Author: Daria Novak

China’s Communist Party ended its annual meeting of the National People’s Congress (NPC) on Monday. The rubber stamp event might not make exciting front-page news, but there are a number of China-related events this week that are disconcerting given that they expose Beijing’s reach directly in the corridors of power in Washington, DC. 

The goal of the NPC is to set policy direction and lay out the economic agenda for the coming year. This session is the first after last autumn’s week-long, 20th Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, which is held every five years. At the October meeting President Xi Jinping secured his third five-year term as party general secretary. This week’s meeting is significant in that, with Xi in total control, there were a number of leadership statements indicating the direction in which he intends to take the country, the restructuring of state institutions, who is part of the new leadership, and the general tone of policy for the coming 12 months. Xi is not backing down from the CCP’s aggressive policies. It also appears willing to use any means necessary to achieve them, including influence operations extending into the highest levels of power in the American government.

Xi Jinping has consolidated power at a level unprecedented since Chairman Mao held office and is now the country’s longest serving president since its founding in 1949. He exudes confidence, acts boldly, and plans for long-term victories. Mao Ning, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson, says that the country “will continue to view and develop China-US relations in accordance with the principles of peaceful coexistence, mutual respect, and win-win cooperation.” The reality is quite different. China’s foreign  influence operations are aggressive and have tenacles that appear to extend into the White House. 

This week the investigative arm of an American news organization, the Daily Caller, reported that “The Hong Kong company which wired over $3 million bound for Biden family associates in 2017, appears to have been run by a member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) at the time of the transfer.” A US House Oversight Committee memorandum revealed on Thursday that one month after then Vice President Biden left office, China’s State Energy HK Limited wired the $3 million to Robinson Walker, LLC. That company is run by “Biden family associate” John Robinson Walker, according to US government memorandum. An official Chinee government website named Lei Donghui, chairman and executive director of State Energy HK Limited, as a long-standing member of the Chinese Communist Party. As recently as this month Lei was pictured on Twitter at a company meeting. 

“From State Energy HK Limited’s $3 million transfer, Robinson Walker, LLC subsequently distributed $1,065,692 in ‘incremental payments over a period of approximately three months’ to as many as four Biden family members, according to the memorandum,” says investigative reporter Philip Lenczycki. He adds that the funds were transferred to “Hallie Biden, James Brian Biden Sr. (James Biden), Robert Hunter Biden (Hunter Biden) and an ‘unknown bank account identified as ‘Biden,’” according to the committee’s memorandum. IT also says additional payments went to Biden family companies, including Owasco PC, JBBSR Inc and RSTP II, LLC. Lenczycki adds that “On March 2, 2017, Robinson Walker, LLC sent another $1,065,000 from State Energy HK Limited’s $3 million transfer to the European Energy and Infrastructure Group in Abu Dhabi, a   self-styled “advisory organization,” according to the memorandum. He noted that James Gilliar, a “business partner of Hunter Biden,” is allegedly “associated” with EEIG, according to the committee.

At this week’s NPC meeting, Xi cast blame on the United States for trying to “contain and suppress” China, although the Biden Administration has not taken very effective or strong steps to stop Chinese aggressive moves overseas. At a news conference following the NPC, Qin Gang, China’s Foreign Minister warned of “confrontation and conflict.” This appears to be the first time China directly named the United States. It may be time to find those in Washington willing to create a Great Wall of Capitalism to preserve our way of life.

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

We live in a world that neorealists would argue requires hegemony as a necessary and sufficient condition for a stable world order and a peaceful international system. The collapse of the Soviet Union ended those conditions present during the Cold War era. It also ended 45 years of bipolar stability. With the onset of the Russian war in Ukraine the world is quietly edging back from tripolarity towards a bipolar international system. Colin Clarke and Mollie Saltskog, writing in Defense One, say that the Russian war has “accelerated” the process. Prior to February 2022, Russia, China, and the United States composed the three centers of military, political, and economic power in the world.

Over the last 12 months Russia has devolved into a far less powerful state. The realm of strategic competition for hegemonic status resides today only in the struggle between Washington and Beijing. A new bipolar balance is rapidly evolving between the two capitals over the last year. 

Russian war casualties last year topped an estimated 200,000 troops killed and are mounting daily. The Wagner Group, Putin’s mercenary force, has resorted to recruiting soldiers in prisons, jails, and mental hospitals. Russia’s precision strike munitions and artillery shells are approaching depletion levels not seen in decades. Thousands of pieces of the country’s armored equipment, fighter jets, and helicopters have been destroyed by Ukrainian forces. A war Putin once proclaimed as a short, special military operation is moving into its second year without any indication of slowing, or ending, in 2023. 

Despite international condemnation from the West and major economic sanctions, Moscow continues to commit crimes against humanity. It is making Chinese leader Xi Jinping nervous. As Moscow grows weaker and more isolated from the world community, and Putin becomes more desperate in his threats and actions, China is left as one of Russia’s few remaining partners. The war is forging a closer Sino-Russian relationship built on convenience. Xi recognizes it could spill over into economic sanctions against China. Beijing already has supplied crucial dual-use technology to Russia, shipping navigation equipment, jamming technology, and jet-fighter parts, according to Clarke and Saltskog. 

Despite US warnings, China is supplying computer chips, smart phones, and satellite imagery to Russia’s Wagner Group. US intelligence officials report that China is now considering sending Moscow ammunition and artillery. Secretary of State Antony Blinken calls it a “serious problem” as Xi Jinping publicly promised the Russian president that the partnership comes with “no limits.”

As Putin passes the one-year mark he is anxious to show he remains a major player with a seat at the table and that he has made significant progress in Ukraine. He can’t easily do so without China’s military aid. Senator Lindsey Graham recently classified Putin’s attempt to jump on the China gravy train as “dumber than dirt.” Although China may pull back and not openly supply Putin with the arms he needs, it still is strong indicator of Russia’s position as the weaker, junior state. Historically, conflict between China and the Soviet Union centered on the disagreement over which country was leader of the communist world. 

It is evident today that Moscow is no longer the frontrunner state. With Putin relegated to a deferential role, Xi Jinping is using his elevated status to dictate terms for oil and gas deals that strategically diversify China’s critical energy supply chain. Russian energy from its Far Eastern region runs through two main pipelines directly into China. Beijing’s help in building and maintaining the Power of Siberia pipeline requires large numbers of Chinese citizens to live and work inside the sparsely populated Far Eastern Russian territory, once owned by China. Putin appears unnerved about sinicization of the area but there is little he can do as the junior partner. Clarke and Saltzkog point out that that the “Kremlin has instituted several policies in order to encourage Russians to move to the Russian Far East, primarily out of fear of Chinese nationals and companies populating the mineral-rich region.” It is a complicated relationship and one in which Putin is no longer able to dictate terms to China. 

In a recent position paper, officials in Beijing attempted to walk a middle path in its relations with Russia. Xi Jinping intends to remake the world order to favor Beijing’s concept of how the international system should run. He will likely decide crossing the “red line” to supply Russia overtly with lethal aid, is too high a price to pay. Xi recognizes that potential economic sanctions and diplomatic measures instituted by the West could curtail China’s rise to full hegemon status.

As the dominant partner in the relationship Beijing can and does dictate terms to Moscow. In the coming year as the world continues to enter into a new bipolar era, it hopefully will see a return to some semblance of order without major conflict. What political scientists have not considered in great depth is that, for the first time in modern history, one of the two hegemonic states will not be in located in the West or practice Western values. It may require new theory to explain ongoing instability in a bipolar world if China decides to create a new rulebook.   

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

Across the nation, a significant number of horrifying crimes, including multiple homicides, attacks on police officers, and random assaults have occurred using knives, boxcutters, hammers and other blunt instruments. According to FBI Statistics, the number of murders increased from 22,000 in 2020 to 22,900 in 2021. This constitutes an increase of 4.3% on top of the 29.4% increase in 2020.

That fact should deeply concern everyone who believes that our streets, public transportation facilities, and homes should not resemble a Mad Max movie.

The growth in crime parallels the implementation of lax policies in terms of punishment. Jim Quinn, writing in the New York Post,   reports: “It should be a simple thing to understand: If you have more criminals on the street, you have more crime. But Gov. Kathy Hochul and our political leaders keep saying there is not enough data to show that bail reform has been a failure. Really? In 2019, under the “old” bail laws, New York City’s crime rate fell for the 27th year in a row. Under the new bail laws, by Jan. 1, 2020, more than 2,000 career criminal repeat offenders were released from city jails. They had an average of 12 prior arrests and seven prior convictions. Just 2½ months later, before COVID, city crime rose 34% over the same period in 2019. What a surprise! The city released almost every single defendant charged with drug dealing, car theft, burglary, street theft, and shoplifting from jail, and within weeks crime went up by double digits for the first time in almost three decades.”

Ignoring the devastating impact of progressive policies on crime is only part of the faulty response. The other portion is to downplay the crimes, and the criminals themselves, and blame the drastic statistics on the weapons, not the perpetrators.  Following every report of a dramatic crime is an almost ritualistic demand for further curbs on the Second Amendment.

That reveals a key reason why Progressive district attorneys and politicians fail to respond appropriately to the upswing in crime.  To them, crime isn’t the important issue.  Reducing or eliminating the right to bear arms is.

Placing fighting crime behind the ideological goal of eliminating Second Amendment Rights is both counterproductive and irrational. Gun laws.com notes: “There is evidence indicating that increased prevalence of guns leads to decreased crime rates, just as there are many who claim that greater restrictive measures on the sale of guns lead to decreased crime rates. 

Lawrence Reed, in a FEE article asks “How many lives are actually saved by gun ownership? This is a supremely important question that the grandstanders and ideologues usually—and conveniently—ignore… Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.

• Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.
• 60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed. 
• Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
• Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.”

The progressive motivation to enact stricter gun control laws ignores the most salient question: Would those measures be effective in keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals?  Will perpetrators intent on robbing, raping or murdering suddenly turn law abiding and refrain from obtaining weapons? The answer is a resounding no.  The counter argument, that those laws would limit the manufacture and transportation of weapons, is equally foolish.  Take a look at laws prohibiting similar treatment of drugs, measures that have failed miserably for decades.

Illustration: Pixabay

Let us pause a minute and reflect on a key  fact – there is a doctor who performed surgery to remove the healthy breasts of a 13 year old girl, a doctor who apparently still has a license to practice medicine.

During her interview, “Cole told…Tucker Carlson she is ‘devastated’ at the loss of her breasts and has trouble coping.  ‘As an adult, I will never be able to breast-feed whatever children I will have. I don’t even know if, because I was put on puberty blockers and testosterone at only 13 years old, I don’t know if I’ll be able to conceive a child naturally…I made an adult decision as a child.'” 

In a Notice of Intent to Sue letter dated November 9, 2022, Cole’s lawyers outlined their allegations against the Kaiser Foundation Hospital and the doctors who treated this young woman’s “gender dysphoria”; “Defendants coerced Chloe and her parents to undergo what amounted to a medical experiment by propagating two lies. First, Defendants falsely informed Chloe and her parents that Chloe’s gender dysphoria would not resolve unless Chloe socially and medical transitioned to appear more like a male. Second, Defendants also falsely informed Chloe and her parents that Chloe was at a high risk for suicide, unless she socially and medically transitioned to appear more like a male…Both of these statements were false..”

As Cole’s lawyer’s explain, “First, the vast majority of childhood gender dysphoria cases resolve by the time the child reaches adulthood, with the patient’s self-perception reverting back to align with their biological sex. In such situations, the dysphoria resolves without any cross-sex chemical or surgical interventions…Defendants never once informed Chloe of the possibility, indeed the high likelihood, that her gender dysphoria would resolve, without cross-sex treatment, by the time she reached adulthood.”

Second, “a long-term follow-up population-based study…found that gender dysphoric individuals who undergo sex reassignment continue to have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behavior, and psychiatric morbidity as compared with the general population. In other words, in a large number of cases, suicidality and psychiatric issues are not resolved by sex reassignment…Defendants intentionally obscured these facts and defrauded Chloe and her parents in order to perform what amounted to a lucrative transgender medical experiment on Chloe.”

The Notice also states that “it is important to note that the relevant Kaiser…facilities and institutions where Chloe received treatment have failed to enact policies and procedures preventing the risky, inadequately studied, and essentially experimental treatment that occurred in Chloe’s case. Indeed, to the contrary, the facilities and institutions actively promote, encourage, and advertise the availability of these treatments on minors, which represents an additional clear and egregious breach of the standard of care in this case.”  Further, “(r)ecommending, supervising, prescribing, and advising inadequately studied, off-label, high risk treatments on Chloe, between 13 to 17 amounts to medical experimentation on Chloe, and represents gross negligence and an egregious breach of the standard of care.”  

In any medical malpractice case, one issue is whether or not the patient gave consent to the treatment, and “assumed the risk” of the procedure.  “Briefly, under the legal doctrine of informed consent, a doctor must provide enough information to help the patient make rational healthcare choices…In trial practice, medical malpractice defense attorneys almost always introduce the informed consent into evidence…The concern, of course, is that a signed document might confuse or prejudice jurors into a belief that the plaintiff was more aware of the potential risks of the intervention than might have been the case…in any case, such consent – even fully and thoughtfully performed – does not acknowledge the acceptance of risk of negligent treatment.” 

Cole’s attorney’s address the issue of consent head-on; “(I)t is quite clear that…the informed consent forms and discussion regarding these treatments were highly deficient from a standard of care perspective and constituted intentional fraudulent concealment… the hormone therapy consent form… fails to meaningfully identify any risks of hormone therapy and puberty blockers…(despite there being) extensive documented known risks of such treatment, none of which were included in the form.”

Further, “(t)he informed consent form for the breast removal surgery identified some basic risks of the surgery, and loss of the ability to breastfeed. However, it failed to disclose the experimental nature of the surgery and the lack of long-term studies for performing this surgery at such an early age as a treatment for ‘gender dysphoria.’”

The Notice continues; “(b)oth consent forms also entirely failed to inform Chloe of the significant probability that her gender dysphoria would resolve by adulthood, resulting in severe regret and harmful physical changes to her body that can never be reversed…Defendants never verbally advised Chloe of this potential risk. To the contrary, Defendants advised Chloe that her gender dysphoria would only resolve if she underwent sex-reassignment hormones and surgery, which proved to be false. This inadequate consent and Defendants’ failure to properly advise Chloe and her parents of the associated risks and the experimental nature of the treatment, represents gross/reckless negligence and is an additional breach of the standard of care.”

Cole’s lawsuit, once brought, could be the turning point for the use of hormone blockers and gender reassignment surgery for minors. “Analysts like Dr. Jay Richards, director of the DeVos Center for Life, Religion and Family at the Heritage Foundation warn, a legal slugfest could be coming to the U.S., as more young people detransition and regret the permanent damage to their bodies. ‘We’re going to have thousands of young people who are de-transitioning, they’re going to be mad at what’s happened and so I honestly think maybe it’s 5 years maybe it’s 10 years, that this is all going to end,'” according to Richards.

For the past seven years, we have watched this horrific trend in child abuse continue and expand.  Rather than deplore the practice, too many in the media have cheered for the mutilation of sexually-confused children.   But minors who underwent these barbaric procedures have now matured, and realized the wrong done to them.  

Legal actions for medical malpractice by detransitioned young people like Chloe Cole may finally bring these medical experiments on impressionable and vulnerable minors to an end. 

Judge Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay

In June of 2016, we first addressed the issue of gender dysphoria for usagovpolicy.com.  At that time, we noted that “(s)tories can be found from those who deeply regret taking a knife to their sexuality.”    As the procedure has become more common, the stories have multiplied.

“New studies are now emerging showing that the ‘detransitioner’ movement is far larger than what is commonly acknowledged, with detransition rates nearing 30% in some instances… thousands of young women and men who once identified as the opposite sex — many of whom attempted a ‘gender transition’ by ingested drugs and undergoing elaborate surgical procedures to impersonate the opposite sex — are now rejecting the transgender identity and are once again embracing their natural sex.” 

In 2016, we also noted that “the majority of (media) coverage given to this issue favors gender reassignment,” and that “those who have undergone sexual reassignment surgery are celebrated.”  In the past seven years, this trend has not changed.  Fox News is one of the few media outlets to cover this issue (besides usagovpolicy.com), giving a voice to those who regret making a decision they were too young to consider knowingly and intelligently.

As reported by Fox, “(a)fter beginning transitioning as a young girl and undergoing a double mastectomy at 18 years old, now 24-year-old Prisha Mosley is detransitioning and speaking out about her struggles… ‘One of the issues I have is the lack of identity,’ Mosley explained. ‘And on top of not having a lot of friends and having issues at home, when I found the trans community and found a new identity and was affirmed…that’s what caused me to transition’…’I was manipulated not only by my trans peers, but by my gender specialist, the person who gave me my letter of recommendation in surgery. It was all sold as like a wonderful thing,’ she said….(m)any of Mosley’s treatments and procedures during her transition are irreversible, including her double mastectomy, also known as top surgery.” 

Those who regret transitioning include KC Miller, who “began taking testosterone at 16 and underwent a double mastectomy only six months after starting the injections. She says that she was introduced to gender ideology through influencers on YouTube. After noticing that the testosterone treatments were causing severe hair loss, she decided to detransition. She now admits that ‘social contagion’ played a role in convincing her to transition. ‘The more detransitioners that speak out, the more that will feel comfortable to come forward,’ Miller says.”

Then there is Daisy Strongin, who “spent seven years from age 15 to 22 attempting to transition from female to male…Strongin began getting testosterone injections and eventually underwent a double mastectomy. Soon, however, she began feeling remorse for her decision. ‘It just got so hard to look in the mirror because I felt more of a disconnect between my mind and my body than I did before,’ she said. ‘I felt like I was in some kind of weird gender purgatory.’ She now rejects gender theory and gender identity, calling it ‘a scam.’ Strongin is now 24 and newly married with an infant son.” 

For the most part, accredited medical professionals continue to treat “gender dysphoria” with hormone blockers and radical surgery, regardless of whether the patient is an adult or a minor.  For instance, the Mayo Clinic, with locations in Arizona, Florida and Minnesota, has “The Transgender and Intersex Specialty Care Clinic (TISCC) (which) provides integrated medical, psychosocial and surgical intervention to individuals with gender dysphoria/incongruence…Treatments offered include…Hormone therapy and monitoring…Gynecological care for transgender men” and “Feminizing surgical procedures” which includes “Top surgery for transgender women,” “Facial feminization” and “Penile inversion vaginoplasty.”  For women who wish to become men, there are “Masculinizing surgical procedures.”  These consist of “Top surgery for transgender men and nonbinary people…Body-contouring procedures (and) Hysterectomy…”

These services appear to be equally available to both minors and adults – including all surgical options.

One detransitioned young person, Chloe Cole, has decided to challenge the medical establishment that encourages hormone blockers and surgery for minors.  “(S)he is suing the doctors who performed the ‘gender-affirming’ surgery because she wants to end the practice. ‘I want to hold the adults that put me in harm’s way accountable because what happened to me is horrible, but it also didn’t only happen to me, that’s the worst part. It’s happening to children all over the U.S., all over the West, and it’s spreading all over the world,’ (Cole) said” in an interview with Tucker Carlson of Fox News.   

Cole “went on puberty blockers and testosterone at just 13 years old. She had been diagnosed with autism and ADHD at age 7 and spent a lot of unsupervised time online, where she was exposed to gender ideology. When she began questioning her gender identity, she was fast-tracked by medical personnel into transitioning, and her parents were pressured to sign off on it. She underwent a double mastectomy at 13 and still suffers medical complications to this day five years later.” 

The article concludes tomorrow

Judge Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay

Ask any insider in the foreign policy community in Washington, DC what the term “power broker” means, and the response will be a litany of information about how our President, the National Security Council, and State Department are working around the world to ensure US national security interests and concerns are met and the US retains it hegemonic status. They will confirm adamantly that the United States is the world leader in everything imaginable and that no country could successfully replace us. But is that the case today? Over the last few years foreign nations are paying closer attention to overtures from China’s CCP leadership and its overseas economic programs. Countries once firmly in the US camp are turning to Beijing to broker third party deals and help resolve their international conflicts. We are at war with China, but it is not a Westphalian concept of conflict. 

Differing tools and methodologies make it “difficult for the West to admit it,” according to Michael Listner, founder of Space Law and Policy Solutions. General Laura Richardson, commander of the US Southern Command, in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday that “The [People’s Republic of China] has the capability to eschew international norms, advance its brand of authoritarianism, and amass power and influence at the expense of these [South American and Caribbean] democracies.” 

General Glen VanHerck, commander of the US Northern Command and Richardson also testified this week saying that China’s expansion includes increased work on its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and other forms of economic coercion. Recently China completed the largest embassy in the world in the Bahamas and over 80% of Mexico’s telecommunications is provided by Chinese companies, according to VanHerck. The CCP leadership is active throughout the world. Behind-the-scenes in the Middle East this week, China helped broker a significant deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran to reestablish diplomatic relations. After the announcement, China’s senior diplomat declared that the two countries were wise to do so. It comes one month after President Ebrahim Raisi’s visit to Beijing.

China’s appearing to facilitate the negotiations adds to Chinese prestige, according to John Alterman, in of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He argues that “The not-so-subtle message that China is sending is that while the United States is the preponderant miliary power in the Gulf, China is a powerful and rising diplomatic presence… and it contributes to a narrative of a shrinking US global presence.” Washington does not maintain diplomat relations with Tehran and was unable to participate. China, in contrast, represents about 30% of Iran’s total international trade, with much of it in the form of oil exports to the communist giant. The exclusion of Washington by Saudi Arabia indicates they are seeking to diversity their security arrangements.

“Globalization is a fact, not a policy,” according to Condoleeza Rice, director of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. But globalization is facing headwinds, she added. The strongest are coming from China where government leaders have failed to meet international expectations of liberalizing the country’s economy. When asked about China’s role in Africa, Rice said that its economic and political influence is beginning to wane in the region but that the United States needs to make sure it fills any gaps. “We ought to be right in the middle of that, going into that vacuum,” she argues. The question remaining is can Washington compete effectively and simultaneously in the current international economic climate and on the military front. 

The Jamestown Foundation pointed out this week that outgoing Premier Li Keqiang announced that China would increase its defense budget by 7.2 percent in his remarks opening the annual National’s People’s Congress. Covell Meyskens, an associate professor of national security affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, suggests that China is pushing hard to encourage the world to disengage with the United States. Writing in Foreign Policy, Meyskens argues that “… under Xi, China’s propaganda apparatus appears determined to tell “a good China story” that lauds how CCP rule, and especially Xi’s leadership, has generated a plethora of domestic accomplishments and raised China’s global clout. In recent years, Chinese state media has also worked hard to put to rest the idea that the PRC should take the United States as a model to emulate. Every day, Chinese media pumps out enormous volumes of content about why the United States is failing as a global leader.

Increasing Chinese aggression on the economic, diplomatic, and military fronts is a serious challenge to America’s global leadership role. Xi may see this as his last opportunity to alter the international order  in China’s favor before Beijing is faced with overwhelming demographic and other domestic economic challenges that could impede his goals. Washington needs to recognize the international challenge it faces from China and arrive at a better understanding of how to deal with the belligerent communist giant.

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

Photo: China Defence Ministry

Humans can be highly observant and analytical creatures. We are equally adept at ignoring what is directly in front of us, despite the imminent danger it presents. The allure of China’s newly opened, and potentially large, market sent businessmen from around the world scurrying to Beijing to befriend CCP officials. Others sought development funds to modernize their country’s infrastructure. In recent decades the United States, both the public and private sectors, has been drawn to and blinded by China’s mystique and money. The US is not the only country fatally attracted to China. Europe’s critical supply chain today is deeply embedded in and dependent on imports from China that in 2021 topped $557.8 billion. Russia and the developing South also beg for BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) funds to keep their economies afloat, while China reaps rewards in outsized influence and newly acquired wealth derived from its predatory practices. Xi Jinping recognizes he has a limited window of opportunity obtain the resources his country needs to complete his vision of a modern Chinese-style world order. Now entering an unprecedented third term in office, Xi isn’t wasting time in extending China’s reach into Russia’s once forbidden Far eastern territories.

Xi Jinping recognizes that for China to fully modernize it must buy or seize control of energy and the other critical natural resources required to support advanced technologies. Although the Sino-Soviet split of the 1960’s is healed out of convenience to both communist states, the fulcrum point in the relationship has moved to favor Beijing. Xi is using it to his advantage. Although Russia is occupied with its war in Ukraine, Chinese and Far Eastern Russian officials met in early March, in the northeastern city of Harbin. They quietly agreed China would finance the building of a railway north and well into the Russian resource-rich Sakha Republic. This region dominates the Russian Far East, according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. He points out that it is “rather far from the Chinese border…[and] represents a potentially transformative event for the region, China, and the Russian Federation.” 

Unlike the Trans-Siberian line or other infrastructure just over the border in Russia, this project is unprecedented in its reach into the Russian interior.  Second, open-source intelligence appears to indicate that the deal was inked by Sakha and Chinese officials without involvement from Moscow. Last June 22, the Russian publication Vesma wrote that Putin did not consider the project a priority. Goble suggests this is another way of Moscow’s say it cost too much with resources devoted to the war in Ukraine. Third, concessions obtained by China in this deal will allow it to gain long-term access to critically-needed resources. Putin likes to talk about Russia’s “turn to the east.” What in the short-run will benefit Russia’s natural resources export market, may turn out in the long run to favor China. Historically, Sakha is already more closely linked to Beijing than Moscow. Goble argues that this raises the “specter in the minds of many Russians that China is becoming the paramount power in the region.”

And, he adds, “this could eventually be the case even if China does nothing to change the political borders between itself and the Russian Federation—a classic form of neo-colonialism that Moscow is accustomed to denouncing in others but often fails to see China is using that same approach within Russia’s current borders.” Economic warfare, in which China is the dominant player, is less costly for Xi than a kinetic military conflict. The territory in question once belonged to China. The people in the region speak Mandarin and are ethnically identical in look and tradition to the nearby Chinese population. 

The area is sparsely populated and China will likely need to bring in “guest workers.” It is not an easy route to build and will take years to complete over permafrost ground. China, however, already has experience building a 900-mile Tibetan railway system through permafrost that is more advanced that any found in the West. The rewards will be timber, coal, and other minerals, as well as influence well beyond the reaches of Sakha. Xi is following the ancient Chinese warrior Sun Tzu’s directive to climb higher to see farther. Russia, however, may be ignoring the close by danger if China becomes the de facto power in Russia’s Far East.

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

Photo: Pixabay

Japanese kamikaze pilots in World War II did immense damage to enemy forces in the Pacific. Carrying one ton of explosives in the nosecone of each plane, the Japanese Air Force sank 34 naval ships and damaged hundreds of others. They achieved their mission about 19% of the time. The cost was great as Japan lost about 2,800 skilled pilots and 1,387 aircraft. Kamikaze planes are still in use today in the war in Ukraine, however, now they are controlled remotely by pilots wielding a control stick far from the battlefield. Russian lives are not at stake.

Russian forces are employing Iranian kamikaze drones to destroy Ukraine’s physical infrastructure. The Kyiv Independent newspaper reported last fall that Russia is actively incorporating them into the battlefield. In mid-February, the publication Unian published a report saying that Putin was running low on stocks of Iranian-built drones. At the same time Russian-friendly states werevproviding alternative sources for Moscow. 

It appears anti-Western governments are resorting to a plan this year that includes building a joint Russian-Iranian drone factory inside Russia to supply the country with the needed equipment to ratchet up the pressure on the Ukrainian government and its air defense systems. Sine Ozkarasahin, of the Jamestown Foundation, notes that “Such a scenario would grant Russia easier access to a continuous stream of Iranian kamikaze drones….”

Worse yet, if the Russian-Iranian deal is cemented, a drone facility in the imminent neighborhood of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) will have immense strategic implications. It would shorten the length of Russian supply lines and put armed drones next to NATO Member states who oppose Putin’s war. It would have far-reaching implications for the future security of NATO’s eastern flank and represent a new and elevated threat to Western Europe. 

Tehran is complicit in this operation. It will add to its global production network that already includes countries such as Tajikistan, Syria, and Venezuela. The facility, according to open source intelligence, is to be built east of Moscow in the town of Yelabuga, and produce about 6,000 Iranian drone annually. America military intelligence suggests that this could be a significant force multiplier for Putin in his upcoming spring offensive. Ozkarasahin says the plant will be much more sustainable than the frequent drone transfers in a highly dangerous and logistically challenging hot zone. He adds that the facility can “provide Russia with key strategic benefits, such as easy access to spare parts and maintenance support.”

The Yelabuga site, which is near the Kama River, appears part of a trend in Iranian military complexes in which some of Tehran’s most critical missile production facilities (including the ones in Parchin and Baniyas) are all located near a water supply, according to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Ozkarasahin suggests this could be indicative of a potential new spot for Iranian missile production of the Shahed-136 and Shahed-131 kamikaze drones already in use in Ukraine by Russian forces. 

Of additional concern is that the production line could include modified versions of these drones equipped with unmanned aerial vehicles capable of a higher air speed and longer range. Last month Eurasian Times reported that some intelligence sources are confirming the Iranians have already embarked on this journey, by modifying the traditional Shahed-131’s to include more destructive warheads. 

This represents a potential broader threat to NATO. Other states unfriendly to the West, including China and Armenia, are already providing Putin’s war machine with supplies sanctioned by the West. They circumvent sanctions by selling Russia semi-conductors and subcomponents of critical systems to Moscow, according to Eurasianet this week. If the Russian-Iranian axis continues growing NATO may be faced with yet another threat to its strategic advantage. If shot down NATO’s most sophisticated systems could provide Iran with newer technology and counter-drone advances that make a technological challenge to the Western alliance closer to an alarming reality. The word kamikaze originated in Japan over 740 years ago and was used to refer to the wrath of typhoons that beset the island nation and stopped Kublai Khan from conquering Japan. Iran’s drones could alter the balance of power in Europe and as a modern day “divine wind” threaten a vast area of Europe.

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

Illustration: Pixabay