Author: Judge John Wilson (ret.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo: Pixabay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

The Report concludes tomorrow

Photo: Pixabay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The U.S. military is facing unique challenges in fulfilling its mission to deter the growing threats from China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. The problems are not the fault of the servicemembers, but from the politicians, some in elective office and, also, some in uniform who have forgotten that their oath is to the Constitution and not to progressive ideology.

During the Obama presidency, the armed services were deprived of crucial funds, the aftereffects of which can still be seen today.  Some officers were promoted more for their demographics and political loyalty than for their capabilities and leadership qualities. But perhaps the worst promotion of all was appointing General Mark Milley as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, selected by President Trump, a move the former President has admitted was a terrible error.

When President Biden appointed Lloyd Austin as Defense Secretary, the two combined to incompetently impose unprecedented debacles on the services, including the incompetent execution of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the institution of woke dictates that have demoralized current servicemembers, and created a recruitment crisis.

Many Members of Congress have been so outraged that they passed a bill to reduce Austin’s salary to a mere one dollar.

Milley, now retired, and Austin are not alone in their politicized agenda.  Earlier in 2023, Rep. Mike Rogers, chair of the House Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Jim Banks, Chair of the House Committee on military personnel, demanded to know what Austin would do about Kelisa Wing, the “chief diversity, equity and inclusion officer” in the Department of Defense Education Activity office, who has made who has made repeated comments exhibiting overt racial bias against whites. 

The upshot is that Washington has spent vast sums on other priorities at the expense of its most important duty, protecting the nation.

Earlier this year, Adam Kredo, writing for the Washington Free Beacon, reported that  “The Biden administration wants to enact sharp budget cuts to the U.S. Navy that would force it to prematurely retire almost a dozen ships and take offline critical missile systems that serve as a primary deterrent to Chinese aggression. President Joe Biden’s 2024 budget proposal would deal a massive blow to the already strained American Navy—the White House wants to prematurely retire eight ships and two combat vessels. By taking these ships out of action, the Navy would lose more than 600 vertical launch missile systems—a missile capability that serves as the primary deterrent to Chinese military attacks in the Pacific, according to congressional research provided to the Washington Free Beacon. ‘The Biden Administration’s defense budget would hollow out our fleet and scrap Navy radars and missile systems we desperately need to deter China,’ Sen. Roger Wicker (R., Miss.), the Senate Armed Services Committee’s ranking member, told the Free Beacon. ‘Prematurely retiring our ships sends exactly the wrong signal to China as they continue to build their own Navy at a historic pace. Biden’s budget would decrease the total number of active Navy ships, retiring at least 11 ships while only requesting the construction of nine new vessels. The Navy currently has 294 battle force ships, far short of the 355 it is required to have by law. Biden’s budget would further reduce this number, according to information about the White House’s 2023 budget proposal codified by Wicker’s office.” The policy wholly ignores the reality that China has the world’s largest navy, and it is growing still larger.

Already underfunded by the eight years of the Obama presidency, Biden’s defense budgets have repeatedly failed to keep up with inflation. Adjusted for inflation, Biden’s proposed defense budget would produce a 5% cut.  It is difficult to see the rationale for that, as foreign threats have grown exponentially. Military spending amounts to a mere 12% of the federal budget, and only 3.1% of GDP, projected to decline to   2.8% in the next ten years. In 1960, it was almost 9% of GDP. In 1969, it amounted to 52% of the federal budget.

Frank Vernuccio serves as editor-in-chief of the New York Analysis of Policy and Government

Photo: Dept. of Defense

There is a clear partisan divide in attitudes towards the First Amendment.

A Realclear Politics analysis   gives specific details of the partisan divide in support for free speech. “Painting with a broad brush, Democrats grant significantly more deference to government than do Republicans when it comes to regulating free speech. This wasn’t the only fault line revealed by the RCP survey. Some of what is dividing these differences is generational, as Millennials and Gen-Z have come of age in a digital age environment in which reasonable expectations of privacy seem a relic of the past. “Those under 30 are most open to censorship by the government,” Kimball noted, adding that 42% of this cohort deem it “more important” to them that the government protect national security than guard the right to free expression. Among those over 65 years old, the corresponding percentage was 26%… Republicans are not the authoritarian party. That distinction belongs to the Democrats… Nearly one-third of Democratic voters (34%) say Americans have “too much freedom.” This compared to 14.6% of Republicans. Republicans were most likely to say Americans have too little freedom (46%), while only 22% of Democrats feel that way. Independents were in the middle in both categories.”

Targets of the anti-First Amendment crowd range from parents to billionaires.

The New York Post recently reported that US Education Secretary Miguel Cardona criticized parents who had the temerity of criticizing schools for their bizarre woke policies that have resulted in crises such as girls being rapid in restrooms by males who enter those places under the excuse that they “felt like a female” on a give day. Cardona chided moms and dads  “misbehaving in public” and “acting like they know what’s right for kids.”

Those parents are in good company.  After the 2020 election, when Democrat-leaning federal agencies moved to censor media outlets that would have printed or posted accurate information that would be embarrassing to Joe Biden, Elon Musk purchased Twitter, promising that he wouldn’t be intimidated in a similar manner.  The White House made a predictable move. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Administration has responded by using a variety of excuses to harass Musk through various investigations.

Jason Boyd wrote in The Federalist that “Democrats are at war with free speech, and they are using every tool in their political box to silence their political opponents…Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Warren even went so far as to claim Musk owning Twitter is ‘dangerous for our democracy.’ The Washington Post also admitted that ’Democrats, Biden have limited power as Elon Musk buys Twitter…Throwing a fit about the ability to censor and suppress speech is a growing trend in Democrat politics. Leftist politicians past and present have been heavily involved in efforts to smear their political enemies as “threats to democracy” and label anything counter to their narrative as disinformation.”

David Keene, in a Washington Times  article states that “Transparency is fast emerging as the major obstacle in the way of the woke left’s campaign to banish those who question its narrative from the public square. Today’s elites reject the classical liberal view that free speech is essential to the functioning of a free society as it allows thinking people to decide for themselves which opinions they might choose to support…When Elon Musk released evidence that Twitter not only engaged in a conscious campaign to shut down speech with which its owners took issue but also coordinated its censorship campaign with the government and with politicians its leadership wanted to promote, the elite media dismissed the whole thing as a lot about very little, but the American public wasn’t so sure.”

The censorship moves extended beyond electoral politics. WSJ found that “Newly released documents show that the White House has played a major role in censoring Americans on social media. Email exchanges between Rob Flaherty, the White House’s director of digital media, and social-media executives prove the companies put Covid censorship policies in place in response to relentless, coercive pressure from the White House—not voluntarily.” The emails emerged Jan. 6 in the discovery phase of Missouri v. Biden, a free-speech case brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana and four private plaintiffs represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance.”

American society, once open, has reacted. A CATO analysis found that “nearly three‐​fourths (71%) of Americans believe that political correctness has done more to silence important discussions our society needs to have. A little more than a quarter (28%) instead believe that political correctness has done more to help people avoid offending others.

Frank Vernuccio serves as editor-in-chief of the New York Analysis of Policy and Government

Illustration: Pixabay

The evidence is now as overwhelming as it is shocking: many Americans are turning sharply away from what was once the nations’ most basic principle, the sanctity of free speech.

Both the Obama and the Biden Administrations have attempted to federalize attempts to limit the First Amendment through the establishing of “Disinformation” agencies. It has become clear that both presidents defined “disinformation” as views and facts they disagree with.

The problem has been growing. In 2019, a report by the Campaign for Free Speech found that “Americans are increasingly hostile toward free speech, a free press, and the First Amendment. According to the survey, 61 percent of Americans agree that free speech should be restricted, and 51 percent believe that the First Amendment, ratified in 1791, should be rewritten to reflect the new cultural norms of today. Millennials feel a greater sense of negativity from free speech, with 57 percent agreeing that the First Amendment should be rewritten, and 54 percent believing that possible jail time would be an appropriate consequence for “hate speech.” Americans also support government being able to punish the media: 57% believe the government should be able to take action against newspapers or TV stations. Of those who support this, 46% support possible jail time. Additionally, 36% of Americans support a government agency reviewing alternative media such as podcasts; less than half of Americans oppose this.”

A recent report from Pew Research notes that “Support for both technology companies and the government taking steps to restrict false information online has grown in recent years. For example, the share of U.S. adults who say the federal government should restrict false information has risen from 39% in 2018 to 55% in 2023.

• Just over half of Americans (55%) support the U.S. government taking steps to restrict false information online, even if it limits people from freely publishing or accessing information.”
• ““The partisan gap in support for restricting false information has grown substantially since 2018.”
• “Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are much more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to support the U.S. government taking steps to restrict false information online (70% vs. 39%). There was virtually no difference between the parties in 2018, but the share of Democrats who support government intervention has grown from 40% in 2018 to 70% in 2023.”

• “A large majority of Democrats and Democratic leaners (81%) support technology companies taking such steps, while about half of Republicans (48%) say the same.”
• Support for government intervention has steadily risen since the first time we asked this question in 2018. In fact, the balance of opinion has tilted: Five years ago, Americans were more inclined to prioritize freedom of information over restricting false information (58% vs. 39%).”

A Daily Signal study notes that “Democrats value free speech far less than Republicans do…Free speech is seriously threatened for the first time in American history… The threat to free speech comes entirely from the Left… There is no example in history of the Left attaining power and allowing free speech. From the French Revolution to the Russian Revolution to the Maoist takeover of China to almost any university in America today, wherever the Left comes to power, it suppresses speech…The Left must suppress speech in order to retain power. If it were to allow dissent, it would lose its hold on power…That is why conservative speakers are rarely allowed to speak on college campuses. Left-wing professors, deans, and administrators know—consciously or subconsciously—that an effective conservative speaker can undo years of left-wing indoctrination in just 90 minutes… All tyrannies label dissent ‘misinformation.’ That is what Vladimir Putin’s government labels all dissent in Russia today.”

Frank Vernuccio serves as editor in chief of the New York Analysis of Policy and Government

The report concludes tomorrow

Soul and root 灵魂与根 (línghún yǔ gēn) may sound uplifting to some, but for those living in Taiwan it is a source of great concern. The expression, long used by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership to invoke a sense of unity as it relates to China’s cultural heritage, has a more prescriptive intent today. At a Politburo study session in June, President Xi Jinping declared “We must not abandon Marxism as our soul or China’s excellent traditional culture as our root.” Only a year ago, the expression stood only for “cultural heritage.” By this summer the CCP had finished reframing the phrase soul and root and presented it to the nation as the theme of the 102nd anniversary of the founding of the CCP. What has changed over the past year? Soul and Root is now a neonationalist call to the Chinese people to unite Taiwan with the People’s Republic of China. President Xi needs the backing of the populace to force Taiwan under Beijing’s governance and to carry out his vision of remaking the international, rules-based order to favor China’s vision of it place in the world. 

In October, Chinese Air Force fighter jets, bombers, and UAVs penetrated Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over 142 times, with 358 aircraft crossing the median line surrounding Taiwan. Chinese intrusions were not limited to the air, its Navy (PLAN) also sent an aircraft carrier, support, and allied ships through the Bashi Channel into the Pacific. The waterway is located between Taiwan and the Philippines, with Taiwan’s Orchid Island to the north and the Philippine’s Botel Tobago to the south. It is a sensitive region containing numerous underseas communications cables, a maritime commerce route, and a critical channel Taiwan uses for its military ships leaving the South China Sea and entering the Pacific Ocean. Although claimed by both Taiwan and the Philippines, this channel effectively provides the Taiwanese navy the vital strategic depth and operational space it will need in the event of a kinetic battle with China. It also allows Taiwanese submarines to avoid the shallow depths of the East China Sea, which are heavily patrolled by China.   

For Beijing, the region plays an important role in its geopolitical ambitions and serves as a chokepoint that allows China the control essential for operational mobility of its rapidly expanding submarine fleet. As China extends its global power projection, the Bashi Channel has emerged as the center of its Soul and Root appeal. There are many disputed islands in the Channel claimed by China. Any increase in Chinese control of the area could represent a tipping point for Beijing’s economic and security interests, and end in heavily isolating Taiwan from the global economy. East Asian maritime trade depends on the Channel to sustain the current volume and velocity of global trade. Any disruption to the route will increase tensions with China and negatively impact shipping costs and it reverberates down the global supply chain.  

Japan and South Korea depend heavily on the Bashi Channel as a transit route for importing the energy needed to keep their economies running. Any disruption has the potential to spur a global energy crisis. China’s Soul and Root campaign could disrupt the peace and stability in East Asia at a time when the United States is distracted by military crises in other areas of the world. One question many analysts in Washington are discussing this week is, Was this China’s intention all along? With world attention turned toward Russia’s war in Ukraine and now the dire situation in the Middle East, China could use this time to further its global ambitions. 

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

Illustration: Pixabay

There is an “increased threat” From Russia Against Critical Infrastructure in Finland,” according to a recent Moscow Times headline. With the world closely monitoring events in the Middle East, a serious Scandinavian incident was virtually overlooked by many major Western media outlets. It appears this fall that Putin believes he is free to act out beyond the battlefield in Ukraine. And, he is soliciting help from China, one of Russia’s few allies. On October 8, the Balticconnector natural gas underwater pipeline between Finland and Estonia received significant damage. Preliminary findings from the Finnish National Bureau of Investigation determined that a pipeline leak was likely caused by the Russian oil carrier SGV Flot seemingly in concert with the Chinese-flagged container ship, the Newnew Polar Bear. The Chinese vessel apparently dragged its anchor along the seabed over the 48-mile-long gas pipeline.

Needed repairs are extensive and not expected to be complete until at least April 2024. The Finnish Security and Intelligence Service (SUPO) warned that the suspected sabotage targeting the country’s crucial maritime energy infrastructure, occurred inside its exclusive economic zone. This latest incident raises a question for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Member states. If Russia and its allies continue to destabilize the region, should NATO consider additional protective actions? Both

Finland and Estonia are NATO Member states. The Finnish-Russian bilateral relationship has deteriorated quickly since Finland joined NATO last April after Helsinki ended seven decades of its non-aligned policy.

“Another liquefied natural terminal in Hamina was connected to the grid in 2022 but has very limited capacity… This development along with the original pipeline have become the only viable alternatives to Finland’s import of Russia gas,” according to Mateusz Kubiak of the Jamestown Foundation.

Last week Finnish law enforcement confirmed new evidence linking China to the incident when it found the Newnew Polar Bear’s anchor near the pipeline along with traces of drag marks leading to the nexus of the damage.

The Barents Observer reports this week that the sabotage is complicated by evidence indicating the ultimate owner of the cargo vessel appears to be the Russian-registered company Torgmoll. The publication discovered that new permissions for the Chinese ship to navigate using Russia’s Northern Sea Route were addressed to Torgmoll. Previous permissions were granted to China’s Haian Xin Xin Yang Shipping company. Torgmoll office in both Moscow and Shanghai proport to be developing China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The suspected coordination between China and Russia is a concerning sign of increased coordination of disruptive events against Western states.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg discussed the issue with ministers of defense from each of the Member countries and quickly declared if proven to be sabotage, the alliance should develop a “united and determined response.” NATO is viewing the Russian-Chinese act as part of a larger regional security issue and order increased maritime patrols in the Baltic Sea and flyovers. Kubiak suggests that the final findings of the investigation will likely inform NATO’ s decision to either provide a military response or deescalate the situation. Stoltenberg noted that NATO Member states themselves should individually consider additional protection and monitoring of critical infrastructure in the Baltic Sea region and elsewhere, including natural gas and crude oil import terminals.

“NATO already took the first step in this direction when it announced the creation of a Critical Undersea Infrastructure Coordination Cell at NATO headquarters earlier this year,” according to Kubiak. As the war in Russia drags on and Putin becomes more desperate, analysts expect to see additional sabotage. The Kremlin already is treating Finland as a hostile country. While Finland has a sufficient energy supply to last through the winter months, additional damage to its remaining undersea pipeline would prove disastrous.

The loss of the Balticconector pipeline provides ample evidence that China are Russia are coordinating their anti-Western activities. They are also involved on the periphery of the war in the Middle East. It is possible the conflict there could expand into a proxy war among nuclear armed states, supported by Vladimir Putin and indirectly by Xi Jinping. Both leaders have shown they are willing to set aside differences and work to overturn the rules-based international order.

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

Photo: Pixabay