Month: September 2022

Fear can be a positive motivator driving people to go beyond their comfort zone to achieve great success.

In August 1762, Ben Franklin wrote a letter to Lord Kames in which he said: “…I am going to a Country and a People that I love. I am going from the old World to the new; and I fancy I feel like those who are leaving this World for the next; Grief at the Parting; Fear of the Passage; Hope of the Future….” Franklin had good cause to be concerned about traveling the Atlantic in a small, wooden sailing ship. Fear is not the same as paranoia.

The latter is characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others.

For some, such as Vladimir Putin, paranoia can progress to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts. Today we are witnessing the Russian president, who believes he is performing acts of self-defense or is on a mission for the Russian Motherland, commit crimes against humanity in Ukraine. His excessive suspicion of the motives of others, and of other nation-states, has led him beyond a fear of treacherous waters into a state of true paranoia.

Putin does not trust those around him, and he cannot tolerate criticism, especially when it comes from a renowned  foreign policy analyst such as Janusz Bugajski. Born in 1954 in Cheshire, England, Bugajski has had a long and prestigious career on the BBC and Radio Free Europe, as a military and political analyst, and he has written about two dozen books on Eastern Europe and Russia. Currently he serves as a senior Fellow at the Jamestown Foundation. Bugajski’s latest book, released this spring, caught Putin’s attention. It is entitled: Failed State: A Guide to Russia’s Rupture. 

In August the Russian Defense Ministry’s television channel, Zvezda, dedicated a full 30-minute segment to attacking Bugajski’s book in an attempt to discredit him and reveal his alleged agenda to destroy Russia. In a press release from the Jamestown Foundation this week, it pointed out that “The program even goes so far as to characterize Bugajski’s and other analysts’ work as the latest recurrence of ‘Nazi policies.’” It is not the first attack on a Jamestown Foundation fellow. The Kremlin has targeted a number of other Jamestown commentators. 

Earlier this year, Senior Fellow Margarita Assenova was placed on a sanctions list by the Kremlin. Putin does not support free speech when he believes it threatens him. This week distinguished senior fellow Paul Goble, from the same foundation, was banned by Moscow from staying in Russia. Goble expressed his feelings, saying that “As ‘the real father’ of the League of Free Nations of Russia and its calls for the decolonization of Russia, as well as now being subject, by order of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to a lifetime ban from staying in Russia, I can testify that I take pride in this and have received messages of congratulations from far and near. How could it be otherwise as I received my ban along with distinguished American scholar on Central Asia [and strong supporter of Jamestown], S. Frederick Starr.”

A statement from the Jamestown Foundation released this week said that “Ironically, rather than delegitimize the work of Bugajski and others, Moscow’s assaults on Jamestown’s analysts have backfired in providing free and expanded coverage of their work throughout Russia and its near abroad. With the Zvezda television program, the Russian Defense Ministry in fact attracted far more attention to Failed State than ever before.” Putin’s paranoia must be deepening. Bugajski’s book suggests that paradoxically, “while Vladimir Putin assumed power to prevent Russia’s disintegration, he may be remembered as precipitating the country’s demise. New territorial entities will surface as Moscow’s credibility crisis deepens amidst spreading ungovernability, elite power struggles, political polarization, nationalist radicalism, and regional and ethnic revivals.” He points out that the emerging states will not be uniform in their internal political and administrative structures. Border conflicts and territorial claims are likely between some entities, he argues, while others may develop into new federal or confederal states.

Bugajski concludes that the US must develop an effective strategy for managing Russia’s rupture by supporting regionalism and federalism, acknowledging sovereignty and separation, calibrating the role of other major powers, developing linkages with new state entities, strengthening the security of countries bordering Russia, and promoting trans-Atlanticism or trans-Pacificism among emerging states. Rebekah Koffler, a Russian military analyst and author of Inside Putin’s Mind, says that when cornered, Putin can be expected to “fight to the death like a cornered rat.” As the situation evolves in Ukraine, the world may see a treacherous and paranoid leader taking even more drastic measures if the war in Ukraine goes badly for Russia. To date he has shown no indication that he is willing to negotiate a settlement.

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

Photo: Russian Govt. official site

As surely as the lush, green leaves of summer will soon turn to the colors of Autumn, the media will begin its election year scale-tipping to hide the dire mistakes made by their Left-wing darlings in preparation for November’s coming election. 

Discouraging likely voters and donors by manipulated polling is a tried-and-true election tactic.

Over the next several weeks, expect to see reports that the price of gas is going down.  That won’t last, of course.  As soon as that First Tuesday in the 11^th month concludes, temporary measures such as the dangerous step of releasing fuel from the Strategic Petroleum reserve and other short-lived actions will wear off.  And of course, thanks to the Biden White House’s jihad against fossil fuels, the cost of home heating will be devastating this winter.  But that’s after election day, so don’t expect to see much conversation on that point!

Despite disastrous inflation, foreign policy debacles, massive increases in crime, failing education, and a government that treats thse that dissents from its viewpoint as “domestic terrorists,” expect to see poll after poll proclaiming that Democrats have pulled ahead. 

Inaccurate polling is far too commonplace. noted that “Most preelection polls in 2020 overstated Joe Biden’s lead over Donald Trump in the national vote for president, and in some states incorrectly indicated that Biden would likely win [in that state] or that the race would be close when it was not. These problems led some commentators to argue that ‘polling is irrevocably broken,’ that pollsters should be ignored, or that ‘the polling industry is a wreck, and should be blown up.’”

Objective, non-political sources have described how polling has portrayed inaccurate, non-existent strength for Democrat candidates. Scientific American reported that “In the weeks leading up to the November 2016 election, polls across the country predicted an easy sweep for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. From Vanuatu to Timbuktu, everyone knows what happened…they missed the mark in key swing states that tilted the Electoral College toward Trump.” The study also noted that there is “evidence that people are more likely to pick up the phone if they’re Democrats.”

A Guardian article concurs, citing the same research. “Political polls regarding US elections in 2020 overstated Democratic support “across the board”, US political scientists found, while understating support for Republicans and Donald Trump. The finding, which will alarm Democrats aiming to hold on to their narrow control of the US House and Senate in 2022, is contained in a new study by the American Association for Public Opinion Research. Josh Clinton, a Vanderbilt University professor and AAPOR taskforce member, told the Washington Post: ‘There was a systematic error that was found in terms of the overstatement for Democratic support across the board.’”

Crime has surged under Democrat-supported left-wing District Attorneys have swept into office across the nation. A Fox analysis reports that “Violent crimes have reached unprecedented numbers in the last two years…” As election day draws closer, however, expect to see “get tough” comments from the same legislators, mayors and governors who presided over this dire problem and established the policies that allowed it to occur.  That change in attitude will vanish as soon as the election is over.

And, of course, expect the phony scandal machine to be working overtime. From 2016 on, we heard Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff endlessly proclaim that the Trump Administration was engaged in “Russian collusion.” Tens of millions of taxpayer dollars and endless hours of Congressional time were utilized to keep the nonsense charges in the public eye.  All were found to be utterly false. The timing of the latest politically-manipulated raid in the final months before the 2022 election are more of the same.

Frank Vernuccio serves as editor-in-chief of the New York Analysis of Policy and Government

Illustration: Pixabay

The death of Mikhail Gorbachev at 91 ends an era of extraordinary leaders who changed the world for the better. Along with the United Kingdom’s Margaret Thatcher, the Vatican’s Pope John XXIII, and, most importantly, one of America’s greatest presidents, Ronald Reagan, these visionary and heroic individuals defied conventional thought, ignored critics, and had the morality and courage to do what had to be done to end needless suffering and remove the planet from the brink of Armageddon.

Gorbachev realized that the Soviet Union’s foundation of communism and aggressive opposition to the west had bankrupted his nation and strangled the culture of his people. He measured the determination and strength of President Reagan, whose nation was backed by a capitalist system that left the Kremlin’s socialism in the dust. He understood that Reagan’s bid to build a space defense system would render the USSR’s only real claim to greatness, its vast nuclear arsenal, ineffective. He understood that the Pope’s moral authority, combined with the heroism of Polish labor leader Lech Wałęsa, would make Moscow’s occupation of its enslaved nations untenable.

It would have been easy for Gorbachev to take the path of least resistance, and continue with the same policies that had kept his predecessors in power. He chose to do otherwise. He implemented the concepts of “perestroika,” also known as restructuring, and “glasnost,” meaning openness. He understood the risk he was taking, and while not seeking the dissolution of the Soviet Union, nevertheless did what had to be done for the good of the Russian people, essentially eliminating his own power in the process. 

It is important to understand the environment that existed when Gorbachev assumed power in the 1980s.

An extraordinary change had already occurred in the United States under the leadership of Ronald Reagan, who took office in 1981.  Throughout the prior decade, the debacles of the Vietnam War, the Watergate Scandal, and ruinous inflation had demoralized America. The nation projected weakness abroad, (exemplified by the Iran hostage crisis) a declining military, and an economy that was subpar.  Despite overwhelming criticism from the media, the intelligentsia, and traditional politicians, Reagan projected optimism. He succeeded in reversing the multi-faceted decline. It was fashionable at the time to perceive America and the west as a fading power, losing out to the Kremlin.  It was believed that the nation’s capitalist tradition was no longer working for the majority.

As a presidential candidate, Reagan articulated a different reality.  He proposed rebuilding the nation’s armed forces and confronting expansionist Socialism. He championed the free market, and fought against domestic critics who attempted to knock it down through excessive strikes and leftist ideas. He opposed those academics and pundits who constantly and inaccurately criticized American national traditions.

Inevitably, he was harshly condemned by the political, academic, and media establishments.  It was said that, if elected, he would start World War III, crash the economy, and drive the U.S. into chaos. The result, of course, was the exact opposite.  By reducing taxes, he revived the economy. By fully funding the Pentagon and openly confronting the USSR, he restored American leadership throughout the globe. He praised America’s successes and history, and restored faith in the country.

It is an epic tragedy that the work of both Gorbachev and Reagan has been overturned in our day.  Vladimir Putin has returned Russia to its Stalinist practices, both internally and abroad. He has invested heavily in nuclear weaponry, and clearly seeks to rebuild the Soviet Empire.  His invasion of Ukraine is only the first step in that effort.

In the United States, Joe Biden has projected the weakness Reagan disdained. His feckless foreign policy, his underfunding of the military, and his manifest lack of appreciation for America’s history, along with his extreme partisanship, depresses the national mood.  His tax and spend policies devastate the economy.

Gorbachev and Reagan deserved far better from their successors.

Illustration: Pixabay

When I was the Night Court Judge for Brooklyn, New York, I handled the first court appearance (known as an “arraignment”) for up to 100 people a night. I was responsible for using my discretion to decide whether to set bail on a defendant, or whether they could be trusted to return to court on their own (“release on own recognizance,” or “ROR”).

There were several factors I used in making my decision.  Did the defendant have a history of not returning to court (a defendant’s criminal history, or “rap sheet,” which lists the number of times a “bench warrant” was issued for a defendant’s arrest when that defendant failed to appear for a court appointment)?  Did they have open and pending cases?  Did they have “ties to the community,” that is, a stable residence and family, or a job?

Open and pending cases was always a great concern of mine.  If the majority of us had been arrested for anything, most of us would make sure we did not place ourselves in a position to be rearrested.  The fact that a person has a case pending for drug sales, robbery, or driving while under the influence, and is arrested for another offense while that first case is still open, usually points to a larger problem.  Multiple robberies and drug sales are often an indicator of gang activity; repeated DUI’s or domestic violence arrests can be caused by psychological issues.

In either instance, when a defendant was a repeat offender – a “recidivist” – and especially if that defendant had more than one open and pending cases, I was extremely likely to set bail and stop that defendant’s pattern of criminal activity.

Under the current “no bail” laws, I could no longer follow this basic analysis to its logical conclusion.  The “Bail Elimination Act of 2019”  specifically states that “(w)hen a principal, whose  future  court  attendance  at  a  criminal action  or  proceeding  is or may be required, initially comes under the control of a court, such  court…SHALL…RELEASE THE PRINCIPAL PENDING TRIAL ON THE PRINCIPAL’S  PERSONAL RECOGNIZANCE, UNLESS THE COURT FINDS ON THE RECORD THAT RELEASE ON RECOGNIZANCE WILL NOT REASONABLY ASSURE THE INDIVIDUAL’S COURT ATTENDANCE. IN SUCH INSTANCES, THE COURT WILL RELEASE THE INDIVIDUAL UNDER  NON-MONETARY  CONDITIONS,  SELECTING  THE  LEAST  RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVE  THAT  WILL  REASONABLY ASSURE THE PRINCIPAL’S COURT ATTENDANCE. THE COURT WILL SUPPORT ITS CHOICE OF ALTERNATIVE ON THE RECORD.  A PRINCIPAL  SHALL  NOT  BE  REQUIRED  TO  PAY FOR ANY PART OF THE COST OF RELEASE UNDER NON-MONETARY CONDITIONS.” (Caps in original.)

In other words, the Court’s of New York are required to release a defendant, and even if the Court finds a reason to hold a defendant after their arrest, the Court must still “release the individual under non-monetary conditions, selecting the least restrictive alternative” to insure the defendant’s return.

In the two years since this new system took effect, how has the Bail Elimination Act worked for New York?

“10 career criminals (have) rack(ed) up nearly 500 arrests after New York enacted its controversial bail reform law – and most of them are still out on the streets…statistics compiled by the NYPD…show that the city’s alleged ‘worst of the worst’ repeat offenders have been busted a total of 485 times since bail reform went into effect in 2020.  Two of the defendants are actually accused of embarking on lives of crime in the wake of bail reform, with one busted 33 times since 2020 and the other busted 22 times.”

Meanwhile, in June of this year,  “(a) ‘professional booster‘…notched what could be her 100th bust over the weekend – and was released without bail yet again…Michelle McKelley, 42, was arrested…for allegedly pocketing $125 worth of goods from a CVS in Lower Manhattan, and then was freed under the state’s soft-on-crime criminal justice reforms. Prosecutors said in Manhattan Criminal Court…that McKelley has failed to appear in court 27 times on her multitude of past arrests – and has five other pending cases. But the charges do not qualify for bail under the 2019 state reform, which means prosecutors could only ask that she be let go on supervised release while the case is pending.” 

Then there is the 16 year old who was arrested after a wild altercation with a police officer in a New York City subway station.  In July, just days before his fist fight with the police, the youth had been arrested for a violent robbery in which “he and three others jumped a 49-year-old man on a Midtown street, punching the victim and running off with his cellphone. Prosecutors with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office requested he be released with ‘intensive community monitoring’ at his arraignment, though they could have requested bail on the top robbery charge. A few days later…the boy was arrested for the subway incident, in which he was caught on camera violently attacking a Manhattan cop after allegedly jumping a turnstile at the 125th Street-Lexington Avenue station in East Harlem. The teen was again released without bail …” 

It is any wonder, then, that according to New York Mayor Eric Adams,   “Time and time again, our police officers make an arrest, and then the person who is arrested for assault, felonious assaults, robberies and gun possessions, they’re finding themselves back on the street within days– if not hours — after the arrest…(a)nd they go on to commit more crimes within weeks, if not days…(o)ur criminal justice system is insane.”  

Mayor Adams can expect no help from the District Attorney’s Office.  Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, elected with the help of George Soros, believes that “(r)eversing the effects of mass incarceration is an urgent moral, civil rights, and human rights issue and is one of (his) highest priorities as Manhattan District Attorney…Alvin believes that…prison sentences (are) imposed far too often…for nonviolent cases and others for which prison is not warranted.  These excess prison sentences do not make us safer.  In fact, they make us less safe because they increase the chances of recidivism.”

Would a prison sentence , or at least the threat of jail time, perhaps put an end to the criminal activity of the shoplifter on her 100th arrest, or any of the 10 defendants responsible for almost 500 arrests since 2020?  Common sense would seem to indicate this being the case.  But DA Bragg believes in “(e)xpanding Restorative Justice programming significantly and relying heavily on it…(t)he programming will be community-based and not operated by the DA office or any other law enforcement entity.”   

In other words, DA Bragg believes placing a recidivist in jail will not stop recidivism – but community based programs will.

What if the defendant does not comply with their “Restorative Justice” program? “In any case in which a person allegedly violates the terms of a non-incarceratory sentence,” the Manhattan DA will “seek an incarceratory ‘alternative’…only as a matter of last resort, after repeated opportunities are afforded for a successful completion of the mandate.  Research shows that relapses are part of the road to recovery…”

In other words, rather than place the serial shoplifter in jail, DA Bragg would have her enroll in a program, and if she fails that program, give her an undetermined number of opportunities to complete the program.  What would constitute failure?  Not attending the program – and rearrests.

The repetitive nature of the Manhattan DA’s policies are obvious.  Instead of seeking a jail sentence for a repeat offender, that offender is given another opportunity to reoffend, with the hope that after a certain undetermined number of chances, that offender will “magically” just give up (maybe from exhaustion), and return to law abiding ways.

What could go wrong?

DA Bragg, and the progressives in the New York State Legislature who established the No-bail laws of 2019, rely upon research studies that “shorter sentences would actually reduce future offending.”  However, “much of the academic research regarding the effect of length of incarceration on recidivism suffered from serious methodological flaws, including too-small study sizes and ill-advised attempts to judge the impact of minor differences in incarceration.”

Recently, the United States Sentencing Commission conducted a study to determine if longer jail sentences have an effect on recidivism.  The result was predictable to all but Alvin Bragg and his supporters.  “For defendants receiving a sentence of more than 60 months (five years), the odds of recidivism were 18 percent lower than a matched group of prisoners receiving shorter sentences. For defendants with sentences of more than 120 months (ten years), the odds of recidivism were 29 percent lower…(c)ontrary to current academic thinking, then, the length of a criminal’s sentence matters quite a bit in reducing future offending.” 

It always seemed to be a matter of common sense for me – if someone is offending repeatedly, incarcerating them stops their criminal activity.  Until the Manhattan DA and the New York Legislature learn this simple lesson, the citizens of New York can continue to be subjected to more progressive social science experiments – and more crime.

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay

What is the State Department highlighting this week in its media releases? The headlines coming out of Washington include: “China Could Overtake US in Space,” “Terrorism Rising in African Sahel,” “US is Participating in UN Chiefs of Police Summit,” and “The Kremlin’s Illegitimate Tribunals in Mariupol,” among others. On Saturday, the Department released a joint statement with other nations saying it met to talk about the problems in Syria. A day earlier the Department noted that it met for the ninth in a series of talks labeled the” US-Vietnam Asia-Pacific Dialogue.” One day earlier on Thursday the Department released a statement saying the “G7 Non-Proliferation Directors Group remains profoundly concerned by the serious threat over the continued control of Ukrainian nuclear facilities by Russian armed forces pose to the safety and security of these facilities.” The list goes on week after week, meeting after meeting, during a period of severe instability across the world. Diplomacy is a war of words, but it requires strong, unambiguous action backing up those statements. What is the leader of the free world doing? Why all talk and so little action out of Washington?

China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, among other states hostile to the west, are joined together in an unholy alliance that is historic in size. The population of these four states alone surpasses 1,658,478,000. They supply each other with weapons of war and buy each other’s goods that are sanctioned by the rest of the world to help keep their economies afloat. Iran builds and sells drones to Russia for use in its war in Ukraine. China buys Russian wheat and energy. They take action.

The State Department’s response to a ship getting past the Russian Navy this week said that it was “grateful” a Ukrainian wheat shipment got through the Black Sea to its African destination. “The United States welcomes the arrival in Djibouti of 23,300 metric tons of Ukrainian grain aboard the ship Brave Commander. This grain will be distributed within Ethiopia and Somalia, countries that are dangerously food insecure after four years of drought. The United States is grateful for the important role Djibouti has played facilitating the flow of humanitarian goods to the region.” 

In the past it was said that other nation-states knew US foreign policy by the actions Washington took, or the ones it deliberately did not take. The message was made clear to those who violated the rules-based international order. What is left of US foreign policy today appears muddled in broad announcements reacting to what other states are doing. Again, where is the leadership? What is our foreign policy?

The United States in 1954 signed a Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan. Since that time the US derecognized the country, formalized relations with China, and continues to attempt to placate both sides of the Strait. This week it came down to a retired Taiwanese tech mogul, who was weary of US inaction, pledging his millions to fund training for civilian troops to protect Taiwan. Robert Tsao says he is willing to spend $33 million to fund the training of 3 million civilians for three years. That is action. At the same time this week the Biden Administration announced the “United States will continue to advocate for a fair, practical criminal justice instrument that respects human rights and provides a modern electronic evidence framework built on consensus and informed by experts” to handle cybercrime. The US media are culpable, too. ABC News spent more time this week reporting on the “emotional support alligator” seen in Love Park in Philadelphia than on the genocide of over a million Muslim Uyghurs in western China. A year ago, the Biden Administration failed in its withdrawal from Afghanistan. Americans lost their lives. No one in the Biden Administration is taking responsibility or talking about it. This Thursday at a State Department briefing for the media, the Spokesperson responded to a reporter’s question about the impact of potential leak of radioactive material from the Russian-bombed ZNPP power plant in southern Ukraine. Vedant Patel, Principal Deputy Spokesperson in the Bureau of Global Public Affairs said: “We strongly condemn any action at ZNPP or elsewhere that impacts the health and welfare of civilians throughout the region.”

Now that the US has offered its statement of concern our European allies downwind can rest easy. 

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

Image: Pixabay

Anniversaries of significant historical dates and economic plans are cause for celebration in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Next month is doubly important as it marks 10 years since Xi Jinping gained power as general secretary of the CCP. China also will hold an important Party Congress where progress on Xi’s decade-long economic record will be reviewed. While Xi has attained exulted political status, it appears that the results of his economic reform plan are mixed. He “has garnered the most attention for his actions in non-economic realms (treatment of Uyghurs, Tibetans, and Hong Kong citizens; zero tolerance of COVID-19; and alignment with Russia and support for its invasion of Ukraine). But his economic record is important as well because it affects the everyday life of 1.4 billion people, with large spillovers to the rest of the world economy,” says David Dollar of China Leadership Monitor.

As an economy matures its growth rate typically slows. This is the case with China. During Hu Jintao’s decade of rule, China’s GDP growth averaged 10.6%.  Under Xi Jinping’s rule the first nine years GDP growth slowed to only 6.5%. The four-point drop is huge in economic terms, especially since it comes mostly from a decline in Total Factor Productivity (TFP) growth. The expansion of capital and labor inputs has been fairly steady, slowing only a minor amount, but the impact of these inputs has diminished sharply, according to Dollar. During Hu’s time in power the TFP averaged 3.5%. By the time Xi assumed power, it had dropped precipitously to 0.7%. The decrease indicates that technological upgrading, either through innovation or borrowing, has slowed as have improvements in the efficiency with which resources are used. The 3% difference in the TFP by 2049 is expected to result in a dramatic lowering of the Chinese standard of living.

At the same time as the TFP dropped, Xi Jinping introduced three main areas of policy reform that have, so far, brought in mixed returns for the domestic economy. First, he stepped-up industrial-policy intervention beyond what is the norm in a communist country. Xi also expanded the role of the state in broad areas of economic concern and in the allocation of capital. Dollar says Xi’s activist industrial policy is aimed at increasing China’s self-sufficiency and reducing its technology dependence on the West. In contradiction, Xi’s second major policy change has accelerated China’s foreign trade and investment liberalization, despite calls for increased domestic production to improve self-sufficiency. 

“The third important policy change under Xi has been a commitment to reduce China’s carbon emissions and to contribute to the global effort to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius,” says Dollar. Although Xi publicly committed China to a net-zero emissions by 2060 and to “strictly control” the increased use of coal over the next decade, reaching peak carbon by 2030, China is not following through on its publicly-stated commitments. China’s coal-fire power plants, among the dirtiest in the world, are expected to continue operations without cutbacks for the next forty years. That is how long Chinese estimates it has ample coal supplies. 

One China energy analyst reports that a Chinese official said that China will continue to experience rising coal use and emissions for another decade or more and that the country will suffer from related rises in the sea level, extreme heat, and water supply issues. China’s coal supply has a high sulfur content causing incomplete burning of the material that results in lower levels of energy produced. The negative impact on the Chinese economy and the country’s living standards could reverse gains made since 2000. “Xi’s industrial policy gambits are also risky, both economically, because it seems much capital is wasted without positive results, and politically.  Relations between a rising China and a relatively declining US were always likely to be difficult, but the program seeking to monopolize the advanced technologies of the future naturally makes the relationship more contentious,” says Dollar. Despite some negative indicators, Xi has managed to maintain a 6% growth rate that will, during his tenure in office, be sufficient to eliminate poverty in China. About 1/3 of China fell below the World Bank’s extreme poverty line (31.7%) in 2002. By 2012 it had dropped to 6.5%. 

Under Xi the World Bank figures indicate it declined further, to 0.1% by 2019. Xi’s aggressive push for technological advancements in support of the military comes at a cost to other parts of the economy, including land reform and social inequality. To date, Xi has accomplished little in creating a strong consumption-oriented economy. At the CCP Congress next month hardliners favoring China’s military prowess will likely give Xi good marks, while those favoring a more liberal, consumer economy may argue that little progress has been made for the country as a whole over the last 10 years and there is little to celebrate moving into the next ten year economic plan.   

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

NASA estimates there were over 27,000 pieces of space debris circling the planet 15 months ago. Last November Russia added another 1,500 pieces to that count when it used a missile test to destroy one of its Soviet era, non-working satellites. As the amount of debris continues to climb so does the threat to safety in space and the possibility of war from novel space weapons. Next week Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin will host a classified meeting to consider the implications of Russia and China’s pursuit of advanced space weapons. The public announcement of this discussion comes after two key events last year: the destruction of the defunct Russian satellite and the historic first with China’s testing of an advanced hypersonic glide vehicle and fractional orbital bombardment system, according to Joe Gould of Defense News. Admiral Charles Richard, chief of US Strategic Command, admitted such a test was “never before seen in the world.” “Richard, speaking at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium earlier this month, said the military must now overhaul its missile defenses and develop systems to better warn against launches aimed at the US.” 

The Secretary will meet with his Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Colin Kahl and the Defense Policy Board, which is comprised of former national security officials. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy John Plumb will brief the board on the Pentagon’s upcoming space strategic review. Putin’s war in Ukraine has not slowed Russia’s aggressive space policy. DOD is planning to examine potential responses to Moscow’s ground-to-space weapons program and how it could impact US defense policy. Military analysts are calling 2022 a “pivotal year” for space security, according to Gould, sue to Russia’s use of counterspace capabilities.

Russia is developing ground electronic warfare and directed energy weapons to counter western on-orbit assets, according to Courtney Albon of Defense News. She points out that the intelligence community’s 2022 Annual Threat Assessment predicts “Russia [will] continue to train its military space elements and field new antisatellite weapons to disrupt and degrade US and allied space capabilities, and it is developing, testing, and fielding an array of nondestructive and destructive counterspace weapons — including jamming and cyberspace capabilities, directed energy weapons, on-orbit capabilities, and ground-based ASAT capabilities — to target US and allied satellites,” according to this year’s assessment. To date, DOD has not release publicly evidence confirming Russia’s capabilities although senior Pentagon officials have confirmed tests took place. “Clearly the Russians and Chinese are trying to develop systems to get around the missile defense systems the U.S. has been developing,” said Kaitlyn Johnson, deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. She added that “It’s hard to evaluate what that is from the public side of things, what that’s entailed. I imagine that’s what this meeting is about.”

The meeting comes as a surprise to many in the defense community because the US Government is starting to make public its assessment of the potential Russian threat. Secure World Foundation’s Brian Weeden, a former Air Force space operations officer, said he finds it “interesting, because while Russia and China have been worried about the US developing space-to-ground weapons for decades, the US has during the same time resisted any serious discussions or proposals, saying that these are not real threats.” The November 21, 2021 Russian conducted, direct-ascent hit-to-kill anti-satellite (ASAT) test served in part as a wake up call for the defense community. While Russian military leaders claim their test is to restore strategic stability, US Space Command commander Army Gen. James Dickinson at the time said that Russia is “deploying capabilities to actively deny access to and use of space by the United States and its allies.” 

He further notes that Russia’s counterspace weapons systems undermines strategic stability, in complete contradiction to the Russian claims. The Arms Control Association adds that “Russian military literature is replete with discussions about how these high-precision aerospace weapons are changing the nature of warfare. Russians argue that, in past wars, the main burden of any confrontation rested on ground forces tasked to breach the enemy’s forward defense and enter the adversary’s territory to occupy it. Future wars, they argue, will not be conducted using the massing of armed troops. Instead, their opening salvo will involve massive air missile strikes at targets throughout the adversary’s territory.”  The Pentagon appears to be considering that Putin’s war in Ukraine may be one of the last for traditional Russian ground forces.

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