Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

The time has come to say (or print) aloud what is obvious, but which pundits are reluctant to acknowledge: almost every foreign policy decision made by the Biden Administration has harmed American interests and aided our international opponents.

The extent of Biden’s anti-American foreign policy actions that harm U.S. interests, and indeed, the very safety of the nation’s citizenry, is long and deadly.

 It was widely agreed that the U.S. should end its ground war in Afghanistan, but that Bagram air base should remain as a guarantee that terrorists would not march into the void and take over.  Biden not only inexplicably closed down that vital facility, but he left billions of dollars in military equipment to the very terrorist groups responsible for the 911 attacks. He abandoned vast numbers of pro-Americans and indeed some Americans to Al-Qaeda.  The disaster didn’t end there.  Recently, he appointed Tracey Ann Jacobson, a key figure in the Afghanistan debacle, to serve to be the next US ambassador to Iraq

Equally as inexplicable, Biden has bent over backwards to help Iran, the nation whose leaders regularly chant “Death to America.” The Wall Street Journal’s editorial Board argues that “You’d think the Biden Administration would have realized by now that enriching the Iranian regime is a dangerous mistake. You’d be wrong. Relaxed U.S. enforcement of oil sanctions continued through October, refilling Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s coffers even after the Oct. 7 slaughter and the more than 40 attacks on U.S. troops by Iran’s proxies in the weeks since.” .  Biden also is responsible for Robert Malley’s role as the United States Special Envoy for Iran. Malley had his security clearance pulled and was suspended from his post at the State Department while the FBI investigates his alleged mishandling of classified documents.  On top of that, there is an allegation that some of his associates were compromised by the Iran Experts Initiatives (IEI), a vast Tehran-controlled propaganda operation.

After tolerating Iranian-backed attacks on U.S. and international ships, and assaults on U.S. facilities that led to injuries and deaths to American servicemembers, it is reasonable to assume that the President would respond directly against Iran.  He chose not to do so, and indeed, telegraphed his plans allowing the effectiveness of the strikes he did make against Iran’s proxy to be minimized.

Biden’s actions towards China are the most perplexing of all. He ended an existing anti-espionage surveillance program that addressed Beijing’s massive spying on both American companies and the U.S. military. He allows the Chinese Communist Party to harass their nation’s emigrees in America.  Stunningly, he permitted a Chinese spy ballon to traverse the entire length of the United States, taking detailed pictures of sensitive military installations from coast to coast. His White Houses has pursued energy policies that have little effect on the environment but massively strengthen Chinese industries as the expense of U.S. workers and companies.

The most visible of Biden’s refusals to protect the nation he leads is his push to open U.S. borders and facilitate illegal immigration.  While the drastic impact on crime levels and state and local budgets has been well documented, the threat to national security has not been adequately stated.

Senator James Lankford (R-OK), lead Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Government Operations and Border Management, has sounded the alarm about “military-age, single adult men” coming across the border illegally from non-Spanish speaking countries.

Senator Steve Daines (R-Montana) reported in October that “Since the first of October, Border Patrol agents have apprehended individuals from Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya. Malaysia, Morocco, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Uzbekistan, and Yemen.”

24,000 Chinese citizens were caught on the southern border during the 2023 fiscal year, more than the las ten years combined.  That’s more than the past 10 years combined.

It is a futile gesture to attempt to get inside the mind of the President or those who are making the decisions for him. However, the Progressive, woke cadre dominates his policy choices. Those choices reflect an indoctrination by leftists that America is evil.

In Newsweek, C. J. Pearson wrote “The identity crisis fueling Gen Z has been cultivated by the left-wing indoctrination into which we are inculcated at every educational and cultural institution in America. … We have been groomed to be disgusted by tradition, ashamed of our identity as Americans…” 

It’s a mode of thinking that gained prominence in the Obama-Biden Administration. Thomas Sowell noted in a 2012 Newsmax article    “Many of Barack Obama’s actions as president of the United States reflect neither political expediency nor an attempt to promote the best interests of the American people…Are Americans supposed to let foreigners tell them how to live their lives? The implied answer is clearly ‘Yes!’ When President Obama went to the United Nations for authority to take military action and ignored the Congress of the United States, that was all consistent with his vision of the way the world should be…How has Obama gotten away with so many things that are foreign to American beliefs and traditions? Partly it is because of a quiescent media, sharing many of his ideological views.”

Biden has continued and expanded upon that, and in doing, has placed the nation in ultimate peril.

Illustration: Pixabay

Is the Declaration regarding the blessings of same-sex couples sufficient to guide the prudent and fatherly discernment of ordained ministers ?

According to Reuters, this “ruling is bound to be opposed by conservatives, who already criticised the pope when he made his initial comments on the subject in October. Ulrich L. Lehner, a professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame in the United States, said the new guidance from the doctrinal office ‘invites misunderstanding and will sow confusion.’ Voicing concern that some bishops would use it as a pretext to do what is explicitly forbidden, the professor added, ‘it is, and I hate to say it, an invitation to schism.'”

Meanwhile, Reuters also noted the support for the statement from those who wish to “use it as a pretext to do what is explicitly forbidden.” For instance, “Father James Martin, a prominent American Jesuit priest who ministers to the LGBT community…said…that ‘along with many priests, I will now be delighted to bless my friends in same-sex unions.'” 

Think an advocate like Father Martin will avoid giving those blessings without any of the “clothing, gestures or words that are proper to a wedding?”

Attorney John Bursch, writing for the National Catholic Register, believes that Priests like Father Martin would NEVER deviate from the Pope’s directions. He believes the Statement is not “the supposed authorization of blessings for same-sex unions…that’s not what the document says at all. If anything, the document could be understood to encourage blessings so that same-sex-attracted individuals (or any individual in what the document calls an ‘irregular’ relationship) will be encouraged to live out God’s plan for human sexuality rather than their own… the Church contemplates the possibility of blessing individual persons in irregular relationships to call them to holiness.” 

Yes, you read that right – Bursch believes that gay couples asking for a blessing from a Catholic Priest are not seeking an endorsement of their same sex relationship, but are actually asking for the strength to follow the Church’s teachings on homosexual relationships, and dedicate their life to chastity.

If that’s really what Bursch believes, then he has spoken with too many same sex couples.  In fact, Reuters quotes a couple who have a more conventional view of the Church’s statement on blessings, one more in keeping with the fears of more conservative Catholics: “Martin Hardwick and Andrew Gibb of Manchester, England, who are married and have been together 41 years, said the move was long overdue. ‘You know if Jesus said love was love, then love is love, isn’t it?’ Hardwick said. ‘It’s about time,’ Gibb added.” 

As a point of clarification for the reader, at no time did Jesus say “love is love.”

Breitbart has a particularly dark view of the new statement; “’Such blessings are meant for everyone; no one is to be excluded from them,’ the text states. By extension, since a blessing can now be ‘offered to all without requiring anything,’ one must suppose that sweatshops, drug cartels, prostitution rings, abortion clinics, and child pornography studios should not be denied a blessing if they request one.” 

In regard to these concerns, it is not unfair to ask what the Church means by “irregular relationships.”  Does this ambiguous phrase contemplate a pedophile seeking a blessing while in a relationship with someone under the age of consent?  What about more outlandish relationships?  Is a Priest now encouraged to bless someone in love with their Sheep?

In general, “(o)utlets across Catholic media, from the progressive  America Magazine  to the conservative  Catholic Herald , drew the same conclusion from the response: that Pope Francis had provided wiggle room for ‘pastoral prudence’ in offering blessings for same-sex unions. Countless commentators and LGBTQ activist groups reacted similarly, including the controversial New Ways Ministry , which went so far as to thank the pontiff for the ‘allowance for pastoral ministers to bless same-gender couples.'” 

This, then, is the very heart of the problem with the Church’s new position on blessings.  Clearly, Pope Francis has given a tacit wink and a nod to Priests who wish to make some “official” acknowledgment of gay marriage, in their capacity as Priests, while claiming their blessing is “unofficial,” and that there is no change to Church doctrine regarding homosexuality.

Much as with the declaration regarding transgender participation in Church rites such as weddings and baptisms, the Pope’s desire for secular progressive change affects and colors his pronouncements regarding long-established Church doctrine, resulting in confusion for the faithful and internally inconsistent declarations.

As Peter Laffin states in the Washington Examiner, “it’s possible that Pope Francis did not intend to ‘signal openness to blessings for gay couples’…It’s also possible that he did intend to signal a change. As ever, Pope Francis’s intentions are difficult to divine. The Vatican’s refusal to issue a correction to the global media’s collective interpretation of the comments can itself be read in numerous ways: as callous indifference toward the spiritual formation of the faithful, as excessively slow reaction speed, or as evidence that no correction is necessary…Faithful Catholics would do well to pray for the Pope, as always, and for clear teaching on the moral issues of the day. Now more than ever, the faithful need the Church to instruct and lead with coherence and resolve.” 

Judge Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Photo: Pixabay

Recently, we discussed the vague and conflicting directions given by the Office of the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith of the Roman Catholic Church.  In a letter authored by Argentinean Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, and approved by Pope Francis at the end of October, 2023, the Church asserted that “Transgender people can be godparents at Roman Catholic baptisms, witnesses at religious weddings and receive baptism themselves.”  

We noted that such instructions fail “to clarify whether a transgender person should be baptized under a name consistent with their birth sex, or with a name consistent with their chosen sexual identity,” or “how a same sex couple could be expected to provide a ‘well-founded hope’ that their child would be ‘educated in the Catholic religion.'”

Rather than clarify these unclear views, In December of 2023, Pope Francis double downed on his obvious intentions to welcome practicing homosexuals into the Roman Catholic Church.

Once more, in a statement prepared by Cardinal Fernandez, which specifically notes that  “the document was discussed with the Holy Father,” and that “the text of the Declaration was submitted to the Holy Father for his review, and he approved it with his signature,” the Dicastery now allows for “the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples.”  Somehow, this is to be accomplished “without officially validating their status or changing in any way the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage.” 

The statement begins by claiming that Pope Francis wishes to avoid “’something that is not marriage…being recognized as marriage’…rites and prayers that could create confusion between what constitutes marriage – which is the ‘exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children’ – and what contradicts it are inadmissible. This conviction is grounded in the perennial Catholic doctrine of marriage; it is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning. The Church’s doctrine on this point remains firm.”

Yet, “Pope Francis urged us not to ‘lose pastoral charity, which should permeate all our decisions and attitudes’ and to avoid being ‘judges who only deny, reject, and exclude.’ Let us then respond to the Holy Father’s proposal by developing a broader understanding of blessings.”

Further, “(t)he Church…must shy away from resting its pastoral praxis on the fixed nature of certain doctrinal or disciplinary schemes, especially when they lead to ‘a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying.’” 

In other words, Pope Francis claims to reaffirm Church doctrine on what constitutes a marriage, while at the same time, demanding that the Church not be focused on the “fixed nature of certain doctrine” – such as, apparently, what constitutes a marriage.

“Within the horizon outlined” in the Declaration “appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex.”  Yet again, the statement emphasizes that “the form of (this blessing) should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the Sacrament of Marriage.”

“In any case,” the Declaration continues, “precisely to avoid any form of confusion or scandal, when the prayer of blessing is requested by a couple in an irregular situation, even though it is expressed outside the rites prescribed by the liturgical books, this blessing should never be imparted in concurrence with the ceremonies of a civil union, and not even in connection with them. Nor can it be performed with any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding. The same applies when the blessing is requested by a same-sex couple.”

Cardinal Fernandez concludes with this cryptic statement; “What has been said in this Declaration regarding the blessings of same-sex couples is sufficient to guide the prudent and fatherly discernment of ordained ministers in this regard.”

Judge Wilson’s (ret.) article concludes tomorrow

Photo: Pixabay

The Roman Catholic Church has always been clear regarding its stance towards homosexuality.  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (Cf. Genesis 19:1-29; Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:10; 1 Timothy 1:10), tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered’…They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” 

However, despite this official disapproval, the Church believes that homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”  At the same time, the Church teaches that  “Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery…by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”

Regarding transgenderism, the Church’s belief is “one that is grounded in genuinely confirmed reality. One is born either male or female… In this light, the Church recognizes that every human person is created in the image and likeness of God, male or female (Gen. 1:26-27). And so we should help people discover their true identities as children of God, not support them in the disordered attempt to reject their undeniable biological identity.” 

Pope Francis does not deny these teachings.  But the Holy Father seems to have his own point of emphasis regarding these fundamental issues.  In January of 2023, the Pope said, “It’s not a crime (to be gay) Yes, but it’s a sin…Fine, but first let’s distinguish between a sin and a crime…It’s also a sin to lack charity with one another.”  He also “criticized laws that criminalize homosexuality as ‘unjust,’ saying God loves all his children just as they are and called on Catholic bishops who support the laws to welcome LGBTQ people into the church. ‘Being homosexual isn’t a crime,’ Francis said during an exclusive interview…with The Associated Press.” 

Now the Catholic Church under the direction of Pope Francis has gone even further in expressing its support for homosexual and transgender Catholics.  Early in November of 2023, “(t)he Vatican announced…that transgender people can be baptized and become godparents under certain conditions, as well as serve as witnesses to church weddings… The Vatican’s document stated that transgender people, including those who have received hormone replacement therapy or sex reassignment surgery, can be baptized ‘under the same conditions as other believers’…Additionally, the statement allows for transgender ‘children and adolescents’ to be baptized as well, and added that there is no reason why transgender people cannot serve as witnesses at weddings. The document also specifies that a same-sex couple would be able to baptize a child who had been adopted or born via surrogate providing there is ‘a well-founded hope that he or she will be educated in the Catholic religion.'” 

This statement did not come from Pope Francis himself, but was written by Argentinean Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, who is head of the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith.  However, according to Reuters, Pope Franics approved of this statement on October 31, 2023.  

Most concerning to the Catholic faithful is the lack of clarity in Cardinal Fernandez’ pronouncements.  As described by CBS News, the baptism of a transsexual or any of the other rights of participation described in the statement can only be accomplished “if there is no ‘risk of generating a public scandal or disorientation among the faithful.’ But the document did not clarify what a public scandal would entail.”

Further, the document also fails to clarify whether a transgender person should be baptized under a name consistent with their birth sex, or with a name consistent with their chosen sexual identity. If the transgender is baptized under a name consistent with their chosen sexual identity, wouldn’t the Priest performing the baptism be tacitly endorsing transgenderism?

It is unclear how a same sex couple could be expected to provide a “well-founded hope” that their child would be “educated in the Catholic religion.”  Besides sending the child for religious education, would that same sex couple be expected to provide a “proper” Christian example, refrain from “sinful activity” and live together in chastity?  How could this unrealistic expectation not cause “disorientation among the faithful” by its very ambiguity?

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

Photo: Pixabay

The Roman Catholic Church has always been clear regarding its stance towards homosexuality.  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (Cf. Genesis 19:1-29; Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:10; 1 Timothy 1:10), tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered’…They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” 

However, despite this official disapproval, the Church believes that homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”  At the same time, the Church teaches that  “Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery…by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” 

Regarding transgenderism, the Church’s belief is “one that is grounded in genuinely confirmed reality. One is born either male or female… In this light, the Church recognizes that every human person is created in the image and likeness of God, male or female (Gen. 1:26-27). And so we should help people discover their true identities as children of God, not support them in the disordered attempt to reject their undeniable biological identity.”

Pope Francis does not deny these teachings.  But the Holy Father seems to have his own point of emphasis regarding these fundamental issues.  In January of 2023, the Pope said, “It’s not a crime (to be gay) Yes, but it’s a sin…Fine, but first let’s distinguish between a sin and a crime…It’s also a sin to lack charity with one another.”  He also “criticized laws that criminalize homosexuality as ‘unjust,’ saying God loves all his children just as they are and called on Catholic bishops who support the laws to welcome LGBTQ people into the church. ‘Being homosexual isn’t a crime,’ Francis said during an exclusive interview…with The Associated Press.” 

Now the Catholic Church under the direction of Pope Francis has gone even further in expressing its support for homosexual and transgender Catholics.  Early in November of 2023, “(t)he Vatican announced…that transgender people can be baptized and become godparents under certain conditions, as well as serve as witnesses to church weddings… The Vatican’s document stated that transgender people, including those who have received hormone replacement therapy or sex reassignment surgery, can be baptized ‘under the same conditions as other believers’…Additionally, the statement allows for transgender ‘children and adolescents’ to be baptized as well, and added that there is no reason why transgender people cannot serve as witnesses at weddings. The document also specifies that a same-sex couple would be able to baptize a child who had been adopted or born via surrogate providing there is ‘a well-founded hope that he or she will be educated in the Catholic religion.'” 

This statement did not come from Pope Francis himself, but was written by Argentinean Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, who is head of the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith.  However, according to Reuters, Pope Francis approved of this statement on October 31, 2023.   

Most concerning to the Catholic faithful is the lack of clarity in Cardinal Fernandez’ pronouncements.  As described by CBS News, the baptism of a transsexual or any of the other rights of participation described in the statement can only be accomplished “if there is no ‘risk of generating a public scandal or disorientation among the faithful.’ But the document did not clarify what a public scandal would entail.”

Further, the document also fails to clarify whether a transgender person should be baptized under a name consistent with their birth sex, or with a name consistent with their chosen sexual identity. If the transgender is baptized under a name consistent with their chosen sexual identity, wouldn’t the Priest performing the baptism be tacitly endorsing transgenderism?

Judge John Wilson’s (ret.) article concludes tomorrow

Photo: Pixabay

China’s economic threats are both overt and covert.

The FBI warns that “The counterintelligence and economic espionage efforts emanating from the government of China and the Chinese Communist Party are a grave threat to the economic well-being and democratic values of the United States…At the same time, the Chinese government is seeking to become the world’s greatest superpower through predatory lending and business practices, systematic theft of intellectual property, and brazen cyber intrusions…China’s efforts target businesses, academic institutions, researchers, lawmakers, and the general public and will require a whole-of-society response. The government and the private sector must commit to working together to better understand and counter the threat.”

One of the most significant potential threats has been called out by a collection of senators.

Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) announced the introduction of the Chinese CBDC Prohibition Act to prohibit money services businesses (MSBs) from engaging in any transaction that involves a central bank digital currency issued by the People’s Republic of China—for example the newly-announced Digital Yuan.

Central bank digital currency (CBDC) is money that a country’s central bank can issue. It’s called digital (or electronic) because it isn’t physical money like notes and coins. It is in the form of an amount on a computer or similar device.

The legislation would preempt potential attempts by MSBs to offer services that would increase usage of Communist China’s digital currency. Representative Luetkemeyer, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Security, Illicit Finance, and International Financial Institutions, introduced the legislation in the House of Representatives.

“Once Communist China is in your wallet, they are in your wallet forever. As they search for any open avenue to exploit the United States, we should do everything in our power to ensure Americans are protected financially. This legislation is common sense: U.S. financial services should not engage in any transaction that involves the CCP’s Digital Yuan,” said Senator Marsha Blackburn. 

“The digital Yuan is just another tool used by the Chinese Communist Party to spy on its people and all those who use it. It is an obvious power grab and an attempt to increase communist-state-control over people’s personal finances. Secretary Xi and his thugs have no business playing big brother to American citizens and how they spend their money. That is why I am fighting to prevent this problem from ever becoming someone’s reality. We must stand up against the CCP’s obvious spy tactics and pass the Chinese CBDC Prohibition Act today,” said Senator Rick Scott.

“The Chinese Communist Party intends to use a central bank digital currency to spy on Americans’ private financial transactions. We must eliminate the CCP’s underhanded attempts to gain access to American financial data, that threaten their privacy and undermines our national security. This bill prevents the CCP from monitoring American transactions and financial data,” said Senator Ted Cruz.  

“The Chinese Communist Party uses the digital yuan to track in real time every transaction made with the currency. It is one of the many ways the CCP maintains its stranglehold on the Chinese people. We must establish clear barriers to prevent the CCP from monitoring the transactions and collecting the financial data of American consumers and businesses. This bill is a necessary step in building those barriers,” said Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer.

 James Dorn, writing for CATO , calls China’s digital plans “A Threat to Freedom.”

“ Although the alleged purpose of supplying a digital yuan is to reduce transaction costs and make the payments system more efficient, the Chinese people themselves have good reasons for not sharing that sanguine opinion. The real intent of introducing a digital yuan is more likely to be to increase state control of the payments system and to closely monitor transactions and even personal behavior.”

Illustration: Pixabay

It is relatively easy to make up numbers to corroborate a tall story one wants to portray as real. Everyone has heard the fish tale where a dad caught a 30-pound brown trout on opening day of fishing season… that is the true story as told to others. Today China is attempting to convince the world that its economic expansion looks like that 30-pound trout. Could it be true? Seumas Petrie, after all, did catch the world’s heaviest brown trout in New Zealand in 2020, and it did weigh in officially at 44 pounds. The trick to creating a believable economic narrative is to make it close enough to reality to be believed possible. China recently tried and failed in its latest claims that the country’s economy grew 5.2% last year. It was a whopper of imagination on the part of the government in Beijing.

The lifting of pandemic restrictions did help bolster China’s Covid-era economy, increased domestic flights, and helped the revenue growth of consumer-focused companies expand, according to data outside of China’s National Bureau of Statistic, says Tom Hancock of Bloomberg. China also experienced a sharp drop in real estate construction, failing exports, and financially-strained local governments suffered. Rhodium Group, a leading independent economic data analytics firm, says the real economic growth number for China in 2023 is closer to 1.5%. 

It will take time and good policy to fully recover. “China may see a cyclical recovery to perhaps 3.0-3.5% growth in 2024 as property bottoms out, although structural slowdown will naturally remain the dominant story for years to come,” according to Daniel Rosen, Logan Wright, Charlie Vest, and Ragan Quinn of Rhodium. Who’s correct? An analysis of the property sector in China indicates it is far from bottoming out in 2024. The OECD, World Bank and IMF predicted in 2022 China would meet its target. Rodium was more accurate when it argued that Chinese growth for 2023 would remain below 3%.

Analysts studying the Chinese economy point out that if China’s 2023 growth numbers were correct, consumers would need to have spent as “heroic levels.” That didn’t occur by mid-2023. Government spending remained mired in local debt burdens, there was anemic income growth with high unemployment, and declining household debt-to-income ratios. Construction slowed to levels that made high household spending impossible. The shrinking property sector and defaults among private developers, according to Rodium analysts, left local government without the needed revenue stream to meet obligations. China’s trade surplus shrank. 

“By October, officials were alarmed enough to authorize one trillion yuan in special treasury bonds to boost local government investment, though most of that would not land until 2024,” says a Rodium analyst. During the turmoil China’s official statistics barely moved away from its predicted target numbers. Instead, officials “tweaked” data to reinforce a whopper of a fish tale until the economic numbers looked like what China wanted to present to the world. Now the world is asked by Beijing to believe predictions for 2024 when there is significant evidence of a manipulated 2023 baseline. The contraction of the property sector alone highlights some of the major problems Beijing is facing going into 2024. In the past it accounted for up to 25% of all economic activity in China. If reporting from China’s National Bureau of Statistics can be relied upon, then year-over-year from 2022 the country experienced a drop equivalent to 1.6% of China’s GDP. It may have been worse. To reverse that negative number other sectors of the domestic economy would have to have experienced tall, fish tale-sized growth. That didn’t occur as even officially, China’s private sector growth was negative.

“China saw net disinvestment in the foreign direct investment channel in the third quarter of 2023 for the first time on record (since the 1990s), reflecting firms moving more capital out of China than bringing new money in,” according to a Rodium report. For the first time in four years, net exports declined while net imports increased, further challenging the accuracy of China’s official numbers.

The official narrative remains, despite evidence to the contrary. What we can determine about China’s fish tale level of growth is that the country experienced a structural slowdown in 2023 that led to weaker than expected growth and it will take years to fully recover. In 2024 China faces trade policy activism in the West with potential countervailing duties intended to neutralize Chinese EV exports as well as European investigations into its alleged dumping of biofuels onto the EU market. Western analysts say these factors and a myriad of others support predictions for Chinese economic growth in the range of 3.0% to 3.5%. The bright spot may be that if Xi Jinping and the CCP continue to face a slowing economy, it may force the leadership to abandon extreme ideological control over the marketplace and consider embracing economic reform and a reopening to the West.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

At a time when the global oceanic supply chain is facing challenges from Houthis attacking ships in the Red Sea, Russia has a new solution that benefits Moscow. The question for Putin is, will it work?

Shipping lines that once used the Suez Canal to shorten their trips are now diverting commercial traffic to longer routes around Africa. Sailors are demanding double pay and insurance companies are raising rates to travel a waterway that typically carried 12% of the world’s maritime commercial traffic. Moscow sees these conditions as a golden opportunity to enhance its geopolitical ties with Asia and promote economic growth in its Artic region.

Putin wants to develop a “hydrocarbon province” in the Arctic using its pipeline delivery method to avoid the Red Sea and Middle East oil states. According to Sergey Sukhankin, writing in the Daily Eurasian Monitor, the mega-project’s goal is to elevate the Northern Sea Route’s competitiveness with the Suez Canal and promote Russian economic growth with India, China, and Southeast Asia. In addition to increasing trade through those regions and the Northern Passage, the project could help jump-start the economic and scientific revitalization of Krasnoyarsk Krai and serve as a tool for economic growth (adding 2 percent per year), says Sukhankin.

Russia needs a large capital investment to accomplish its goal and is turning to China to fund the Vostok Oil project. Other foreign investors have already withdrawn due to concerns over Rosneft’s incomplete data and a lack of Arctic-class ice tankers. Some Russian media sources are already labeling it a Russian-Chinese ventures. Without closing on Chinese financing, however, Putin’s strategy is likely to fail. Rosneft has an 85% stake in the project and is seeking foreign money from Hong Kong and United Arab Emirate companies. If successful, Putin plans to export up to 115 million tons of oil per year using the Northern Sea Route by 2033.

Last October, at the fifth Russian-Chinese Energy Business Forum, Russia openly requested the investment funds claiming it is the only nation-state that is a safe, sustainable, and responsible major oil-exporting county due to the ongoing destabilization and war in the Middle East. China recognizes that a pipeline delivery system is advantageous over ships using the Suez Canal and Strait of Hormuz. Russia, notes Sukhankin, has abundant natural resources, is committed to exploring for new carbon resources, and developing deposits. A Russian-Chinese deal could provide China with a new investment opportunity with China as the primary beneficiary.

According to the Russian publication RU.com, the Northern Sea Route, would not only shorten the trade route between Asia and Europe, but would also be more secure and provide additional opportunities beyond oil and gas. There are a number of challenges that could stop Putin. South Korea’s Hyundai Heavy Industries, which had cooperated with Russia to build the Zvezda Shipbuilding Complex, has discontinued its relationship due to the war in Ukraine. This complex is critical to Moscow’s plan to assist in expanding its carriers of liquid natural gas (LNG) from the Arctic to end users in Asia, according to the Russian publication Neftegaz.

“Mikhail Krutikhin, co-founder and leading analyst of the Moscow-based RusEnergy independent consulting agency, has argued that Russia’s struggles with attracting foreign investors are primarily based on three aspects,” says Sukhankin.

Without investors, Moscow will not be able to deliver the 30 million tons per year to end users through the Northern Sea Route anytime soon. Russia does not have enough ships. In addition, a critical Northern Bay oil terminal does not exist and there are no new pipelines to carry that amount of oil. “Russia may have exaggerated the estimated capacity of the Vostok Oil project” according to one energy analyst who called it “extremely questionable,” says Sukhankin.

As the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East drag on, Putin is left with fewer options for funding. Partners, under the current geopolitical conditions, are unlikely to accept the high risk entailed in dealing with Russia. As Putin’s window of opportunity shrinks over time, some analysts suggest he will become more desperate to fund the war in Ukraine and that will make him a more dangerous adversary.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department