Author: Daria Novak

Imagine a frozen territory once thought to be a worthless, icy wasteland at the center of global competition among the world’s major military powers. That describes the vast expanses of the Arctic today. States in the region, plus China, are vying for influence and control of the area’s natural resources that include significant deposits of oil, gas, and strategic minerals. Rising temperatures and melting ice in recent years also have raised the possibility of a new, year-round, open Arctic passage that could cut weeks off commercial shipping times from Asia to Mediterranean and Atlantic ports. Perhaps more important are the military implications from rising competition among the most powerful states. The defense of North America is an area of increasing concern for the US.

“It is becoming increasingly apparent that competitors, such as Russia and the People’s Republic of China, desire to influence international norms and alter the behaviors of allies, partners and Arctic-focused countries for the benefit of these competitor nations. Russia and the PRC have made their intentions for the region clear through the promulgation of strategic documents that underline their commitment to the Arctic,” according to US Air Force General Glen D. Van Herck, writing in Defense News. Russia is militarizing the area and acting overtly to capitalize on the region’s infrastructure and resources. Enhancing its air and coastal defense capabilities and improving its nuclear deterrent credibility puts North America in a position of greater risk. Russia’s behavior toward Ukraine this year adds to the Pentagon concerns about the potential of an attack on North America through the Arctic region.

Russia’s geographic proximity to North America makes it the most acute security concern to US interests in the Arctic, according to Defense News. Add to this threat China’s self-proclaimed status as a “near Arctic nation,” although it is located over 900 miles from the region. China has improved its blue water naval capabilities, expanded its operational zones globally, and it now holds observer status on the Arctic Council with the Russian Federation chairing the Council until 2023. China’s enhanced threat capabilities coupled with its recent belligerent behavior in Asia raise the level of concern in Washington that its navy could become more involved in Arctic operations.

US national defense strategy calls for strengthening US deterrent capabilities and attaining military advantages through the expansion of joint force capabilities to deter the join Russian-Chinese threat. Washington’s goal is two-fold: maintain a stable Arctic region and an ability to deter any threat from competitor states to the US homeland.

“Executing large-scale joint and multinational force exercises under Arctic conditions exhibits credible deterrence while broadcasting robust US defense capabilities. These demonstrations, when messaged appropriately, have a profound deterrent effect on competitors, molding perceptions and shaping their actions,” according to Van Herck. This month the United States is opening the Ted Stevens Center for Arctic Security Studies. It will be DOD’s newest regional center with a goal of focusing on building strong networks with domestic and international Arctic-minded security leaders. The Center will conduct focused analytical research aimed toward advancing the Defense Department’s priorities in the Arctic. Given the constraints on DOD’s budget, the opening of the Center highlights the importance Washington places on the region.

Van Herck argues that “Ceding the Arctic to competitors will result in accepting unnecessary risk to North America. The changing Arctic environment and increasing competitor activities in the region should invoke a sense of urgency in all of us. Efforts to develop and demonstrate Arctic capabilities, as well as establishing or strengthening multilateral organizations to address Arctic concerns, are clear indicators of progress.” Russia and China’s behavior in the Arctic also is of grave concern to Canada. In late June Ottawa  pledged to spend over $30 billion over the next two decades to help detect and track military threats from Russia and China in the Arctic. It also pledged to modernize it capabilities to defend North America in alignment with NORAD. In March the combined US-Canadian North American Aerospace Defense Command held a yearly exercise in the Canadian Arctic, with the stated intention of testing their ability to “respond to both aircraft and cruise missiles threatening North America.”

If Russia decides to attack the US using nuclear missiles, they will fly over the Arctic region. The threat to Canada and the US, according to Canadian officials, could come in several forms, ranging from small-scale, and logistically extremely difficult, commando raids on Canadian facilities on its northernmost Ellesmere Island to nuclear-armed submarines prowling undetected under the Arctic ice. Given that Canada’s “domain awareness” capabilities are not able to defend against hypersonic missiles incoming over the Arctic, it will be up to the United States to protect North America. Russia and China’s devolving behavior raises the importance of watching the Arctic region for the Biden Administration and being prepared to take action, if necessary.

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

Photo: Pixabay

Imagine the militaries of China and Russia uniting their armed forces to oppose the United States… two giant nuclear-armed communist states facing off against one western democratic nation. 

Cold War era nuclear deterrence theory no longer applies to the geopolitical dynamics at work today. America needs to prepare to respond to the simultaneous threat of two united communist giants, according to the chief of the US Strategic Command, Admiral Chas Richards. He is warning publicly that China has changed the nature of the national security threat to the US this year. The publication Defense One reports that on Thursday, before a group of experts at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama, Richards said that “We have to account for three-party [threats]” and “That is unprecedented in this nation’s history. We have never faced two peer nuclear-capable opponents at the same time, who have to be deterred differently.” 

In recent years China has dramatically increased its defense budget, the lethality of the PLA, and prepared for war in space. Beijing has bought, built, and stolen advanced military technologies and weapons systems from the West. The distance its blue water navy can travel now threatens not only its Asian neighboring states but most of the world, including all of the United States. The Pentagon in late July warned that China’s belligerent behavior increases the chances for an accidental encounter that could spiral out of control. 

During the same period US institutional knowledge about avoiding nuclear war has atrophied, according to Richards. The Chinese threat is pushing the US Strategic Command to quickly shift how it will react to the evolving threat from Beijing, according to Tara Copp of Defense One. A significant outstanding issue for US military planners is that Washington has not yet fully taken into account China’s new hypersonic weapons program. The new system appears capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads. China tested it last October by launching hypersonic test missiles that flew around the world and landed within an acceptable target range back in China. 

What is perhaps most alarming is that for the first time China flew a missile over the south pole in a simulation of an attack on the United States across the southern border. Most of America’s missile defense system is directed at deterring a hostile Cold War threat crossing our northern border from Russia. Should China decide to employ nuclear-armed hypersonic missiles following a southern approach, it would be difficult for the US military to defend the country. An attack coordinated with Russian missiles from the north would be devastating to the United States. 

President Xi Jinping has grown increasingly aggressive in recent weeks. During the early August visit of US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan, he ordered PLAN ships and PLAAF fighter planes to conduct military exercises around the island. Beijing simultaneously warned the US Navy and commercial airliner and ships to stay clear of the region. Then last Friday Beijing imposed sanctions on Pelosi and her immediate family in response to what the Chinese government described as an “egregious provocation” due to her visit to Taiwan and meeting with officials there. 

Some analysts in Washington are pointing to lessons learned from Russia’s war in Ukraine, saying it is teaching China how to conduct warfare with the West, while noting that as early as 2030 China expects to have a fully modernized military. Earlier this year the PLAN conducted coordinated navy exercises for the first time with the Russian navy in the northern part of the Pacific Ocean. As tensions in US-China relations increase and Beijing continues to modernize its military, the United States must prepare to confront a capable and belligerent China that could align with Russia to strike the United States. Before WWII few believed Hawaii would be attacked. Given the destructive capabilities of weapons today the United States cannot afford to ignore the reality of a nuclear-armed China with malevolent intentions toward the US and other democratic states. Washington needs to heed Admiral Richards warning while there is time to address the threat.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

A Russian protectorate may be emerging in the border area between Armenia and Azerbaijan known as Karabakh. Both Yerevan and Baku recently made public statements for the first time severely criticizing Russia’s peacekeeping forces in the area amid rising tensions that could destabilize the plateau that effectively separates the two countries. Putin’s troops were inserted into Karabakh on the basis of a trilateral declaration at the end of the 44-day war in 2020. Despite their peacekeeper label, they are failing to meet international standards established by the United Nations for such a mission. The Russian troops are acting in a one-sided manner and failing to keep the peace, according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. He reports they do little more than “report violations of the ceasefire.” 

The strained environment could spark renewed conflict between the two South Caucasus countries, despite both sides having joined in chastising Moscow. The geopolitical boundaries that once outlined the Soviet Union’s former republics are losing their clarity. The current status represents a major change in the position of the two clashing countries. Baku never wanted Russian forces on Azerbaijani territory but was unable to secure an agreement for a Turkish peacekeeping contingent. It views remnants of the Armenian-backed Artsakh government as too close to Moscow. That faction, says Goble, has failed to insist either on the withdrawal of Armenian army units from Karabakh or the Armenian construction of an alternative road into the region, so the Lachin Corridor will be under complete Azerbaijani control. “That stands in sharp contrast to Armenia’s public position,” he notes. 

Senior politicians in the Armenian capital of Yerevan have been supportive of the Russian presence as government officials view the peacekeeping force as the only real protection for ethnic Armenians in Karabakh. Earlier in August some “openly expressed outrage that Russian forces in Karabakh have not responded vigorously to what Yerevan sees as Azerbaijani aggression against Armenians,” according to a Jamestown Foundation report. The South Caucasus states, which are strengthening ties to Middle Eastern countries, could soon emerge as a powder keg if the August protests continue and Russia reacts strongly to the criticism of its troops. The Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan recently added to the argument demanding that Moscow’s role be “clarified lest more problems arise,” notes Goble. An increase in tensions threatens to spread to Iran and Turkey, two neighboring states at a time when Western countries are hoping to increase gas flows from Ajerbaijan to Europe to counter Russian reductions to those states.

What began as a limited, local disagreement over the effectiveness of Russian peacekeepers appears to be taking on the stature of an international issue involving the United States, the European Union, Turkey, and Iran. This week, as the West increased diplomatic efforts to quell the unrest, Iran began moving its troops to the Azerbaijani border, according to a report in the Nezavisimaya Gazette. Goble suggests it could go one of two ways. “Such outside involvement could lead to an easing of tensions that escalated over the past week, or it could have the exact opposite effect…The violence in Karabakh in early August 2022 was triggered by Baku’s demand in July that Yerevan immediately pull the last remaining Armenian troops out of the disputed territory.” 

While Armenia claims to be withdrawing its three group of forces in Karabakh, the ground truth is more complicated. US military analysts say that military units containing Armenians from Armenia are remain stationed in the region. A second group of military units including Armenians from Karabakh itself, will soon not have any Armenians from Armenia as members of its forces. Goble points out that “Yerevan does not believe these units fall under the November 2020 declaration” as “these regiments were partially mobilized last week. The third faction is composed of irregular forces of heavily armed Armenian civilians in Karabakh and units that Yerevan refuses to manage. The Russian peacekeepers are scattered among the three groups, resulting in charges and countercharges of military action by the various sides that could lead to a broader conflict. 

Russia’s pull, if anything, is weakening, according to Paul Stronski of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Labeling the South Caucasus states as Russia’s periphery fails to recognize the evolving nature of the region. As the region leans more heavily toward the eastern Mediterranean, and Middle Eastern states fill the void left by the Soviet Union 30 years ago, Russia’s role today is “no longer as unchallenged as it once was, especially if Moscow cannot beef up its presence in Karabakh given troop shortages because of the war in Ukraine,” says Goble. The expanding destabilization of the region is a serious possibility that military analysts are following more closely this summer.  

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

According to the Migration Policy Institute (MIP), “(t)he U.S. Census Bureau experienced significant challenges collecting data in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and released only a small number of data points from its 2020 American Community Survey, which it called ‘experimental.’ As a result, (the MIP) has to rely on 2019 data for a number of sociodemographic and economic characteristics of immigrants…with some of the trends it describes predating the pandemic.” 

Even given these limitations, however, the numbers from 2019 are startling.  ” MIP estimates there were about 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States in 2019. Almost half resided in three states: California (25 percent), Texas (16 percent), and New York (8 percent). The vast majority (81 percent) lived in 176 counties with 10,000 or more unauthorized immigrants each, of which the top five—Los Angeles County, California; Harris County, Texas; Dallas County, Texas; Cook County, Illinois; and Orange County, California—accounted for 20 percent of all unauthorized immigrants.”

And just who are these “unauthorized immigrants?” “Mexicans and Central Americans accounted for roughly two-thirds (67 percent, or 7.4 million) of U.S. unauthorized immigrants in 2019, according to MPI estimates. About 1.7 million (15 percent) were from Asia; 907,000 (8 percent) from South America; 440,000 (4 percent) from Europe, Canada, or Oceania; 327,000 (3 percent) from the Caribbean; and 295,000 (3 percent) from Africa. Unauthorized immigrants’ top countries of birth were Mexico (48 percent), El Salvador and Guatemala (7 percent each), India (5 percent), and Honduras (4 percent).” 

Add to these numbers the statistics for “Southwest Land Border Encounters” published online by US Customs and Border Protection.  Those “encountered” crossing the border between Mexico and the United States are defined as Accompanied Minors, Individuals in a Family Unit, Single Adults, and Unaccompanied Minors.  In total, in June 2022 alone, there were 207, 416 “Enforcement Encounters.”  In May, 240,991; April, 235, 706; March, 222,340; February, 165,905; and in January of 2022, 154, 813.  

Thus, for the first 6 months of this year, there have been 1,227,171 border crossers encountered by the Border Patrol.  If the estimate of 11 million “unauthorized immigrants” residing in the US in 2019 is accepted for the purpose of comparison, this means that roughly another 11% of the 2019 total estimated illegal immigrants  have surged across our Southern border in the first half of this year alone.

According to the Cambridge University Dictionary, besides the ordinary definition of an “invasion” as “an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country,” there are two other accepted definitions: “an occasion when a large number of people or things come to a place in an annoying and unwanted way” and “an action or process that affects someone’s life in an unpleasant and unwanted way.”   Under these definitions, Is there some reasonable view under which the influx of 1.2 million people into our country is not an invasion?

Of course, if you ask the person responsible for border security, there is no problem.  At the end of April, “Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas appeared before the House Judiciary Committee…for an oversight hearing…(i)n his opening remarks, Ranking Member Jim Jordan quoted Mayorkas from last year telling supporters that, ‘The border is secure and we’re executing our plan’… (w)hen asked by Rep. Michael Guest, ‘Are you testifying as you sit here today that the Southwest border is secure?’, Mayorkas replied, ‘Yes, I am.’ At another point in the hearing, Mayorkas went further, proclaiming that DHS has ‘operational control of the southern border.’ While the word ‘secure’ could be open to some interpretation, ‘operational control’ is a statutory term with an unambiguous definition. Under section 2(a) of the ‘Secure Fence Act of 2006,’ Congress defined ‘operational control’ as ‘the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.’ This definition was read out loud to Mayorkas before his response, making it all the more remarkable that he claims to have fulfilled that edict.” 

But his boss, Joe Biden, must think there might just be a problem of some sort.  In June, the President claimed that “we know that safe, orderly, and legal migration is good for all our economies.  But we need to halt the dangerous and unlawful ways people are migrating…(u)nlawful migration is not acceptable, and we’ll secure our borders.”  

Either President Biden is mistaken, or Secretary Mayorkas is lying, and based on the evidence, the later is more likely.  At the end of July, “(t)he Biden administration…authorized completion of the Trump-funded U.S.-Mexico border wall in an open area of southern Arizona near Yuma that has become one of the busiest corridors for illegal crossings…. Yuma sector has quickly emerged as the third busiest of nine sectors along the border… Agents stopped migrants more than 160,000 times from January through June in the Yuma sector, nearly quadruple from the same period last year. The only other sectors with more traffic were Del Rio and Rio Grande Valley in South Texas.”  

While completing the border wall is a step in the right direction, the Biden Administration’s response to the invasion of our Southern border is too little, too late.  In fact, an entire industry has grown up around moving illegal migrants from the border to the interior of the United States.

“In addition to providing essential services to immigrants and refugees to the U.S.,” Catholic Charities USA “also advocate(s) for policies that protect family unity and allow newcomers to contribute to and more fully participate in their new communities.”    “Migrants are an especially vulnerable population cared for by Catholic Charities staff and volunteers because they are on the move, far from home, and strangers in a strange land.  After being processed by federal authorities, they arrive at our sites weary from their travels…Catholic Charities serves migrants and refugees along the border and throughout the U.S. interior by providing for basic humanitarian needs such as food, shelter and clothing; assisting families with social work case management; providing asylum-seekers with immigration legal assistance; and resettling refugees from all corners of the world.”  

Where does the money come from for these efforts?  “(F)ederal and state governments often rely on local nonprofit entities to undertake tasks that would otherwise fall to the government, often because of acute and abrupt need, and also because of the nonprofits’ particular areas of expertise. Catholic Charities has a long history of assisting migrants and refugees,” according to Kevin Clarke.  “Like many not-for-profit social service entities in the United States, Catholic Charities USA receives significant funding from the federal government through contracts awarded for much-needed social services.”  

Indeed.  At the Website for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, there is a full page of federal grants available, including a “Reception And Placement Grant,” which “is funded on a per capita basis by the U.S. Department of State/Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (DOS/BPRM). The grant supports basic resettlement services to newly arriving refugees sponsored under USCCB/MRS auspices,” and a “Services To Newly Arrived Refugees” grant, which is “funded through DHHS/ORR, provides enhanced services to newly arrived refugees at sites selected for their proven success in resettlement, under the Preferred Communities program.”  

Clarke denies that Catholic Charities profits from these grants and federal contracts.  But, there is enough money available to provide for the needs of the hundreds of thousands of “undocumented migrants” crossing our Southern Border daily.  Recently, a family of migrants with Covid informed a local police officer in Texas “that Border Patrol had released them days prior due to their coronavirus status, (and that) a charity group had paid for their room at the nearby Texas Inn Hotel. The officer followed up on that information, finding out that Catholic Charities of The Rio Grande Valley had booked all the rooms in the hotel to house undocumented immigrants detained by Border Patrol.” 

In fact, the American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit to stop this distribution of federal funds to Catholic Charities.  “The ACLU sued U.S. Health and Human Services in June, claiming its allocation of millions in taxpayer dollars to faith-based groups like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops violates the separation of church and state by ‘subsidizing religious beliefs.'”  US government attorneys “described the distribution of $1.6 billion that Congress authorized for the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to dole out through grants as an ‘executive action’ that cannot be challenged by taxpayers in federal court.” 

$1.6 billion dollars may not constitute a profit to Catholic Charities and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.  But it certainly will keep a lot of aid workers employed for both groups.

Meanwhile, the local governments of “sanctuary cities” like New York, Washington DC, San Francisco and Los Angeles continue to make life easier for the undocumented.  Several years ago, New York City instituted an ID program “for all New Yorkers, from all backgrounds, and from all five boroughs. Your immigration status does not matter. The free, municipal identification card for New York City residents, ages 10 and up, provides access to a wide variety of services and programs offered by the City. IDNYC cardholders enjoy benefits and discounts offered by businesses and cultural institutions across the five boroughs.”   

Meanwhile, “(t)he city of San Francisco has started an advertising push with a specific target market: illegal immigrants….(i)n what may be the first such campaign of its kind, the city plans to publish multilanguage brochures and fill the airwaves with advertisements relaying assurance that San Francisco will not report them to federal immigration authorities…’I guess it”s what you expect from San Francisco,’ said Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform in Washington, which lobbies for stronger immigration enforcement. ‘But now, not only are they helping people break the law of the federal government, they are advertising it. I don”t know of any other city actually looking for illegal immigrants.'”  

San Francisco began advertising its “Sanctuary City” status in 2008.  More recently, “(t)he Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously with no discussion to allow the county to no longer require U.S. citizenship for government jobs…(a)ccording to the adopted motion, the new policy ‘ensures that applicants for employment are fairly and equitably considered, without regard to national origin, citizenship or other non-merit factors that are not substantially related to successful performance of the duties of the position,’ the Los Angeles Daily News reported.”   

But sanctuary status has begun to backfire on Democratic-led cities.  “Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has been organizing buses to bring migrants to DC in an effort to highlight his criticism of (the) Biden administration’s immigration policies. According to Abbott’s office, more than 5,100 migrants have arrived in Washington from Texas on more than 135 buses.”  For her part, Washington DC mayor Muriel Bowser, is wondering what to do with all these extra mouths to feed.   “The mayor’s office is requesting to convert the DC Armory, Joint Base Bolling, Fort McNair or another ‘suitable federal location in the National Capital Region’ into a processing center for the migrants. The regional welcome center established to aid the migrants in Montgomery County, Maryland, is at capacity, according to the request…’I’ve asked for the deployment of the (National) Guard as long as we need…to deal with the crisis that we expect to escalate,’ Bowser said. ‘The number of people crossing the border seeking asylum we expect to only go up. And we need to make sure that there is a national response, not an ad hoc, city-by-city, state-by-state response.'”

Of course, what is really at the heart of Mayor Bowser’s request for more welcome centers and the National Guard? “DC has already facilitated the help of the Federal Emergency Management Agency with a $1 million grant, Bowser said.”   

Maybe Mayor Bowser should be asking Catholic Charities and the US Conference of American Bishops how to seek federal grants for the care and feeding of the exploding illegal immigrant population.

In any event, there is no denying that the illegal immigration issue has become unmanageable, even for aid workers grabbing federal funding hand over fist.  Unless, of course, you’re the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

There is an air of unreality surrounding Progressives’ objections to providing adequate funding for America’s defense.  The Pentagon budget accounts for about 13% of federal spending, but in a press release, the Progressive Caucus criticized the amount of the appropriation, and called for increased dollars for domestic programs. Sen. Bernie Sander argues that “we do not need a massive increase in the defense budget.” 

On the other hand, supporters of adequate military preparations point to the fact that the dramatic inflation rate hampers the ability of the Pentagon to gain the resources necessary to carry out its mission. 

The Washington Post notes that the most recent Biden budget “doesn’t even match our 7.9 percent inflation much less our urgent needs. At the very least, Congress should double that hike. Ideally, it would do much more.”

The warnings come also from Defense News   “America’s military leaders state time and again that China’s forcible assault on Taiwan, and therefore our response to it, is a near-term challenge. Given the lengthy time to plan, program, build and field credible combat power, a 2027 problem is really one of today. Alarm bells should be ringing in Congress as the president’s latest defense budget cuts readiness. Given that ongoing support for Ukraine is straining some key U.S. military supplies and munitions, everyone should be concerned the China fight would demand even more and faster.”

Opponents to an adequate defense budget treat military spending as just another government program that Washington can deal with on its own time table. 

Inflation is a key challenge, but the greatest problem confronting the Defense Department is far more serious, and certainly not something under U.S. politician’s control.  The growing Russian-Chinese alliance, and the blatant belligerence on the part of both Moscow and Beijing, places America in unprecedented jeopardy. Never before has Washington faced an adversary that has greater industrial might, a larger nuclear force, and the planet’s largest navy. In addition, the population and geography of the two nation dwarfs that of the U.S. 

A Russian news article describes the latest development in the Chinese-Russian Axis: 

“China is willing to continue to offer mutual support to Russia on issues concerning our core interests such as sovereignty and security, intensify strategic coordination between the two countries, and strengthen communication and coordination in major international and regional organizations such as the United Nations, BRICS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization,” Xi was quoted as saying by China’s state media outlet CCTV. In the phone call, which fell on Xi’s 69th birthday, the two leaders noted that relations between Russia and China “have reached an unprecedentedly high level and are constantly improving,” 

Neither the Kremlin nor the ruling Chinese Communist Party has been shy about their aggressive intentions. Russia’s war on Ukraine and China’s dramatic armed expansion throughout the Indo-Pacific region are clear examples. 

Officials in both nations have made clear their threats. Two top Chinese colonels, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, in a book entitled Unrestricted Warfare, made the case for assaulting America, while voicing contempt for U.S. military competence, contemptuously noting that the America has been unable to actually succeed in combat since the Second Gulf War. 

And from Moscow, officials have unabashedly threatened the U.S. with advanced nuclear missiles. The most recent example: The head of the Russian space agency Roscosmos Dmitry Rogozin has threatened the use of  Moscow’s Satan-2 intercontinental ballistic missile, a repeated theme of Vladimir Putin

The size and scope of the threats, combined with the inadequate funding of the Pentagon, has led some to sound alarm bells. The Center for Strategic and International Studies warns that American national security is “staring into an abyss” unless the trend of not keeping spending levels up with inflation is halted.

The calendar may read 2022, but in historical terms, today is December 6, 1941, the day before the Pearl Harbor attack.

Photo: “Pearl Harbor” U.S. National Archives

The Biden Administration’s bizarre policy of unilateral retreat and de-escalation is emboldening America’s adversaries, bringing the nation to the threshold of conflict.

There has been a marked change in Moscow and Beijing’s perspectives since the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan. While the drawdown of U.S. forces had universal approval, the failure to leave a small force behind to prevent the victory of the Taliban, a precise repeat of then-Vice President Biden’s strategic error in Iraq earlier this century which gave rise to the ISIS caliphate, signaled that the current White House lacked expertise in foreign affairs.

The Administration has puzzled observers with a penchant for hastily providing concessions without seeking anything in return.

Despite the recognition that space was rapidly becoming a strategic realm of battle, Biden unilaterally ceased testing of American anti-satellite weaponry. In April, Vice-President Harris announced the self-imposed ban, receiving nothing in return from Russia or China.

Biden’s own Defense Department has noted that “Russia and China, our primary strategic competitors, are taking steps to undercut the United States and our allies in the space domain. Both nations view space as a requirement for winning modern wars, especially against Western nations, and look to prove themselves as world leaders. Since early 2019, competitor space operations have increased in pace and scope across nearly all major categories …China and Russia value superiority in space. And as a result, they’ll seek ways to strengthen their space and counter-space programs and determine better ways to integrate them within their respective militaries…”  

The Gatestone Institute blasted the move. “Space has already become the scene of an ongoing “shadow war” in which China and Russia conduct attacks against U.S. satellites with lasers, radiofrequency jammers, and cyber-attacks every day, according to General David Thompson, the U.S. Space Force’s first vice chief of space operations..Fifteen years after China’s ASAT strike, we still lack the ability to defeat an attack on our space systems or launch an offensive strike if circumstances warrant…”

Back on Earth, as Russia built up its forces neighboring Ukraine, the White did next to nothing. No defensive weapons were provided to Ukraine to discourage Putin’s planned adventurism.  After Moscow began the war, Biden provided just enough assistance to allow the Kiev government to hang on, but not win, the conflict.  

Senator Ted Cruz issued a critique of Biden’s failure.

“President Biden has repeatedly, systematically undermined our Ukrainian allies in the face of Russian aggression to placate Putin. And it’s worth noting, Biden does this for the same reason he undermines Taiwan—he undermines Taiwan to placate the Chinese Communists, he undermines Ukraine to placate Putin. To placate Putin, the Biden administration has repeatedly withheld military aid packages to Ukraine. Other times he has withheld diplomatic support to pressure our Ukrainian allies into supporting his misguided Nord Stream 2 surrender to Putin. Biden’s actions for the past year have emboldened Putin, who acted on that weakness and has put Europe on the brink of war.”

Biden’s actions towards China are the most worrisome of all. He has reversed former President Trump’s efforts to combat Beijing’s prodigious espionage efforts. He has allowed it to buy land next to strategic American defense sites. As its navy has grown far larger than its U.S. equivalent, the President inexplicably has submitted budgets to Congress that shrink, rather than expand, the nation’s maritime force.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan broke no new diplomatic ground. Indeed, decades ago, then Speaker Newt Gingrich made the same journey. This time, however, China responded to the trip by surrounding the island nation and threatening war, b oth against Taiwan and the U.S. 

Clearly, it felt no fear of reaction from the Biden White House.

Frank Vernuccio serves as editor-in-chief of the New York Analysis of Policy and Government.

North Korea is spending heavily on the development of its nuclear weapons program and is “ready to mobilize,” according to North Korea’s President Kim Jung Un. In Seoul, downward trends in recent budget allocations indicate the country’s military reserve forces may be in trouble due to decreased levels of funding and substandard training events. There also are declining levels of support and respect for the country’s military service among the citizenry, coupled with rising rates of dissatisfaction among those considering it as a career, according to Brendan Balestrieri and Won-Geun Koo of War on the Rocks. The decades-long negative trends do not bode well for the South’s readiness to fend off an invasion from the North. 

Balestrieri and Koo suggest that the country “continues to emphasize fourth-generation defense initiatives at the expense of training and equipping its mostly conscript army.” New battleships and aircraft create the outward appearance of a nation able to conduct modern warfare. Few resources, however, are devoted to addressing the potential that the North could conduct a blitzkrieg-style raid on South Korea using hybrid techniques and guerilla warfare. 

The threat from the North has grown over the years as Kim has emphasized his country’s asymmetrical warfare capabilities. Balestrieri and Koo point out that “As North Korea’s conventional force capability deteriorated over the past two decades, the North Korean regime increasingly emphasized asymmetric warfare capabilities such as nuclear weapons, short-range ballistic missiles, special operations forces, and the development of insertion platforms such as hovercraft and submarines.” The situation in Seoul today no longer resembles the strong allegiance to the state following the 1968 attempted assassination of the country’s president by North Korean commandos. At that time, South Korea had about 2.5 million reservists, including over 10,000 women who signed up with the local reserve forces. 

In recent years Seoul has used its reservists to reinforce active-duty divisions. The homeland security reserve divisions, in particular, support rear area operations, and would be the most likely to be called up to counter North Korean special forces or asymmetric threats, according to Balestrieri and Koo. With only three days of training each year, including time spent on administrative paperwork tasks, reservists have few opportunities to practice warfighting skills in the field. Since mid-2018, there also has been a decrease in combined US-Korean military training exercises. 

In-Bum Chun, a former deputy commander of South Korea’s First Army, described the situation by saying that the “conditions for training are very, very bad.” He pointed out the lack of live fire training saying it will take until at least 2027 to make significant readiness improvements in the troops. South Korea suffers from a 60% annual turnover rate among the troops, with some service members not experiencing a live fire training exercise in 12 years. The US commander of the Eighth Army in Korea, Lt. Gen. Bill Burleson, contradicted Chun saying the South is ready to fight and pointed to high technology reconnaissance planes flying and the artillery batteries. That does not account for the lack of training for the infantry.

Some South Korea units are using WWII-era equipment, according to interviews Balestrieri and Koo conducted with the country’s senior military officers. During an invasion military analysts suggest that as many as 200,000 well-trained, North Korean special forces could form the point of the spear. Unlike the NATO modernization plan, in which Member states are improving the interoperability of their various national forces, South Korean military doctrine continues to view their branches as separate and distinct entities. Add to it the North’s cyber warfare capabilities, and the balance begins to change in favor of Kim Jung Un’s regime in a conventional war. 

Historical data covering military preparedness in the South does not trend well for repelling Kim’s forces. There have been a number of incidents since the 1968 assassination attempt at the Blue House in Seoul. On September 18, 1996, a North Korean Sang-O-class submarine ran aground off the coast of South Korea while returning to pick up several spies inserted to gather intelligence on a nearby airbase. It took months to track down those involved in the operation. A 1997 report indicates that only 34% of reserve troops responded and mobilized on day one of getting called up. Use of alcohol while on duty, cases of AWOL, and fratricide also have dogged its military in recent decades. Add to that a demographic time bomb which threatens to further reduce the number of available citizens who could join the military in the coming years. South Korea today can cite few overall improvements in its troop preparedness  despite some advances in its advanced-technology weapons systems. 

The political-military leadership of South Korea, according to Balestrieri and Koo, should be alarmed. They point out that research into the importance of the will to fight as a critical component of military capability continues to evolve, but “Regrettably, declining levels of support among young South Koreans for public service is beginning to extend beyond the military, as evidenced by declining competition ratios for South Korea’s much-feared civil service exam. It may soon become necessary for the United States to extend an offer to the South to revamp its military training to counter threat from the North.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

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)