecurity expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington D.C.-based think tank,” Alper writes. 

The looming question that remains unanswered concerns an answer to this question. Is this a form of warfare or a prelude to a kinetic war? China’s government plans for the long-term. In some cases, it is generational. By 2030, China estimates it will operate a fully-modernized military. The US is only in recent years taking action to protect against non-kinetic actions by China. There remains no consensus in Washington concerning the definition of an act of war. What is known is that the United States today is vulnerable to technology-based attacks on our infrastructure by the communist regime.

Invade… Capture… Annex… Repeat….  Where and when will Russia stop?

• Transnistria (1992)
• Abkhazia (1992)
• South Ossetia (2008)
• Crimea (2014)
• Luhansk People’s Republic (2014)
• Donetsk People’s Republic (2014)
• Ukraine (2022?)

Russia has a violent history of annexing the territory of nearby over the border states in the post-Soviet era. The current war in Ukraine is Moscow’s latest attempt to dissect the country. President Vladimir Putin first ordered troops into the Crimean Peninsula eight years ago in February. On March 16, 2014, with armed men guarding the polls to ensure pro-Moscow results, Russia “won” a referendum in which Crimea voted to secede from Ukraine. Actual voter turnout was estimated at 30% with only about half of that number voting to secede. In a public ceremony four days later, Putin signed a treaty incorporating Crimea into the Russian Federation. Donbas and the Crimean Peninsula are recognized internationally as part of Ukraine. According to a White House official this week, Putin is using the same “playbook” as in past military incursions. John Kirby, the National Security Council’s coordinator for strategic communications, said in a White House briefing that “The Russian government is reviewing detailed plans to purportedly annex a number of regions in Ukraine, including Kherson, Zaporizhia, all of Donetsk, and Luhansk oblasts.”

Ukraine recaptured Snake Island from Russia earlier in July but, in the eastern part of the country the military continues to lose territory to Putin’s armed forces. Luhansk is now under total Russian control. Kirby says that Russia is following a pattern similar to its earlier incursions that included installing illegitimate proxy officials in areas under its control in eastern Europe. The White House this week is predicting that Putin will call for a sham referendum in Ukraine to claim that the sovereign nation-state wants to join the Russian Federation. Kirby says the timeline for the Russian-sponsored  “referendum” may coincide with regional elections scheduled for September 11. Already Russian banks are opening offices in eastern Ukraine, notes Defense One’s Jacqueline Feldscher. To give the appearance of normality, Moscow is forcing Ukrainians living in those eastern areas under its controls to apply for Russian citizenship and is issuing them new Russian passports. Feldscher reports that Kirby’s announcement is an example of Washington continuing to expose Putin’s gameplan so the world can be prepared for Russia’s next moves, and his attempts to obfuscate his intentions. 

“Annexation by force would be a gross violation of the UN charter and we will not allow it to go unchallenged or unpunished,” says Kirby. The US, in response to Russian moves is sending additional weapons to Ukraine, including more HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems). On Tuesday the top Ukrainian military official, Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov, called the HIMARS, along with drones and longer-range rockets a “game changer.”  He noted that the HIMARS already helped destroy 30 Russian command stations and an ammunition storage area, slowing Russia’s advance. The Defense Minister reported that his country is not using the weapons to attack inside Russian territory but is “using HIMARS systems precisely like… surgery.” He contrasted it with Russian strategy he compared to a “meat grinder” that has led to the deaths of hundreds of civilian casualties. Former US Ambassador to Ukraine, John Herbst, called the Biden Administration risk adverse and argued that it is too timid. “Instead of giving… all the HIMARS… and the longer ranges, they parceled it out in very small dosages.” It appears that protracted warfare will continue in Ukraine as Putin shows no signs of ending his “special operation.” Some military analysts in Washington now are questioning whether Putin intends to stop once the conflict in Ukraine ends or if, as in the past, the Russian leader will continue on his quest to remake the Russian empire. Looking a map outlining the borders of the old empire, Putin has not completed his adventure.

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

Photo: Russian Defence Ministry

It is understandable to see China as the dominant threat in the Pacific, but unfortunately, it is not alone.

A Lowry Institute study notes that “Moscow has moved beyond platitudes about a ‘turn to the East’ and is pursuing a multi-dimensional approach towards the region: reinforcing the partnership with China; reaching out to other major players; and promoting itself as a significant security and economic contributor.”

According to Admiral John C. Aquilino, who leads the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, “Russia also presents serious risks to the United States as well as our allies and partners, and has the ability to threaten the homeland. As evident from their unprovoked and unjustified attack on the Ukraine, Russia has no regard for international law, its own prior commitments, or any principles that uphold global peace.”

In mid-2021, the Russian Pacific Fleet completed the largest naval exercise since the Soviet era, deploying approximately 20 ships, including the fleet’s flagship and other large combatants, to within 20-30 nautical miles off the Hawaiian island of Oahu. While in the area, Russia twice flew Tu-95 strategic bombers into the region as a further show of force, and an intelligence collection ship operated near Hawaii before, during, and after the exercise. All these actions were an attempt to demonstrate expeditionary and long-range strike capabilities.

He notes that Russia’s Eastern Military District continues to field new and improved weapons and platforms across all services. These expanding capabilities threaten the United States and our allies, including Japan, particularly in connection with its territorial dispute with Russia over the southern Kuril Islands.

The Russian Pacific Fleet increased its precision land attack and anti-ship cruise missile capacity in 2021 with two new upgraded Kilo-class submarines, one guided-missile frigate, and the modernization of one guided-missile destroyer. Eleven more new ships and submarines are expected to arrive in the next four years, including at least two Severodvinsk II class nuclear cruise missile submarines and four more advanced Kilo submarines.

The Russian Pacific Fleet employs Kalibr cruise missiles and the newly tested Tsirkon hypersonic cruise missiles. In the air domain, Moscow recently announced it would station its most advanced fighter aircraft, the fifth generation Su-57, in the Eastern Military District.

These aircraft will join an air defense structure already boasting significant numbers of fourth-generation fighters, interceptors, and advanced air defense missiles, including the state-of-the-art S-400 surface-to-air missile system. Since 2016, Russia has stationed coastal defense cruise missiles (CDCM) in the disputed Kuril Islands, expanding its capability to threaten Japan and potentially U.S. forces. Moscow announced in late 2021 formation of a new CDCM unit to make their presence permanent.

Russia maintains a modern nuclear triad with upgraded Tu-95MSM bombers, armed with new Kh-101/102 land-attack cruise missiles. New capabilities will include at least one Dolgorukiy II class nuclear ballistic submarine, which will join two Dolgorukiy I missile submarines already in the Pacific Fleet, and a special purpose Belogorod nuclear submarine that Moscow announced would arrive in 2022. The Belogorod will carry the Poseidon unmanned nuclear weapon.

The first launch of the SARMAT heavy ICBM is expected by mid-2022. Russia is rapidly advancing its space and counter-space capabilities, conducting the thirdhighest number of space launches in 2021.

Russia is also developing a suite of anti-satellite capabilities, such as the PL-19 Nudol direct ascent missile, high-powered lasers, and various electronic warfare systems. These capabilities allow Russia to disrupt or destroy adversary satellites during peacetime or conflict. Moscow’s extensive cyber capabilities are well known and globally active. Advanced and emerging techniques, including artificial intelligence-enabled deep fakes, coupled with existing and new relationships with deniable proxy groups, are expected to expand Russia’s ability to deceive, deny, and destroy adversary networks and control systems.

Photo: Pixabay