Month: November 2022

The Correlates of War Project (CWP) is an academic study of the history of warfare. Since 1963, CWP  researchers have examined various hard factors that differentiate wars. Quantitative data is extremely useful in making predictions about military troop strength and types of hardware, but can’t easily quantify the predictive value provided by psychological profiles of the senior leaders who order and carry out the wars it studies. At a time when Russia is in a prolonged kinetic conflict in Ukraine; North Korea is lobbing missiles into South Korean territorial waters and over Japan; and China is threatening the stability of the international rules-based system, we need to more closely examine these soft contributing factors to improve our predictive ability to identify the level of aggressive behavior of foreign elites. How do these up-and-coming leaders make the policy decisions that lead to major wars or a fragile peace? 

In light of the war in Ukraine, one such leader in need of examination today is Nikolai Patruchev. He is a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin. As Secretary of the Security Council of Russia and formerly one of the longest serving heads of the Federal Security Bureau (FSB) from 1999-2008, he helped put and keep Vladimir Putin in office. His son, Dmitry Patruchev, serves as the current Minister of Agriculture and is mentioned as a potential successor to the Russian president. A recent report from the Robert Lansing Institute says it is “Putin’s country, Patrushev’s regime.” As a close confidant to Putin, Nikolai wields great influence in Moscow and is seen as the informal leader of the country. Who is this “influencer” we hear about in the news? The report says Putin and Patruchev share ambitions, but not a friendship. After the bloody Chechen conflict, one became president and the other head of the FSB. Each holds information on the other as insurance against a coup. Combined they make a treacherous pair.

As children both men suffered deep psychological traumas. The consequence is that as adults they continue to strive for absolute power to control their own destiny. The report points out the Kremlin is filled with such disturbed hawks waiting to take over, one worse than the next. “The opinion that Patrushev adheres exclusively to the despotic power, absolute totalitarianism with elements of conditional democracy, and not even hidden tyranny, obviously proves a psychologically sick worldview, formed by these very hawks.”

People become tools for these types of men, a means to achieve an end goal, and thus as individuals are disposable. “Having such a worldview and psychological attitude, the lust for power is still the main motivation; money and enrichment are dominant values,” according to the report. Although horrifying to imagine, such leaders could unleash a nuclear device on an unsuspecting population and justify it as the collateral damage necessary to remain in power. 

In the east there is also an important authoritarian leader in office. Chinese President Xi Jinping was elected recently to a third term as president after accumulating a historic number of titles and unprecedented power not seen since Mao Zedong held office. Military analysts in Washington count missiles, review China’s military technology, and some even review psychological profiles. But do we know enough about Xi Jinping to predict the level of aggressive behavior he could achieve in the future? Like Putin and Patruchev, he also experienced deep childhood trauma. “After his [Xi’s] father was jailed during the Cultural Revolution, Xi – only 14 at the time – was expelled from high school in Beijing and then arrested by the Red Guards, who accused him of crimes,” according to Kenneth Dekleva, writing in The Cipher Report. As a young teen Xi was threatened with execution. He wrote that “…to my mind there was no difference between being executed a hundred times or once, so why be afraid of a hundred times?” 

Ten years ago, in his election speech to the National People’s Congress, Xi said that “in the future, the Chinese nation will forge ahead like a gigantic ship breaking through strong winds and heavy waves.” It is a message to the world that he will do what needs doing, no matter how difficult the political environment. His announced goal is to reframe the rules-based international order to support China’s view of it. How far will Xi go to install himself as that hegemon? He is considered ruthless by colleagues and opponents alike. The world witnessed it recently when he had his elderly and frail predecessor, former president Hu Jintao, physically removed from the National Congress meeting after the cameras were turned on. Xi maintains power by eliminating his enemies or removing them from office. What if China stalls in its ascent? How far will Xi go? The free world needs to be concerned when such a state is armed with nuclear weapons. The free world can’t afford to use western logic and say It is too horrible a thing to ever happen again.

Can Russia, China, or any other authoritarian state be saved from the fate of such leaders? The Lansing report suggests that the only viable solution is the “fragmentation and dismantling” of such a country. Until such time as the indigenous populations of these states rise up against their authoritarian leaders, the democratic world needs to remain on high alert. Such leaders may not disappear from our world, but one day perhaps the populations of those nations will discover the value of a constitution like that of the United States’, which puts the people in charge and protects it population from tyrants. 

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

Photo: China war statue (Pixabay)

The repeated assaults on free speech can no longer be ignored.

Investigative reports have clearly demonstrated that despite widespread public outcry, anti-First Amendment moves by the Biden Administration and leading Democrats are ongoing.

Tactics include attempts by federal agencies to coerce social media to censor stories unfavorable to the current White House, the development of agencies designed to intimidate political opponents, “outing” of those donating to organizations with differing views, and weakening the interpretation of the First Amendment.

Early in the Biden Administration, the White House revived a much-reviled attempt by President Obama to influence how the news is reported. A so-called “Disinformation Governing Board” was proposed.  The idea was widely opposed, and, supposedly, the concept was shelved. 

Undaunted, the Biden Administration employed another tactic. According to investigative journalism by the Intercept , The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is quietly broadening its efforts to curb speech it considers dangerous. “Years of internal DHS memos, emails, and documents — obtained via leaks and an ongoing lawsuit, as well as public documents — illustrate an expansive effort by the agency to influence tech platforms…Behind closed doors, and through pressure on private platforms, the U.S. government has used its power to try to shape online discourse. According to meeting minutes and other records appended to a lawsuit filed by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt…discussions have ranged from the scale and scope of government intervention in online discourse to the mechanics of streamlining takedown requests for false or intentionally misleading information.

One tactic involve the creation of a special “portal”  for DHS and government partners to report disinformation directly.

An analysis by the Daily Mail based on the Intercept’s investigation revealed that the FBI official tied to suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story remains involved in influencing social media to avoid publishing stories the Biden White House dislikes. According to the article, FBI Foreign Influence Task Force Chief Laura Dehmlow is still briefing social media sites on foreign disinformation threats. Dehmlow is tied to the decision that led Facebook and Twitter to suppress the New York Post Hunter Biden laptop story in October 2020. Revelations were part of a lengthy report from The Intercept report notes that DHS continues  its efforts to ban particularly embarrassing contrary  political news

Unfortunately, the attempts aren’t limited.

Playing on the fear of intimidation created by pressure by progressives, there have been attempts to make public the names of those who contribute to organizations that oppose leftist causes. As reported by USATODAY in 2021,

“The issue of donor disclosure by nonprofit groups has once again surfaced in legislative form, as HR1, a bill passed by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives…applies new disclosure regulations to groups engaging in political speech.”

The developments are not new.  In 2014, Democrats introduced  S. J. Res. 19, which would amend the Constitution of the United States to allow the Congress to regulate free speech and activity in federal elections. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), the current Senate Majority Leader,  along with Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D.-Ill., backed Sen. Tom Udall’s (D-NM) proposal to amend the First Amendment.

It’s not just heavy-handed intimidation of social media outlets or attempts to weaken Constitutional protections. Outright violence is frequently employed. On college campuses throughout the nation,  Republican or conservative guest speakers are frequently subjected to mob assaults. At a recent event at the University of California, ANTIFA maced attendees. The incident wasn’t an outlier. Violent threats and actions in response to speakers who do not kowtow to the Left are a common occurrence.

Particularly on college campuses, the concept of “political correctness” has been used as excuse to condone the suppression of nonleftist ideas. A CATO Institute study found that Nearly three‐​fourths (71%) of Americans believe that political correctness has done more to silence important discussions our society needs to have. The consequences are personal—58% of Americans believe the political climate today prevents them from saying things they believe.

Illustration: Pixabay

In the past, Federal agencies, despite occasional lapses of ethics, mostly concentrated on doing their assigned tasks, rather than harassing Administration opponents.

That changed sharply during the Obama Administration. The criminal use of the IRS and the Department of Justice to harass groups that were critical of the President was horrific. Attempts to use the Federal Communications Commission to censor opponents were inexcusable.

It has only gotten worse during the Biden Administration. To cite just one example, A study by the Hillsdale College publication Imprimis found that “the DOJ [has been] in the midst of a … campaign of spying on (the Conservative investigative journalist group) Project Veritas—a campaign that involved no fewer than 19 clandestine subpoenas, orders, and warrants obtained from nine magistrate judges. The secrecy of this spying campaign was maintained through the use of wide-ranging gag orders, including at least two that were obtained without notice to the judge overseeing the Project Veritas case. Through this spying campaign, we now know that the DOJ obtained approximately 200,000 Project Veritas emails from Microsoft and countless text messages (and heaven knows what else) from Apple, Google, Uber, and other still unknown companies.”   

Heavy-handed Biden Administration efforts to subdue political opposition can also be found in the use of the FBI to persuade social media sites to censor the politically embarrassing news of the Biden Laptop scandal. Clear evidence on the laptop could lead not to criminal charges of tax evasion and punishment for  not registering as a foreign agent for China, America’s most serious enemy.

The politicization doesn’t stop there, or with the Department of Justice.  There has been an intensive effort to use military leadership to force-feed woke politics down the throats of service members.  That has caused a major crisis, as potential recruits shy away from the hyper-partisanship.  The Army has missed its recruiting goals by an astounding 25%, and the other branches are falling short as well.

The Pentagon has entered into the realm of elective politics, a serious legal violation. One example comes from American Military News, when it noted that “The Air Force has taken ‘full responsibility’ for leaking a confidential personnel file of a service member and Republican congressional candidate, which revealed a sexual assault she suffered on duty in Iraq, according to Indiana Reps. Jim Banks and Larry Bucshon. The Air Force leaker gave the files to a Democrat research firm in the lead-up to the midterm elections.”

The State Department has misused its assets to sponsor woke ideology as well. A recent Wall Street Journal report found that “The exportation of American culture has long been one of our nation’s greatest soft-power assets. But instead of using it to affirm Western values and U.S. interests, the Biden administration is proselytizing for woke ideology. In an effort to ‘promote diversity and inclusion,’ the State Department is funding ‘drag theater performances.’

The Department of Energy, according to a National Review study, will, begining in fiscal year 2023, require applicants for research funding to explain how their research projects will incorporate the tenets of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

The list goes on and on. These acts are not only criminal acts of embezzlement, an offense defined by Cornell law school as “the fraudulent taking of personal property by someone to whom it was entrusted. It is most often associated with the misappropriation of money. Embezzlement can occur regardless of whether the defendant keeps the personal property or transfers it to a third party.” The personal property in this case is the taxpayer’s funds.  This is dangerous to the nation, weakening our defenses, harming our foreign relations, violating the First Amendment, and further placing the government in debt.

Photo: U.S. Treasury Building

Objective reviews of how prepared the U.S. military is to defend the nation reveal the deeply disturbing conclusion that Americas’ armed forces are insufficient to meet the dire threats facing the nation.

The result shouldn’t surprise anyone.  After years of underfunding and numerous wars that drained the strength of American armed forces, the strength of the nation’s guardians has been severely drained. In addition to attrition by fighting in the Middle East and Afghanistan, significant underfunding during the Obama Administration, the Biden White Houses’ Inflation has taken its toll on the Pentagon, in the same way it has hit American families.

Numerically, the Army should have 50 brigade combat teams.  It has only 31.  The Navy should have 400 ships.  It has about 290.  The Air Force should have 1,200 fighter and ground attack aircraft.  It has only 1,174.  The Marine Corps should have 30 battalions.  It has 27.

Putin’s confidence in rattling his nuclear saber is buoyed by his lead in nuclear armaments. It’s not just in numbers, (5,977 nuclear warheads, compared to Washington’s 5,428) it is also in the reality that his force is more modern.  Moscow’s ally China has at least 350, although it is strongly suspected that it has far more.

Just one example, from Rep. Tom O’Halleran (D-AZ) of how lack of financial support is affecting one service: “Moderate Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Va., a retired Navy commander whose Norfolk district includes the world’s largest naval base: “I have delayed putting out a statement about the Defense Budget because frankly it would have been mostly full of words you might expect from a Sailor, but here goes: It sucks,” Luria said in a scathing Twitter thread objecting to Biden’s plan to decommission two dozen warships. “HINT: If you want to grow the Navy, stop decommissioning more ships than you build,” she said, adding that the Navy “has no strategy. Stop saying you do, because if you did you would be able to explain how this Fleet size will allow us to defend Taiwan.”

The crisis is getting worse. The Army has fallen short of its recruitment needs by 25%. The Air Force has barely met its personnel needs, and the Navy is lacking officers. Observers note that the emphasis on woke politics by politicized Pentagon leaders and what many believe to be a White House disregard for traditional American values and the has discouraged many likely recruits.

Writing in Real Clear Defense, Darin Gaub notes that “The Commander in Chief of the armed forces leads an administration targeting its own forces with friendly fire… The typical patriotic American signing up wants to be the wolf but is trained to be a sheep today.  Those conservative and often rural families where a large number of America’s servicemembers originate also provide the true warfighters in our military. They are the ones saying, “no thanks.”  Why join an organization to be told that your patriotic American beliefs are the problem and spend the term of an enlistment as a target of the chain of command?”

A study by the authoritative Heritage Foundation found that “As currently postured, the U.S. military is at growing risk of not being able to meet the demands of defending America’s vital national interests. It is rated as weak relative to the force needed to defend national interests on a global stage against actual challenges in the world as it is rather than as we wish it were. This is the logical consequence of years of sustained use, underfunding, poorly defined priorities, wildly shifting security policies, exceedingly poor discipline in program execution, and a profound lack of seriousness across the national security establishment even as threats to U.S. interests have surged.”

Photo: Members of the National Guard train at Fort Bliss, Texas, Sept. 13, 2022. (DoD)

China has launched a forceful attempt to aggressively influence people, sometimes using illicit means, across the world to overlook its concentration camps, massive military buildup, and international aggression.

Freedom House, a non-profit that conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom, and human rights warns that Beijing has a “High or very high” campaign to push its perspective.

The study found that “The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its proxies are using more sophisticated and coercive tactics to shape media narratives and suppress critical reporting. Mass distribution of Beijing-backed content via mainstream media, harassment and intimidation of outlets that publish news or opinions disfavored by the Chinese government, and the use of cyberbullying, fake social media accounts, and targeted disinformation campaigns are among the tactics that have been employed more widely since 2019.

Freedom House notes that Inadequate government responses leave countries vulnerable or exacerbate the problem. Declines in press freedom and gaps in media regulations have reduced democratic resilience and created greater opportunities for future CCP media influence. In 23 countries, political leaders launched attacks on domestic media or exploited legitimate concerns about CCP influence to impose arbitrary restrictions, target critical outlets, or fuel xenophobic sentiment. Democracies’ ability to counter CCP media influence is alarmingly uneven. Only half of the countries examined in this study achieved a rating of Resilient, while the remaining half were designated as Vulnerable. Taiwan faced the most intense CCP influence efforts, but it also mounted the strongest response, followed in both respects by the United States. Nigeria was deemed the most vulnerable to Beijing’s media influence campaigns.

Freedom House is not alone in issuing warnings. A Rand analysis stated:

“Imagine the United States allowing a rival unfettered access not merely to its marketplace, but to its media ecosystem—the fourth pillar of our already fragile democracy. And not just access, but the full-blown ability to own, control, and influence the content. You don’t have to imagine it, because it’s happened—and keeps happening. Chinese companies have successfully burrowed into the U.S. media ecosystem with little to no pushback from U.S. regulators, particularly when it comes to radio stations. A single Chinese state-run firm, China Radio International (CRI), has secured a controlling interest in at least 33 radio stations in 14 countries—including English language news broadcaster WCRW in Washington, D.C.—to broadcast native language news slanted to favor the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) preferred perspective on events. A 2020 report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that “Nearly every Chinese language news outlet in the United States is either owned by, or works closely with the Party—and it is making inroads into English language media as well. There are more than a dozen radio stations in cities across the country where Americans hear subtle pro-Beijing propaganda on their FM radio.”

Further warnings come from other media sources. Axios examined foreign-agent filings that disclosed a “massive Beijing propaganda operation that’s fueled a sixfold increase in disclosed Chinese foreign influence efforts.”

A Brookings report found that “In the United States, Chinese state-controlled media outlets like China Daily, CGTN and Xinhua clearly hope to influence the U.S. information environment. Several newspapers, including the Washington Post, carry inserts published by the China Daily. In addition, there is some evidence that United Front-linked donors have sought to support U.S. research institutions.”

News organizations such as Reuters note the success Beijing has had in this effort. 

The danger from the increasing hold the Chinese Communist Party has on American media cannot be overstated. Beijing uses its undue influence to obscure the very real armed challenge it presents, it’s massive human rights violations, and its terrible impact from its other actions, including the infliction of COVID on the world.  

Illustration: Pixabay