Our special guest, former prosecutor, retired U.S. Marine John Deaton describes why President Trump was right to fire three senior military officers (including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs), and why their radical leftist views compromised our military. If you missed the program on your local station watch it here
Within several months, “Dream Chaser,” a unique spaceplane that looks like small version of the Space Shuttle, will take off on its first mission.
The Dream Chaser cargo system, manufactured by Sierra Space in Louisville, Colorado, consists of two major elements: the Dream Chaser spacecraft and the Shooting Star cargo module. As a lifting body spacecraft, Dream Chaser is designed to be reused up to 15 times, and is modified from the HL-20 spacecraft developed at NASA.
The spaceplane’s cargo module companion, Shooting Star, is designed to support delivery and disposal of pressurized and unpressurized cargo to and from the space station. The cargo module can be used only once and is disposed of prior to re-entry.
The Dream Chaser system will launch with its wings folded aboard a ULA (United Launch Alliance) Vulcan Centaur rocket from Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. The fairing panels will protect the spacecraft during ascent but are jettisoned once in orbit. Solar arrays mounted on the cargo module and wings of Dream Chaser are deployed during its autonomous rendezvous to the space station.
During its first flight, Sierra Space will conduct in-orbit demonstrations to certify Dream Chaser for future missions. Teams at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, and the Dream Chaser Mission Control Center in Louisville, Colorado, will monitor the flight. Sierra Space flight controllers will control the Dream Chaser spacecraft on the launch pad until the spacecraft is handed over to the Sierra Space ground operations team at NASA Kennedy following landing.
Far-field demonstrations will be conducted outside the vicinity of the space station before the spacecraft enters the approach These demonstrations will be required before Dream Chaser can enter joint operations with the NASA team at the Mission Control Center in Houston. These include demonstrating attitude control, translational maneuvers, and abort capabilities.
Near-field demonstrations, which must happen closer to the space station, include activating and using light detection and ranging sensors, responding to commands sent from the space station, retreating from the station when commanded, and holding its approach, first at 1,083 feet (330 meters), then 820 feet (250 meters), and finally, at 98 feet (30 meters) from the station. Following successful completion of the demonstrations, Dream Chaser will move towards the space station.
As Dream Chaser approaches the orbiting laboratory, it will hold a final time approximately 38 feet (11.5 meters) from the space station, when a station crew member will use Canadarm2 robotic arm to grapple a fixture on the spacecraft’s cargo module before teams on the ground install the cargo module to an Earth-facing port on the Unity or Harmony module.
On its first flight to the International Space Station, Dream Chaser is scheduled to deliver over 7,800 pounds of cargo. On future missions, Dream Chaser is being designed to stay attached to the station for up to 75 days and deliver as much as 11,500 pounds of cargo. Cargo can be loaded onto the spacecraft as late as 24 hours prior to launch. Dream Chaser can return over 3,500 pounds of cargo and experiment samples to Earth, while over 8,700 pounds of trash can be disposed of during reentry using its cargo module.
Dream Chaser will remain at the space station for about 45 days before it is uninstalled using Canadarm2. The spacecraft can land as quickly as 11 to 15 hours after departure, and there are daily opportunities if weather criteria are met. Landing weather criteria for Dream Chaser generally require crosswinds at less than 17.2 miles per hour (15 knots), headwinds under 23 mph (20 knots), and tailwinds below 11.5 mph (10 knots). Thunderstorms, lightning, and rain within a 20-mile radius of the runway or 10 miles along the approach path are not acceptable conditions for landing. Detailed flight rules will guide controllers in determining whether landing opportunities are favorable.
A combination of Dream Chaser’s 26 reaction control system thrusters will fire to commit the spacecraft to deorbit. Dream Chaser will re-enter Earth’s atmosphere and glide to a runway landing at Kennedy’s Launch and Landing Facility in the style of NASA’s space shuttle, becoming the first spacecraft to land at the facility since the final space shuttle flight in 2011.
Once Dream Chaser is powered down after landing, the Sierra Space ground operations team will transfer it to the Space System Processing Facility to perform necessary inspections, off-load remaining NASA cargo, and begin the process of preparing it for the next mission.
Illustration: NASA
Part 2 of Allies Negligent in Defense
According to Lt.-Gen. (retd) Michael Maisonneuve, writing in Canada’s National Post “Canada’s military is short 16,000 troops, its branches are operating below readiness thresholds half the time, and its budget is being cut as wars erupt worldwide…the Canadian Armed Forces are broken down…First, personnel. Units are established with a structure that enables efficient operation and success. A unit that loses 15 per cent of its personnel is deemed officially combat ineffective in wartime. Our CAF — regular and reserve — count some 100,000 positions. Currently there are reports of 16,000 positions unfilled. So, on average, you could say that, missing 16 per cent of its personnel, our Forces are combat ineffective.”
The crisis was echoed by a Heritage analysis first published in the National Interest: “The Canadian government is one of the few NATO allies that fails to meet the 2 percent defense expenditure threshold. Canada is more than capable of meeting its obligations and has done so before…Canada’s continued underinvestment leaves its NATO obligations unmet and weakens the overall defense of the alliance as a whole and the North American continent… Canada isn’t a small country, nor is it a poor one. It’s perfectly capable of meeting its treaty obligations. Yet it spends a mere 1.37 percent of its GDP on defense, or roughly $30.5 billion a year. Despite having the sixth largest GDP among NATO countries, Canada ranks twenty-seventh in defense spending as a proportion of GDP. For comparison, the United States is the third-highest NATO member ranked in percentage of GDP (3.38 percent), behind only Poland and Estonia… The need to spend more on defense is particularly salient for Canada, as threats to NATO don’t only come from Eastern Europe. Canada also needs to take Arctic and North American security far more seriously as the Arctic emerges as a critical area of concern, rich in untapped resources and new navigation routes that are attracting attention from our adversaries.”
The Hub, a not-for-profit digital news outlet committed to independent analysis and spirited debate about Canada’s past, present and future reports that “The current state of Canada’s military and defence spending has been the subject of international criticism and a source of growing isolation from key allies. In a world of evolving geopolitical tensions and new and emerging threats, Canada’s underinvestment in national defence represents a major vulnerability… How does Canada compare to the rest of the NATO membership on defence spending relative to the size of their economies? …quite poorly. Out of 30 NATO members for which there is data (Iceland and Sweden are not included in the NATO spending figures), Canada ranks the fourth lowest in terms of defence spending relative to the size of its economy, only ahead of Spain, Belgium, and Luxembourg.”
The authoritative military website Warontherocks reported in 2024 that “Canada’s military is in a “death spiral.” This is how Minister of National Defense Bill Blair described the state of Canada’s armed forces … Blair’s comments referenced the military’s dire recruitment and retention crisis. The Canadian Armed Forces are short 16,000 people — …While the Canadian government has signed several high-profile contractsf or new equipment such as F-35s, Predator drones, and P-8A Poseidons, at this rate, there may not be anybody to use these capabilities when they come online…Canada’s ability to meaningfully contribute to major allied operations is in doubt for the foreseeable future… To understand Canada’s current military crisis, it is important to recognize how little importance Canadians ascribe to defense. Although recent polls indicate that attitudes are changing, particularly among conservative-leaning voters, Canadians have rarely seen defense as a priority. Surrounded by three oceans and neighboring the world’s largest military power, Canadians have rarely thought that defense spending was a worthwhile investment, particularly when compared with popular social programs.”
Photo: On December 13, a launch and naming ceremony was hosted by Seaspan Shipyards in Vancouver, B.C., for the new Joint Support Ship (JSS), HMCS Protecteur. (Canada Defence Ministry photo)
America’s key allies are seriously negligent in providing for their own defense. Not only have they utterly failed to meet the growing challenges from China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, but the have actually allowed their already inadequate militaries to deteriorate to levels not seen in over a century and a half.
A brief look at two of Washington’s most important allies, the United Kingdom and Canada, illustrates just how drastic the crisis is.
Let’s start with the UK, which was once the world’s foremost sea power.
One study found that “The British Royal Navy’s operational capacity has reached a historic low…The decline leaves the fleet at its smallest operational size in over a century, raising concerns about national security and Britain’s ability to respond to global threats.”
One would assume that sinking—no pun intended– to that level would provide an incentive to take action. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. London has plans to sell off key components. The Army Recognition site reports that “According to information published by Daily Mail on January 26, 2025, the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) is reportedly preparing to sell two of its amphibious assault ships, HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, to Brazil for a sum that undervalues their prior maintenance and refit costs. This move, part of a broader cost-cutting strategy, raises questions about the Royal Navy’s future amphibious capabilities and the strategic implications of offloading key assets at a time of increasing global instability.”
Selling vessels from an already undersized fleet is bad enough. Selling them for below market value is a further indication that the British government is disinterested in its own defense. Zona Militar adds that “British media outlets have reported criticism of the price set for their potential sale. According to reports, the offer made to the Brazilian government amounts to £20 million, a figure considered low compared to the investments made in these units over the past 14 years.”
The British think tank Geostrategy notes that a “a powerful perception of maritime decline, fanned on by Russian and Chinese discursive statecraft, has set in…geopolitics has worsened, as identified in the recent Integrated Review and Integrated Review Refresh, as well as the associated defence command papers. From December 2023, the UK got a glimpse of this as Iranian-backed Houthis began to strike and disrupt container shipping in the Red Sea. But this is only scratching the surface. Significant state-based threats have also emerged in other theatres: the same month, Venezuela threatened Guyana – to which HMS Trent was dispatched to Georgetown as a deterrent. More significantly, Russia has become a revisionist foe in Euro-Atlantic waters, including those surrounding the British Isles, while the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) fleet is growing at an astonishing rate in the Indo-Pacific…Both Russia and the PRC have long had revisionist intent, but their growing material power – particularly at sea – now gives them the means to act on it to shape the international order in accordance with their interests. In the words of James Cleverly, then Foreign Secretary, during his speech to the Mansion House in April 2023:
At this moment, China is carrying out the biggest military build-up in peacetime history…And as we see this happening; as we watch new bases appearing in the South China Sea and beyond, we are bound to ask ourselves: what is it all for? Why is China making this colossal military investment? And if we are left to draw our own conclusions, prudence dictates that we must assume the worst.”
Britain’s naval decline is mirrored in the rest of its armed forces. As noted by the United Kingdom Defence Journal (UKDJ) “According to the data release, the total number of UK Regular Forces based in the UK has decreased to 132,360 as of 1 April 2024, a notable decline from 156,970 in 2014. This represents a reduction of 24,610 personnel, or approximately 15.7%…The continuous reduction in the number of UK Regular Forces highlights a decade-long trend of downsizing. This decline reflects strategic shifts within the MOD, influenced by budgetary constraints, changes in defence policy, and a re-evaluation of military needs. Back in May 2024, it was reported that the Ministry of Defence’s latest quarterly service personnel statistics revealed a significant decline in the number of personnel in the British Army and other branches of HM Armed Forces. The total strength of UK Forces service personnel, including reserves, stands at 183,230, marking a decrease of 5,590 personnel, or 3%, from 1 April 2023.”
Tomorrow: Canada’s Vanishing Military
Photo: HMS Sutherland (British Defence Ministry photo)
More harm than most realize resulted from the progressive “Great Reset” drive. Mark Gober provides details. Than, author Dan Perkins discusses chilling details how a terrorist attack could literally paralyze America. If you missed the program on your local station, watch it here.
It is time for religious leaders to stick to actual fulfilling their mission to attend to the spiritual needs of the people, and to stop misusing their pulpits to broadcast their often-ill-informed political biases. From Pope Francis to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to local Episcopal bishops in Washington, and hucksters like the “Reverand” Al Sharpton, there seems to be no limits to their ignoring the example Jesus Himself set to distinguish the temporal from the heavenly. Yes, there are also pastors on the Right who cross that line too, but not to the extent of their leftist counterparts.
Famously, despite the deep crises facing the Israel of his era, Jesus himself, the founder of all Christianity, refused to take part in the politics of the time. As noted in one group that discusses the topic, [In Jesus’ time] “the common farmer, fisherman, or craftsman’s family lived through a highly volatile political period. Overbearing religious leaders who despised and oppressed them, wealthy elites who ripped them off, racial and ethnic tension with neighbors, and sporadic violent outbreaks between an oppressive occupying army. So where was Jesus in all of this? Did he align with the religious elites? With the wealthy and powerful? Or did he start an uprising to overthrow them? None of the above.”
Compare that to Church leaders today. The New Statesman writes: The list of issues Justin Welby [Archbishop of Canterbury] has intervened on since becoming Archbishop of Canterbury is long. He has railed in the Church Times against Remainers “whingeing”. He has come out against payday lending sites, Universal Credit and tax avoidance. He has told everyone he thinks Brexit is dividing the country. More recently, he has consistently condemned the government’s plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. In 2022, he said the plans were ‘the opposite of the nature of God.'”
Writing for U.S. News, Michael King reports that “I have read the Bible cover to cover and never once did I see a story of Christ or his disciples getting involved in a political campaign. They were one hundred percent focused on spreading the Gospel. I’m sure that’s true of other religions as well.”
A New York Post story describes one outrageous example: “A Catholic charity that receives billions in government funding has stirred controversy for a video teaching migrants in the country illegally how to evade US immigration law. In the video, distributed by Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee’s Refugee & Immigration Services Program, immigration attorney Barbara Graham outlines step-by-step instructions for how migrants can thwart authorities conducting lawful investigations at their workplace.”
Pope Francis has not been shy about his criticism of American border policy, economic system, criminal justice practices, and more. Indeed, he has even been blunt in his criticism of U.S. Catholics. As discussed in YouGov “Shortly after Pope Francis began his papacy in 2013, he was unknown among 44% of Americans. Those with an opinion of him — including roughly equal shares of Democrats and Republicans — were far more likely to hold positive views of the pope than negative ones. Today, Americans continue to view Pope Francis in a positive light, though views of him have become politically polarized: More Democrats than Republicans view him favorably, even as more Republicans than Democrats view the Catholic Church favorably…Pope Francis is thought of favorably by more Americans than the Catholic Church is, though Roman Catholics view him somewhat more negatively than they view the Catholic Church overall. More Americans have a very or somewhat unfavorable view of the Catholic Church (43%) than have a very or somewhat favorable one (38%). But Pope Francis is viewed unfavorably by just 26%, while 43% view him favorably. Majorities of Roman Catholics have a favorable view of the Catholic Church (77%) and of Pope Francis (66%).”
Miranda Devine describes the sabotage of what was supposed to be a unifying Inaugural Prayer Service at Washington’s National Cathedral. “Jaws dropped throughout Washington’s National Cathedral when an egomaniacal female Episcopal bishop sabotaged the Inaugural Prayer Service with a left-wing rant from the pulpit about illegal migrants and LGBT issues, aimed directly at President Trump, who was sitting politely in the front pew. What the Right Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, 65, was supposed to do Tuesday, at the historical interfaith service, was to bless the incoming administration and pray for God’s guidance and protection for the nation.” Instead, she abandoned this vital task and replaced it with a political tirade.
Illustration: Pixabay
Rep. John Moolenaar, who chairs the Congressional select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, outlined Beijing’s threat in recent remarks at the Wilson Center.
“…the Chinese Communist Party [CCP] poses a military threat to America and our allies, an economic threat to our companies, and an ideological challenge around the world…
“…the CCP understood that Communism can never compete with freedom when it comes to human happiness or prosperity. They knew that the only way they could win was for us to lose. The policies undertaken by the Chinese Communist Party – from poisoning our nation with fentanyl to crippling our economy through abusive trade practices and IP theft – are all aimed at destroying American society. The CCP approaches the United States as an enemy to be harmed rather than as a partner. For the past two years, the Select Committee has demonstrated how the CCP’s aggression in areas like fentanyl, IP theft, transnational repression, Taiwan, and trade are all different fronts in the same war. There is nothing normal about the CCP’s state-led, mercantilist industrial policy that cripples American industry through illegal subsidies, IP theft, and the use of slave labor. There is also nothing normal–let alone, most favored–about our trading relationship with China. It is time for US law to reflect that through new tariff rates that target strategic sectors and boost supply chain resilience. Congress must work with the Administration to reduce the flow of de minimis shipments into the United States, a loophole that this year alone will allow more than a billion shipments to enter the United States – exempt from duties, taxes, and strict scrutiny. We must stem the flow of American capital and tech that is fueling the Chinese military modernization and human rights abuses. American dollars should not finance companies that are developing technology that could someday be used against American service members in a conflict, nor aiding the CCP’s genocide of Uyghur Muslims…”
Some of Moolenaar’s concerns are echoed in research from the Center for Strategic and International Studies “The present period is one of intensifying rivalry, with neither country content with the status quo. Both the United States and China are engaged in a sprawling competition that spans military, economic, technological, diplomatic, and ideational realms, including global governance. Currently, Washington and Beijing do not have any broadly shared purpose that could help the relationship weather shocks and generate resilience.”
The Rand organization, noting that the incoming Presidential Administration will be tasked with dealing with the dilemma, conducted discussions with experts on how the critical issues, including economic tensions, China’s military aggression, and its growing closeness with Russia, will be addressed.
Kristen Gunness, a senior policy researcher at RAND, professor of policy analysis at the Pardee RAND Graduate School, and former Director of the Navy Asia Pacific Advisory Group at the Pentagon, believes that “Among the most salient issues is China’s support for Russia. It is also crucial to address China’s influence operations and disinformation campaigns and to push back on and deter Chinese military aggression in the Indo-Pacific region.”
Jennifer Bouey, the Tang Chair for China Policy Studies, a senior policy researcher and epidemiologist at RAND, and a professor of policy analysis at the Pardee RAND Graduate School, Jennifer Bouey The geopolitical rivalry with China has consumed significant American effort and resources—and remains a work in progress. This is the challenge of our times, not just for the United States and China, but also for the world. warns that “The United States must find ways to compete with China without compromising its own values, economy, and security. The challenge to the United States also includes maintaining channels for high-level meetings to negotiate on new threats (e.g., AI, biosecurity) and avoiding wars.”
China is a unique adversary, unlike any the United States has ever faced in the last two centuries. It has the same advantage in industrial resources that America had in World War II. Its nuclear arsenal is growing rapidly, and it currently possess the world’s largest army and navy, along with an advanced scientific and technological capability.
Photo: China’s first Type 054B frigate, the Luohe, was commissioned in the People’s Liberation Army Navy recently in a military port in Qingdao, east China’s Shandong Province. (China Defence Ministry photo)
The members of the Axis of Evil are moving significantly closer together. North Korea has supplied troops and China is providing economic and material support. The closest relationship may well be between Moscow and Tehran.
Iran’s provision of drones has been widely discussed, but the relationship goes far beyond that. According to the semi-official Russian News source RT, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s recent visit to Moscow “…opened up a new chapter in bilateral relations between Russia and Iran that have existed for 400 years.”
Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin noted that the two powers will sign “a treaty on comprehensive strategic partnership between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran. This major new treaty will lay a solid foundation for the development of our cooperation in the long-term perspective. I want to underscore that Russian-Iranian relations, which are based on the principles of friendship, mutual respect and consideration of each other’s interests, are looking to the future. The Russian Government will ensure that all the decisions made at the highest level are implemented in full.”
Russia’s semi-official news outlet RT has reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed support for the construction of a gas pipeline to Iran which could eventually supply up to 55 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas to the Islamic Republic annually. “The pipeline project is part of a broader strategic agreement between Russia and Iran signed on Friday, as well as a memorandum signed by Russian state gas major Gazprom and the National Iranian Gas Company in June 2024 and aimed at facilitating Russian gas supplies to the Islamic Republic.
The defense site War on the Rocks From the 1990s to 2022, Russia provided… important military assistance to Iran across the ground, aerospace, and naval domains… In addition to Russian support to Iran’s nuclear program, this assistance included the provision of tanks, armored vehicles, anti-tank missiles, combat aircraft, helicopters, and surface-to-air missiles, among others. Assistance — at least in the 1990s — also entailed unofficial transfers by low-level Russian entities to Iran’s ballistic missile and suspected chemical and biological weapons programs. Since 2022, Russia’s defense relationship with Iran has taken a big leap forward. Cooperation has moved past the previous patron-client dynamic, with Iran emerging as a key enabler of Russia’s air and ground campaign in Ukraine. Military-technical collaboration has intensified in existing areas, while also advancing to new frontiers such as the joint development of novel uncrewed aerial vehicles. Amid a general weakening of past constraints on cooperation, Iran and Russia have also taken steps to further institutionalize their defense relationship. Western capitals should accept an uncomfortable reality: Even if Russia’s war against Ukraine were to end, there is little hope that the Iran-Russia defense relationship will revert to its pre-2022 status quo. Both countries have identified needs for future military contingencies that they can help each other meet — even if Iran will continue to be more reliant on advanced technology from Russia than vice versa. Traditional instruments such as diplomatic pressure or sanctions are unlikely to be effective in checking this cooperation so long as both Iran and Russia view Washington and its allies as their main adversaries. As a result, the best the United States and its partners can do is to disrupt this cooperation on the margins and focus on undermining it in the most sensitive areas. Specifically, Washington should focus on complicating Iran’s and Russia’s procurement of electronics for high-end defense goods and seek to derail or deter impending deals or deliveries through strategic disclosures.
In testimony before Congress, Dana Stroul, Kassen Fellow and Director of Research for the Washington Institute warned that the Moscow-Tehran relationship threatens the United States. “The U.S. view is that the People’s Republic of China is the strategic competitor willing and able to reshape the current global order, and Iran-Russia cooperation is quickly evolving into Iran-Russia-China cooperation. The risk of a Russia-Iran-China revisionist axis challenging the security and sovereignty of the U.S. network of allies and partners is one of the most pressing and urgent security priorities of this century… Iran-Russia cooperation existed before Moscow’s watershed 2015 decision to militarily coordinate with Tehran and intervene in Syria on behalf of the Assad regime. But it has now evolved from tactical cooperation to a full-fledged defense partnership.”
“Motivations and worldviews that drive increasing Iranian-Russian cooperation include:
“This strategic orientation of “resistance” drives cooperation in the following areas:
Former Green Beret Jordon Goudreau discloses the threats that exist within America’s own hemisphere. Author Donald Wilkie discusses how America can remain free. If you missed the program on your local station, watch it at here.
Change is in the air and not only in Washington. A few decades ago, Russia was the dominant power in the communist world. Beijing relied on Moscow as a child depending on a parent for protection and nurturing. Those roles are reversed today. Western sanctions have limited Russia’s global engagements, especially its activities in the Arctic region. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China has expanded its involvement in the high north. In 2018 it proclaimed itself a “near Arctic state,” despite sitting 930 miles (1,500 km) from that region. Moscow’s unspoken concerns in 2025 are continuing to grow as developments between the two appear to indicate Beijing is expanding its behind-the-scenes activities in a likely attempt to emerge as the dominant Arctic power.
At first Putin welcomed China’s engagement given the restrictions that sanctions imposed on his country. As Beijing expanded its operations and redefined itself, Kremlin concerns increased and led it to oppose the near Arctic state characterization. “In 2020, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s special envoy in the Arctic Council at the time stated that Russia ‘disagree[d] with’ the characterization of the PRC as a near Arctic state, instead agreeing with then-U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo that ‘there are two groups of countries—Arctic and non-Arctic,’” according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. While he says Kremlin concerns are not the same as an immediate breakdown in relations, it may be possible for the West to exploit these differences in the future.
With Russia’s resources increasingly consumed by its ongoing war in Ukraine, it is likely that an ambitious China will continue to use the opportunity to move forward in the Arctic. Beijing is constructing new ice breakers and developing infrastructure in and along the Northern Sea Route (NSR) and beyond. Although public statements by the two states continue to be positive, there are indications that their shared interests have limits. Last November, the first meeting of the “Sub-commission on Cooperation on the NSR of the Russian-Chinese Commission for the Preparation of Regular Meetings of Heads of Government” was held in St. Petersburg. Tensions emerged as differences in their perspectives saw Russia concentrating primarily on security issues as in the past while China spoke explicitly about its economic approach on the NSR. Beijing claims economics leads any security interest it has in the region.
If the West is to combat China’s rise in influence in the Arctic, it needs to understand that the containment of one power may lead to a significant rise in the other. China may have plans to push Russia out of its dominant position in the Arctic. Observers, such as Vasily Koltashov, an expert at the Plehkanov University of Economics in Moscow, is highly skeptical that China will remain an ally of Russia’s. He suggests that China is gaining strength at Russia’s expense, according to Goble. Koltashov says that Moscow will remain allied only if it can control Beijing’s regional involvement. That will mean that China’s investments cannot challenge Putin’s position or exploit its deteriorating circumstances. He points out that Putin may not be able to stop events, and that Russia could be “transformed into the periphery of China.”
Koltashov is not alone in his viewpoint. Goble points out that other Russian analysts, although quieter in their predictions, also see the China challenge as a real concern for the Kremlin. In recent months there are an increasing number of Russian language articles discussing the challenge China poses to Putin and Russia. Discrepancies become evident when examining the level of Russian cargo traffic over the last year on the NSR. Moscow’s planned goals for maritime tonnage do not meet the actual tonnage of reported cargo traffic. Russia also failed to meet its predicted schedule for icebreaker construction, leading some analysts in Washington to call the NSR a “black hole” for the 2025 Russian budget.
If Putin backs off further, it opens additional opportunities for China’s aggressive Xi Jinping to decide to fill the gap. The Kremlin is unlikely to simply cede control of the Arctic to China. If Beijing continues to quietly and slowly move into a more prominent position, however, it may be able to achieve its long-term strategic gains in the region. Russia, in the end, may not be able to stop the security challenge to its sovereignty over the high north. The Trump Administration and other Western leaders need to consider that China and Russia may publicly speak in friendly terms, they may not always coordinate as allies. It is time to design an approach to containment that works for the free world.
Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.
Illustration: Pixabay