Author: Daria Novak

Not many Americans can identify where Belarus is located on a European map. That may be changing soon if its president, Alexander Lukashenko, decides to permit Vladimir Putin to stage Russian nuclear weapons inside the country. Belarus’ importance to political stability throughout the West today far outweighs the limited knowledge most in the US have about the state or the status of Minsk’s relationship with Moscow. In November Lukashenko made a public statement that dramatically raises the risk level of war in Europe when he stated: “I will suggest that Putin return nuclear weapons to Belarus,” and that “those nuclear armaments would be the most effective” deterrent.

Belarus is propped up by the Russian state. It purchases about half its exports and provides the former Soviet satellite state subsidized oil which it resells at a huge profit. Oil sales account for a large part of its GDP. The country borders Russia on the east and Ukraine on the south while Poland sits on its western border. Although Belarus is a smaller nation-state about the size of Kansas it is strategically important to Russia as a buffer with the European Union and NATO. Putin is willing to absorb the financial and political costs for it to remain within his sphere of influence.

Lukashenko has turned to Russia for well over a decade for financial aid, political backing, and the support needed to keep him in power. The bilateral relationship with Moscow has grown in significance in recent years as other former Soviet republics have moved closer to the West. Last year Putin saved Lukashenko’s regime by promising him a $1.5 billion loan and developing a law enforcement group for the president to ensure security inside the country. Since the August 2020 election Lukashenko, with Putin’s assistance, has cracked down heavily on protestors and the indigenous democracy movement. Putin retains regional hegemony over the area as Belarus is highly dependent on Russia’s largesse and Lukashenko is fully compliant and catering to Putin’s priorities. 

“As President Lukashenko said, we are considering the possibility of deploying nuclear weapons on the territory of Belarus as one of the potential responses to future possible actions by the NATO bloc on the territory of Poland,” Belarusian Foreign Minister Vladimir Makei told RT Arabic in an interview on Friday. Lukashenko suggests that that such a deployment is in response to a potential deployment of US atomic missiles in Eastern Europe in the future. 

They also carry a complete line of generic weight loss pills, as well as herbal viagra for . Hence it is used in conditions like bleeding piles and bleeding through nose. 7.Onions are used in home remedies to naturally attain sexual davidfraymusic.com order generic viagra satisfaction. Why will you buy Lexapro? Depression is a phenomenon that can be challenging both physically and emotionally. comments about definition of anti-aging as – “Like it or not, the same applies to females. levitra uk Take these things into account when you are ready for an intimacy, nerves start working in your brain and sildenafil online no prescription move down your spinal cord to the male sex organ.

Tensions have increased on the Belarus-Polish border over the last year as many are trying to illegally enter Poland to escape the harsh Lukashenko dictatorship. Belarus continues to align closely with Russia politically although Putin and Lukashenko have had their differences in the past. The EU and other Western nations refused to recognize the results of the August 4-8, 2020, presidential election due to corruption and falsified results. After backing up Lukashenko, Putin declared later in August 2020 that he knew he could “always count on Belarus for support.”   It looks like Putin may be calling in the chips soon. 

Recent intelligence reports suggest that the two countries are integrating additional Belarusian special forces units with Russian troops. After joint exercises earlier this year Putin left a number of troops inside Belarus. This pushes Lukashenko into a corner. He intends to retain his power and the independence for his country. At the same time, he is increasingly dependent on Russia for financial, political and military support. Should a skirmish occur with any of Belarus’ neighbors it could draw in NATO and Russian military forces and spread into a wider conflict with the potential to escalate into a nuclear war. Putin needs Lukashenko and Belarus but not the complications it brings to Russian-West European relations. How Putin gets resolves its Belarusian headache may determine if there is war in Europe in 2022.

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government. 

Common sense would indicate that the plain wording of the New York State Constitution and Election Law, as well as the Federal law cited above, would bar a noncitizen from voting, and when it comes to a state or federal election, your common sense would be correct.  But enough loopholes have been built into these laws to give proponents of the new law a very good argument in favor of the constitutionality of noncitizen voting in local elections.

DOES THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE THIS CHANGE?

Surprisingly, on this level, the arguments against the new law are more likely to be successful than those presented in our earlier discussion.

“In 2013, Mayor Bloomberg’s office also opposed (noncitizen voting) on the basis that, even if not contrary to New York’s constitution or its election law, under New York’s home rule statute and the city charter, any expansion of the franchise had to be via referendum. Section 23(2)(e) of New York’s Municipal Home Rule Law, along with Sec. 38 of New York City’s charter, provides that a local law shall be subject to mandatory referendum if it ‘[a]bolishes an elective office, or changes the method of … electing … an elective officer, or changes the term of an elective office, or reduces the salary of an elective officer during his term of office.’ There is a powerful argument that expanding the franchise for municipal elections to include noncitizen residents is a change in method: it would change the very definition of who makes up the electorate; it may also require a change in procedures for voting, to make sure noncitizens cast the proper ballot. Where the state legislature sets forth categories of local laws subject to mandatory referendum, as it did with Sec. 23(2)(e), New York courts have said that they will interpret those categories when called upon to do so.” 

So then, why didn’t the City Council authorize a voter referendum on this issue?  Simply put, they fear defeat of the measure at the polls.  “A referendum increases the chances of defeat. A similar initiative to extend the franchise in local elections to lawful residents was narrowly defeated in Portland, Maine in 2010...A proposal to allow noncitizen voting in school board elections in San Francisco’s was defeated by a 2.9 percent margin in 2004…and again, in 2010, by a much wider margin.” 

Recall also the fate of the Minneapolis City Council’s decision to abolish their police force.  After initially promising to replace the Minneapolis Police Department with a “Department of Community Safety and Violence Prevention,” the members of the City Council ultimately submitted the issue to a voter referendum. According to NPR, “(v)oters in Minneapolis…resoundingly rejected a proposal to reinvent policing in their city…(a)pproximately 56% of voters rejected a ballot question that would have removed the Minneapolis Police Department from the city charter and replaced it with a ‘public-health oriented’ Department of Public Safety.” 

And these pills being completely natural, one viagra order shop need not worry about the safety as the most important condition of the FDA approval from the USA. Maintain a gap between two drugs intake, do not consume it at a time. cheap generic sildenafil In California, there are range of purchase generic viagra http://midwayfire.com/minutes/09-09-08.pdf institutes that give driving education to people. The dick pills, so called as they levitra price are dedicated in their task and they remain updated with all necessary technologies so that they can cure every eye problem with perfection.

With this history, it is no wonder the New York City Council acted without voter approval.  But thre is a more important question – why act at all?  Why add an estimated 800,000 to one million voters to local elections?

The answer is obvious.  As late as 2014, statistical data shows that the overwhelming majority of immigrants tend to register as Democrats.  In New York alone, 60% of immigrants identified as Democrats, while only 15% claimed to be Republicans.  In Massachusetts, it was 67% Democrat, 17% Republican, and in New Jersey, 62% to 14%.    According to Pew Research, “Hispanic registered voters have historically identified more with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party…(a)bout two-thirds (64%) of Hispanic voters say they identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, compared with 24% who identify as Republican or lean toward the GOP.”

And just who are the majority of immigrants to New York City?  According to the American Immigration Council, “(n)early a quarter of New York residents are immigrants…In 2018, 4.4 million immigrants (foreign-born individuals) comprised 23 percent of the population…The top countries of origin for immigrants were the Dominican Republic (11 percent of immigrants), China (9 percent), Mexico (5 percent), Jamaica (5 percent), and India (4 percent).” 

Thus, the question is not, why is the overwhelming Democrat New York City Council seeking to expand their voter base to resident aliens.  The question is, why shouldn’t they seek to add more Democrat voters and a permanent majority? 

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

Photo: Pixabay

On December 9, 2021, the New York City Council passed a local law amending the City Charter to allow “lawful permanent residents and persons authorized to work in the United States in New York city to participate in municipal elections.”  To accomplish this, the new law redefines a “municipal voter” as  “a person who is not a United States citizen on the date of the election on which he or she is voting, who is either a lawful permanent resident or authorized to work in the United States, who is a resident of New York city and will have been such a resident for 30 consecutive days or longer by the date of such election, who meets all qualifications for registering or pre-registering to vote under the election law, except for possessing United States citizenship, and who has registered or pre-registered to vote with the board of elections in the city of New York under this chapter.” 

As reported by the New York Post, “’Our city will become the largest municipality in the nation that will allow non-citizens to vote in local elections,’ Speaker (of the City Council) Corey Johnson…said… ‘New York has been built by immigrants, and we are what we are because of them.’”   

Although the bill passed by a wide margin, not everyone on the New York City Council was enthusiastic about the new law.  “Councilman Mark Gjonaj — a Democrat who represents parts of The Bronx...(indicated that the) 30-day minimum residency in New York City should be extended to at least a year, because it would permit ‘transients’ to head to the polls…’This bill in its current form doesn’t protect New York City; it makes it vulnerable to outside influence,’ he said….’It doesn’t take much to … figure out how dangerous this bill is for the future of New York City,’ he added. ‘This bill … is a threat to our sovereignty.’” 

While this is a valid, if somewhat obscure, basis to question the actions of the New York City Council, there are more obvious objections to the passage of this bill, objections which will serve as the grounds for a lawsuit to be brought by “Staten Island Borough President-elect Vito Fossella…along with Council Republican leader Joseph Borelli and the (New York) state Republican Party” – that is, 1) the City Council does not have the power to enact this law without either a voter referendum, 2) the new law is not legal, under either the federal or state constitutions.  

IS THE NEW LAW CONSTITUTIONAL?

Like any legal question, the answer is not simple.  Pursuant to Article 2, Section 1 of the New York State Constitution, “Every citizen shall be entitled to vote at every election for all officers elected by the people…provided that such citizen is eighteen years of age or over and shall have been a resident of this state, and of the county, city, or village for thirty days next preceding an election.” 

According to “Albany Law School professor Vincent Bonventre…’Although the provision does not explicitly say that a ‘non-citizen may not vote’ or that only citizens may vote, the implications seems pretty clear that the right to vote is exclusive to citizens—they are the only ones mentioned and nothing else suggests the right to vote may be extended to others.’”  Further, “James McGuire, a former appellate court judge and chief legal counsel to three-term Gov. George Pataki, said, ‘It is difficult to reconcile the City Council’s position with the fact that the provision in the state constitution that grants the right to vote distinguishes between a citizen and a resident.’”

On the other hand, “Doug Kellner, a Democratic co-chairman on the state Board of Elections, said local governments (have) discretion to organize their own elections under the state’s ‘home rule’ provision. He noted that non-citizens were allowed to vote in school board elections.” 

From these, generic viagra australia the researcher’s isolated 16 patients with symptoms of hyperthyroidism. For the herbs to work, the patients simply have to levitra 20mg uk believe that a great deal has to do with faith. A delayed erection (priapism) can cheapest viagra 100mg harm the vital organ of body. Kamagra jelly is one of the best product are available in market for the solution of ED. on line viagra

In fact, “New York’s original state constitution gave the vote to all white male residents – citizen or noncitizen – who owned property and declared allegiance to the state. Not long after, New York became one of the first states to ban noncitizen voting: by 1804, the state election law required citizenship to vote, and an 1827 law defined ‘citizenship’ unambiguously as U.S. citizenship…New York City permitted noncitizens to vote in local school board elections between 1968 and 2003…noncitizen voting in school boards was legal because school boards were considered outside local government…”    The school board system was abolished in 2002, along with the New York City Board of Education when a new law was enacted, “replacing it with a…Panel for Educational Policy controlled by the mayor. The mayor gained the power to appoint the chancellor, and Community Education Councils, consisting of parents, replaced community school boards.” 

Besides the New York State Constitution, there is New York Election Law, Sec, 5-102(1), to be considered, which states that “No person shall be qualified to register for and vote at any election unless he is a citizen of the United States and is or will be, on the day of such election, eighteen years of age or over, and a resident of this state and of the county, city or village for a minimum of thirty days next preceding such election.” 

This would seem to be pretty explicit; however, according to a study published in 2014 by the Center for Immigration Studies, “New York’s election law also provides…that if a conflict exists between state election law and ‘any other law,’ the latter prevails unless the election law specifically provides that it should prevail. Known…as a ‘savings clause’…provision, this language creates a presumption against preemption unless the New York State legislature makes its intent to preempt local law unmistakably clear.”  What this means is, “(t)he state legislature easily could have included preemptive language such as ‘notwithstanding any state or local enactment to the contrary…’ in § 5-102…(i)t has not done so..”

Thus, proponents of the new law argue that the New York State constitution does not stand in the way of New York City enacting its own law, for its own elections.  They also argue that the City Council’s act should be considered “any other law,” not explicitly preempted by New York State Election law.

Federal law also plays a role here.  Under 18 USC Sec. 611(a), “It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, unless—(1) the election is held partly for some other purpose; (2) aliens are authorized to vote for such other purpose under a State constitution or statute or a local ordinance; and (3) voting for such other purpose is conducted independently of voting for a candidate for such Federal offices, in such a manner that an alien has the opportunity to vote for such other purpose, but not an opportunity to vote for a candidate for any one or more of such Federal offices.” 

Thus, as noted by the Center for Immigration Studies, “In short, federal law explicitly recognizes that a state or local government can extend suffrage to noncitizens, at least with regard to a state or local matter, as long as the relevant government body develops procedures to ensure that the noncitizen cannot vote on the federal matter. This might be done either by giving noncitizens a different ballot, or by holding local elections at a different time. At the same time, immigration law makes a noncitizen who votes in violation of any federal, state or local law inadmissible or deportable.”

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC/ His analysis concludes tomorrow.

Photo: Pixabay

The Durham investigation has revealed that the entire “Russian Collusion” charge was completely false, manufactured solely for the purpose of ensuring that Hillary would win the 2016 campaign.

The key perpetrators, including the Clintons, as well as the leadership of the Democratic Party, and in particular Rep. Adam Schiff, serving as Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, knew of the fraud. As the New York Post reported in 2020, “As the grand impresario of collusion, Schiff has filled print and broadcast media since January 2017 claiming that he has seen “more than circumstantial evidence” of a Trump-Putin conspiracy. Obviously there was none in the transcripts…”

 Key portions of the media which had already abandoned journalistic ethics in their determination to place their favored candidate in the Oval Office, eagerly went along. Pulitzer Prizes were awarded for their false reporting. The Washington Post falsely wrote in 2018 “Coupled with another groundless attack on the FBI and an apparent endorsement of a patently disingenuous offer by Mr. Putin to collaborate with the investigation of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, Mr. Trump appeared to align himself with the Kremlin against American law enforcement before the Russian ruler and a global audience.”

The crime was undoubtedly the worst in American political history.

Usually, campaign misdeeds end on election day. But the Clinton/Democratic Party offense extended far beyond.  It divided the nation more harshly than anything since the Civil War. It had severe implications for U.S. foreign Affairs. Lives were ruined. Federal agencies abused private citizens on behalf of power brokers–all for the purpose of placing a Democrat in the White House. Both the legislative and executive branches of government were diverted from their duties, although, to its credit, the Trump Administration accomplished much.

Accomplished much despite the left’s profound efforts to continue the hoax, and distract the public with Antifa riots when the fraud became increasingly evident

It was more than a felony. It was an unprecedented act of immorality.

There is a role for morality in politics. Advocate that concept, however, at your own peril.  Undoubtedly, anyone forwarding the idea will be immediately assaulted by a legion of progressive critics pointing out the past foibles and imperfections of the person or organizations bringing it up, in order to distract the conversation from the issue at hand.

It’s the same logic used to justify assaulting figures such as Abraham Lincoln.  As a result, a perfect environment has been created for tolerating immoral deeds including Russian Collusion, biased journalism, and the abuse of government agencies and organizations for partisan gain.

The electorate has become cognizant of this trend, and is beginning to react to it. The results of the recent election, especially in Virginia, highlight the issue.

The public school system has been one of the most prominent examples of immorality in American government.  For decades, powerful teachers’ union officials have subordinated the interests of children, and the struggles by wonderful teachers to present honest curriculum, to the desires of leftist-dominated union leaders. Rejecting objective education for propaganda, they have used their influential position to indoctrinate children to their views. Those unions leaders have vigorously supported Democratic politicians in return for their looking the other way.

Garlic juice taken with hot water twice steal here female viagra cheap a daily relieves asthma attacks. 6. This is not an open-heart surgery, hence most of the patients viagra levitra cialis http://djpaulkom.tv/photos-polow-mob-tv-shoots-away-at-the-massacre-tour-in-austin/ were not able to take medicine. Love heals up the order generic cialis entire trauma appearing in one’s life. viagra canada mastercard He can’t stop considering about it.

Terry McAuliffe made the mistake of openly stating that parents had no right to object to this charade, and lost his gubernatorial bid as a result. Hopefully, it is the start of a trend. 

The Durham investigation’s recent report, following McAuliffe’s self-exposure, presented a one-two punch to the environment of political corruption that has dominated the left and their media allies.

Despite the exposures, however, the challenge is far from over. Still guarded by a biased media, and having had the precedent of leftist officials repeatedly escaping liability for misdeeds, there will be no contrition, no soul searching. The only change will be in rhetoric that attempts to explain away the heinous crimes and governing errors that have so damaged the nation.

Illustration: Pixabay

The Department of Defense recently released a summary of its classified “Global Posture Review.”

In the Indo-Pacific, the review advocates additional cooperation with allies and partners to advance initiatives that contribute to regional stability and deter potential Chinese military aggression and threats from North Korea.  These initiatives include seeking greater regional access for military partnership activities; enhancing infrastructure in Australia and the Pacific Islands; and planning rotational aircraft deployments in Australia, as announced in September.  The GPR also informed Secretary Austin’s approval of the permanent stationing of a previously-rotational attack helicopter squadron and artillery division headquarters in the Republic of Korea, announced earlier this year.

In Europe, the GPR strengthens the U.S. combat-credible deterrent against Russian aggression and enables NATO forces to operate more effectively.  Based on an initial GPR assessments and a recommendation from Secretary Austin, in February 2021 President Biden rescinded the 25,000 active duty force cap in Germany. Additionally, Secretary Austin announced in April that DoD would permanently station an Army Multi-Domain Task Force and a Theater Fires Command, a total of 500 Army personnel, in Germany. 

In the Middle East, the GPR assessed the department’s approach toward Iran and the evolving counterterrorism requirements following the end of DoD operations in Afghanistan.  In Iraq and Syria, DoD posture will continue to support the Defeat-ISIS campaign and building the capacity of partner forces.  Looking ahead, the review directs DoD to conduct additional analysis on enduring posture requirements in the Middle East.

In Africa, analysis from the review is supporting several ongoing interagency reviews to ensure DoD has an appropriately-scoped posture to monitor threats from regional violent extremist organizations, support U.S. diplomatic activities and support America’s allies and partners.

Finally, in Central and South America and the Caribbean, the GPR reviewed the role of DoD posture in support of national security objectives, including humanitarian assistance, disaster relief and counter-narcotics missions.  DoD posture will continue to support U.S. Government efforts on the range of transnational challenges and partnership activities in the region.

It is used for this drugstore cialis viagra sale oral consumption and are in the form of 100mg & this has been the correct dosage as per the instructions of the health professionals. Becky makes very small books that can sildenafil tablets 50mg robertrobb.com fit inside and empty match box. It has been a good alternative of canadian pharmacy levitra as available at the lowest prices with the same quality. The idea means check out description levitra 20 mg that certain individuals are genetically predisposed to addiction using a faulty gene or perhaps a chemical imbalance in our brain, which renders addiction an incurable disease! The psychological theory – Views drug or alcohol addiction as problematic behavior.

 “The main outcome of the review is the return to normal of determining military posture around the world and tying that to America’s strategic alignment”  an official speaking on background said.

The Defense Department notes that “It is no surprise that the Indo-Pacific is the priority region for the review, given [Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s] focus on China as America’s pacing challenge. The review directs additional cooperation with allies and partners to advance initiatives that contribute to regional stability and deter Chinese military aggression and threats from North Korea.”

President Joe Biden has accepted the recommendations. Some may see that as a contradiction for his Administration. Additional measures to counter China and Russia produce additional costs, but the White House budget submitted to Congress effectively produced a cut in the Pentagon’s spending power.  Congress has moved to correct that but providing a budget that will revise that request and increase the military budget.

It is no surprise that the Indo-Pacific is the priority region for the review, given the secretary’s focus on China as America’s pacing challenge. The review directs additional cooperation with allies and partners to advance initiatives that contribute to regional stability and deter Chinese military aggression and threats from North Korea. 

One of America’s key allies, Australia, has clearly been concerned both by China’s aggression, and concern about the strength of the U.S. military. Australia’s United States Study Center recently reported that “Australia and the United States have entered a new era of strategic competition with China. Following decades of US military supremacy in the Indo-Pacific, Washington’s approach to regional defence strategy is being re-evaluated in light of a shifting balance of power. In Australia, this has sparked debates about the sustainability of the United States’ military position in the Indo-Pacific and what role Canberra should play in collectively upholding the regional order. Washington is grappling with these debates, aware that its regional alliance network is a key advantage over its near-peer competitor, the People’s Republic of China.”

China has been in the news for “all the wrong reasons” lately, according to a military analyst talking about recent advances in the modernization of China’s offensive nuclear capabilities. In a December meeting of China specialists that the Jamestown Foundation held to discuss China and nuclear deterrence in the hypersonic era, the discussion centered on what is driving China’s plans for modernizing of its nuclear force and how it is diversifying its posture to become more aggressive and deadly. 

The group agreed that the military doctrine of China’s President Xi Jinping, although little detail is known, calls for expanding the number of nuclear warheads, building new silo fields and nuclear reactors, and reorganizing the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Xi’s plan contains strategic options and includes more advanced weapons technologies that are “bolder than all previous Chinese leaders” combined according to one participant. This year Xi has stated a number of times publicly that he intends to create a more powerful nuclear deterrent to enable China to deter the United States from actions against it in East Asia. There was agreement at the meeting that China can win a conventional war against China if it attempts to take over Taiwan in the future. According to Bill Bates, a Chinese nuclear expert, Xi’s strategic goal is to create a US-China stalemate at the nuclear level which will allow Beijing a free hand at the conventional level. This could mean taking Taiwan, expanding it naval influence over maritime commerce in the South China Sea or even adventures in other areas of the world.

China from 2017-2020 increased the number of its PLA Rocket Force brigades from 29 to over 40, which represents a 35% increase in just 48 months. Many of these units are nuclear capable. Estimates are that within the next four years China will have deployed a minimum of 200 nuclear warheads capable of being launched from a land-based silo or mobile unit, or by air or sea. It is often referred to as the nuclear triad. China just 12 months later, in 2027, is expected to jump the number dramatically to 700 and by 2030 it is likely to have 1,000 nuclear capable weapons ready for launch. Xi also has ordered the building of multiple launch sites that already appear capable of housing more than 300 nuclear weapons. Whether these are armed is unknown within the public domain. One unnamed military analyst in Washington suggested that they are, and that the density of each silo field suggests China is developing what it intends to be a first strike capability.

In the news recently China boasted about successfully testing a hypersonic wind tunnel many generations ahead of any other in the world. It also tested a hypersonic vehicle believed capable of delivering a nuclear weapon anywhere in the continental United States after crossing the southern polar cap. The Chinese Rocket Force tested the missile by sending it around the entire globe this fall before landing it near its intended target. NORAD and the majority of America’s defense is aimed at stopping a missile threat from the north. Several analysts in the intelligence community admitted the rapid pace of Chinese hypersonic developments “caught us off guard.”

Many pharmaceutical companies have also designed their own brand of regencygrandenursing.com sildenafil india as well as the generic brand. Erectile dysfunction is not just a condition that affects your blood circulation requires cialis on line professional supervision, especially if you have cardiovascular problems. The most important of the mens vitamins, however, are the multivitamins that replenish substances we lack in our every day diets. tadalafil for sale With our packaging services, you can avail great discounts. http://regencygrandenursing.com/long-term-care/nutritional-management sildenafil in canada is basically a medication that has been created to identify spam mail and over the years they have evolved to using complicated mathematics to find patterns in suspect mails and then move them into a spam folder.

The Jamestown meeting addressed a number of factors driving the development of China’s nuclear strategy. What emerged of great concern in the meeting is the increased global risk that a desperate China poses and the possibility it may become even more unpredictable in the future. US military analysts mentioned that advanced reconnaissance by the United States suggests a first strike by China today could be either nuclear or conventional. 

Domestically, the Chinese leadership is concerned about its own survivability. Bureaucratic politics, like other nation-states, factors into domestic policy at home. Those politicians at risk of losing their standing in Beijing, it is believed, are helping to shape the direction and certain aspects of China’s offensive nuclear posture. If this is the case it is indicative of domestic support for a more aggressive foreign policy. It is believed that the CCP remains divided over China’s nuclear policy. Depending on the strength of Xi’s domestic opposition, the United States may be facing a more unstable China in the near future and one that has integrated its cyber, space and nuclear strategies into a more flexible, usable, and adaptable response to perceived foreign threats. The result will limit the ability of the U.S. top maneuver in a crisis in Asia at both a strategic and tactical level and further complicates American military planning and operations in the region. As China reorganizes its PLA Rocket Force to rid it of the technical constraints in launching a nuclear weapon the big question no one in Washington is asking out loud is does this mean China is changing its posture and eliminating its “no first use” policy.

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government. 

Illustration: Pixabay

“US intelligence has found the Kremlin is planning a multi-front offensive as soon as early next year involving up to 175,000 troops,” according to officials in Washington and an intelligence document obtained by The Washington Post. President Vladimir Putin this week is making blatant demands of President Biden that he guarantee the United States will not send any troops to join NATO in response to a possible Russian offensive or help the Ukraine in any way. In addition, he is demanding that Biden sign a statement promising the United States will not support an expansion of NATO to include Ukraine or Georgia while also limiting US and NATO-related military activity near Russia’s borders.

Washington Post writer Shane Harris, referring to the leaked intelligence document in the paper, writes that an unnamed Biden Administration official told him that “The Russian plans call for a military offensive against Ukraine as soon as early 2022 with a scale of forces twice what we saw this past spring during Russia’s snap exercise near Ukraine’s borders… The plans involve extensive movement of 100 battalion tactical groups with an estimated 175,000 personnel, along with armor, artillery and equipment.” Russian forces already appear to be massing in four locations in preparation for an offensive sometime soon after Christmas. According to the US intelligence document, 50 battlefield tactical groups are deployed, along with “newly arrived” tanks and artillery. US satellite imagery from November indicates that the size of the buildup of troops along the Ukrainian border enables Putin to call for a rapid escalation if he decides to move.

Officials in Washington have not said yet whether they believe Putin has already made the decision to invade the Ukraine. However, all signs indicate an attack is imminent in the coming weeks. Earlier this year Russian forces, in what was labeled a military exercise, rehearsed for a ground and air invasion along the Ukrainian border. After ending the “exercise” Russian forces left heavy military equipment in the area. The forward basing of materiel is a further indication of Russia’s intent to attack in the near future. The US intelligence document leaked to the Washington Post says the placement of “Equipment may be left behind at different training ranges to enable a rapid, final buildup.” 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, in public comments this week, said “We must prepare for all contingencies,” echoing Putin’s warning to the US to stay away and not allow NATO to interfere. Lavrov declared that “The nightmare scenario of military confrontation is returning.” Russia, long known for its extensive propaganda campaigns, is using its intelligence operatives to help spin the story. A US official said: “Recent information also indicates that Russian officials proposed adjusting Russia’s information operations against Ukraine to emphasize the narrative that Ukrainian leaders had been installed by the West, harbored a hatred for the ‘Russian world,’ and were acting against the interests of the Ukrainian people.”

You can use this herbal supplement daily two times with viagra online store milk or water. You will regain the confidence to viagra canada pharmacy enjoy intimate moments with their beautiful female. Q-Link constantly tunes the body’s continue reading now generic viagra online natural life-supporting frequencies.” For most of my life, I have had stress issues. It is not intended to boost libido, semen production or even always in stock viagra online absence of sperm.

In a recent meeting with Ukrainian officials, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned officials in Kiev  not to give Russia any pretext for invasion. Yet twenty-four hours after warning Putin that the US would impose sanctions on Russia if it invaded the Ukraine, Biden responded to a reporter’s question about possible US troop involvement by stating “That is not on the table.” Biden’s clearly-worded statement is interpreted by some political analysts in Moscow as the US President, in effect, giving Putin a “go ahead” signal by revealing the US military will step aside if Russian troops invade its neighbor. In an earlier statement Karine Jean-Pierre, the deputy White House press secretary, appeared to contradict Biden when she said “… we are preparing for all contingencies, as we have been doing for weeks now, including preparing specific robust responses to Russian escalation should they be required.” Putin must have heard the mixed signals coming out of Washington and taken it as carte blanche for his plan.

While Putin may only be attempting a diplomatic maneuver against admission of the Ukraine into NATO, without the use of a military force, it is an unlikely scenario. Under NATO rules a nation-state must be free of foreign forces controlling any part of its territory before it can qualify to become a Member State. Neither Ukraine nor Georgia qualify for full membership in NATO due to the occupation of their territory by Russian military forces. The more likely scenario is that Putin is seizing an opportunity given the recent US debacle during its withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan. Putin may assume it is on the minds of leaders in Washington and that none have the political willpower to get involved in another costly conflict that could escalate quickly to war throughout the European continent.

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government.

Photo: File photo of Russian tank (Russian Defence Ministry)

A new variant of Covid 19 has been discovered, and given the ominous name of Omicron.  According to the New York Post, “(s)cientists looked at virus samples and discovered the new variant after South African cases began to explode (at the end of November) after holding at about 200 a day. Cases neared 2,500 (by November 27)… (t)he seemingly high number of mutations — about 30 — in the coronavirus’ spike protein could mean it spreads easily. That is about double the number of mutations of the Delta variant, and could mean increased transmissibility.” 

The World Health Organization (WHO) wasted no time in labeling the new variant a “concern,” stating that “(t)he overall global risk related to the new variant … is assessed as very high”…adding that Omicron “has an unprecedented number of spike mutations, some of which are concerning for their potential impact on the trajectory of the pandemic.”  As if that didn’t sound serious enough, the WHO added that “(t)he presence of multiple mutations of the spike protein in the receptor-binding domain suggests that Omicron may have a high likelihood of immune escape from antibody-mediated protection” which means the strain has the potential “to escape protection offered by vaccines and previous infections.”

Nonetheless, “despite this troubling assessment, the agency cautioned against imposing travel bans, amid worries that banning travel from countries where new variants are first detected could be unfair and dissuade surveillance.  ‘With the Omicron variant now detected in several regions of the world, putting in place travel bans that target Africa attacks global solidarity,’ WHO regional director Matshidiso Moeti said…” 

In light of this recommendation from the scientists at WHO, what is the first thing President Joe “I follow the science” Biden does?

“The Biden administration announced plans…to ban travel to the United States from South Africa and seven other countries, just hours after a new coronavirus variant was deemed a highly transmissible virus of concern… Biden…urged fully vaccinated Americans to get booster shots and the unvaccinated to get the ‘life-saving protection.’ Biden also addressed the global community in his statement, saying the new variant shows the pandemic won’t end until vaccines are readily available around the world.” 

Predictably, the ban on travel from South Africa, and several other African nations, has not been well received.  As noted by the Washington Examiner, “Biden’s decision to close the U.S. border to southern African visitors has been blasted by travel lobby groups and attracted hypocrisy complaints after he seemed to suggest former President Donald Trump’s travel bans were ‘xenophobic.'”  

“White House press secretary Jen Psaki distanced Biden from his past comments…adamant the president ‘has not been critical’ of travel bans. But her remarks contrast with Biden’s previous statements and tweets.  Shortly after Trump announced his China travel ban in January 2020, Biden told voters in Iowa his opponent’s ‘record of hysterical xenophobia and fearmongering’ disqualified him to ‘lead our country through a global health emergency.’ Biden and his staffers then spent the next two months insisting that the then-candidate was referring to Trump’s history of alleged xenophobic conduct, including his Muslim travel ban, not the movement restrictions.  ‘A wall will not stop the coronavirus,’ Biden tweeted that March. ‘Banning all travel from Europe — or any other part of the world — will not stop it.'” 

Not to be out done in rushing forward with a panicked response, New York Governor Kathy Hochul (the latest “accidental governor” of that state, after Andrew Cuomo’s epic fall from grace) “signed an executive order…to postpone elective hospital surgeries — something that hasn’t been done since the worst of the initial coronavirus outbreak last year.  Hochul said she made the move to deal with staffing shortages and boost bed capacity amid an anticipated ‘spike’ in new cases and the emergence of the new Omicron variant in South Africa… ‘while the new Omicron variant has yet to be detected in New York State, it’s coming,’ Hochul said.” 

Was all of this panic good for the stock market?  According to Barrons, “Stock markets and oil prices plunged…over fears of a new coronavirus variant that scientists warn could be more infectious than the Delta strain and more resistant to vaccines, potentially dealing a heavy blow to the global economic recovery.  The Dow saw its worst drop of the year as Wall Street indices plunged and the dollar floundered… US crude oil prices tumbled more than 13 percent and the main international contract lost nearly 12 percent, which CMC Markets analyst Michael Hewson attributed to ‘concerns that this new mutation could add to the pressure on demand’…Share prices of airlines and tourism groups dived, while there were big losses also for energy groups.” 

Trying to stem the rising tide of alarm his travel ban sparked, Biden addressed the nation, stating that the new variant was “a cause for concern, not a cause for panic,” and that “lockdowns to prevent the spread of the virus were off the table ‘for now.'”  That “for now” reassured absolutely no one.

But what of this new variant with a name like a villain out of Dr Who? Is it more deadly than the original Covid-19 virus?  More dangerous than the Delta variant?

The pump can cheap generic levitra either be hand operated or electric, but in both ways performs the same function. Kamagra Polo – An enchantment solution for sexual weakness.Is it true that you are the person who does not want to have distances with the partner, you cannot have the real taste of happy relationship. cialis canada online This medicine levitra sildenafil greyandgrey.com helps in curing male impotence after managing internal erection functions. Every dosage requires 60 cialis online minutes to show it off to.

Apparently not.  According to “Dr. Angelique Coetzee, a practicing doctor for 30 years who chairs the South African Medical Association (SAMA)… ‘(Omicron) presents mild disease with symptoms being sore muscles and tiredness for a day or two not feeling well…So far, we have detected that those infected do not suffer the loss of taste or smell. They might have a slight cough. There are no prominent symptoms. Of those infected some are currently being treated at home.” 

Mild symptoms?  Slight cough?  Sore muscles, tiredness – for a day or two?  No loss of taste or smell?  No prominent symptoms?  

Does this illness sound worthy of dread?  Or is there another purpose in sounding the warning gong over this new variant?

According to Joel Mathis, writing for The Week, “Republican governors like Ron DeSantis in Florida and Greg Abbott in Texas have tried to block vaccine and mask mandates, while Fox News stars (and some Trumpist members of Congress) have spread conspiracy theories…. It has always been the case that unvaccinated people risk not only their own health but also the well-being of their neighbors — in part because they serve as potential breeding grounds for COVID variants. It’s probably not a coincidence that Omicron was first detected in South Africa, where barely more than a third of the population has received the jab. Every Tucker Carlson rant that encourages vaccine hesitancy makes the next deadly variant a bit more likely.” 

In fact, while asking the public not to panic, “President Joe Biden…once again urg(ed) Americans to get vaccinated, obtain a booster shot and wear masks in public places…’In the event — hopefully unlikely — that updated vaccinations or boosters are needed to respond to Omicron, we will accelerate their development and deployment with every available tool,” Biden said.” 

Further, “(c)iting the emergence of the omicron variant, the CDC (Center for Disease Control)…said ‘everyone ages 18 and older should get a booster shot” of the COVID vaccine if it has been at least six months since they completed the regimen of Pfizer or Moderna shots or two months after getting the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. 

No lockdowns – for now.  But get your vaccine, or your booster.  Wear your mask.  All to protect yourself from an illness that causes “mild symptoms” “for a day or two.”

Former Clinton Chief of Staff and former Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel once famously said, “you never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”    Seems you no longer need to wait for a genuine crisis.  For those who insist you continue wearing masks and get a booster shot every two months, crying wolf is opportunity enough.

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench on New York City.

Illustration: Pixabay

For weeks this past November, much of the nation was glued to their TV screens, watching the trial of 18 year old Kyle Rittenhouse, accused of attempted murder and intentional murder for the shooting of one person, and the deaths of two others.  On November 19, 2021 a Wisconsin jury found Rittenhouse Not Guilty on all counts. 

For most cases, this would be the end of the line – the jury has spoken, the defendant is free, the courtroom is available for the next trial.  But the Rittenhouse case was not the average criminal matter.

“Before the verdict, left-wing coverage of the case was…vitriolic. MSNBC contributor Jason Johnson compared Rittenhouse to a ‘school shooter,’ while MSNBC’s John Heilemann said he is ‘arguably a domestic terrorist.’ MSNBC’s Joy Reid and Nicolle Wallace referred to him as a ‘vigilante,’ and Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., used the ‘White supremacist’ term when talking about Rittenhouse during an appearance on CNN in March. President Biden lumped Rittenhouse in with White supremacists in a video shared last year on Twitter. ‘The View’ co-host Sunny Hostin said Rittenhouse murdered two people, and fellow co-host Whoopi Goldberg reiterated that sentiment…while discussing his acquittal. Far-left ‘Young Turks’ host Cenk Uygur called him ‘deeply racist’ and said he ‘murdered a couple of people.’  ‘A white, Trump-supporting, MAGA-loving Blue Lives Matter social media partisan, 17 years old, picks up a gun, drives from one state to another with the intent to shoot people,’ Heilemann said of Rittenhouse last year…”

Was Rittenhouse a “vigilante” who drove to another state “with the intent to shoot people?”  Not according to the evidence submitted to the jury;  

“Rittenhouse fatally shot Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, on Aug. 25, 2020, during rioting in Kenosha, Wis…(h)e also wounded Gaige Grosskreutz, 27.  The still photos of Rittenhouse walking on a street with an AR-15 rifle strapped to his back triggered widespread outrage…(when he testified) Rittenhouse described how he spent the day cleaning off graffiti from the high school and how he was asked by a business owner to protect his building. He also described how he brought a medical kit and gave aid to people injured during the rioting…(f)rom the outset, Rosenbaum, 36, was portrayed as a menacing, violent actor. A convicted child molester, he was described by various witnesses as threatening Rittenhouse and others… Grosskreutz fared little better. He admitted under cross-examination that Rittenhouse did not shoot him when he had his hands up after a confrontation. Instead, he admitted, Rittenhouse shot only after Grosskreutz pointed his own 9mm handgun at Rittenhouse’s head.  The jury heard how Rittenhouse was chased as Huber struck him repeatedly with a skateboard and someone else hit him in the head with a rock.” 

Was Rittenhouse a “white supremacist” and “deeply racist?”  According to David Marcus, writing for the New York Post, “He is white, and so are the three men he shot…(p)resumably, what the liberal media (and President Joe Biden, by the way) think makes him a ‘white supremacist’ is that he was protecting property during a riot that was backlash to a police shooting of a black man… To the left, systemic racism, as they call it, infects every aspect of our lives, all the time. So, of course Rittenhouse is a white supremacist because he didn’t think burning down a car dealership was an acceptable way to combat this ubiquitous racism.” 

 In particular, the comments by then Presidential candidate Joe Biden deserve further examination.  

On September 30, 2020, Biden posted this tweet; “‘There’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night’…The remarks were accompanied by a video showing White nationalists marching in Charlottesville, Virginia, and other images. A voice-over of Fox News’ Chris Wallace is heard asking then-President Trump during a presidential debate if he was willing to condemn White supremacists and militia groups.  At one point in the video, an image of Rittenhouse shows him holding an AR-style rifle on the night he killed two protesters and wounded a third in Kenosha, Wisconsin, during unrest after the police shooting of Jacob Blake a month earlier.”

According to lawyer Todd McMurtry, who represented “Covington kid” Nicholas Sandmann in his settlement with CNN of a defamation lawsuit, “‘What you take from that tweet is that Kyle Rittenhouse was using his rifle and engaging in White supremacist misconduct so it’s actionable,’ McMurtry told Fox News.” 

In order to bring a case for defamation, “under U.S. law a plaintiff…must prove that (a) publisher failed to do something she was required to do. Depending on the circumstances, the plaintiff will either need to prove that the defendant acted negligently, if the plaintiff is a private figure, or with actual malice, if the plaintiff is a public figure or official. Celebrities, politicians, high-ranking or powerful government officials, and others with power in society are generally considered public figures/officials and are required to prove actual malice. Unlike these well-known and powerful individuals, your shy neighbor is likely to be a private figure who is only required to prove negligence if you publish something defamatory about her. Determining who is a public or private figure is not always easy. In some instances, the categories may overlap.” 

Ayurvedic erection oil for male contains rare bio active compounds to regulate blood flow in body and to protect it from experiencing the shameful and embarrassing occurrence of impotency viagra mastercard has been manufactured as a PDE5 inhibitor. These are available in seven buy levitra online different fruity flavors like banana, strawberry, chocolate, pineapple etc. The name has become so well known that several fake aphrodisiacs now call themselves herbal viagra prescriptions . Kamagra Oral Jelly is known to collaborate viagra 100mg price with different substances.

Before his arrest and trial, Kyle Rittenhouse was unarguably a private person.  He did not seek the spotlight – instead, it was thrust upon him.  Thus, there is an argument available to him that he need only prove negligence to gain a recovery from the media sources who demonized him.  

On the other hand, once charged with a crime, particularly one as notorious as this, Rittenhouse could be viewed as a “limited purpose” public figure.  In the usual case, a “limited purpose” public figure is one who has ” thrust themselves to the forefront of particular controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.” (See) Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1974).   

“As regards figures who become prominent through involvement in a current controversy, the law is unfortunately rather murky. In general, emphasis is placed not on whether the controversy is a subject of public interest, but rather: The depth of the person’s participation in the controversy; The amount of freedom he or she has in choosing to engage in the controversy in the first place (e.g., if they were forced into the public light). See Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157 (1979);  Whether he has taken advantage of the media to advocate his cause. See Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1976).” 

 If deemed a public figure, limited or otherwise, Rittenhouse will have to show actual malice – that is, “the plaintiff must produce clear and convincing evidence that the defendant actually knew the information was false or entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. In making this determination, a court will look for evidence of the defendant’s state of mind at the time of publication and will likely examine the steps he took in researching, editing, and fact checking his work…” 

This may not be so difficult a standard to meet, in this particular instance.  As reported by Fox News, “‘It’s just breathtaking, some of the things being said, being written…the misinformation continues to flow to this day,’ Guy Benson said…on ‘Outnumbered.’ ‘I saw example after example…of news articles from actual news organizations, supposedly with lawyers of editorial oversight, getting basic facts wrong about the case, about the trial, about the Jacob Blake police shooting from last summer that was sort of the triggering event of the rioting,’ Benson continued. ‘Details, of course, matter … we have larger truths being spewed all over the place that are, in fact, not truths at all. Falsehoods.'” 

Before the verdict, media outlets might have had a stronger argument regarding their lack of malice.  But once Rittenhouse was acquitted, after the facts of the incident were established before a jury, there can be no argument about the ability to check facts, or the state of mind of much of the left wing media.  “MSNBC, which was banned from the courtroom after it was accused of having one of its journalists following the jury’s bus, published an opinion piece headlined, ‘Kyle Rittenhouse trial was designed to protect white conservatives who kill.’ NBC News anchor Lester Holt suggested Rittenhouse was able to ‘provoke’ a violent situation and then successfully claim self-defense in the court of law.  NBC anchor Maria Shriver even tweeted that it was ‘stunning’ the jury let Rittenhouse walk and MSNBC’s Reid compared Rittenhouse to “slave catchers,” claiming both got away with inciting violence in the name of protecting property.” 

Should the Rittenhouse family go forward with litigation?  Let us look to the example of Nicholas Sandmann, mentioned earlier.  “Sandmann is the teenager who sued CNN and the Washington Post for $275 million and $250 million, respectively, for their portrayal of him in their reporting as a racist, following his interaction with a Native American man at the 2019 March for Life rally in Washington, D.C…(i)f Sandmann was successful in forcing a settlement from two of the most prominent media organizations in the country, why couldn’t Rittenhouse achieve the same result? A settlement is the more likely outcome when suits are filed, because media organizations loathe being the focus of bad press, bad PR.  Examples of the media portraying Rittenhouse as a white supremacist and declaring him guilty of murder are plentiful. The last thing any news organizations should want is to have those clips playing over and over on social media and elsewhere, which is what would happen if a high-profile suit moved forward.”   

Whether Kyle Rittenhouse decides to sue the media that vilified him, and continues to do so even after his acquittal, is entirely his own decision.  But this young man may decide to bring suit for the reasons outlined by Nicholas Sandmann in the Daily Mail –  “News shouldn’t be a scoreboard that constantly changes. News is about coverage that includes a statement of facts that does not need to be corrected. But, the liberal media doesn’t do this… if Kyle is prepared to take on another burden in his early life, with the acceptance that it might result in nothing, I answer, give it a shot and hold the media accountable. One of the saddening parts of this media onslaught is that it has taken young people like Kyle and myself to expose how corrupt the media really is.”

 Good Faith disclosure – the author contributed to the Kyle Rittenhouse Defense Fund – twice.

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in New York City.

Europe is closer to the brink of all-out combat than at any time since the end of the Second World War.

Russia has massed of 100,000 troops, well equipped as an invasion force, on its border with Ukraine.  Vladimir Putin’s military has successfully tested powerful new missiles aimed at intimidating the west from responding. The U.S. Defense Department  notes that there has been “…a significant Russian buildup and unusual concentration of forces in and around Ukraine.”

In February 2014, the Kremlin invaded and annexed Crimea, a part of Ukraine. The Obama-Biden Administration did not respond in any significant way. Putin was constrained from further adventurism during the Trump era, but now, with Biden in the White House, Moscow may be gambling that once again the U.S. will not take any significant action.

A takeover of Ukraine would be seen as a major step in re-establishing the Soviet Empire, representing a clear threat to the rest of Europe.

America’s NATO allies are clearly and deeply concerned.

Speaking at the Reuters Next conference NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stressed that ”we all made it very clear that there will be a high price to pay” for any further Russian aggression against Ukraine. The NATO chief highlighted the increasingly bellicose rhetoric emanating from the Kremlin about Ukraine. “What we do know, is that not only has Russia increased its military presence closer to Ukraine’s borders, but … they’ve used military force against Ukraine before. They did that in 2014, when they invaded and illegally annexed Crimea, which is part of Ukraine, and they continue to support the armed separatists in Donbass in eastern Ukraine.”

The secretary general said NATO has called on Russia to de-escalate the situation. “We can hope for the best and call on Russia to not once again use military force against a sovereign, independent Ukraine, but we need to be prepared for the worst.”

more helpful tabs generic cialis levitra But these pills are not a permanent solution. In fact, doctors there prescribe Acai viagra usa mastercard supplements to persons who are suffering from erectile dysfunction used to use some Ayurvedic medicines. When a person does not face firm erections, it is then when he becomes a victim of erectile dysfunction or pulmonary arterial hypertension. http://icks.org/n/data/ijks/1482458908_add_file_3.pdf order discount viagra This is the very reason that Arginine is recommended often to gym enthusiasts and people suffering from the penis viagra without prescription impotence problem.

Stoltenberg scoffed at Russian President Vladimir Putin’s assertion that Russia is only responding to Ukraine’s warlike action. “The whole idea that Ukraine represents a threat to Russia is absolutely wrong,” the secretary general said. “Ukraine has been attacked by Russia. Russia is occupying parts of Ukraine. Crimea is part of the internationally recognized borders of Ukraine.”

In addition to its 2014 invasion when Russia invaded, occupied and illegally annexed Crimea,  it also provides military support to militant separatists in eastern Ukraine. “On top of that, we know that Russia is responsible for aggressive hybrid attacks [and] cyber attacks against Ukraine,” Stoltenberg said. “So, the whole idea that Ukraine is a threat to Russia is turning the world upside down. It is Russia that over many years now has been responsible for many types of aggressive actions against Ukraine.”

Individual NATO nations — including the United States — have provided aid to Ukraine in its struggle. NATO, as an alliance, has provided training to Ukrainian service members and advised Ukrainian officials on ways to improve their capabilities.

Stoltenberg called the Russian build-up “unexplained and unjustified,” and the NATO nations want the Russians to stop the provocations. “If they do the opposite, and actually decide to once again use force against Ukraine, then we have made it clear … during the NATO Foreign Minister meeting in Latvia today that Russia will then have to pay a high price; there will be serious consequences for Russia,” he said. “And that’s a clear message from NATO.”

Despite the clarity from NATO, the alliance is unlikely to act without the full support of the Biden Administration. The White House has not taken the steps that would signal preparations for a serious military engagement. The Biden defense budget actually cuts the Pentagon’s purchasing power by approximately three percent.

Photo: NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg meets with his organization’s leaders. (NATO photo)