Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

“The U.S. faces an unprecedented number of complex biological threats posed by near-peer competitors, non-state actors and naturally occurring pandemics,” warns Deborah G. Rosenblum, assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical and biological defense programs She stated that this requirs a significant response by the Defense Department.

The Department of Homeland Security defines the threat as the intentional release of a pathogen (disease causing agent) or biotoxin (poisonous substance produced by a living organism) against humans, plants, or animals. An attack against people could be used to cause illness, death, fear, societal disruption, and economic damage. An attack on agricultural plants and animals would primarily cause economic damage, loss of confidence in the food supply, and possible loss of life. Aerosols, infected humans, animals, insects, and the contamination of crops.

Among the most serious of these threats are Anthrax, Plague, Tularemia, Marburg disease, Ebola, smallpox, and Botulism, followed by Cholera, Glanders,  Q fever Encephalitis and Ricin.

“These threats certainly impact the readiness and resilience of our military forces,” Rosenblum said. “Biodefense is no longer something that’s the purview of just specialized units who have traditionally been worried about these threats…deterrence requires a combat credible force… be combat credible, the whole joint force must be capable of fighting through biothreats and being resilient.” 

In August, the Pentagon released its first Biodefense Posture Review which lays out key reforms aimed at positioning the U.S. to counter biothreats through 2035.  The reforms outlined in the review call for enhanced early warning and understanding of emerging biothreats, improving preparedness of the total force, speeding response to biothreats to mitigate their impact on DOD missions and improving strategic coordination and collaboration to enhance biodefense.  The reforms will be initiated by the newly created biodefense council, chaired by William A. LaPlante, undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment. 

The reforms also align with key National Defense Strategy priorities to defend the homeland against the multidomain pacing threat posed by the People’s Republic of China, deter strategic attacks against the U.S. and its allies and build a resilient joint force.  

“The [Biodefense Posture Review] was built on the foundation laid out in the National Defense Strategy along with the National Biodefense Strategy, but it was also greatly informed by a number of lessons learned from the COVID-19 response,” Rosenblum said.  She noted that in addition to remaining focused on biological threats posed by near-peer competitors and nonstate actors, the U.S. must remain focused on emerging biotechnologies that could be incorporated into adversaries’ future biological warfare programs. 

“We are at a pivotal point in biodefense,” Rosenblum said. “We must maintain our momentum to prepare for any number of complex potential biological threats.” 

A Defense Department analysis notes that the threat and risk from bioincidents must be taken seriously, and implement the significant reforms to lay the foundation for a resilient Total Force that deters the use of bioweapons, rapidly responds to natural outbreaks, and minimizes the global risk of laboratory accidents. The study emphasizes that “This must be done with stronger collaboration with U.S. interagency partners and abroad with allies and partners working collectively to understand the threat, prepare and protect the force, and quickly respond to and mitigate the effects of bioincidents.”

According to the Pentagon, China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, probably maintain the knowledge and capability to produce and employ traditional pathogens and toxins. These countries historically pursued, and at least one country (North Korea) continues to pursue, pathogens that cause highly infectious or contagious diseases, such as anthrax, plague, and toxins, including botulinum toxin. These nations probably also retain the knowledge and ability to employ these agents if necessary.

Photo: Department of Defense

There has not been an appropriate sense of crisis during a time of unprecedented failure in America’s economy, its political life, and in its foreign affairs. There is a reason for that.  The failures are the direct result of policies that are favored by the progressive elite and their allies in the media.

The nation is currently experiencing an odd combination of high prices and poor growth. Emerging from COVID, the U.S. economy should have bolted out of the starting gate at a fast clip. However, on day one, the Biden Administration crippled that opportunity by a direct attack on energy.  The availability of affordable energy is the very foundation of the modern economy. So-called renewables cannot meet the needs of the 21^st Century marketplace.  Instead of attempting to repeal modernity, It would be logical to concentrate on the development of truly viable new sources such as fusion. Instead, a scientifically irrational and economically damaging assault on fossil fuels was launched. The media, largely responsible for the outcome of the 2020 election, is loath to admit Biden’s mistake, so the foolish policy continues.

The damaging experiment in luddite environmentalism is getting worse. Bans are being proposed on many uses of clean, plentiful natural gas, with no adequate replacement in sight.  Turning the clock back to the pre-industrial revolution era will result in more than just the greatest depression the planet has ever endured. The truly insane drive against fertilizers will result in the starvation of millions.

The Biden Administration, by far the most left-leaning in U.S. history, alleges that it is having success in job creation. Nonsense! According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, during COVD, “The longest employment recovery and expansion in U.S. history abruptly ended, with total nonfarm employment falling sharply because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the efforts to contain it. Job losses were historic and widespread. Although state and local government restrictions on businesses and individuals began to ease somewhat after April 2020, total nonfarm employment ended the year 10.0 million below its February peak. Since Biden became president, the job recovery has merely been the expected effects of a return to normalcy.

There can be no excuse for racism.  It is undeniable that black Americans suffered horribly from slavery and segregation.  However, those practices ended 158 years and 58 years ago, respectively. Almost three generations of affirmative action, poverty programs, and legal reforms have followed. There has been a black president, black governors, supreme court justices, police commissioners, and military leaders. The mayors of the nations’ largest cities are black.  Contrary to the allegation of “systemic racism,” there are no laws, regulations or governmental practices that condone racist policies.

But because progressives cannot point to any achievements, they instead seek to gain support by the vile practice of inciting groups of people against each other on specious grounds. Isolated instances of rare abuses by police officers are portrayed as general practices and used to justify false claims of official malpractice.

Similarly, over the past several years, radicalized educational leaders have warped lower school curriculum and abused school finances to develop practices such as introducing explicit sex lessons for very young students and having drag queens and transvestites teach inappropriate instruction to the lowest grades.  When parents rightfully object to these warped endeavors, the response is to create a myth that America is biased against non-heterosexuals.  That’s nonsense!  Parental objections would be the same if similar but “straight” explicit sex lessons were being used.

The other gambit progressives have employed to win elections an influence the public is by buying support and votes through give-away programs that are inherently unfair to the majority of hard-working, taxpaying citizens. With a nation already more deeply in debt than anytime since the Second World War, and with nothing to show for it (except many elected progressive politicians) the left has sought to ignore international dangers and underfund the military. Biden’s defense budgets have resulted in actual spending power cuts, when inflation is taken into consideration. Ignoring China’s massive threat is a dangerous choice.

Progressives have shamelessly divided the nation, abused public finances, and run roughshod over hardworking Americans.

Illustration: Pixabay

Key news events which appear, at first glance, to be totally unrelated are in fact different elements of a common endeavor.

Over the past several years, lawlessness has been a significant theme. Street riots, assaults on federal court houses, invaded police stations, and increased violent crime have all met with little response in numerous jurisdictions. Massive illegal immigration has been virtually ignored; some might even say encouraged. Official wrongdoing, including lying to Congress, has gone unpunished. Important figures entrusted with enforcing the law have stonewalled investigations or appropriate responses to offenses such as destroying federal evidence, accepting bribes, and abusing federal agencies for partisan political purposes. Public educational institutions from kindergarten through graduate school have used tax dollars for partisan ideological indoctrination.

Those seeking to respond to or expose this crisis have been threatened or ostracized. Publications which exposed official wrongdoing have been ignored, censored and ridiculed. Border patrol agents have been threatened for merely doing their job. Parents who have exposed abusive practices in schools have been labelled domestic terrorists. Whistleblowers who attempted to reveal misdeeds in federal agencies have been retaliated against. Police officers have been maligned for the misdeeds of just a microscopically small number.

There is no singular organization that is guiding these wrongdoings on a daily basis. There is no underground bunker where all this is being coordinated. There are wealthy and powerful figures at home and abroad who believe that concepts such as individual freedom and capitalism are bad, and eliminating the Bill of Rights, U.S. sovereignty, and capitalism are essential to replace those foundational concepts with ideals such as an all-powerful central government.   They contribute to one aspect or another of the threat, and they use low-information influencers and advocates for their own ends. They utilize disparate interest groups to vanquish American culture as it currently exists.

Examples abound.

It was proven dramatically, following the fall of the Iron Curtain, that capitalist economies are better stewards of the environment than their socialist counterparts.  Despite that, extreme environmentalists target capitalism and embrace socialist concepts in the mistaken belief that this will result in a healthier planet. Their activism is a valuable force in the goal of attacking private property rights and free enterprise.

The American population has been raised in an environment where the concept of freedom is an organic part of our thinking. That doesn’t work if socialism is to be established.  Bringing in vast numbers of illegal immigrants who, thanks to a combination of lax voting identification and authentication procedures will be able to cast votes unlawfully now and perhaps legally later (some jurisdiction already allow illegals to vote in local elections) weakens that ingrained devotion to freedom. The hyperventilating reaction of the Left to any discussion of inappropriate voting activities and election irregularities indicates how central a role this is to their ongoing efforts to, as Barack Obama famously stated, “Fundamentally transform” America.

For a society of free individuals to flourish, a commonly accepted set of laws and the impartial enforcement of those statutes is essential. Without that, there is nothing but the whim of the powerful, a common feature in authoritarian regimes. That is why the socialist left is so lax in the control of crimes against people and property, but seeks to impose so many restrictions imposed by bureaucratic regulations. That is also why the police are maligned and defunded, and why Supreme Court Justices who stand for traditional rights and values have been so shockingly threatened and maligned.

The U.S. is the bulwark of individual freedom across the planet, to the dismay of those who prefer that a centralized group of self-proclaimed experts rule. Tearing down American power and influence is pivotal to them. Therefore, they seek to reduce American military strength, destroy its borders, and replace the nation’s emphasis from one of freedom to a variety of disparate and divisive causes.

Illustration: Pixabay

Is paramount leader Xi Jinping (习近平) in trouble? At the Chinese seaside resort Beidaihe, high-ranked leaders and invited elders of the CCP held their annual summer, closed-door meeting to exchange viewpoints on topics of importance to China. Now 70 years old and under increasing pressure domestically from a floundering anemic economy, and internationally from foreign leaders upset with Beijing’s foreign and defense policies, some are speculating that Xi’s time in power may be entering its dénouement. Like many other authoritarian figures, Xi purges those who oppose him and his policies to maintain a tight-fisted, Machiavellian hold on political power. The recent purges are unusual in the breadth and depth that they cover.

Nikkei’s Katsuji Nakazawa reports that testimony by “sources familiar with China’s internal affairs offers a rare glimpse into the summer conclave: ‘Only several powerful and selected party elders were at Beidaihe this summer…One of the elders was from the People’s Liberation Army…. After a meeting with the elders, Xi vented his anger in front of close aides.’” Chinese communist leaders in the past have reassigned or purged military leaders who gained too much power or could threaten them. Xi is no different in his recent actions. However, this time Xi himself may be in danger of losing absolute control over the party and state.

During the summer it is believed Xi ordered several dozen officials detained or ousted. They were accused of failing to carry out orders, leaking state secrets, found corrupt, or thought to have committed other minor infractions. There is no public explanation from Beijing that explains Xi’s actions. It does give rise to the notion that Xi himself is no longer the sole puppet master, although younger officials who are aligned with the Xi Jinping Faction still hold a large number of seats on the CCP Central Committee, the Politburo,  the Politburo Standing Committee (PBSC), and in high-ranked PLA command positions. The extent of the purges, according to Western analysts, is broader and more extensive than expected.

One of Xi’s strongest supporters, Foreign Minister Qin Gang (秦刚), abruptly “disappeared” for more than eight weeks before officially losing his position to the former foreign minister, Wang Yi (王毅).  Another mystery surrounds China’s Defense Minister, General Li Shangfu (李尚福), according to Willy Wo-Lap Lam of the Jamestown Foundation. Li had several decades of high-level managerial experience in China’s missile, space, and nuclear hardware procurement programs when he abruptly “disappeared” for three weeks, with China refusing to confirm if he still held his position at the time.

Earlier this month media reports revealed that Li was accused of massive corruption surrounding the purchasing of military equipment during his tenure as head of the CMC Equipment Development Department. He was detained on September 1. Voice of America reported last week that this coincides with a purge within the PLA Rocket Force. It appears that more than ten top-echelon Rocket Force officers, including its commander General Li Yuchao (李玉超) and political commissar General Xu Zhongbo (徐忠波) were brought in for investigation by military discipline departments and state security authorities. Accusations range from corruption charges to divulging secrets to American intelligence officers. According to Radio French’s International Chinese Edition, another of Xi’s close associates who is the First Vice-Chairman of the Central Military Commission, General Zhang Youxia (张又侠), may be in trouble, too. The fathers of Xi Jinping and Zhang Youxia worked together in the PLA in Shaanxi in the 1940’s. Even that family association did not help Zhang.

“Xi’s decision to replace the ousted commander and political commissar of the Rocket Force with officers who have had no previous experience with missiles and other nuclear weapons is unconventional,” according to Lam. He adds that “Given that nuclear missiles and related weapons are expected to play a pivotal role in possible military maneuvers such as an invasion of Taiwan, putting two leaders with no experience in the technology-intense Rocket Force could not only have deleterious effects on the Force’s operational capabilities, but could also cause resentment among senior officers many of whom are well-trained aerospace engineers.”

Xi Jinping, in recent speeches to military troops, has emphasized the need for increased discipline and “absolute loyalty” in preparation for war. Although this has been a mantra of Xi’s since he assumed power in 2012, some military analysts in Washington consider it likely that Chinese plans for an invasion of Taiwan may have been compromised by those working on heavy-duty weapons, Chinese missiles and nuclear submarines. If the level of corruption is as widespread as some western officials think, it may be  undermining Xi’s position as supreme leader and resulting in an increased questioning of his ability to select qualified key personnel. The smoldering discontent among high-ranked CCP officials and military officers familiar with the unusual purges may be some of the first signs of more turmoil to come in Beijing.

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

Photo: Chinese Government

Reports concerning the war in Ukraine review Putin’s military actions, but few discuss the impact on the Caucasus and Eastern Europe. Some of these nations fear a new Iron Curtain is about to descend on both NATO and non-NATO states. In a recent report from the Foreign Policy Research Institute, Philip Wasielewski traveled to several European states to find out how Putin’s war to gain influence is being conducted and its implications for US foreign policy. 

The aim of the conventional war in Ukraine, he says, is to diminish Western influence and reestablish Russian hegemony in the former Warsaw Pact states. Outside Ukraine the war is political. Those operations, according to Wasielewski, have a major flaw. He points out that they “only offer the past and not a future.” There are two factors impacting future events in the European theater. First is the quality of political health in the states where Putin is conducting subversion this year. Second, to resist Russian efforts in those targeted states analysis is needed to determine the level of Western countermeasures required to slow backsliding on democratic norms. With presidential politics in the United States heating up the level of involvement by the Biden Administration in Europe remains uncertain.

There are several countries under political attack that will hold elections between 2023 and 2025. Their outcome will greatly influence their geopolitical orientation in the coming decades. Wasielewski argues that “If the war in Ukraine is a battle of modern weapon systems, these elections will be a war of ideas between East and West.” Losing these states politically would undermine the modern nation-state system which has provided prosperity and international order. Europe’s economy, as a whole, is the third largest in the world. If the United States and its allies cede the narrative to Putin and his partners, and do not counter his anti-Western propaganda, Russia could regain influence in a number of states and, with China’s assistance, acquire an extended foothold in Europe. The outcome of the kinetic war in Ukraine and the propaganda one elsewhere is uncertain.

What is known is that in Georgia the government is supporting Putin’s war in Ukraine, although the general population is fearful about being on the wrong side at its conclusion. In Moldova, the government is increasingly concerned that their neutrality no longer offers the security needed. Chișinău is leaning toward integrating into Western institutions for protection, but its population is uncertain about which sides offers the most long-term security. NATO and EU member Hungary, continues to reject many of the NATO/EU principles while retaining the security and economic benefits from the associations. Victor Orban, prime minister since 2010, recognizes that his country is geographically safe. Wasielewski says that Hungary’s government is motivated by a “selective history” and that more significant is Orban’s desire to stay in power. To do so, the prime minister acts as a pivot between Moscow and the Western nations. Although Poland is in a similar domestic position, its geographical position and history diverge from Hungary’s. That government strongly opposes Russian intervention in Ukraine and in Polish political affairs. Domestic political divisions and historical legacies have the potential to create political instability in the country, says Wasielewski. He adds that Lithuania, one of the states he visited this summer, is “the most loyal adherent to NATO and EU principles, but fears that if Russia is not deterred, a war could destroy Lithuania even if it is on the winning side.” 

Russia is exploiting peoples’ fear in Eastern Europe. Key identity issues include grievances by minority groups, those linked to religion, and people concerned about undermining cultural values. Putin’s propaganda machina morphs concerns over welfare and economic needs into narratives blaming the West as the true source of their problems. Russia is presented as the solution to their fears. At issue is that Moscow’s political warfare strategy only offers a past and not a future for those former members of the Soviet Union.

It will be up to Washington and its NATO allies to combat these perceptions, overturn Russian political advances, and reinforce liberal democratic values in the region. Many of the former Soviet satellite states believe that only the United States is strong enough to protect them militarily and economically. From Russia’s perspective, its former Warsaw Pact states should be “independent but not sovereign.” Putin’s goal is to allow these states to make their own decisions only when not in conflict with Moscow’s interests. 

From these states, Wasielewski found that in all but Hungary, they palpably feared a Russia attack using ground, air, or cyber warfare. The populations fear the destruction of their cities as happened in Grozny, Aleppo, and Bakhmut. Second, he suggests that the Eastern Europe believes subversion could, or is, undermining their developing democratic processes is favor of authoritarian practices reminiscent of the phrase “For my friends everything; for my enemies THE LAW!” Economically these states also worry that energy supplies will be interrupted or that there will be an embargo of their imports. Putin’s war in Ukraine is not simply a theoretical threat beyond Ukraine; it is a genuine concern about the future of Europe. 

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Illustration: Pixabay

Rep. James Comer, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, recently presented incriminating evidence on the Biden family’s questionable financial dealings with China.  Receiving far less attention, however, is the corruption within certain institutions that pretend to be nonpartisan but are, in fact, hypocritically biased.

A prime example of this is the Pulitzer Prize.  Originally established over a century ago to award excellence in 22 categories, it now pushes leftist propaganda in journalism. As the New Criterion notes:

“It has long been recognized that there is a distinct political dimension to the awarding of the Pulitzer Prizes. Briefly stated, the Pulitzers favor the expression of liberal opinion. No other mode of political belief is considered eligible for Pulitzer consideration. It is thus the main business of the Pulitzer committees to hand out the Prizes to other liberals, both in the press and in the arts.”

The bias can be seen clearly in the awarding of the 2018 prize to the staffs of the New York Times and the Washington Post for their report on what was proven to be a false story, the alleged Russian assistance to the Trump campaign. The myth, devised by the Clinton campaign, was decisively proven false after years of investigation costing the taxpayer millions of dollars.

Despite the fact that the story proved false, the prizes were not rescinded. What is worse, however, is that the outlets that exposed the explosive lie have been utterly ignored. The practice continued with the refusal to recognize the exceptional journalism by the New York Post, which has repeatedly exposed the original story and has continued to break news in massive scandals such as the Hunter Biden Laptop revelations.

Similarly, The overtly political bias of the Nobel Peace Prize could also be seen in its awarding of the coveted award to Barack Obama shortly after he took office. Since he had no accomplishments to point to, his own White House was embarrassed about the move. As JSTOR notes,

“…even the White House was lukewarm about the news. As communications scholar Robert Terrill writes, “The Obama administration found itself in the awkward position of trying to downplay one of the planet’s most high-profile awards…As Lynn Sweet noted dryly, ‘There was no celebration at the White House for the Nobel.’” Terrill goes on:

Throughout the campaign, Obama’s opponents had mocked him as an ‘international superstar with no accomplishments’and the awarding of the prize based on admittedly slim accomplishments seemed likely to invite similar assessments.”

In contrast, the Trump Administration’s exceptional and unprecedented advances in Mideast peace were totally ignored.

The Pulitzer organization is, of course, free to do whatever it sees fit. It is not beholden to the taxpayers and can exercise its political bias.

But it highlights a growing problem in the 21^st century: the practice by organizations that pretend and advertise themselves to be “objective” and “unbiased” but are, in fact, instruments of one side of the political coin.

The American Council of Science and Health explains

“:..the objectivity of fact-checking websites has already been called into doubt …an in-depth analysis by…the Paradox Project revealed that PolitiFact … is biased in its fact-checking. [its] articles that debunk Republicans are longer than those that debunk Democrats. Why? Well, it comes down to a bit of chicanery: “We’ve found that PolitiFact often rates statements that are largely true but come from a GOP sources [sic] as ‘mostly false’ by focusing on sentence alterations, simple mis-statements, fact-checking the wrong fact, and even taking a statement, rewording it, and fact-checking the re-worded statement instead of the original quoted statement.”

Illustration: Pixabay

If a presidential administration intentionally set out to harm the United States, what would it have done differently than the current occupant 0f 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

The White House has adopted an economic philosophy that is spending the nation and its citizens into bankruptcy, an immigration program that has devastated whole portions of states including major cities, and a foreign policy that ignores threats.  Almost daily, it disdains approximately half the citizenry with pejorative phrases. Racial discord is apparently encouraged. Overwhelming crime is largely ignored, with support given to irrational bail policies. The maladministration of a once proud educational system is encouraged. Biden pushes an energy policy that has destroyed American energy independence and caused deeply painful and utterly unnecessary inflation.

Consider each of these issues singularly.

Federal bankruptcy: Fitch as downgraded America’s credit rating as a result of Biden’s policies. The nonpartisan Citizens Against Government Waste noted that President Biden’s fiscal year (FY) 2023 budget “[was] a disaster for America’s fiscal and physical security.  The plan exemplifies everything that is wrong with Washington by doubling down on the idea that every problem can be solved with more spending.  Under the president’s proposal, the budget deficit will increase from $1.15 trillion in FY 2023 to $1.78 trillion in FY 2032, and cumulatively total $14.4 trillion over that period.  The national debt held by the public will reach $39.5 trillion in FY 2032.”

 As noted by House GOP members in the months after Biden took office, “Biden supported the highest sustained tax burden in American history, proposing $55 trillion of taxes. He asked for A 16% INCREASE for federal agencies, but a 0% increase in Homeland Security funding for ’22 even though border crossings are at a 20 year high $1+ trillion deficits every year, resulting in $17 trillion in new debt over the next 10 years.

Immigration: Both the humanitarian and economic results of the White House’s refusal to secure the border or enforce immigration law are crushing. The Federation for American Immigration Reform reports that: At the start of 2023, the net cost of illegal immigration for the United States – at the federal, state, and local levels – was at least $150.7 billion. In 2017, the estimated net cost of illegal migration was approximately $116 billion. In just 5 years, the cost to Americans has increased by nearly $35 billion. Illegal immigration costs each American taxpayer $1,156 per year ($957 after factoring in taxes paid by illegal aliens). Each illegal alien or U.S.-born child of illegal aliens costs the U.S. $8,776 annually.

That’s just the dollars. There is an incalculable cost of human trafficking of women and children resulting from the open border, the massive increase in fentanyl use, and the infiltration of criminal cartels and terrorists must also be considered.  Even Democrat mayors have begged the White House for relief.

Economy:  For the American consumer, gas and food prices remain very high, largely as a result of Biden energy policies. Rep. Dan Meuser (R-PA) writing in The Hill notes: “Small businesses, families and seniors are suffering from self-imposed, self-inflicted, and anti-energy policies of the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress.”

Crime: As noted in a myjournalcourier commentary, “The crime rate has increased in almost every major city in the United States, with violent crime leading the statistics. From a law enforcement perspective, it is clear that a large percentage of violent crime is driven by the unwillingness of district attorneys and judges to hold people accountable.” The soft-on-crime policies supported by the progressive cadre in the White House and implemented in “blue” cities and states have turned America’s major metropolises into nightmare abysses of lawlessness.

Education: The Biden Administration has unleashed its Justice department on parents protesting the abuse of educational dollars for leftwing propaganda and bizarre practices, including sexually explicit programs aimed at the youngest students.  A New York Post study found that “ Americans’ ​confidence in the US public school system has fallen…Overall, 28% of Americans say they have a “great deal/quite a lot” of confidence in the country’s school systems…Trust has been on a downward slide…”

Foreign Affairs: In August, a joint Chinese/Russian naval fleet threatened the coastline of Alaska. A Chinese spy balloon traversed America unmolested until it completed its mission.   Beijing continues to purchase vast amounts of American farmland, particularly in areas near military installations. China’s already massive armed forces continue to outpace their American counterpart. Beijing’s navy is larger than that of the U.S.  Russia’s nuclear force is larger than America’s. North Korea’s ICBM arsenal is developing rapidly. The Biden Administration, following in the footsteps of the Obama presidency, continues to pursue appeasement rather than substantive measures to deter the nation that pledges “death to America.” Biden has ended policies designed to attack Beijing’s espionage within the U.S. Additionally, despite all of these dangerous conditions, the Biden Administration defense budget requests have been so inadequate that even members of his own party have been forced to vote for increases.

Each of these crises individually would have been sufficient to bring down a presidency. But the hyper-partisan media has glossed over each of them.

Illustration: Library of Congress

There is much about the Russian invasion of Ukraine that both the Biden Administration and the media fail to report on.

Few care to recall that following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the newly independent nation of Ukraine became the world’s third largest nuclear power.

The Arms Control association notes that At the time of Ukraine’s independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine held the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world, including an estimated 1,900 strategic warheads, 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and 44 strategic bombers.

On December 5, 1994 the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Britain, and the United States signed a memorandum to provide Ukraine with security assurances in connection with its accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state.

By 1996, Ukraine had returned all of its nuclear warheads to Russia in exchange for economic aid and security assurances. In December 1994, Ukraine had became a non-nuclear weapon state-party to the 1968 nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The last strategic nuclear delivery vehicle in Ukraine was eliminated in 2001 under the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). It took years of political maneuvering and diplomatic work, starting with the Lisbon Protocol in 1992, to remove the weapons and nuclear infrastructure from Ukraine.

America’s assistance to Ukraine isn’t an act of charity.  It is the fulfillment of a treaty obligation.

Rather than live up to its foreign obligations to deter international aggression, yhe Biden Administration has consistently projected weakness. His defense budgets, in the face of overwhelming threats from China, Russia, Iran and North Korea have barely kept up with the inflation he has created.  in dealing with global miscreants. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) aptly described the problem: “President Biden’s weak leadership and lack of foreign policy strategy have crippled the United States’ power and influence on the world stage. Afghanistan has fallen to the Taliban, China has ramped up its aggression against Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the Uyghurs, and now, Russia has invaded Ukraine.”

On January 19 of 2022, Biden stated that he wouldn’t respond to a “minor incursion” by Russia into Ukraine.  Taken alone, that comment, as inept and harmful as it was, probably wouldn’t have been sufficient encouragement for th Kremlin to attack. Unfortunately, it came at a time when his administration was signaling weakness and ineptitude in foreign affairs.  The Heritage Foundation noted in 2022 that “In only his first year, he [Biden] and his team have bungled ending America’s involvement in Afghanistan; failed to impede Iran’s steady progress to acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, paid no attention to North Korea causing them to threaten to begin re-testing nuclear weapons, and has yet to deliver a strategy to counter China’s ever-menacing efforts to force Taiwan under Beijing’s control.”

An initial commitment to provide key weapons systems to Ukraine may have encouraged Putin to pull back from his adventure before his nation become too entrenched and invested in it.  But Biden slow-walked the delivery of tanks, planes, and other crucial military aid.

Beyond direct foreign policy or military preparedness, the Biden Administration’s environmental extremist policies essentially sounded the dinner bell for Putin’s wolfish ambition to restore the Soviet Empire. His vigorous limitation on domestic energy production (as did other a number of our allies) put Moscow in a position to exert influence that Putin believed would deter Western resistance.

An NBC analysis noted “Biden’s tunnel vision on oil and gas encouraged Putin’s invasion of Ukraine…By moving the U.S. economy away from the domestic oil industry and strengthening foreign oil businesses, Biden played a part in emboldening Russia… In just over a year, Biden buckled under pressure from domestic environmentalists to halt the Keystone XL pipeline, block new oil and gas leases and push through burdensome new, legally dubious Securities and Exchange Commission climate regulations. Biden also issued new greenhouse gas rules to expand how what is called the ‘social cost of carbon’  is calculated. The measure has been opposed in court by 10 Republican-led states in a lawsuit that argues that the methodology the administration relied on was flawed and points to possible violations of federal law during the rule-making process.”

Illustration: Pixabay