Month: April 2023

Putin’s war is costing his country enormous amounts of money and, to date, over 43,000 Russian lives. At the one-year mark Boris Grozovski, a Russian economics expert from the Wilson Center, estimated that Russian military expenditures surpassed $9 trillion and are continuing to rise at a staggering rate. The total cost to run the Russian government, according Moscow’s latest annual spending plan in 2022, is $299.9 billion USD. An additional $46.1 billion is allotted for the war and $36.9 billion for police and security services. There is no end in sight for the war or the country’s economic troubles. Now Putin is asking Russians to pay more for his war effort despite the country’s lackluster economy.

Skyrocketing military expenses are becoming harder to hide. Sergey Sukhankin, of the Jamestown Foundation, points out this week that Russian sources believe the budget deficit in 2023 could exceed $51.2 billion USD. He says that economic troubles are also visible on two other levels. “At the regional level, the situation has been described as ‘dangerous.’” Last October, estimates indicate that the amount of income tax revenues in regional budgets fell by 40.2 percent. He adds that “At the corporate level, even traditionally privileged large companies and natural monopolies are seemingly no longer feeling as confident; the Russian government has already exercised its power, forcing some of them to share profits to cover war expenses.” 

To cover its mounting war expenses, Moscow is levying additional charges and taxes on the country’s largest businesses. Irina Malkova and Alexandra Chunova, writing in the Russian news outlet The Bell, reported in February that Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin proposed combating the growing budget deficit through introducing a “mobilization tax.” The goal of the Russian Ministry of Finance is to raise $3.6 billion by taxing large companies (excluding those in the energy sector) that earned the highest profits in 2021-2022. Minister of Finance Anton Siluanov announced the plan in an interview with the Russia-24 state-owned news channel in February. The remaining question is concerns the form of the so-called “windfall tax.” Sukhankin notes that “while little concrete information is available on what these businesses might ask in return for the ‘war tax,’ some bits and pieces of information coming from Russia point to two measures that the Russian government could undertake to compensate oligarchs for their financial assistance.”

Deputy Finance Minister Alexey Moiseev told the Moscow Times in March that the Russian state could lift all restrictions on currency transfers—currently, no more than $1 million per month may be transferred abroad—for Russian businessmen. Second, some Russian authorities are bantering around a “Gosplan 2.0,” that recreates a Soviet-style system of economy favored by the oligarchs due to the exclusive, almost monopolistic rights they would receive in specific industries. According to analysts familiar with the domestic economic environment, a majority of large businesses in Russia support an increased role for the state. Sukhankin notes that a study published by the State University of Management showed that 78.5 percent of respondents (the survey was conducted among mid- to high-level management) positively assessed the prospect of short-term (five years) as well as mid- and long-term central planning, which would be established and managed by the state. The respondents, he says, did not argue specifically for the implementation of a Soviet-style planning (Gosplan), yet supported the introduction of “serious strategic planning for the successful development of the Russian economy.” 

Managers in general agreed that it would be almost impossible for large Russian businesses to overcome the consequences of Western sanctions without the state acquiring a larger role in managing available scarce resources and giving directions for further development. Last week The Moscow Times noted that the head of the study, adviser to the rectorate of the State University of Ukraine Sergey Chuev, assured the Russian people that this is not about the revival of the Soviet state plan, but about “serious” strategic planning for the “successful development” of the economy. If Moscow moves to take greater control, it comes with a number of risks. Political analysts in Washington point out that the move will strengthen special interest groups that have their own political and economic agendas. 

On February 14,The Moscow Times reported that several leading Russian universities, including Bauman Moscow State Technical University, Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, Moscow State University and Moscow University of Finance and Law—have already started working on a “digital Gosplan” that envisages a return to the Soviet-style five-year plans. Sukhankin says that a pilot “digital Gosplan is in the planning stages for a later 2023 launch in priority areas, including import substitution and “will later be extended to petrochemicals, agriculture, transportation and medicine.” 

The Russian economy is in a fragile state. Moscow’s ability to repair it is more constrained than officials inside the Kremlin admit. Second, it appears the government is ready to expand and transform the economy via a Soviet-style Gosplan. Most significant to the long-term health of the Russian Federation is that with its limited resources and rising special interest groups, an internal struggle for power and influence is likely to deepen within the corridors of power in Moscow over the coming year. The consequences of such instability could reverberate throughout Europe.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Illustration: Pixabay

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has released the alliance’s latest annual report. It clearly reveals the impact Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has had on what is frequently described as history’s most successful defensive grouping. It also airs his frustration in dealing with Moscow.

“For more than 30 years, NATO tried to build a partnership with Russia. Despite this, over the past decade, Russia has continuously violated the norms and principles that contributed to a stable and predictable European security order. Russia’s brutal and unlawful war of aggression against Ukraine in February 2022 has shattered peace and gravely altered the security environment. In light of its hostile policies and actions, NATO cannot consider Russia to be a partner.”

Stoltenberg makes a point that has been all too often ignored when discussing the crisis.

“This war did not start in 2022, it started in 2014, when Russia illegally annexed Crimea and entered eastern Ukraine. Since then, NATO Allies have trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and supported its defence and security sector. NATO will continue to stand by Ukraine for as long as it takes.”

The Secretary General emphasized the alliance’s timely response, noting that within hours of the current invasion, NATO’s response eventually placed over 40,000 troops in the eastern part of the Alliance, backed by substantial capabilities in the air and at sea. The alliance doubled the number of battlegroups, from four to eight. Additionally, NATO increased its military presence from the Baltic to the Black Sea, on the land, at sea and in the air. Since the invasion, NATO Allies provided around $120 billion of military, humanitarian and financial assistance in 2022. While the United States is the largest single contributor, Europe and Canada provided over half of the overall assistance. Europeans also welcomed almost five million refugees from Ukraine.

Eastern members of the alliance, especially Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia have been the most emphatic in the need to respond forcefully to Putin’s aggression.

The alliance’s “New Strategic Concept,” formulated at a meeting in Madrid last year, identifies Russia as the most significant and direct threat to its security, but also addresses the People’s Republic of China for the first time, and it sets out how it can address other challenges like the ongoing threat of terrorism, as well as cyber, hybrid, and new technologies.

The next major gathering of the group will take place in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, in July 2023Stoltenberg expects  the allies will agree a new more ambitious defense spending pledge. In a more dangerous world, Allies increasingly see 2% of Gross Domestic Product spent on defense as a floor and not a ceiling. During his tenure, President Trump urged NATO members to increase their defense spending. From 2021 to 2022, defense spending increased by 2.2% in real terms. In total, over the last eight years, this increase added $350 billion for defense. In 2022, seven Allies met the guideline of spending 2% of their Gross Domestic Product on defense. In 2014, only three Allies met the guideline. The United States accounted for 54% of the Allies’ combined GDP and 70% of combined defence expenditure. Total NATO military spending in 2022 was estimated to exceed $1trillion.

Stoltenberg emphasizes that “The new baseline builds on the ongoing military adaptation efforts, including the full and speedy implementation and operationalisation of two high-level military concepts – the Concept for the Deterrence and Defence of the Euro-Atlantic Area and the NATO Warfighting Capstone Concept. The Concept for the Deterrence and Defence of the Euro-Atlantic Area focuses on force employment to deter and defend today, while the NATO Warfighting Capstone Concept offers a vision to guide the Alliance’s long-term warfare development to remain militarily strong now and in the future.”

Photo: Meeting of the North Atlantic Council at the level of NATO Heads of State and Government during the extraordinary Summit following the onset of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Brussels, Belgium, March 2022. (NATO photo)

Americans would be loath to accept losing freedom of speech. So how do those power-hungry politicians, bureaucrats, and partisan billionaires seeking to limit the First Amendment in their drive to enforce their unpopular goals (such as socialist economics, irrational environmental policies, and partisan abuse of education) achieve their ends?

The practice of outright censorship isn’t popular, so different approaches are employed.

 Those with contrary opinions are accused of spreading “disinformation.” Those disagreeing with the power brokers are labelled “racist,” “homophobic,” or “climate change deniers.”  The Biden and Obama Administrations adopted this practice. Biden has consistently attempted to label his political opponents with terms such as “Mega Maga.” Appointees of those two regimes sought to place individuals in key positions such as chair of the Federal Communications Commission to attack contrary news outlets.

Seeking to leapfrog over what they consider the inconvenience of the Bill of Rights, they fund and adapt international practices that aren’t subject to U.S. Constitutional safeguards. 

Sometimes, their schemes get exposed.

Following disturbing revelations, the Biden State Department was forced to pull funding from George Soros’ Global Disinformation Index, which endeavored to attack information outlets that didn’t kowtow to progressive views. Before the exposure, the U.S. State Department, which, like other government agencies should be nonpartisan, had helped fund this group.  The Washington Examiner noted that $300,000 had been provided by the State Department to this anti-First Amendment organization.

That international dodge around the Constitution is an ongoing practice. AMN reports that The head of the United Nations, Secretary-General António Guterres, has called for a global crackdown on what he called “mis- and disinformation on the internet.”

On occasion, federal entities employ more direct assaults. As the Washington Times reported recently, The National Archives and Records Administration ordered visitors in Washington for the March for Life to take off or cover up their pro-life apparel before entering their public facility, specifically contrary to established policy which does not forbid such apparel.  They were joined in their censorship campaign by another federal museum.  Lawsuits have been filed to overturn their illegal and unconstitutional discrimination. 

Outright censorship has occasionally been employed. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s involvement in ensuring that the Hunter Biden Laptop story was intentionally excluded on social media outlets provides a chilling example of this.

Once a proud nonpartisan organization, the FBI has become directly involved in the suppression of free speech. A House Judiciary Committee investigation is calling out Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland based on whistleblower documents about a “threat tag” being applied and used to track parents who object to radical teaching practices in public schools. “The email… referenced [an] October 4 directive to the FBI to address school board threats and notified FBI personnel about a new ‘threat tag’ created by the Counterterrorism and Criminal Divisions… The whistleblower provided ‘specific evidence that federal law enforcement operationalized counterterrorism tools at the behest of a left-wing special interest group against concerned parents,’ referencing the National School Boards Association’s coordination with the Biden administration to secure the DOJ’s action against parents.”

Problems persist in the partisan use of federal law enforcement.  The latest example comes from revelations that the agency considers conservative Catholics, for absurd reasons such as preferring a Latin Mass, to be a “threat.”

Across the nation, news outlets in print, on the web, or on the air are subjected to strident campaigns to stop contrary views from being presented.  It is an outgrowth of the censorship movement, often violent, which has plagued many college campuses, where non-leftist speakers have been viciously prevented from offering their views.

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer has, in the past, even proposed, unsuccessfully, legislation to limit some applications of the key Bill of Rights provision.

The attempts, sometimes subtle, sometimes blunt, to override the First Amendment are manifest, abundant and clear.

Illustration: Pixabay

America’s assistance to Ukraine has been protested by some on the right and some on the left.  Both sides are dead wrong.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine must not be seen as a singular event.  Vladimir Putin has dreamed of reestablishing the Soviet Empire, and his Ukrainian assault is merely the first step.  That is why Eastern European nations, especially Poland, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania have so vocally sounded the alarm.  Indeed, even Germany, which has been largely pacifist since its defeat in the Second World War, realizes that it will eventually be targeted by Moscow if the first step of taking over Ukraine is accomplished.

Those two sides of the American political scene have different reasons for their objections to helping Ukraine.

Those on the left disdain military expenditures of any type, believing it takes funds away from domestic spending. They also absurdly fail to see much difference in American foreign policy and that pursued by Russia. 

On the right, there are at least three primary objections.

One is that focusing on Moscow’s misdeeds takes attention and resources away from dealing with China, the primary threat to the U.S.  The fallacy of this concept is seeing Russia and China as separate problems.  China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea represent a singular, combined danger to the free world. China is providing a great deal of the financing Putin needs for his Ukrainian War. Iran is assisting with specialized weapons.  North Korea I said to be assisting as well. President George W. Bush coined the phrase, “Axis of Evil,” and the description is wholly appropriate.

The second is that the U.S. shouldn’t worry about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine while there is an invasion going on in the southern border of our own nation.  The dramatic influx of illegals, largely organized by criminal cartels using many of those immigrants for drug smuggling, human trafficking, and other organized criminal activities is, indeed, a threat to United States, but it is not occurring due to a lack of either funds or military equipment.  It is clearly a policy choice by the Biden Administration.  That influx could be rather quickly stopped by the White House if it chose to do so.  Both Biden and his Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas have openly and boldly lied to the public.  They have done just about everything possible to encourage illegal immigration, and clearly refuse to do anything to respond to the desperate pleas of law enforcement officials, governors, and mayors. If Ukraine and Russia didn’t even exist, that crisis on the Southern border would go on unless and until Biden decided to stop it.

The third objection is that, given the illicit financial contacts Biden has had with Ukraine, it cannot be ruled out that either he or some corrupt officials in that nation may profit from U.S. funds.  On April 16, 2014, then-Vice President Biden met with his son’s business partner, Devon Archer, at the White House. Five days later, Vice President Biden visited Ukraine, and he soon after was described in the press as the “public face of the administration’s handling of Ukraine.” The day after his visit, on April 22, Archer joined the board of Burisma. Six days later, on April 28, British officials seized $23 million from the London bank accounts of Burisma’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. Fourteen days later, on May 12, Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma, and over the course of the next several years, Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were paid millions of dollars from a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch for their participation on the board.

While it appears clear that there is a dirty connection between the Biden family and Ukraine, the Russian invasion, and all that it indicates for future aggression against other nations, must not be ignored.  President Zelensky is doing all he can to fight corruption in his nation.  Hopefully, the U.S. House of Representatives will succeed in fighting corruption here at home.

Photo: Pixabay

Flash points of potential state-to-state conflict exist in many parts of the world. In Central Asia, China and Russia compete with the United States and other West democracies for influence. The region is a physical gateway linking Asia to Europe and serves as an important commercial transportation corridor. The Central Asian countries avoid aligning too closely with any power outside the region to preserve their sovereignty and traditional cultures. They adhere to independent foreign policies that benefit their individual states. One country in particular, Kazakhstan, is taking it a step further by instituting internal reforms to modernize its domestic political structures. Its leaders recognize that it must be modern to be strong.

Kazahkstan’s maslikhats, or local governments, and the Mazhilis, Kazakhstan’s lower house of parliament, are taking steps to reform the country since the January 2022 political unrest. President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev is pursuing two main goals. The first is to transition the country toward a more pluralistic, inclusive, and representative political system, according to Sergey Gretzky of the Jamestown Foundation. Second, Kazakhstan’s leaders are trying to involve the younger generation in the political process with the understanding that they will bring new ideas that could help solve socioeconomic issues left by Nursultan Nazarbayev’s administration. 

“The Mazhilis elections completed the first cycle of these political reforms following the constitutional referendum and presidential elections in 2022, as well as the senate elections in early 2023,” says Gretsky. Under the new system 70 percent of the Mazhilis deputies are elected on party-list proportional representation and 30 percent are from single member districts. At least 30 percent of the party-list candidates include women, young people and the disabled, according to Kursiv media. Kazakhstani candidates come from a wide cross-section of the society, including entrepreneurs,  teachers, retirees, and the unemployed. Most are new to campaigning and depend on family and friends for campaign support. Although there are several political parties, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) observer mission noted, “not all political parties were allowed to participate” in the recent election. 

Demoscope, a public opinion company located in Switzerland, conducted a poll six days before the recent election. It found that 54.6 percent of respondents agreed that the election was a step toward democratization in Kazakhstan. Almost 50 percent agreed that the opposition parties had been allowed to participate and 52.1 percent expressed their trust in the election’s outcome.  Although there was ballot stuffing and individuals voting multiple times, Kazakhstan has embarked on a reform program that it hopes with strengthen its identity, improve how its government works, and build trust in Kazakhstan’s leaders and electoral process.  Last month after the election the OSCE announced that “Kazakhstan has the full support of the European Union in the implementation of the ongoing changes, and we stress the importance of further political and socioeconomic reforms.” Gretsky points out this “reflects the interest of the collective West in maintaining and developing close relations with Kazakhstan amid the heightened geopolitical rivalry with Russia and China over Central Asia.” Russia and China also sent observers via Commonwealth of Independent States (Russia) and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (China and Russia) missions. Inform.kz media says those delegations found not election irregularities. East and West are closely watching developments in the country as the early parliamentary elections represent an important step in the political modernization of Kazakhstan. Gretsky says that for the first time since independence, “six political parties will be represented in the Mazhilis.” It represents real emerging political competition. Although it has a long road ahead, Kazakhstan is on course to meet the challenge of developing a society that breaks the mold of political disenfranchisement and self-disenfranchisement. The government is reaching out and engaging citizens in building more trust and participation in the new system. It bodes well for the future of a nation-state that sits strategically between East and West.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

Upon assuming the presidency in 2013 President Xi Jinping embarked on an ambitious mission to remake the world order into a Chinese-style system led by Beijing. This year the country’s economy is expected to account for about 1/3 of total global economic growth. Unlike mature economies that typically expand more slowly, China has been moving at a relatively fast pace. It may be moving too quickly. Some areas in the developing world see China as brutally exploiting them to extract the raw materials needed to support the communist giant’s burgeoning economy. China appears unprepared for the political challenges arising in these regions from its aggressive policies. Beijing is also struggling to protect its overseas nationals facing anti-Chinese attitudes and violent attacks. On March 31, in the Central African Republic (CAR), gunmen charged a goldmine near Bangui, the capital. They murdered nine Chinese workers. 

Previously the Chinese Embassy in the CAR sent out warnings to its nationals, telling them to evacuate the external provincial areas of the country. Chinese officials refer to the CAR as “extremely high risk.” John S. Van Oudenaren, writing in the China Brief last week, reported that the Chinese Embassy issued the alert saying the attack demonstrated the extreme necessity of evacuating Chinese companies and nationals in areas outside the capital as soon as possible.  He adds that Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin stressed that General Secretary Xi Jinping was “closely monitoring the situation” and had instructed that immediate action be taken to ensure the safety of Chinese nationals in the CAR and to “severely punish the murderers” (严惩凶手). Exactly who perpetrated the attack remains, however, uLast week aclear, according to Oudenaren.

Russia’s Wagner Group is active near the gold mine and may have been involved. The group deployed there to protect the central government five years ago, according to the South China Morning Post. “The timing of the attack and subsequent allegations of Wagner’s  involvement was inopportune for Xi as he prepared to travel to Moscow the following day for meetings with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, as Beijing sought to position itself as a mediator in the Russia-Ukraine War,” says Oudenaren. Chinese reporters immediately started a campaign to reject Western media who insinuated that the Wagner Group was attempting to undermine Sino-Russian relations. 

Former Global Times editor Hu Xijin suggested that in the “2020s anyone who kills a Chinese national will face severe punishment and retribution.” A post on Tencent supported Hu’s statement saying: “the Central Africa Republic owes us nine lives” before going on to blame the US-led West for treating Africa as a “modern colonial territory” and creating conditions for “vicious attacks” on Chinese companies to drive them out of emerging markets. Incidents such as the gold mine murders highlight Beijing’s problem with its overseas economic expansion in areas of chronic economic instability.

The population’s widespread expectation that the government will exact swift retribution against the perpetrators of attacks on Chinese nationals overseas also puts Xi in a difficult position, according to Oudenaren. He points out that popular assumptions about the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) ability to target armed groups in distant and difficult operational environments do not align with its actual capabilities. Although the PLA is more modern than in previous decades, it possess a limited capacity to conduct complex, joint operations outside of East Asia.

In reality, the PLA and People’s Armed Police (PAP) have a minimal overseas basing presence, with the only currently operational overseas PLA base in the small Horn of Africa nation of Djibouti, reports Ta Kung Pao newspaper. This means Beijing has a limited ability to perform a strategic sea or airlift, if needed. Chinese businesses, like those of many other nations, typically rely on their home governments to secure the operating environment. The physical security gap is filled by Chinese Private Security Companies (PSC’s) who work in conjunction with local security contractors. PSC’s often include former Chinese military personnel and policemen. Beijing uses this type of set up in many locations conducting extraction of natural resources under its Belt and Road Initiative, in addition to official government forces. As China’s reach grows, so do the complications of its aggressive foreign and economic policies from the CAR, Sudan and Somalia in Africa to Afghanistan and Pakistan.    

The March killing in the CAR highlights yet another challenged China faces as it expands its economic interests beyond East Asia. The cost is not only lives lost overseas, Xi is also paying a domestic price as Chinese workers and businesses are beginning to quietly question his leadership. Xi talks publicly about China’s ability to strike anywhere at anytime yet it is proving itself unable to strike back against threats to its citizens working overseas.

Strength and weakness can be described in terms of a state’s military capabilities. Does it possess a large number of nuclear weapons? Are there many men in uniform? Does the country float attack submarines and fly modern fighter jets?

There is, however, another telltale sign that is, perhaps, even more indicative of the true strength or weakness of a society. Evidence of it occurs when party apparats of a nation-state, like Russia, and its President Vladimir Putin, fail to show the slightest consideration for its own population.

The disintegration of the Soviet Union, its 1991 Christmas gift to the world, tells only part of the story. We are witnessing the devolution of a country that had great potential. Its story unfolds today through a single example that explains why Russia, despite Putin’s attempt to recreate a Russian Empire, will ultimately fail. It also illuminates what needs to transform within the country for it to be a strong state.

Masha Moskaleva is not a name known to the world. Nor is that of her father, Alexei Moskaleva. They should be, however, as they are a prime example of the impact of the disease that terminated the Soviet Union. It has infected Russia today. Masha was a typical 11-year-old girl living about 185 miles south of Moscow in the town of Yefremov… until last month. In 1989 the community had a population of 56,740 people. By 2002 the number of its residents had decreased to 47,256, and in 2010 it stood at 42,350.

This small town is not a thriving metropolis, nor is it close to the political epicenter of the country. Yet the state viewed Masha and Alexei as an existential threat due to Masha’s crayon drawing. A child’s view of the world is colored differently than the political lens of an adult. Masha, then 11 years old, heard about the war in Ukraine. She knew tens of thousands of Russians had died fighting and Putin’s forces were killing innocent women and children. She blamed her country wanted it to end. She expressed herself through a single crayon drawing that changed her life. It is one that betrays Russia’s greatest weakness the world at large. Masha’s picture showed a clear sunny day with two stick-like missiles heading into Ukraine. On the other side was a mother dressed in the colors of Ukraine’s flag, holding a toddler’s hand, with her other raised trying to stop the incoming missiles. Behind them was a blue and yellow Ukrainian flag and an outline of two mountain peaks. On her drawing she wrote in Russian “Putin eats children.”

Masha had no clue about the threat her crayons posed to the Kremlin at the time. That soon changed.

Her father was arrested because of his child’s drawing. Masha was removed from his custody and forced to live with her estranged mother, a person who had abandoned and not seen the child in more than seven years. Alexei fled Russia knowing the sentence he faced. When he arrived in Belarus, another state run by a communist dictator, authorities detained Alexei and turned him over to Russia.

OVD-Info, a human rights group, published Alexei’s letter to his daughter begging her to ask authorities for him, if she was allowed at his hearing. It was of no use. He is now part of the ”disappeared.”

Over 700,000 children from Ukraine have been forcibly evacuated to Russia. Ms. Lvova-Belova, the Children’s Commissioner in Russia, recently called it a “humanitarian campaign” to help abandoned children. Along with Vladimir Putin, she is charged with war crimes by the International Court of Justice.

To determine the strength of society, one needs only to look at how it treats the least among them. In Russia, Masha’s story lifts the veil and exposes how it cares for the children who are its future.

Alexei and Masha’s saga depicts an inherent weakness that breeds inside the core of the Russian dictatorship. If a child, living in a small town far from the epicenter of power inside the Kremlin, can threaten a regime owning nuclear weapons, then it is weak and doomed to demise without a dramatic transformation. What is indicative of the breadth of change needed, is that few Russian citizens are calling out for justice for Masha and her father. The terminal disease common among communist dictatorships has overtaken and spread across the society.

The remaining question is, how long does Russia have before the death rattle ends.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Alarm bells are being run over the Biden Administration’s proposed defense budget, in significant part due to its failure to allow the Navy to maintain an adequate deterrent against China.

The problem is not new.  Last year, Biden’s  budget released last week called for a net loss of 15 ships.  According to a Wall Street Journal review, to coverup the shrinking force, “The Navy is essentially double-counting a ship Congress already authorized, so at eight new ships the Navy adds one for every three it would scrap.”

The move comes at an exceptionally perilous time. Already, the U.S. Navy has lagged behind China in the number of ships, with Beijing floating 355 to Washington’s 298.  China is continuing to rapidly grow its force to over 460, while America’s continues to shrink.

According to the Chairman of the House Armed Services Mike Rogers (R-AL) in a 2022 National Review interview

The Biden administration’s 30-year ship-building plan also reduces the Navy’s ability to protect its aircraft-carrier strike groups and eliminate enemy minefields, reduces the Marine Corps’ ability to conduct forcible-entry missions, and reduces by almost 10 percent our Navy’s capacity to launch missiles. Public estimates indicate that China will eventually develop a global force of submarines capable of launching ballistic missiles, posing an obvious risk to the U.S. And China’s surface-combatant forces already greatly exceed ours. It is unsettling, to say the least, that the Biden administration is shrinking our naval force under these circumstances… 
What’s worse is that China knows we are set in our ways. Former and current American Pacific commanders have indicated that maritime conflict with China could occur within the next five years — yet our Navy appears inclined to pursue a strategy that wouldn’t make it capable of meeting the Chinese threat for another 20 years. China’s regional ambitions pose one of the toughest national-security challenges America has faced in decades.”

Beijing’s aggression is not theoretical, and is not restricted to its armed designs on in invading Taiwan. 

In March, reports Radio Free Asia, “The Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) on Saturday spotted more than 40 Chinese vessels near Pag-asa, one of the islands occupied by Manila in the South China Sea. Coast Guard personnel stationed on the island – also known as Thitu – reported a People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy vessel, a China Coast Guard (CCG) vessel, and 42 suspected maritime militia vessels, anchored within 4.5 to 8 nautical miles of the shore. The PCG said this was ‘clearly in’side the land feature’s 12-nautical mile territorial sea.”

Beijing’s challenges didn’t end there, Radio Free Asia continues.  Beijing’s maritime forces then “swarmed” into Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone, a move reminiscent of China’s invasion of a similar zone in the Philippines during President Obama’s tenure, an aggression all but ignored by that former White House.

As the Heritage Foundation has pointed out, “the Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress stipulated to have “…as soon as practicable, not fewer than 355 battle force ships….” However, Biden’s budgets actually shrink the Navy’s size. Unsurprisingly, Congressional reaction to the proposed budget has been swift. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) called out the potential violation of the law. Navy vet and Rep. Elaine Luria (R-Va.) struggled to refrain from salty “sailor” language in expressing her disappointment.

In remarks to a conference on November 3, 2022, Admiral Charles A. Richard, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, stated “As I assess our level of deterrence against China, the ship is slowly sinking. as fundamentally they are putting capability in the field faster than we are. As those curves keep going, it isn’t going to matter how good our [operating plan] is or how good our commanders are, or how good our forces are—we’re not going to have enough of them. And that is a very near-term problem….”

Photo: Following the consensus reached by the militaries of China, Iran and Russia, the navies of the three countries held the Security Belt-2023 joint maritime exercise in the Gulf of Oman from March 15 to 19. (China Defence Ministry)