Month: November 2022

Talk of a coup in American government reflects an all too real crisis, but it’s not the singular incident that gets all the publicity.

Unlike the hyperbole centered around the one-day January 6 riot, a true crisis has been in the making for decades. Understanding the threat of unelected bureaucrats and radical appointees hijacking the real power of the national government, and the steps taken to further the control of relatively unaccountable individuals explains much of the vicious fighting that has devastated America politics over the past six years.

In terms of impact on the daily lives of the citizenry, Congress, the President and the Supreme Court combined all play second fiddle to the bureaucracy.

 Writing for Mises.org, Gary Galles notes that “Congress has increasingly abdicated its lawmaking responsibility, delegating its power through vague laws and mandates to executive agencies, which then impose and enforce the actual regulations that legally bind Americans.”

According to the Brookings Institute and the historian Ryan Gingeras, “The concept of the deep state is used to explain why and how agents employed by the state execute policies that directly contravene the letter and spirit of the law.”

The real reason why so many powerful forces launched unprecedented attacks on the 45^th President was inadvertently revealed during testimony at an impeachment hearing. The subtext of Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman’s remarks was that Trump was unfit to be President because he refused to be ordered about by bureaucrats.

Donald Trump, even before announcing his presidential bid, loudly complained about this unconstitutional reality.  In doing so, he ignited the fierce and unrelenting enmity of the most powerful segment of the Washington establishment.  To deflate the power of the bureaucrats who pushed radical agendas through their regulatory authority, the Trump Administration initiated a policy of abolishing two regulations for every new one implemented, as mandated by Executive order 13771.

In a Government Executive article, Charles Clark reported that “a month after President Trump took the oath of office, his chief strategist offered a controversial description of what Americans, including the 2 million career civil servants Trump now leads in the executive branch, could expect from the new president: Every day would be a battle for ‘deconstruction of the administrative state,’ said Stephen Bannon.”

Susan Milligan, writing in U.S. News back in 2019 described the former Presidents’ anti-Deep State perspective and the price he paid for it.  “President Donald Trump has never been shy about expressing his contempt for career government workers … after many months of investigations, subpoenas and reports of alleged Trump offenses, it is these same career officials who are poised to provide the defining evidence in the impeachment case against Trump…Trump has seen pushback from career public servants since the start of his term.”

Precisely the opposite is true of Joe Biden. Whether due to personal incapacity or through choice, it is clear that the individual elected in 2020 is completely under the influence of the leftist Washington professionals that now rule the D.C. roost. It is difficult to see much of the personality and political inclinations of Biden, who many had seen as a moderate, in the extreme progressive policies of those bureaucrats and staffers who clearly and solidly rule his Administration.

The powerbroker lobbyists, bureaucrats, and Wall Street donors who profit from the cheap labor provided by an open southern border, generous government “green” grants, and other distributions from the public treasury have what they always sought: a chief executive totally under their control. The extreme progressive ideologues who have slowly built careers in Washington agencies have their chance to implement agendas that no candidate for elective office could both advocate and win.

Illustration: Pixabay

On February 14, 2018, Nicholas Cruz shot and killed 17 people at Majorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida – 14 students, and 3 staff members.  Cruz “brought an AR-15 style rifle to the school he formerly attended and began firing at students in hallways and classrooms…(t)he gunman was arrested shortly after the killings, and his responsibility for the heinous crime became a foregone conclusion after a video emerged in which he discussed his plans and his state of mind, in footage recorded shortly before the killings. ‘With the power of my AR, you will know who I am,’ Cruz said, referring to his rifle.”

His actions should have surprised no one.  As reported by NPR, “(t)he 19-year-old was the subject of dozens of 911 calls and at least two separate tips to the FBI. He also came to the attention of the Florida Department of Children and Families. Despite warning signs stretching back over a decade, no one intervened to stop the Valentine’s Day shootings.” 

After Cruz pled guilty to 17 counts of Murder in October of 2021, one year later, a jury recommended a sentence of life in prison without parole instead of the death penalty (under Florida law, a jury decides whether or not to impose the death penalty, not the judge, who would normally handle sentencing after conviction).  “(L)awyers for Cruz presented testimony from counselors and a doctor who say the defendant suffers from a fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, a condition that they argued affects his reasoning and behavior. Witnesses testified that his birth mother…had abused alcohol and cocaine while she was pregnant with him.”  Apparently, the jurors believed the defense testimony, since “(t)he jury unanimously found that there had been aggravating factors in the murders Cruz committed… resulting in the recommendation of a life sentence.”

The outcry was immediate.  “‘I am disgusted with our legal system. I am disgusted with those jurors,’ said Ilan Alhadeff, the father of victim Alyssa Alhadeff. ‘That you can allow 17 dead…and not give the death penalty. What do we have the death penalty for? What is the purpose of it? You set a precedent today. You set a precedent for the next mass killing, that nothing happens to you. You’ll get life in jail.'” 

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis expressed his agreement with Mr. Alhadeff.  “I think that if you have a death penalty…where you are massacring those students with premeditation and utter disregard for basic humanity that you deserve the death penalty,” the governor said at a press conference held immediately after the verdict was announced. 

There is no denying that for some, there is satisfaction to be found in the imposition of a sentence of death on someone who has committed a grievous crime, particularly for the survivors and loved ones of the victims.  “Jason Johnson, whose father was sentenced to death for killing his mother, stated, ‘(I will got to see him executed not to see him die (but) just to see my family actually have some closure.  He’s an evil human being.'”   Further,  “Phyllis Loya, mother of police officer Larry Lasater who was killed in the line of duty, stated ‘People use closure, and I think it means different things to different people. What it would mean for me is that my fight for justice for my son would be complete when his (killer’s) sentence,..would be carried out as it should be…'” 

There is even biblical support for the death penalty.  “Exodus 21:23-25 states, ‘But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.’  Leviticus 24:19-21 echoes this assertion, ‘Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury.'”    

But there are just as many survivors who find no comfort in the execution of the person responsible for their suffering.  “If you ask murder victims’ families, ‘closure is the F-word,’ said Marilyn Armour, who directs the Institute for Restorative Justice and Restorative Dialogue at the University of Texas at Austin. ‘They’ll tell you over and over and over again that there’s no such thing as closure.’”

In fact, “(i)n 2012, Armour and University of Minnesota researcher Mark Umbreit interviewed 20 families of crime victims in Texas — a state which regularly uses the death penalty — and 20 more families in Minnesota, which instead offers life without parole.”  According to the study, “families in Minnesota were able to move on sooner…because their loved ones’ killers were sentenced to life without parole, rather than the death penalty.”  

At first impression, the results of this study could not possibly be correct.  But there may be a good reason for this outcome.  As described by Phyllis Loya in a 2019 interview “(t)here are families that have waited decades over 30, 35 years (for an execution) and now we’re supposed to wait until [California Governor Gavin Newsom] finishes his election time because he has decided to put his own personal will ahead [by imposing a death penalty moratorium. He blindsided us. He stole justice from us like a thief in the night…” 

Ms Loya expresses a common frustration with the death penalty – the length of time between imposition of the sentence, and the actual execution of the defendant.  According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2019, “the average amount of time a prisoner has been incarcerated pursuant to their latest death sentence is 18.7 years. That figure is calculated from the date of a prisoner’s latest death sentence and does not take into consideration the time nearly 10% of those on death row had previously been imprisoned because of unconstitutional capital trials or death sentences that had been judicially reversed. More than half of the prisoners currently on death row (1,317, or 51.7%) were sentenced to death in 2000 or earlier…(f)or the 22 prisoners put to death in 2019, the average time elapsed between the imposition of their death sentence and their execution was 264 months, or 22 years, by far the longest time between sentence and execution since capital punishment resumed in the U.S.” 

20 years is an awfully long time to wait for justice. But is there a reason for this long delay between sentence and execution?

“Any person who has been sentenced to the death penalty…has a right to appeal. Some states allow the sentence and the verdict to be appealed separately. The defense team has a number of steps they can pursue. These include post-trial motions for acquittal, asking for a reduction in the sentence, motions for a mistrial, and requesting a new trial. If none of these actions result in a change in sentencing, the next step is a direct appeal….Depending on the state, this first appeal will go to the state appellate court. If the appellate judge’s verdict is unfavorable, the defense team can ask the state’s highest court to hear the case. In some states, the highest court is obligated to review every case with a sentence of capital punishment… If all avenues have been exhausted at the state level, the appellant can appeal their case at the federal level. They can file a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court… Finally, they can petition the U. S. Supreme Court. In Supreme Court cases, the defense is asking for a review of federal constitutional issues. ..Because of the multiplicity of proceedings, capital punishment cases can take decades to work their way through the criminal justice system.” 

And are the lawyers handling all those appeals working for free?

“Combining all cost categories, the average cost of a death penalty case in Washington (State) is $3.07 million, compared to $2.01 million (in 2010 dollars) for cases in which the prosecutor does not seek death. Adjusted to 2014 dollars, that difference is $1.15 million… average trial level defense costs related to pursuit of the death penalty are 2.8 to 3.5 times more expensive than cases not seeking the death penalty.   Average trial level prosecution costs in death penalty cases are 2.3 to 4.2 times more expensive. Court, police/sheriff, and miscellaneous costs related to pursuit of the death penalty are 3.9 to 8.1 times as much. Assuming a life sentence for all offenders, post-conviction lifetime incarceration costs…are .7 to .8 times that of (a death penalty) case.  Average jail costs related to pursuit of the death penalty are 1.4 to 1.6 times more expensive than for non-death cases.” 

In Pennsylvania, the “death penalty system since 1978 has produced three executions at a stunning cost: $272 million each, for a total of $816 million,” while in Nevada, “(b)ased on our sample of 28 cases and average costs we were able to accumulate, we estimate the death penalty, from arrest through the end of incarceration, costs about $532,000 more than other murder cases where the death penalty is not sought.” 

Then there is Florida, where the Parkland slayings took place. In 2010,  “Rex Dimmig, chief assistant public defender of the 10th Judicial Circuit in Bartow (Florida)…’discovered that the most expensive, most time-consuming, and least cost-effective service we provided was representation in death penalty cases’…(h)e estimated that Florida spends $51 million a year to impose and implement the death penalty, rather than sending convicted first-degree murderers to prison for life without parole. It is estimated that each execution costs taxpayers $24 million.” 

For his crimes, Nicholas Cruz will spend the remainder of his life behind bars.  Perhaps this is an unsatisfactory outcome for the families of the 17 people he murdered in cold blood.  But under current conditions, an execution of the Parkland slayer would not occur until 2042 at the earliest, and cost the State of Florida almost $40 million dollars by that time.

It’s not likely that the jurors who considered Cruz’ fate performed a cost/benefit analysis before they decided on a life sentence.  But given the high cost of executions, perhaps these jurors did the taxpayers an unintended favor with their verdict, after all.

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

Iran is making money and expanding its influence beyond the South Caucasus and Central Asia areas and is selling weapons in the North Caucasus and the Middle Volga regions of the Russian federation. Tehran is extending its sphere of power into these two Muslim areas of Russia since, due to Western sanctions, it can’t buy weapons elsewhere. What appeared at first to be good economics now has Russia concerned that Tehran’s longer-term cultural and religious influence could compete with Moscow. Tehran is playing a long game, according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. He points out that previously “Moscow sought to control the situation by limiting Iranian links to economic projects within these Muslim republics, something the Kremlin was confident it could do forever given the fact that Iran is a Shiite nation while the Muslims in these two regions are overwhelmingly Sunni.” Tehran is more than content to see its cultural and geopolitical influence grow.

Two recent events suggest that Tehran is at a turning point. Iranian and Russian officials met recently in Chechnya to promote broad cooperation not only between the two countries but also between Russian regions and Iranian regions, according to a report from the publication Kavkazskiy uzel last week. The second event was the signing of an agreement calling for a radical expansion in trade between Iranian and Bashkortostan officials. “Given that trade between Russia and Iran is currently running at a rate four times greater than in 2020, the two sides expect to realize their plans in which Bashkortostan and the neighboring regions will send Iran agricultural products and Tehran will send the Russian regions industrial exports,” according to Goble. This exchange means more Iranians traveling to the Middle Volga and more Russians from that region visiting Iran.

The two events has already triggered concerns in the Kremlin about more Muslims in Russia and their mindset toward Iran and Russia itself. Tehran insisted the trade meeting inside a Russian republic, adding to Iran’s influence there. Radzhab Safarov, head of Moscow’s Center for the Study of Contemporary Iran, points out that the decision to hold the meetings outside the central capitals “makes possible drawing into relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran not just Chechnya but also the entire North Caucasus. This will undoubtedly give an impulse to the development of trade.” Kavkazskiy uzel goes further saying that it will do more than that “considering the obvious movement of Iran to strengthen cooperation with Russia and the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union in all spheres”—including the cultural and political….” The new reality is that where Putin once shunned Muslim influence, he now seeks support.

Lana Ravandi-Fadai of Moscow’s Institute of Oriental Studies, says that “Iranians are known for their pragmatism and try, at least officially, not to divide Muslims into Sunni and Shia.” Instead, she insists, “The Iranians… talk about a single Muslim umma.”  That type of thinking today dominates Iranian relations abroad. Another senior scholar, Akhmet Yarlykapov, at the Center for the Study of the Caucasus at the Moscow State Institute for International Relations (MGIMO), says the situation between Russia and its Muslim regions, on the one hand, and Iran, on the other, is quite different from what it was only a few years ago as Iran is seeking new opportunities to expand its influence. Yarlykapov adds that “the Shiite question is in no way connected with Iran’s interest in the North Caucasus” as Iran gains more by presenting itself as a Muslim power interested in promoting Muslim interests more generally. 

Iran, like China, is slowly expanding its influence, accessing markets, and using soft power to steadily penetrate countries. Iran first establishes economic relations. After that, analysts suggests it either expands its cultural or religious influence. Russian dependence on Iranian weapons of war may in the end contribute to increased domestic problems for Putin as the country’s Muslim citizens are turning more often to Tehran than Moscow. About 25 million Muslims live in Russia, more than in any other European state. Iran’s leaders are taking their time in expanding relations and exerting its influence. How far and fast the partnership of convenience can tilt Iran away from the West is uncertain. It is worthy to note that Putin has visited only one foreign country since the beginning of the war in Ukraine – that is Iran.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

Nations need friends in our highly-interconnected, interdependent world. Despite its vast size and power, China is no exception. President Xi Jinping plans to travel to Bali next week for the G20 Summit meeting. While there he will meet with Indonesian President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo for the second time this year. Jokowi was the first foreign leader to meet with the Chinese leader since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Political analysts familiar with their relationship point out that it is steady, complicated, and mutual, with both leaders interested more in what the other can do for his country than in a personal friendship. 

As early as 2014 Jokowi started courting Xi. During his first 24 months in office, Jokowi met with Xi five times, according to the Jakarta Post. During Covid they spoke six times by phone. Last year one Chinese official framed it as “Indonesia and China are good friends and good brothers.” China also is Indonesia’s biggest trading partner with over $124 billion in total bilateral trade last year and its third largest foreign investor. William Yuen Yee, of the Jamestown Foundation points out that “Such realism follows an extended Indonesian tradition of foreign policy nonalignment that stretches back to the republic’s founding in 1945.” 

Jokowi views the potential of Chinese low-cost loans through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and substantial investment and trade flows worth the effort to cozy up to China, despite his country’s tradition of “rowing between two reefs” or maintaining a nonalignment policy.  He told the Australian Financial Review that “For me ‘free and active’ is making friends with countries that can provide us with benefits.” Despite the outward appearances of Indonesia moving closer to Beijing, there are serious historical issues between the two states that keep them from further cementing ties. In the 1960’s, the government’s anti-Communist purge took the lives of more than one million people. Further complicating the Beijing-Jakarta relationship are ideological issues and anti-Chinese violence.

From the Indonesian perspective, China is at fault for unkept economic infrastructure promises. The BRI- financed, Jakarta-Bandung railway project has suffered costly operational delays with an excessive debt burden owed to China. Beijing is four years behind schedule in delivering the first high speed train in Southeast Asia with cost overruns that have increased by 23%. The Indonesian people and Jokowi also have strong feelings about the way China has treated the Muslim population in western China and the ongoing territorial dispute over the Natuna Islands. The islands emerged as a contentious issue in 2019 when China made claims of sovereignty using its nine-dash line. Indonesia avoids the issue publicly although they are rich in natural gas and marine life. 

Earlier in 2021 a study published by Indonesia’s premier graduate military academy called Beijing’s military threat to Indonesia’s sovereignty over the disputed Natuna Islands “highly imminent.” Later that year the Jakarata Post reported that Chinese law enforcement vessels conducted continuous patrols around a new Indonesian drilling site north of the Natuna Islands, and a Chinese survey ship monitored the seabed within Indonesia’s exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.

Although Jakarta has grown close to China there is an increased concern over China’s aggressive behavior in the Asia-Pacific region. This year during Indonesia’s expanded Garuda Shield exercises (with 14 countries, including the US, Australia, Canada, Malaysia, and Singapore), Japan joined for the first time. Almost as disconcerting as China’s maritime policy is to the Indonesian people, is China’s treatment of Muslim Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Indonesia is the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation. Jokowi, balancing the costs and benefits of the bilateral relationship, has been almost silent on the issue.When questioned about the issue, Yee writes, “Jokowi’s answer did not mention China by name and instead responded in general terms: “We must not contradict Islam with democracy… Islam and Indonesia respect each other. We expect all countries to do the same.” Foremost in Jokowi’s mind is an  Indonesia first policy, even if that means maneuvering through a complicated interpersonal relationship with Xi.  It is through this narrow, self-interested lens that we must analyze the Beijing-Jakarta relationship, despite its global implications.

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

Photo: President Xi (Chinese Government photo)

Russia’s ties with Central Asia continue to worsen as the war in Ukraine drags into its eleventh month. Countries in the region are growing more unsure that Moscow remains capable of protecting them in the event of a security threat. Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, in particular, are cooling their relations with Moscow this fall. Bishkek recently cancelled its joint military exercises with the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) in protest over Putin’s support of Dushanbe’s border claims, its opposition to the rail project connecting the country to Uzbekistan and China, and Russia’s colonial-like history in the region. Tajikistani President Emomali Rahmon directly accused Putin last month of ignoring the welfare of the smaller Central Asian states. As the war turns in Ukraine’s favor, regional publications and leaders are speaking out more touting their independence from Moscow. Some argue that Russia failed them during internal strife earlier this year.

Rahmon also accused Russian businessmen of caring only about their hydrocarbons and claimed Moscow is failing to help develop Tajikistan’s economy for the population. “These signs of common disapproval of Russian policy and the willingness to reprimand Russia and Putin publicly clearly derive inspiration from Kazakhstan’s example, which, like these actions of regional assertiveness, also continues to affirm [a] more independent course,” according to Stephen Blank of the Jamestown Foundation. Russia is losing the support of states once considered firmly in its sphere of influence. Media articles increasingly blame Russia for their problems. The website 365info.kz took it a step further recently saying Kazakhstan owed Russia nothing. As a fully independent nation, Kazakhstan today is courting leading US corporations, urging them to invest in the country. What does it mean for Russia and Putin when the leadership and media in Central Asia speak out against it?  

An October TASS report links the regional unease of Russian relations with the Central Asian states to local governments’ skepticism over Russian economic assistance and guarantees. They view Putin as delivering only economic lip service. Astana, now called Nur Sultan, is the capital of Kazakhstan. The government there harbors  a lot of resentment “against Moscow’s charges that Astana [now Nur Sultan City] is supplying weapons to Kyiv and that Washington is trying to sever Russo-Kazakhstani relations, especially as these charges could serve as the basis for a casus belli against Kazakhstan,” says Blank.

While there is no one set of events in Central Asia that can serve as a demarcation point, Putin’s ability to economically, and militarily, influence the region is rapidly declining. The political vacuum leaves room for China to step in and exploit new opportunities offered by the region. China has long sought to control any terrorist groups, or freedom fighters, in Central Asia that support the Islamic, Uyghur population in western China.

As Kazakhstan moves further from Moscow, it appears that its neighbors are following. Blank points out that “…we are also seeing increased mutual attention being paid to Central Asia by both Turkey and Iran.” Tehran operates a drone production facility in the region and recently admitted it is selling them to Russia for use in its war in Ukraine. Iran has inked a number of military deals in Central Asia in recent years. Blank also suggests that Putin’s pretensions of hegemony in Central Asia are far from accurate. These trends look like they will definitively lead to the European Union and US showing an increased interest and bolstering their presence in Central Asia. The region could end up a new target of interest for Putin if Moscow settles the conflict in Ukraine. 

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

Illustration: Pixabay

The elections are finally over. Now comes the hard part—delivering on all those promises. 

The challenges facing the nation are extensive and serious, headlined by a massive increase in crime, significant inflation, failing schools, and a deteriorated national security situation.

There is an upside, however.   Those serious dilemmas are the result of bad policy decisions, mostly over the past two years. A great start towards correcting those issues involves reversing past mistakes.

Skyrocketing crime comes from the absurd decision in numerous jurisdictions to eliminate or reduce the use of bail, accompanied by the insanity of not incarcerating recidivists or giving them inadequate sentences.  The evidence is clear: when repeat offenders are kept in prison, crime plummets.  Sources notes that, depending on the state, recidivist rates are as high as 52%.  Keeping repeat offenders in jail sharply reduces the crime rate. A repeat offender caught on a new charge should not receive bail.

To further improve safety, cease the insanity of defunding the police. Noteworthy studies  have found that “an increase in police presence … leads to a statistically and economically significant decrease in the level of crime … Most of the decrease in crime comes from decreases in the street crimes”

Inflation can be directly linked to the blockage of major fuel sources, as well as overspending.

 Everything that is produced, transported, marketed or used requires energy, including food. Alternative fuels can produce barely 20% of needs. Even that 20% cannot be produced in a cost-effective manner. Restoring American energy independence will slash the inflationary cycle, not just at the gas pump, but in all other activities, as well. 

Common sense has a key role to play, as well. Individuals know that they cannot spend more than they make.  Governments pretend they can, but they can’t either, without devaluing currency. Politicians fund giveaway programs by overprinting money, and lots of it. That devalues the currency, which is inflationary.

According to a Balance report, The U.S. national debt grew to a record $31.12 trillion in October 2022. “It has grown over time due to recessions, defense spending, and other programs that added to the debt. The U.S. national debt is so high that it’s greater than the annual economic output of the entire country, which is measured as the gross domestic product.”

U.S. students fall behind our international trading partners, despite spending far more. Our students rank 38^th out of 71 countries in academic achievement, despite spending much more.

America spends $14,400 per student on elementary and secondary education, which was 34 percent higher than the average of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development member countries of $10,800 At the postsecondary level, the United States spent $35,100 per student, which was double the average of OECD countries ($17,600). Where does the money go? Not to traditional subjects, but to a host of propaganda-heavy activities.  Enlightened by what was discovered during the COVID remote learning, enraged parents are demanding an end to nonsense, such as discussing sexual practices in the classroom.  It’s also time groups such as teachers’ unions were reminded that children, not pressure groups, should be the focus of spending.

National Security seems to be a reduced priority over the past two years.

Since the election of 2020, Russia has invaded Ukraine, China has ramped up its threats towards Taiwan, North Korea has resumed its atomic and missile development, and the Taliban now has a vast supply of U.S. weapons. China 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. 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. America is not the world’s pre-eminent nuclear weapons power.  That title belongs to Russia, with 6,267 warheads, compared to America’s 5,550, courtesy of a deal made by President Obama. Both China and Russia have an apparent lead in hypersonic weaponry.

All of these issues are resolvable, as long as those elected have the will to actually do so.  

America is facing an existential threat from the rising power and aggressiveness of Russia and China. There is a key misconception that clouds this imminent hazard: the illusion of American military supremacy.

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.

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.

America is not the world’s pre-eminent nuclear weapons power.  That title belongs to Russia, with 6,267 warheads, compared to America’s 5,550, courtesy of a deal made by President Obama.

Estimating China’s smaller but growing nuclear force is difficult. Unlike The Kremlin, which enjoys boasting about its atomic prowess, the PRC has hidden its assets. In 2011, a group of Georgetown students discovered that China  has a 3,000-mile-long tunnel system to protect and store its missiles and nuclear weapons. Quite bluntly we have no way of knowing how many nuclear weapons are hidden in those vast subterranean passageways. It is disturbing that the U.S. media showed so little interest in this sensational story.

Nuclear weapons limits and restrictions simply do not apply to China. Its nuclear force exists outside the realm of any significant arms treaty.

While Russia and China have modernized nuclear weaponry, the Heritage Foundation notes that the U.S. has largely elected to maintain aging nuclear warheads based on designs from the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.

As both adversary nations modernize and expand their nuclear forces, the Biden Administration continues to ignore the danger. A Congressional Research Service Report found that The Biden Administration, in its Interim National Security Strategic Guidance,   indicated that the United States would “take steps to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy…”

Perhaps the most overplayed canard is that Washington commits vastly more resources to its armed services than its rivals.  Neither Moscow nor Beijing needs to deal with a private sector that must make a profit. Therefore, their funds buy a lot more that they would in America.  Both enemy states are unitary; they don’t have to divide up contracts to satisfy the political needs of politicians from different states. Nor is there a free press in either of those two nations, exposing “hidden” expenditures.

A major military analysis website  reports that “…the gap between U.S. expenditure on the one hand and that of Russia and China on the other has closed dramatically over the past 15 years. Today, when taken together, spending by Russia and China is roughly equal to U.S. defense expenditure, with Russia representing a much larger share than previously recognized.”

A study from The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)  outlines that the cost of military goods and services in Russia is substantially less than in the USA or most of Europe. That indicates that Moscow has improved purchasing power, quite literally getting far more bang for its buck.  A significant part of that is the Kremlin’s reliance on conscription. The fact that Russian soldiers receive far less pay must also be taken into consideration. SIPRI provides an example:  In 2019 a Russian lieutenant colonel received approximately $1330 per month, whereas a (lower-ranked) captain in the British Army received more than $4000 monthly.

Perhaps more important than comparisons of weapons and expenditures are actions. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s aggression towards Taiwan, India, the Philippines, and others leave no doubt as to the intentions of both nations. Ignoring these actions are the 21^st century equivalent of overlooking the radar reports of Japanese planes heading towards Pearl Harbor.

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

Photo: An Army UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter assigned to the 1st Squadron, 214th General Support Aviation Battalion, 12th Combat Aviation Brigade conducts overwater training at Tampere, Finland, Aug. 4, 2022. The 12th Combat Aviation Brigade is one of the units supporting the U.S. European Command strategy by demonstrating U.S. commitment to European allies and partners to highlight U.S. capabilities to diverse audiences. (DoD photo)

The most important global issue of the still-young 21^st Century is the growing military axis of Russia and China.  Unlike the NATO alliance, this is not a defensive partnership.  It is one which squarely has the United States in its cross-hairs, and it is actively to demolish the concepts of national sovereignty and individual rights that were won at such great costs during the prior hundred years.

Both nations have pursued territorial claims considered unlawful by most nations. Beijing’s assault on the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone was condemned by the World Court at the Hague.  The Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine has been widely opposed.

The South China Morning Post reports that the two nation’s Defense chiefs have agreed to expand cooperation through strategic exercises and joint patrols in the Asia-Pacific, according to the Russian Ministry of Defence.

Eric Jacobson, writing for the Center for Strategic and International Studies reports that the early 2000s rise in oil and energy prices and the growth of the PRC’s economy allowed for increased investments in the militaries of both Moscow and Beijing. He notes that “The U.S. military dominance in the 1990s sparked interest in Russian and Chinese military circles on how to develop theories of victory that would enable them to achieve their objectives against the United States.”

Developments are progressing rapidly. American Military News reports that in August China sent troops to Russia to participate in joint military drills.

According to the report, “The Chinese Ministry of Defense states that the aim is to deepen practical and friendly cooperation with the armies of participating countries, enhance the level of strategic collaboration among the participating parties, and strengthen the ability to respond to various security threats.” Russia’s military announced the latest iteration of its Vostok drills last month. The operations come even as Russian forces are heavily focused on the ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

China has purchased some of Russia’s most advanced military equipment, while also developing its own naval weapons systems, some of which are unmatched anywhere, including a missile which, launched from land, can disable ships almost 1,000 miles away.

There are reports that China, along with North Korea, may be preparing to assist Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. According to the Associated Press, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has warned that China’s support for Russia’s Ukraine aggression is complication relations with Washington.

Japan is also specifically targeted by the Moscow-Beijing Axis.  The United States Naval Institute notes that “Japan is concerned with the activities of both countries’s ships in its vicinity. Japan’s recent 2022 defense white paper, released on July 22, detailed the threats posed to Japan by Russia, China and North Korea. Japan Defense.” Minister Nobou Kishi has said several times that Japan would continuously monitor the three countries’ military activities in its vicinity.

North Korea is emerging as a junior partner in the Axis. According to Russia’s semi-official RT news agency Russian President Vladimir Putin had exchanged letters with Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un. both countries had agreed to “expand their comprehensive and constructive bilateral relations with common efforts.” There have been as yet unsubstantiated reports that North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un has offered the use of North Korean troops for use in the Ukraine.

Former U.S. State Department official Daria Novak, writing for the New York Analysis of Policy and Government, explains that “The Russo-Chinese relationship, once filled with mistrust from earlier times, is presently tactical and highly opportunist. Controlling the flow of oil and gas means money for Russia’s failing economy and more Russian missiles and technology in support of China’s aggressive foreign policy agenda.”

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

Photo: Chinese State Councilor and Defense Minister Wei Fenghe delivers a speech via video link at the 10th Moscow Conference on International Security on August 16, 2022. (mod.gov.cn/Photo by Li Xiaowei)