Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

Top U.S. intelligence officials, Army Lt. Gen. Scott Berrier, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and Avril Haines, Director of national intelligence testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 10, providing deeply disturbing insights into threats from China, Russia, Iran and various terrorist organizations. 

General Berrier stressed that “The [Ukranian] invasion has demonstrated Russia’s intent to overturn the U.S.-led, rules-based, post-Cold War international order, expand its control over the former Soviet Union and reclaim what it regards as its rightful position on the world stage.” He noted that Russian military capabilities pose an existential threat to U.S. national security and that of our allies.  

While some in the U.S. mistakenly think of China as a “competitor” rather than a military threat, the ruling Chinese Communist Party considers America  a strategic enemy.

General Berrier reported that China’s military, which has already fielded sophisticated weapons and instituted major organizational reforms to enhance joint operations, is a credible, peer competitor in the Indo-Pacific region, He also emphasized that “China’s current nuclear force expansion is historic.”

“The United States faces military and intelligence threats from competitors, particularly Russia and China, who have, and are developing, new capabilities intended to contest, limit or exceed U.S. military advantage,” Berrier said. “State and non-state actors are selectively putting these capabilities into play globally and regionally. These capabilities also span all warfighting domains — maritime, land, air, electronic warfare, cyberspace information and space.” 

The Senate Armed Forces Committee was informed that Russia’s and China’s capabilities include more lethal, ballistic and cruise missiles. China is growing nuclear stockpiles of modernized conventional forces and a range of gray-zone measures, such as the use of “ambiguous unconventional forces, foreign proxies, information manipulation, cyber-attacks and economic coercion.”

Director Haines told the Senate that China remains an unparalleled priority for the intelligence community. “The governments of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea have all demonstrated the capability and intent to promote their interests in ways that cut against U.S. and allied interests. ”  

She reported that “The PRC is coming ever closer to being a peer competitor in areas of relevance to national security and is pushing to revise global norms and institutions to its advantage… They are challenging the United States in multiple arenas — economically, militarily and technologically.”

Russia’s failure to timely defeat Ukrainian forces could lead to escalation flashpoints, including increasing Russian attempts to interdict Western security assistance, and retaliation for Western economic sanctions. 

Haines stated that “We believe that Moscow continues to use nuclear rhetoric to deter the United States and the West from increasing lethal aid to Ukraine…if Putin perceives that the United States is ignoring his threats, he may try to signal to Washington the heightened danger of its support to Ukraine by authorizing another large nuclear exercise, involving a major dispersal of mobile intercontinental missiles, heavy bombers strategic submarines…[However] We otherwise continue to believe President Putin would probably only authorize the use of nuclear weapons if he perceived an existential threat to the Russian state or regime.”  

Haines said the danger from Moscow goes beyond Ukraine. “Moscow presents a serious cyber threat, a key space competitor one of the most serious foreign influence threats to the United States.”

A Department of Defense summary of the testimony warned that the “Russian government seeks to not only pursue its own interests, but also to divide Western alliances, undermine U.S. global standing, amplify discord inside the United States, and influence U.S. voters and decision making.”

Russia and China are not the only threats. Haines warns that the ” Iranian regime continues to threaten U.S. interests as it tries to erode U.S. influence in the Middle East and trench its influence, … project power in neighboring states and minimize threats to regime stability. Meanwhile, Kim Jong-un continues to steadily expand and enhance Pyongyang’s nuclear and conventional capabilities, targeting the United States and its allies, periodically using aggressive potentially destabilizing actions to reshape the regional security environment in his favor, and to reinforce its status quo as a de facto nuclear power.”  

Photo: A fighter jet attached to an air force aviation unit under the PLA Southern Theatre Command takes off in an around-the-clock flight training exercise on April 18, 2022. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Huang Rongkai)

Earlier this year, we discussed two decisions from the US Supreme Court that had an impact on the vaccine mandates put into place by two different federal agencies.    In one decision, Biden v. Missouri, “the Supreme Court decided that the Secretary of Health and Human Services had the power, delegated to him by Congress, to require healthcare workers to submit to a Covid-19 vaccine.” Conversely, in  National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. the Court held that the Department of Labor, through OSHA, did not have the authority to order private employers to mandate their employees receive a Covid-19 vaccination. 

In one case, it was among the powers delegated to HHC by Congress which allowed it to provide for a vaccine mandate to the healthcare industry; in fact, other vaccines have been required of nurses, doctors and other medical personnel in the past.  In the other, as the Court stated, “(p)ermitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.” 

Shortly after the National Federation decision, the Biden Administration dropped its “emergency rule that required all large private employers to require Covid-19 vaccines or regular tests…(t) he Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) decided to drop the policy ‘after evaluating the [Supreme] Court’s decision,’ the Labor Department said.”   

In both August and September of last year, we discussed whether private employers have the right to mandate vaccines for their employees.  “In general, the practice is legal, so long are employees can seek either a medical or religious exemption.”  

In February of this year, the Fifth Circuit gave a warning to employers who do not provide their employees with a fair and reasonable religious exemption policy.  The case is limited to a particular set of circumstances; but a review of the case will give hope to those facing an onerous and over-burdensome process in securing a vaccine exemption on religious grounds.

Sambrano v. United Airlines, decided in February, was brought by a group of employees who had asserted religious exceptions to the airlines’ vaccination mandate.  According to the decision, “a United employee could apply for an exemption from the vaccine mandate for either religious or medical reasons. But at a town-hall meeting, United’s CEO warned that not many exemptions would be granted and remarked that any employee who ‘all the sudden decid[ed],”I’m really religious”‘ would be ‘putting [her] job on the line’ by requesting an accommodation. Once an employee requested a religious exemption, United would ask the employees about their past vaccinations, the use of stem cells in those vaccines, and ‘why receiving such vaccines or medications were not a violation of the employees’ “sincerely held [religious] belief”’ on those prior occasions. United also asked why the employees’ religious beliefs prevented them from receiving the Covid-19 vaccine ‘but not taking other types of medicine.’ Some employees were asked to provide a letter from a pastor or other third party attesting that the employee actually held religious beliefs.” 

As harsh and intrusive as this questioning sounds, it is within the employers’ rights under federal law to make these inquiries.  We noted in August that while “the employer ‘should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief,’ according to the EEOC, ‘however, if an employee requests a religious accommodation, and an employer is aware of facts that provide an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, practice or observance, the employer would be justified in requesting additional supporting information.’”

The issue in Sambrano revolves around the steps United took with their employees who were granted a religious exemption.  “After United would determine which employees were sufficiently religious, it provided those employees with an ‘accommodation.’ The employee could keep her job, but could not go to work, would not be paid, and would not receive company-paid benefits. To go back to work, the exempt employee had to get the Covid-19 vaccine. And if the employee would not, she could instead wait it out and start work again after the pandemic ‘meaningfully recedes’ (which United guesses could be another ’72 months’ or so).”

As if these measures weren’t obnoxious enough, “United’s campaign was not limited to forcing employees to choose between the vaccine and indefinite unpaid leave. For example, in August 2021, United began sending postcards to unvaccinated employees stating that United had not received evidence of their vaccination and they needed to get vaccinated to avoid being ‘separated from United.’ Plaintiffs credibly contend that United sent postcards rather than letters in order to broadcast employees’ unvaccinated status to family members and enlist those family members in coaxing employees to receive the vaccine.”

The lower court had denied a preliminary injunction to the unvaccinated employees who had received religious exemptions from United, and were subjected to the terror tactics described above.  According to the Fifth Circuit,  “(t)hough the district court noted that plaintiffs’ claims were ‘compelling and convincing,’ it ultimately concluded that plaintiffs could not establish irreparable injury,” and did not stop United from continuing their policies during the pendency of the lawsuit.  On this narrow basis, the Firth Circuit reversed the lower court, and sent the case back to the District Court for a further review.

“Plaintiffs are being subjected to ongoing coercion based on their religious beliefs. That coercion is harmful in and of itself and cannot be remedied after the fact,” the Fifth Circuit wrote.  “Properly understood, the plaintiffs are alleging two distinct harms…(t)he first is United’s decision to place them on indefinite unpaid leave; that harm, and any harm that flows from it, can be remedied through backpay, reinstatement, or otherwise. The second form of harm flows from United’s decision to coerce the plaintiffs into violating their religious convictions; that harm and that harm alone is irreparable and supports a preliminary injunction.”

Though the court itself was careful to limit their ruling, the Fifth Circuit was nonetheless very clear in their finding of an undue burden placed by United on the exercise of their employees’ exercise of their religious freedom under the First Amendment to the US Constitution.  “This court and the Supreme Court have held that ‘[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury’…under both the constitutional and statutory provisions a plaintiff demonstrates irreparable harm by alleging a violation of her rights to freely exercise her religion.”  

“Here we are considering only whether plaintiffs have shown substantial likelihood of irreparable injury. We believe that they have. United has presented plaintiffs with two options: violate their religious convictions or lose all pay and benefits indefinitely. That is an impossible choice for plaintiffs who want to remain faithful but must put food on the table. In other words, United is actively coercing employees to abandon their convictions.”

While the Fifth Circuit ultimately sent the case back to the lower court, the language quoted above is clear and unmistakable.  An employer who does not allow for a fair opportunity for an employee to assert a religious basis to refuse the vaccination will face that employee in court.  And more likely than not, that employer better be ready to pay damages.

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

Illustration: Pixabay.

The principle of “indivisibility” is critical to American citizens. It is written into our Pledge of Allegiance and enounces that although we may come from many places, no one can pull us apart. Chinese President Xi Jinping used this concept in past years to refer to his country’s relations with Russia and Ukraine, calling their ties “indivisible.” He expanded it in his April 21, 2022, speech, when for the first time he applied the idea beyond the framework of relations with those two states. While speaking at a virtual foreign minister’s meeting of the nine Caribbean states maintaining diplomatic relations with Beijing, Xi proposed a “global security initiative” to uphold the principle of “indivisible security.” According to the Jamestown Foundation, this is the first time China has argued for “indivisible security” outside of the Russia-Ukraine context. It may represent the opening of a new front in China’s attempt to remake the world order in its favor.

Caribbean states are crucial to China’s commercial access to the Atlantic coast of the US and South America. Over 6 percent of global maritime trade passes through the Canal. Last year Hutchison Balboa, a Chinese owned company, received a 25-year extension on its contract to administer the ports on either end of the Panama Canal despite some opposition due to its ownership. Evan Ellis, in a Wilson Center report, notes that the Caribbean “sits between multiple US military and commercial logistics hubs and potential destinations in the Americas, Africa and Europe,” making it an important waterway for China and a flashpoint for US-China competition. Cargo traveling to and from China composes about 13% of the canal’s annual traffic. Daniel Runde, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, points out that “China’s influence in the Panama Canal has only grown since 2017 when then-president [of Panama] Carlos Varela severed diplomatic ties with Taiwan and recognized China, further opening the door to China’s expanded footprint in critical Canal infrastructure and laying the groundwork for alignment with the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).”

The Caribbean region provides China with one-third of its food imports, lithium for batteries, and other critical products. As China’s commercial interest in the Caribbean grows, so does American security concerns over the potential of China building a permanent naval base in the area. As in many developing areas of the world, China is financing infrastructure projects that in the Caribbean total more than $7 billion in loans and investments in six Caribbean countries since 2005. Two years ago, China Merchants Port Holdings acquired the Kingston, Jamaica, container port and committed to invest $2.7 billion to improve it. 

During a 2019 trip to China, Prime Minister Andrew Holiness, and his Jamaica Labor Party (JLP), claimed to have played a key role in China’s significant expansion in the country and to have created the closest ties ever between the two countries. The narrative is similar in the Bahamas where the Chinese firm Hutchison operates the Freeport container port.  “In Trinidad and Tobago, China Harbor, which has multiple projects in the country, has proposed a $500 million regional drydock facility in La Brea, while a consortium of Chinese investors has promised a $102 million industrial park to be populated by Chinese companies,” according to Ellis. In Suriname, the Chinese Greenheart Company owns a significant portion of the nation’s timberlands. The Dominican Republic broke relations with Taiwan in 2018 when China promised it $3 billion in credits and investments. In Guyana, the Chinese oil company CNOOC has a 25 percent interest in the Exxon-Mobil-led consortium that controls over 6 million barrels of recoverable oil. The narrative of expanding Chinese investments is similar across the region.

As US-China competition intensifies, Beijing is further opening its pocketbook throughout the Caribbean to convince them it simply wants to “benignly aid” the region by building port facilities, mines, airports, and other infrastructure projects. The area also is becoming a key battleground for China in its struggle to isolate Taiwan from its remaining ties by permanently creating “indivisible” links to the island countries just south of the United States. “China and/or its partner nations in Latin America and the Caribbean could construe just about any US defense policy or military action, from budgets to aid to exercises, as a violation of indivisible security and whatever agreements emerge from [China’s] Global Security Initiative,” according to the Jamestown Foundation’s Stealth War newsletter. It is beginning to appear that a new and dangerous front may be opening in China’s struggle for future leadership of the global world order right in our backyard.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Don’t be fooled.” That is the advice many military analysts watching the Russia-China relationship are espousing this week. While China publicly is distancing itself from Russian aggression in Ukraine to buffer itself from Western economic sanctions, it still is helping Moscow on a number of fronts that will enable Russia to project hard power far beyond its shores into Central Asia. How long and solid the relationship remains may be determined by their joint hatred of the United States.

Putin quietly sought $10 billion in Chinese assistance this spring to widen and deepen the Volga-Don Canal. The water in the inland waterway is only deep enough to float large naval vessels about eight months out of the year. Paul Goble, of the Jamestown Foundation, suggests that “even amidst the war and tightening Western sanctions, [the canal] highlights how important riverine traffic is for Russia economically, geopolitically, and militarily.” Putin is willing to accept economic assistance from China to strengthen his own military position. Three weeks ago, Evgeniy Gaiva, writing in the Russian publication rg.ru attempted to cast the canal project solely in economic terms. “It may be more profitable to develop year-round navigation on inland waterways in southern Russia than to expect the construction of a lock at the Gorodetsky hydroelectric complex to solve the problem of the Volga shallowing, according to the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs.” In March, representatives of China’s CCCC Dredging Group traveled to “Russia…to discuss…the possibility for Chinese firms to take part in dredging operations,” according to Goble. The project is taking on a security tone. It may become even more important in the coming decade it Putin is less than fully successful in his current war in Ukraine. Goble points out that “Such cooperation will enable Russia to use the canal not only to promote a role for itself in China’s east-west trade but also for military and security purposes.”

Although it will take years, once dredged, the canal will provide Moscow with an enhanced ability to put pressure on Ukrainian territory using its navy. It also will be capable of carrying containerized shipping at a lower price than China-backed railways can offer in the area. A Jamestown Foundation article reports that “it will not only boost economic traffic in the south but allow Russia to achieve two goals. First, it will open up a path for the Caspian Flotilla to leave that sea and supplement Russia’s hard-pressed navy in the Sea of Azov and Black Sea. And second, it will enable the integration of river and canal traffic in southern Russia into Moscow’s broader, oft dismissed, plans for using its rivers and canals to the north and west to project Russian influence.” 

China’s Foreign Ministry recently called its relationship with Russia a “new model for the world” and announced there are “no limits” to the friendship. It may be one part convenience and one part alliance but, it certainly is rooted in behind-the-scenes security issues and not simply economic ties. What is most important in the long run is to examine where Russia is colluding with China when it comes to international affairs. Yun Sun, of War on the Rocks, suggests “Their alignment is based solely on their shared anti-U.S. agenda and leadership preferences.” Xi is powerful because China is powerful, but Putin is seen as powerful even when Russia is weak,” according to Yun. Xi nicknamed Putin “the Great Emperor” as he is considered intelligent, decisive, manipulative, and powerful. It is a status that Xi deeply desires. Russia needs China today. But it is Xi Jinping’s “Russia complex” and admiration for Vladimir Putin that results in a selective bias in his judgement about Russia’s national power. Yun says that Xi is prone to “overestimating Russia’s strengths and reliability, while underestimating its weaknesses.”  They are held together, in large part, by their adversarial relationship with the United States. Behind Putin’s back Xi Jinping has commented that he is concerned Russia will become a “gas station disguised as a nuclear power.” It appears Putin is willing to take what he can get from China to make sure that this doesn’t happen. 

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

Photo: Volga River (Pixabay)

The news spread faster than Covid 19 in Shanghai -a draft of an opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was published by Politico. Moreover, the proposed opinion is a bombshell – the overturning, and utter repudiation of the notorious Roe v. Wade.  

The document has been authenticated by Chief Justice Roberts, who cautioned that “the draft opinion, dated from February…does not represent the ‘final position of any member on the issues in the case.'”    In fact, “Justices circulate draft opinions internally as a routine and essential part of the Court’s confidential deliberative work…the document… does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”

Anyone familiar with the internal workings of the Supreme Court can verify that a draft opinion is subject to a variety of revisions, changes and sometimes, does not become the majority opinion.  According to NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg, “(t)here’s always a chance that the draft opinion doesn’t end up looking similar to the final opinion, noting that this has happened numerous times. A majority of justices must ‘sign onto’ the court’s opinion before it can be delivered publicly…’No opinion is considered the official opinion of the Court until it is delivered in open Court (or at least made available to the public)…'”

Totenberg went on to describe the impact of the disclosure of Alito’s draft opinion.  “Leaks of any kind are rare at the Supreme Court, and…there hasn’t been such a massive breach in modern history. She called it a ‘bomb at the court’ that undermines everything the body stands for internally and institutionally, including its members’ trust in their law clerks and in each other. ‘No fully-formed draft opinion has been leaked to the press or outside the court,’ Totenberg says. ‘Once or twice there may have been leaks that say how is something going to turn out, or after-the-fact that somebody may have changed his or her mind. But this is a full-blown, Pentagon Papers-type compromise of the court’s work.'” 

Conservative pundit Laura Ingram stated that, “(i)t’s incumbent upon (Chief Justice Roberts) to bring in every law clerk before him or the FBI. ‘Give me your phone. We want all your accounts. We’ve got to do our own — look at every device you’ve ever used and find out who did this.'”  Meanwhile, US Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) stated the obvious; “I think it’s plainly an attempt by the Left to try and change the outcome in this case and corrupt the process, and the court must not allow that to happen.”

The Court was clearly cognizant of both issues; “U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts…directed the court’s marshal to launch an investigation into the source of the leak. ‘To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the court will not be affected in any way,’ Roberts said.” 

“The marshal is the court’s chief security officer and facilities administrator, overseeing the court’s police force. Gail Curley, former chief of the National Security Law Division in the U.S. Army’s Judge Advocate General office, took up the post last year.” There are only so many employees of the US Supreme Court who could have access to a draft opinion.  Thus, it shouldn’t be too hard for Marshal Curley to figure out who “let the cat out of the bag.”  But what repercussions are in store for the leaker?

If you ask former US Attorney Andrew McCarthy, “(t)he leak is a corrupt act that was patently intended to influence the outcome of the Dobbs case. That makes it a criminal obstruction of that judicial proceeding. Obstruction is the charge that the Biden Justice Department has brought against some of the most serious Capitol riot defendants, whose corrupt acts were intended to influence and intimidate Congress into changing the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. It is even more clearly applicable to court cases — we don’t call it obstruction of justice for nothing.”

Further, McCarthy believes that “(u)nder federal law, it is a crime to embezzle government records or to convert them to one’s own use. The leaker, who took the draft opinion — the government’s property — and disseminated it outside the court’s established processes to someone not authorized to access it, has stolen a record and converted it to his or her own political purposes. That’s a crime.”

“Finally, federal law has long criminalized conspiracies to defraud the United States. As long interpreted by the Supreme Court, fraud in this context is not limited to schemes to swindle the government out of money or property. It includes deceptive acts that are intended to have, and can have, the effect of undermining government processes. Here, the leak was precisely intended to undermine the Supreme Court’s regular process for crafting, deliberating and issuing opinions that create binding United States law.” 

But there are those who disagree.  “‘Right now, it’s unclear whether the leaker broke any law at all,’ says Trevor Timm, a First Amendment–focused lawyer and the executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. ‘Even the people claiming this act is beyond the pale and the FBI must investigate haven’t pointed to a definitive law this leaker allegedly broke.’ Timm cites a lengthy Twitter thread published…by the well-known UC Berkeley legal scholar Orin Kerr, who responded to the leak…by pointing out that a Supreme Court draft doesn’t meet any of the obvious criteria that would make it an illegal document to hand to a journalist: Most important, it’s not classified, so leaking it doesn’t open the leaker to prosecution under the Espionage Act. ‘As far as I can tell, there is no federal criminal law that directly prohibits disclosure of a draft legal opinion,’ Kerr concluded.” 

Obviously Timm either didn’t read, or has not been made aware of McCarthy’s extensive list of laws that may have been broken by whoever revealed the draft opinion.  Timm may also be guilty of selectively quoting Kerr – Reuters gives a more complete elaboration of the Berkeley legal scholar’s views on the matter;

“Drafts of Supreme Court opinions are not classified documents like national security files, said…Kerr, meaning their disclosure would not automatically trigger a criminal investigation. But even a leaker with authority to handle a draft opinion could potentially be charged with stealing or converting federal government property for their own use, he said.”  Further, “(a)nyone who lies to an investigator as part of the court’s leak probe could also face a federal false statement charge, said Kel McClanahan, an adjunct professor at George Washington University Law School who specializes in national security law.” 

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

“While the cat’s away the mice will play” is an old childhood adage applicable to international politics today. While all media eyes are cast toward the war in Ukraine another area of the world is heating up without much commentary. All is not quiet on the Indian subcontinent. India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka are wrestling with issues that raise the threat environment in the region. 

In Islamabad the former Prime Minister, Imran Khan, accused the US government of colluding to depose him and publicly called out the new leadership as traitors to Pakistan. Members of his political party, the Tehreek-e-Insaf jeered the current Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif as he led a senior government delegation visiting the Prophet’s Mosque in the holy city of Medina, Saudi Arabia. In response Pakistani police charged the former prime minister and the hecklers with blasphemy. According to the country’s Interior Minister Rana Sanallah, who is supportive of the charges, Khan may be formerly arrested if Pakistan can link him directly to the events in Saudi Arabia. The sentence for blasphemy in Pakistan can be death. In the past such sentences could be carried out by mob lynchings and typically often to other violence. Also inside Pakistan, the Database of People with Extremist Linkages (DOPEL), is reporting that Allan Nazar, the leader of a banned militant group called the Baluchistan Liberation Front (BLF), is emerging as the face of a separatist movement in Pakistan’s Baluchistan province. Syed Fazl-e-Haider, of the Jamestown Foundation points out the separatist leader’s group has “carried out hundreds of terrorist attacks on Pakistan’s armed forces and civilians” and that “Nazar himself has become a new face of Baluch separatism, despite coming from a middle-class, as opposed to upper-class, family background.”
 
In Sri Lanka, according to the publication Ceylon Today, the country is being “pushed towards anarchy.” Inflation is over 20 percent and Colombo is about to default on $50 billion in foreign debt. In April, to stem expanding protests, the entire cabinet, except the president and his brother, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, resigned. In an attempt to stabilize the situation Rajapaksa  secured $2 billion in aid from India and is working on obtaining debt relief from the IMF. The government has made a number of errors in recent years that have hurt the economy and place the country in danger of collapse. The latest economic crisis, according to economic analysts familiar with Sri Lanka, caution that the “current environment may push it over the edge” toward anarchy.

India itself is negotiating a tough course over its military purchases from Russia and determination to maintain its oil imports despite the war in Ukraine. It won’t be easy for India to delink. “About 97 percent of India’s main battle tanks, 100 percent of its armored fighting vehicles, 67 percent of its submarines, 68 percent of the anti-ship cruise missiles aboard its guided-missile destroyers and frigates, and 97 percent of its fighter aircraft were acquired from Russia (or its predecessor, the Soviet Union).  Even India’s most successful domestically manufactured anti-ship cruise missile, the BrahMos, was co-developed with Russia,” according to Felix Chang of the Foreign Policy Research Institute.  India, in a typical year, imports over 80 percent of its oil and nearly half of its natural gas as it has few natural energy resources. Chang suggests that India’s tilt toward Russia may be explained by its strategic dependence on Russia for low cots oil and other commodities it needs. Some analysts argue that India’s relationship with Russia serves as a counterbalance to Chinese threats. In recent years there have been a number of small armed clashes between the two nations. Chang points out that should India find itself in a conflict with China, “full-throated Western support could prove critical,” especially if Russia fails to aid the country. “While India may be assured of some level of support from the West, will the West go the extra distance for India as it did for Ukraine?  If the West does not, India’s Russia-leaning neutrality might begin to look less like strategic independence and more like strategic seclusion.” If the situation in Russia deteriorates, India could find itself without the support of any  major power and facing a belligerent China alone.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Illustration: Pixabay