Month: November 2023

There was a time when it was safe to assume that we had all read George Orwell’s novel, 1984.  But that time has passed, and there are many readers who have undoubtedly heard references to this seminal work, without having actually read the book.  Therefore, a brief refresher course on one of the principle concepts from this novel is necessary – the theory of thoughtcrime.

“Even if someone leaves these thoughts unspoken, it is still a crime to think them. It is one of the scariest parts of Winston Smith’s world in 1984. The person who thinks these thoughts is held responsible for them as though they said them out loud or committed the act they were thinking about…To understand thoughtcrime, it’s important to understand the consequences of committing it. If one were to have illegal thoughts and those thoughts showed on their face, or they expressed them in some way, they’re going to be arrested by the Thought Police. This group is responsible for hunting down thought criminals and bringing them to the Ministry of Love. This aptly named ministry reforms and kills thought criminals.”

With this description of “thoughtcrime” in mind, let us review some of the allegations made in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s August, 2023 federal indictment of former President Donald Trump: “(F)or more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false… The Defendant…made knowingly false claims that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the 2020 presidential election…These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false.” 

How is it that Jack Smith knows what Donald Trump was thinking?  According to the indictment, “the Defendant was notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue—often by the people on whom he relied for candid advice on important matters, and who were best positioned to know the facts— and he deliberately disregarded the truth.”

In other words, Donald Trump knew that there wasn’t any “outcome determinative fraud” in the 2020 presidential election because other people told him so.

And who were these people that told Donald Trump there was no evidence of “outcome determinative”  election fraud in the 2020 presidential election?  According to Smith, these people included “Vice President (Mike Pence)…(who)…told the Defendant that he had seen no evidence of outcome-determinative fraud.”  There were also “(t)he senior leaders of the Justice Department…(who)…told the Defendant on multiple occasions that various allegations of fraud were unsupported;” “Senior White House attorneys…(who)…informed the Defendant that there was no evidence of outcome-determinative election fraud,” and “State and federal courts…(who)…rejected every outcome-determinative post-election lawsuit filed by the Defendant, his coconspirators, and allies, providing the Defendant real-time notice that his allegations were meritless.”

As a result of Donald Trump’s refusal to accept that he had actually lost the 2020 presidential election, and based upon the former President’s “false” belief that election fraud was pervasive in that election, according to the indictment, “The Defendant’s knowingly false statements were integral to his criminal plans to defeat the federal government function, obstruct the certification, and interfere with others’ right to vote and have their votes counted.” 

These allegations regarding what Trump chose to believe would seem to fit the very definition of a thought crime.  From all appearances, Trump believed there was election fraud, that it was indeed “outcome determinative,” and as a result, he challenged the results of the election in every way possible.

In a criminal case, the prosecution must establish that a defendant has mens rea; that is, criminal intent.  “The literal translation from Latin is ‘guilty mind’…(e)stablishing the mens rea of an offender, in addition to the actus reus (physical elements of the crime) is usually necessary to prove guilt in a criminal trial. The prosecution typically must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense with a culpable state of mind.” As stated by the US Supreme Court in Staples v. United States, “(t)he mens rea requirement is premised upon the idea that one must possess a guilty state of mind and be aware of his or her misconduct.”   

The analysis concludes tomorrow

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay

Russia is exporting grain, legumes, and oilseeds seized from occupied territory in southern Ukraine and selling the products to China and its other allies. In a deal cut in October at the latest Belt and Road Summit in China, Moscow agreed to sell Beijing 70 million tons (valued at about $25.7 billion) over the next 12 years. Both countries are working to develop the infrastructure that will enable the transportation of a high volume of goods in both directions. Moscow is claiming that the main corridor to transport these agricultural products will be open within the next two weeks, according to Hlib Parfonov of the Jamestown Foundation. Since Russia can’t meet its contract commitment with its current level of agricultural production, it plans to fulfill the orders by Ukrainian-grown grain to Russia’s for the foreseeable future. 

China is interested in using the North Siberian Railway, which Russia is expanding in its latest development plan. The proposed Kyzul-Kuragino rail project will link China via the Altai Republic in southern Siberia. This area is part of Asian Russia, however, it was once part of extreme eastern Kazakhstan and the northern tip of China’s Xinjiang Autonomous Region. Given that China is interested in recouping land that historically was once part of the Chinese empire, it will be interesting to watch how China’s President Xi Jinping treats the infrastructure development in the coming years. He does not need to engage in kinetic warfare with Russia as Moscow provides Beijing virtual access and resources at almost no cost to China. 

China is heavily involved in natural gas and oil pipeline development in parts of eastern Siberia currently located inside Russia. It is often referred to as China’s “raw materials pantry.” These are lands owned by China until the end of WWII. Today Chinese companies “own” tens of thousands of acres of land under long-term leases. The area is predominantly ethnic Han and the population speaks Mandarin. 

In late October the Russian publication, Kommersant, reported that Russian experts claim Moscow is emphasizing the develop of “all roads to China.” From Beijing’s perspective, China is utilizing Russia as a “resource and food colony,” according to Vadim Shtepa, the Editor-in-Chief of the only independent media outlet on Russian regionalism and federalism. Chinese purchases of so-called Russian wheat increased by 78% over the past year, according to a May report in the Russian publication Izvestia. Chinese consumption of Russian gas also increased but can only compensate for about 20% of Russia’s revenue lost from its European market sales and sanctions imposed after Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

“The New Land Grain Corridor, the Trans-Baikal Grain Terminal, and Guangdong BestCon Intelligent Equipment signed a contract to create a specialized overland grain fleet at the Eighth Eastern economic Forum in September, says Parfonov. When finished it will be able to transport up to 600,000 tons (up to 8 million tons annually) of grain using 22,000 specialized containers. By February 2023 a record 25 ships from Ukraine carried 1.2 million tons of grain to China and the numbers are increasing. In May, when Moscow agreed to extend the grain corridor for 120 Days, Parfonov says that China again benefited from reduced prices for Russian/Ukrainian grain. Over the last 18 months this represents some of the highest volume in the history of Ukrainian-Chinese agricultural trade. 

“With the recent deal between Beijing and Moscow, China seems to be transitioning from Ukrainian exports to Russian grain,” notes Parfonov. China still buys grain directly from Ukraine. From a food security perspective, however, there may be conflict arising in the coming months. As soon as Beijing receives its November and December shipments Russia may again target Ukrainian grain shipments with its navy attempting to block exports leaving Odessa for China. 

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

Illustration: Pixabay

The Wagner Group no longer sits at the top of the international news cycle on a daily basis, but it remains at the center of fractional politics and converging wars in Africa, the Middle East, and Ukraine.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir signed an agreement to establish a Russian naval base with four Russian warships operated by 300 Russian servicemen, on Sudan’s Red Sea coast in 2017. At the time the deal called for Moscow to provide Sudan arms and other military gear. Analysts are asking “Will the Red Sea be Russia’s newest naval outpost?” The political environment is complicated. Wagner Group’s involvement in the outcome of the ongoing military action in Sudan may be the deciding factor in the Kremlin’s ability to develop an expanded military presence in the region. A Russian naval base in Sudan could bring the great powers into direct conflict. In 2022 Sudan’s military junta was ready to finalize the treaty to allow Russia to construct the new naval facilities. The Wagner Group may have just torpedoed the controversial deal.

“The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) are locked in a battle for supremacy over one another,” according to Michael Horton, co-founder of Red Sea Analytics. Libya’s General Khalifa Haftar, the UAE, and Russia’s Wagner Group support the RSF, which gets part of its funding from gold fields located in Sudan. The RSF may not be able to win against the SAF but it is likely to produce a long war that could destabilize the region. On February 23, a day before the start of the war in Ukraine, Sudanese RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, also known as “Hemedti,” arrived in Moscow to lead the Red Sea base negotiations. No members of the SAF were present. A deal with one side puts the future base at risk, as the other is unlikely to abide by it.

“The outbreak of fighting in and around Khartoum may squash any chances for the establishment of a Russian naval base in the near future,” says Andrew McGregor of the Jamestown Foundation. Wagner’s support of the RSF is essentially Russian backed (i.e., through Wagner Group). Now Ukraine may be emerging as a player in Sudan. First-person view (FPV) drones are being used this fall to conduct attacks against RSF fighters. These are the same type and tactics used by Ukrainian forces against Russian targets.

When asked about the FPV’s, Kyrulo Budanov, Ukraine’s military intelligence chief, said “A year ago, I personally and openly said that all Russian war criminals who fought, are fighting, or plan to fight against Ukraine will be punished anywhere in the world.” In September, in a move that may indicate an new attempt to oust Russia from Sudan, Ukraine’s President Zelensky thanked Sudan’s government for its consistent support of his country’s territorial integrity. Africa News recently quoted Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, Dmytro Kuleba, as saying “Our strategy is not to replace Russia but to free Africa from Russia’s grip.” Ukraine’s Defense Minister Rustem Umerov, met for unscheduled talks in Ireland this fall with General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan of the SAF. Reports indicate the two talked about the activity of illegal armed groups financed by Russia that are active inside Sudan.

For months the SAF and RSF’s top military commanders have been waging battle in Khartoum, Sudan’s capital. The city is approaching ruin. “Perhaps most troubling for the Kremlin is the inherent political instability of Sudan. Even before the current power struggle, regional insurgencies, tribal clashes, mass demonstrations, and coup attempts have characterized the country’s political process,” notes McGregor. The SAF leadership believes Putin is supporting the Wagner Group operations by supplying the RSF with arms and munitions. If this is confirmed it may mark the end of the naval basing deal in Sudan. “The RSF, like most well-developed militias, can and will leverage its nimbleness, decentralized leadership, and its ability to adapt and evolve to outfight the conventionally organized SAF,” says Horton. The Sudanese conflict may yet pose another flashpoint in an already fragile part of the world.

Hopefully, it will not emerge center stage to a proxy war among great powers.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

Coverage of the recent and ongoing squabble over the federal budget omits mention of several key facts. Among them are the realities that despite being over $33 trillion in debt and vast additional spending each year, unprecedented income from taxation, and the existence of well-staffed and frequently overbearing federal agencies, the most basic crises facing Americans are not being adequately addressed.  Funds supposedly committed to infrastructure are siphoned off for so-called “green” projects that do little other than paying back politician’s contributors. Issues such as the vulnerability of the electrical grid are ignored.  Dollars meant to improve education wind up supporting bizarre and controversial projects that push woke agendas and ignore proficiency in learning. The list goes on and on.

One of the areas that is the prime responsibility of the federal government is defense. Despite the lare sums spent, America’s defense is inadequate.  Russia has a more powerful nuclear arsenal. China has a large navy. Our troops often live in housing that resembles slums. Our atomic weaponry is becoming increasingly obsolete.  Some of our pilots fly in the exact same aircraft that their grandfathers flew. The withdrawal from Afghanistan was an embarrassing debacle. Our armed forces are failing to meet recruitment quotas. America’s presence in certain strategic locations, such as the Arctic, is so inadequate that it represents a virtual surrender.  Our defense industrial base is bad shape, and getting worse.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China’s preparations to take over Taiwan, North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, and Iran’s looming entry into the nuclear weapons club are major threats that are not being responded to.

There is an illusion that defense spending is excessive. In truth, it is far from adequate.  It represents a lesser share of the federal budget and GDP than it has in the past.

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

In its annual Index of U.S. Military Strength, the Heritage Foundation (you can, and should, read the entire report at https://www.heritage.org/military-strength/executive-summary) illustrates the challenges facing the Pentagon. Barack Obama’s decision to end the capacity of the U.S. military to fight on two fronts simultaneously. He backed that poor decision up with limiting the funds the Defense Department actually needs.

The report notes that “As reported in all previous editions of the Index, the common theme across the services and the U.S. nuclear enterprise is one of force degradation caused by many years of underinvestment, poor execution of modernization programs, and the negative effects of budget sequestration (cuts in funding) on readiness and capacity in spite of repeated efforts by Congress to provide relief from low budget ceilings imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011.”

The analysis concludes with these assessments:

Army is “Marginal.” The Army’s score remains “marginal” in the 2023 Index, and significant challenges that have arisen during the year call into question whether it will improve its status in the year ahead. …the Army is aging faster than it is modernizing. It remains “weak” in capacity with only 62 percent of the force it should have.

Navy is“Weak.” This worrisome score, a drop from “marginal” assessed in the 2022 Index, is driven by problems in capacity (“very weak”) and readiness (“weak”). This Index assesses that the Navy needs a battle force of 400 manned ships to do what is expected of it today. The Navy’s current battle force fleet of 298 ships and intensified operational tempo combine to reveal a service that is much too small relative to its tasks… If its current trajectory is maintained, the Navy will shrink further to 280 ships by 2037. Current and forecasted levels of funding will prevent the Navy from altering its decline unless Congress undertakes extraordinary efforts to increase assured funding for several years.

Air Force as “Very Weak.” The Air Force has been downgraded once again, the second, time in the past two years. The Air Force was assessed as “marginal” in the 2021 Index but, with public reporting of the mission readiness and physical location of combat aircraft implying that it would have a difficult time responding rapidly to a crisis, fell to a score of “weak” in the 2022 Index. During FY 2022, the year assessed for this Index, problems with pilot production and retention, an extraordinarily small amount of time in the cockpit for pilots, and a fleet of aircraft that continues to age compounded challenges even more, leading to the current score of “very weak.”

Photo: A formation of Air Force MC-130J Commando II aircraft fly near Hurlburt Field, Fla., Sept. 21, 2023. (Department of Defense )

According to BNI Treatment of California, “(a) recent study published in Frontiers in Psychology looked at 167 young adults who self reported as either non-gamers, non-violent gamers, or violent gamers, using an online questionnaire and the Levinson’s Psychopathy Scale. There was a link reported between heavy violent video game exposure and decreased practice of empathy, immature moral reasoning skills, moral disengagement. In reviewing existing studies, the authors found that violent video games can lead to negative behaviors, such as pathological lying, manipulative behavior, lack of impulse control, irresponsibility, and immediate reward seeking. These traits can give rise to such antisocial behaviors as aggression and delinquency.”

These effects are compounded by the nature of current video games.  “Modern video games are extremely life like – a far cry from the old games of the past. These video games use highly sophisticated graphics to produce lifelike imagery, including the characters that populate the games. This means, too, that the violent scenes of death and destruction are also quite graphic.” .

Harvard Medical School’s Blog gives this description of these violent games; “Blood and gore. Intense violence. Strong sexual content. Use of drugs. These are just a few of the phrases that the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) uses to describe the content of several games in the Grand Theft Auto series, one of the most popular video game series among teenagers. The Pew Research Center reported in 2008 that 97% of youths ages 12 to 17 played some type of video game, and that two-thirds of them played action and adventure games that tend to contain violent content. (Other research suggests that boys are more likely to use violent video games, and play them more frequently, than girls.) A separate analysis found that more than half of all video games rated by the ESRB contained violence, including more than 90% of those rated as appropriate for children 10 years or older.”

Based upon these facts, “(t)he view endorsed by organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) is that exposure to violent media (including video games) can contribute to real-life violent behavior and harm children in other ways.”

It is indisputable that games like Grand Theft Auto encourage their players to engage in acts of violence eerily similar to that perpetrated by Ayala and Keys.  There are even tutorials available on line to educate players on how best to accomplish maximum mayhem.

For instance, this video shows the gamer how best to use a machete to cut down pedestrians while driving a motorbike through the streets of a city. Then there is this video which shows you various methods for “killing” a player’s Avatar, including striking them with a motor vehicle. 

Meanwhile, on Facebook, you can view this scene of a bicyclist being hit by a car traveling at 100 MPH, sending the bicyclist flying through the air, and landing against a building in a pool of blood. 

Further, in this Player’s Blog, a poster’s topic is, “I hit a bicyclist and he landed in the bed of my truck,” complete with a link to a screen shot taken of the “deceased.”    One commentator added, “Happened something similar during a mission where you have to drive around a truck…Hit a bike and the man landed on the roof of the truck. I went off road and drove off a cliff because I was laughing.”

As we stated, we have not been informed that Ayala and Keys were aficionados of Grand Theft Auto, or that they were gamers at all.  But given the high percentage of people in their age category who engage in video games, as well as the close resemblance between their actions and the havoc readily available to those who play this or similar games, the odds are extremely high that both have played blood soaked games of this nature in the past.

Further, it is not our intention to single out a particular video game as being responsible for the death of Andreas Probst.  Grand Theft Auto is only one of many hundreds of violent games available across the world.   

This analysis is also not an effort in any way to excuse or justify the conduct of these cold-bloodied murders.  But if we want to understand how such a lack of empathy or compassion could develop in such young men, we need look no further than the entertainment center hooked up to the television set in our own living rooms for at least one possible explanation.   

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

Photo: Pixabay

Many of us have become inured to the violence we witness on a daily basis.  Videos of violent confrontations fill our screens, from “smash and grab” robberies at high-end department stores, to out and out melees at fast food restaurants.  But one recent incident has proven to most of the American public that it still has the capacity to be shocked.

“(T)he recent hit-and-run death of a retired police chief in Las Vegas (is) what police are calling an intentional attack by the teenage driver,” according to the Daily Mail. “Andreas Probst, 64, was fatally struck on August 14 while cycling in northwest Las Vegas, where he had retired after stepping down as the police chief of Bell, California, in 2009…Police say a 2016 Hyundai Elantra struck him from the rear and fled the scene at high speed. Probst was rushed to University Medical Center, where he was confirmed dead.” 

Further information is provided by the New York Post; “(The two) Las Vegas teenagers accused of intentionally fatally running down (Probst) were in the midst of a two-hour crime spree when they killed the retired police officer…accused driver Jesus Ayala, 18, and Jzamir Keys, 16, allegedly stole three vehicles, committed a burglary and also tried to kill another bike rider… Ayala, faces 18 charges including murder, attempted murder, battery with the use of a deadly weapon, leaving the scene of an accident, and numerous larceny and burglary charges. Keys, who was the passenger in the car when Probst was struck…is facing murder, attempted murder and battery charges.” 

So far, as tragic as this event is, this is just one more violent incident occurring at a time of high crime and lawlessness in our nation.  What is it then, about this case that has made so many people angry?

“(V)ideo of the bicycle crash circulated widely on the internet…(t)he video, shot from the front passenger seat, shows the vehicle approaching Probst from behind as he rides near the curb on an otherwise traffic-free road. Male voices in the car can be heard laughing as the vehicle steers toward Probst and rams the bicycle. Probst hurtles backward across the hood and into the windshield. He is then seen on the ground next to the curb. Police said they weren’t aware of the video until a high school resource officer provided it to investigators two weeks later.”

A video of a cold-blooded, intentional murder is rare enough.  But the reactions of the murderers caught on the video are particularly chilling; “You can hear them talking about it right before they hit the accelerator – the guy driving asks his passenger if he should go for it …and the passenger encourages him to do it. Probst went flying into the air and was left for dead on the road. The two teenagers in the car can be heard laughing it up as they drive away.” 

The combination of a video of the death of an innocent man with the glee exhibited by the perpetrators as they take his life, is more than most civilized people can accept.  But to add insult to injury, Ayala expressed no remorse whatsoever for his actions.  As described by the New York Post, “Ayala, who just turned 18, was arrested hours after Probst was killed and told the police while in custody that he wouldn’t be locked up for long. ‘You think this juvenile [expletive] is gonna do some [expletive]? I’ll be out in 30 days, I’ll bet you,’ Ayala told the cops, according to KLAS. ‘It’s just ah, [expletive] ah, hit-and-run — slap on the wrist.’” 

What could explain such an utter lack of empathy in one so young?  Didn’t Ayala and Keys see Probst as a human being, with a life and a family, or was he just no better than an inaminate object to these two teenagers?

Of course, we do not know these two young men, and we do not have the ability to peer into their brains or their seemingly cold hearts.  We also do not know their personal habits.  But it is a safe bet that both played violent video games, such as Grand Theft Auto.

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

The Report concludes tomorrow

Photo: Pixabay

Economic security remains a top agenda item in Washington as policymakers struggle to balance the United States’ need for rare earth elements (REE’s) and the environmental impact of the highly-polluting process required to extract and refine them. California’s Mountain Pass mine currently is the country’s sole commercial REE mine. The US ships nearly 100% of the country’s output of rare earths, including the critical heavy REE types required for military purposes, to China for processing. In contrast, China’s long-term, economic and geopolitical gameplan calls for Beijing to mine, buy, process, and control the vast majority of the world’s supply of REE’s and oxide products. China today is the world’s top producer of these strategic metals. It accounts for about 70% of the global mine production of REE’s. That may be changing although Beijing is making a concerted global effort to buy critical REE supplies to keep Western nation-states from obtaining them.  

Controlling the raw materials enables China to set prices and limit what countries have access to REE’s. Advanced economies are highly dependent on these metals for the production of everything from cell phones to advanced diagnostic equipment, EVs, and military weapons. Last year Beijing updated its tracking of REE exports as well as its imports of crude oil, iron ore, copper ore concentrates, and potash fertilizer, according to an announcement by the Ministry of Commerce. The requirements are to remain in place until at least October 31, 2024. Beijing appears to be growing increasingly concerned over potential choke points as well as Western discoveries of new deposits. China imports the vast majority of its needed crude oil, iron ore and copper to fuel its rapid economic expansion. It needs to keep global trade open. 

Some Western analysts, however, suggest China could take additional retaliatory actions by further restricting REEs in an expansion of the US-China trade war. Beijing began restricting critical metal exports after the West imposed semiconductor curbs. Currently China limits the export of gallium and germanium to the US. Both are needed in semiconductors, missile systems and solar cells. China’s REE strategy, which calls for constraining the availability in the West may be faltering as new discoveries of these REEs are made in the West.  

Extremely large deposits of lithium have been discovered in Canada. Recently Sweden identified REE deposits near the Arctic Circle that are large enough to supply most of Europe’s demand for magnets for turbines and electric vehicles. This week it was announced the Brook Mine in Wyoming contained what is believed to be $37 billion of light and heavy REE’s at today’s prices, making it the largest rare earths discovery in the United States since 1952. The US is pursuing a “mine-to-magnets” strategy to delink from the country’s dependence on China. American coal mines also have shown great promise as depositories of REE’s. Companies are now redirecting their searches for rare earths to coal producing regions. Combined these deposits may help alleviate the United States’ dependence on China. Although the global market remains highly dependent on China in the short term, Beijing may have a challenging time dominating the REE markets in coming years as advanced detection technologies are aiding the West in the discovery of a number of new deposits.  

At a State Council meeting in Beijing last Friday, November 3, Chinese Premier Li Qiang announced that the country needed to improve coordination and plan for expanded REE exploration, research, and development. At the same time, it was announced that China would further enhance its crackdown on illegal mining and push for more “green measures.” In July, to combat illegal mining China simply raised the REE mining quota to 240,000 tons. Formerly illegal mining will not add to the overall tonnage mined in China; it will move it into a legal category. Only a few years ago the West was concerned over China’s dominance in the REE markets. While it will take time for production to begin it may mark the beginning of the end of China’s REE reign. 

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

Russia may be planning to resume nuclear weapons testing according to arms exports, despite Russia’s claiming they will not unless the United States conducts tests. The announcement that Russia is withdrawing from the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) comes as deputies in Russia’s legislative body, the State Duma, drafted a law following guidelines provided by Russian President Vladimir Putin in his October 5 speech to the Valdai Discussion Club. The Russian Publication, Kommersant, reported on October 18 that Putin has officially withdrawn his country’s ratification of the treaty. The United States had also signed, but Congress never ratified the treaty. “This is the latest in a series of moves that suggest Moscow may choose novel signaling rather than relying on the tenets of its traditional nuclear doctrine,” according to Alexander Taranov of the Jamestown Foundation. An explanatory note accompanying the new law points out the necessity of revoking ratification to eliminate the imbalance by restoring parity in nuclear arms control commitments between Russia and the United States. 

The Treaty was ratified in May 2000 and intended to serve as the main international legal instrument to stop all nuclear tests. There are 44 states who possess or have the potential to develop nuclear weapons. Of those, eight states have not ratified the Treaty. A record number of Russian legislators, 439 of 450, in the State Duma signed the bill to withdraw in a show of unity in support of Putin’s agenda. Taranov says that Russian officials argue that the United States holds the most destructive position, pointing to the lack of Congressional support for ratification of the CTBT. 

While Russia has officially withdrawn from the Treaty, officials in Moscow are quick to point out that the federal law on revoking ratification does not mean that the country has fully withdrawn from the Treaty. They say Russia will continue to participate in the Preparatory Commission of the CTBT Organization.  Russia has pledged to continue participating in the exchange of data through the international monitoring system which verifies compliance.  After the United States, Russia has the next highest number of monitoring stations. As of this fall there are 31 in Russia with an additional one scheduled to be constructed at the Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk Seismic Station AS92. Two weeks ago, Radio Sputnik broadcast that Russia does not have plans to resume nuclear testing. Over the summer as rumors spread through Moscow that Russia would be withdrawing from the Treaty, Dmitry Trenin, a Russian political scientist, announced that the CTBT withdrawal and the potential resumption of nuclear testing are important rungs on the ladder of escalation with Ukraine. He adds that this is part of the Kremlin’s strategy to force the United States to withhold support from Ukraine. Trenin, a Russian analyst, went so far as to allude to the possibility that Americans “could end up playing Russian roulette” if it continued aiding Ukraine. Last June RIA Novosti reported that the war environment is leading to a direct clash between NATO and Russia.  

Less than a day after the Duma formalized the withdrawal the US Department of Energy (DOE) conducted a nuclear test in Nevada of a conventional explosive that Taranov says was designed to improve predictive algorithms and, according to DOE, “detection techniques for low-yield nuclear devices.” A senior fellow at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament, Pavel Podvig, argues that Moscow views the US action as an escalatory step. The Kremlin has condemned the test as a resumption of nuclear testing, even though it is considered a subcritical one.  

Russian officials view the Nevada test as a first “demonstration” moving up the scale toward the tactical use of nuclear weapons. In a 1999 article, “On the Use of Nuclear Weapons to De-Escalate Hostilities,” the authors argue the “demonstration rung requires launching nuclear strikes on desert areas or secondary military installations with either a limited or zero military presence. The doctrine, sometimes referred to as a concept of “nuclear escalation for de-escalation,” may mean that Russia will conduct underground testing and later on above ground tests. 

 If this does occur, it is likely to encompass a three-step process. First, Russia would detonate an underground explosion, following by one above ground. Finally, Putin would use a live nuclear weapon. Russia has slowly advanced up the ladder of nuclear escalation. It suspended the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, potentially stationed tactical nuclear weapons in Cold War era silos inside Belarus and mined the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. Taranov suggests that this may mean the world is facing the potential of Russia skipping rungs on the escalation ladder that have traditionally characterized Russian nuclear doctrine. Should the United States and NATO engage more heavily in the war in Ukraine, Putin may decide that regime survival is dependent on the threat of a nuclear strike and, with that decision, the world may witness a reinstitution of Russian nuclear tests.

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