Month: May 2023

In April, we discussed the facial insufficiency of the Indictment brought against former President Donald Trump in Manhattan Supreme Court.    In particular, we noted that “(u)nder Section 200.50 of the New York State Criminal Procedure Law, ‘an indictment must contain…(a) statement in each count that the grand jury…accuses the defendant…of a designated offense,’ as well as ‘(a) plain and concise factual statement in each count which… asserts facts supporting every element of the offense charged and the defendant`s…commission thereof with sufficient precision to clearly apprise the defendant…of the conduct which is the subject of the accusation.'”  

Regarding this issue, we noted that each count of the Trump Indictment “contains the exact same phrase; ‘with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof’…(t)his language would appear to track the language of NY Penal Law Section 175.10, which states that ‘a person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree…when  his  intent  to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.’”  

No where does the Indictment identify the “other crimes” that Donald Trump was allegedly attempting to conceal when he falsified his business records.  On this basis alone, we argued that the Indictment is insufficient, and must be dismissed, since Trump is not properly advised of which law he allegedly broke, and cannot adequately prepare a defense. 

This issue, however, is only the tip of the iceberg of a much broader basis for a potential dismissal of Trump’s Indictment.

Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree is a Class E felony, the lowest level of felony offense under New York State law. Meanwhile, Falsifying Business Records in the Second Degree is only a Class A misdemeanor.  The Second Degree charge only requires an “intent to defraud” when a person  “(m)akes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise,”     while the First Degree requires the additional step of doing so with  “an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”  

This is a very important distinction between the felony charges brought against former President Trump, and the misdemeanor charges not brought.  Under New York’s Criminal Procedure Law Section 30.10, a prosecution for a Class E felony must be brought within five years after the commission of the crime.  A Class A misdemeanor must be brought within two years of the commission of the crime alleged. 

In May, we discussed the application of the Statute of Limitations to the felony charges brought against the former President. At that time, we stated that “(a) review of the indictment reveals that the criminal acts alleged occurred on a variety of dates between February 14, 2017 and December 5, 2017.  Yet, Donald Trump was not arraigned on these charges until April 4, 2023 – more than six years after the events happened.”  We also noted that there are several “tolls” or extensions of the five year time period for the prosecution of a criminal charge – one being  CPL Sec. 30.10(4), which states that “in calculating the time limitation applicable to commencement of a  criminal action, the following periods shall not be included: (a) Any period following the commission of the offense during  which (i)  the  defendant  was  continuously  outside  this  state or (ii) the whereabouts of the defendant were continuously unknown and  continuously unascertainable by the exercise of reasonable diligence.”  

Thus, we noted that “it is entirely possible that the time Donald Trump spent in the White House, serving his country as the President of the United States, could be used against him in New York State Supreme Court.”

We also discussed the tolling of the Statute of Limitations due to a series of Executive Orders signed by former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, which halted the running of the time to bring any legal action in New York State from March 20, 2020 to November 3, 2020, a total of approximately 8 months, or 228 days.  Yet, as we also noted, this toll would not save all 34 counts of the Trump Indictment since at least the first 22 counts are beyond the time period affected by the toll.

But let us return to the underlying issue here – what are the “other crimes” that makes this a felony prosecution, instead of a time-barred misdemeanor?

Besides the Indictment, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office also filed a Statement of Facts with the Manhattan Supreme Court. According to this document, “the Defendant (Donald Trump) orchestrated a scheme with others to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about him to suppress its publication and benefit the Defendant’s electoral prospects. In order to execute the unlawful scheme, the participants violated election laws and made and caused false entries in the business records of various entities in New York. The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme.”

In other words, the former President tried to influence a presidential election in which he was a candidate by suppressing negative information about himself.  But as stated by James Bovard in the New York Post, “(d)oes Manhattan prosecutor Alvin Bragg believe political campaigns are governed by the Boy Scout oath and every candidate must be honest, trustworthy, clean and maybe reverent, too?… Lyndon Johnson won in 1964 because he deceived Americans about the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and his plans to plunge into war in Vietnam. Richard Nixon won in 1972 in part because Americans had not heard his Oval Office tapes exposing the cover up of the Watergate break-in. President Barack Obama was re-elected in 2012 in part because Americans did not know about the vast illegal National Security Agency spying operation that Edward Snowden exposed the next year. Does anyone expect President Joe Biden to open federal files to expose his debacles during his re-election campaign?  ‘Suppressing negative information’ is standard operating procedure in Washington.”

Bovard’s point is well taken; but to be honest, it’s not the suppression of negative information that is the alleged crime – it’s the method used to cover up the payments.

According to the Statement of Facts, “at the Defendant’s request, a lawyer who then worked for the Trump Organization as Special Counsel to Defendant (“Lawyer A”), covertly paid $130,000 to an adult film actress shortly before the election to prevent her from publicizing a sexual encounter with the Defendant. Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution and served time in prison. Further, false entries were made in New York business records to effectuate this payment, separate and apart from the New York business records used to conceal the payment.”

“Lawyer A” is clearly former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, who, in August of 2018, “pleaded guilty to eight counts in federal court in New York…(t)hey include five counts of tax evasion, one count of falsifying submissions to a bank and two counts involving unlawful campaign contributions…(t)he counts related to campaign finance violations involved payments that were made to keep two women quiet during the (2016 Presidential) campaign…Cohen was ‘repaid at the direction of the candidate (Donald Trump)…with invoices for ‘services rendered.’   As described by Robert Khuzami, deputy U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York at the time of Cohen’s guilty plea, those “invoices were a sham…merely reimbursement for illegal campaign contributions.” 

What is important to notice here; Cohen plead guilty to federal charges, relating to federal election law violations, which are alleged to have occurred in the course of a federal election.

Turing again to the Statement of Facts, more details emerge regarding the nature of the “illegal campaign contributions”; “After the (2016 Presidential) election, the Defendant (Donald Trump) reimbursed Lawyer A (Michael Cohen) for the illegal payment through a series of monthly checks, first from the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust (the ‘Defendant’s Trust’)—a Trust created under the laws of New York which held the Trump Organization entity assets after the Defendant was elected President—and then from the Defendant’s bank account. Each check was processed by the Trump Organization, and each check was disguised as a payment for legal services rendered in a given month of 2017 pursuant to a retainer agreement. The payment records, kept and maintained by the Trump Organization, were false New York business records. In truth, there was no retainer agreement, and Lawyer A was not being paid for legal services rendered in 2017. The Defendant caused his entities’ business records to be falsified to disguise his and others’ criminal conduct.”

In other words, Trump is alleged to have reimbursed “Lawyer A” (Michael Cohen) for the “illegal campaign contributions” Cohen made (that is, the “hush money” payments), and then falsified his own business records to disguise these reimbursement payments as “payment for legal services rendered” by Cohen to Trump.

Let us suppose that categorizing Trump’s payments to Cohen as “reimbursement for legal services rendered” is a falsification of the business records of the Trump Organization.  That could fit the definition of Falsifying Business Records in the Second Degree – the Class A misdemeanor – “makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise.”  But we are still left with one crucial question – where is the “intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof” that makes these acts a felony under Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree?

According to a Statement issued by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg right after Donald Trump’s arraignment, “The People of the State of New York allege that Donald J. Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election… As the Statement of Facts describes, the trail of money and lies exposes a pattern that, the People allege, violates one of New York’s basic and fundamental business laws.” 

Putting this statement together with the Statement of Facts leads us to only one conclusion – the  “other crime” which elevates the charge against Trump from a misdemeanor to a felony, is a violation of federal campaign finance laws, for actions taken in the course of the 2016 Presidential election.

This leads us to another question – does the District Attorney of Manhattan, elected to serve one of the five boroughs of New York City, have the authority, the jurisdiction, to prosecute a violation of federal election law?  Even  if that underlying  federal crime serves only to support a New York State criminal charge being elevated from a misdemeanor to a felony?

Even CNN has its doubts about a federal charge serving as the basis for a state charge.   “Exactly what this underlying crime was is not specified in the indictment itself, but rather teased in an accompanying statement of facts and in prosecutors’ remarks…(t)hey describe an ‘unlawful’ scheme to influence the 2016 election by keeping damaging information about Trump from reaching the public. The district attorney’s theory, as well as the lack of transparency around how Bragg intends to lay it out, is raising concern about whether the case will stand up in court. Election law expert Rick Hasen told CNN it was “far from a slam dunk…(i)t raises some political questions whether this is the case to bring,’ said Hasen, a professor at UCLA School of Law.” Hasen also told CNN that he was “’skeptical’ that a federal campaign finance prosecution could be used to back charges in a state court.”

According to Ian Millhiser writing at Vox, “Bragg built his case on an exceedingly uncertain legal theory. Even if Trump did the things he’s accused of, it’s not clear Bragg can legally charge Trump for them,at least under the felony version of New York’s false records law.  As Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan DA’s office who played a significant role in the Trump investigation prior to his resignation in 2022 wrote in a recent book, a key legal question that will determine whether Trump can be charged under the felony version of New York’s false records law has never been resolved by any appellate court in the state of New York. The felony statute requires Bragg to prove that Trump falsified records to cover up a crime. Bragg has evidence that Trump acted to cover up a federal crime, but it is not clear that Bragg is allowed to point to a federal crime in order to charge Trump under the New York state law. The answer to this ‘gnarly legal question,’ as Pomerantz put it, is simply unknown.”

Whether DA Bragg can prove the charges brought against former President Trump is another issue, for consideration on another day.  For now, the fundamental question presented here is whether a local prosecutor can use an alleged (and to date, unspecified)  violation of federal election law as the basis for an elevation of a state criminal charge from a misdemeanor (that would be time-barred from prosecution), into a felony. 

With that question in mind, let us give the last word to George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley.  In a Fox News interview broadcast shortly after the indictment, Turley said that “[Bragg] is attempting to bootstrap [a] federal crime into a state case. And if that is the basis for the indictment, I think it’s rather outrageous…I think it’s illegally pathetic.”  

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

Illustration: Pixabay

President Biden missed an opportunity to personally shore up Washington’s diminishing influence on small but strategic governments in the Indo-Pacific. China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi recently the Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea.

Papua New Guinea’s government was prepared to honor the U.S., even declaring a public holiday for the expected Presidential visit. But the President, who had a lackluster appearance the G-7 meeting in Japan, decided to skip the event.

The Washington Post called Biden’s absence “an unforced error… by pulling out of two vital stops at the last minute, the president ended up sending exactly the opposite signal. This is a shortsighted blunder that Beijing will surely exploit when courting America’s allies and partners in Asia.

According to the United States Institute of  Peace, “Around the world, Beijing is investing heavily in diplomatic, security, cultural, and economic ties in a bid to increase its global influence, strengthen its ability to protect and advance its national interests… fracture the global consensus on key issues it views as unfavorable to its geopolitical ambitions. The Pacific Islands region—defined as the vast stretch of Pacific Ocean between Asian littoral waters in the west, Guam in the north and Hawaii in the northeast, and Australia and New Zealand in the south and southwest—has been no exception.”

It’s another misstep in relations in the crucial area, ignoring China’s startling advances.

John D. Kuhns, an entrepreneur who lives and works in Bougainville, stressed that China was using hard-pressure tactics on government officials the region to accept commercial developments that serve as a gateway to expanding Beijing’s influence.

According to  American Military News, “Daniel Suidani, an outspoken critic of the Solomon Islands’ closer ties with China, was ousted as premier of Malaita in early February after refusing ‘HUGE’ bribes from Chinese businesses who threatened to have him removed.”  Suidani’s ouster was directly orchestrated by China because he refused to yield to their wishes.

Some of the small island nations have resisted. A Foreign Policy study noted that “When China, a country of 1.4 billion people, threatened Palau, a Pacific island nation with a population of just 18,000, to switch its diplomatic ties from Taiwan to Beijing or face economic hardship in 2018, Palau did not budge. The island country remained steadfast even when China dispatched fighter jets across the Taiwan Strait after Palau’s president later visited the island. Its national philosophy can be summed up by the words of the editor of one of Palau’s two newspapers: ‘If we have the power to decide, let’s be the last man standing with Taiwan. [Other] countries will think we don’t just switch; we stay with our friends until the very end.’”

Washington is taking steps to regain some momentum. At a U.S.-Pacific Island Summit in September 2022, the Administration announced a slate of ambitious initiatives that may provide over $810 million in additional expanded area programs.

 to meet Pacific priorities.  The Biden-Harris Administration is following through on these commitments, including through opening new U.S. embassies in the region in record time and expanding our diplomatic and development engagement to unprecedented levels.  The United States is also working together with likeminded partners through the Partners in the Blue Pacific to collectively support Pacific priorities as outlined in the Pacific Islands Forum 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent.

During his time in New Guinea, said he would work with Congress for over $7.2 billion in new funding and programs for the Pacific Islands region.  

In addition to financial matters, the Biden Administration’s reluctance to adequately fund the U.S. Navy in the face of Beijing’s massive naval buildup continues to be an an issue.

Illustration: Pixabay

The facts are manifest, evident, and incontrovertible: since the start of the Obama Administration and reaching its height under the Biden Presidency, those who disagree with progressive Democrat polices have been unlawfully and substantially attacked. Victims include ordinary citizens, conservative organizations, and even Supreme Court justices.

One of the earliest episodes of this war on Americans outside the circle of leftist compliance began with Lois Lerner, an IRS official who targeted the Tea Party. The Justice Department declined to bring charges against Lois Lerner, despite the clear fact that it was eventually proven that she used her position to suppress the Tea Party. The IRS official was held in contempt of Congress for refusing to respond to questions. The failure of the Justice Department to move forward with charges was never punished.

The lack of law enforcement against Lerner gave Progressives the incentive to launch an even larger assault.   As now fully proven by the Durham investigation, the Clinton campaign, conspiring with intelligence agencies, falsely alleged that Donald Trump “colluded” with Russia in his 2016 campaign.  In addition, intelligence agencies worked with social media to defame the Republican candidate. When the allegation failed to gain traction with a skeptical public, Democrats, led by Adam Schiff (D-CA) attempted to sabotage the new president with non-stop hearings and impeachments. 

With Democrats back in control of the White following the 2020 election, and with confidence that their criminal actions would not be punished, a massive attack was launched.  Parents who disagreed with woke policies such as explicit sex lessons, drag queen lectures, and similar acts in the lower grades were labelled as “domestic terrorists.” Religious groups that merely followed their own millennia-old principles were similarly treated.

Supreme Court Justices were not immune.  Democrat Senate Majority Leader Charles “Chuck” Schumer threatened that they would “Reap the whirlwind” if they voted against a Leftist position. Federal law enforcement agencies held back on providing adequate protection at the homes of the judges. Schumer is also the Senator who introduced legislation to limit the application of the First Amendment. Tyranny and terror go hand in hand with him,

In a fiery speech in Philadelphia, Biden stated that “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic…There’s no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans. And that is a threat to this country.” Labelling political opponents as outlaws is a standard tactic in repressive regimes, a tactic the current White House employs liberally.

An analysis by the New York Post reported that Biden warns that “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic…’There’s no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans. And that is a threat to this country…’ The Biden administration was caught red-handed … funneling $100,000 from the State Department and $545,000 from the National Endowment for Democracy to the Global Disinformation Index, which used confidential blacklists to scare advertisers away from conservative-leaning news organizations.”

In contrast, the Biden White House would not characterize groups such as BLM and Antifa, who have rioted, invaded police stations, attacked federal court houses, burned and looted on a large scale, as terrorists.

Of course, it doesn’t stop with progressive presidential politics that resemble the secret police tactics of socialist regimes.  The educational system that has bred this contempt for free speech was recently illustrated by a New York professor who attacked conservative students and threatened a reporter with a machete when he sought to interview her.  She was just one example, who lost her job following all the publicity.  But there are many, many more like her.  In California, law students shouted down a visiting judge because they disagreed with his moderate views.

Disagreements about policy and party are healthy. However, when the machinery of the federal government is employed to suppress one side, that is tyranny.  That is what America now faces from the Democrat left.

Illustration: Pixabay

      

China identifies as a power that enforces political and economic order in the world. That makes it dangerous for other sovereign states when Xi Jinping decides to actively engage in relations with countries experiencing a power void. Central Asia in the post-Soviet period is such an area. It is experiencing a power vacuum since Russia’s attention is directed to pursuing its war in Ukraine. China appears intent on taking advantage of the political environment to emerge in 2023 as the predominant regional “security manager.” Its political influence operations, BRI economic projects, and miliary cooperation programs are aimed at acquiring authority in the former Soviet satellite states to the detriment of Russia’s relationship with those countries. 

Last week at the recent May 18-19 China-Central Asia Summit in Xian, China, Beijing delivered a comprehensive plan to that would effectively usurp Russia’s position in the region by extending Chinese cooperation with the Central Asian states, according to News Central Asia. Russia’s Ukraine campaign has sped up its loss of leverage in the area. 

“While this hardly means that Russia has lost all means of influencing local governments, the erosion in its ability to do so has long been visible,” says Stephen Blank in the Eurasia Daily Monitor. He adds that China has quickly stepped in to replace Russia. Xi Jinping has overseen China’s rise in Central Asia to the preeminent economic power in the region. Beijing uses its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to strengthen relations by promising to building railways, highways, ports, connectivity links, investment, energy ties alongside energy pipelines and technological development. 

China Daily and the Astana Times report that China signed a number of bilateral agreements with each of the regional governments prior to the summit enabling Beijing to upgrade relations in Central Asia. CCTV is reporting that at the summit meeting China offered and signed an agreement worth 26 billion yuan ($3.68 billion) in new infrastructure investments to the governments of Central Asia. The dual result is that China has greater influence in Central Asia while supplanting Russia’s position as the security guarantor. In his keynote speech, Chinese President Xi Jinping noted that “The sovereignty, security, independence and territorial integrity of Central Asian countries must be upheld; their people’s choice of development paths must be respected; and their efforts for peace, harmony and tranquility must be supported.” Blank says this statement represents a veiled, but nonetheless clear, attack on Russian officials and media personalities who have frequently raised the question of invading Kazakhstan and seizing Northern Kazakhstan, alleging the region to be Russian territory.  

TASS earlier pointed out that President Xi had previously defended Kazakhstan’s sovereignty and integrity, but this statement enlarged his frame of reference to include “all of Central Asia and implicitly declared China as the principal security manager in the region.” China’s vision is expansive and long-term. Xi wants conformity with Beijing’s major foreign policy programs, including BRI, Global Development, Global Civilization and its Global Security Initiatives. Blank says this constitutes an attempt to subordinate the independence of the Central Asian states to the larger demands and concepts of Chinese foreign and security policy.  

Xi has taken a radical step forward at the summit. Some analysts call it an innovation in Chinese policy in the region since China is offering to provide mechanisms of so-called “hard security,” defense and cooperation in law enforcement. According to Xi, “China is ready to help Central Asian countries strengthen capacity building on law enforcement, security and defense, support their independent efforts to safeguard regional security and fight terrorism, and work with them to promote cybersecurity.” It is a clear indication of Beijing’s intent to replace Moscow as the key security provider. Analysts point out that Xi views Russia as subordinate to China, playing a vassal-like role as China gains leverage over Central Asia. The power struggle is not over. China’s BRI projects are not meeting expectations and the war in Ukraine has presented the West with multiple opportunities to exhibit its superior economic power to cultivate increased cooperation through programs of sustained large-scale investment, which will likely be welcomed in the region. “In other words,” Blank notes, “while the regional governments all need and want sizable Chinese investment, they prefer to maintain a multi-vector approach to foreign relations.” If the West fails to be attentive to the region, and China fully seizes the opportunity to exclude other major powers, the Central Asian states could fall under China’s influence as they were once under Russia in the past.  

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

Putin is on the hunt, but not in the way you might think. According to the Russian news service TASS, Uzbekistani Energy Minister Jurabek Mirzamakhmudov recently announced that Russia would begin supplying his country with natural gas via its Soviet-era pipelines. Prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it  was supplying about 140 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas to Europe annually. John Daly, of the Jamestown Foundation, says that Europe was Russia’s most lucrative export market and as a result of sanctions, “Central Asia has become a crucial area for Russia’s energy export needs, with Uzbekistan playing a key role.” The Central Asian state was experiencing a severe energy crisis and in January started importing Russian gas, according to an earlier AP report, “… [like] its Central Asian neighbors Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, Uzbekistan suffers from frequent power and heating outages due to its aging Soviet-era infrastructure.” 

Some energy analysts are speculating that Russia is attempting to draw in its southern neighbors to create a tripartite gas union. Temur Umaroc, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes that it won’t be easy for Russia to do it, although it “wants to gain control over Central Asian exports to China” by encouraging Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan to join it. 

In the post World War II period the Soviet Union exploited Central Asian hydrocarbon deposits in the region to fulfill its domestic demand. Today, in the post-Soviet period “hydrocarbon exports have become an increasingly integral component for the economies of the post-Soviet states in the Caucasus and Central Asia, particularly those surrounding the hydrocarbon-rich Caspian Sea,” says Umaroc. One issue is that Uzbekistan does not have excessive gas deposits and has challenges meeting its own internal needs, unlike Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Last winter Uzbekistan suffered from severe shortages due, in large part, to economic development that raised its energy demands.

 Russia recognizes that over 80% of Uzbekistan’s energy derives from gas. The Central Asian country’s outputs are insufficient to cover its rapidly growing domestic consumption and export obligations. Domestic consumption is increasing 7-10% annually, along with the country’s expanding population. Moscow is using its 1960’s-built network of pipelines that had run north from Turkmenistan via Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan to the USSR by reversing the flow of gas. The Truboprovodnaiia sistema Sredniaia Aziia-Tsentr network (Central Asia-Center pipeline system; SATS) now controlled by Gazprom can handle 50 bcm of gas annually. It covers most of what was called Soviet Central Asia.

Russian natural gas exports to Uzbekistan in March alone, according to Umaroc, grew exponentially. It represents a 260 percent increase over the same period in 2022 and provided over $150 million in revenue for Moscow in the first quarter of 2023. This reorientation away from the sabotaged Nord Stream One and Two  subsea pipelines, along with Western sanctions, has provided Gazprom with new and extensive business opportunities. The repurposed, 60-year-old, SATS-4 pipeline is still undergoing renovations to aid in handling the extreme climatic conditions in the Kyzylkum and Karakum deserts. Once completed, Neftegaz.ru reports Russia will re-equip and upgrade it to operate in reverse. In past years the pipeline has experienced major accidents, fires, and explosions, including a 2009 incident on the Turkmenistan portion of the SATS-4 pipeline that took almost a year to repair and damaged Russia’s relations with the country. Today, Russia, China and the United States are competing for influence in the Central Asian region. Reliable energy supplies are an important factor for improving economies in a land-locked region that is geographically isolated. It may cause these states to rely more heavily on Russia, while providing Putin with needed revenue. The remaining unknown is at what cost to the region. China also has plans in Central Asia that may bring the two nuclear powers to loggerheads.

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

If you only glance at the headlines in recent years, you would believe that there is no longer any acknowledgment of the right to self defense by police and prosecutors.  

To cite just a few examples:

On January 30, Arizona Rancher George Kelly allegedly shot and killed an illegal alien crossing Kelly’s property.  The trespasser, Gabriel Cuen-Butimea, was in the company of a group of armed men, and may have been armed himself at the time he was killed.  Despite Kelly’s right to defend his property, himself and his family from armed intruders on his land, and regardless of Arizona’s “Stand Your Ground” laws, Kelly was arrested, charged with murder, and is currently awaiting trial in Santa Cruz County, Arizona.

Also in January, Pro Life activist Mark Houck was put on trial in federal court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for pushing a Pro-Abortion activist named Bruce Love away from Mr. Houck’s 12 year old son.  Despite video that showed Love instigated the incident by harassing Houck’s minor son, federal prosecutors went forward with a five day trial, that ended in a full acquittal of Mr. Houck after only one hour of deliberation by the jury.

Then, on March 30, a security guard was arrested by Port Authority Police in New York City for allegedly assaulting a shoplifter who was in the process of stealing from the store and assaulting the guard.  Retired NYPD officer Salvatore Lopiccolo caught Rahmell Coleman stealing from the Walgreens located in the Port Authority Bus Terminal in midtown Manhattan and escorted him from the premises, telling him not to come back.  But Coleman did come back and stole more property. “Lopiccolo stopped Coleman at the door when the scuffle broke out…Coleman allegedly whacked the retired officer in the head with the bag of food before Lopiccolo tackled him to the ground… officers ended up charging both Coleman and Lopiccolo.”  According to Fox News, “Coleman has at least five prior arrests, including an incident where he allegedly punched a man multiple times outside Penn Station and took his cellphone,” and “failed to show up to his recent court date for assault and harassment charges in connection to the incident” with Lopiccolo.  

Lopiccolo told Fox News that he has been unable to work as an armed guard since his arrest.

Now, the most recent case involves an incident which occurred on the New York City subway early this May.

According to CNN,  “Juan Alberto Vazquez said he was riding the subway when he saw a man, later identified as (former street performer Jordan) Neely, enter the car just as the doors were closing. Neely immediately launched into an aggressive rant about being ‘fed up and hungry’ and ‘tired of having nothing,’ Vazquez said. Vazquez quoted Neely as saying: ‘I don’t care if I die. I don’t care if I go to jail. I don’t have any food … I’m done.’ Neely then took off his coat and threw it on the floor and said he was ready to go to jail and get a life sentence, Vazquez said. Many passengers became visibly uncomfortable and moved to other parts of the train car…(a)nother rider then approached Neely from behind and put him in a chokehold, Vazquez said.” 

Neely subsequently died after first being rendered unconscious. “The New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner confirmed to CBS News…that the cause of death…was determined to be ‘compression of neck’ or a ‘chokehold.'”

According to CNN, “(b)efore his death, Neely had been on a NYC Department of Homeless Services list of the city’s homeless with acute needs…(he) had a lengthy arrest record with New York police, a law enforcement source told CNN’s John Miller, including 42 arrests on charges including petty larceny, jumping subway turnstiles, theft, and three unprovoked assaults on women in the subway between 2019 and 2021.” 

Who was it that decided to stop Neely before he could hurt anyone on that train?

“Daniel Penny...who served as a Marine infantryman from 2017–2021…(who) was promoted to sergeant while in the Individual Ready Reserve. He deployed to the Mediterranean with the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit from December 2018 to July 2019. Penny was last assigned to 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines, an infantry unit that falls under 2nd Marine Division, based at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. His military awards include the Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal and Sea Service Deployment Ribbon,” this last being awarded twice to Penny.

Clearly, Penny is an honorable man, with an exemplary record of service to his country.  Neely, on the other hand, was a repeat offender, who was violently threatening Penny’s fellow passengers on the New York City Subway.

It is tragic that Neely died.  But are Penny’s actions criminal, or were they in defense of himself and his fellow subway riders?

Predictably, according to a spokesman for Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, “Daniel Penny will be arrested on a charge of manslaughter in the second degree,”    and true to the DA’s word, Penny was arraigned on May 12, 2023 in Manhattan Criminal Court for that charge.   

Penny was “freed pending trial hours after turning himself in at a police station and appearing in court…(a) judge authorized Penny’s release on $100,000 bond and ordered him to surrender his passport and not to leave New York without approval. Prosecutors said they are seeking a grand jury indictment. Penny is due back in court on July 17.”

Under New York State Penal Law Section 125.15, “A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when…He recklessly causes the death of another person.”  “Recklessness” is defined in Criminal Procedure Law Section 15.05(3) as follows; “A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance…when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.”

As described by New York City Criminal Attorney Jeffrey Lichtman, “(t) he most classic example of Manslaughter in the Second Degree is a person pointing a loaded gun towards a crowd of people and firing. Even if the shooter did not intend for any specific person to die, a prosecutor can argue that they knew that there was a substantial likelihood that their actions would result in a death.”

But let us consider the circumstances where a defendant’s conduct has actually been determined to satisfy the legal requirements for the charge of Manslaughter in the Second Degree under New York law.

In People v. Maldonado, the defendant stole a motor vehicle, and struck and killed a pedestrian while fleeing from the police.  The defendant was originally convicted of  Murder for acting with “depraved indifference” to human life, however, the New York State Court of Appeals  felt that  the “defendant sought to mitigate the consequences of his reckless driving because he ‘actively attempt[ed] to avoid hitting other vehicles’ by swerving, conduct which establishes a lack of depraved indifference.”  

The Court held this way despite the fact that the “defendant drove on the wrong side of the road,” and even though “(t)he victim hit the passenger side of the minivan’s windshield with such force that her body landed more than 100 feet down the avenue (and) died at the scene.” Regardless of these facts, the Court stated “Defendant was unquestionably reckless, but he was not depravedly indifferent as we have defined and interpreted that state of mind.”  

Further, in People v Gaworecki, the same Court found that a drug dealer who sold five bags of heroin to a person who subsequently died of an overdose was not guilty of Manslaughter in the Second Degree. Incredibly, the Court stated that “the evidence presented to the grand jury failed to establish…that defendant acted…with the recklessness required to sustain the charge of second-degree manslaughter… the People presented insufficient evidence that defendant was aware of, or failed to perceive, a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death from the heroin he was selling…when he sold heroin to the decedent.”

These few examples may give some idea of the level of proof necessary to establish that Daniel Penny’s actions were criminally “reckless.”  What is more reckless – striking and killing a pedestrian with a stolen vehicle, selling heroin that kills the user, or placing an aggressive, threatening  panhandler in a chokehold? 

It is also important to note that under New York’s Criminal Procedure Law Section 35.10, “(t)he use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal (when) (a) person (uses)  physical  force upon another person in self-defense or defense of a third person.”

The witness interviewed by CNN, Juan Alberto Vazquez, stated that Neely had thrown his coat to the floor of the train car, and stated that he did not care if he went to jail and got a life sentence.  Vazquez also described other passengers being visibly uncomfortable, and making efforts to move away from Neely.  Is it reasonable for Penny to believe Neely to be a threat to himself and others in that train before he placed Neely into a chokehold?

The arraignment of Daniel Penny is only the first step in this prosecution.  The Manhattan DA must now convince a Grand Jury that Penny acted while “consciously disregard(ing) a substantial and unjustifiable risk” that his actions could cause the death of Neely.  In reasonable times, reasonable minds may have concluded that Penny’s actions, while well intentioned, went tragically wrong – that is, Penny may have been negligent, but not criminally so.

But these are not reasonable times.  As recounted above, there is a recent, widespread pattern of ignoring the law of self-defense, and prosecuting people who, in the past, may have been considered justified in the actions they take.

Why has this become a prevailing viewpoint?  Perhaps the answer lies in an examination of the basic purpose for the law of self defense.  As described by Professor Michael O’Hear of Marquette Univeristy Law School, while discussing a paper written by Professor Janine Young Kim of Chapman University, “why (do) we have government and criminal law in the first place: to protect ourselves from interpersonal violence…If we understand this to be the purpose of criminal law, then we can see the self-defender as someone whose motives are congruent with the very reason we have criminal law: the prevention of violence. As Janie puts it, ‘This account helps to explain why our understanding of self-defense is often more intuitive than deliberate. The rationale behind self-defense is both basic and familiar because it constitutes the foundation of our notion of an organized, civilized society’. Put differently, since the whole point of the social contract is to protect ourselves from violence, it would make no sense to have a legal system…that punishes people for their individual efforts to protect themselves from violence.”

Indeed.  And judging by the examples cited here, isn’t it clear that there currently are certain leaders of our society, particularly certain prosecutors like Alvin Bragg, who do not believe in the “social contract” intended by the existing justice system, and seek to punish people for protecting themselves and others from violence? 

Just ask Jose Alba.

As reported in the Daily Mail, “Alba…was working at the Blue Moon deli (in Manhattan) on July 1 (2022) when he fatally stabbed (Austin) Simon in the neck and chest….(s)urveillance footage clearly showed that Simon had moved behind the counter at the convenience store in Hamilton Heights and pushed the store clerk into a stack of shelves before grabbing him. It was only then that Alba reached over to a shelf and pulled out a knife to fight back.” 

Alba was originally charged with Murder in the Second Degree by the Manhattan DA.  But after only a month, Bragg dropped the case, admitting he could not prove the charge.   “District Attorney Bragg had faced intense criticism after charging Alba, including from Mayor Eric Adams.”  

As the situation was described by Billy Binion in Reason, “(p)eople will disagree on why Bragg charted his initial course and why he decided to reverse it. But I’ll posit a theory: Progressive prosecutors, and some criminal justice reformers generally, sometimes have a blind spot for self-defense claims, particularly when they may empathize with the person killed. As I wrote shortly after the murder charge was filed: ‘Simon was black, poor, and caught up in the criminal justice system. And so now Alba—himself neither white nor well-off—is caught up in the criminal justice system too.’ It’s hard to see who wins here.” 

Unlike Alba, Penny is white, and appears to be in a better social and economic situation than Neely, who was black.  Yet, like Alba, Penny has the exact same right to self-defense, as do we all.  Will Alvin Bragg continue to ignore that right, and hope that a Grand Jury will ignore it too?

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

Illustration: Pixabay

President Biden’s open border policy is costing the taxpayers billions, enriching criminal cartels, increasing human trafficking and fentanyl use, and allowing international terrorists to enter the nation.

Biden, his Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas, and their Congressional supporters, rather than address the issue, dishonestly allege that the border is “under control.”  The facts clearly demonstrate otherwise. Chief Raul Ortiz, the chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, has testified that his agency does not have “operational control” over the border.

Recently, the House Committee on Homeland Security held a hearing on the issue in Texas.  Not a single Democrat showed up.

House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Mark E. Green, MD (R-TN) described the reason for the meeting: “4.7 million encounters, 1.3 million ‘gottaways’– we don’t know who those people are, where they are, but in the encounter number we know drug seizures are up, individuals on the terrorist watch list are up. All at record numbers. Six million people.  In just the two years of Secretary Mayorkas’ rein at DHS, more people have come into this country than all of the eight years of the Obama presidency and all four years of the Trump presidency combined.”

The encounter numbers show dramatic increases in illegal drug criminals crossing into the U.S., as well as individuals on the terrorist watch.  In just the two years of Secretary Mayorkas’ tenure at DHS, more people have come into this country, six million, than all of the eight years of the Obama presidency and all four years of the Trump presidency combined.

Chairman Green states that “It is clear to me, in violation of the laws written by the United States Congress, passed and signed by previous presidents, this secretary of DHS wants nothing more than to flood the country with people. And the problem with that is, it has empowered the narco-human trafficking terrorist cartels. The drug cartels who just captured and killed a couple of Americans and are making billions bringing people into the United States, many of whom once they’re here have to pay the cartels back with forced criminal labor. The cartels put out advertisements all over the world, $50,000 if you’re coming from China, $30,000 if you’re coming from Iran, $10-$15,000 if you’re coming from Central America. They then flood those people in mass waves just like we saw in El Paso this week, compelling the Border Patrol to focus its resources at the Ports of Entry. To use a military term, the cartels are neutralizing Customs and Border Patrol by forcing them to thin the lines in the rural areas. Then the fentanyl and the nefarious folks that they are trafficking into the United States come across in rural areas.”

There is little hope that, despite the criminal devastion and national security threat, the White House will  change its policy. According to a budget analysis by the Federation for American Immigration Reform “Not content with the $151 billion that American taxpayers are already on the hook for to illegal aliens every year, President Biden’s budget cuts the Department of Homeland Security’s budget by one percent to a level of $60.4 billion.”

 Other provisions include: $7.3 billion to the Office of Refugee Resettlement to support a goal of admitting 125,000 refugees while asylum seekers flood the southern border; $430 million to the Department of State to promote the radical Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection, $150 million to bolster the efforts of legal advocacy organizations and make immigration proceedings “more equitable,” and funding to hire an additional 460 “processing assistants” at CBP and ICE to more efficiently welcome in illegal aliens.

Illustration: Pixabay

In March of this year, we addressed the medical malpractice lawsuit brought by Chloe Cole, a young woman who underwent medical treatment, including hormone blockers and breast removal surgery, while a minor.  Miss Cole realized that transitioning to a man was not the answer to her various mental health issues, and has transitioned back to the sexual identity with which she was born. 

In an interview with Fox News Host Tucker Carlson, Cole said “I made an adult decision as a child… I want to hold the adults that put me in harm’s way accountable because what happened to me is horrible, but it also didn’t only happen to me, that’s the worst part. It’s happening to children all over the U.S., all over the West, and it’s spreading all over the world.” 

 Miss Cole is absolutely right.  The transitioning of children from male to female, and female to male, is happening everywhere.

And much of this unnecessary medical treatment is based on a lie, unsupported by objective evidence.

In Minnesota, the State’s House of Representatives recently passed a bill “that would establish the state as a ‘trans refuge’ for children who are seeking transgender medical procedures but who may be denied ‘gender-affirming care’ in other states…Democrats supporting the bill say the legislation will protect transgender people, their families and healthcare providers from facing legal repercussions for traveling to Minnesota to obtain cross-sex hormone prescriptions or sex-change procedures.”

The Bill, HF 146, provides that “(a) law of another state that authorizes a state agency to remove a child from the child’s parent or guardian because the parent or guardian allowed the child to receive gender-affirming health care…is against the public policy of this state and must not be enforced or applied in a case pending in a court in this state. A court order for the removal of a child issued in another state because the child’s parent or guardian assisted the child in receiving gender-affirming care in this state
must not be enforced in this state.”  Further, “(n)o subpoena shall be issued and no foreign subpoena shall be recognized in this state in a criminal or civil matter if the subpoena is related to a violation of another state’s laws when the other state’s laws are designed to interfere with an individual’s right to receive gender-affirming health care.”

The Bill defines “gender affirming care” as “medically necessary health care or mental health care that respects the gender identity of the patient, as experienced and defined by the patient.”

HF 146 is sponsored by Rep. Leigh Finke, a member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and Minnesota’s first transgender lawmaker.  In support of the Bill, Finke said “Gender-affirming care is lifesaving health care…(w)ithholding or delaying gender-affirming care can have a dramatic impact on the mental health of any individual who needs it. Rates of depression, suicide, substance abuse are dramatically higher in transgender and gender-expansive individuals who lack access to care.”

Is this true?  Are rates of suicide higher for minors who are not allowed to transition before they reach their majority?  In general, do adults who transition commit suicide any less than those who do not?  Is “gender affirming care” actually “medically necessary?”

Many of the doctors who are engaged in the booming business of gender transition surgery seem to think so.  According to the Notice of Intent to sue filed by the attorney for Chloe Cole, “Chloe and her parents were…informed that the only way to resolve Chloe’s gender dysphoria was to proceed with opposite sex hormone therapy and surgical intervention. Chloe is informed that (the medical professionals) presented Chloe’s parents with misleading statistics about transgender suicide and gave them the ultimatum: ‘Would you rather have a dead daughter or a live son?’”

There is medical research available that indicates this choice is false – that “gender affirming care” is not the least bit “medically necessary” or even “lifesaving.”

A study conducted in Sweden and published in 2011 found that of “324 sex-reassigned persons (191 male-to-females, 133 female-to-males)” studied between 1973 and 2003, “(t)he overall mortality for sex-reassigned persons was higher during follow-up…than for controls of the same birth sex, particularly death from suicide…Sex-reassigned persons also had an increased risk for suicide attempts…and psychiatric inpatient care.”  The conclusion of this study? “Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.”

In other words, people who transitioned from one sex to the other were more likely to commit suicide than those who did not.

The Swedish study is not the only scientific analysis that has come up with similar findings.  According to the Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine (SEGM),  “(i)n October 2019, the American Journal of Psychiatry (AJP) published a study from the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, and the Yale School of Public Health which reported that ‘gender-affirming’ surgeries for gender dysphoric patients are associated with improved mental health outcomes…(t)he study analyzed health records of 2,679 Swedes diagnosed with gender dysphoria between 2005 and 2015 to determine whether hormonal or surgical treatments improved their mental health over time… After the study was published, many researchers and scientists (including some SEGM advisors) alerted the AJP to multiple serious methodological problems that challenged the study’s conclusion. In response, the AJP editor requested an independent statistical review of the data, which led to a reanalysis of the data and an official correction. When gender dysphoric patients who received surgeries were compared to those who did not have surgeries, there was no statistically significant difference in their mental health utilization. Nine months after the study’s original publication, the AJP stated, ‘the results [of the reanalysis] demonstrated no advantage of surgery in relation to subsequent mood or anxiety disorder-related health care visits or prescriptions or hospitalizations following suicide attempts.’” 

In fact, the SEGM’s official position is that “(t)he mental health needs of people suffering from gender dysphoria are significantly greater than those of the general population, which confirms previous research…No mental health benefit of hormonal interventions was demonstrated (and) No mental health benefit of ‘gender-affirming’ surgery was demonstrated.”

There are, of course, other studies which support the “medical necessity” for “gender affirming” surgery.  But Sweden stands behind the findings of their country’s medical researchers; “Sweden decided in February 2022 to halt hormone therapy for minors except in very rare cases, and in December, the National Board of Health and Welfare said mastectomies for teenage girls wanting to transition should be limited to a research setting. ‘The uncertain state of knowledge calls for caution,’ Board department head Thomas Linden said in a statement in December…The profile of those diagnosed is often complex, according to Linden, as gender dysphoria often occurs in those also suffering from other diagnoses, such as attention deficit and eating disorders or autism…Neighbouring Finland took a similar decision in 2020, while France has called for ‘the utmost reserve’ on hormone treatments for young people.” 

In an article for the Heritage Foundation, Ryan Anderson writes that “the medical evidence suggests that sex reassignment does not adequately address the psychosocial difficulties faced by people who identify as transgender. Even when the procedures are successful technically and cosmetically, and even in cultures that are relatively ‘trans-friendly,’ transitioners still face poor outcomes… a review of ‘more than 100 follow-up studies of post-operative transsexuals’ by Birmingham University’s Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility (found that) none of the studies provides conclusive evidence that gender reassignment is beneficial for patients. It found that most research was poorly designed, which skewed the results in favor of physically changing sex. There was no evaluation of whether other treatments, such as long-term counseling, might help transsexuals, or whether their gender confusion might lessen over time.” 

In other words, supporters of gender reassignment surgery, particularly for minors, may sincerely believe that young people with gender dysphoria absolutely need hormone blockers and the removal of their breasts or sexual organs to save their lives.  But if so, those true believers in the performance of such radical medical procedures on children are proponents of a lie, unsupported by responsible medical research.

Before the State of Minnesota becomes a “trans refuge” and refuses to return minors to states which outlaw medical experiments on children, perhaps a more extensive review of the medical support for a belief that any lives are saved by “gender affirming care” is prudent and necessary.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

As the Russian and Ukrainian forces gear up for the spring offensive, all is not quiet elsewhere. It is an open secret that the Kremlin’s Wagner Group is operating in Africa with thousands of mercenaries active in a number of countries. Often labeled as “Russian instructors” these soldiers are supporting African government troops in places like the Central Africa Republic (CAR), where 1,890 are involved in the ongoing civil war. In Libya, over 1,200 Wagner mercenaries are fighting with Rebel leader Khalifa Hifter. Mali’s anti-Western military junta includes hundreds of Wagner Group fighters, many of whom have been accused of gross human rights violations, according to David Ehl, writing in AllAfrica.com. Their reach has grown over time from that of a private military contractor into a large business organization with alliances among many companies across the African continent. 

During the February Munich Security Conference African analyst Julian Rademeyer, who works for the Global Initiative against Transnational Organized Crime (GI-TOC), said that the Group is a vehicle for Russian influence operations and “…operates in this legal gray zone between illicit activities and more legal illicit activities.” Referring to a recent GI-TOC report, Rademeyer says the Wagner Group is “… the most influential Russian actor operating in Africa today, and that its activities and the network of front companies that bolster it are a malign influence on the continent.”

Although Russia is actively involved in the war in Ukraine, it has not stopped its malevolent activities elsewhere in the world. Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister, has made state visits to African countries to discuss arms deals, military cooperation and offers of food and fertilizer in return for cooperation in UN votes. It appears to be working, as Russia has obtained 15 abstentions from Africa countries on resolutions concerning its war in Ukraine. Wagner’s founder, Yevgeny Prigozhin, is loyal to Putin and aids his war effort. The Group has extended its reach beyond physical involvement since 2014 to include a role in a newer organization called the Internet Research Agency. This affiliate is responsible for aiding in Russia’s disinformation campaigns by infiltrating social media, especially in Western societies. GI-TOC research, notes Rademeyer, has found that the Wagner Group has also engaged in campaigns to influence African populations, in general. 

Gabriel, a pseudonym used by a representative of the All Eyes on Wagner research collective, which monitors Wagner Group worldwide, says the Group is allowed to operate mostly outside of Russia and that when on the ground often belongs to subsidiary companies.  He adds that “There is an approval from the Kremlin every time that the Wagner brand develops its activities in Africa.” All Eyes on Wagner reports that the group has partnered with 11 European media outlets and is raking in huge profits from logging tropical timber in 722 square miles of CAR territory. Another so-called subsidiary is mining gold from the Ndassima mine in the country. They import heavy mining equipment through the Cameroonian seaport of Douala. Gabriel says that up to three truck convoys are organized weekly from Bangui to Douala to transport the raw materials out. The convoys are escorted by heavily armed Wagner Group mercenaries. For cash poor African states, the Wagner Group is a positive asset as officials can barter the raw material mined for the Group’s protection in transporting it. 

Although some Wagner Group mercenaries have been pulled out to support the war in Ukraine, it continues to expand and diversify its African operations.  Recently in the CAR, it forced the French sugar company SUCAF out of the market, says Joseph Bendounga, head of the MDREC opposition party there.

He points out the Wagner Group is “… in the process of framing the French brewery Castel for supporting and financing terrorist forces… In all areas that bring in money, including customs and taxes, the Russians are the masters.” This includes beer and other liquor. A spokesperson for the Russian Embassy in the Central Africa Republic told DW.com that “It’s going well, because drinks made according to Russian recipes are very popular in the Central African Republic,” and that popularizing Russian culture and doing business with the CAR population is a priority. A so-called private investor can do what he wants, the spokesman said: “After all, this is the law of the free market.”

European officials point out that Wagner Group is also penetrating new mineral-rich areas by exploiting the exit of Western powers and creating alliances with local fighters. “The concern is that Wagner will keep metastasizing and growing within an African context unless there are interventions to prevent those influences, and also unless European partners and countries work far better with their African counterparts,” according to Rademeyer. Earlier this year, the US Treasury Department designated the group as a transnational criminal organization over its actions in combat operations in Ukraine on behalf of Russia. 

Although they may have fewer mercenaries in Africa, the intensity and breadth of Wagner’s operations are continuing to expand despite attempts to limit their activities. Russia, as a result, is gaining influence and needed support for its war effort in Ukraine. One senior US official admitted that Washington believes Wagner’s founder, Yevgeny Prigozhin, is also aggressively planning to destabilize the Chadian transition government and has offered Chadian rebels’ material and operational support to execute a plot, which may include plans to eliminate Chadian Transition President Mahamat Idriss Deby, in order to seize control of the government of Chad.”  The Wagner Group, run by Vladimir Putin’s oligarch, is becoming more dangerous and pervasive in Africa this spring, despite attempts to expose their operations.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

The Federation of American Scientists reports that “Despite progress in reducing nuclear weapon arsenals since the Cold War, the world’s combined inventory of nuclear warheads remains at a very high level: nine countries possessed roughly 12,500 warheads as of early-2023.” The most dangerous, perhaps, is China’s nuclear program. It is shrouded in secrecy, with few delineations between civilian and military uses of science and technology, and totally devoid of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections since 2017. There are some facts we do know about China’s nuclear stockpile and how that compares to that of other nation-states. With strong disinformation, misinformation and propaganda programs, and an overabundance of data filling the Internet today, China has successful distracted much of the world attention away from its current nuclear buildup. It is often overlooked or de-emphasized in the media despite its threat to the national security of countries around the world, including that of the United States.

The Pentagon’s 2022 Report to Congress assesses that within the next seven years China will possess over 1,000 nuclear warheads, most of which will be capable of hitting targets inside the continental United States. China already has 410-armed ICBM missiles in silos, and perhaps more that have yet to be counted, according to an intelligence analyst in Washington. Worse yet, if China’s rate of buildup of its nuclear arsenal continues at the current level, the world will face a threat from a communist regime intent on remaking the world order in its own image, backed by the power of 1,500+ nuclear weapons.

Beyond counting the number of warheads, it is important to understand how China’s nuclear triad is designed to deliver the weapons. First, each warhead requires fissile materials. These can include plutonium, highly enriched uranium, and tritium. Production of the latter is a newer capability for China. Tritium can boost output from both fusion and thermonuclear weapons. China is also stockpiling inventories of highly enriched plutonium as well as tritium. 

China’s Communist Party (CCP) elevated its aggressive military-civilian fusion (MCF) to a national strategy in 2014 to help the country systematically reorganize science and technology enterprises. The goal is to ensure it acquires new innovations to help it emerge as a world-class economic and military power by 2049. CMF not only takes down barriers between the public and so-called, private sector in China to speed the development and transfer of advanced technologies useful to the military, it also supports surreptitiously acquired and diverted cutting-edge technologies through theft. 

Analysts report that the CCP is using these advanced technologies in fast-breeder, civilian nuclear reactors to provide the increased stock of uranium needed for the country’s expanding nuclear program. There are two commercial CFR-600 sodium-cooled reactors under construction in coastal Fujian Province on Chiangbiao Island, just across the Strait from Taiwan. One is coming online this year and the second is expected to be operational in 2027. Their design, using liquid sodium for cooling, enables China to use a broader range of temperatures and experience less interactivity than with water-cooled reactors. The result, according to the US Department of Defense report, is that these two plants alone could provide enough fissile material to make 1,270 nuclear warheads by 2030. 

China’s current stockpile of missiles can be launched from land, sea, or air. Since 2021 China has built 3 new missile silo fields for solid-fuel ICBM’s. It also expanded construction of new silos for its liquid-fueled DF-5 ICBM’s and began replacing the older version of its short-range ballistic missiles with hypersonic glide vehicles. Xi Jinping is also overseeing the refitting of China’s six Type-094 ballistic submarines to launch the longer-range JL-3 ballistic missile. Recently the Peoples’ Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) reassigned a nuclear mission to its bomber while simultaneously developing an air-launched ballistic missile that US intelligence sources believes has a nuclear capability. 

Perhaps most concerning to China’s adversaries is the CCP leadership’s intentions. Beijing stopped reporting to the IAEA in 2017 and its nuclear program remains heavily cloaked in secrecy. The MCF, according to the US State Department, reduces trust, transparency, reciprocity, and the shared values that underpin international science and technology collaboration. Xi Jinping and the CCP have provided a high level of financial and policy support for its offensive weapons program. Given China’s publicly stated goal of remaking the world in its own image, and led by the CCP, its nuclear program deserves to have a bright spotlight placed on it by every nation.

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