Author: Kaitlyn Williams

Bekzat Maxutkanuly, a Chinese-born, ethnic Kazakh activist from the Xinjiang region of northwest China is designing and officiating a new political party in Kazakhstan to counter Chinese President Xi’s increasing impact on the Xinjiang region. 

The Chinese government has formed detention camps in an effort to suppress the Uyghur Muslim minority in Xinjiang. Over 1 million Uyghur Muslims have been detained in the 85 identified camps since 2017. Along with the Uyghurs, thousands of Kazakh, Krgyz, Uzbek and other Central Asian nationals have also been detained by Chinese authorities in Xinjiang. 

President Xi is visiting Kazakhstan. Maxutkanuly is appalled by the welcome President Xi has received, given the horrendous treatment of Kazakh people in China under his rule. 

This is important for US foreign policy.  Central Asia is ranked as the least democratic region on Earth. Maxutkanuly’s new political party raises awareness of the issue of Chinese detention centers and the effects that they are having on a global scale. Of course, China is a communist dictatorship so the likelihood of this new Kazakh political party amounting to anything that invokes change inside of China is negligible at best. This does not mean that nothing can be done to speak out against President Xi’s actions in the Xinjiang region.

Maxutkanuly is encouraging Kazakhstan to become more democratic, in an attempt to get the government to care about the Central Asian people that are currently being detained in China. He is already leading an activism campaign against the treatment of the Uygurs, the Kazakhs, and other Central Asians in the Xinjiang region. He believes that activism is not enough when competing against such a global power like China. By creating a political party that focuses on the interest of Kazakhs being detained in China, the Kazakh government will become involved and the issue becomes a dispute between the states. A dispute between the governments of Kazakhstan and China holds more leverage than activist groups in Kazakhstan simply being angry at China.

China is a major investor in the Kazakh oil and gas industry, which complicates the matter. There are reports that privately, the Kazakh government has pleaded for the safe release of its citizens, but there have been no public statements that show any displeasure between the Kazakh government and President Xi. Kazakhstan abstained from voting on the UN resolution on whether to condemn or support China’s policies in Xinjiang. 

President Xi visited Kazakhstan on September 14th, and was met with nothing but support from the Kazakh people. Maxutkanuly feels that this display of support is not only embarrassing, but also damaging to the ethnic Kazakhs being held illegally in detention centers in the Xinjiang region of China.

In Maxutkanuly’s words “To achieve our goals, we need to change the political situation in Kazakhstan first.” He hopes by democratizing Kazakhstan, improvements can be made in the government that will lead to the release of all prisoners being held in the Xinjiang region.  

For over three decades, Maxutkanuly has been organizing petitions, and peaceful protests, and hosting news conferences, and trying to shed light on the mistreatment of ethnic Kazakhs in the Xinjiang Region on a global scale.

 He began his activism by joining an unregistered organization called Atajurt that was run by Serikzhan Bilash, another Chinese-born Kazakh. Bilash was arrested for his involvement in Atajurt, and Maxutkanuly stepped up to lead the organization. Now, Maxutkanuly feels that it is time 

A functioning democracy in Central Asia should be a point of excitement for the United States. The region is heavily influenced by both China and Russia, and is geographically situated in a democratic dead zone. Between the terrorist organizations running much of the Middle East, the dictatorship-adjacent monarchies in the area, and two massive communist powers in the region, there is little room for democracy. 

The Central Asian countries that were only granted independence after the fall of the Soviet Union have gone through a variety of short-lived governmental systems. These countries (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan. Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan) have not had the opportunities to find a fitting and successful regime type. They were under Russian control for hundreds of years, and under the control of Mongol Empire before that. This goes to show that the Central Asian region is still in a young, malleable phase where regime type can be changed successfully with influence from a strong democracy. 

The US should encourage Maxutkanuly’s plans to democratize Kazakhstan as it would put a democracy in one of the last regions on the planet without strong democracies. One way that the West could encourage democratization of Kazakhstan would be to invest in Kazakh oil. This would relieve pressure off of Kazakhstan to please China, as China’s investment in Kazakh oil would not be the only investment.

Kaitlyn Williams interns at the American Analysis of News and Media.

Illustration: Pixabay

It’s time to put aside the politically-correct propaganda and have an honest discussion about what is happening to single and two family-home communities across the United States.  Examine why elected officials have taken such a keen interest in all this.

The problem is fairly equally divided between greedy politicians and progressive ideology. Owners of one and two-family homes and small community-based businesses are not likely to be big contributors to campaigns. Nor are they likely to provide jobs to the relatives and supporters of elected officials, or even to the mayors, senators, congressmen, and state legislators themselves when they retire or get booted out of office.  If a developer decides he can make a profit by ruining a community, the greedy elected officials will back them up. So, too, the appointed hacks in organizations such as city zoning or similar boards.

But those folks need cover for their inappropriate support.  Hence, the development of phrases such as “affordable housing programs,” “scatter site housing,” and similar excuses.  Oppose these phony dodges, and you are branded a racist, or at the very least a heartless cad. Sneering, elitist pseudo-journalists join in this crusade to brand people simply protecting their neighborhoods as a collection of Archie Bunkers.

It’s long been considered part of the American dream—a home and backyard of one’s own, away from the noise and congestion of the inner city. However, some consider it an anti-environmental form of housing that also happens to be politically troublesome as it fosters an anti-high tax, independent way of life that progressives deem repulsive.

The second part involves raw power politics.

Joel Klotin, writing in a Real Clear Politics  article, believes that “The next culture war will not be about issues like gay marriage or abortion, but about something more fundamental: how Americans choose to live. In the crosshairs now will not be just recalcitrant Christians or crazed billionaire racists, but the vast majority of Americans who either live in suburban-style housing or aspire to do so in the future. Roughly four in five home buyers prefer a single-family home, but much of the political class increasingly wants them to live differently…You are a political party, and you want to secure the electoral majority. But what happens, as is occurring to the Democrats, when the damned electorate that just won’t live the way—in dense cities and apartments—that you have deemed is best for them?… University of Washington demographer Richard Morrill notes that the vast majority of the 153 million Americans who live in metropolitan areas with populations of more than 500,000  live in the lower-density suburban places Democrats think they should not. Only 60 million live in core cities. Despite these realities, the Democratic Party, [starting with] Barack Obama…increasingly allied itself with its relatively small core urban base.”

Obama’s goals are being carried out by Biden, and progressive mayors and governors. Former New York State Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey Ross, writing in the New York Post, warns that the anti-private home initiative “would change towns everywhere and, for many families, torpedo the American Dream of a house with a patch of lawn. Advocates for abolishing zoning mock suburbanites for worrying about home values. But for most people, their home is their biggest investment, and they waited years to afford it.”

If politicians were truly concerned about affordable housing, they could easily reduce property taxes, which would make rental housing easier to build and maintain in appropriate venues, and would allow the elderly to stay in the private homes they have occupied for so long and raised families in.  They could also allow modern and less expensive forms of construction to be utilized.

It’s not just an East Coast phenomenon. Progressives in California and elsewhere have been attacking single family homeowners for years.

Illustration: Pixabay

“Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.”

–Captain Ahab, Moby Dick by Herman Melville

It came as no surprise to anyone that Liz Cheney (R-WY) lost her primary to retain her seat as Wyoming’s only Congressperson.  “With 80% of the vote counted before midnight, (Harriet) Hageman was leading Cheney by more than 32 points.”  The daughter of the former Vice President was doomed to lose her seat months ago, when “(t)he Wyoming Republican Party voted…to censure Rep. Liz Cheney and also asked her to resign for her vote last month to impeach then-President Donald Trump after the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6.” 

But Liz Cheney won’t give up her own hunt for the white whale.  “Cheney told CBS News‘ Robert Costa that Tuesday’s primary is “certainly the beginning of a battle that is going to continue to go on”…(i)n her closing message, Liz Cheney made it clear that her focus remains squarely on Trump: ‘The lie that the 2020 presidential election was stolen is insidious. It preys on those who love their country. It is a door Donald Trump opened to manipulate Americans to abandon their principles, to sacrifice their freedom, to justify violence, to ignore the rulings of our courts and the rule of law.'” 

Liz Cheney is only one example of our national leaders who have decided to spit their last political breaths at Donald Trump.  The most obvious, and glaring example of this unreasonable hatred of the 45th President is the search warrant recently executed at Mar A Lago by 30 Agents from the Washington DC office of the FBI.

The Florida Federal Magistrate who signed the warrant, Bruce Reinhart,  “attacked President Trump for his comments about former congressman and woke hero John Lewis…(i)n a Facebook post dated 14 January 2017 (before he was appointed a Magistrate), Reinhart (said) “Thank you, (former Labor Secretary) Robert Reich, for saying what many of us feel…John Lewis is the conscience of America. Donald Trump doesn’t have the moral stature to kiss John Lewis’s feet.”

 Perhaps after his appointment, Magistrate Reinhart had repudiated these feelings about President Trump?  Not according to Reinhart himself; “U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce W. Reinhart in West Palm Beach, Fla…recused himself from the former president’s lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and other Democrats in the Russia collusion scandal, citing concerns he couldn’t be impartial…'(t)he undersigned Magistrate Judge, to whom the above-styled cause has been assigned, hereby recuses himself and refers the case to the Clerk of Court for reassignment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455,” Reinhart wrote in his order of recusal in the Trump v. Clinton case. You can read the document here: Trump v. Clinton 

“The statute that the magistrate cited for his recusal states in part that a judge ‘shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned’ and then describes the various circumstances that could trigger such concerns. They include ‘a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts’ or prior work as a lawyer for a party involved in the case. Reinhart’s order did not specify the conflict or source of his concern for recusal.” 

The Recusal Order is dated June 22, 2022.  Six weeks later, on August 5, 2022, Magistrate Reinhart signed the search warrant for Mar A Lago.  Did his concern that his “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” evaporate in that time?

A reading of the search warrant indicates otherwise.

Magistrate Reinhart’s warrant authorizes a search of “1100 S Ocean Blvd, Palm Beach, FL 33480…described as a resort, club, and residence located near the intersection of Southern Blvd and S Ocean Blvd. It is described as a mansion with approximately 58 bedrooms, 33 bathrooms, on a 17-acre estate. The locations to be searched include the ’45 Office,’ all storage rooms, and all other rooms or areas within the premises used or available to be used by FPOTUS and his staff and in which boxes or documents could be stored, including all structures or buildings on the estate. It does not include areas currently (i.e., at the time of the search) being occupied, rented, or used by third parties (such as Mar-a-Largo Members) and not otherwise used or available to be used by FPOTUS and his staff, such as private guest suites.”

Note the very broad area to be searched – “all storage rooms…all other rooms or areas within the premises used or available to be used by (former President Trump)…all structures or buildings on the estate.”  Pretty much covers the whole place, doesn’t it?

Equally broad is the description of the items to be searched for: “All physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 2071 , or 1519, including the following: a. Any physical documents with classification markings, along with any containers/boxes (including any other contents) in which such documents are located, as well as any other containers/boxes that are collectively stored or found together with the aforementioned documents and containers/boxes; b. Information, including communications in any form, regarding the retrieval, storage, or transmission of national defense information or classified material; c. Any government and/or Presidential Records created between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021; or d. Any evidence of the knowing alteration, destruction, or concealment of any government and/or Presidential Records, or of any documents with classification markings.”

A list of what items weren’t covered by this warrant would have been shorter.

Blinded by his hatred of Donald Trump, perhaps Judge Reinhart forgot that a search warrant must identify a specific place to be searched, and particular items to be seized. “The Fourth Amendment (to the United States Constitution) itself identifies the criteria for obtaining a lawful search warrant. A police officer, or other official seeking a warrant…must ‘particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’ A search warrant is invalid if it covers too broad an area or does not identify specific items or persons.”  (Emphasis added).

 As noted in the case of United States v. Galpin, 720 F3d 436 (2nd Circuit, 2013), The chief evil that prompted the framing and adoption of the Fourth Amendment was the ‘indiscriminate searches and seizures’ conducted by the British ‘under the authority of ‘general warrants’…(t)o prevent such ‘general, exploratory rummaging in a person’s belongings’ and the attendant privacy violations…the Fourth Amendment provides that ‘a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity’…the Supreme Court has held that the particularity requirement ‘makes general searches … impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another. As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant’…we have emphasized that ‘a failure to describe the items to be seized with as much particularity as the circumstances reasonably allow offends the Fourth Amendment because there is no assurance that the permitted invasion of a suspect’s privacy and property are no more than absolutely necessary.’” (Citations omitted).

Following these general principles, and reviewing the extremely broad language of the search warrant quoted above, it is obvious that Magistrate Reinhart authorized a “fishing expedition” at Mar A Lago, when he should have (a) recused himself from hearing the warrant application, as he did six weeks earlier, (b) limited the search location and items to be searched for, or (c ) reject the search warrant all together as overbroad. 

Only someone who bears unreasoning hatred for the 45th President can justify a search so repugnant to the standards established by the Fourth Amendment.  Someone like Liz Cheney.  Or Magistrate Bruce Reinhart. 

Much blame for this violation of the former President’s rights can be assigned to the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  However, the court which issues the search warrant is the gatekeeper, sworn to uphold the Constitution and insure that the rights of the accused are protected and respected.

In this respect, Magistrate Reinhart has utterly failed at his job.  Instead of maintaining impartiality and respect for the requirements of the law, Bruce Reinhart joined the hunt.

“Aye, aye! and I’ll chase him round Good Hope, and round the Horn, and round the Norway Maelstrom, and round perdition’s flames before I give him up.”

Captain Ahab, Moby Dick by Herman Melville

Judge Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Director Lt. Gen. Scott Berrier recently shared his views and mission priorities concerning key issues. The DIA, like the CIA, is an intelligence organization. The CIA focuses on providing intelligence to the White House. The DIA is the provider of foreign intelligence relating to combat-related missions.

Berrier explained DIA’s long-term strategy to address Russia and China in an era of strategic competition. He noted that “The success that the intelligence community had about the prediction of the Russian invasion [of Ukraine] was really, really interesting,” He further explained that DIA’s biggest successes came from what he described as a “dynamic policy environment” that allowed DIA to modify existing policies to share intelligence with more and more partners. In doing so, the intelligence community was able to convince partners and allies of Russia’s impending invasion and when it would happen. 

Based on what the DIA chief stated, it raises the question of why the Biden Administration failed to equip Ukraine with defensive weapons earlier, or what the U.S. President meant when he claimed he wouldn’t object to a “little” invasion.

While squarely focused on Russia, China and global defense in general, DIA is also investing in the cyberspace domain. It is leveraging data available through open-source intelligence (also known as OSINT), private sector partnerships and the expertise at U.S. Cyber Command. More and more, the first blow in warfare comes not from bombs but from internet attacks on key infrastructure.  The recent assault on NYC airports is a prime example. Though not part of an attack on America, it was a test of Moscow’s ability to do so in the future.

On the difference between foundational intelligence and cyber intelligence, Berrier said, “If you think about foundational military intelligence, it’s based on understanding what the foreign militaries have, what their capabilities are, based on the physical presence of these things. It’s harder in cyber because you may know where a cyber facility physically is located, but you really don’t know what activity is going on inside that facility.”

He added that publicly available information and social media add a layer of complexity that further challenges cyber intelligence and remains a challenge for the intelligence community. 


The DIA chief noted that substantial investment in cyber network defense is crucial to national security. DIA is investing in manpower and expertise and leveraging OSINT growth to expand the foundational understanding of foreign defense-related cyber issues and sharing OSINT with non-traditional partners. 

“We think that there’s room for discussion about what the future of cyber intelligence really is in partnership with Cyber Command, NSA and others across the community to really define where it is we need to go,” he said.

Berrier also discussed the history of The Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System, or JWICS, a global intelligence network used by the defense intelligence community.
“We are going to invest significant dollars over the next five years to continue to modernize JWICS to ensure that it’s as hard as it can be; that it’s taking advantage of access to cloud data; and that we, along with our IC partners, are in the right place at the right time to deliver the information that we do as quickly as we can.”

MARS, DIA’s Machine-assisted Rapid-repository System, will fully replace the Military Intelligence Integrated Database, or MIDB, by 2024. Berrier noted that MIDB is an effective but dated database and that MARS will provide a richer program for analysts by infusing data with artificial intelligence and machine learning.   

Berrier outlined the four lines of effort in DIA’s 10-year Strategy – intelligence advantage, the culture of innovation, allies and partnerships, and adaptive workforce. 

“The third one, maybe the most important, is Allies and Partnerships,” said Berrier. “Over the course of this latest conflict with Russia and Ukraine, our allies and partners have been key. And we need to foster that and we need to nurture those relationships to the best of our ability. So that when we need help, that help is there and we can call.”

The refusal, by a biased and deeply partisan media, to openly discuss the massive, unprecedented record of failure on key issues by both the Biden Administration and its’ progressive allies is deeply harming the nation. What is largely ignored by the American press is acknowledged by the world, and the U.S. population.

During his recent trip, European leaders urged the President to back off of his illogical environmental policies.  The damage done to the American and continental economies, the pain caused to ordinary citizens, has been wholly unnecessary. Whether or not one agrees with Biden’s environmental views, the reality is that there is, for decades to come, no substitute beyond at most 20% for fossil fuels.  The recently released information on the President’s suspicious provision of energy to a Chinese company his son Hunter had a financial interest in renders this topic even more relevant. 

Despite that reality, most Democrat leaders and the fawning media have refused to take steps to truthfully address that and numerous other Biden-created disasters, including the Oval Office’s ignoring of the crime wave that has turned American cities into war zones.

The current President has been gifted with news coverage that glossed over a panoply of extraordinary failures. Any single one of those fiascos would be sufficient to sink a presidency over a four-year period. The current White House’s debacles have risen to a crescendo in just under two years.

The Biden-Harris induced collapse of the southern border and the transport of illegals across the United States, with no substantive attempt to deal with the probability of their Covid positivity (coming from regions with extremely low vaccination rates) or membership in drug and human smuggling cartels has been glossed over.

The suspicious killing of the Keystone-XL pipeline, while helping Russia develop its Nord Stream pipeline, has been largely ignored. The reluctance to provide any encouragement to the people of Cuba in their struggle to gain a measure of freedom has been shamefully disregarded.

The warping of the Pentagon for political purposes has been glossed over.

Biden falsely campaigned on promises to be a “unifier,” but has used exceptionally divisive language. And of course, the ethical implications of the Biden family’s financial gain from China have not been given the examination it so desperately deserves.

The Administration has openly turned the machinery of government against American’s freedom of speech.  One example: labelling parents who merely want a say in their children’s education as “domestic terrorists.”  Repeatedly, it has used one scheme after another to attack the First Amendment.

From the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan to the failure to take steps to dissuade Putin from his Ukraine invasion as the Kremlin butcher built up his forces, Biden’s near-pacifist foreign policy, including his underfunding of the military, has brought the planet to the brink of disaster.

While the press and leftist politicians seek to ignore all of this, the public has risen up. Numerous polls reveal the massive disdain for the current White House.

That may be changing.  This spring, the Washington Post and the New York Times belatedly, if marginally, acknowledged the revelations of the Hunter Biden Laptop, which exposed influence peddling that should be promptly and thoroughly prosecuted.  

They may have had no choice, as the public begins to express their fury.  At a recent July 4 event, Progressive Rep. Illian Omar (D-MN) was booed out of an event by an audience furious with her blatant hatred of the United States, not by white Republicans, but by Somali-Americans.

Hopefully, that and similar events will be just the beginning.

The crimes of Rep. Adam Schiff, (D-CA) who virtually tore the nation apart with his fraudulent claims of “Russian Collusion” may someday be adjudicated. Further, whatever one thinks of recent Supreme Court decisions, the intentional failure to timely provide protection for Justices by the Biden Administration’s Department of Justice and the numerous threats against them by Senator Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) must be carefully examined and, if appropriate, prosecuted.

America faces a crisis unprecedented since the Civil War. Only an honest debate by elected leaders and the media can avert calamity.

Photo: White House

Turkey, Belarus, and Georgia have something in common this fall. All three are reevaluating their   relationship with Russia. Belarus fears the consequences of closer military involvement with Moscow in its war in Ukraine. Georgia, seeing how badly the war is going to Putin, has presented the idea of holding a national referendum on opening a second front against Russia. Turkey, however, may be the real game changer that alters the balance of power in the region.  It is a NATO member sitting in a strategic geopolitical position. “Turkey has become the primary armed drone seller to the Ukrainian military with a recent combat record in Donbas. This drastic swing is making things much more difficult for analysts and policymakers. The Ukrainian drone strikes in Donbas and Turkish unmanned systems mushrooming in Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus have further complicated Turkish-Russian relations, according to Can Kasapoglu of the Jamestown Foundation. 

Turkey is more dependent on militarized drones than any other NATO state. Last year well-known political analyst Francis Fukuyama blogged that “it seems Turkey’s use of drones is going to change the nature of land power in ways that will undermine existing force structures, in the way that the Dreadnought obsoleted earlier classes of battleships, or the aircraft carrier made battleships themselves obsolete at the beginning of World War II.” Kasapoglu suggest that Turkish-Russian bilateral relations are shaped by a careful compartmentalization of strategic interests and divergences and are transactional in nature. While their strategic interests remain at odds, Ankara continues to have a gigh level of economic interactions with Russia. It buys Russian natural gas alongside military purchases such as the S-400, a high-end Russian strategic SAM system that triggered CAATSA (Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act) sanctions.

Turkey’s long-standing rivalry with Russia in the Black Sea holds Russia’s hegemonic ambitions in the area in check. Putin refrains from using the “energy card” against Turkey as Ankara has been a careful counter-balancer to Moscow and avoided a NATO-like hard-liner approach. Turkey’s Black Sea policy prioritizes regional cooperation with the other Black Sea countries, rather than solely depending on its Western allies, says Kasapoglu. Turkey’s goal is avoid escalation in the Black Sea. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu often calls for calm in the sea basin and for Ukraine and Russia to solve their problems through diplomacy. At the same time, Ankara sold drones o Kyiv and is building a joint drone bomber production facility with Russia. Turkey isolates its economic and military policies. Its Black Sea policy is pragmatic, transactional, and loyal to maintaining the status quo in the region.

Turkish foreign and security policy is shaped by three main drivers, according to Kasapoglu: 1) attaining long-term strategic autonomy in key geopolitical affairs and self-sufficiency in defense technologies, 2) building new partnerships to minimize Turkey’s over-dependence on its traditional Western allies, and 3) avoiding direct confrontation with Russia. “The latter”, he says, “bears significant implications for Turkish military policy, while the first and second drivers can, interestingly, make it harder for Turkey to avoid a collision course with Russia.” Over the last two decades Turkey’s self-sufficiency has moved from 80% dependency on external military supplies to 20% today. Drone warfare, in particular, has turned into the crown jewel for Turkey’s military strategic posture. It translates into defense sales and a “geopolitical outreach asset,” says Kaspoglu. More important, perhaps, is that part of Turkey’s drone sales take place in the Russian hinterland, are emerging as the best available solutions in international weapons markets given their price and combat effectiveness. Ukraine, Poland, and soon the Baltic states, all will have signed agreements to procure militarized drones from Turkey despite Russia’s objections. Turkish-made drone assets are a powerful deterrent that could soon surround Russia’s Western and Southern military districts.  It could neutralize the Russian threat at its source for Turkey and turn Ankara into a preemptive regional actor in southeastern Europe rather than a defense-oriented member of NATO. Turkey’s rise in status in the South Caucasus also helps it develop important partnerships of special geostrategic value that serve its Black Sea interests. 

In the post-Cold War era turkey is emerging as an upcoming NATO power ready to check Russian aggression, despite some balancing with Moscow in the past. Putin has reason to fear that the Black Sea could become a “NATO lake” in the future. Kaspoglu suggests that “it remains to be seen how the Turkish administration will fine tune its compartmentalized cooperation and competition patterns with Russia. Regardless, Turkey remains a “dronized” military power on Russia’s doorstep, something Moscow will not be able to ignore.

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

This week marks the opening of the 20^th Chinese Communist National Party Congress (NPC) which is held every five years. This is the second NPC since Xi Jinping came to power in 2012. He will once again occupy center stage when he is officially chosen to serve a third term as Party General Secretary. It won’t be all festivities for Xi, though, as the Chinese economy and the country’s foreign policy are facing serious obstacles. Some of those are due to poor decisions made by Xi himself. 

Economic self-sufficiency emerged as a major policy objective under Xi. In recent years he has attempted to move China further away from its connections to the US economy with mixed results. Chinese domestic economic growth, while still ahead of the more mature western economies, must deal with an expanding middle class that is finding it harder to locate good paying jobs and housing. One recent report out of Washington said that “Beijing’s planners have also allowed a housing bubble to grow, which is at risk of bursting.”  Xi must keep social unrest low to retain power.

China has become more integrated with the world economy under his leadership although in many ways it counters his own economic policy. To secure power over the last decade Xi purged rivals and created campaigns to reinforce loyalties both to the Party and to him. The 170-plus purges extended into the military strengthening Xi’s hold on the armed forces. He redefined traditional security threats to include any foreign military presence on China’s border, and “non-traditional threats, like public uproar on Weibo,” according to one analyst. Chinese national insecurity institutionalizes paranoia within the CCP and encourages local cadres to act with paranoia rather than pragmatism. 

Taiwan policy remains another thorn in Xi’s side, one that he intends to remedy during his tenure in office. His approach to Taipei is more coercive than in past decades, with military analysts this week suggesting there will be an escalation of incidents with Taiwan in the coming months after the close of the NPC. According to one analyst, “Informed by the events in Hong Kong, Xi instead envisions a two-system solution for Taiwan, under which Taipei would be subordinate to Beijing and guaranteed no political or military freedoms.” 

The NPC this week may address Xi’s lack of progress on Taiwan, among other challenges to his rule. The scale of Xi’s ambitions and his vision for a Chinese global-led order is greater than his understanding of the Chinese economy. His Covid policy has resulted in economic stagnation that is expected to negatively impact the domestic economy for a long time. High youth unemployment, the escalating cost of housing, and rising discontent across the country also may cause him to flounder in the coming years. 

These challenges together raise the risk of confrontation with democratic states. James Palmer, writing in Foreign Policy, says that “There is no question of who is in charge, and it would be very unlikely for that to change after the 20th Party Congress. For the moment, it’s Xi forever, with his image plastered all over China’s daily propaganda. The question is who falls beneath him and whether they have any real power to push their own agendas, especially when it comes to fixing an increasingly shaky economy.” A South China Morning Post article this week claims that Xi Jinping has learned a key lesson from Putin’s failing war in Ukraine, “A strong country must have a strong army.” As China readies to hand Xi an unprecedented third term as General Party Secretary, the world may be witnessing a new opening salvo in Asian conflict that could reverberate in the West. The Financial Times says that “Ten years is always enough. Even a first-rate leader decays after that long in office. One with unchallengeable power tends to decay more quickly. Surrounded by people he has chosen and protective of the legacy he has created, the despot will become increasingly isolated and defensive, even paranoid.” With Xi’s partner in Moscow failing to win the war in Ukraine, and problems at home, Xi’s historic third term in office may prove more volatile than expected.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Russian President Vladimir Putin is a trained, career intelligence officer who understands the psychological barriers he must overcome to convince the Russian population that his offensive action in Ukraine is necessary to achieve the long-term goal of returning Russia to empire status with great power standing among the world’s most powerful nation-states. It is a long-held desire the Russian people understand and support. Putin also knows there are additional challenges to surmount when special warfare includes the option of using nuclear weapons against a neighboring state. 

In just under eight months Putin’s so-called “special military operation” in Ukraine has morphed from a limited border action to one drawing world attention, as city after city in Ukraine finds it civilian population targeted by Russian bombs. Putin’s forces have destroyed homes and left many civilians dead, including large numbers of women and children. Those not killed or injured often are forcibly relocated inside Russian territory, given Russian passports, and restricted from traveling back to their homes. What does Putin’s end game look like this fall?

President Zelensky said Friday that Putin has upped the ante by preparing for the possible use of nuclear weapons against the Ukrainian population. “They begin to prepare their society. That’s very dangerous,” he says. “They are not ready to do it, to use it. But they begin to communicate. They don’t know whether they’ll use or not use it. I think it’s dangerous to even speak about it,” he said. Military analysts in Washington agree. By preparing the population for an escalation from conventional warfare to a case of “special war” not seen since the Pacific in WWII, Putin is injecting the unthinkable into the realm of reality. In part it may be to enhance his sagging image domestically. As one analyst pointed out, “He needs an off ramp and Washington is not giving him one.” At the White House this week president Biden warned of the possibility of a nuclear escalation by Moscow. It was a dangerous move by the White House. Analysts suggest opening such a public dialogue by itself increases the threat level as it begins to normalize talk of nuclear warfare as a viable option to winning a land war in Europe.

This October the world is witnessing what started as a border incursion in February slowly devolve into a conflict that more closely resembles a proxy war between two nuclear-armed major powers – Russia vs the US. The escalation is undeniable. If Putin is backed into a corner, his latest war of words could easily turn into kinetic activity on the battlefield. President Biden’s giving credence to Putin’s threat this week has moved the world closer to a nuclear incident as it is now officially recognized, although not sanctioned, in both capitals as a viable form of warfare. 

RAND Corporation published a report this week analyzing Russian coercive signaling. Although the research was conducted in 2020, it applies to Moscow’s current belligerent behavior that is threatening peace and stability in the region. The authors found solid empirical grounds to make judgments about Russia’s motives that are relevant to the situation in Ukraine and as well as future events. They suggest that much of the assertive, dangerous, or unsafe Russian activity appears to be “directed at shaping specific patterns of ongoing US or allied behavior.” Moscow, according to RAND, appears to be using coercive signals to send targeted messages regarding activities that it finds “problematic.” 

Most Russian proactive activities, such as scheduled exercises or strategic bomber training flights, convey general deterrence signals. Without a response they do not pose immediate safety concerns. Using their analysis of past Russian behavior, the authors at RAND provide tools to discern the possible motives behind future Russian activities. What it reveals for the Ukraine theater of war is not all good news. Biden’s statements referencing Putin’s nuclear comments, moves the situation from one of psychological warfare to one that is closer to a physical reality.

The RAND report concludes that Russia’s messaging typically is a deliberative act. Moscow regularly conducts limited military actions that fall short of direct aggression but often creates “escalatory risks” with its hyperbole. According to the report, such puffery is better left unaddressed. It appears the Biden Administration took the bait. Even RAND, however, stops short of saying how far it believes Moscow would go beyond its belligerent words threatening a nuclear strike. The issue remains that the end result, intended by Putin or not, could lead to dramatic action by Moscow with dire consequences for the continental countries, and the world at large. There is no historical track record that a post-nuclear de-escalation with Russia is possible.

Washington needs to understand that Russia’s threats are purposeful and need to be taken seriously. The report suggests that when the Russian leadership feel threatened, it acts out. If a foreign government reacts ineffectively to the hyperbole, it inflames the situation and could turn Europe into a region-wide battleground. Putin’s war of words is likely to remain a verbal battle of blustery statements. In part, he is playing to a domestic audience. The West, needs to understand his motives and fine tune its responses to Putin’s statements to avoid pushing the Russian leader toward extreme measures. 

Putin is guilty of initiating the war in Ukraine. Military analysts, however, point out that he is  paranoid and could decide to use a military plan that is an exaggerated reaction to a perceived threat from Washington where none exists. The Biden Administration needs to carefully consider its public statements when casually naming the nuclear danger as it gives credibility to Putin’s threat and  normalizes the use of nuclear weapons. Biden reinforced Putin’s fear of the West this week. It could unintentionally change the trajectory of world events. Putin does not want to appear as a blustering paper tiger leading a failed state. Washington should recognize the severity of the threat but not force Putin into a position where he must prove he is not weak. By cornering the Russian leader in a corner Biden is helping run the escalatory cycle to a nuclear finality.

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

A dramatic sequence of White House miscalculations has given Vladimir Putin the confidence that he can threaten nuclear warfare without fear of reprisal.

As this article was being prepared, American Military News reported that “Putin has sent nuclear-capable bombers to a critical Russian military installation where the country keeps part of its nuclear arsenal. The move is the latest sign that Putin may deploy nuclear weapons. The Israeli satellite intelligence firm ImageSat International was the first to detect an “irregular presence” of Russian Tu-160 and Tu-95 strategic bombers at Russia’s Olenya Air Base, the Jerusalem Post reported. The base is located in the northwest of Russia, near its border with Finland, and hosts a number of Russian nuclear weapons.”

To understand Moscow’s perspective, it must be remembered that, due to a treaty signed by President Obama, Russia has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, as well as the most modernized. Indeed, because of its emphasis on building the planet’s most powerful atomic force, the weak Russian economy could hardly afford a massive conventional military, and relies on these weapons of mass destruction for the major portion of national defense.  That is one reason why its army has fared so poorly in Ukraine.

In contrast, the U.S. nuclear arsenal has become reduced and antiquated.  While Putin has modernized his atomic weapons and China is increasing its nukes, the U.S. has allowed its deterrent to shrink and become relatively obsolescent. Bizarrely, the Department of Defense (DOD) has even bragged about this, releasing a statement that “For decades, the United States has led the world in efforts to reduce the number of nuclear weapons…Thousands of short-range nuclear weapons not covered by any treaty were almost entirely eliminated from the U.S. nuclear arsenal…Overall, the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile has drawn down by more than 85% from its Cold War high.” America has allowed this to happen even as our adversaries expand their nuclear weaponry. According to the DoD, “Russia and China have chosen a different path and have increased the role of nuclear weapons in their strategies and actively increased the size and sophistication of their nuclear forces.”

The possibility of atomic war is real. Navy Adm. Charles “Chas” A. Richard, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, noted in September that “[We are] back in the business of contemplating competition through crisis and possible direct armed conflict with a nuclear-capable peer. We have not had to do that in over 30 years. The implications of that are profound. They’re profound for homeland defense. They’re profound for strategic deterrence, as well as us achieving national objectives. And this is no longer theoretical…Russia and China can escalate to any level of violence that they choose in any domain with any instrument of power worldwide. We just haven’t faced competitors and opponents like that in a long time.”

It is not just bad nuclear weaponry decisions that have given dangerous signals to Putin.  Two American presidential administrations, that of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, engaged in actions that convinced the Kremlin (and Beijing) that the cost of aggression was negligible and cost-free. When Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimea, Obama did next to nothing. When China attacked the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone, (and was eventually condemned for doing so by the World Court at the Hague) Obama didn’t even issue a diplomatic protest.

At the start of the current crisis, Biden weirdly stated that he would probably tolerate a “little” invasion of Ukraine.  As the Kremlin’s forces gathered at the border of Ukraine, Biden utterly failed to provide the military material that would have convinced Moscow that it could well lose the upcoming war.  This followed the stunningly incompetent withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

All of these blunders, conventional, nuclear, and diplomatic, have dangerously provided Putin with the confidence to rattle his atomic saber.

Illustration: Pixabay

In September, we discussed the effects of New York’s Bail Elimination Act, in particular, the law’s encouragement of recidivism.  But New York is not the only state to decide that if they are going to have a crime problem, they might as well go all the way.

Recently, the Governor of Illinois, JB Pritzker, signed into law a comprehensive series of criminal justice reforms.  Known as the SAFE-T Act, the bill “passed by the Illinois General Assembly during the final hours of its January lame-duck session, includes changes to almost every area of the justice system — from police accountability to pretrial detention to sentencing.”  According to the Illinois Legislature’s Black Caucus, “Today is a historic first step toward winning real safety and justice in our communities.” 

How will the Reform Bill accomplish these goals?  

“Law enforcement is not permitted to purchase military equipment such as firearms of .50-caliber or higher and weaponized vehicles or aircraft. Officers are also not allowed to use chokeholds but are ordered to intervene when another officer is using excessive force. By 2025, all law enforcement agencies will be required to have body cameras — these cameras have to be turned on when an officer is in uniform and responding to a call.” 

Further, the bill provides for the elimination of “felony murder” charges – that is, when someone is killed during the commission of a felony, such as a burglary or robbery, “even in cases in which police or another third party caused the death. In one 2019 case, prosecutors in Lake County, Illinois, charged five teenagers with the murder of their friend, who was shot and killed by a homeowner as the group allegedly attempted a burglary.”

The new law “narrows the definition of felony murder, though the changes do not apply retroactively to those sentenced under the old rule. Prosecutors will now be prohibited from filing first-degree murder charges in cases where a third party, like a police officer or a homeowner, caused the death.”  

Further, “Police officers in the state must be certified by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board…(t)he new law empowers the training and standards board to investigate misconduct allegations and pursue decertification, regardless of whether an officer was charged, convicted, or disciplined by their department. The law also requires all Illinois police departments to report misconduct investigations to the state…” 

There can be debate on whether or not these changes truly “win real safety and justice” for any community in Illinois.  But the one change that has created the most controversy is the new bail law.

Under the new law, “(w)henever there is a reference in any Act to ‘bail,’ ‘bail bond,’ or ‘conditions of bail,’ these terms shall be construed as ‘pretrial release’ or ‘conditions of pretrial release.'” 

As described by Fox News contributor Gianno Caldwell in the New York Post, “(t)he Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today Act will completely eliminate cash bail for the majority of defendants charged with criminal acts. Judges will decide whether or not to release defendants on a case by case basis, based on if they feel a person poses a threat to the community or is a flight risk. Seeing as many Illinois judges rule like progressive activists, it’s likely they will send many criminals back into communities without hesitation… (h)ardened criminals, charged with everything from threatening a public official to armed burglary to arson, will be emboldened and empowered…(t)o make matters worse, offenders released on electronic monitoring devices must be in violation of their parole for 48 hours before it will be considered a crime. In the state’s largest county — Cook County, which encompasses Chicago — at any given time, there are more than 3,000 people wearing ankle monitors. This includes about 100 who have been charged with murder.” 

According to Illinois Governor Pritzker, this “legislation marked ‘a substantial step toward dismantling the systemic racism that plagues our communities, our state and our nation and brings us closer to true safety, true fairness and true justice.'”  But if you ask a coalition “comprised of the Illinois Sheriffs’ Association, the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, Illinois Troopers Lodge 41 and state and local branches of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police,” the Democratic governor of Illinois has chosen “to listen to a few strident political voices rather than the 120,000 petition signing citizens who plainly saw the bill for what it is…we sincerely hope that we will not be proven right about this new law, that it won’t cause police officers to leave the profession in droves and handcuff those who remain so they can’t stop crimes against people and property.” 

For a progressive like Pritzker, eliminating “the systemic racism that plagues” the criminal justice structure is the path to “true fairness.”  Nonetheless, the question remains – will these reforms bring “true safety” and “true justice” to the people of Illinois?  

Currently, according to the Citywide ComStat published by the Chicago Police Department for the week of September 19-25, 2022, there have been 512 murders in Chicago in 2022 to date.  That is less than the 611 reported in 2021 (with 3 months left in 2022), but compare that to the 388 murders reported in 2019.  Further, there have been 6,148 robberies so far in 2022, up from the 5,259 reported in all of 2021.  Reported burglaries stand at 5,449, also up from 2021’s 4,356.  But most shocking is the increase in car theft – 12,153 in 2022 to date, as opposed to 7,101 reported in 2021.  That’s almost double the 2021 figure, and I repeat, there are still 3 months left in the year 2022    

It is hard to imagine how eliminating bail for robbers, burglars and car thefts will bring “true safety” to the community, or reduce the incidents of these crimes, which are increasing exponentially.  

As for “true justice,” don’t look to Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot.  When the CEO of McDonald’s “Chris Kempczinski warned in a speech at the Economic Club of Chicago luncheon…that it was time to ‘face facts’ and acknowledge that companies have been leaving the city over the past year due in part to rising crime,” Mayor Lightfoot fired back “I think what would have been helpful is for the McDonald’s CEO to educate himself before he spoke.” 

In what way does CEO Kempczinski need to “educate himself?”  His statement was objectively true.  For instance, “Gary Rabine, founder of the Rabine Group and owner of 13 businesses, told Fox News Digital…that surging crime in Chicago was a driving factor in his decision to pull his road paving company out of the city after his crews were repeatedly robbed, sometimes in broad daylight, even after adding security to the jobs.”  Further, “billionaire Ken Griffin announced he is moving his hedge-fund firm Citadel out of Chicago after citing crime as a major concern over the past few months. ‘If people aren’t safe here, they’re not going to live here,’ Griffin told the Wall Street Journal in April. ‘I’ve had multiple colleagues mugged at gunpoint. I’ve had a colleague stabbed on the way to work. Countless issues of burglary. I mean, that’s a really difficult backdrop with which to draw talent to your city from.'” 

If Governor Pritzker and Mayor Lightfoot believe this new crime bill will lead to “true justice” in the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago, there is a good chance the both of them, and the criminals they have enabled, will be the only ones left to enjoy the utopia they’ve created.

Everyone else law abiding will have moved to places where the law is enforced, and criminals are incarcerated for their crimes.

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

Photo: Chicago skyline (Pixabay)