Author: Daria Novak

The war in Ukraine is reverberating around the world. On the Korean peninsula it is increasing ROK awareness of the value of its alliance with the US as a buffer against hostility by foreign forces. It is also intensifying concerns about the South’s vulnerability as a nuclear-weapons-free power facing nuclear-armed state just to its north. A Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) study argues that “For North Korea, the war in Ukraine seems to have amplified the importance of nuclear weapons for its security while prompting Pyongyang to consider a new “first use” nuclear doctrine as well as the operational deployment of tactical nuclear weapons—imitating Putin’s tactics in Ukraine.” The collective shifts in the North’s posture since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, has produced a favorable external environment for North Korea’s continued development of its nuclear and missile programs. “Its increasing weapons capabilities, its threats to use nuclear weapons for offensive purposes, and the vulnerability of US national missile defense interceptors to North Korean multiple independent reentry vehicle technologies have led the South Koreans to question the credibility of US extended deterrence,” it argues. The CSIS report conclude it is time for Washington to reassess traditional approaches to the North Korean nuclear issue.

The United States military is not retreating. In February, the US and South Korea plan to expand joint field exercises and bolster joint capabilities to deter and respond to North Korean nuclear and missile threats, the defense chiefs of both countries said on Tuesday, according to USNI News. The Korean peninsula is sometimes referred to as the land of lousy options. It has been long considered a global flashpoint where nuclear war could break out. Lately it is in the news more as tensions in the region are increasing due to continuing provocations by North Korea and its violations of United Nations Security Council resolutions. 

South Korean Minister of National Defense Lee Jong-Sup and US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin condemned the north for recent drone incursions and missile launches in a joint statement issued at the defense ministerial meeting on January 31, 2023, in Seoul. They confirmed the ROK-US Alliance is strong and standing together with the international community. The leaders pointed out that the US, ROK, Japan, and NATO are prepared to “bolster the alliance capabilities to deter and respond to North Korean nuclear and missile threats, as well as to expand information sharing and joint planning,” says Dzirhan Mahadzir of USNI News.

The Deterrence Strategy Committee Table-top Exercise (DSC TTX) to be held in February is expected to assess and develop response options to deal with the North Korean nuclear threat. Going forward the types of defense activities envisioned include deployments of F-22s, F-35s and additional visits by the Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group. Last October the Strike Group arrived in Busan, South Korea, with a dual focus of increasing the readiness of US and ROK forces and maintaining stability on the Korean peninsula. The current US extended deterrence commitment is Washington’s pledge to devote the full range of its military capabilities, including nuclear weapons, to deter and, if necessary, defeat an external attack on South Korea. “It involves two central purposes: to deter North Korean aggression in all of its forms, and to prevent nuclear proliferation by providing South Korea with an alternative to developing its own nuclear weapons to meet its security needs,” according to CSIS.

The CSIS report suggests that an additional element needs to be considered in 2023: coordinated positions on the peninsula with those of China. It argues it would be productive for the allies to establish a bilateral consultative mechanism to share assessments of the implications of China’s military capabilities for the Korean peninsula and coordinate potential responses. Although Beijing is intricately involved in maintaining stability in the region, it is highly unlikely to work jointly with Washington on such an effort. China is continuing aggressive behavior overseas and has increased its pressure tactics against Washington to derail alliance deterrence initiatives while also attempting to unilaterally influence the behavior of Kim Jong-un, the Supreme leader of North Korea. The peninsula, as one military analyst points out, is a “powder keg waiting to blow.” It may take the war in Ukraine to encourage China to join with other states to secure the region.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

The Chinese high-altitude surveillance balloon may be floating well above US continental space designated for commercial aircraft, but this week military analysts around Washington are asking “How low can China go?” This is not the first incidence of a Chinese intrusion into US air space or into that of another country. In recent years the communist giant has violated the land, air, and legally recognized, territorial waters surrounding several Asian nations. Since China’s opening to the West over four decades ago, Beijing has been given a pass on its belligerent behavior from other countries and international organizations. The increasing number of intrusions in recent years has several purposes according to military analysts, expert in studying Chinese military tactics and strategy. 

The latest incident, which is ongoing this week, involves a Chinese balloon reported to be the size of three school buses. It was spotted first over the Aleutian Islands off Alaska before moving eastward toward the continental US. It then traveled close to sensitive US military installations in Montana. The balloon triggered a security alert that involved briefing the US president and taking military measures to protect  American assets from aerial surveillance and other possible hostile actions. A decision was made in Washington to watch but not remove it, although there was a period when it was safe to do so without consequences to people on the ground or US infrastructure. What makes this incident intriguing is not only the potential danger it posed, but China’s capacity to operate just below the level of a national security threat requiring a military response.

China’s PLAAF (People’s Liberation Army Air Force) and PLAN (People’s Liberation Army Navy) approach foreign military forces legally patrolling their home territories on a regular basis. Canada this week is also monitoring a potential Chinese surveillance balloon over its territory. The frequency and intensity of potential engagements is increasing, but the leadership in Beijing is adept at remaining below the threshold that would require a military response. With each incident China gains invaluable intelligence information. Some of it derives from the actual surveillance event; much of it comes from testing a potential future adversary’s response to the intrusion. Like young children who often poke a finger at another repeatedly to provoke a response, Beijing is learning how far it can go before it must retreat to avoid getting smacked back. 

“Montana, a sparsely populated state, is home to one of only three nuclear missile silo fields in the country, at Malmstrom Air Force Base… [an] official said the apparent spy craft was flying over sensitive sites to collect information,” according to a BBC report Wednesday.

Previous incidents did not involve the surveillance balloon remaining aloft over the US for such an extended period of time.

It appears China is ratcheting up its testing of American willpower to respond. So far, Washington is letting China poke the United States without much pushback. The question that needs to be addressed now is Why is China willing to repeatedly poke the US at a time when relations are already tense?

China already has an extensive system of surveillance satellites, some of which are military in nature. It has proven its offensive military technology in tests that indicate it can move its satellites from one orbit to another to knock out foreign communications and other geostationary satellites.

The US, according to one analyst, is still working to develop a comparative capability to counter China’s space war technology. As China approaches a rough military par with advanced Western nations in the coming decades, Beijing may be more concerned with gathering information about how foreign nations make command decisions in response to security threats. China’s military is gaining technology but remains devoid of real combat experience. It may be the major reason Xi Jinping had yet to invade Taiwan. The PLAAF and PLAN appear to be testing the waters and gathering information.

Unlike Western leaders, Chinese political culture demands its leaders think in generational terms. As Sun Tzu wrote long ago, “move to higher ground to see farther.” The threat from China needs to be viewed as a long-term one that is not going away. Coddling Beijing allows it the catch up time it needs to poke everyone and gain valuable experience. As long as the West allows it to occur, China will continue to provoke other countries.

Washington needs to recognize what is happening today is similar to a long-term commercial negotiation in which one side continues to demand concessions until the other side says enough. Only in this case it is physical and the threat has the potential to be nuclear. 

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department, and lived for a time in China.

Illustration: Pixabay

The coalition of Western political leaders remains focused on Russia’s war in Ukraine but, it is not the only strategic location where Putin is active. He is also quietly expanding Russian efforts to combat democratic moves in the Global South. Western media often miss that message and rarely cover Russian activities in Africa. Putin’s agenda is aided by a lack of serious Western media coverage of political events in the sub-Saharan region. Over recent decades major news organizations, including the New York Times, have closed many news bureau locations on the continent, and left some of the remaining bureau chief positions unfilled for long periods. The important Nairobi bureau chief position for the NY Times, which covers many countries, was left open for several years. The lack of coverage creates a strategic political opening for Putin. Morris Kiruga, writing in The Africa Report, calls an advertisement for the NY Times Nairobi position “better suited for an 18^th-cenutry explorer than a 21^st-century critical journalism role.” The ad for the position is an indication of the type of political coverage coming out of Africa in recent years. It called for a journalist who seeks “a tremendous opportunity to dive into news and enterprise across a wide range of countries, from the deserts of Sudan and the pirate seas of the Horn of Africa, down through the forests of Congo and the shores of Tanzania.” The NY Times’ mile wide, inch-deep coverage of Africa, along with a dearth of news from other media, aids Putin’s outreach in South Africa. 

The fake Russian discourse in South Africa, barely covered by journalists, seeks to circumvent Western alliance efforts to strengthen relationships in the Global South. Last week Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov traveled to South Africa for a working visit to encourage the country’s political leadership to become more neutral due to the West’s escalating pressure on Russia. Pavel Baev, of the Jamestown Foundation, points out that Lavrov’s hosts appeared very receptive to the outreach effort and that some viewed the level of Western unity against Russia “discomforting.” The trip is aimed to lay groundwork for the second Russa-African Summit scheduled for late July 2023 in St. Peterburg. Baev reports that the “the content of these strenuously cultivated ties has changed profoundly since the first such summit in Sochi in October 2019.” South Africa is the fifth member of the BRIC multilateral grouping that also includes Brazil, China, India, and Russia. Baev suggests that Moscow finds the group’s “vitriolic anti-Western discourse rather useful” although trade among BRIC countries remains small and investments insignificant. 

During Lavrov’s trip the foreign minister avoided raising the Wagner Group’s activities in Africa, despite Washington’s delayed designation of the group as a “significant transnational criminal organization” on January 26, 2023. “The Kremlin has denounced this characterization as “demonization,” but Wagner’s track record of operations in the Central African Republic, Sudan and Mali is rich with evidence of looting, torture and murder” says Paev.  He notes the Russian Foreign Ministry conducts no oversight of Wagner’s networks and “may be clueless as to whether the group is planning an expansion toward Burkina Faso, which has severed traditional military ties with France.” 

 Russia’s transatlantic outreach is quite limited and its position in the Middle East is weakening, adding credence to recent reports of increased Russian efforts to make Africa its foreign policy priority by default. To date there is little extended Russian-Chinese regional cooperation in Africa. Russia is sending only one ship to the region for a joint naval exercise with China in 2023. Beijing prefers working unilaterally in Africa, despite Russian attempts of regional cooperation with its communist partner. Beijing also shunned Russian offers of Wagner mercenaries for its security and instead is developing its own quasi-private forces in Africa. 

“Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ambition for the Russian-African summit, to which Lavrov invited the king of Eswatini, is not only to compete with the US-Africa Leaders Summit held in Washington in December 2022 but also to demonstrate to China the value of Russia’s connections on the continent,” according to Baev. Putin is not in a strong position in Africa but is pushing to compete on the ground with China and the Democratic West. New trouble could be brewing with Russia’s Wagner Group in Africa this summer. Putin may decide to use his mercenaries to score a victory in a more fragile African state. The best, although counterintuitive, outcome is for Kyiv to do well enough that Moscow must concentrate on Ukraine and leave Africa alone this summer. 

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

Illustration: Pixabay

Elected officials curiously accumulate wealth while in office that cannot be explained by their salaries or the assets they brought with them before being elected. 

Concerns about insider trading, which is illegal for almost all except for politicians, have led to concerns that not only are individuals getting rich inappropriately, but that in many cases they are doing so in ways which may harm the public interest. 

A Business Insider study in January found that a bipartisan group of 78 members senators and representatives recently failed to properly report their financial trades as mandated by the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012, also known as the STOCK Act.

A Global Times review states that “Even as the US economy stumbles due to inflation and regulatory burdens, American lawmakers can’t help but get caught in shady stock market deals. Just last week, a Democrat representative from Massachusetts violated a 2012 law that merely requires members of Congress to report their stock trades in a timely manner. According to Business Insider, Bill Keating traded up to $15,000 worth of shares of one budget clothing chain for another but reported it after the 45-day deadline mandated by the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, a 2012 bill intended to curb unethical market behavior. Keating’s office said the trades were made by an investment firm and that the House Ethics Committee forgave the transgression since the delay was within their grace period. The congressman didn’t even have to pay a $200 fine, and odds heavily favor his re-election in the midterms. Two other Massachusetts Democrats in the House have also violated the STOCK Act, according to Business Insider. In fact, a total of 73 lawmakers have, since the outlet started tracking their transgressions in 2021.”

A New York Times articles states that “97 lawmakers or their family members bought or sold financial assets over a three-year span in industries that could be affected by their legislative committee work… The timing of one trade by the wife of Representative Alan Lowenthal, Democrat of California, was especially striking: His disclosure statement said she had sold Boeing shares on March 5, 2020 — one day before a House committee on which he sits released damaging findings on the company’s handling of its 737 Max jet, which was involved in two fatal crashes.”

On January 24, Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) reintroduced legislation banning lawmakers from stock trading. The Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act would prohibit members of Congress and their spouses from holding or trading individual stocks. The bill will require members found in violation to return their profits to American taxpayers. Specifically, The PELOSI Act would give members and their spouses six months after first assuming office to divest any holdings or put them in a blind trust. Any members found in violation of the bill would have to ‘return their profits to American taxpayers.

According to Senator Hawley, “For too long, politicians in Washington have taken advantage of the economic system they write the rules for, turning profits for themselves at the expense of the American people. As members of Congress, both Senators and Representatives are tasked with providing oversight of the same companies they invest in, yet they continually buy and sell stocks, outperforming the market time and again. While Wall Street and Big Tech work hand-in-hand with elected officials to enrich each other, hardworking Americans pay the price. The solution is clear: we must immediately and permanently ban all members of Congress from trading stocks.”

The name of the bill after the former House Speaker Nancy Speaker reflects questions about the wealth she gained in office. A Free Beacon report revealed that she and her husband sold up to $3 million in shares of Google, just before the Justice Department launched an antitruct probe.

Illustration: Pixabay

The Committee to Unleash Prosperity has released a startling new report entitled “Paying Americans Not to Work.”  I

It reveals that a family of four can receive over $100,000 annualized equivalent in cash and benefits in three states, and over $80,000 in 14 states, with no one working. The analysis was written by Casey Mulligan, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago who served as chief economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisors and  EJ Antoni,  a research fellow for regional economics in the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis.

The study reveals that with existing unemployment benefits and the dramatic recent expansion of ObamaCare subsidies, a spouse would have to earn more than $80,000 a year from a 40 hour a week job to have the same after-tax income as certain families with two unemployed spouses receiving government benefits. In these states, working 40 hours a week and earning $20 an hour would mean a slight REDUCTION in income compared to two parents receiving unemployment benefits and health care subsidies.

This study also finds:

• In 24 states, unemployment benefits and ACA subsidies for a family of four with both parents not working are the annualized equivalent of at least the national median household income.

• In 5 states, those two programs provide the same family with both parents not working the annualized equivalent of at least the national median household income and benefits.

• In 14 states, unemployment benefits and ACA subsidies are the equivalent to a head of household earning $80,000 in salary, plus health insurance benefits.

• This is a higher wage than is earned by the national median secondary school teacher, electrician, trucker, machinist, and many other jobs.

• In more than half the states, unemployment benefits and ACA subsidies exceed the value of the salary and benefits of the average firefighter, truck driver, machinist, or retail associate in those states.

• In a dozen states, unemployment benefits and ACA subsidies exceed the value of the salary and benefits of the average teacher, construction worker, or electrician in those states.

• A family of four with income over $227,000 qualifies for ACA subsidies in all states and families earning over $300,000 a year still qualify for ACA subsidies in 40 states and DC.

While many of the subsidies pre-existed the COVID pandemic, the large amounts of funds provided by government to individuals magnified the issue.

In 2020, The American Institute for Economic Research’s Philip Magness wrote:   “’Never let a crisis go to waste,’ the old adage goes. Unfortunately, political activists and public officials from across the spectrum are now taking this advice to heart amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. While many policy responses to the current crisis are well-meaning, even if misguided, be vigilant of those who would cynically weaponize it to advance their pre-COVID ideological goals…The experience with peacetime regulations of this sort in other countries suggests this has a high probability, carrying with it a labor-market rigidity that translates into persistently high unemployment. Sadly, one also gets the sense that Saez and Zucman would be willing to accept that outcome in exchange for getting their broader economic agenda passed under the cover provided by the pandemic.”

Programs that result in high unemployment, and the bizarre economic reality that it may be more profitable to take government handouts than to work, greatly assists those seeking to replace capitalism, which has brought more prosperity to more people than any other system, with socialism, which has produced markedly inferior results.

 Following the reduction of the COVID crisis, it was reasonable to expect the U.S. economy to rebound sharply.  The continued presence of overly generous government handouts, combined with the Biden Administration’s inflationary war on energy, destroyed that opportunity.

Illustration: Pixabay

Present Biden has stated that he will not negotiate on raising the debt ceiling.  His position contradicts his own comments made in 2011, when, as vice president, he complained that some of his colleagues in government were unwilling to negotiate, stating “that’s not governing.”  

The President’s comments come as The United States has reached its $31.4 trillion statutory debt limit, the threshold set by Congress in December 2021. Since 1960, Congress has acted 78 separate times to permanently raise, temporarily extend, or revise the definition of the debt limit. There has been no indication from the White House that it is serious about examining its own programs to determine how to hold the line on spending.

There are obvious reasons for concern about allowing the federal government to again raise the debt. Reason magazine notes that “Biden has overseen a noticeable increase in the deficit above the pre-pandemic baseline. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a fiscal watchdog group that advocates for lower deficits, Biden’s policies have added about $2.5 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years.”

A BGR Group study note that “The national debt has increased under every presidential administration since Herbert Hoover. The United States has raised its debt ceiling at least 90 times in the 20th century. It has never been reduced…If government hits the debt ceiling and exhausts all other options, it can no longer borrow. Since the government runs an annual deficit, it will run out of money soon after it hits the limit and temporarily default on obligations. If the Treasury Department is not able to borrow additional money, the United States could default on outstanding loans and its credit rating may be downgraded by credit rating groups…”

The federal debt ceiling was already raised in December of 2021 by $2.5 trillion, to $31.381 trillion, which lasted until January 19, 2023. The Treasury Department has begun using accounting tools at its disposal, called “extraordinary measures,” to avoid defaulting on the government’s obligations, This will allow Washington to keep borrowing until June. At the point of exhaustion of those measures, absent a new agreement to either raise or suspend the debt ceiling, the Treasury will be unable to continue paying the nation’s bills and the U.S. will default.

Biden’s refusal to negotiate makes a bad situation worse, particularly considering his own fiscal irresponsibility. The White House maintains that it has reduced the budget, absurdly taking credit for COVID-related spending that stop as the pandemic ended.

But the key issue at hand is not about spending.  It is about Biden’s aggressively divisive presidency.  In September, the President delivered a stunning speech in Philadelphia which virtually declared a civil war against those who merely disagreed with his policies.  He has continuously used pejorative language to describe other elected officials who have different ideas, describing them as “ultra MAGA.”

North Carolina Senator Tillis emphasizes that “President Biden has followed his advisor’s recommendation to go it alone. He’s pushed a highly partisan, ideologically-driven agenda. And you don’t need to take my word for it. [Biden’s] agenda [is] designed to pass with no need for moderation and not a single Republican vote. No consensus whatsoever.   There are plenty of Republicans like me who are willing to work with President Biden and even put some of our supporters out of their comfort zone for the good of this nation. In fact, when he was sworn in, I said I would work to find common ground on areas where we may agree and vigorously oppose policies where we do not. Unfortunately, there has been little opportunity to do the latter. The willingness to negotiate has only been a one-way street on the part of Republicans.”

Illustration: Pixabay

Government spying dates back over 6,000 years ago to early Mesopotamia, where history informs us that institutions and people devoted to their ruling regimes worked in secret to preserve and protect rulers using spy tradecraft. In China, written records from the fifth century mention spying in the Indus Valley. Perhaps, one of the best know texts from that era is Sun Tzu’s comprehensive military treatise, The Art of War. Although technology has changed over the millennium, espionage remains a tool that is used to illicitly acquire information from other nation-states and today, the private sector. Beijing runs one of the most complex spy networks in the world, not simply to protect itself from foreign attack, but also as an economic tool to steal and reverse engineer advanced technologies available only in the West. China also employs an extensive electronic intelligence network to surveille and gather information overseas. It has “many schools of small fish in the sea,” according to one Chinese official formerly stationed in Washington, DC. He compared Chinese spies to small grains of sand on a beach. Individually there is not much to see. “Many grains of sand [do] form a beachhead.”  

Beijing has a long history of successfully using good tradecraft to recruit spies in the United States. One former FBI official estimated that there may be over 10,000 spies in the DC area, many of them working for China. This week Philip Lenczycki, an investigative reporter and China Watcher in Washington, DC  exposed yet another case of concern to US officials. It is at least the second time a Democrat from California has been closely connected to a Chinese intelligence operation. In 2018, it was US Senator Diane Feinstein’s staffer. This week the China connection is linked to Rep. Judy Chu. 

For at least 12 years, Chu has been involved with a Chinese front organization and remains listed as its honorary president. The All America Chinese Youth Federation (AACYF) has an innocent sounding name. Like the Confucius Institutes run by communist China inside the US, the name does not give away the true purpose of its operation. Chu helped the group by opening the Silicon Valley high technology corridor to Beijing. “During Chu’s tenure at AACYF, its leadership has included multiple individuals who’ve belonged to China-based organizations that allegedly operate as front groups for a Chinese intelligence service,” says Lenczycki. AACYF’s leadership is purported to include individuals who belonged to organizations allegedly serving a Chinese government agency tasked with overseeing and coordinating CCP influence operations in North America. 

As early as 2013, Congresswoman Chu led events held by the organization, including at a Silicon Valley 

technology summit where she served as “chairman.” Five of AACYF’s leaders who’ve served at the non-profit during Chu’s tenure have “belonged to organizations allegedly serving a Chinese government agency tasked with overseeing and coordinating CCP influence operations,” says Lenczycki. “The so-called United Front Work Department (UFWD) has been identified by government agencies, legislative bodies and experts as a central organ of CCP influence efforts, and experts also say UFWD works in concert with Chinese intelligence operatives,” he adds.

Recently Rep. Chu voted against the formation of the House Select Committee tasked with examining Chinese influence in the United States. She defended her action by claiming the initiative to examine communist China’s influence operations in the country could lead to violence. According to California Rep. Mike Garcia, Congress is interested only in “combatting the CCP, not the Chinese people.” The Resolution passed 365-65 with strong bipartisan support.

The United States is a very open society. During the Soviet era KGB agents, posing as Soviet media, held 24-hour, unescorted passes that allowed them to walk freely around the US Department of State and eat lunch in the Main State building cafeteria among US diplomats. President Reagan’s Administration put an end to it. Today, it is the Chinese who are running rampant throughout our institutions. They have been caught working inside the intelligence community for the CIA, FBI, and other areas since the US opened relations with China in 1979. 

In 2018 it was revealed that Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) had a Chinese spy on her staff for 20 years as her personal driver. During that time, she served on the US Senate Intelligence Committee. Her staffer reported through the Chinese  Consulate in San Francisco to the Chinese  Ministry of State Security. A top Justice Department official at the time said, “Focusing on his driver function alone, in Mafia families, the boss’s driver was among the most trusted men in the crew, because among other things he heard everything that was discussed in the car.” It appears China had access to a top official’s conversations, documents, home, and office. A former top CIA clandestine officer in 2018 said that the Chinese probably had the driver put down an audio device in her home or offices and target the Senator and those around her who showed vulnerabilities. He said that Beijing “would have had a field day.”

Only three years before the Feinstein case broke, a cyberattack by China into the US Office of Personnel Management’s database resulted in the loss of the security forms for many thousands of cleared executive branch officials. Chinese spies in Washington at the FBI and the State Department obtained information on CIA sources inside China. It is believed to have resulted in the deaths of dozens of individuals in Beijing. The challenges reach inside the White House itself. There are calls for the President and his family to be investigated for their financial connections to China. An open and friendly society is important to the American people, but it should not mean the United States will allow China to walk through our institutions and undermine national security.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

Russia is adept at running public disinformation campaigns, misdirecting foreign officials, and controlling the narrative through propaganda. This week, however, the tenor in the Kremlin appears to be changing. There are a number of Russian officials and insiders with knowledge of President Vladimir Putin’s health admitting that his condition is worsening, and that he may be close to leaving office amid his failing war effort in Ukraine. Such rumors have swirled around Moscow for months, although some are believed to have been planted by the Kremlin chief himself.  Russia’s poor military performance in Ukraine, coupled with Putin’s health issues purported to be from Cancer and Parkinson’s disease, provide greater validity to the notion that the country is getting closer to seeing a new leader in power. Putin has refused to acknowledge, so far, if he is running for re-election in 2024. 

This week marks 11 months since Putin’s forces invaded Ukraine. He has been unsuccessful in capturing Ukraine in what was originally expected by the Kremlin to be a very short, special military operation. His efforts to divide the democratic West over its support for Kyiv have also failed. That does not mean the war will end anytime soon. Most of the potential successors of Putin’s are “all cut from the same cloth,” according to one military analyst in Washington, and “unlikely to give up the Ukraine campaign.” 

In response to requests from Kyiv, this week President Biden agreed to send enough 31 M1 Abrams tanks to Ukrainian forces. That is enough to arm a battalion. The announcement comes only 24 hours after Germany made public that it intends to provide 14 German-made Leopard 2 tanks. Other allies, including Poland, are also sending Leopard tanks. Warsaw’s ultimate goal is to send Ukraine 88 tanks, enough for about two battalions. Patrick Tucker, a technology editor at the publication Defense One, says that “Combined with promised deliveries of US Bradley Fighting Vehicles and other countries’ tanks, light tanks, and other armored vehicles… Ukrainian forces will soon receive “hundreds” of armored vehicles of various types. Putin’s war, according to analysts, must be wearing him down as Ukraine’s friends in the West continue to supply the country with the materiel its needs to fight for its sovereignty. Already half of the US and Netherlands promised 90 T-72 tanks are arriving in Ukraine this week. 

Help is arriving just in time as Putin is expected to make a major push in the coming weeks. The shipments are critical to Ukraine’s defense effort. Tucker points out that France announced it is sending their Amx-10 [RC] light tanks along with 40 Marders armored vehicles from Germany, and Sweden says it is sending CV 90s. “So, you’re going to see hundreds of armored vehicles, exceptionally capable vehicles, and tanks arriving in Ukraine,” according to Tucker. Analysts are certain Putin recognizes the significance of the US shipment of Abrams tanks and that it represents a long-term commitment by Washington. 

The New York Post reported last week that “The 70-year-old Putin, whose health has been the subject of intense speculations for many months now, was described as “withdrawn, terse, not meeting virtually with anyone in person, and generally deeply preoccupied,” according to the Telegram channel General SVR, which is said to be run by a former Russian intelligence officer.” Not much is expected to change if he resigns from office this year or decides not to run for re-election.

There are three crucial issues to examine in 2023. Putin’s plans for running for office again in 2024 is the first. The are also two other areas of concern to Western leaders. There is a growing schism among Russian political elites, with the hawks preferring an escalation of the conflict in Ukraine. The Carnegie Endowment for Peace says this emerged as “an issue after Russia’s withdrawal from the Kharkiv region and relinquishing of the key city of Kherson, and was fueled by Ukraine’s strike on the bridge to Crimea, the referendums held on annexing occupied parts of Ukraine, and the authorities’ subsequent ambiguity on what Russia’s official borders are.” The hawks, who also support restructuring the country’s political and economic system, are opposed by a group roughly labeled as “pragmatists.” These are mid-ranked career officials and technocrats intend on rethinking the war effort and devising a more realistic approach given Russian losses and its limited military capabilities. It portends a year of internal strife in Russia as Putin intensifies his suppression of opposition voices and the pragmatists reach out to the Russian populace and non-military elites to call for an end to the war.

The third major challenge facing Russia this year concerns the reshuffling of government personnel. Although political analysts are not openly predicting who will be out in senior positions, what they are certain of is that Putin will be searching for dynamic and effective leaders. Tatiana Stanovaya, a Russian expert at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, says that “Putin’s inclination to invite technocrats into the government may grow further, with senior figures in the cabinet, the presidential administration, and the power structures all aged and exhausted by the war and military failings forcing Putin to look for new ideas. Another is the coming presidential contest, given the historical record: reshuffles have preceded all but one of Russia’s presidential elections.” Putin enjoys hyper-secrecy and feels no need to explain his behavior. He still needs, however, to balance his leadership team for it to remain stable and  innovative in a period when senior personnel are dissatisfied with each other. This year could prove a turning point for Russia, not only in its war in Ukraine, but also in Moscow as the next generation of leaders prepares to take over. It looks unlikely, however, that the forces of moderation will succeed in assuming the reins of power. 

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

Photo: Putin meets with Dmitry Medvedev and other government officials (Russian Government official site)