Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

The recent meeting between China’s strongman Xi and Russia’s Putin emphasized a disturbing reality: Americas enemies are coalescing into a solidified alliance aimed squarely at western interests, national sovereignty, and democratic principles.

Although it receives far less print space and air time than the latest Kardashian fashion statement, the reality that Russia, Iran, China, along with North Korea and Belarus are working closer together to establish a combined military threat is a reality that will imperil those that ignore it.

The U.S. Office of National Intelligence has reported that Moscow and Beijing are closer today than at any time in over half a century.

On the oceans, Moscow and Beijing are continuing to hold joint naval maneuvers. In December, the two nations conducted joint naval maneuvers.  Iran is rapidly moving towards the development of atomic weapons (even President Biden has admitted that hopes of a nuclear deal are dead) and is assisting Putin’s Ukrainian assault by providing him drone weapons. Reportedly, Putin and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un have discussed ways to assist each other’s militaries.  Belarus dictator Alexander Lukashenko is eagerly moving closer to joining Russia’s Ukrainian war, and is receiving advanced weapons.

The threat is not just on distant continents; indeed, it is close to home. Military Review notes that Russian military ties to Latin America have become a significant factor. Evan Ellis, CSIS Senior Associate, testified before Congress in July that:

“During the period from the lead-up to Russia’s unprovoked invasion of the Ukraine through the present, as in previous episodes of conflict with the West in the past 15 years, Russia has demonstrated its intent and capability, however limited, to conduct military and other strategic activities oriented against the U.S. and our partners in the Western Hemisphere. Its key vehicle for doing so has been collusion with anti-U.S. authoritarian regimes in the region, including Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba. Recent demonstrations of Russia’s hostile intent toward the U.S. and our partners in the Western Hemisphere include Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s January 2022 suggestion that Russia might deploy military forces to Venezuela or Cuba, Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov’s February 2022 signing of a pact to increase military cooperation with Venezuela,and Nicaragua’s June 2022 re-authorization for limited numbers of Russian troops and equipment to enter the country for training missions and other forms of support. Most recently, Russian actions also include announced participation by a team of snipers, along with teams from China, Iran, and seven other countries, in an upcoming military sniper competition in Venezuela, the first time the competition has been held in the country.”

Russia is not alone. China, according to Leland Lazarus and Ryan C. Berg of Foreign Policy have highlighted Beijing’s growing military relationships in the region. The Dialogue’s Latin American Advisor publication reports that:

“Chinese military leaders visited with their counterparts in Latin America 215 times between 2002 and 2019, according to a report released last year by the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Chile, Cuba, Brazil and Argentina accounted for more than half of those visits, according to the report. Additionally, China and the CELAC bloc of Latin American and Caribbean nations last December agreed to continue collaboration on military issues through the China-Latin America High-Level Defense Forum.”

Air Force Gen. Glen D. VanHerck, commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, and Army Gen. Laura J. Richardson, commander, U.S. Southern Command, testified before a Senate Armed Services Committee that China and Russia are looking for opportunities to undermine U.S. partnerships in the Americas.

At this point, there is no reasonable prospect that the growing relationship between Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and Belarus will not become more intense, or that their interplay in the Western hemisphere will become less dangerous.

Photo: Russia-China joint naval manuevers (China Defense Ministry photo)

Last September, for the first time in almost three years, Chinese President Xi Jinping traveled abroad. He chose to visit Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and attend the annual Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit where participant countries discussed regional security and development issues. Xi’s arrival stoked world media stories linking the trip’s significance to progress on China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Nine years earlier Xi had chosen Kazakhstan’s capital of Nursultan to announce the start of the BRI. There was a reason he picked a Middle Corridor country. China’s foreign policy leadership is strategic in its thinking and long-term in its approach. 

Central Asia is a group of neighboring states that sit strategically between China and Europe. Using its trade routes enables China to export to Europe and bypass Russia. Kazakhstan is “ground zero,” according to one military analyst who called the region a potential flashpoint if the region leans to heavily in either China or Russia’s direction. Kazakhstan is performing a finely-tuned balancing act. It is an independent state formerly under Soviet control. Today the country supplies minerals, gas, oil, and metals to China and transships goods from China to Europe. It is a misconception, however, to simply assume the nation is now under China’s influence. 

The country recently reached an agreement to export oil to Germany. Biz Media reports that after a couple of months delay KazTransOil delivered 20,000 ton of Kazakhstani oil in its first shipment. Although less than the 300,000 originally planned, the deal is significant. To enable this supply, Kazakhstan came to an agreement with Transneft, a Russian energy company. Flowing through the 2,500-mile long Druzhba pipeline, the Kazakhstani oil traveled through Russia, Belarus, and Poland before arriving in Germany, according to Nurbek Bekmurzaev’s Jamestown Foundation report. 

One unknown since the deal was reached last December is whether Kazakhstan will now play a larger and more independent role in the European energy market. Kursiv Media earlier this year reported that the country’s oil exports to Germany in 2023 could reach almost 7 million tons a year. Russia will play an outsized role in the sale since it could decide to halt shipments through its pipeline to Germany. Putin still may terminate the agreement to punish Germany if it continues to support Ukraine’s war effort. Kazakhstani oil remains Germany’s cheapest solution to its energy needs. 

Kazakhstan wants to sell the crude oil, which is similar in composition to what Germany has previously purchased. Officials in Nursultan recognize that its particular blend of crude saves Germany’s Schwedt refinery money as it can avoid costly adjustments to the refining process and the pipeline location is convenient. To ensure the integrity of the supply chain Nursultan government officials are carefully balancing Russian concerns over Germany’s support of the Ukraine war effort with its need for capital to develop the country. Analysts suggest the delay of the first shipment was due to an internal political balancing act by officials in Nursultan. “Small technical errors” were used as an excuse before the shipment was reduced in size to appease Russian concerns.

“Thus, with only a couple days left until the end of the first fiscal quarter, the modest amount of 20,000 tons exported instead of the projected 300,000 has cast doubt on the hopes that Kazakhstan could effectively rescue Germany and the rest of Europe in an energy crunch,” says Bekmurzaev. Kazakh officials have not forgotten that last year Russia shut down the Caspian Pipeline Consortium on several occasions, stopping its oil from reaching Europe. 

Moscow lost valuable transit fees in 2022 and may not be in a position to lose them again this year. Nursultan officials acknowledge the country may not be able to fully supply all of Europe as its doesn’t produce enough oil. They are hoping the reduced supply of what they can ship will be more acceptable to Moscow. Kazakhstan’s President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev recognizes that Putin needs the cash revenue from the oil transiting Russia for its war effort. “Russia will retain some leverage over Germany by keeping it hooked on oil imports arriving via a Russian-controlled pipeline. Thus, while the oil itself will arrive from Kazakhstan, Germany will remain dependent on Russia at some level for supporting the exports,” says Bekmurzaev. He adds that keeping the Druzhba pipeline operational leaves the door open for renewed oil exports from Russia in the future.

China is the dominant partner in its relationship with Russia. When Putin went to war in Ukraine Beijing immediately filled some of the gaps left in Central Asia. Although BRI development projects have helped the region, Beijing has not been able to simply replace Moscow’s influence as suggested by some Western leaders. The situation is more complex. China and Russia, like NATO Member states, work closely together on some issues while disagreeing on others. The Middle Corridor is a complicated environment in which the Central Asian states play off the great powers to achieve their own end goals. Kazakhstan is using the geopolitical environment and the war in Ukraine as an opportunity to play a key role in the European energy market while also making sure to appease China’s leadership who come with regional aspirations and BRI money to buy their way into the transit corridor. 

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

Illustration: Pixabay

The Cold War may be heating up in the Arctic as China seizes the opportunity to take on a larger role with Russian fighting in Ukraine entering its second year. Since the start of the Covid pandemic, the Arctic Council has suspended its in-person meetings. Now with Russia about to rotate out of the chairmanship position on the Council, there is a renewed effort by China to occupy a more prominent spot in decisions over the future of the region. At the recent China-Russia Summit President Xi Jinping announced the establishment of a joint Chinese-Russian Working Group to evaluate development in the region along a new, proposed Northern Sea Route (NSR). 

China experts from the Jamestown Foundation, speaking at a webinar on the China-Russia relations on Wednesday, concurred that the Xi-Putin bond is strong but not without its issues. The point out that in a reversal of roles occurring over the last three decades, China has emerged as the stronger and more dominant partner. China appears confident and aggressive in its foreign relations approach toward its ally. Recent Russian attempts to maneuver China into signing additional contracts to purchase Russia failed, leaving Moscow both surprised and concerned. Paul Goble, of the Jamestown Foundation, suggest that the Russian Federation believes China is now in a position to “elbow Russia aside not only along the NSR but across the Arctic more generally.” He says that one Russian observer on the “Captain Arctic” Telegram channel warns that “Putin’s misguided move has given Xi ‘the keys’ to the Arctic and pushed Russia into a minefield, where an area that Moscow had always viewed as exclusively its own will now be subject to negotiations with a foreign power.”

In 2018 China began defining itself publicly as a “near-Arctic nation” and pressed for a more prominent position. Economically and geo-strategically China intends to play a larger role in the resource-rich region. In July 2020 the Eurasia Daily Monitor reported that China was building a number of icebreakers, ice-capable ships, and promoting “Chinese development of infrastructure in those northern portions of Russia where an increasingly hard-pressed Moscow could not afford to do so,” says Goble. What is new over the last year is that Putin has not received anything from China in return for Moscow’s willingness to include China in the joint development of the NSR. Goble argues this represents a major turning point in the bilateral relationship and a strong indicator of Russia’s growing weakness in the Arctic.

Putin needs China’s short-term help, although some analysts in Moscow suggest that the Russian leader is being overconfident. Xi and the CCP leadership fully recognize Russia’s position and can until Russia is forced to sell gas to China at a deep discount. Goble argues that Putin has mixed this issue in with the development of the NSR, and the result is it now “represents a far more serious and, from Russia’s point of view, negative development.” He adds that Beijing is not concerned only with the NSR, according to Chinese officials. Nakanune.ru suggests in an article this week that China merely wants a voice in the Arctic and in the development of areas of Russia adjoining China. These are areas that Moscow has long assumed to be its own by right.

Vasily Koltashov, an expert at Moscow’s Plekhanov University of Economics, argues that Beijing would make investments that Russia needs without challenging Moscow’s position if Putin can control Xi. The risk, according to Koltashov is that, if Moscow’s own position deteriorates further or if the Kremlin fails to manage the situation well, China will exploit the circumstances and Russia will be “transformed into the periphery of China,” an outcome Putin clearly does not desire but may be unable to prevent. Russian analyst Igor Yushkov of Moscow’s Financial University, argues that what happened at the summit shows that Xi Jinping is thinking in more expansive terms than Russia, focusing on the Arctic as a whole rather than simply the NSR. In recent months, Goble points out, Russia has sought to create an alternative to the Arctic Council, one involving China and other Asian countries to make it less of a target for Western boycotts. “Not accidentally, this group played a key role at a meeting in Yakutsk of Arctic researchers that took place during the same week as the Putin-Xi meeting,” he adds. The Russian publication, Nezavisimaya Gazette, reports that this is yet another indication of Russia’s turn to the East as far as the Arctic is concerned and Beijing’s exploitation of Moscow’s move, especially when it comes to programs and policies affecting the region. Xi Jinping may not own the “keys to the Arctic” today, but there are indications that the balance of power in the region is shifting in favor of Beijing. Goble says this “could have the potential of leading some who fear the rise of China relative to Russia to go public and exploit long-standing Russian fears that Beijing is planning to absorb parts of the Russian Federation.”

Daria served in the U.S. State Dept.

So far this week we’ve witnessed Putin’s nuclear blackmail against the West, Moscow’s arrest of a Wall Street Journal reporter, and an expansive Russian domestic propaganda campaign toting the benefits of nuclear war. Last Saturday, March 25, Putin formally announced his intent to station nuclear weapons in Belarus “without violating our international agreements on nuclear non-proliferation.” What is going on inside the Kremlin? That is what analysts in Washington are trying to determine this week. On Sunday the United Nation’s Security Council confirmed Kyiv has asked for an emergency meeting to consider President Putin’s latest threat: the stationing of Russian tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus’ silos. 

“Ukraine expects effective actions to counteract the Kremlin’s nuclear blackmail from the United Kingdom, China, the United States and France… We demand that an extraordinary meeting of the UN Security Council be immediately convened for this purpose,” the Ukrainian foreign ministry said.

This is an attempt by Russia to contain Western actions against Russia and discourage the United States from its ongoing support of Ukraine. Earlier this week Josep Borrel, the EU’s foreign policy chief, met in Brussels and announced that Europe was ready to impose new sanctions on Belarus if it allowed Russia to reinstall nuclear weapons in its silos. 

They have been maintained, but sitting empty, since the disintegration of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact two decades ago. Borrel tweeted that fear in Europe is growing that Russia will use the smaller battlefield-sized nuclear weapons, called “tactical” weapons, and not the higher-powered, longer range “strategic” weapons. Putin previously has talked publicly about using the tactical weapons against NATO and Ukrainian forces. The threshold for employing them is considered lower, since the kill area and region contaminated is smaller and more likely to fall below the threshold requiring a major response from the West.

In response to reactions to Putin’s Saturday announcement, he tried to claim the move to deploy the  weapons “nothing unusual” and that Washington was “totally misleading” in how it presented the situation. “The United States has been doing this for decades. They have long placed their tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of their allies,” Putin said. 

Reports coming out of Russia appear to indicate the country will start training crews on April 3 and intends to finish construction of a special storage facility for tactical nuclear weapons by July 1. Germany and NATO rejected Putin’s comments about Western actions, with a German foreign affairs official calling it deceptive and that “The comparison made by President Putin to nuclear sharing in NATO is misleading and does not justify the step announced by Russia.” NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu pointed out that “Russia’s reference to NATO’s nuclear sharing is totally misleading. NATO allies act with full respect of their international commitments.” She added that Putin actions are “dangerous and irresponsible.” This week Washington and NATO headquarters independently confirmed that there is no intent to change the Western nuclear posture in Europe.    

Just over a year ago Belarus allowed Russia to use its territory to launch Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Belarus’ leader Alexander Lukashenko is considered a close ally of Putin’s but also stated his country would become involved in the war “only if attacked.” Ukrainian officials consider Belarus a “nuclear hostage” of Putin’s and that it is intensifying the internal destabilization of Belarus. One Russian official blamed a British official for inciting Russia by saying that depleted uranium weapons ought to be sent to Ukraine. In response a Kremlin official claimed the country  has “what it needs to answer” if the West supplied Ukraine with such ammunition. “Without exaggeration, we have hundreds of thousands of such shells. We have not used them yet.”  

What is particularly problematic is that officials below Putin are no less ruthless and unlikely to restrain the Russian leader should he give the order for a nuclear strike against Ukrainian or NATO member state forces. Under Section 5 of the NATO Charter, member states agree that “an armed attack against one or more of them… shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked….” The war in Ukraine could quickly morph into a region-wide conflagration akin if Putin feels backed into a corner with no other option. 

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

Illustration: Pixabay

There has rarely been so substantial, and detrimental, a turnaround in foreign policy equal to that in U.S.-Saudi relations over the past several years.

During Trump’s tenure, Washington and Riyadh were unprecedently close.  It was part of a larger success in the Middle East, headlined by his Administration’s peace deals with Israel, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. The Saudi’s were a major asset in countering Iran’s malign influence in the region.

That happy turn of events swiftly deteriorated under Joe Biden.

The disastrous result has been the alienation of a key Middle Eastern ally. The Saudi’s have moved substantially closer to China. The two nations agreed to 35 deals valued at $29.6 billion. Even more worrisome, Riyadh and Beijing inked a “comprehensive strategic partnership agreement.”

Many members of the Senate  have decried the current White Houses’ missteps in the region, noting that:

“President Biden entered office with a Middle East united against the Iranian threat and on the heels of the Abraham Accords, an unprecedented boon to Middle East peace. Under these agreements, struck in 2020, four Arab states – the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan – agreed to recognize the State of Israel and opened the door to further cooperation. The Biden administration quickly undid that progress. From the start, he put politics ahead of policy in his zeal to restart the failed Iran nuclear deal, simply to make good on a campaign promise. In courting Tehran, the administration removed the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations and ended U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s and the UAE’s war against the group. The administration delayed an arms deal with Saudi Arabia and the UAE and withdrew air defense systems, caving to progressive demands to end the war while our allies faced Houthi attacks against civilian infrastructure. Buoyed by the administration’s actions, the Houthis launched renewed offensives in Yemen and increasingly threatened our partners. When Iran-supported militia groups targeted Americans in Iraq and Syria with rockets and drones last summer, the administration barely reacted. In a dogged effort to keep the nuclear deal alive, the Biden administration has not conducted a strike against Iranian proxies since October 2021, and regional deterrence is sorely lacking. The Israelis, to whom Iran poses an existential threat, have deeply and publicly disagreed with the administration’s approach. President Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan last August confirmed fears that he was willing to abandon our allies…” 

The inexplicable tilt towards Iran by the Biden Administration (similar to that by the Obama White House) is a major factor. The Saudis depended on the U.S. as a bulwark against Tehran’s expansionist threat. Despite Iran’s ongoing nuclear program (now believed to be mere months away from the ability to construct atomic weapons,) its support for violence throughout the region, its provision of weapons to Putin for use in the invasion of Ukraine and its purchase of Russian advanced fighter aircraft, the current White House continues its softness on the nation.

A New Republic review called Biden’s 2022 Middle Eastern trip “Nothing short of a disaster.”

Author Joel Pollack notes that “President Trump signed the Abraham Accords, creating a network of peace deals between Israel and many Arab and Muslim states. Biden has punished many of the key players: raising tariffs on the United Arab Emirates (UAE); withholding arms sales to the UAE and Saudi Arabia; de-listing the anti-Saudi, pro-Iran Houthi militia as a terror group; publishing an intelligence report naming the Saudi Crown Prince as a key player in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi; and appointing the same pro-Iran diplomats who crafted the disastrous Iran nuclear deal. All Biden had to do was continue where Trump had left off, rewarding Arab and Muslim countries that made peace, and maintaining pressure on Iran. But Biden’s foreign policy team, apparently blinded by the conviction that everything Trump did must necessarily be wrong, continues to repeat the mistakes of the Obama administration, which appeased Iran and allowed it to cause regional chaos.”

Illustration: Pixabay

How did the jury come to its decision to acquit Mark Houck in the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances so quickly?  Now that the trial is over, video evidence submitted at the trial has become available for public view. That evidence clearly demonstrates that the Justice Department never really had a case against Houck from the beginning.  

In a surveillance video taken on the day of the incident, Houck and his son can be seen standing 50 feet away from the entrance to the clinic.  Love is then seen approaching the pair, and standing close to the young son.  Houck than points over Love’s shoulder, in a gesture that unmistakably conveys a request to leave, and Love begins to comply, but then turns back to face Houck.  Houck then pushes Love, who collapses to the ground, but then returns immediately to his feet.

All of these actions occurred approximately 50 feet away from the entrance of the clinic.  Love is not in the process of escorting any patient into the clinic – in fact, Love leaves the front of the clinic to approach Houck and his son, who are obviously minding their own business.

As described by Houck’s attorney, Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society, the video clip from the surveillance camera, available on YouTube, was the only film available of the incident, the director of Security at the clinic having erased the footage from all other surveillance cameras.  He also noted that this video was available to the Justice Department from the time their office decided to bring a case – video which shows Houck NOT blocking the entrance to the clinic, or interfering in any way with anyone’s receipt of services at the clinic.

As Attorney Breen stated to Fox News, “What we did was win a big victory for the pro-life movement against the Biden administration…(t)hey were trying to scare pro-lifers from coming out on the sidewalks and being active. Biden, that DOJ, sent their best prosecutor, the top guy for (FACE) prosecutions from Washington, to help deal with this case in Philly and that jury, once we finally got it seated fully, took about an hour to find Mark not guilty on all charges.”  

It is no small thing to assert that the Justice Department is using its authority and power to intimate private citizens.  But here, the evidence is clear.  From a large contingent of armed government agents used to effect the arrest, to a jury trial conducted over five days, it only took a jury one hour to see what the government would not – that this incident may have been a misdemeanor assault, but it was not, in any way, a violation of a federal statute.

Sadly, the progressive District Attorney of Philadelphia showed more sense than the US Attorney’s Office.  But Krasner doesn’t have the same agenda as the Justice Department.

We can also point to another positive development, a glimmer of hope that the Justice Department has recognized the failure of their heavy-handed attempt at intimidation of just one side in the abortion debate.

“Jane’s Revenge…claimed responsibility for at least 18 arson and vandalism attacks on crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) and other faith-based organizations throughout the U.S. since the May 2 (2022) leak of the Supreme Court draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization…(yet)…Not a single arrest has been made.”  

That is – until now.

“Two Florida residents were indicted by a federal grand jury for spray-painting threats on reproductive health services facilities in the state,”  according to a Press Release from the Justice Department. “The indictment, returned by a federal grand jury in the Middle District of Florida, alleges that Caleb Freestone, 27, and Amber Smith-Stewart, 23, engaged in a conspiracy to prevent employees of reproductive health services facilities from providing those services. According to the indictment, as part of the conspiracy, the defendants targeted pregnancy resource facilities and vandalized those facilities with spray-painted threats….including ‘If abortions aren’t safe than niether [sic] are you,’ ‘YOUR TIME IS UP!!,’ ‘WE’RE COMING for U,’ and ‘We are everywhere,’ on a reproductive health services facility in Winter Haven, Florida. The indictment further alleges that facilities in Hollywood, Florida, and Hialeah, Florida, were also targeted.  

Most likely ignorant of the concept of irony, Pro Abortion activists have decried the use of the FACE Act to prosecute Freestone and Smith-Stewart.  “’This is yet another example of the government disproportionately charging alleged activists with serious crimes in an attempt to deter political opposition to the fall of Roe post Dobbs,’ Lauren Regan, the director of the Civil Liberties Defense Center and attorney for defendant Smith-Stewart, (said). ‘Tagging private property might be a violation, but it should not be a federal crime’…’The level of bothsideism here by the DOJ goes beyond absurdity. Frankly, this is something I would have expected to see from the Trump Administration,’ said Hayley McMahon, a public health researcher who studies abortion and criminalization at Emory University…the Justice Department is ‘setting an incredibly irresponsible precedent for recognizing CPCs as medical facilities that provide reproductive health services.’” 

Both Freestone and Smith-Stewart are allegedly members of Miami Antifa.  According to Antifa Watch, “Freestone has a history of attending school board meetings, where he was making lists of parents and community members concerned about CRT. (Smith-Stewart) openly ID’s as Miami-Dade antifa on Facebook…” 

The two activists were arrested at the end of January, apparently without the use of 20-30 FBI Agents, and were both granted release pending trial,  unlike Houck, who  was required to post $10,000 bond, surrender his passport,  and “restrict() his travel to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania unless he receive(d) permission to leave from Pretrial Services, (as well as)…surrender any firearms he may possess.”  

Is there still disparate treatment between Pro Life and Pro Abortion defendants?  Clearly.  But the acquittal of Houck and the indictments of Freestone and Smith-Stewart at hopeful steps in the right direction.

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

Illustration: Pixabay