Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

China has launched a forceful attempt to aggressively influence people, sometimes using illicit means, across the world to overlook its concentration camps, massive military buildup, and international aggression.

Freedom House, a non-profit that conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom, and human rights warns that Beijing has a “High or very high” campaign to push its perspective.

The study found that “The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its proxies are using more sophisticated and coercive tactics to shape media narratives and suppress critical reporting. Mass distribution of Beijing-backed content via mainstream media, harassment and intimidation of outlets that publish news or opinions disfavored by the Chinese government, and the use of cyberbullying, fake social media accounts, and targeted disinformation campaigns are among the tactics that have been employed more widely since 2019.

Freedom House notes that Inadequate government responses leave countries vulnerable or exacerbate the problem. Declines in press freedom and gaps in media regulations have reduced democratic resilience and created greater opportunities for future CCP media influence. In 23 countries, political leaders launched attacks on domestic media or exploited legitimate concerns about CCP influence to impose arbitrary restrictions, target critical outlets, or fuel xenophobic sentiment. Democracies’ ability to counter CCP media influence is alarmingly uneven. Only half of the countries examined in this study achieved a rating of Resilient, while the remaining half were designated as Vulnerable. Taiwan faced the most intense CCP influence efforts, but it also mounted the strongest response, followed in both respects by the United States. Nigeria was deemed the most vulnerable to Beijing’s media influence campaigns.

Freedom House is not alone in issuing warnings. A Rand analysis stated:

“Imagine the United States allowing a rival unfettered access not merely to its marketplace, but to its media ecosystem—the fourth pillar of our already fragile democracy. And not just access, but the full-blown ability to own, control, and influence the content. You don’t have to imagine it, because it’s happened—and keeps happening. Chinese companies have successfully burrowed into the U.S. media ecosystem with little to no pushback from U.S. regulators, particularly when it comes to radio stations. A single Chinese state-run firm, China Radio International (CRI), has secured a controlling interest in at least 33 radio stations in 14 countries—including English language news broadcaster WCRW in Washington, D.C.—to broadcast native language news slanted to favor the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) preferred perspective on events. A 2020 report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that “Nearly every Chinese language news outlet in the United States is either owned by, or works closely with the Party—and it is making inroads into English language media as well. There are more than a dozen radio stations in cities across the country where Americans hear subtle pro-Beijing propaganda on their FM radio.”

Further warnings come from other media sources. Axios examined foreign-agent filings that disclosed a “massive Beijing propaganda operation that’s fueled a sixfold increase in disclosed Chinese foreign influence efforts.”

A Brookings report found that “In the United States, Chinese state-controlled media outlets like China Daily, CGTN and Xinhua clearly hope to influence the U.S. information environment. Several newspapers, including the Washington Post, carry inserts published by the China Daily. In addition, there is some evidence that United Front-linked donors have sought to support U.S. research institutions.”

News organizations such as Reuters note the success Beijing has had in this effort. 

The danger from the increasing hold the Chinese Communist Party has on American media cannot be overstated. Beijing uses its undue influence to obscure the very real armed challenge it presents, it’s massive human rights violations, and its terrible impact from its other actions, including the infliction of COVID on the world.  

Illustration: Pixabay

The Biden White House has failed to adequately address the fentanyl crisis. Indeed, its open border policy has made the crisis significantly worse. It has ignored the desperate pleas of lawmakers to respond more forcefully to the drug, which fatally poisons one person in America every 8.57 minutes, killing 175 people every single day. “Fentanyl kills more people age 18-45 than car accidents, suicide, or COVID-19,” according to Rep. Bryan Steil (WI-R).

There were 1,531 confirmed deaths for 2021 with an increase of 11.4% compared to the previous year, 2020 . Compared to 2019, drug overdose deaths increased 27.7% in 2021.

CDC statistics reveal that 107,375 people in the United States died of drug overdoses and drug poisonings in the 12-month period ending in January 2022.  A staggering 67 percent of those deaths involved synthetic opioids like fentanyl.  Some of these deaths were attributed to fentanyl mixed with other illicit drugs like cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin, with many users unaware they were actually taking fentanyl. Only two milligrams of fentanyl are considered a potentially lethal dose; it’s particularly dangerous for someone who does not have a tolerance to opioids.

The open southern border is the key factor in the increasing fentanyl challenge. U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) has described how the Biden administration’s deliberate refusal to secure the southern border has promoted the massive influx of fentanyl. “We are in the middle of a public health crisis. With thousands of unlawful migrants flooding our southern border, cartels are able to go unnoticed as they sneak deadly substances such as fentanyl across our border,” said Dr. Michael Burgess.

Currently, China remains the primary source of fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances trafficked through international mail to Mexican drug cartels, as well as the main source for all fentanyl-related substances trafficked into the United States.

The fentanyl crisis began in earnest during the Obama-Biden Administration. The Washington Post termed the issue the “Obama Fentanyl Failure,” noting:  “The fentanyl crisis represents an extraordinary public health challenge — and requires an extraordinary public health response… experts wrote to six [Obama] administration officials, including the nation’s ‘drug czar’ and the chief of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

According to Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) “Joe Biden’s open border policies have allowed criminal drug networks to flood the United States more easily with fentanyl, and now enough of this lethal drug has flowed across our Southern Border to kill every American seven times over… Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats turn a blind eye to this crisis by blocking critical legislation to classify fentanyl-related substances as a Schedule I drug.”

In February, Rep. Steil led 116 Republicans on a letter to President Biden urging the Administration to take immediate action to stem the fentanyl scourge coming from China and across the southern border.

Rep, Warren Davidson emphasized that “Border security is national security. Criminal cartels have more control over our southern border than our own Border Patrol, allowing fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances to flood our communities and kill Americans. It is time this administration obeys the law and uses enforcement to secure our border, [and] protect American lives…” 

The crisis has taken an even more sinister turn as deliberate attempts to attract children has become evident. In August, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) warned that there is an alarming emerging trend of colorful fentanyl available across the United States.  In August 2022, DEA and our law enforcement partners seized brightly-colored fentanyl and fentanyl pills in 18 states.  Dubbed ‘rainbow fentanyl’ in the media, this trend appears to be a new method used by drug cartels to sell highly addictive and potentially deadly fentanyl made to look like candy to children and young people. “Rainbow fentanyl—fentanyl pills and powder that come in a variety of bright colors, shapes, and sizes—is a deliberate effort by drug traffickers to drive addiction amongst kids and young adults,” said DEA Administrator Anne Milgram.”

Illustration: Fentanyl intentionally made to look like candy (CDC)

Military experts are watching Russia closely after Putin’s nuclear threat toward the West. Political analysts are looking eastward toward China after Xi Jinping’s unprecedented consolidation of power during last week’s National Party Congress. Few, however, are paying attention to the supercharged environment in Pakistan since April when then-Prime Minister Imran Khan was ousted in a parliamentary no-confidence vote.

He blames the United States, claiming Washington colluded with Pakistan’s Army to remove him from office. When he demanded the new government step down, it responded by cracking down on Khan and those attending his expansive rallies. A week ago, the Pakistan Election Commission found Khan guilty of corrupt practices and barred him from politics. The charge was that he allegedly failed to disclose money he received from gifts sold that were given to him by foreign dignitaries. 

“Two days later, Arshad Sharif, one of Pakistan’s most prominent journalists, was killed” by police in a case of mistaken identity in Nairobi, according to Reuters. “These developments not only threaten to intensify Pakistan’s political polarization, but they also increase the uncertainty swirling around its immediate political future,” according to Michael Kugelman, writing in Foreign Affairs. Although Khan acknowledges his opponents had a political motivation, there is less certainty about the length of time he is disqualified from the political arena. 

One High Court judge in Islamabad stated the punishment only extends over the present parliamentary term ending in fall 2023. If this is determined to be accurate, Khan would be free to run in  Pakistan’s next national elections. Sharif’s death hit the nation hard. He was known to be close to Khan. Kugelman points out that he also supported the military until he lost his position at ARY News this summer after allegedly criticizing the military on social media. There is widespread speculation the current Pakistan government was involved in the killing with Kenyan authorities. 

Pakistan has a history of assassinating Pakistani trust in the security institutions in the country has dramatically decreased recently while support for Khan is growing among his popular base. Despite the government offering to investigate the killing, few are satisfied that Islamabad will find the answer. This week Khan announced a modern “long march” of over 235 miles from Lahore to Islamabad, with supporters scheduled to arrive in the capital next Friday, November 4. They are demanding early elections. The government, fearing a loss, has rejected new elections.  The big question remaining is how the government will react to the protesters once they reach the capital. In the past, Khan backed down when the government threatened a crack down. There are concerns he may not back down next week.

Kugelman says that in an extraordinary press conference on Thursday, “Pakistan’s army spokesperson and spy chief both denied many of Khan’s allegations about the military and the US government colluding in his ouster.” Analysts see this as an indication that the government will take a hard line when Khan and supporters arrive. Further confusing politics is Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa’s decision not to seek another term next month in what is essentially the government’s most powerful position. The current government has yet to announce who will replace him, although it is unlikely to be a Khan supporter. Kugelman says the political atmosphere lately has the nation on edge. 

The country already is suffering from high inflation with millions still in need of help from catastrophic flooding earlier this year. Pakistan is reeling from one problem to another, making it a hotbed for instability in the region. According to the Economic Times, on October 21, Khan announced he will remain “silent” as he does not want to “damage” the country and its institutions. 

The question remaining is whether his statement is enough to keep a lid on potentially explosive violence in the capital once he and his supporters arrive. Khan says that although the government failed to protect protesters on May 25, his march will be peaceful and not enter the high security “red zone” in the capital. The government has yet to confirm its position on the march although Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah did tell reporters in Islamabad this week that if anyone is out of order the government plans to respond with an “iron hand.”

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Photo: Pixabay

Since the start of the war in Ukraine the world media has openly discussed Russia’s use of soldiers for hire. Few publications, however, have written about the extensive role China’s “security for hire” have played overseas during the last dozen years. Beijing augments its geopolitical ambitions with paid security, paramilitary, and non-state actors in support of its Belt and Road Initiative.  They protect Chinese citizens, assets, and resources that are located overseas. They are supposed to go where the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) can’t go. In some cases, this raises the risk when they are not considered private security but legally forbidden mercenaries as many of these forces are composed of PLA soldiers. They are becoming so powerful that some within the Chinese leadership view these paramilitary groups as a potential threat to China due to the power they wield. 

China appears to be adopting a hybrid model for the security industry that is neither Western nor does it follow the tainted Russian system of private military/security companies (PM/SCs). Western security groups protecting private interests are relatively open, under great public scrutiny, and often possess superior capabilities among team members. Beijing is relying on private security companies (PSCs) in areas as diverse as cybersecurity and humanitarian missions to achieve specific geopolitical and economic goals. Beijing’s agenda is tightly linked between the economic and military sectors. PSCs are in use where the country has significant interests and often are PLA soldiers working out of uniform. 

Known as the “Guardians of the Belt and Road,” these groups fill a gap with sophisticated security services, according to the Jamestown Foundation. A number of issues are emerging as China expands the use of these groups overseas. First, they lack true paramilitary experience and China has shown no indication that it intends to qualitatively train future groups to create a modern and private PM/SC system. As a result, China relies heavily on the PLA to fill a central role, which provides the government with multiple benefits. 

As these security providers in the short-to medium run can’t achieve the same level of proficiency as American or Western security providers in securing nationals overseas, China will likely continue to rely on its military to supplement them. Sergey Sukhankin of the Jamestown Foundation points out that  “…a combination of “soft power” and the economic side of “hard power” will remain key tools in China’s arsenal.” He adds that concerns have cropped up over the boundaries of influence that PM/SCs could enjoy in the future.

One key obstacle in the development of an effective Chinese “security for hire” industry is that the current Beijing political leadership is unlikely to favor the existence of private militarized structures in China that are not fully under its control. President Xi Jinping has unprecedented power in influencing the PLA and related military organizations. Any forces not directly controlled by the state, even if working overseas in China’s national interests, represent a potential threat to the Chinese central government. The result it that it is unlikely China’s political-economic model will permit the existence of truly “private” elements in its “security for hire” industry. It appears that the function will increasingly be controlled by the Chinese state and form an expanded arm of Chinese intelligence and security system although Asian-Pacific allies and partners already are criticizing the practice, according to Sukhankin. For now, the BRI transverses mostly non-democratic and non-Western states that tend to avoid criticizing Beijing’s militarization of the region.

One area of concern to the West is that China is increasingly using these so-called “private forces” in the cyber domain and developing capabilities in both offensive and defensive warfare. Sukhankin says that “given the talk of the emergence of the so-called “Cyber BRI,” as well as the fact that China has de facto become a key provider of cameras and means of intelligence collection in Central Asia, development of capabilities in new domains of war and security—in which information and cyber spaces have already emerged as crucial pillars [and] is a prospect that must not be ruled out.” He also points out that these entities could be used to gain a strategic foothold through UN-mandates humanitarian missions in Africa and Latin America. Increased employment of these teams could serve to enhance China’s reputation in strategic locations.

China is known for playing the “long game.” It uses a multipronged approach to extend its sphere of influence. Its “private” security forces are growing in sophistication and spreading out across the globe, yet virtually unnoticed by most governments. With Xi Jinping doubling down on his efforts to dominate the global world order, these security companies are filling a gap that sits below the threshold of a required Western response… for now. 

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

Is Russian president Vladimir Putin becoming more desperate? Four weeks ago, he signed a “partial mobilization” decree that called for Russian citizens across the country “who are currently in the reserve and primarily those who served in the army and have particular military specialties [to] be called up for military service.” The Russian president needed to replace troops killed in the war in Ukraine. Soon after the announcement tens of thousands of young Russian men fled the country to avoid going to war. Putin still needed more troops and recently decided to call on Abkhazians to help. It has not gone as planned.  

“Circassian activists have called on the leaders of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic to come out against Putin’s war in Ukraine and reject the partial mobilization,” according to Giorgi Manabde of the Jamestown Foundation. The publication Zapravakbr.ru reports that the Circassians are following the lead of Abkhazia, a small break away region of Georgia on the eastern side of the Black Sea, in rejecting Putin. Abkhazia was taken over by Russia after the 2008 war and has been formally blockaded by Georgia since that time. In 2014 Abkhazia signed a partnership with Russia. 

Some authorities in Abkhazia today, however, reject Putin’s plea, although a large percentage of the area’s 250,000 residents are of Russian heritage. Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister Nikolai Pankov simultaneously announced that the 90% of Abkhazians with Russian citizenship would now be subject to a forced mobilization. Pankov fell back on the false claim that Russia “saved” the population economically and they owed Russia. It was time to pay their debt.  Beslan Tarba, the pro-Russian military commissar of Abkhazia, responded  saying “Of course, we will do this. There are no debts to anyone, but we are always there, we are in favor.” 

Barba’s comment was not well-received by the local population. Dissenters from inside the Ministry of Defense in Abkhazia labeled it “Tarba’s private views” and pointed out that they do not reflect the position of the Abkhaz  government. The Foreign Ministry accused Pankov of attempting to “…sow panic in Abkhaz society.” To date, Abkhazia has not sent any military units to Ukraine to fight alongside regular Russian troops. In contrast, as of October, several thousand volunteers from Georgia have fought with Ukrainian forces. 

Abkhaz society so strongly rejected Putin’s call up that Moscow quickly relented, abandoned its recruitment plans, and backed away saying it was meant only for those Russian citizens who are registered in the officially recognized territory of the Russian Federation. Manabde says that almost all Abkhazians have a Russian passport but only a small part of them are registered in Russia and live in Moscow or other Russian cities. Most of the young men have returned to Abkhazia, he points out, where Russian military commissars would not be able to mobilize them. In South Ossetia, another Georgian province also seized by Russia in 2008,  dual Russian – Abkhazia citizens were barred from returning to South Ossetia. 

On October 13 Abkhaz President Aslan Bzhania announced a mobilization but stressed that its purpose is not a war against Ukraine but rather “protection against Georgian aggression.” What is perhaps most revealing in the war of words is that it appears Georgia may actually open a ‘second front’ against Russia in Georgia. Throughout history Russian leaders have feared two-front wars, even those they knew they could win. Georgia is now considering holding a referendum on the issue asking its citizens if they want war with Russia. If Georgia opens a second front, it will symbolically change the nature of Putin’s “special military operation” in Ukraine.  As such, Manabde says, “opposition to Moscow’s mobilization will only serve to further exacerbate tensions between the center and periphery.” The war in Ukraine may not stay contained for much longer. Harvard University News last month suggested that if Putin’s “losing streak” continues, Western Europe may see conflict. 

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Photo: Pixabay

The new school year is well underway, but students, teachers, and parents are being subjected to an educational and union bureaucracy that prioritizes the spreading of radical ideology over actual instruction, and the demands of union leaders over the needs of students.

The problem is widespread, and extends from kindergarten straight through graduate school. The vested interests, including the militantly aggressive left-wing union, the American Federation of Teachers, (AFT) have engaged in harsh tactics when their agenda is questioned or exposed.

An AMAC analysis found that in “the span of less than a week [in 2021] two California teachers were removed from their posts for openly attempting to indoctrinate their students in radical liberal ideology. Gabriel Gipe, an AP government teacher at a California high school, was caught on camera explicitly stating that his goal was to turn his students into ‘revolutionaries.’ Meanwhile, Kristin Pitzen recorded herself gleefully declaring that she removed the American flag from her sixth-grade classroom and made her students say the Pledge of Allegiance to a Gay Pride Flag. Both of these incidents come on the heels of another case where a teacher was removed for calling her students’ parents ‘dumb’ for being Trump supporters, going on to say that Trump ‘sucks’ and is ‘a literal moron.’”

Many of the issues were brought to a head during the pandemic, when the AFT, over the objections of many parents, sought to keep schools closed.

An example was recently provided in a Daily Mail examination. Reporter Harriet Alexander found that “A research assistant at the California Teachers Association dug for ‘dirt’ on parents who were calling for the reopening of schools during the pandemic – suspicious that they were being ‘used toward a larger goal to disrupt, destabilize and ‘burn down’ public schools’.”

What is being advocated?  Just one example::  The New York Post reports that “New York is showering taxpayer funds on a group that sends drag queens into city schools — often without parental knowledge or consent — even as parents in other states protest increasingly aggressive efforts to expose kids to gender-bending performers. Last month alone, Drag Story Hour NYC — a nonprofit whose outrageously cross-dressed performers interact with kids as young as 3 — earned $46,000 from city contracts for appearances at public schools, street festivals, and libraries, city records show.”

The diversion from appropriate curricula to ideological-driven instruction extends beyond grammar school up into higher education. Mansur Shaheen quotes  Dr Stanley Goldfarb, a nephrologist at the University of Pennsylvania: “Leading United States medical schools are beginning to value ‘wokeism’ instead of teaching and preparing the next generation of doctors, experts warn.” Goldfarb highlighted programs at major medical teaching institutions such as Harvard, Columbia, Duke and Pittsburgh.  ‘Across these medical schools, there is now a default assumption that applicants understand and accept the tenets of woke ideology,’”

Why has this occurred? Much has to do with the way teachers themselves are being trained. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis believes that students seeking teaching degrees have been deeply inculcated in radical ideology at teachers’ colleges.

The Pacific Institute found that “It is important to understand the influence of schools of education, which train prospective teachers, on the political and ideological leanings of teachers. Dr. Greg Forster, Friedman Fellow at the school-choice organization EdChoice and a top education researcher, last year wrote that university education schools indoctrinate future teachers in left-wing ideology. ‘Peruse the course catalog of any major education school, or read the Twitter feeds of the professors,’ observes Forster, and you will ‘find yourself swimming in an ocean of hard-left ideology: ‘critical theory’ that says there is no truth, only power; ‘intersectionality’ that says you’re not allowed to be right about anything unless you’re right (that is, left) about everything; cheerleading for every fashionable left-leaning cause.’”

Illustration: Pixabay

Pope Francis and the ruling Chinese Communist Party have renewed a controversial agreement on the appointment of bishops for an additional two years. The deal was originally set in 2018. The Catholic News Agency (CAN) has reported that two bishops had already been appointed under the “regulatory framework established by the agreement”: Bishop Antonio Yao Shun, of Jining Autonomous Region of Inner Mongolia, and Bishop Stefano Xu Hongwei, of Hanzhong in Shaanxi Province.

As part of the original agreement, reports CAN, “state officials in different regions of China removed crosses and demolished church buildings, and underground Catholics and clergy have reported harassment and detention. A 2020 report of the U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China found that Chinese Catholics suffered ‘increasing persecution’ after the deal.”

In an article for the religious publication Aleteia, Zelda Caldwell quotes human rights lawyer Nina Shea’s warning that The Catholic Church in China is seeing “its Christian teachings quietly swapped out for communist ones…the arrest of Cardinal Joseph Zen, the 90-year-old emeritus Bishop of Hong Kong, has put the spotlight on religious persecution by the Beijing regime.

Despite that, the current Pontiff is not only comfortable with and apparently sympathetic to Marxist philosophy.  

Pope Francis, is the most political pope in modern history, and his deal with the ruling Chinese Communist Party has upended over two thousand years of Catholic tradition. Many Catholics believe he has betrayed the steadfast loyalty of his faith’s 10 million adherents in that nation. In marked contrast to his predecessors, he has stated that “I can only say that the communists have stolen our flag. The flag of the poor is Christian. Poverty is at the center of the Gospel.”

The government wants Roman Catholics in China to attend only state-sanctioned churches, ruled over by bishops agreed to by the Communist dictatorship. Underground churches in that country, who brave oppression, continue the religion’s ancient practice of allegiance to the Pontiff, seen as the heir, in an unbroken line stretching back to Peter the Apostle, who was, according to the New Testament, appointed head of the church by Christ himself.

Many of Pope Francis’ statements have raised serious questions about whether his worldview is sufficiently informed. A U.S. News analysis noted that the Pontiff has not watched television since 1990.

Commentator Wayne Allyn Root  has written that “This pope neither seems to understand, nor care that his views on issues…often put him in bed with atheists and socialists, who don’t believe in God, mock religion and think the Bible is a work of fiction. He crusades for social justice, yet chose to embrace the Castro brothers – evil murderers who have imprisoned, tortured and murdered generations of Cubans for expressing their opinions and questioning the authority of a tyrant…He chose not to visit or even be seen with Cubans imprisoned because of their political views.”

Pope Francis’ lack of a more thorough and well-rounded understanding of the world is leading to exactly the opposite of the goals he, with all good intentions, advocates.

When the Pope ventures into areas beyond his theological expertise, that can cause problems.  Damien Thompson, writing in Spectator writes: “What should worry Francis is that moderate conservative Catholics are losing confidence in him. The New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, who is no one’s idea of an extremist, believes that ‘this pope may be preserved from error only if the church itself resists him’. Cristina Odone, former editor of the Catholic Herald, says that ‘Francis achieved miracles with his compassionate, off-the-cuff comments that detoxified the Catholic brand. He personifies optimism — but when he tries to turn this into policy he isn’t in command of the procedures or the details. The result is confusion.’”

The Biden Administration has released a 48 page National Security Strategy document. What makes it unique from similar papers presented by prior presidents is that it broadens the definition of national security from defense issues to a broad range of topics.

The document stresses that “We are now in the early years of a decisive decade for America and the world. The terms of geopolitical competition between the major powers will be set. The window of opportunity to deal with shared threats, like climate change, will narrow drastically. We face two strategic challenges. The first is that the post-Cold War era is definitively over and a competition is underway between the major powers to shape what comes next. No nation is better positioned to succeed in this competition than the United States, as long as we work in common cause with those who share our vision …The second is that while this competition is underway, people all over the world are struggling to cope with the effects of shared challenges that cross borders—whether it is climate change, food insecurity, communicable diseases, terrorism, energy shortages, or inflation. These shared challenges are not marginal issues that are secondary to geopolitics. They are at the very core of national and international security and must be treated as such. By their very nature, these challenges require governments to cooperate if they are to solve them. But we must be clear-eyed that we will have to tackle these challenges within a competitive international environment where heightening geopolitical competition, nationalism and populism render this cooperation even more difficult and will require us to think and act in new ways… We do not seek conflict or a new Cold War. Rather, we are trying to support every country, regardless of size or strength, in exercising the freedom to make choices that serve their interests. This is a critical difference between our vision, which aims to preserve the autonomy and rights of less powerful states, and that of our rivals, which does not.”

The unusual emphasis on non-defense matters has provoked criticism from key U.S. officials. The strategy is based, as U.S. Representative Mike Rogers (R-AL), lead Republican of the House Armed Services Committee, states,  “…on a fantasy world where all nations, even adversaries, work together to advance the common good. The President should be reminded that Russia, China and Iran, don’t care about the common good, and they don’t want to work with us to achieve common goals. they want to destroy us, and they have taken every step necessary to achieve that end. Russia hasn’t developed the world’s most powerful nuclear arsenal just for show. China has not engaged in the most prolonged period of dramatically increased military spending to promote peace and harmony. “
 
At the end of the first cold war, America slashed its defense spending.  The response by Beijing was to conduct one of the largest military buildups in history. The response by Moscow was to annex Crimea, and eventually invade the rest of Ukraine. Iran’s leadership  continues to chant “Death to America” as it develops its nuclear arsenal.  North Korea is on the verge of having an intercontinental ballistic missile capability that could destroy the U.S. 

During his tenure in offense, Mr. Biden has proposed defense appropriations that, after accounting for inflation, actually reduces Pentagon spending.  It opens his administration to criticisms that he is following the Progressive playbook that downplays foreign military threats, because in the eyes of the hard left, every penny spent on defense is a penny not spent on the type of giveaway domestic programs they employ to buy votes.

Photo: A fighter jet attached to an aviation brigade of air force under the PLA Western Theater Command takes off for a flight training exercise on September 18, 2022. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Yu Zeqi)

The disruptions occurring in Ukraine, Taiwan and the Middle East may seem far away, but the Russian, Chinese and Iranian forces that are responsible are on America’s doorstep.

Little noted in the media, an exercise hosted by Venezuela entitled “Sniper Frontier” has brought the military forces of Moscow, Beijing and Tehran to the western hemisphere, as close to the U.S. as the Caribbean.

These hostile forces have been establishing a regular presence on America’s southern doorstep.

Russian troops are now in Nicaragua.

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 earlier this year before a Senate Armed Services Committee. They revealed that Russian and Chinese forces in the New World are designed to hold critical American infrastructure “at risk.”

Some of the threat has come under the radar as financial moves.

The Gatestone Institute’s Gordon Chang has reported that “About 55 miles east of Palm Beach, Florida on Grand Bahama Island, a Hong Kong-based business is spending about $3 billion on a deep-water container facility, the Freeport Container Port.” Chang notes the facility may eventually become a Chinese naval base. He noted that the Chinese military is already in the Caribbean, in Cuba, apparently to collect signals intelligence from the U.S.

As we reported in March, In testimony to Congress, Admiral Craig S. Faller, the Commander of the United States Southern Command stated that “Russia doubled its naval deployments in this region, going from five (2008-2014), to 11 (2015-2020). Russia is trying to make inroads in the hemisphere by providing security training and has conducted $2.3 billion in weapons and military equipment sales in the last 10 years. At the same time, Moscow is working to discredit the U.S. by flooding the region’s information space with disinformation, to include hundreds of articles distorting U.S. security actions. In 2020, Russian Spanish-language media outlets more than doubled their social media followers from 7 million to over 18 million.” Admiral Faller noted that 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.

In 2019, there were reports that the Russian military had returned to significant levels of activity within Cuba, and that its nuclear bombers were flying around the Caribbean. That’s only the tip of a growing iceberg.

The U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission reports that Venezuela maintains strong ties to the Chinese military “through a high number of official visits, military officer exchanges, port calls, and limited arms sales.”  Venezuela has purchased Chinese arms and military equipment, including radar and aircraft.

A Council of the America’s study  found that “Running a cash-strapped country didn’t stop Maduro from announcing his plans to “modernize” the Venezuelan Armed Forces with new military equipment, marking another aspect of Venezuela’s relationship with China and Russia.

According to the RT news service, Moscow seeks to create a semi-permanent base for the Russian long-range aviation on one of Venezuela’s islands in the Caribbean Sea as it prepares for long-time military presence in the US ‘backyard’.