Category: Quick Analysis

Abkhazia, a small Moscow-backed separatist government inside Georgia, is important but unfamiliar to most Americans. It may hold a critical link that helps explain Russia’s territorial ambitions in the coming years. While the world is fixated on the war in the Middle East, Russia has been active in the Transcaucasian region. Abkhazia is less than half the square mileage of New Jersey. Georgia itself is less than one-fourth the size of Nevada. While the Abkhazian territory may be small, its economic and political importance are enormous. 

On October 27,  the son of one of the most influential members of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle, Rashid Nurgaliyev, Jr., traveled to Sukhumi, capital of the separatist government in Abkhazia,  to sign a public-private partnership agreement with Infrastructure Development (ID). It is a newly established Russian company with plans to restore operations at Babushera Airport. ID is so new that it was not registered in Moscow until weeks after the signing of the deal. Most analysts agree that the firm is simply providing de facto cover for Putin’s next moves in Abkhazia and beyond.

The company’s official owner is Rashid Nurgaliyev, Jr. His father serves as the current deputy secretary of the Russian Security Council and was former deputy secretary of the Ministry of the Interior. The agreement, and the Russians signing it, have frightened local Georgians who believe it is a strong indication Putin may seek to fully annex Abkhazia in the coming year.

The Sukhumi airport, according to Giorgi Menabde of the Jamestown Foundation, has been closed officially for about three decades since the August 1992-September 1993 war. At the time Tbilisi deployed army personnel at the airport and used it to stage the evacuation of the civilian population from Sukhumi after Abkhazian, North Caucasian and Russian troops surrounded it. In July 2019, the International Civil Aviation Organization banned all flights into Sukhumi. 

Newly sparked Russian interest in the airport since last June has some questioning why an unspecified “Russian legal entity” has a contract to oversee airport reconstruction and resumption of flights. “The separatist government in Abkhazia agreed to provide the Russian investor with favorable investment terms, including guarantees of ownership and preservation of the agreement’s conditions throughout implementation of the projects,” according to Menabde. In an unprecedented move, the deal includes exemption from property and profit taxes for 25 years. All construction materials and equipment, including aircraft maintenance and fuel are exempted from customs duties. A local publication, Abkhazworld, says that the Russian company will receive “most privileged” status on electricity, paying a tariff rate similar to that of schools and hospitals. 

It is significant, as once reopened, the airport will provide Putin with an additional venue for sending in troops and supplies. The revised airport plan reveals new construction for expanded accommodations for officials and “foreign delegations.” It appears Moscow intends to send more “delegations” to the breakaway province. Russia already is increasing the number of its officials in the breakaway province this fall. “The new airport terminal will have a capacity of 1,300 passengers per hour and an estimated cost of reconstruction of 8 billion rubles (approximately $84 million),” says Menabde. The plan’s completion date is set for December 2024. Georgian officials have warned that restoration of the airport is Moscow’s first step to fully annexing the republic after 30 years of occupation, according to a Georgian Business Media story. Vakhtang Kolbaia, former deputy speaker of the Georgian parliament, said in a November 10 interview with Menabde that Russian companies also have been actively buying land in Abkhazia and pushing the separatist government to pass the so-called “apartment bill.”  This would permit Russian citizens to buy real estate in Abkhazia. 

Putin doesn’t need to formally seize the area, but can de facto incorporate into the Russian Federation, says Kolbaia. Currently, almost 100% of the area’s residents are Russian citizens. Moscow has completed 17 bases in Abkhazia and built a new naval facility at the Port of Ochamchire. The Sukhumi airport is the final piece of the puzzle. In an interview last week, Giorgi Gvbazava, a former chair of the pro-Georgian parliament in Abkhazia, said that despite the international ban, Russia is actively using the airport in illegally annexed Crimea for flights to the peninsula, with some delivering military supplies to Russian forces stationed there.

David Avalishvili, an analyst at Nation.ge, mentioned that possibility in an interview with Menabde saying that “Putin, as always, uses his corrupt officials and oligarchs to carry out his imperialist plans. … In preparing for the occupation of eastern Ukraine and Crimea, Putin actively exploited the interests of Russian oligarchs and his ministers … like Rashid Nurgaliev….” With Putin’s military busy in Ukraine, the economic and financial takeover of Abkhazia may end up the most efficient way for Russia to acquire additional territory and serve as a forward base for future moves further into Central Asia.

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

Photo: Pixabay

The nightmare scenario that the Obama-Biden Administration gambled on never occurring is now taking place. The Obama administration ended the Pentagon’s “two-war” doctrine in 2012, and America is no longer  capable of fighting more than one conflict at a time.

As 2023 draws to a close, Russia is at war against Ukraine. Iran, using its proxy Hamas, is at war with Israel.  China is increasingly aggressive against Indo-Pacific nations, and may eventually attack Taiwan.

These aggressive powers are increasingly growing closer.  Russia and China hold joint military exercises. Iran supplies Putin with drone weapons to use against Ukraine.

The U.S. Institute for Peace reports that “Iran has become increasingly reliant on China to survive existential crises, including diplomatic isolation, regional tensions and a rocky economy. In March 2023, China—Iran’s largest trade partner—brokered an agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia to restore diplomatic ties seven years after severing relations. The deal reflected Beijing’s growing influence and interest in Iran. “China is trying to translate its economic power into political power,” Nasser Hadian, a professor of political science at the University of Tehran, told The Iran Primer. “Iran is very important as a source of energy, but also as a provider of the security in the region. In the future, Iran and China are going to be very closely interdependent.” 

CNA reports that “There is widespread consensus among analysts that, although Russia and China have been moving toward closer cooperation through the entire post-Soviet era, the trend has accelerated rapidly since 2014. The relationship was boosted by Russian leaders’ belief that Russia could survive its sudden confrontation with the West only by expanding alternative relationships. China was the obvious candidate because it had a suitably large economy.”

China has taken note of the reduced size of the U.S. military, as well as the diminished capability of the American industrial base to provide the weaponry needed to resupply Ukraine. The U.S. Navy continues to shrink, and China has a substantial numerical lead, just as Russia has a lead in nuclear weaponry.

Previewing the forthcoming 2023 China Military Power Report, Ely S. Ratner, assistant secretary of defense for Indo-Pacific security affairs said DOD assesses that the Chinese Communist Party is increasingly turning to its military as “an instrument of coercion in support of their revisionist aims” with an eye toward restructuring the international order and undermining global peace and stability.  

That assessment, he said, is evidenced by China’s rapid expansion of its nuclear forces and increasing provocations by its air and naval forces against U.S. allies and partners operating in the region under accordance with international law.  

Ratner also noted China’s lack of interest in maintaining open lines of communication with U.S. defense officials, noting that Beijing has declined multiple invitations to communicate directly with Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and other senior Pentagon policymakers.   

According to U.S. army General Charles A. Flynn, the U.S. army commander in the Pacific, There are three things that the Chinese military has that the U.S. military, allies and partners in the region do not have. They have interior lines,” he said. He noted that they’re just 100 miles from Taiwan, and they have anti-access, area-denial means to keep opposing forces at a distance—such as missiles, aircraft and ships, as well as cyber and space capabilities. “The second thing they have is mass,” he said, meaning they have a very large military force. “The third thing they have is magazine depth,” he said, which would include large quantities of stand-off munitions.

Unlike the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, the U.S. industrial base is not capable of rapidly making up these deficiencies.

Picture: U.S. troops station in the Pacific

For the first time in history, the United States must deter two near-peer nuclear adversaries simultaneously.

Last year, Congress authorized the formation of a commission to conduct a review of the strategic posture of the United States and to make recommendations on how to move forward. Congress then appointed a 12-person bipartisan group to conduct this review. The Report, entitled America’s Strategic Posture, has recently been released.

We present key excerpts and a summary:

The nuclear force of the United States is a small fraction of what it was at the end of the Cold War and the U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons in national military strategy and national security strategy has been substantially reduced.

Key takeaways from the report are as follows:

“The nuclear force modernization program of record (POR) is absolutely essential, although not sufficient to meet the new threats posed by Russia and China.”

“The current modernization program should be supplemented to ensure U.S. nuclear strategy remains effective in a two-nuclear-peer environment.”

“A number of commissioners believe it is inevitable that the size of the U.S. nuclear stockpile and the number of delivery systems should increase.”

“The size and composition of the nuclear force must account for the possibility of combined aggression from Russia and China. U.S. strategy should no longer treat China’s nuclear forces as a ‘lesser included’ threat. The United States needs a nuclear posture capable of simultaneously deterring both countries.”

“The U.S. theater nuclear force posture should be urgently modified to: Provide the President a range of militarily effective nuclear response options to deter or counter Russian or Chinese limited nuclear use in theater. Address the need for U.S. theater nuclear forces deployed or based in the Asia-Pacific theater.”

“The Commission recommends Congress fund an overhaul and expansion of the capacity of the U.S. nuclear weapons defense industrial base and the DOE/NNSA nuclear security enterprise, including weapons science, design, and production infrastructure. Specifically:` Congress should fund the full range of NNSA’s recapitalization efforts, such as pit production and all operations related to critical materials.”

“The United States develop and field homeland IAMD that can deter and defeat coercive attacks by Russia and China, and determine the capabilities needed to stay ahead of the North Korean threat.”

“The Commission’s assessment is that the United States must consider the possibility that Iran will become a nuclear state during the 2027-2035 timeframe.”

Auctioning the 3.1-3.45GHz band (of spectrum) risks impacting “various types of shipborne, land-based, and aeronautical mobile radar systems [used] for national defense purposes…We have many radars [in the 3.1-3.45 GHz segment] that are critical for our service members to train on before they deploy into harm’s way overseas, and also to protect our homeland . . . it would take us two decades and hundreds of billions of dollars to be able to refactor and move those radars out of there.”

The commission recommends “the United States urgently deploy a more resilient space architecture and adopt a strategy that includes both offensive and defensive elements to ensure U.S. access to and operations in space.”  

The triad of strategic nuclear delivery systems should be maintained for the immediate future and this will require some difficult investment choices. The same is true for delivery systems of non-strategic nuclear weapons.

On missile defense: Missile defenses can play a useful role in supporting the basic objectives of deterrence, broadly defined. Defenses that are effective against regional aggressors are a valuable component of the U.S. strategic posture. The United States should develop and, where appropriate, deploy missile defenses against regional nuclear aggressors, including against limited long-range threats. These can also be beneficial for limiting damage if deterrence fails. The United States should ensure that its actions do not lead Russia or China to take actions that increase the threat to the United States and its allies and friends.

On declaratory policy: Declaratory policy is a signal of U.S. intent to both friends and prospective enemies and thus an important aspect of the overall strategic posture. To be effective, it must be understood to reflect the intentions of national leadership. While an element of calculated ambiguity remains essential, there should be enough clarity that potential foes will be deterred. The United States should underscore that it conceives of and prepares for the use of nuclear weapons only for the protection of itself and its allies in extreme circumstances.

On the nuclear weapon stockpile: So long as it continues to rely on nuclear deterrence, the United States requires a stockpile of nuclear weapons that are safe, secure, and reliable, and whose threatened use in military conflict would be credible. The Stockpile Stewardship Program and the Life Extension Program have been remarkably successful in refurbishing and modernizing the stockpile to meet these criteria, but cannot be counted on for the indefinite future. The Commission observes that the debate over the proposed Reliable Replacement Warhead revealed a lot of confusion about what was intended, what is needed, and what constitutes “new” and believes that, as the nation moves forward, it must be clear about what is being initiated (and what is not) as well as what makes a weapon “new” and what does not. Alternatives to stockpile stewardship and life extension involve to varying degrees the reuse and/or redesign of components and different engineering solutions. The decision on which approach is best should be made on a type-by-type basis as they age. So long as modernization proceeds within the framework of existing U.S. policy, it should encounter minimum political difficulty. As a matter of U.S. policy, the United States does not produce fissile materials and does not conduct nuclear explosive tests. Also the United States does not currently seek new weapons with new military characteristics. Within this framework, it should seek the possible benefits of improved safety, security, and reliability available to it.

On the nuclear weapons complex: The physical infrastructure is in serious need of transformation. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has a reasonable plan but it lacks the needed funding. The intellectual infrastructure is also in trouble. Redesignating the weapons laboratories as national security laboratories and strengthening their cooperation with the Departments of Defense, State, and Homeland Security and also the intelligence community can help with both of these problems. NNSA has not achieved the original intent of the law that created it; it lacks the needed autonomy. This requires that the NNSA Act be amended to establish NNSA as a separate agency reporting to the President through the Secretary of Energy, along with other provisions aimed at ensuring the needed autonomy.

One of the most important factors will be the imbalance of non-strategic nuclear weapons. In support of its arms control interests and interest in strategic stability more generally, the United States should pursue a much broader and more ambitious set of strategic dialogues with not just Russia but also China and U.S. allies in both Europe and Asia.

Illustration: Pixabay

Rep.  Mike Rogers (R-AL), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, released a statement following reports that Putin has called for cooperation between Russia and China on military space weapons. 
 
“Our adversaries are working to rapidly weaponize space. The possibility of Russia and China joining forces against us in space is only the latest example of why we must continue our efforts to strengthen and expand our space capabilities. We must ensure freedom of action in space and counter efforts by those like China and Russia who seek to attack our forces in and through space.”

In September,  Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall presented a detailed analysis of why China is America’s preeminent security threat and why the Air Force and Space Force must modernize and adapt quickly. “We must be ready for a kind of war we have no modern experience with. China has been reoptimizing its forces for great power competition and to prevail against the U.S. in the Western Pacific for over 20 years. China has been building a military capability specifically designed to achieve their national goals and to do so if opposed by the United States.” Kendall noted that China has created two new military services,  including a Rocket Force specifically designed to attack America’s high value assets, aircraft carriers, forward airfields and key C2 and logistics nodes. The second service, known as “Strategic Support Forces,” are designed and equipped to achieve information dominance in the space and cyber domains.

China is benefitting from Russia’s long space history, and iota antagonism against the west.   According to Alexander Gabuev, senior fellow and chair of the Russia in the Asia-Pacific Program at the Carnegie Moscow Center in a Voice of America report, “Russia’s schism with the West and deepening confrontation and competition between China and the U.S. as two superpowers is definitely contributing to rapprochement between Moscow and Beijing. There is a natural economic complementarity where Russia has (an) abundance of natural resources, and China has capital and technology to develop those resources. And finally, both are authoritarian states, so they don’t have this allergy when talking domestic political setup, or the poisoning of (Russian opposition leader) Alexi Navalny, or issues like Hong Kong or human rights in Xinjiang,
 

The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, reports that “China has emerged as a leading player in space. The implications for United States policy are numerous, and the capabilities China either currently possesses or is in the process of developing certainly pose a strategic risk to the United States’ ability to operate in the Indo-Pacific region. China’s significant investments in space and counterspace capabilities may prove threatening to U.S. space assets and military efficacy. China’s space infrastructure is complemented by its growing capacity to deny adversarial powers access to the same space assets, as evidenced by advancements in kinetic and non-kinetic counterspace capabilities. China’s approach to modernizing its space presence includes an emphasis on military-civil fusion (MCF) and the development of dual-use technology that buoys both military and economic growth. Should China’s capabilities surpass those of the United States, the erosion of the U.S. military’s ability to contest the PLA in a potential future conflict will be at risk. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is executing a long-term strategy to exploit U.S. technology, talent, and capital to build up its military space and counterspace programs and advance its strategic interests at the expense of the United States. China’s zero-sum pursuit of space superiority harms U.S. economic competitiveness, weakens U.S. military advantages, and undermines strategic stability. In short, it represents a threat to U.S. national security. Barring significant action to counter China’s space-related programs and activities of concern, it is likely that this strategic competitor’s efforts will continue to adversely affect U.S. interests.

The Biden Administration requires a reminder that it is employed by and is supposed to work for the people of the United States.

The interests of the American people appear to be a remote afterthought for the current Administration. In energy, the economy, and other key national interests, the White House appears to place foreign interests above those of the nation he is entrusted to lead.

The President’s disaffection from the U.S. population has been made abundantly clear not just in broad policies but in specific responses. He refused to go to Ohio in the wake of a disastrous train wreck that caused massive disruption in the lives of the population in that state.  His initial reaction to the catastrophic fire in Maui was “no comment.” 

Mayors and governors, many from his own party, have begged the Administration to cease it’s open border policy that has caused havoc on cities and states, a plea that has been ignored. Senator John Tune (R-SD) states that “President Biden hasn’t just happened to preside over a record-breaking influx of illegal immigration at the southern border. The chaos we’ve been experiencing is a direct result of the president’s policies.”

The White House choses to address the “root causes” of poverty in Latin America, by importing the poor and having U.S. cities and states take up that foreign burden.

While examples abound, energy is a salient example. Perhaps Biden harbors the misconception that the U.S. exists on a planet apart from other nations.  How else to explain that, in the name of “climate change,” he has decimated domestic fuel production and increased imports from other nations?

Biden’s bizarre energy choices were clearly seen in his action to close down the Keystone XL pipeline. After moving against that necessary project, Biden shocked observers by approving the Nord Stream pipeline from Russia to Germany, managed by a Russian company. The move increased our European allies on the Kremlin, and the idea proved especially poor when sanctions became necessary following Putin’s Ukraine invasion.

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA) noted that “Biden’s anti-American energy policies have hurt America in more ways than one…“These actions have cost countless American jobs, increased our reliance on foreign nations for oil and gas, and raised costs for American families.”

In 2021, Adam Brandon, writing for Real Clear Energy, reported that “the Biden administration is pleading with OPEC, the Middle Eastern oil cartel, to ramp up oil production. Rather than putting America first, Biden is wreaking havoc on domestic energy production and then asking foreign nations to pick up the slack. Since taking office, Biden has shown nothing but hostility towards clean and reliable American oil and gas and the jobs the industry creates. One of his first actions as president was to issue a moratorium on new oil and gas leases on federal lands.

Trade is crucial for American prosperity.  However, in the face of many international challenges, Biden has chosen to ignore American needs. In 2022, Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee complained the Biden Administration capitulated to the demands of some of the United States’ most disruptive trading partners at the World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference.  Specifically, the Biden Administration accepted a deal that will weaken longstanding rules protecting intellectual property rights and proposed rules in new agreements.  This deal will undermine U.S. trade interests and cost American jobs. 

Biden’s State Department recently announced a “Global Health” Initiative, while largely failing to act on significant medical issues within his own nation.  Just one example: A Share America report found that “In 2021, 1,205 women died of maternal causes in the United States compared with 861 in 2020 and 754 in 2019 (2). The maternal mortality rate for 2021 was 32.9 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared with a rate of 23.8 in 2020 and 20.1 in 2019.”

A prosperous, healthy and strong America is the greatest asset the U.S. can offer the world. President Biden appears to have forgotten that.

Photo: Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and U.S. Special Envoy to Advance the Human Rights of LGBTQI+ Persons Jessica Stern participate in a Pride reception hosted by the State Department in Washington, DC, on June 29, 2023. [State Department photo by Chuck Kennedy/Public Domain]

Even if Trump’s belief in election fraud was mistaken (an open question, as we shall discuss), to all appearances, his belief was an honest one.  In an interview in September with Meet the Press, Trump maintained his view that he actually won the 2020 presidential election. “The former president said he didn’t listen to his attorneys who told him he had lost the election because he didn’t respect them and that he ‘respected many others that said the election was rigged…I was listening to different people, and when I added it all up, the election was rigged,’ Trump told NBC’s Kristen Welker. He added, ‘You know who I listen to? Myself. I saw what happened.’” 

But an inability to establish what was in the mind of Donald Trump doesn’t stop Jack Smith – Trump’s belief was not mistaken, it was false!  Why?  Because people in the Justice Department, some lawyers and some courts told him so!

In effect, Smith’s indictment seeks to establish Trump’s mens rea through his actus reus – that is, his allegedly guilty mind is reflected by his allegedly guilty actions. Proceeding from the premise that Trump couldn’t possibly believe that he’d been robbed of the Presidency, Smith outlines a series of actions taken by the former President “in his criminal efforts to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election and retain power.”

For instance, Trump “said that there had been a suspicious vote dump in Detroit, Michigan… stating, ‘In Detroit, there were hours of unexplained delay in delivering many of the votes for counting. The final batch did not arrive until four in the morning and—even though the polls closed at eight o’clock. So they brought it in, and the batches came in, and nobody knew where they came from.'”

According to Smith, “(o)n December 1, (2020) the Defendant raised his Michigan vote dump claim with the Attorney General, who responded that what had occurred in Michigan had been the normal votecounting process and that there was no indication of fraud in Detroit…(d)espite this, the next day, the Defendant made a knowingly false statement that in Michigan, ‘[a]t 6:31 in the morning, a vote dump of 149,772 votes came in unexpectedly. We were winning by a lot. That batch was received in horror. Nobody knows anything about it. . . . It’s corrupt. Detroit is corrupt. I have a lot of friends in Detroit. They know it. But Detroit is totally corrupt.'”

Was this a “knowingly false” statement?  Or can it be demonstrated that Donald Trump had a basis to believe that the Attorney General was wrong, and there was a “suspicious vote dump” in Detroit, Michigan?

According to the Gateway Pundit, “a wide variety of eyewitnesses…observed fraud just in Michigan. Many of those observers mentioned a very suspicious 3:30AM Biden Ballot Dump of votes in Detroit at the TCF Center where absentees were being counted…Detroit elections worker whistleblower Jessy Jacob testified… that there were no ballots left to process at the Detroit Department of Elections by 8:30PM on election night… Every single witness the Gateway Pundit has spoken with said that there were no ballots left to count and tabulate by around 9:00PM on election night at the TCF Center. Many left the location because there was nothing left to do…” 

Then, “(Security Camera footage shows a) white van clearly delivering ballots (at about 3:30 AM)”, an event confirmed by “City of Detroit Senior Advisor to the City Clerk Chris Thomas.”  However, Thomas “claims that only 16,000 ballots arrived in the 3:30AM Biden Ballot Dump.”

Thomas’ information is partially supported by The Edison data from Michigan, which “show(s) voter results in real-time, a service offered to media outlets.” However, “the Edison data for Michigan shows a major spike of late ballots in Wayne County/Detroit…Michigan added 149,000 votes for Biden at 6:31am the day after the election, where 94% of the votes were for Joe Biden. Where did those votes come from if most of the other counties had already reported their final totals by 8:00PM on election night?”

A good question.  Here is how the Associated Press answers; “The 8 p.m. deadline on Election Day in Michigan was for voters to cast their ballots, not for those ballots to be delivered or counted. In big cities such as Detroit, it can take several hours for ballots to go through security checks before being sent to counting locations. That process is customary and legal, according to Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s office…(t)he conservative website The Gateway Pundit is using a new video to recycle old misinformation about Michigan’s presidential election on Nov. 3…(b)ut this article and video don’t show proof of fraud. These false claims are based on a misunderstanding of the ballot deadline and how ballot deliveries work in large jurisdictions such as Detroit.”  

The AP admits that “(i)t’s true that a white van used by the city arrived at the TCF Center to deliver ballots in the early hours of the morning on Nov. 4, according to a sworn affidavit from Christopher Thomas, a former state elections chief who worked at the TCF Center on election night,” but asserts that “there was nothing fraudulent or illegal about that. ‘Early in the morning on Wednesday, November 4, approximately 16,000 ballots were delivered in a white van used by the city,’ Thomas said in his affidavit. ‘The ballots delivered to the TCF Center had been verified by the City Clerk’s staff prior to delivery in a process prescribed by Michigan law.'”

Sure enough, “(i)n a Nov. 13 order, Wayne County Circuit Chief Judge Timothy Kenny declined to stop the certification of Detroit-area votes, ruling that allegations of fraud at the TCF Center on election night were ‘incorrect and not credible.’”

It sounds reasonable that the deadline for votes to be registered at the poll is 8 PM.  It also sounds reasonable that it might take some time for those ballots to travel from the polling place to the counting location.  But this location was the TCF Center – where ABSENTEE ballots were being processed, not ballots cast on Election Day.  What explains a delay of more than 7 hours (from 8 PM to 3:30 AM) to transfer 16,000 Absentee ballots to the TCF Center – ballots that should have already been at the Center, ready to count once the polls had closed?

Further, what about the Edison data which shows 149,000 additional votes for Biden by 6:31 AM? If there were only 16,000 votes on that 3:30 AM van, where did the other 133,000 votes for Biden come from?  The AP doesn’t say.  Instead, they assure the reader that their article “is part of The Associated Press’ ongoing effort to fact-check misinformation that is shared widely online, including work with Facebook to identify and reduce the circulation of false stories on the platform.”

Think back to the statement Trump gave that Jack Smith alleges to be “knowingly false.”  “At 6:31 in the morning, a vote dump of 149,772 votes came in unexpectedly” the former President stated.  As we have discussed, by 6:31 AM there is evidence that “Michigan added 149,000 votes for Biden at 6:31am the day after the election.”  Trump calls this a “vote dump,” and then goes on to say “Detroit is totally corrupt.” 

Other than Trump’s claim that “we were winning by a lot” (which is highly unlikely in the Democratic stronghold of Detroit, Michigan), where is the “knowing falsehood” in the former President’s statements?  Where does the President evidence anything but a sincere belief that those votes came in late, after the polls had closed, and that this was a corrupt action?

Even if its circumstantial at best, isn’t there some evidence that 16,000 absentee ballots taking 7 hours to reach a counting location, and another 133,000 votes showing up by 6:30 in the morning, is unusual, and could lead one to believe that fraudulent activity had occurred?

Under Jack Smith’s theory of his case, is Donald Trump required to believe his Attorney General when he states “that there was no indication of fraud in Detroit?”  Or is Trump entitled to his own opinion, based on the facts discussed above?

In fact, Trump is not alone is this opinion.  According to NBC, in June of 2023, “A new Monmouth poll finds 30% of respondents believe Biden’s victory came thanks to voter fraud…(t)hat share is virtually unchanged in Monmouth’s polling since November of 2020 – the share of Americans who believe it remained between 32% and 29%… Virtually all Democrats (93%) say Biden won the election fairly, a view shared by 58% of independents. Just 21% of Republicans believe Biden won his election fair and square, while 68% say he won ‘due to voter fraud.’ That’s very similar to Monmouth’s findings in the weeks after the 2020 election, when 18% of Republicans, 67% of independents and 95% of Democrats said Biden’s election victory was fair.” 

Of course, NBC is appalled by this result, saying it “highlights the disconnect on one of the foundational issues facing American democracy… (t)here remains no evidence that widespread fraud substantially affected the outcome of the 2020 election.” 

So then why do people persist in believing that the election was stolen from Trump?  Why does Trump?

Maybe because, there is some evidence to support this belief, despite the efforts by much of the press to put this story to rest.  Maybe, under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, we also have a right to believe what we want to believe – and Donald Trump is included with those holding that right.

On its face, then, Jack Smith’s attempt to prosecute Donald Trump for the thoughtcrime of not believing the “experts” and his lawyers is a threat to the rights of the rest of us to believe what we wish – even if it turns out to be wrong or mistaken – and especially if we know in our hearts that its true.

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay

There was a time when it was safe to assume that we had all read George Orwell’s novel, 1984.  But that time has passed, and there are many readers who have undoubtedly heard references to this seminal work, without having actually read the book.  Therefore, a brief refresher course on one of the principle concepts from this novel is necessary – the theory of thoughtcrime.

“Even if someone leaves these thoughts unspoken, it is still a crime to think them. It is one of the scariest parts of Winston Smith’s world in 1984. The person who thinks these thoughts is held responsible for them as though they said them out loud or committed the act they were thinking about…To understand thoughtcrime, it’s important to understand the consequences of committing it. If one were to have illegal thoughts and those thoughts showed on their face, or they expressed them in some way, they’re going to be arrested by the Thought Police. This group is responsible for hunting down thought criminals and bringing them to the Ministry of Love. This aptly named ministry reforms and kills thought criminals.”

With this description of “thoughtcrime” in mind, let us review some of the allegations made in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s August, 2023 federal indictment of former President Donald Trump: “(F)or more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false… The Defendant…made knowingly false claims that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the 2020 presidential election…These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false.” 

How is it that Jack Smith knows what Donald Trump was thinking?  According to the indictment, “the Defendant was notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue—often by the people on whom he relied for candid advice on important matters, and who were best positioned to know the facts— and he deliberately disregarded the truth.”

In other words, Donald Trump knew that there wasn’t any “outcome determinative fraud” in the 2020 presidential election because other people told him so.

And who were these people that told Donald Trump there was no evidence of “outcome determinative”  election fraud in the 2020 presidential election?  According to Smith, these people included “Vice President (Mike Pence)…(who)…told the Defendant that he had seen no evidence of outcome-determinative fraud.”  There were also “(t)he senior leaders of the Justice Department…(who)…told the Defendant on multiple occasions that various allegations of fraud were unsupported;” “Senior White House attorneys…(who)…informed the Defendant that there was no evidence of outcome-determinative election fraud,” and “State and federal courts…(who)…rejected every outcome-determinative post-election lawsuit filed by the Defendant, his coconspirators, and allies, providing the Defendant real-time notice that his allegations were meritless.”

As a result of Donald Trump’s refusal to accept that he had actually lost the 2020 presidential election, and based upon the former President’s “false” belief that election fraud was pervasive in that election, according to the indictment, “The Defendant’s knowingly false statements were integral to his criminal plans to defeat the federal government function, obstruct the certification, and interfere with others’ right to vote and have their votes counted.” 

These allegations regarding what Trump chose to believe would seem to fit the very definition of a thought crime.  From all appearances, Trump believed there was election fraud, that it was indeed “outcome determinative,” and as a result, he challenged the results of the election in every way possible.

In a criminal case, the prosecution must establish that a defendant has mens rea; that is, criminal intent.  “The literal translation from Latin is ‘guilty mind’…(e)stablishing the mens rea of an offender, in addition to the actus reus (physical elements of the crime) is usually necessary to prove guilt in a criminal trial. The prosecution typically must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense with a culpable state of mind.” As stated by the US Supreme Court in Staples v. United States, “(t)he mens rea requirement is premised upon the idea that one must possess a guilty state of mind and be aware of his or her misconduct.”   

The analysis concludes tomorrow

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay

Russia is exporting grain, legumes, and oilseeds seized from occupied territory in southern Ukraine and selling the products to China and its other allies. In a deal cut in October at the latest Belt and Road Summit in China, Moscow agreed to sell Beijing 70 million tons (valued at about $25.7 billion) over the next 12 years. Both countries are working to develop the infrastructure that will enable the transportation of a high volume of goods in both directions. Moscow is claiming that the main corridor to transport these agricultural products will be open within the next two weeks, according to Hlib Parfonov of the Jamestown Foundation. Since Russia can’t meet its contract commitment with its current level of agricultural production, it plans to fulfill the orders by Ukrainian-grown grain to Russia’s for the foreseeable future. 

China is interested in using the North Siberian Railway, which Russia is expanding in its latest development plan. The proposed Kyzul-Kuragino rail project will link China via the Altai Republic in southern Siberia. This area is part of Asian Russia, however, it was once part of extreme eastern Kazakhstan and the northern tip of China’s Xinjiang Autonomous Region. Given that China is interested in recouping land that historically was once part of the Chinese empire, it will be interesting to watch how China’s President Xi Jinping treats the infrastructure development in the coming years. He does not need to engage in kinetic warfare with Russia as Moscow provides Beijing virtual access and resources at almost no cost to China. 

China is heavily involved in natural gas and oil pipeline development in parts of eastern Siberia currently located inside Russia. It is often referred to as China’s “raw materials pantry.” These are lands owned by China until the end of WWII. Today Chinese companies “own” tens of thousands of acres of land under long-term leases. The area is predominantly ethnic Han and the population speaks Mandarin. 

In late October the Russian publication, Kommersant, reported that Russian experts claim Moscow is emphasizing the develop of “all roads to China.” From Beijing’s perspective, China is utilizing Russia as a “resource and food colony,” according to Vadim Shtepa, the Editor-in-Chief of the only independent media outlet on Russian regionalism and federalism. Chinese purchases of so-called Russian wheat increased by 78% over the past year, according to a May report in the Russian publication Izvestia. Chinese consumption of Russian gas also increased but can only compensate for about 20% of Russia’s revenue lost from its European market sales and sanctions imposed after Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

“The New Land Grain Corridor, the Trans-Baikal Grain Terminal, and Guangdong BestCon Intelligent Equipment signed a contract to create a specialized overland grain fleet at the Eighth Eastern economic Forum in September, says Parfonov. When finished it will be able to transport up to 600,000 tons (up to 8 million tons annually) of grain using 22,000 specialized containers. By February 2023 a record 25 ships from Ukraine carried 1.2 million tons of grain to China and the numbers are increasing. In May, when Moscow agreed to extend the grain corridor for 120 Days, Parfonov says that China again benefited from reduced prices for Russian/Ukrainian grain. Over the last 18 months this represents some of the highest volume in the history of Ukrainian-Chinese agricultural trade. 

“With the recent deal between Beijing and Moscow, China seems to be transitioning from Ukrainian exports to Russian grain,” notes Parfonov. China still buys grain directly from Ukraine. From a food security perspective, however, there may be conflict arising in the coming months. As soon as Beijing receives its November and December shipments Russia may again target Ukrainian grain shipments with its navy attempting to block exports leaving Odessa for China. 

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

Illustration: Pixabay

The Wagner Group no longer sits at the top of the international news cycle on a daily basis, but it remains at the center of fractional politics and converging wars in Africa, the Middle East, and Ukraine.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir signed an agreement to establish a Russian naval base with four Russian warships operated by 300 Russian servicemen, on Sudan’s Red Sea coast in 2017. At the time the deal called for Moscow to provide Sudan arms and other military gear. Analysts are asking “Will the Red Sea be Russia’s newest naval outpost?” The political environment is complicated. Wagner Group’s involvement in the outcome of the ongoing military action in Sudan may be the deciding factor in the Kremlin’s ability to develop an expanded military presence in the region. A Russian naval base in Sudan could bring the great powers into direct conflict. In 2022 Sudan’s military junta was ready to finalize the treaty to allow Russia to construct the new naval facilities. The Wagner Group may have just torpedoed the controversial deal.

“The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) are locked in a battle for supremacy over one another,” according to Michael Horton, co-founder of Red Sea Analytics. Libya’s General Khalifa Haftar, the UAE, and Russia’s Wagner Group support the RSF, which gets part of its funding from gold fields located in Sudan. The RSF may not be able to win against the SAF but it is likely to produce a long war that could destabilize the region. On February 23, a day before the start of the war in Ukraine, Sudanese RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, also known as “Hemedti,” arrived in Moscow to lead the Red Sea base negotiations. No members of the SAF were present. A deal with one side puts the future base at risk, as the other is unlikely to abide by it.

“The outbreak of fighting in and around Khartoum may squash any chances for the establishment of a Russian naval base in the near future,” says Andrew McGregor of the Jamestown Foundation. Wagner’s support of the RSF is essentially Russian backed (i.e., through Wagner Group). Now Ukraine may be emerging as a player in Sudan. First-person view (FPV) drones are being used this fall to conduct attacks against RSF fighters. These are the same type and tactics used by Ukrainian forces against Russian targets.

When asked about the FPV’s, Kyrulo Budanov, Ukraine’s military intelligence chief, said “A year ago, I personally and openly said that all Russian war criminals who fought, are fighting, or plan to fight against Ukraine will be punished anywhere in the world.” In September, in a move that may indicate an new attempt to oust Russia from Sudan, Ukraine’s President Zelensky thanked Sudan’s government for its consistent support of his country’s territorial integrity. Africa News recently quoted Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, Dmytro Kuleba, as saying “Our strategy is not to replace Russia but to free Africa from Russia’s grip.” Ukraine’s Defense Minister Rustem Umerov, met for unscheduled talks in Ireland this fall with General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan of the SAF. Reports indicate the two talked about the activity of illegal armed groups financed by Russia that are active inside Sudan.

For months the SAF and RSF’s top military commanders have been waging battle in Khartoum, Sudan’s capital. The city is approaching ruin. “Perhaps most troubling for the Kremlin is the inherent political instability of Sudan. Even before the current power struggle, regional insurgencies, tribal clashes, mass demonstrations, and coup attempts have characterized the country’s political process,” notes McGregor. The SAF leadership believes Putin is supporting the Wagner Group operations by supplying the RSF with arms and munitions. If this is confirmed it may mark the end of the naval basing deal in Sudan. “The RSF, like most well-developed militias, can and will leverage its nimbleness, decentralized leadership, and its ability to adapt and evolve to outfight the conventionally organized SAF,” says Horton. The Sudanese conflict may yet pose another flashpoint in an already fragile part of the world.

Hopefully, it will not emerge center stage to a proxy war among great powers.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

Coverage of the recent and ongoing squabble over the federal budget omits mention of several key facts. Among them are the realities that despite being over $33 trillion in debt and vast additional spending each year, unprecedented income from taxation, and the existence of well-staffed and frequently overbearing federal agencies, the most basic crises facing Americans are not being adequately addressed.  Funds supposedly committed to infrastructure are siphoned off for so-called “green” projects that do little other than paying back politician’s contributors. Issues such as the vulnerability of the electrical grid are ignored.  Dollars meant to improve education wind up supporting bizarre and controversial projects that push woke agendas and ignore proficiency in learning. The list goes on and on.

One of the areas that is the prime responsibility of the federal government is defense. Despite the lare sums spent, America’s defense is inadequate.  Russia has a more powerful nuclear arsenal. China has a large navy. Our troops often live in housing that resembles slums. Our atomic weaponry is becoming increasingly obsolete.  Some of our pilots fly in the exact same aircraft that their grandfathers flew. The withdrawal from Afghanistan was an embarrassing debacle. Our armed forces are failing to meet recruitment quotas. America’s presence in certain strategic locations, such as the Arctic, is so inadequate that it represents a virtual surrender.  Our defense industrial base is bad shape, and getting worse.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China’s preparations to take over Taiwan, North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, and Iran’s looming entry into the nuclear weapons club are major threats that are not being responded to.

There is an illusion that defense spending is excessive. In truth, it is far from adequate.  It represents a lesser share of the federal budget and GDP than it has in the past.

Numerically, the Army should have 50 brigade combat teams.  It has only 31.  The Navy should have 400 ships.  It has about 290.  The Air Force should have 1,200 fighter and ground attack aircraft.  It has only 1,174.  The Marine Corps should have 30 battalions.  It has 27.

In its annual Index of U.S. Military Strength, the Heritage Foundation (you can, and should, read the entire report at https://www.heritage.org/military-strength/executive-summary) illustrates the challenges facing the Pentagon. Barack Obama’s decision to end the capacity of the U.S. military to fight on two fronts simultaneously. He backed that poor decision up with limiting the funds the Defense Department actually needs.

The report notes that “As reported in all previous editions of the Index, the common theme across the services and the U.S. nuclear enterprise is one of force degradation caused by many years of underinvestment, poor execution of modernization programs, and the negative effects of budget sequestration (cuts in funding) on readiness and capacity in spite of repeated efforts by Congress to provide relief from low budget ceilings imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011.”

The analysis concludes with these assessments:

Army is “Marginal.” The Army’s score remains “marginal” in the 2023 Index, and significant challenges that have arisen during the year call into question whether it will improve its status in the year ahead. …the Army is aging faster than it is modernizing. It remains “weak” in capacity with only 62 percent of the force it should have.

Navy is“Weak.” This worrisome score, a drop from “marginal” assessed in the 2022 Index, is driven by problems in capacity (“very weak”) and readiness (“weak”). This Index assesses that the Navy needs a battle force of 400 manned ships to do what is expected of it today. The Navy’s current battle force fleet of 298 ships and intensified operational tempo combine to reveal a service that is much too small relative to its tasks… If its current trajectory is maintained, the Navy will shrink further to 280 ships by 2037. Current and forecasted levels of funding will prevent the Navy from altering its decline unless Congress undertakes extraordinary efforts to increase assured funding for several years.

Air Force as “Very Weak.” The Air Force has been downgraded once again, the second, time in the past two years. The Air Force was assessed as “marginal” in the 2021 Index but, with public reporting of the mission readiness and physical location of combat aircraft implying that it would have a difficult time responding rapidly to a crisis, fell to a score of “weak” in the 2022 Index. During FY 2022, the year assessed for this Index, problems with pilot production and retention, an extraordinarily small amount of time in the cockpit for pilots, and a fleet of aircraft that continues to age compounded challenges even more, leading to the current score of “very weak.”

Photo: A formation of Air Force MC-130J Commando II aircraft fly near Hurlburt Field, Fla., Sept. 21, 2023. (Department of Defense )