Month: September 2022

China’s international charm offensive is facing challenges as reality hits policymakers and the public in anticipation of the upcoming meetings. Hardline policy is to remain intact after the upcoming 20^th Chinese Communist Party Congress in October, according to Chinese officials. Policy makers in Beijing are offering public statements emphatically ensuring the world that the country’s policies toward Taiwan and other issues will remain aggressive and that Beijing is not softening despite calls for reform. Ma Zhaoxu, China’s Deputy Foreign Minister, signaled that there will be “no change” in China’s “assertive diplomacy” after the meeting this month.

US Ambassador to China, Nick Burns, says that China’s position is endangering a peaceful solution to the Taiwan issue and destabilizing the region. He called out Beijing, saying “If anyone here changed their policy, it really is the People’s Republic of China, with their overreaction…” to the visit of Rep Nancy Pelosi, according to Burns. Washington, he says, is not altering its one China policy and will continue to compete with China.

On Wednesday, in advance of the party meetings, Chinese state media reported that Chinese Premier Li Kejiang announced Beijing is set to move forward with its domestic economic policy program during the last quarter of the year claiming the country has recovered from Covid. He suggested the country’s economy now is stable. Since May Beijing has been cutting taxes and infrastructure spending in an attempt to revive the economy crippled by its zero-Covid policy and property crisis. 

A Caixin investigation, according to James Palmer writing in Foreign Policy, says that that local governments are filling the financing hole created by the collapse of the real estate market with a desperate measure. “Local government funding vehicles, which sell municipal bonds, are being pressured to get into business themselves and buy land from the government. Not counting taxes, land sales made up 42 percent of local government revenue in 2021—up from just 5.9 percent in 2000.” He points out that there no way local government funding vehicles can fill this gap as there is no demand from buyers, who are waiting for the state to allow prices to fall.

On Monday the yuan, despite efforts by the People’s Bank of China, hit a 28-month low against the dollar. The leadership in Beijing may find it embarrassing as it typically associates a strong yuan with a strong balance of economic power with the United States. The World Bank recently slashed its prediction for China’s GDP growth from 5 percent in the spring to 2.8 percent. The reaction among Chinese is that the country is a falling into a recessionary period when it fails to meet government growth targets. 

Corruption also continues to impact Xi’s ability to continue domestic reforms. Beijing announced Monday that the “godmother” of China’s shipping industry, Li Li, a former Communist Party chief and president of the Beijing branch of the Export-Import Bank of China was recently expelled from the CCP, removed from public positions, and turned over to prosecutors on corruption charges. Coupled with weak demand for shipping this year, Xi faces a number of challenges at the upcoming party meetings.China’s foreign policy also faces challenges. A senior official in Taiwan, Deputy Minister of the Mainland Affairs Council Chui-Cheng Chiu, warned on the Wednesday “ Chinese President Xi Jinping is embracing an extreme form of “closed door nationalism” and “totalitarianism” that threatens Taiwan’s future. Chiu’s statement comes amid increased cross-strait tension as officials in Taiwan anticipate that Xi will continue to consolidate power and threaten to reclaim control of Taiwan. All of this comes amid news that BA.2.75.2, the new Omicron strain found in China is showing a worrying ability to evade immunity. Xi intends his legacy to be the return of Taiwan. His path forward is becoming less clear as some analysts report China’s economy may never take over that of the United States. Neighboring states, once friendly to China, also are rejecting overtures from Beijing as Xi seeks to realign the world in favor of the communist giant’s view of the international order. The upcoming Chinese Communist Party Congress may not go as well as Xi Jinping hopes, although analysts suggest he will continue to consolidate his power.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

Defense is normally considered what a nation does to prevent an attack from another nation. But as humanity gains a greater understanding of the universe, a new concept, planetary defense, has been coined. It concerns defending the human race from the type of disaster that ended the reign of the dinosaurs.

“The threat of asteroids is real,” NASA scientist Elena Adams said during a panel discussion on international cooperation for planetary defense. Adams is the systems engineer for the first planetary defense mission, known as the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART). The DART mission is a collaboration among NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA), and the Italian Space Agency.

According to the journal Interesting Engineering, “Some scientists claim we are overdue for an asteroid impact of the scale that took out the dinosaurs — as these happen approximately once every 50 to 60 million years…In fact, just last year a large asteroid, called ‘2019 OK’, was spotted just a day before flying between the Earth and the Moon. Even scarier than the size and proximity of the asteroid — it was the size of a football field and came within 65,000 km of Earth’s surface — is the fact that it caught researchers off guard…in 1992 a huge asteroid impact did occur and was observed on Jupiter. If the asteroid, called Shoemaker-Levy 9, had hit Earth, it would have created a global atmospheric disaster similar to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.”

One recent threat spotted by astronomers involved Bennu, an asteroid about a third of a mile wide. According to a National Geographic report “Nearly all of the riskiest encounters with Bennu will occur in the late 2100s and early 2200s, with the single likeliest impact coming on the afternoon of September 24, 2182.”

Fortunately, early trials of the means to prevent a similar catastrophe have proven successful. After 10 months flying in space, NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) – the world’s first planetary defense technology demonstration – successfully impacted its asteroid target on Monday, the agency’s first attempt to move an asteroid in space.

“At its core, DART represents an unprecedented success for planetary defense, but it is also a mission of unity with a real benefit for all humanity,” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. “As NASA studies the cosmos and our home planet, we’re also working to protect that home, and this international collaboration turned science fiction into science fact, demonstrating one way to protect Earth.”

DART targeted the asteroid moonlet Dimorphos, a small body just 530 feet (160 meters) in diameter. It orbits a larger, 2,560-foot (780-meter) asteroid called Didymos. Neither asteroid poses a threat to Earth.

The mission’s one-way trip confirmed NASA can successfully navigate a spacecraft to intentionally collide with an asteroid to deflect it, a technique known as kinetic impact.

The investigation team will now observe Dimorphos using ground-based telescopes to confirm that DART’s impact altered the asteroid’s orbit around Didymos. Researchers expect the impact to shorten Dimorphos’ orbit by about 1%, or roughly 10 minutes; precisely measuring how much the asteroid was deflected is one of the primary purposes of the full-scale test.

“DART’s success provides a significant addition to the essential toolbox we must have to protect Earth from a devastating impact by an asteroid,” said Lindley Johnson, NASA’s Planetary Defense Officer. “This demonstrates we are no longer powerless to prevent this type of natural disaster. Coupled with enhanced capabilities to accelerate finding the remaining hazardous asteroid population by our next Planetary Defense mission, the Near-Earth Object (NEO) Surveyor, a DART successor could provide what we need to save the day.”

Photo: Asteroid Dimorphos (NASA photo)

According to the NY State Attorney General James lawsuit, the Trump Organization “grossly inflated Mr. Trump’s personal net worth…by billions of dollars and conveyed false and misleading impressions to financial counterparties about how the Statements (of Financial Condition) were prepared. Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization used these false and misleading Statements repeatedly and persistently to induce banks to lend money to the Trump Organization on more favorable terms than would otherwise have been available to the company, to satisfy continuing loan covenants, and to induce insurers to provide insurance coverage for higher limits and at lower premiums”

In other words, Trump exaggerated his own wealth, and the wealth of his companies.  For instance, “(r)elying on objectively false numbers to calculate property values…Mr. Trump’s own triplex apartment in Trump Tower was valued as being 30,000 square feet when it was 10,996 square feet. As a result, in 2015 the apartment was valued at $327 million in total, or $29,738 per square foot. That price was absurd given the fact that at that point only one apartment in New York City had ever sold for even $100 million, at a price per square foot of less than $10,000. And that sale was in a newly built, ultra-tall tower. In 30 year-old Trump Tower, the record sale as of 2015 was a mere $16.5 million at a price of less than $4,500 per square foot.”

Following the logic of these arguments, it would seem that the banks that loaned Donald Trump money, or the insurance companies that insured Trump’s properties would have standing to sue, it they believed they had been defrauded.  But in a recent interview with Sean Hannity of Fox, the former President was asked “Do you put in a caveat that actually says these are our valuations? Because I don’t know a lending institution or bank or financial institution that would lend money to anybody and just go by the borrower’s estimation or evaluation of a particular property.”

According to Trump, “We have a disclaimer…(i)t basically says, you know, get your own people, you’re at your own risk, this was done by management, it wasn’t done by us…don’t rely on the statement that you’re getting…It’s a very powerful disclaimer. It basically says to an institution: ‘You are going to loan money. You have to go out and make sure that you get your own appraisers, your own lawyers, everything.’”

In other words, the banks which lent Donald Trump money, and the insurance companies that insured his properties, did not get their own, independent valuations.  They agreed to rely on the Financial Statements provided by Trump and his Organization before they lent him money, or insured him.

Is this fair or equitable?  Probably not – when you and I buy or sell a house, the bank performs its own assessment of the value of the property before that bank lends us a dollar.  But we are not engaged in the buying, selling and insuring of properties worth millions of dollars.  Is it a fraud?  If it is, it would be a fraud on these banks and insurance companies – not necessarily against the People of the State of New York.  

In her civil complaint, James alleges that Trump “repeatedly and persistently violated the following: New York Penal Law § 175.10 (Falsifying Business Records); Penal Law § 175.45 (Issuing a False Financial Statement); and Penal Law § 176.05 (Insurance Fraud).”  But if this were the case, why isn’t Trump being charged with these crimes?

Former Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance, Jr. was engaged in an extensive investigation of Trump and the Trump Organization.  However, the current DA, Alvin Bragg, has not moved forward with any criminal charges.  As explained by Jane Mayer in The New Yorker, “(t)he case was always a high-wire act. Unlike the parallel civil case..by New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, which only needs to reach a threshold of ‘preponderance of the evidence’ to find Trump liable for violating the law, the D.A.’s criminal case would have had to convince a jury ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that Trump had criminal intent to defraud. Real-estate valuations of the kind that Trump was under investigation for manipulating are also often slippery, but Vance’s team had hoped to prove that Trump engaged in a decades-long pattern of criminal fraud.”     Apparently, Bragg and his team are not as confident of success.

In a criminal matter, the prosecutor acts as an agent of the People of the State of New York, and can call the bankers and insurance agents allegedly defrauded by Trump to testify as the victims of the fraud.  James can also subpoena those bankers and insurance agents to testify in civil court.  In a criminal case, the state always has an interest in preventing criminal activity, giving the prosecutor standing to bring the charge.  But by bringing a lawsuit on behalf of the People of the State of New York, James is claiming that the People of New York State have been injured by Trump’s overstatements of his wealth.  This returns us to the same question – why aren’t the banks and insurance companies suing Trump?

It is also valuable to consider that many civil complaints include a section, usually no more than a  paragraph, which expresses the basis for the Plaintiff’s standing to bring a case.  There is no obvious Statement of Standing to be found in James complaint against Trump – in fact, standing is not one of the entitled sections described in the extensive Table of Contents included in the Attorney General’s complaint.  

The closest James comes to expressing standing is in the Section of the Complaint titled “Parties,” in which she asserts that “(t)he Attorney General is responsible for overseeing the activities of New York businesses and the conduct of their officers and directors, in accordance with the New York Executive Law and other applicable laws. She is expressly tasked by the Legislature with policing any persistent or repeated fraud and illegal conduct in business.”

A very broad statement indeed – and one that assumes facts yet to be established.

It may be years before this matter is resolved – civil litigation is notoriously ponderous and slow.  But Bill Barr’s initial impression appears to be supported by the facts.  The Manhattan DA refused to act on these allegations; the US Attorney is pursuing other avenues in an effort to satisfy Trump-haters worldwide.  James vowed to “shine a bring light” on Trump’s real-estate dealings – and through this lawsuit, she has done as she promised.  

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

Illustration: Pixabay

When Letitia “Tish” James ran for New York Attorney General in 2018, she vowed to “challenge this illegitimate president,” that being Donald Trump.  “I believe that this president is incompetent,” James said.  “I believe that this president is ill-equipped to serve in the highest office of this land. And I believe that he is an embarrassment to all that we stand for.” She also said that “Trump should be indicted on criminal charges and charged with obstruction of justice.”  During her victory speech after being elected Attorney General, James said “I will be shining a bright light into every dark corner of (Trump’s) real estate dealings, and every dealing, demanding truthfulness at every turn.” 

You cannot say that AG James is not true to her word. As reported by CNN in mid September,  “The New York state attorney general filed a sweeping lawsuit…against former President Donald Trump, three of his adult children and the Trump Organization, alleging they were involved in an expansive fraud lasting over a decade that the former President used to enrich himself. In the more than 200-page lawsuit, Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, alleges the fraud touched all aspects of the Trump business, including its properties and golf courses. According to the lawsuit, the Trump Organization deceived lenders, insurers and tax authorities by inflating the value of his properties using misleading appraisals.” 

The reactions from Trump-haters was immediate.  Actor Billy Baldwin (apparently a brother to Alec Baldwin) stated “Am I alone, or should Donald Trump be CRIMINALLY charged as well?”  Former Meathead Rob Reiner said “Letitia James lands the first big blow…Merrick Garland will deliver the knockout punch.  A great day for the Rule of Law.”  Then there is Mia Farrow, best known as Frank Sinatra and Woody Allen’s ex-wife, who said, “if any of us had committed ANY of these transgressions, we’d have been in prison long ago…they have been cheating the American people out of billions for decades…facts reveal crooks-scammers soaked in money they didn’t earn honestly.  They are a crime family…”

Meanwhile, according to former US Attorney General, Bill Barr, no friend to Donald Trump, “It’s hard for me not to conclude that this is a political hit job…I’m not even sure that (James) has a good case against Trump himself, but what ultimately persuades me that this is a political hit job is that she grossly overreaches when she tries to drag the children into this…this is (Trump’s) personal financial statement, prepared by the CFO, accounting firms were involved in it…the children aren’t going to know the details of that, nor are they expected in the real world to do their own due diligence and have it reviewed independently.”

Nonetheless, a civil lawsuit must come as a devastating disappointment to Hollywood elites like Baldwin and Reiner who long to see Donald Trump in handcuffs.  Incarceration, however, is a sentence which could be handed to the former President only after a criminal charge is filed by a Criminal Complaint or Grand Jury Indictment, and only after the defendant is found guilty of that charge.  

In New York State Supreme Court, Civil Division, where James has filed her lawsuit, the penalties are either injunctive (ordering the defendant to do, or stop doing something), or monetary (the payment of reimbursement or damages).  Thus, in People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.,  James seeks, among other penalties, “Barring Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization from entering into any New York State commercial real estate acquisitions for a period of five years…Barring Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization from applying for loans from any financial institution chartered by or registered with the New York Department of Financial Services for a period of five years…Permanently barring Mr. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump from serving as an officer or director in any New York corporation or similar business entity registered and/or licensed in New York State…(and)…(a)warding disgorgement of all financial benefits obtained by each Defendant from the fraudulent scheme…of an amount to be determined at trial but estimated to be $250,000,000.” 

James’ complaint lists a series of financial transactions which she asserts are fraudulent involving properties owned by the Trump organization in New York, Florida, Washington DC, Philadelphia, and even Scotland, raising the immediate question of whether or not the New York State Supreme Court would even have jurisdiction over properties and transactions not located in New York State.  But the allegations brought by the New York State Attorney General raise an even more serious question – does she have the legal standing to bring this litigation?

 “’Standing‘ is a legal term used in connection with lawsuits and a requirement of Article III of the United States Constitution. In simple terms, courts use ‘standing’ to ask, ‘Does this party have a ‘dog in this fight?’…To have standing, a party must show an ‘injury in fact’ to their own legal interests. In other words, has the party itself ‘suffered’ some sort of actual harm?” 

Judge John Wilson’s (ret.) article concludes tomorrow

Photo: NY AG L. James

Across the planet, knowledgeable governments and seasoned international observers are warning of the rapid slide towards world conflict brought about by Russia and China.

Both Putin and Xi face existential threats, largely of their own making, to their respective dictatorships. Rather than alter their failed policies, they seek to divert attention from their home-grown disasters.

Russia is, in essence, a criminal enterprise masquerading as a national government. The former commissars of the USSR are now oligarchs who take so much from honest enterprises that they have prevented any opportunity for prosperity. Instead of changing course, they spin myths about foreign threats and the need to re-establish the Soviet Empire; the attackon Ukraine is part of that. They don’t commit resources to developing a sound economy. They have chosen to develop the world’s leading nuclear weapons arsenal and other advanced weaponry, state expenditures they can take a “piece of the action” of and further their personal bank accounts.

China’s situation is more complex. The ruling Communist Party imposed a societal compact. In return for increasing prosperity (largely derived from selling goods to the West) the population surrendered individual freedom, accepting top-down rule over their lives. For many years, that formula prevented any dissent.  But the country now faces a substantial economic downturn. Xi has decided to make a sharp turn away from the liberalized financial policies that provided a booming increase, and return to Maoist-style control. His commitment to that is so intense that he imposed harsh rule on Hong Kong, killing an area that could have provided a vital spark to his economy. As prosperity flounders, so too does that social compact.

Beijing, similar to Moscow, is attempting to substitute a pretended threat from abroad for financial stability as a means of keeping the loyalty of its people.

Two leaders, desperate to keep control by any means, are protecting their rule by endangering the world.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who is not prone to exaggerated claims, in a discussion with the United Kingdom’s Daily Mail , emphasized that America is “on edge of war with Russia and China.”

Some are paying attention, some are not. Two nations considered adverse to military matters since the end of the Second World War are shifting course in response to the enhance threats from Moscow and Beijing. Utterly devastated by their defeat in that conflict, Japan and Germany shied away from fielding significant armed forces.  Japan adopted a “Peace Constitution,” and Germany has essentially relied on the United States and NATO for its defense.

But as the challenges from Russia and China have grown too large to ignore, and as the Biden Administration has demonstrated reluctance to continue America’s key role in global vigilance against aggression, both Tokyo and Berlin have taken steps to address the danger.

For decades, Germany has underfunded its military and depended on its allies to protect it. But as the threat from Russia has grown, demonstrated clearly by the Ukraine invasion and Putin’s bellicosity in general, it is taking a new interest in defense. Georg Löfflmann, writing for the United Kingdom’s Spectator,   reports that “In a historic speech to the German parliament … the chancellor Olaf Scholz announced a radical departure…from decades of German post-war foreign policy doctrine. Germany’s military reticence would end – as would its strategic diplomatic and economic engagement with Russia.”

Japan’s leaders have responded to the growing threats from joint Russian-Chinese maneuvers close to the island nation’s home waters with enlarged support for its defense forces. It is expected that self-imposed caps on military spending will be eliminated in future budgets.

In the U.S., however, the Biden Administration continues to provide budgets that reduce Pentagon spending power.

Photo: Russian troops at the 2015 Moscow Victory Day parade By Kremlin.ru, CC BY 4.0

Popular theory suggests that humans can only intuitively grasp small, single digit numbers. Any more than that and our understanding morphs from recognizing a numeric value to only seeing patterns or abstractions that require the mediation of language. This is true, for example, when we look at trees. Once the number increases, we no longer recognize individual branches, or even full trees. Instead, our brains only register a pattern we label as a “forest.” In the same way it is challenging for humans to fully grasp the extent of a refugee crisis such the one resulting from the war in Ukraine, the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, or the vast impact of a natural disaster like the recent catastrophic and deadly flooding across Pakistan. 

In an area only 9.6 percent the size of the United States, Pakistan contains a population that is over two-thirds the size of our population. The latest floods in that country displaced nearly 8 million people or almost the same number of individuals as reside in all of New York City. Pakistan’s population totals over 225 million today, or 67.8% of that of the US. Even these few numbers lose much of their meaning due to their size, except to the humans intimately involved in each crisis. 

This week world leaders came together in New York City to attend the United Nations General Assembly. They discussed Ukraine, the flood waters in Pakistan, and the resulting outbreaks of cholera, malaria, and dengue fever. It is a serious crisis for the many thousands of pregnant Pakistani women and the more than 3 million children needing immediate care. One set of numbers that the politicians should grasp is that floodwaters covering one-third of Pakistan may take a full six months to recede. 

Officials in Islamabad are responding to worst disaster in a hundred years and need international humanitarian assistance unlinked to a political agenda. The National Flood Response and Coordination Center in Pakistan is providing updates to the world and aid to the people where possible. One good fact is that most vital rescue missions are complete with people moved to higher ground. The crisis is not over. Agricultural fields remain inundated, and the people lack enough food, shelter, and health care. The numbers do not begin to explain the extend of the challenge faced by a international donor weary world. The United Nations has only reached a third of its goal of raising $39 million in a global economy already suffering from supply chain shocks over Covid, the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, and now the war in Ukraine.

The State Department announced today that the Foreign Ministers of Australia, India and Japan and the Secretary of State met in New York on Friday and signed into operation the Guidelines for the ‘Quad Partnership on Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) in the Indo-Pacific’. At first glance it appears a step forward in addressing the concerns of states in the region that often suffer from tsunami and other natural disasters. A full reading of the document, however, emphasizes a very different agenda of the Biden Administration. 

While Ukraine, Afghanistan, and now Pakistan’s citizens are suffering in massive numbers, the Biden Administration announcement highlights that “Under the partnership, Quad partners will promote inclusion by advancing gender equality and women’s and girl’s empowerment, ensuring persons with disabilities are agents and beneficiaries of humanitarian action, and by ensuring indigenous people, minority groups and persons in vulnerable situations are not left behind. The guidelines call for zero tolerance for inaction on tackling Sexual Exploitation, Abuse and Harassment (SEAH).” The Biden Administration appears to be redefining what constitutes a humanitarian crisis. Whether one state is allied with another, during a major crisis world leaders need to come together to address the immediate needs of the population struggling to survive and not push a radical political agenda. It appears the US is changing how it prioritizes humanitarian crises. 

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

Illustration: Pixabay

China is competing with the United States to develop key technologies in the field of artificial intelligence and biological technologies. Before long it may be capable of using its advancements in support of its own economy, military and society to the detriment of others, according to a special study backed by the US Government. Last week Robert Work, who is chair of the US Naval Institute Board of Directors, former deputy defense secretary, and co-chair of the “Special Competitive Studies Project,”  reported that international artificial intelligence and technological competition between the two states may result in the US losing out to China. In Work’s opinion, without question, China at a minimum is a national security threat to the US. He says the special panel found that soon China will be able to establish global surveillance and force American companies dependent on China for business to lose trillions of dollars.

Work argues that the United States must act now or accept that it will be reliant on China or other countries under Chinese influence for its core technologies. Heather Mongilio, writing in USNI, quotes Work as saying that “If that world happens, it’s going to be very bleak for democracy … China’s sphere of influence will grow as its technological platforms proliferate throughout the world, and they will be able to establish surveillance on a global scale… So that’s what losing looks like.” 

China publicly calls 2025 the year that it will achieve global dominance in technology manufacturing. Mongilio points out that this leaves the US a single budget left to address the issue. SCSP CEO Yll Bajraktari says that by 2030 Beijing intends to be the AI global leader and that “The 2025-2030 timeframe is a really important period for our country and the global geopolitical security.” More and more American business and technology leaders are drawing the same conclusion. “The technological competition goes beyond conflict or a military focus,” notes Eric Schmidt, co-chair of the Special Competitive Studies Project and former Google CEO. “You can imagine the issues with having platforms dominated by non-western firms, which we rely on,” Schmidt said. He says that the Chinese-owned site Tik Tok is the number one-ranked social media site and the Chinese technology corporation Huawei already is outpacing America in 5G technology.

The Special Competititive Studies panel found that competition is played out in three battle spaces: artificial intelligence, chips, and 5G, notes Bajraktari. He says it is important “to get these three battlegrounds right… [and] critical because as I’ve said, this is not just about military competition. This is about all the benefits that all these three battlegrounds will bring to our economy and our society. And ultimately, you know, our military can use it too.”

What is worrisome to DOD officials is that the US does not yet have a good plan to compete with China’s 5G technology. The communist giant also controls about 70 percent of African 4G. Bajraktari points out that China has invested billions of dollars toward chip production, “going all in.” In the area of artificial intelligence China has proclaimed it wants to be the “global leader.” 

Winning the competition, says Work, does not mean the US needs to control the production of critical technology, but it does need to be able to compete in the arena. He argues that Washington needs to have a dominant position in technological platforms and control global digital infrastructure “and we definitely want to be able to harness biotech for the safety and livelihood of our citizens and new energy.” Bajraktari says that “If the US cannot plan to excel in the three battlegrounds, advancements in biotech and computer power and next-generation inventions will happen in countries like China instead of democracies.” The stakes are greater than a simple military competition between two powerful states. The results of advances in AI, chips, and 5G will in large part determine who gets to shape the future of the geopolitical environment for the foreseeable future. The US and other western nation-states must compete to retain the democratic values and freedoms under attack by China or face that the West could end under the dominance of a communist dictatorship.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

Several developments occurred in Russia recently that provide a glimpse into the state of Putin’s mind and the chaos present in leadership circles in Moscow. There are clear indications of diminished strength within the Russian military machine that are impacting the potential outcome of the war in Ukraine. Moscow announced this week it is holding a long-planned referendum on the occupied Ukrainian territories. The sham referendum is intended to secure these areas as Russian territory. Taken together these and other events create a picture of indecision, disarray, and confusion inside the Kremlin. Perhaps most disconcerting, however, is Putin’s announcement in a major speech this week that he is putting the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine on the table.

Increased recruiting suggests the Russian army’s ability to conduct war in Ukraine is waning although Moscow does not publish the number of casualties, wounded, or those simply exhausted from seven months of fighting on the battlefield. This follows a weeks-long quiet mobilization as the army desperately seeks recruits to replace those fallen or wounded in a war going badly for Russia. Is Putin erratically responding to his weakened state by making threats he has no intention of carrying out? That is one question military analysts are asking this week in western capitals across Europe and in Washington.

Ukraine shocked observers with its fast recapture of several thousand square miles of its sovereign territory. Russian soldiers, often in civilian clothing, fled so quickly that many dropped their weapons, left behind tanks, and discarded other military equipment. Desertion is an increasing problem. On September 13, legal changes in Russian law made “voluntary surrender” a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison. 

Foreign leaders once favorable toward Putin and supportive of his “special military action” in Ukraine are distancing themselves from Russia fearing the imposition of economic sanctions. Now that Putin is vulnerable, and victory uncertain, some are putting distance between their regime and Russia. At last week’s Summit in Uzbekistan reports came in saying that Indian Prime Minister Modi and Chinese President Xi both expressed “concerns” and that Turkish President Erdogan openly urged Putin to end the conflict, saying “The lands which were invaded will be returned to Ukraine.” 

Anne Applebaum, writing in The Atlantic, says that Putin’s action are “not those of a secure leader assured of his legitimacy and the outcome of this war.” She attributes the crisis inside Russia to Putin’s fear that he will lose his remaining international support. Autocratic leaders were once firmly in Moscow’s camp when it was the world’s 2^nd largest military and Putin’s hold on power appeared secure for the rest of his life. Today his trading partners are quietly receding unlike Putin’s adversaries at home. Many in Russia who oppose the war are actively expressing themselves on social media and blogging about what is wrong with Putin’s leadership. Putin is known to be paranoid about his safety and anything he perceives as threatening his power. That few of his critics on social media have suffered is an indication that Putin is losing the support of high-level government officials. 

The sham referendum and Putin’s nuclear threats are intended to create fear and reverse the course of the war in Russia’s favor. Analysts doubt that it will work. That leaves open the question of how extreme Putin will act in the coming weeks. One former US military analyst who is an expert on Putin says that he has stated on a number of occasion that he will fight to the death like a cornered snake willing to strike out despite its inevitable demise. What will Putin do if faced with the loss of power, prestige, and potentially the integrity of the Russian state. Joshua Keating, a global security reporter, says we are about to find out. He says the war in Ukraine is unprecedented as it poses a nuclear state against a non-nuclear one with the nuclear-armed military potentially losing. Putin has framed the conflict as a life-or-death struggle against the democratic West. On Tuesday, he reminded the world that he was “not bluffing.” One analyst asked the question: “Would Putin be capable of permitting his military to be defeated without using every available weapon he has at his disposal?” If Putin can convince the leadership in Moscow that the West is attempting to destroy Russia, the war may be far from over. To date no one is willing to call Putin’s bluff or say if those in power in Moscow will support Putin in a nuclear response that has the potential to kill Russians inside the country and contaminate the land.

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

Photo: Pixabay

The media has chosen not to dwell on the reality of how disastrous the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan has been for the people of that desperate nation.

By choosing not to leave a residual force behind at the near-impenetrable Bagram Air Force Base, the Biden Administration inadvertently guaranteed a Taliban victory, in much the same way then-Vice President Biden, the point man for the Middle East region for the Obama Administration, ensured an ISIS victory by withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq.

This was not just one side taking over for another in a nation suffering a harsh internal war.  This was a whole-scale abandonment of a segment of the population clearly marked for oppression.

In April of 2021, Biden inexplicably decided to perform an unconditional withdrawal, which completely contradicted the conditions of Trump’s Doha deal.

He ignored the need for Afghan women and girls to retain human basic rights, for the population in general to have access and to a functioning economy.

The Brookings Institute argues that “An aggressive attempt at diplomacy would possibly have spilled over past the summer, and the Taliban may have begun to attack U.S. troops. But that scenario was manageable: It would likely have meant going back to a pre-February 2020 level of warfare, in which U.S. troops sustained very low levels of casualties over the last few years. A more considered withdrawal would also have meant giving the Afghan security forces more cover as we eventually withdrew — taking intelligence and air support away step by step, and empowering them in the process, rather than pulling the rug from under them.”

A new United Nations report has disclosed that “The future is immensely bleak for Afghans if more is not done by the international community to ensure the Taliban changes its modus operandi and complies with its human rights obligations…The humanitarian and economic crisis in Afghanistan, which has already caused immeasurable harm to millions, shows no signs of slowing down. In fact, it is predicted to worsen…”

According to the international body, the Taliban has committed a “plethora” of human rights violations, with the “virtual erasure” of women and girls from society, as well as their systematic oppression, being particularly egregious.  “Nowhere else in the world has there been as wide-spread, systematic and all-encompassing an attack on the rights of women and girls – every aspect of their lives is being restricted under the guise of morality and through the instrumentalization of religion. Discrimination and violence cannot be justified on any ground”. 

The U.N. Mission in Afghanistan expressed concern about the impunity with which members of the de facto authorities appear to have carried out human rights violations. According to the report, those worst affected, were those linked to the former government and its security forces, with 160 extrajudicial killings confirmed, as well as 178 arbitrary arrests and detentions, and 56 instances of torture. “The human rights situation has been exacerbated by a nationwide economic, financial and humanitarian crisis of unprecedented scale. At least 59 per cent of the population is now in need of humanitarian assistance – an increase of six million people compared with the beginning of 2021.”

Actual starvation is a very real danger.  Human Rights Watch found that “Acute malnutrition is entrenched across Afghanistan, even though food and basic supplies are available in markets throughout the country. An Afghan humanitarian official told Human Rights Watch in mid-July, “People have nothing to eat. You may not imagine it, but children are starving…. The situation is dire…”

Despite the lack of coverage in western media, this crisis will not go unnoticed, particularly in the coming months as starvation takes its toll and the effects on women and girls deprived of education and even medical care becomes more blatant.

Photo: Pixabay

Look in the mirror, and observe the image of what the Biden Administration and the progressive left considers the enemy.

The United States faces a crisis on its uncontrolled southern border, where vast numbers of illegals, some with connections to drug cartels and human traffickers, pour across, unrestrained by an inadequate number of overwhelmed border patrol agents.

Throughout the nation’s major cities, dwindling numbers of beleaguered police officers fight a desperate battle to deter criminals let loose by absurd de-incarceration and “bail reform” policies.

Across the globe, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and an assortment of terrorists plot assaults on American ideals, allies, and the nation itself. Our military is underfunded and undermanned. Think the U.S. has the resources to discourage this? Think again. America does not have the most servicepeople in arms. China has 3,355,000; Russia has 3,014,000; India has 2,610,550; the U.S. comes in fourth at 2,233,050. China now has the globe’s largest navy, at 355 vessels, compared to its U.S. counterpart’s 296, an enemy advantage that continuously grows due to the underfunding of our maritime service. Thanks to a treaty negotiated by Obama, Moscow has the world’s largest and most sophisticated nuclear arsenal.

Despite those realities, the recent legislation pushed by the left calls for…hiring another 87,000 IRS agents to assault you.

An entire political religion has been built that casts the average American as the enemy.  Indeed, in a 2016 presidential primary debate, candidate Hillary Clinton was given yet another softball question by an adoring press. She was asked, “Who do you consider the enemy.”  The expected response was a platitude such as racism, poverty, and the like.  Instead, she answered “Republicans.” It was a clear follow-up to her description of non-leftists as “despicables” and Obama’s description of them as bitter people “Clinging to their bibles and guns.”

Parents who cling to the quaint notion that they have the right and the duty to bring up their children in traditional ways and using traditional values are part of that enemy class so despised by progressives. During the Pandemic, moms and dads where shocked to discover what really was being taught in schools. When they expressed their opinions at school board meetings, they became enemies of the state and were labelled “Domestic Terrorists” by the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, based on Attorney General Merrick Garland’s memorandum. The FBI’s subsequently created a “threat tag.”

Fundamental American symbols, such as the Betsy Ross flag flown during the American Revolution, and the Gadsen Flag from the same era and still used on U.S. Navy ships have apparently been labelled “Domestic Violent Terrorism Symbols” by the Biden Administration’s FBI.

The same Congressional leaders who have want 87,000 more IRS agents instead of cops, soldiers, and border patrol agents also believe that those enemy Americans must be oppressed with unscientific environmental remedies.  They know full well that, for decades to come, so-called “green” energy resources will not be capable of supplying more than 20% of energy needs. Nevertheless, they push policies that make energy unaffordable for the average American family, and in the process create devastating inflation.

To those on the left, merely citing the Bill of Rights is considered an enemy action. If you belong to the wrong side of the political argument, you have no right, they believe, to be safe in your home or office from invasion by government officials outraged that you helped the wrong candidate.   How dare you quote the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech guarantee? You may “trigger” the delicate feelings of a progressive that disagrees with you. Don’t even think of exercising your Second Amendment right to bear arms, just because they have defunded the police and your family needs protection.

Besides, you’re the enemy and shouldn’t have a weapon.