Author: Daria Novak

Two nuclear powers on alert, live fire exercises east of Taiwan, and the third person in line for the US presidency visiting Taipei. What could go wrong? Progressively belligerent behavior by China represents an increase in the risk that a mistake could lead to kinetic conflict between China and the United States and, perhaps, include America’s allies in the region. During Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent Taiwan visit the US Navy deployed a carrier battle group and increased patrols near Taiwan in the Philippine Sea to ensure her safety after threats from Beijing. In response to the announcement of the Speaker’s potential visit, the Chinese government ordered its navy to encircle the island and conduct live fire exercises and naval drills. Commercial airliners and ships were forced to detour three hours out of their way to avoid the hostile marine environment. Of the 11 Chinese missiles launched east north, and south of Taiwan, five landed in Japan’s economic zone. China’s actions went far beyond those of its navy. 

Less reported by the mainstream media was Beijing’s highly coordinated, propaganda campaign to undermine the visit. As China’s physical strength has increased, so has its ability and determination to launch disinformation campaigns promoting false evidence on everything from the recent Supreme Court abortion ruling to bioweapons in Ukraine. Patrick Tucker, technology editor of the publication Defense One, says that “US cybersecurity company Mandiant discovered that the Chinese group, dubbed HaiEnergy, had published ‘two articles critical’ of Pelosi (D-CA), ‘in response to reports that she may visit Taiwan in early August.’”

Last Thursday HaiEnergy warned that Pelosi should stay away from Taiwan, claiming that a visit would “tarnish” relations between the US and China. Earlier this year in March the same group attacked former US Secretary of State Pompeo’s trip to Taiwan, using fake Taiwanese news sites, and pushed the narrative that the Washington would be an unreliable partner to Taipei in the event of a Chinese invasion. HaiEnergy has a long track record of going after academics and others who protest or expose China’s human rights abuses. Their operations are complex and multinational.

Using fake letters purporting to show that German anthropologist Adrian Zenz was receiving money from US government sources, HaiEnergy first tweeted a photo of the fabricated letter, which contained spelling and grammatical errors, and then used a fake Swiss news site to report on the tweet, according to Tucker. The group then apparently linked one of the faked letters to US Senator Marco Rubio (FL-R) and former White House Chief strategist Steve Bannon. “The other two letters implied that the financial support came from grants awarded to Zenz from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in 2020 and 2021,” according to US cybersecurity company Mandiant.When former US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo traveled to Taiwan in March, the group used fake Taiwanese news sites to suggest that the US would be an unreliable partner if China decided to invade the island. In Ukraine the group purported to show that the US used biochemical weapons against Russia. “In June, Mandiant traced a coordinated information campaign around rare-earth minerals back to a separate Chinese group called DRAGONBRIDGE, but Mandiant believes the tactics and digital infrastructure used in both cases suggests that they are separate efforts, according to Tucker.” So far, Mandiant has identified 72 websites (59 domains and 14 subdomains) hosted by Haixun, which were used to target audiences in North America, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. This is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Chinese disinformation campaigns. One military analyst in Washington suggested that China uses cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns to “soften up the populations of western countries,” split opinions, and improve China’s standing. While the physical threat of a live military drill may be blatantly aggressive, China’s cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns represent a more insidious threat to the long-term stability of the international community. These threats are subtle, increase in intensity over an extended period of time, and recur often enough that the message earns credibility simply through repetition.  The danger is that too often members of a free society tend to believe what sounds familiar without independently corroborating the facts. Missiles are dangerous weapons but so are the fabrications the CCP uses to harm its competitors and enemies.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

What was once expected to be a short war in Ukraine has stretched from winter into summer and shows no signs of shutting it down as we approach fall. Now Putin is growing more concerned over a separate Russian enclave, Kaliningrad, that was separated from the country after the dissolution of Soviet Union in 1991. There are two aspects that are particularly critical: transportation links between Kaliningrad and Russia proper and changes in the Kaliningrad population’s attitudes because of their neighbors’ actions. The “populace [are] less like their nominally Russian ethnic counterparts and potentially less loyal” to Russia, according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. The area is separated from the Russian Federation by Lithuania and Poland.

Recently Lithuania imposed and then removed a ban on the movement of EU sanctioned goods between Russia and Kaliningrad. Last year a NATO exercise appeared to practice the taking of Kaliningrad in a war. For Putin, this represents a clear and long-term threat to his country as he continues to face regionalist sentiment in various regions of Russia. Renamed Kaliningrad by Joseph Stalin at the end of World War II the region has lingering negative feelings about ethnic Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians brought into the enclave as the original residents , “the people of Koenigsberg,” view themselves as distinct from other groups. 

“Some have even talked about becoming ‘the fourth Baltic republic’ and formed a political party to promote that outcome,” says Goble, and “such feelings are further intensified by the Kaliningrad population’s far more frequent visits to Lithuania and Poland, both EU and NATO members, than to Russia proper, as well as by earlier efforts on the part of Kaliningrad officials to promote tourism, playing up German, Lithuanian and Polish links in the past and present.” Since last November Putin has cracked down on even the slightest hints of separatism and, in particular, against the German influence that remains in the region.

Lithuanian influence in the region is targeted due to the impact of Putin’s “special military operation” in Ukraine and its recent moves to restrict the flow of goods to the exclave. Goble calls the Kremlin’s action “both harsh and possibly dangerous given the reactions of Kaliningrad residents, who had been loyal to Moscow up to now—even if these moves are still flying under the radar in the West.” Since early July, Russian officials have gone after Lithuanian cultural institutions in Kaliningrad itself. It is viewed as an act of revenge against Vilnius’ failed attempt to impose a partial blockade on the region and to limit Lithuanian influence on Kaliningrad.

Last week, at the insistence of the Russian Ministry of Justice, officials closed the Association of Teachers of the Lithuanian Language in Kaliningrad. The group totaled about 20,000 ethnic Lithuanian. Putin’s political motivation was obvious as the activist association and has served as a base for teachers since 1995.  The publication Lituanika.ru  points out this week that its members are appalled because they care about their nation and about Kaliningrad and believe that the association has served both equally well. It raises questions concerning how far Putin will go to secure Kaliningrad. 

Maksim Makarov, reports Goble, heads the Russian community in Kaliningrad Oblast. Earlier Makarov garnered attention for his fight against “Germanization,” saying the closing of the association was absolutely correct, if belated, because the group has been funded by Vilnius and has tried to organize opposition within Kaliningrad to Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine. At this point Russia is using propaganda to dissuade those in the enclave from dissociating themselves from Russia. Msocow’s mouth piece, Makarov calls the association “an LGBT organization” and “the chief structure of the special services of Lithuania on the territory of Kaliningrad Oblast.” There are other cases where Russia is interfering in Kaliningrad in recent weeks.  A Lithuanian children’s ensemble was blocked from traveling to a festival in the Russian Federation and acts of vandalism have also been committed against Lithuanian statues and busts in various parts of the oblast simply because they represent “the wrong nationality.” No one is sure what will next happen in this campaign to defend “Russianness” in the enclave. “In the current environment… more attacks, both official and unofficial, on Lithuanian groups in Kaliningrad are probable in the coming days, a reflection of Kremlin fears that even folkloric groups can undermine the population’s Russian identity and its loyalty to Moscow,” according to Goble. Putin’s war may yet spread and not close to a conclusion.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Photo: Kaliningrad museum (Pixabay)

Examined individually, the positions advocated by progressives, now empowered through the Biden Administration and big city government, appear to be isolated acts of irrationality.

What is the end goal of their ideas such as allowing violent criminals to walk the streets? Reducing defense preparedness even as authoritarian enemies grow stronger and more threatening? Spending far more than the national income, leading eventually to confiscatory taxes? Encouraging racial division? Claiming that parents should have no say in the education of their children? Opening the southern border to massive illegal immigration? Restricting the development of energy, even as Americans struggle to pay fuel and heating bills?

Clearly, those favoring these concepts are aware of how they do not stand up to scrutiny. That is why there has been a concerted effort to throttle the First Amendment. From college campuses that intimidate non-leftist professors and students, to politicians that use the power of government to intimidate their opposition, the level of degradation of what was once seen as sacred American rights is truly shocking.

Those ideas, taken singularly, appear illogical, but they are advocated in the pursuit of ending the American experiment in individual rights. 

Throughout most of human history, the concept of personal freedom, of rights granted by God or nature and not government, barely existed. Whether ruled by emperors, kings, chieftains, or strong men, the idea that an individual could assert their rights was essentially a nonstarter.

Piece by piece, Western Civilization, as we now know it, began to evolve. First came great religious figures that introduced the concept that each human was precious to the heart of God. Centuries later came the idea that inhabitants of an area were not “subjects” of monarchs, but citizens of a nation.

It’s no wonder, then, that many progressives disdain the concept of nation states, advocating the concept instead of “open borders,” that the Biden Administration now pursues despite numerous denials of reality.  Similarly, the idea of religion, an entity independent of government, is frequently targeted, because the Judeo-Christian ethic cherishes the soul of each man and woman.

The American concept of individual rights, expressed in and guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, was a truly revolutionary concept, refuting the normal mode of rule that had prevailed throughout history.  Through the genius of the Constitution, flaws in the execution of that concept were eventually eliminated, so that in the 21^st Century, the concept of personal freedom has reached its highest expression.  And that has powerfully upset those that prefer authoritarianism.

The counter-revolution against the concept of inherent rights and individual freedom reaches the highest levels. During the 2010 confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, she evaded answering a question about whether she even believed in the concept of inherent rights.

Senator Schumer (D-NY) actually introduced legislation to limit the First Amendment’s application to some political speech. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) boldly announced that he would “love to be able to regulate the content of speech.” During the Obama Administration, those disagreeing with the President were harassed by the IRS and the Department of Justice.

The progressive strategy is dangerously real and coherent. Create disorder through crime that will eventually makes authoritarian government attractive. Transfer funding from defense to welfare-style programs that make much of the population financially dependent on Washington. Reduce the ability of citizens to meet their own needs through hiked taxes and inflation. Distract voters from the growing power of government by turning races and ethnic groups against each other. Dilute the concept of citizenry by opening up the border, then allowing aliens to vote, as has already been done in New York City. Remove the influence of parents, as progressives have attempted so vigorously through our education system, so that an entire generation is overwhelmingly influenced by big government.

It’s a roadmap to the end of freedom. 

Photo: White House Spokesperson Jen Psaki (Twitter photo)

Are America’s armed forces sufficient for the threats the nation faces?

The National Defense publication argues that     “If Biden’s ‘no-growth’ pattern continues in coming years, [America’s military] will shrink rapidly, according to a recent report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, ‘U.S. Military Forces in FY 2022 — The Budget and Strategy Overview.’

Biden’s fiscal blueprint called for a decrease in active-duty end strength, from 1,351,000 personnel in 2021 to 1,346,400 in 2022.

The defense budget constitutes about 14% of the federal budget. The U.S. spends about 3.5% of its GDP on defense, compared to 4.1% for Russia.

The key question is whether the Pentagon can adequately deter the growing danger from near-equal adversaries such as China and Russia, and growing threats from nations such as North Korea and Iran. Russia has a larger nuclear force. China has a larger navy.

The Heritage Foundation’s recently released Index of Military Strength   reveals serious challenges to America’s national security, and breaks down the problems each branch of the armed forces faces.

The Army needs50 brigade combat teams. It currently has only 42. As a result, the analysis classifies the Army as only  “Marginal.” The Army is aging faster than it is modernizing. It remains “weak” in capacity with only 62 percent of the force it should have. Its capability score remains “marginal” given the age of its equipment and the size and maturity of its modernization programs.

The Navy needs 400 battle force ships. It currently has only 296, and that inadequate number may be reduced under current budget restrictions.  The Navy’s intensified operational tempo combine to reveal a service that is much too small relative to its tasks. It desperately needs a larger fleet of 400 ships, The service is aging rapidly,making it easier for major competitors to achieve technological parity. It also has made it difficult for the Navy to conduct the training essential to achieving high levels of readiness. The Navy is rated “marginal” on a downward slope to “weak” in readiness.

The Air Force has 1,200 fighter/ground-attack aircraft. The average age of Air Force  aircraft is 31 years, and some fleets, such as the B-52 bomber, average 60 years. In addition, KC-135s comprise 78 percent of the Air Force’s 483 tankers and are more than 59 years old on average. In total, the USAF shrunk by 120 planes since 2020. The advanced age of key aircraft in the Air Force’s inventory is driving the service to retire planes faster than they can be replaced. The service also lost ground in readiness compared with the preceding year. A score of “weak” in this area is the result of a shortage of pilots and flying time that implies a lack of effort or focused intent given the general reduction in operational deployments as U.S. actions overseas have ebbed.

The Marine Corps requires 30 battalions.  It currently has only 27. In the absence of additional funding in FY 2022, the Corps intends to reduce the number of its battalions even further from 24 to 21, and this reduction, if implemented, would harm the Corps’ overall ability to perform its role.  It remains hampered by old equipment and problematic funding.

The Space Force does not have enough assets to track and manage the explosive growth in commercial and competitor-country systems being placed into orbit. The majority of its platforms have exceeded their planned life span, and modernization efforts to replace them are slow and incremental. The force also lacks defensive and offensive counter-space capabilities.

America’s Nuclear Capability is in danger of degradation.  Nearly all components of the nuclear enterprise are at a tipping point with respect to replacement or modernization and have no margin left for delays in schedule.

Photo: U.S. Army

The Progressive obsession with censorship continues, changing only in the type of attack.

Much of it has to do with electoral politics.  Some social media sites block the accounts of those who oppose Democrat candidates. During the 2020 election, to take just one example, stories about the Hunter Biden laptop were censored by many media sources. It is reasonable to speculate that news about the wide-ranging corruption of Biden family members would have resulted in a far different result in that year’s presidential campaign.

Progressives engage in partisan, misleading and false “fact checking” of those who bring up the failed policies and scandals of those on the left and exert their influence and pressure tactics on information outlets.  Case in point:  It is now undoubtedly clear that Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) completely lied when he repeatedly stated that he had undeniable “proof” that Donald Trump engaged in “Russian Collusion.”  After years of research and investigation, it has been found that no such activity ever existed.  Despite that, Donald Trump was thrown off some social media sites, but Adam Schiff, perhaps the most comprehensive perpetuator of false information in recent U.S. political history, remains.

The 2020 election was clearly tainted by media censorship and partisan reporting.  However, those bringing that reality to light are themselves censored.

The New York Post, which broke the Hunter Biden Laptop story, found itself on the receiving end of Progressive cancelling. Despite that, it continues campaigning against media bias and censorship. Its Benjamin Weingarten recently noted that “YouTube is censoring journalism for the Biden Administration… Big Tech is selectively censoring that which is obviously journalism… YouTube’s move is as hypocritical as it is detrimental to our discourse. Don’t hold your breath looking for instances of it disappearing corporate media interviews in which prominent Democrats lie, let alone Xi Jinping’s speeches.”

The foulest practice is the use of official government agencies to silence opponents of the incumbent Administration. Breitbart reports that Igi Sohn, the Biden Administration’s nominee for FCC Commissioner, has sought to break-up broadcasters who engage in honest journalism. Technology reporter Allum Bokharifound that “She…is tied to far-left activists, and praised an organization that described policing as a “violent institution that must end.”  She also personally called on the FCC to investigate the Sinclair Broadcasting Group, which is likely why progressive groups like MovementLabs are touting the potential for future regulatory action against the conservative-leaning network of local TV stations.”

When the planned abuse of government agencies are exposed, excuses are made to achieve the same goals under seemingly innocuous and “good government” organizations. The Biden Administration’s proposed “Disinformation Governance Board,”  which supposedly was designed to address material from states such as China and Russia, was stopped when it was revealed that it was to be led by a partisan individual,   Nina Jankowicz, and would focus not on foreign activities but on domestic sources critical of the Biden White House.

Not to be denied, the Biden Administration has returned with yet another attempt to establish an agency with censorship rights. In June, it was announced that Kamala Harris would lead a new “Harassment and Abuse Internet Task Force.” Once again, the advertised excuse for creating the group sounds innocuous: it proposes to “Assess and address online harassment and abuse that constitute technology-facilitated gender-based violence.” Surely, that sounds like a great idea.  But in reality, will this be another excuse to foster the institution of partisan government censorship?  Considering the overall record, chances are good that it will be exactly that.

The real collusion, not the made-up version used by Adam Schiff, is that between Progressive media barons and corrupt politicians.

Illustration: Fake News

For decades the Iranian regime’s belligerent behavior has elicited the concern of western world leaders. This summer is no different. As Iran moves closer to official completion of its nuclear weapons program its military remains active on other fronts, too. US intelligence is reporting that Tehran is prepping to deliver potentially hundreds of Iranian unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) to Moscow. Two weeks ago, Iran showcased the Shahed-191 and Shahed-129 drones during a visit from a Russian delegation. Sine Ozkarasahin, of the Jamestown Foundation, noted that Radio Farda is reporting that “Commercial satellite imagery allegedly confirmed that a delegation from the Kremlin had visited Kashan Air Base at least twice in the past month.” 

Disruption in the critical global supply chain inflated the cost to produce Russian drones domestically. According to the Russian publication Lenta, cost increases range from 30 percent to 200 percent. In June it reported that “The shortage of goods arose after the Chinese DJI, which occupies 90 percent of the market of ‘consumer drones,’ stopped supplying to Russia.”  Putin’s drones have proved weak against Western UCAVs. The drones have been particularly vulnerable against man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS), including Stingers and LLM Martlets, as well as optically guided Martlets and Starstreaks, according to Ozkarasahin.

He added that although Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian reassured his Ukrainian counterpart to the contrary in a recent phone call, the Kremlin might indeed find what it needs from its non-NATO ally’s combat solutions. The Iranian drones can serve as an intelligence platform, conduct surveillance and reconnaissance (IRS) and an asset to strike at high-value Ukrainian targets. It closes a gap in the Russian’s strike inventory with a precision-tool that is cost-effective and a force multiplier.

“Iranian drones can also overwhelm sensor networks, blurring the enemy’s line of sight. Yet, the West’s heavy counter-drone measures (supplemented by high-end, sophisticated systems, such as Starlink) coupled with the lack of deployment of some of Russia’s most promising electronic warfare (EW) capabilities, including the Krasukha-4, to suppress Ukrainian air operations render Iranian drones’ chances of making a grand impact relatively slim,” says Ozkarasahin.

Tehran recognizes that its UCAV capabilities will boost Moscow’s ability to deliver precision-guided strikes during a period when Russia is suffering from a munition’s shortage. Ozkarasahin says that while this is an improvement, Iran’s drones are a mismatch as they lack the desired interoperability. They cannot be efficiently integrated into Russian networks and datalinks without some form of database synchronization in place, nor can the Iranian drones operate as mobile base stations.

The drone sale will put Tehran in a difficult position as it appears likely that uniformed Iranian soldiers would need to be on the ground to operate the UCAVs, placing Iran in the middle of Putin’s “special military operation.” At that point Iran would become a direct party to the war in Ukraine. In the past it formed military-strategic relationships and supplied rogue states and non-state allies with its indigenously-built, drones that are part of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) program.

“Acting as the long-arm of Iran’s strategic outreach, IRGC members provided on-site, yearslong training and real-time support to Lebanese Hezbollah and Shia groups in Iraq concerning Iranian drone CONOPS” says Ozkarasahin. At the same time Iran is claiming to be neutral in the conflict. That stance will be difficult to maintain once its soldiers are in the field given the transparency provided by sophisticated open-source intelligence (OSINT) techniques. This is more that a simple defense transaction, according to analysts.

Obstacles still exist before any sale of Iran’s Shahad-191, Shahed-129, or other kamikaze drones is finalized. Ozkarasahin suggests that the difficulty of integrating systems without Iranian boots on the ground, and the potential political sensitivities still could prove too much and prevent any notion in Tehran of actively supporting Putin’s war in Ukraine. Other military analysts purport that the deal already is inked and ready to go. If Iran’s drones are used in the war in Ukraine, it will represent a widening of the conflict and present new challenges for the West in dealing with Iran at a sensitive time in Tehran’s nuclear development program.

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

Photo: Iran President Raisi meets with Putin, July 20 (Iran Govt. )  

China’s level of military posturing is reaching heights unmatched in recent times over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s potential trip to Taiwan in August. Currently she is leading a delegation on a trip in Asia. The question military analysts are asking this week is if Chinese belligerency over an official visit by Pelosi to Taipei indicates China is testing the waters for a more definitive military action at some future date. Beijing’s aggressive stance toward the trip is another example of the communist regime’s intolerance toward other state’s maintaining any official relationship with the island. Pelosi’s trip, rescheduled from April due to her Covid diagnosis, is raising so many hackles that Chinese defense analysts say the CCP leadership is promising to take strong action if she dares to travel to Taipei. 

Although for security purposes the US government does not confirm details of senior US officials’ trips, in response to the recent Chinese threats to “take resolute and forceful measures,” Chief of the US Joints Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, has promised publicly to do what is necessary to defend the Speaker should she decide to travel to Taipei. Security measures could include putting a double line of protection around the island while she is in Taiwan and sending advanced fighter jets to patrol the region, despite China’s warning not to do so. Although direct, intentional military conflict between the US and China is unlikely it raises concerns over the potential for an accidental encounter between forces that could spiral out of control. Pelosi will be the highest ranked US official to visit Taiwan since 1997.

The South China Morning Post is reporting that “The American aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan and its strike group, including a guided missile destroyer and a guided missile cruiser, set out from Singapore on Monday heading northeast towards the South China Sea, according to ship-tracking information provided by Beijing-based think tank the South China Sea Strategic Probing Initiative.” 

On Monday, Taiwan held its regularly scheduled air raid drills. Vox.com is portraying them as a “response” to the American official’s potential visit and suggesting it may cause China to escalate the situation into a military action. China is cuing on that line. Qin Gang, Chinese Ambassador to the US, delivered a speech at the Aspen Security Forum on July 20 that was inflammatory and claimed there would only be losers if US-China relations deteriorate. CGTN reports that “When asked directly about whether he thinks the US and China are entering a new Cold War, Ambassador Qin said that when people speak of the Cold War they are speaking of estrangement, division, confrontation and conflict, and that the question itself indicates that people are concerned that history may be repeating itself.” There is bellicosity coming from leaders on many fronts, which further exacerbates tensions in the US-China relationship at a time when stresses already are high. According to Qin, Beijing believes the one China policy is under attack. He did not explicitly address how China would respond to the perceived aggression in the future.

AP is reporting that a “more robust response could also be driven by Xi’s desire to bolster this nationalist credentials ahead of a party congress later this year at which he is expected to seek a third five-year term in office. Xi’s expansion of his powers into every sphere and his hardline zero-COVID response to the domestic epidemic has sowed a degree of resentment and appealing to raw patriots, particularly over Taiwan, might help him fend off criticism.” 

On Thursday morning Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping spoke by phone for over two hours. It is their fifth call since Biden assumed the presidency in January 2021. The Washington Post is reporting: “China’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement after the call that was littered with critiques of the US administration and its attitude toward Beijing.” It said Xi made “candid” comments on Taiwan during the exchange between the leaders. Earlier this month, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi delivered four lists of demands to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, including “guidance” on US wrongdoings that “must stop.” 

As China grows bolder in its moves, senior political leaders in Washington are calling on the Biden Administration to take stronger action against Chinese aggressive policies, including those in sovereign states in the South China Sea where Beijing is making inroads by offering convenient infrastructure loans in return for improved relations and potential military partnerships and bases. The game is complex and nuanced. It is hard to determine who is in the lead when officials in Washington appear to be following former President Obama’s call for the United States to “lead from behind.”

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

The war in Ukraine is keeping President Vladimir Putin busy but, not too busy to travel to Tehran only three days after President Biden’s failed Middle East trip. On July 19 the Iranian government hosted Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Russia President. The tripartite meeting was “held within the framework of the seventh summit of the heads of states of the Astana Peace Process for Syria,” according to Vali Kaleji of the Jamestown Foundation. Given the timing of this summit, Kaleji suggests that Putin used it as an opportunity to discuss Moscow’s challenges in the region. 

Three months ago the Financial Times, along with other local publications, reported correctly that Russian troops in Syria were being redeployed to the front lines in support of the war in Ukraine. Putin, it appears, is aware that this move could potentially create a power vacuum in the region and an advantage for the US, Turkey, and Israel. HE is determined to ensure that this does not occur. Kaleji argues that “In such a situation, Israel would increase air attacks on Iranian military positions and bases in Syria, as Tel Aviv worries that a military vacuum would be filled by Iran or proxy forces, such as Lebanese Hezbollah.” Some Middle East analysts in Washington are suggesting that such a void could allow the US to increase its military presence east of the Euphrates and also permit Turkey a free hand on conducting military operations in Kurdish-held areas in northern Syria. 

President Erdogan wants Putin to abide their previous agreement which calls for Moscow to work with  Washington to help push outlawed Kurdish militants 30 kilometers away from the Syrian-Turkish border. It has not occurred to date. Erdogan this week again publicly called it “long overdue.” Daily Sabah reported recently that the Turkish president informed Russian and Iranian leaders that he “expected their full support in Ankara’s fight against terrorists in Syria.” “Putin’s presence at the summit in Tehran,” according to Kaleji, “contained a message to all players in Syria: Russia has not lost its focus and military power in Syria because of Ukraine.” 

There is a large potential for Russia to build infrastructure and other economic projects inside Syria. Putin does not want to walk away from any financially lucrative deals. He is playing a strong poker hand, knowing he can use his military’s ongoing presence in the country as a pressure lever against the democratic West over his “special military action” in Ukraine.

Tehran and Moscow hold similar views on the security threat in the Levant region. Both also oppose Turkey’s military operations in northern Syria and the US military presence east of the Euphrates. Islamic Republic News Agency is reporting this week that Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, in a press conference with Putin and Erdogan, reinforced that “the US presence east of the Euphrates is unjustifiable, so the Americans should pull out.” All is not calm among the players. Differences surface between Russia and Iran over Israeli military operations in Syria. “Russia has not provided full air coverage of Iranian positions in Syria during Israeli airstrikes,” according to Kaleji. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, according to Islamic Republic News on July 19, “praised the Russian president’s recent anti-Zionist stance” in an escalation of the discord between Israel and Russia over Tel Aviv’s support for Ukraine. Iran is seeking Russian support to counter Israeli military operations in Syria. It appears that expanded consultations by Russia and Iran in the future may be used to dampen Turkey’s operations in Syria, according to TASS. Putin may be busy fighting in Ukraine, but it is not stopping his long-term strategic plans in the Middle East.

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

In what may be seen as a sharp rebuke of President Biden’s defense budget proposal, which actually cut the Pentagon’s spending power, The House has passed the Fiscal Year 2023 Defense Budget, known as H.R. 7900.

Rather than reducing defense purchasing ability, the House bill keeps it intact by adding about $37 billion to the White House version, for a total of $840 billion. Department of Defense spending accounts for about 14% of federal spending.

U.S. Representative Mike Rogers (R-AL), Lead Republican of the House Armed Services Committee, stressed that the measure puts “our servicemembers first, providing a 4.6 percent pay raise and expanding benefits for military spouses and families.” It provides a 2.4 percent bonus to enlisted members, adds It includes an additional $500 million for housing allowances to offset the cost of skyrocketing rents; and provides an additional $750 million to reduce the price of food and other necessities at military commissaries… It expands training availabilities for servicemembers and improves safety of U.S. ships, aircraft, combat vehicles, and facilities.”

 In recognition of the extraordinary advances made by China, Russia, and others, funding has been provided for emerging fields, such as AI, quantum computing, hypersonic weapons, and autonomous systems.

American defense took a major hit during the Obama presidency. Despite the unprecedented arms buildup and aggressive acts by Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, the Obama Administration chose to slash defense spending, and Congress, which had agreed to the sequester in response to the doubling of the national debt during the Great Recession, failed to respond.

It left America’s military in a sharply deteriorated state. Prior to the restoration of some funds during the Trump presidency, it had its last major upgrade during the Reagan years in the 1980’s, and equipment from that era became sharply worn down from repeated conflicts in the Middle East and Afghanistan. The same can be said for its personnel.

A Wall Street Journal analysis earlier this year noted that “The longer the U.S. waits to build a national defense adequate to the challenges it faces, the greater the danger and expense ultimately will be. Americans shouldn’t deceive themselves. The end of the post-Cold War era is a major setback. For 30 years the American intellectual and policy establishment mocked Russia, fantasized about China, and frittered the country’s resources away on ill-judged diversions. At the same time, opponents—clearer-eyed than the U.S. was about the foundations of international power—created new realities that Washington must confront.”

The unpleasant reality facing lawmakers is that the U.S. does not have the technological superiority it once enjoyed.   Russia and China have technology equal to, and in some cases surpassing, much of what the Pentagon can field. An American Enterprise Institute study has noted that “The diffusion of advanced military technology and the means to manufacture it have accelerated. Capabilities in which the United States once enjoyed a monopoly (e.g. precision munitions and unmanned systems) have now proliferated … to virtually all U.S. adversaries in short order; Nations such as China and Russia have made concerted efforts to outpace and counter the military-technological advancements of the United States.”

Additonally,the numbers no longer favor the U.S. Russia has a larger nuclear arsenal, and China has far more ships.  

Over the past several months, specific examples of the growing military danger to the U.S. have become clearer. China has started to develop naval bases directly aimed at threatening the U.S. Russia has launched a “doomsday” submarine capable of causing vast destruction to America’s eastern seaboard.

The House bill now requires approval by the Senate, and, following that, the White House.

Photo: Two fighter jets attached to a training base of the PLA Air Force fly in formation during a flight training exercise on May 26, 2022. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Wang Guodong)

The evidence of dire harm from extremist climate change policies is building, and not a moment too soon.

President Biden’s “Climate Change Emergency” executive order, proposed as of this writing, could potentially give the White House direct oversight not only over the entire American economy but over the daily lives of every inhabitant of the nation.   

According to The New York Times, John F. Kerry, Mr. Biden’s international climate envoy, said in an interview that Mr. Biden is ‘very close’ to taking that step and that the debate within the administration is over when the declaration should be announced and how it should be deployed, rather than if it should be done.

Across the globe, unsubstantiated claims about the impact of human activity are providing political cover to those who seek enormous profits from transitioning to inadequate substitute energy sources and ransacking the economies of free nations to prop up radicals, giving them the opportunity to replace largely successful (and, as evidence strongly suggests, more eco-friendly) capitalist economies to failed socialist experiments.

There can be no question that, for the next several decades, wind and solar cannot provide more than a small fraction of energy needs. Making the matter worse is that most of the manufacturing of wind and solar equipment is performed overseas, largely in China.

But all that may not matter, for more immediate priorities for green-loving politicians are at hand.

Open Secrets discloses that “Close to $1 million of the alternative energy industry’s donations went directly to Biden…Such groups also spent proportionately more on outside spending than ever before, giving $3.9 million to primarily liberal outside groups.”

It’s a scandal with a rich legacy. During the Obama presidency, Vast federal funds were sent to a private company which supported Democrats.  Newsmax Solyndra Scandal: 8 Facts About Barack Obama’s Green Energy Company Controversy | Newsmax.com reported that In 2009, the California-based green energy solar panel manufacturer Solyndra received a $535 million loan. It was revealed that the Office of Management and Budget officials felt pressured to approve the loan, despite an awareness of Solyndra’s financial instability. ABC News reported, “The deal later came under scrutiny from independent government watch dogs and members of Congress, which said the administration had bypassed key taxpayer protections in a rush to approve the funds.”

The Week The Solyndra scandal: A guide to the new revelations | The Week noted that “The family foundation of billionaire George Kaiser, an Obama fundraiser, is one of Solyndra’s big investors. The GOP says that Team Obama interfered to speed up the loan approval, cutting short due diligence so that Vice President Joe Biden could announce the loan at the Sept. 4, 2009, groundbreaking of a new Solyndra factory being financed by that government cash.”

Wikipedia notes that In September 2011 the company ceased all business activity, filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11, Title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, and laid off all employees. The company was also sued by employees who were abruptly laid off. Solyndra was raided by the FBI.

Soaring energy prices have not only made the costs of transportation and home heating and cooling unaffordable, it has triggered the worst inflation in half a century. Terrible enough, but its about to get even worse.

Sri Lanka offers a clear example. Climate extremists have dominated its government. In pursuit of their “green” goals, they banned chemical fertilizers. Vast swaths of land could no longer produce food, leading to a crisis. As the New York Post notes, “This is basically the Green New Deal in miniature.”

This coming winter, Europeans may face disastrous conditions due to their premature transition to green energy sources which are simply incapable of fulfilling their needs.

All of these hardships and scandals result from claims about global warming (from the same people who alleged that global cooling was going to be the problem previously) that ignore significant evidence of prior, naturally-occurring climate change. The planet has undone cyclical trends of heating and cooling without the help of factories or SUVs.

But in those prior periods, that took place without making politicians rich.