Month: September 2023

Is paramount leader Xi Jinping (习近平) in trouble? At the Chinese seaside resort Beidaihe, high-ranked leaders and invited elders of the CCP held their annual summer, closed-door meeting to exchange viewpoints on topics of importance to China. Now 70 years old and under increasing pressure domestically from a floundering anemic economy, and internationally from foreign leaders upset with Beijing’s foreign and defense policies, some are speculating that Xi’s time in power may be entering its dénouement. Like many other authoritarian figures, Xi purges those who oppose him and his policies to maintain a tight-fisted, Machiavellian hold on political power. The recent purges are unusual in the breadth and depth that they cover.

Nikkei’s Katsuji Nakazawa reports that testimony by “sources familiar with China’s internal affairs offers a rare glimpse into the summer conclave: ‘Only several powerful and selected party elders were at Beidaihe this summer…One of the elders was from the People’s Liberation Army…. After a meeting with the elders, Xi vented his anger in front of close aides.’” Chinese communist leaders in the past have reassigned or purged military leaders who gained too much power or could threaten them. Xi is no different in his recent actions. However, this time Xi himself may be in danger of losing absolute control over the party and state.

During the summer it is believed Xi ordered several dozen officials detained or ousted. They were accused of failing to carry out orders, leaking state secrets, found corrupt, or thought to have committed other minor infractions. There is no public explanation from Beijing that explains Xi’s actions. It does give rise to the notion that Xi himself is no longer the sole puppet master, although younger officials who are aligned with the Xi Jinping Faction still hold a large number of seats on the CCP Central Committee, the Politburo,  the Politburo Standing Committee (PBSC), and in high-ranked PLA command positions. The extent of the purges, according to Western analysts, is broader and more extensive than expected.

One of Xi’s strongest supporters, Foreign Minister Qin Gang (秦刚), abruptly “disappeared” for more than eight weeks before officially losing his position to the former foreign minister, Wang Yi (王毅).  Another mystery surrounds China’s Defense Minister, General Li Shangfu (李尚福), according to Willy Wo-Lap Lam of the Jamestown Foundation. Li had several decades of high-level managerial experience in China’s missile, space, and nuclear hardware procurement programs when he abruptly “disappeared” for three weeks, with China refusing to confirm if he still held his position at the time.

Earlier this month media reports revealed that Li was accused of massive corruption surrounding the purchasing of military equipment during his tenure as head of the CMC Equipment Development Department. He was detained on September 1. Voice of America reported last week that this coincides with a purge within the PLA Rocket Force. It appears that more than ten top-echelon Rocket Force officers, including its commander General Li Yuchao (李玉超) and political commissar General Xu Zhongbo (徐忠波) were brought in for investigation by military discipline departments and state security authorities. Accusations range from corruption charges to divulging secrets to American intelligence officers. According to Radio French’s International Chinese Edition, another of Xi’s close associates who is the First Vice-Chairman of the Central Military Commission, General Zhang Youxia (张又侠), may be in trouble, too. The fathers of Xi Jinping and Zhang Youxia worked together in the PLA in Shaanxi in the 1940’s. Even that family association did not help Zhang.

“Xi’s decision to replace the ousted commander and political commissar of the Rocket Force with officers who have had no previous experience with missiles and other nuclear weapons is unconventional,” according to Lam. He adds that “Given that nuclear missiles and related weapons are expected to play a pivotal role in possible military maneuvers such as an invasion of Taiwan, putting two leaders with no experience in the technology-intense Rocket Force could not only have deleterious effects on the Force’s operational capabilities, but could also cause resentment among senior officers many of whom are well-trained aerospace engineers.”

Xi Jinping, in recent speeches to military troops, has emphasized the need for increased discipline and “absolute loyalty” in preparation for war. Although this has been a mantra of Xi’s since he assumed power in 2012, some military analysts in Washington consider it likely that Chinese plans for an invasion of Taiwan may have been compromised by those working on heavy-duty weapons, Chinese missiles and nuclear submarines. If the level of corruption is as widespread as some western officials think, it may be  undermining Xi’s position as supreme leader and resulting in an increased questioning of his ability to select qualified key personnel. The smoldering discontent among high-ranked CCP officials and military officers familiar with the unusual purges may be some of the first signs of more turmoil to come in Beijing.

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

Photo: Chinese Government

Reports concerning the war in Ukraine review Putin’s military actions, but few discuss the impact on the Caucasus and Eastern Europe. Some of these nations fear a new Iron Curtain is about to descend on both NATO and non-NATO states. In a recent report from the Foreign Policy Research Institute, Philip Wasielewski traveled to several European states to find out how Putin’s war to gain influence is being conducted and its implications for US foreign policy. 

The aim of the conventional war in Ukraine, he says, is to diminish Western influence and reestablish Russian hegemony in the former Warsaw Pact states. Outside Ukraine the war is political. Those operations, according to Wasielewski, have a major flaw. He points out that they “only offer the past and not a future.” There are two factors impacting future events in the European theater. First is the quality of political health in the states where Putin is conducting subversion this year. Second, to resist Russian efforts in those targeted states analysis is needed to determine the level of Western countermeasures required to slow backsliding on democratic norms. With presidential politics in the United States heating up the level of involvement by the Biden Administration in Europe remains uncertain.

There are several countries under political attack that will hold elections between 2023 and 2025. Their outcome will greatly influence their geopolitical orientation in the coming decades. Wasielewski argues that “If the war in Ukraine is a battle of modern weapon systems, these elections will be a war of ideas between East and West.” Losing these states politically would undermine the modern nation-state system which has provided prosperity and international order. Europe’s economy, as a whole, is the third largest in the world. If the United States and its allies cede the narrative to Putin and his partners, and do not counter his anti-Western propaganda, Russia could regain influence in a number of states and, with China’s assistance, acquire an extended foothold in Europe. The outcome of the kinetic war in Ukraine and the propaganda one elsewhere is uncertain.

What is known is that in Georgia the government is supporting Putin’s war in Ukraine, although the general population is fearful about being on the wrong side at its conclusion. In Moldova, the government is increasingly concerned that their neutrality no longer offers the security needed. Chișinău is leaning toward integrating into Western institutions for protection, but its population is uncertain about which sides offers the most long-term security. NATO and EU member Hungary, continues to reject many of the NATO/EU principles while retaining the security and economic benefits from the associations. Victor Orban, prime minister since 2010, recognizes that his country is geographically safe. Wasielewski says that Hungary’s government is motivated by a “selective history” and that more significant is Orban’s desire to stay in power. To do so, the prime minister acts as a pivot between Moscow and the Western nations. Although Poland is in a similar domestic position, its geographical position and history diverge from Hungary’s. That government strongly opposes Russian intervention in Ukraine and in Polish political affairs. Domestic political divisions and historical legacies have the potential to create political instability in the country, says Wasielewski. He adds that Lithuania, one of the states he visited this summer, is “the most loyal adherent to NATO and EU principles, but fears that if Russia is not deterred, a war could destroy Lithuania even if it is on the winning side.” 

Russia is exploiting peoples’ fear in Eastern Europe. Key identity issues include grievances by minority groups, those linked to religion, and people concerned about undermining cultural values. Putin’s propaganda machina morphs concerns over welfare and economic needs into narratives blaming the West as the true source of their problems. Russia is presented as the solution to their fears. At issue is that Moscow’s political warfare strategy only offers a past and not a future for those former members of the Soviet Union.

It will be up to Washington and its NATO allies to combat these perceptions, overturn Russian political advances, and reinforce liberal democratic values in the region. Many of the former Soviet satellite states believe that only the United States is strong enough to protect them militarily and economically. From Russia’s perspective, its former Warsaw Pact states should be “independent but not sovereign.” Putin’s goal is to allow these states to make their own decisions only when not in conflict with Moscow’s interests. 

From these states, Wasielewski found that in all but Hungary, they palpably feared a Russia attack using ground, air, or cyber warfare. The populations fear the destruction of their cities as happened in Grozny, Aleppo, and Bakhmut. Second, he suggests that the Eastern Europe believes subversion could, or is, undermining their developing democratic processes is favor of authoritarian practices reminiscent of the phrase “For my friends everything; for my enemies THE LAW!” Economically these states also worry that energy supplies will be interrupted or that there will be an embargo of their imports. Putin’s war in Ukraine is not simply a theoretical threat beyond Ukraine; it is a genuine concern about the future of Europe. 

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Illustration: Pixabay

Rep. James Comer, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, recently presented incriminating evidence on the Biden family’s questionable financial dealings with China.  Receiving far less attention, however, is the corruption within certain institutions that pretend to be nonpartisan but are, in fact, hypocritically biased.

A prime example of this is the Pulitzer Prize.  Originally established over a century ago to award excellence in 22 categories, it now pushes leftist propaganda in journalism. As the New Criterion notes:

“It has long been recognized that there is a distinct political dimension to the awarding of the Pulitzer Prizes. Briefly stated, the Pulitzers favor the expression of liberal opinion. No other mode of political belief is considered eligible for Pulitzer consideration. It is thus the main business of the Pulitzer committees to hand out the Prizes to other liberals, both in the press and in the arts.”

The bias can be seen clearly in the awarding of the 2018 prize to the staffs of the New York Times and the Washington Post for their report on what was proven to be a false story, the alleged Russian assistance to the Trump campaign. The myth, devised by the Clinton campaign, was decisively proven false after years of investigation costing the taxpayer millions of dollars.

Despite the fact that the story proved false, the prizes were not rescinded. What is worse, however, is that the outlets that exposed the explosive lie have been utterly ignored. The practice continued with the refusal to recognize the exceptional journalism by the New York Post, which has repeatedly exposed the original story and has continued to break news in massive scandals such as the Hunter Biden Laptop revelations.

Similarly, The overtly political bias of the Nobel Peace Prize could also be seen in its awarding of the coveted award to Barack Obama shortly after he took office. Since he had no accomplishments to point to, his own White House was embarrassed about the move. As JSTOR notes,

“…even the White House was lukewarm about the news. As communications scholar Robert Terrill writes, “The Obama administration found itself in the awkward position of trying to downplay one of the planet’s most high-profile awards…As Lynn Sweet noted dryly, ‘There was no celebration at the White House for the Nobel.’” Terrill goes on:

Throughout the campaign, Obama’s opponents had mocked him as an ‘international superstar with no accomplishments’and the awarding of the prize based on admittedly slim accomplishments seemed likely to invite similar assessments.”

In contrast, the Trump Administration’s exceptional and unprecedented advances in Mideast peace were totally ignored.

The Pulitzer organization is, of course, free to do whatever it sees fit. It is not beholden to the taxpayers and can exercise its political bias.

But it highlights a growing problem in the 21^st century: the practice by organizations that pretend and advertise themselves to be “objective” and “unbiased” but are, in fact, instruments of one side of the political coin.

The American Council of Science and Health explains

“:..the objectivity of fact-checking websites has already been called into doubt …an in-depth analysis by…the Paradox Project revealed that PolitiFact … is biased in its fact-checking. [its] articles that debunk Republicans are longer than those that debunk Democrats. Why? Well, it comes down to a bit of chicanery: “We’ve found that PolitiFact often rates statements that are largely true but come from a GOP sources [sic] as ‘mostly false’ by focusing on sentence alterations, simple mis-statements, fact-checking the wrong fact, and even taking a statement, rewording it, and fact-checking the re-worded statement instead of the original quoted statement.”

Illustration: Pixabay

If a presidential administration intentionally set out to harm the United States, what would it have done differently than the current occupant 0f 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

The White House has adopted an economic philosophy that is spending the nation and its citizens into bankruptcy, an immigration program that has devastated whole portions of states including major cities, and a foreign policy that ignores threats.  Almost daily, it disdains approximately half the citizenry with pejorative phrases. Racial discord is apparently encouraged. Overwhelming crime is largely ignored, with support given to irrational bail policies. The maladministration of a once proud educational system is encouraged. Biden pushes an energy policy that has destroyed American energy independence and caused deeply painful and utterly unnecessary inflation.

Consider each of these issues singularly.

Federal bankruptcy: Fitch as downgraded America’s credit rating as a result of Biden’s policies. The nonpartisan Citizens Against Government Waste noted that President Biden’s fiscal year (FY) 2023 budget “[was] a disaster for America’s fiscal and physical security.  The plan exemplifies everything that is wrong with Washington by doubling down on the idea that every problem can be solved with more spending.  Under the president’s proposal, the budget deficit will increase from $1.15 trillion in FY 2023 to $1.78 trillion in FY 2032, and cumulatively total $14.4 trillion over that period.  The national debt held by the public will reach $39.5 trillion in FY 2032.”

 As noted by House GOP members in the months after Biden took office, “Biden supported the highest sustained tax burden in American history, proposing $55 trillion of taxes. He asked for A 16% INCREASE for federal agencies, but a 0% increase in Homeland Security funding for ’22 even though border crossings are at a 20 year high $1+ trillion deficits every year, resulting in $17 trillion in new debt over the next 10 years.

Immigration: Both the humanitarian and economic results of the White House’s refusal to secure the border or enforce immigration law are crushing. The Federation for American Immigration Reform reports that: At the start of 2023, the net cost of illegal immigration for the United States – at the federal, state, and local levels – was at least $150.7 billion. In 2017, the estimated net cost of illegal migration was approximately $116 billion. In just 5 years, the cost to Americans has increased by nearly $35 billion. Illegal immigration costs each American taxpayer $1,156 per year ($957 after factoring in taxes paid by illegal aliens). Each illegal alien or U.S.-born child of illegal aliens costs the U.S. $8,776 annually.

That’s just the dollars. There is an incalculable cost of human trafficking of women and children resulting from the open border, the massive increase in fentanyl use, and the infiltration of criminal cartels and terrorists must also be considered.  Even Democrat mayors have begged the White House for relief.

Economy:  For the American consumer, gas and food prices remain very high, largely as a result of Biden energy policies. Rep. Dan Meuser (R-PA) writing in The Hill notes: “Small businesses, families and seniors are suffering from self-imposed, self-inflicted, and anti-energy policies of the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress.”

Crime: As noted in a myjournalcourier commentary, “The crime rate has increased in almost every major city in the United States, with violent crime leading the statistics. From a law enforcement perspective, it is clear that a large percentage of violent crime is driven by the unwillingness of district attorneys and judges to hold people accountable.” The soft-on-crime policies supported by the progressive cadre in the White House and implemented in “blue” cities and states have turned America’s major metropolises into nightmare abysses of lawlessness.

Education: The Biden Administration has unleashed its Justice department on parents protesting the abuse of educational dollars for leftwing propaganda and bizarre practices, including sexually explicit programs aimed at the youngest students.  A New York Post study found that “ Americans’ ​confidence in the US public school system has fallen…Overall, 28% of Americans say they have a “great deal/quite a lot” of confidence in the country’s school systems…Trust has been on a downward slide…”

Foreign Affairs: In August, a joint Chinese/Russian naval fleet threatened the coastline of Alaska. A Chinese spy balloon traversed America unmolested until it completed its mission.   Beijing continues to purchase vast amounts of American farmland, particularly in areas near military installations. China’s already massive armed forces continue to outpace their American counterpart. Beijing’s navy is larger than that of the U.S.  Russia’s nuclear force is larger than America’s. North Korea’s ICBM arsenal is developing rapidly. The Biden Administration, following in the footsteps of the Obama presidency, continues to pursue appeasement rather than substantive measures to deter the nation that pledges “death to America.” Biden has ended policies designed to attack Beijing’s espionage within the U.S. Additionally, despite all of these dangerous conditions, the Biden Administration defense budget requests have been so inadequate that even members of his own party have been forced to vote for increases.

Each of these crises individually would have been sufficient to bring down a presidency. But the hyper-partisan media has glossed over each of them.

Illustration: Library of Congress

There is much about the Russian invasion of Ukraine that both the Biden Administration and the media fail to report on.

Few care to recall that following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the newly independent nation of Ukraine became the world’s third largest nuclear power.

The Arms Control association notes that At the time of Ukraine’s independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine held the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world, including an estimated 1,900 strategic warheads, 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and 44 strategic bombers.

On December 5, 1994 the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Britain, and the United States signed a memorandum to provide Ukraine with security assurances in connection with its accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state.

By 1996, Ukraine had returned all of its nuclear warheads to Russia in exchange for economic aid and security assurances. In December 1994, Ukraine had became a non-nuclear weapon state-party to the 1968 nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The last strategic nuclear delivery vehicle in Ukraine was eliminated in 2001 under the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). It took years of political maneuvering and diplomatic work, starting with the Lisbon Protocol in 1992, to remove the weapons and nuclear infrastructure from Ukraine.

America’s assistance to Ukraine isn’t an act of charity.  It is the fulfillment of a treaty obligation.

Rather than live up to its foreign obligations to deter international aggression, yhe Biden Administration has consistently projected weakness. His defense budgets, in the face of overwhelming threats from China, Russia, Iran and North Korea have barely kept up with the inflation he has created.  in dealing with global miscreants. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) aptly described the problem: “President Biden’s weak leadership and lack of foreign policy strategy have crippled the United States’ power and influence on the world stage. Afghanistan has fallen to the Taliban, China has ramped up its aggression against Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the Uyghurs, and now, Russia has invaded Ukraine.”

On January 19 of 2022, Biden stated that he wouldn’t respond to a “minor incursion” by Russia into Ukraine.  Taken alone, that comment, as inept and harmful as it was, probably wouldn’t have been sufficient encouragement for th Kremlin to attack. Unfortunately, it came at a time when his administration was signaling weakness and ineptitude in foreign affairs.  The Heritage Foundation noted in 2022 that “In only his first year, he [Biden] and his team have bungled ending America’s involvement in Afghanistan; failed to impede Iran’s steady progress to acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, paid no attention to North Korea causing them to threaten to begin re-testing nuclear weapons, and has yet to deliver a strategy to counter China’s ever-menacing efforts to force Taiwan under Beijing’s control.”

An initial commitment to provide key weapons systems to Ukraine may have encouraged Putin to pull back from his adventure before his nation become too entrenched and invested in it.  But Biden slow-walked the delivery of tanks, planes, and other crucial military aid.

Beyond direct foreign policy or military preparedness, the Biden Administration’s environmental extremist policies essentially sounded the dinner bell for Putin’s wolfish ambition to restore the Soviet Empire. His vigorous limitation on domestic energy production (as did other a number of our allies) put Moscow in a position to exert influence that Putin believed would deter Western resistance.

An NBC analysis noted “Biden’s tunnel vision on oil and gas encouraged Putin’s invasion of Ukraine…By moving the U.S. economy away from the domestic oil industry and strengthening foreign oil businesses, Biden played a part in emboldening Russia… In just over a year, Biden buckled under pressure from domestic environmentalists to halt the Keystone XL pipeline, block new oil and gas leases and push through burdensome new, legally dubious Securities and Exchange Commission climate regulations. Biden also issued new greenhouse gas rules to expand how what is called the ‘social cost of carbon’  is calculated. The measure has been opposed in court by 10 Republican-led states in a lawsuit that argues that the methodology the administration relied on was flawed and points to possible violations of federal law during the rule-making process.”

Illustration: Pixabay

Stories about the war in Ukraine overwhelm the few articles written about Russia’s troubles in Armenia. One week ago on September 13, Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, told the publication Asbarez that his country can no longer rely on Russia as a guarantor of its security. Few papers in the West covered the announcement outside of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty this week. Pashinyan’s statement is significant and follows the renewal of the heated conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, according to Emil Avdaliani of the Jamestown Foundation. Moscow’s influence in the South Caucasus is waning. The Central Asian states are developing their own identities and multi-faceted interests that do not include responding to the Kremlin’s disruptive influences. 

Putin’s war in Ukraine forms the demarcation point. It is changing trade relations and the geopolitical balance across the Central Asian states that were under the influence of Russia since the early 1800’s. Even the breakup of the Soviet Union did not alter Moscow’s strong influence as the region’s dominant outside power. Ukraine has emerged as a “long war” for Russia. It is draining the country’s resources, setting its economy and trade routes back years, and making it into a pariah nation unwelcome in the many capitals around the world. Where Russia once easily used a heavy hand with neighboring states, it now threads lightly as it seeks to maintain its position in the world. 

“Moscow has become ever-more unpredictable in its foreign policy,” says Avdaliani. He points out that Putin has been more patient recently, in particular, with Azerbaijan as Baku holds a key position in Russia’s plan to expand the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC). In June, Yunis Sharifli wrote in the Eurasia Daily monitor that “The INSTC is a multi-modal network of shipping, rail and road routes for moving freight between India, Iran, Azerbaijan, Russia, Central Asia and Europe. As two of the most sanctioned countries in the world, both Russia and Iran are interested in finding alternative routes to diversify their export and import routes as well as circumvent Western sanctions.” In the Armenian capital, officials suggest that it cannot rely on the Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization to keep peace in the region. 

In Georgia, Putin’s pushed the government in Tbilisi to try to enact a Russian style “foreign agent” bill aimed at levying barriers to international organizations registering and trying to work inside Russia. Widespread protests stopped its passage from official consideration in March. When Russia attempted to resume direct flights to Tbilisi, massive protests erupted in Georgia in May despite the Georgian government’s support of the arrivals. According to analysts familiar with the region, Turkish influence in both Baku and Tbilisi is expanding and intensifying in recent months. Ankara, says Avdaliani, is emerging as a central player in the advancement of the Middle Corridor. This area is a strategic region linking Asia and Europe. It runs through the Black Sea and eastern Turkey, connecting the Caspian Sea to Central Asia. 

Iran is also becoming more active in the South Caucasus, further reducing Russia’s regional influence.  Al Jazeera attributes the change to the regional power vacuum that developed at the end of the Second Karabakh War. It gave Tehran the ability to re-assert itself in Armenian affairs, while also providing Iran increased leverage with Azerbaijan in halting the further expansion of the Zangezur Corridor. This area is part of a strategic transportation route extending from Baku to Kars in eastern Turkey and passing through Armenian territory near the Iranian border. China is also making moves in the region and recently signed a strategic partnership agreement with Tbilisi to improve its access to Black Sea transit and trade. Beijing already was active in the construction of the strategic port of Anaklia in Georgia, among other infrastructure projects. 

Russia is also losing prestige to Western states operating in Central Asia. The European Union (EU) is supporting Georgia’s European leanings and last December agreed to participate in a proposed project to run an electric cable along the bottom of the Black Sea, according to the EU. At the same time Brussels signed a new gas agreement with Azerbaijan and is now mediating the Armenian-Azerbaijani peace talks. With outside actors taking on more and important regional roles, Moscow’s once dominant influence is seen as dissipating not in the Central Asian states but also with its traditional allies like Armenia. As Russia vies for space in the now multi-aligned geopolitical space, and while in a weakened position, regional competition can be expected to expand to include serious challenges from China and Turkey. The impact of the war in Ukraine is being felt throughout the region and Putin is left with few choices about how to improve Moscow’s standing. 

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