Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

War and politics are complex environments entangled in history, culture, and often leaders’ visions of grandeur. Vladimir Putin’s dream of creating a 21st century version of the former Russian Empire is complicated but not dead, despite the prolonged war in Ukraine. He continues to strategize how best to extend Russian influence throughout the region and retain former satellite states inside Russia’s orbit. In response to recent Moldovan moves to distance itself from Moscow, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a threatening statement opposing Moldova joining the European Union’s (EU) sanctions against the Russian Federation. 

In the late November press release, Maria Zakharova, Press Secretary of MOFA, says that “the Moldovan decision will not go unanswered. Measures will be reported later….” This reflects Moscow’s two-pronged approach to block Moldova from breaking away from Russia, according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. Moldovan President Maia Sandu had earlier angered Russia in May 2022 when she told the European Pariament “Crimea is Ukraine, the Donbas is Ukraine, Kyiv is Ukraine, and they always will be Ukraine.” Since that time Putin has increased economic pressure on Moldova to punish it for potentially following Georgia and Ukraine in leaving Russia’s Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). A year prior, Sandu had suspended Moldova’s participation in CIS bodies, leading Russia to .

Putin appears concerned that Moldova’s break from Moscow and other Russian-dominated organizations could lead it to pursue membership in the EU and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). A year ago, the European Daily Monitor reported that the Kremlin has actively sought to stop Moldovan integration with the West. Putin supported the breakaway republic of Transnistria and the Gagauz minority in opposing the government in Chisinau. Second, Moscow supported Moldovan pro-Russian parties and organizations, including the Russian Orthodox Church, says Goble. More recently, Putin is adding pressure by interfering with the country’s use of natural gas supplies. Moscow ordered that only the breakaway regions that voted for pro-Russian parties be given a reduced price on natural gas. By rewarding loyalists to Russia, Putin hopes to stop Moldova’s Western movement.

The move may not be successful, however, as it is generating a new wave of opposition to Putin, according to Goble, and increasing support for Sandu and her policies. He adds that this is especially so “if she can point to palpable benefits of increased Western support for her government and the country as a whole.” The country is facing natural gas supply prices that are 700% higher since Sandu assumed office. The cost of energy generated by the use of natural gas has risen 300%, and inflation, in general by 34%, according to RITM Eurasia. The population is completely dependent on the use of natural gas imports to heat homes and produce products. It appears Moscow’s strategy is working as pro-Russian politicians are gaining support this fall in several regional campaigns. The Russian-backed candidates are campaigning on their ability to get Moscow to lower energy prices.

“Sandu went so far as to say that she would take any “cheap gas” that came to Moldova as a result of the deal, transfer it to the government’s Energocom, and then distribute it not just to Gagauzia and the pro-Shor regions but throughout Moldova,” says Goble. It is an ongoing battle between Sandu and the Kremlin going into the winter months.

If the cheaper gas does not stay in the breakaway regions of the country, the Moldovan government can expect domestic conflict to occur exactly as hoped for by Moscow. With the government weakened, the Kremlin will be able to force Sandu to slow down her gestures toward the West. In the best-case scenario, Moldova moves back into Russia’s camp and breaks ties with the West to prevent total chaos in Moldova. Another option analysts in Washington are discussing this week is the possibility of the West providing natural gas supplies to the country to replace those sold to it by Russia. Putin will continue to stir up trouble in regions he sees as belonging inside the Russian sphere of influence. The political ambitions of Kremlin insiders are filled with twists and turns. It is not as simple as seizing Ukraine to provide Russia with a border region. Putin’s long-term, end goal is more grand than restoring the Soviet Union to its former status. The Russian ruler, like those before him, it an empire builder unwilling to give up on his vision.
  Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

There is a tendency to see the various military crises across the globe as separate threats. In reality, they are deeply interconnected. The latest example can be seen in an Associated Press report revealing that Iran-backed Hamas used North Korean weapons in its brutal assault on Israel.

The free world secured its interests following the Second World War by developing a series of powerful global alliances.  NATO accomplished this in Europe, and relations, some formal and some not, between the U.S., Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan and the Philippines did the same in Asia.

Now, however, the opponents of democracy and capitalism are combining to challenge the sovereignty of nations, the rights of individuals, and the avoidance of conflict with an alliance of their own. President George Bush (43) coined the term, “Axis of Evil,” and the description was highly appropriate.

Iran and North Korea provide weapons and ammunition for Putin’s Ukrainian war effort. Moscow provides missile technology to Tehran. China and Russia have become virtually inseparable, engaging in joint military exercises across the globe and extensive trade. Iran and North Korea have formed a significant relationship, particularly in arms development. The four axis powers combine to assist each other in avoiding penalties and sanctions for their ongoing misdeeds.

As noted by the Rand Corporation, “Over the past few decades, China and Iran have developed a broad and deep partnership centered on China’s energy needs and Iran’s abundant resources as well as significant non-energy economic ties, arms sales and defense cooperation, and geostrategic balancing against the United States. This partnership presents a unique challenge to U.S. interests and objectives. In particular, China’s policies have hampered U.S. and international efforts to dissuade Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability…”

The global affairs website 38north adds another example, noting that “Four decades after the Iranian Revolution, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) maintains a close partnership with Iran. On June 20, 2021, North Korea’s Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un congratulated Ebrahim Raisi on his presidential election victory and wished him success in “building a powerful Iran.” This rhetoric coincided with evidence of growing security cooperation between the two countries. A recent United Nations (UN) report revealed that North Korea and Iran are cooperating on long-term missile development projects, which included the shipment of parts in 2020. North Korea’s hypersonic missile tests have also raised concerns about technology transfers to Iran, which developed a testing facility for hypersonic weapons in 2014.”

In August, Iran Primer Reported that “In…2022, Iran’s supply of lethal drones to Russia sparked international interest and alarm. By December, Iran had reportedly supplied more than 1,700 drones capable of suicide bombings, surveillance and intelligence, and combat, according to Ukrainian military intelligence. By early 2023, Tehran and Moscow had reportedly developed plans to produce some 6,000 Iranian models at a new facility in Russia. The following is a timeline of Iran’s exports to Russia and Russia’s usage of Iranian drones.

In return for Iranian assistance in prosecuting the Ukraine invasion, notes Reuters “Russia said it need no longer obey U.N. Security Council restrictions on giving missile technology to its ally Iran once they expire on Wednesday, without saying whether it now planned to support Tehran’s missile development.”

Recently, Putin met with his Chinese counterpart, Xi. As described by The Daily Mail, “A gleeful Putin has declared that China is ‘in tune with Russian ideas’ as President Xi has praised the two countries’ ‘continually deepening mutual trust’…Putin also stressed that close political coordination was ‘necessary in current difficult times’.”

Flashpoints in Europe, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific each carry the risk of developing into worldwide conflicts due to the connections between the Axis powers.

Illustration: Pixabay

According to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s “January 6th” indictment, Donald Trump “pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.”  He allegedly did so by organizing “fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), (and) attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the Constitution and other federal and state laws. This included causing the fraudulent electors to meet on the day appointed by federal law on which legitimate electors were to gather and cast their votes; cast fraudulent votes for the Defendant; and sign certificates falsely representing that they were legitimate electors.” 

While Smith uses the word “fraudulent” to describe the gathering of these alternate electors, the heart of these allegations lead to a fundamental question – is it illegal to organize alternate electors?

According to Constitutional Law Professor Ed Foley, “(a) key component of the effort to negate Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory…was the submission for congressional consideration of purported electoral votes cast for Trump from seven battleground states…Joe Biden won the popular vote in all these states…(t)he actual electors appointed in these states pursuant to state law, based on the outcome of the state’s popular vote, were those pledged to support Biden, and these electors dutifully cast their ballots for Biden and properly proceeded to send their votes to Congress to be counted on January 6, 2021, as required by the Constitution’s Twelfth Amendment. In contrast, the supposed electoral votes cast for Trump had no official status in any of the states because no institution of state government recognized Trump rather than Biden as having won the popular vote in that state. Mike Pence, as Senate President, would not even let these pro-Trump submissions be opened in the joint session of Congress because, without any claim of any backing from any part of their state’s government, they could not be acknowledged as even asserting to be official electoral votes entitled to be considered by Congress.” 

Foley continues; “Since then, the question has arisen whether anyone should be criminally prosecuted in connection with these submissions of groundless pro-Trump electoral votes… there are reasons to be wary of prosecuting any claimed electoral votes sent to Congress… the better course seemingly would be to reject frivolous claims as unworthy of serious consideration…rather than by endeavoring to imprison these frivolous claimants for asserting their preposterous arguments.”

Foley notes that there have been other instances of alternate Elector votes being submitted to Congress.  “In 1876, South Carolina was one of three southern states that quickly became disputed after the popular vote had been cast in November. Florida and Louisiana were the other two. The Republican candidate, Rutherford Hayes, needed all three of these states for an Electoral College victory, whereas Samuel Tilden needed just one…In South Carolina…there was no one with any colorable claim of official authority in a position to certify Tilden the winner. Still, Democrats there were claiming that he had won…Tilden’s electors met and voted for him on the congressional designated day for Electoral College balloting. They submitted their spurious electoral votes to the Senate President pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment as though they rather than the Hayes electors were entitled to cast the state’s official Electoral College votes…

“Whatever else was contested during the entire Hayes-Tilden dispute, there was no doubt that the South Carolina electoral votes cast for Tilden were not valid because the individuals who cast them clearly had not been, despite any claims to the contrary, appointed as the state’s electors. The Electoral Commission that Congress created to settle the Hayes-Tilden dispute…agreed unanimously…that the individuals in South Carolina who purported to cast electoral votes for Tilden ‘were not the lawful electors for the State of South Carolina, and that their votes are not the votes provided for by the Constitution of the United States, and should not be counted.’”

Most important to our current analysis, “(d)espite this unanimity, reflecting the patent invalidity of (the alternate South Carolina electors’) claim to be the state’s ‘duly and legally appointed’ electors, none of these South Carolina individuals…were criminally investigated or prosecuted for making this assertion.”  In fact, “a couple of years later, during a congressional investigation, evidence emerged that top participants in the Tilden campaign, including Tilden’s own nephew, had engaged in an effort to bribe local election officials in the disputed Southern states, including South Carolina, to alter the election returns. But even this apparent criminality did not result in prosecutions and convictions of the perpetrators, but instead caused Tilden’s political disgrace, preventing him from returning as the Democratic party’s presidential nominee in 1880 as had been his plan immediately after Hayes was inaugurated.”

Then, there is this more recent example; “In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.9 million

votes, but lost the Electoral College to Donald Trump. Prior to the Electoral College vote, which Trump was expected to win 306-232, some progressive Democrats proposed getting Republican electors to switch their votes to Clinton or another Republican on the grounds Trump was unfit for office. The effort ultimately failed, as expected, with Trump winning 304-227 after five Clinton electors and two Trump electors switched votes and took on the mantle of ‘faithless electors’ – electors who cast a vote for someone other than their party’s nominee. The effort cost Clinton more electoral votes than it did Trump.”  

Under the procedures enacted by the states, for the most part, these Electors were duty-bound to cast their vote for the candidate they were nominated to elect.  Yet, contrary to the law, “progressive Democrats” made an effort, in some cases successfully, to convince those Electors to violate the law and their oaths.  Were any of these “progressive Democrats” prosecuted for using “unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results?”

Of course not.  Most federal prosecutors have better things to do than become involved in a political process, and prosecute “invalid electors” who’s votes have been rejected by Congress, or those who encouraged the submission of those alternate votes.

Thus, if its not necessarily illegal to submit alternate elector votes, were the means Trump used to gather these alternate Electors “fraudulent?”  According to Smith’s “January 6” indictment,  “(s)ome fraudulent electors were tricked into participating based on the understanding that their votes would be used only if the Defendant succeeded in outcome-determinative lawsuits within their state, which the Defendant never did.”  In particular, Smith cites to Arizona, where Trump “falsely asserted…that a substantial number of non-citizens, non-residents, and dead people had voted fraudulently in Arizona.”  Based on this belief, the former President “asked the Arizona House Speaker to call the legislature into session to hold a hearing based on their claims of election fraud. The Arizona House Speaker refused.” 

According to Smith’s indictment, “(o)n the morning of January 4, 2021, (one of Trump’s attorneys) called the Arizona House Speaker to urge him to use a majority of the legislature to decertify the state’s legitimate electors. Arizona’s validly ascertained electors had voted three weeks earlier and sent their votes to Congress, which was scheduled to count those votes in Biden’s favor in just two days’ time at the January 6 certification proceeding…the Arizona House Speaker explained that state investigations had uncovered no evidence of substantial fraud in the state..(t)he Arizona House Speaker refused (decertification), stating that he would not ‘play with the oath’ he had taken to uphold the United States Constitution and Arizona law.”

Yet, where exactly is the “fraudulent” activity on the part of Trump here? 

It is true that the Arizona Attorney General conducted an audit of mail-in ballots and determined that a “hand recount of ballots showed Joe Biden won the election in Maricopa County, cementing his win in Arizona.”  However, that audit also showed “issues with duplicate ballots and chain of custody identified by Senate liaison and former Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett as matters the AG should take up.”  These included problems “found with Maricopa County’s voter rolls, such as 5,047 voters who may have cast ballots in more than one county; voters with incomplete names, and 198 people who registered to vote after the Oct. 15 cutoff date but nonetheless cast a ballot.”

In fact, in September of this year, Arizona Superior Court Judge John Napper ruled that “state law requires county recorders to match mail-ballot signatures with signatures in the voter’s ‘registration record,’ the Secretary instructed them to use a broader and less reliable universe of comparison signatures. That means the Secretary was requiring ballots to be counted despite using a signature that did not match anything in the voter’s registration record. This was a clear violation of state law.” 

In other words, Arizona “is conducting signature matching in an unlawful manner,” which would tend to support former President Trump’s assertion that “a substantial number of non-citizens, non-residents, and dead people had voted fraudulently in Arizona.”

Is the fact that Arizona was using an illegal method of verifying the signatures of mail-in voters conclusive proof of election fraud at a substantial enough level to have altered the results of the 2020 Presidential election?  Not in and of itself.  But would such evidence provide some basis for a reasonable belief that a further investigation is necessary, and that the certification of the election results by Arizona was premature?

Of course it would.  But despite this evidence, Jack Smith asserts that Trump’s actions were “fraudulent” and intended to “subvert” the results of the 2020 Presidential election.

Let us give the last word on this issue to Hugh Hewitt, writing in the Washington Post; “Smith might have a much harder time proving his case than he and Trump’s many and most vociferous detractors realize… When the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard is applied, I don’t see a conviction on any of the charges Smith leveled.” 

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Photo: Pixabay

In our first article on the Second Federal Indictment of former President Donald Trump (the “January 6” indictment, as opposed to the “Classified Documents at Mar A Lago” indictment), we discussed whether or not Double Jeopardy would apply, given that the Senate already acquitted Trump for substantially similar charges. (Frank – please add link to first article here)  In our second, we discussed the impossibility of establishing that Donald Trump had a “guilty mind” when he asserted that he had not lost the 2020 Presidential Election.  (Frank – please add link to second article here)

Today we review an allegation made in the January 6 indictment that may be just as hard to prove as whether or not Donald Trump truly believed he was fraudulently deprived of his office; The use of alternative electors.

Under Article II of the Constitution of the United States, the method for choosing the President and Vice-President of the United States is described in detail;   “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,” Section 1 states. “The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons…they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President.”  

The original Article II called for the Electors to vote for two people, with the intention that the one with the most votes would become President, and the second place finisher Vice-President.  However, as described by the National Constitution Center, “The most glaring early bugs in the system—the real possibility of ties (and) the fact that the president and vice-president could represent different political parties as had happened when Adams and Jefferson served together in 1796—were ironed out by the Twelfth Amendment in 1804.”

Under the Twelfth Amendment, “The Electors…shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each.”  There then follows a complicated series of rules for resolving tied votes, including directing that  “if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.”  

This “Electoral College” is described by Darrell West in an article for the Brookings Institute; “The framers of the Constitution set up the Electoral College for a number of different reasons. According to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper Number 68, the body was a compromise at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia between large and small states. Many of the latter worried that states such as Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia would dominate the presidency so they devised an institution where each state had Electoral College votes in proportion to the number of its senators and House members. The former advantaged small states since each state had two senators regardless of its size, while the latter aided large states because the number of House members was based on the state’s population.”

While West himself believes that the Electoral College has outlived its usefulness and should be abolished, he admits that “there are clear partisan divisions in these sentiments. In 2000, while the presidential election outcome was still being litigated, a Gallup survey reported that 73 percent of Democratic respondents supported a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College and move to direct popular voting, but only 46 percent of Republican respondents supported that view. This gap has since widened as after the 2016 election, 81 percent of Democrats and 19 percent of Republicans affirmatively answered the same question.”  

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

The Report Concludes Tomorrow

At a remote site in China’s Gobi Desert, at the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center (中国酒泉卫 星发射中心), a Hyperbola-2 rocket successfully entered suborbital space on November 2. The test of the methalox engine and its landing capabilities was hailed as a significant achievement toward Beijing’s space program goal of developing reusable medium-lift rocket technology. The country’s space industry startups that contribute to the Military-Civilian Fusion program are closely linked to the government in Beijing. Xi Jinping and the CCP are striving to replicate the success of American companies such as SpaceX but devoid of the corporate competition found in the United States. 

China has effectively grown its commercial space industry under tight state control. Unlike the US space program’s public-private partnership, on paper China’s “private” space startups and its state-owned enterprises (SOE’s) exist alongside each other in a highly synergistic relationship with the government. In reality, the “private” companies typically fill niche requirements in specialized technologies due to limited budgets, while the SOE’s have generous state backing. 

Since China entered the domain with its 1992 launch of the Shenzhou (Divine Craft), it has proven to be an emerging “innovation power”, according to David Lin and Katherine Kurata of the Jamestown Foundation. Although Chinese spaceports and other launch centers are controlled by the military with priority to military missions, the country is also reshaping the future landscape of commercial space operations and leadership. 

The November launch marked a strategic change in the global space race. “Yet amidst an increasingly congested orbital environment, it is clear that the future trajectory of space exploration hinges not solely on innovation itself, but specifically on the capacity for nations to effectively combine government direction with commercial dynamism,” says Lin and Kurata. The US and China are in a race to balance public and private sector contributions to become the future “point of the spear” in space. US private firms, such as Space X, Blue Origin, and the Artemis program are reviving public interest in space and pioneering reusable rocket technology at great cost savings.  NASA says that they must be built upon to ensure America’s continuing leadership. These are commercial ventures.

Beijing’s 2014 Document 60 policy is reshaping how the public and private sector work together in China. The CCP leadership is setting ambitious goals and included them in the State Council’s White Papers on Space Activities, the 2015-2025 National Medium-to-Long-Term Civilian Space Infrastructure Development Plan, and the 2019 Industry Catalog Encouraging Foreign Investment, according to Lin and Kurata. China recognizes space as a “strategic emerging industry.” It’s Space Information Corridor and the Beidou Satellite Navigation System are creating new opportunities for the commercial sector. Starting in 2019, however, companies were required to obtain permits from the People’s Liberation Army to access launch sites. 

The Chinese model calls for differentiated competition. Beijing wants to attract private space companies to encourage innovation and financial investment, but within strict state-set rules in keeping with Xi Jinping’s 2017 Military-Civilian Fusion agenda that coordinates construction of space infrastructure that meets both military and civilian needs. Many of the “private” firms are run by former military officials or have other intricate governmental ties.

“In the United States, NASA pioneers new frontiers while the Pentagon cultivates symbiotic partnerships with private contractors and startups. Although heavily government-reliant, this ecosystem enables visionary pursuits. In contrast, behind China’s rhetoric of military-civil fusion lies a tangled web of public and private cooperation activated only when mutual interests converge. Rather than operating autonomously as disruptive innovators, China’s private space firms mostly act as an extension of state interests,” says Lin and Korata. China excels at a rigid implementation of its space program while the US is more agile and innovative. Analysts in Washington suggest that too often the West overlooks it effectiveness and the linkage between China’s military and civilian sectors.

The Department of Defense views China’s civilian space program from a different perspective than Beijing. Washington recently published its annual “Military and Security Developments Involving China” report that provides a review of China’s military developments, including the space domain. The Pentagon analyzes China’s rapid expansion of its nuclear weapons program calling Beijing’s military buildup the biggest and fastest of any country since WWII, and possibly the fastest in human history. China is not only doubling the number of its nuclear warheads by 2030 but also increasing their accuracy and effectiveness. 

China’s 2^nd Artillery Rocket Force (responsible for nuclear weapons operations) maintains several thousand miles of underground tunnels which potentially could be used to hide nuclear weapons. The stakes are immense. Supremacy in space, as stated by Xi Jinping, calls for his country to reach “commanding heights” and establish itself as the foremost “space power” by 2045. The West cannot overlook that Xi Jinping’s vision is for China to be supreme in space as part of its “national rejuvenation.” Its commercial space program cannot be disengaged from its military ambitions. China’s dominance in space encompasses cutting edge technologies and calls for unmatched weapons deployment, according to the Pentagon. The launch of the Soviet Union’s Sputnik challenged the world order in 1957. China’s Military-Civilian Fusion program may portend a much greater rivalry between the United States and China; one with global consequences for humanity.

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

Photo: China Space Program

Abkhazia, a small Moscow-backed separatist government inside Georgia, is important but unfamiliar to most Americans. It may hold a critical link that helps explain Russia’s territorial ambitions in the coming years. While the world is fixated on the war in the Middle East, Russia has been active in the Transcaucasian region. Abkhazia is less than half the square mileage of New Jersey. Georgia itself is less than one-fourth the size of Nevada. While the Abkhazian territory may be small, its economic and political importance are enormous. 

On October 27,  the son of one of the most influential members of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle, Rashid Nurgaliyev, Jr., traveled to Sukhumi, capital of the separatist government in Abkhazia,  to sign a public-private partnership agreement with Infrastructure Development (ID). It is a newly established Russian company with plans to restore operations at Babushera Airport. ID is so new that it was not registered in Moscow until weeks after the signing of the deal. Most analysts agree that the firm is simply providing de facto cover for Putin’s next moves in Abkhazia and beyond.

The company’s official owner is Rashid Nurgaliyev, Jr. His father serves as the current deputy secretary of the Russian Security Council and was former deputy secretary of the Ministry of the Interior. The agreement, and the Russians signing it, have frightened local Georgians who believe it is a strong indication Putin may seek to fully annex Abkhazia in the coming year.

The Sukhumi airport, according to Giorgi Menabde of the Jamestown Foundation, has been closed officially for about three decades since the August 1992-September 1993 war. At the time Tbilisi deployed army personnel at the airport and used it to stage the evacuation of the civilian population from Sukhumi after Abkhazian, North Caucasian and Russian troops surrounded it. In July 2019, the International Civil Aviation Organization banned all flights into Sukhumi. 

Newly sparked Russian interest in the airport since last June has some questioning why an unspecified “Russian legal entity” has a contract to oversee airport reconstruction and resumption of flights. “The separatist government in Abkhazia agreed to provide the Russian investor with favorable investment terms, including guarantees of ownership and preservation of the agreement’s conditions throughout implementation of the projects,” according to Menabde. In an unprecedented move, the deal includes exemption from property and profit taxes for 25 years. All construction materials and equipment, including aircraft maintenance and fuel are exempted from customs duties. A local publication, Abkhazworld, says that the Russian company will receive “most privileged” status on electricity, paying a tariff rate similar to that of schools and hospitals. 

It is significant, as once reopened, the airport will provide Putin with an additional venue for sending in troops and supplies. The revised airport plan reveals new construction for expanded accommodations for officials and “foreign delegations.” It appears Moscow intends to send more “delegations” to the breakaway province. Russia already is increasing the number of its officials in the breakaway province this fall. “The new airport terminal will have a capacity of 1,300 passengers per hour and an estimated cost of reconstruction of 8 billion rubles (approximately $84 million),” says Menabde. The plan’s completion date is set for December 2024. Georgian officials have warned that restoration of the airport is Moscow’s first step to fully annexing the republic after 30 years of occupation, according to a Georgian Business Media story. Vakhtang Kolbaia, former deputy speaker of the Georgian parliament, said in a November 10 interview with Menabde that Russian companies also have been actively buying land in Abkhazia and pushing the separatist government to pass the so-called “apartment bill.”  This would permit Russian citizens to buy real estate in Abkhazia. 

Putin doesn’t need to formally seize the area, but can de facto incorporate into the Russian Federation, says Kolbaia. Currently, almost 100% of the area’s residents are Russian citizens. Moscow has completed 17 bases in Abkhazia and built a new naval facility at the Port of Ochamchire. The Sukhumi airport is the final piece of the puzzle. In an interview last week, Giorgi Gvbazava, a former chair of the pro-Georgian parliament in Abkhazia, said that despite the international ban, Russia is actively using the airport in illegally annexed Crimea for flights to the peninsula, with some delivering military supplies to Russian forces stationed there.

David Avalishvili, an analyst at Nation.ge, mentioned that possibility in an interview with Menabde saying that “Putin, as always, uses his corrupt officials and oligarchs to carry out his imperialist plans. … In preparing for the occupation of eastern Ukraine and Crimea, Putin actively exploited the interests of Russian oligarchs and his ministers … like Rashid Nurgaliev….” With Putin’s military busy in Ukraine, the economic and financial takeover of Abkhazia may end up the most efficient way for Russia to acquire additional territory and serve as a forward base for future moves further into Central Asia.

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

Photo: Pixabay

The nightmare scenario that the Obama-Biden Administration gambled on never occurring is now taking place. The Obama administration ended the Pentagon’s “two-war” doctrine in 2012, and America is no longer  capable of fighting more than one conflict at a time.

As 2023 draws to a close, Russia is at war against Ukraine. Iran, using its proxy Hamas, is at war with Israel.  China is increasingly aggressive against Indo-Pacific nations, and may eventually attack Taiwan.

These aggressive powers are increasingly growing closer.  Russia and China hold joint military exercises. Iran supplies Putin with drone weapons to use against Ukraine.

The U.S. Institute for Peace reports that “Iran has become increasingly reliant on China to survive existential crises, including diplomatic isolation, regional tensions and a rocky economy. In March 2023, China—Iran’s largest trade partner—brokered an agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia to restore diplomatic ties seven years after severing relations. The deal reflected Beijing’s growing influence and interest in Iran. “China is trying to translate its economic power into political power,” Nasser Hadian, a professor of political science at the University of Tehran, told The Iran Primer. “Iran is very important as a source of energy, but also as a provider of the security in the region. In the future, Iran and China are going to be very closely interdependent.” 

CNA reports that “There is widespread consensus among analysts that, although Russia and China have been moving toward closer cooperation through the entire post-Soviet era, the trend has accelerated rapidly since 2014. The relationship was boosted by Russian leaders’ belief that Russia could survive its sudden confrontation with the West only by expanding alternative relationships. China was the obvious candidate because it had a suitably large economy.”

China has taken note of the reduced size of the U.S. military, as well as the diminished capability of the American industrial base to provide the weaponry needed to resupply Ukraine. The U.S. Navy continues to shrink, and China has a substantial numerical lead, just as Russia has a lead in nuclear weaponry.

Previewing the forthcoming 2023 China Military Power Report, Ely S. Ratner, assistant secretary of defense for Indo-Pacific security affairs said DOD assesses that the Chinese Communist Party is increasingly turning to its military as “an instrument of coercion in support of their revisionist aims” with an eye toward restructuring the international order and undermining global peace and stability.  

That assessment, he said, is evidenced by China’s rapid expansion of its nuclear forces and increasing provocations by its air and naval forces against U.S. allies and partners operating in the region under accordance with international law.  

Ratner also noted China’s lack of interest in maintaining open lines of communication with U.S. defense officials, noting that Beijing has declined multiple invitations to communicate directly with Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and other senior Pentagon policymakers.   

According to U.S. army General Charles A. Flynn, the U.S. army commander in the Pacific, There are three things that the Chinese military has that the U.S. military, allies and partners in the region do not have. They have interior lines,” he said. He noted that they’re just 100 miles from Taiwan, and they have anti-access, area-denial means to keep opposing forces at a distance—such as missiles, aircraft and ships, as well as cyber and space capabilities. “The second thing they have is mass,” he said, meaning they have a very large military force. “The third thing they have is magazine depth,” he said, which would include large quantities of stand-off munitions.

Unlike the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, the U.S. industrial base is not capable of rapidly making up these deficiencies.

Picture: U.S. troops station in the Pacific