Category: Quick Analysis

Admiral John C. Aquilino, U.S. Navy Commander, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, recently testified to Congress about the threats America faces in the Indo-Pacific region.

He warned that America must “move at the speed and pace required to address the rapidly evolving security environment.” He noted that “The complexity of the threats we face requires the U.S. to mobilize the whole of government and use all elements of national power to “counter revisionist powers and their proxies committed to overturning the rules-based order for the benefit of themselves and at the expense of everyone else. However, we must recognize that the most dangerous national security challenges are evolving faster than our current government processes allow us to address them. “

Admiral Aquilino stressed that Each of our three major state threats in the Indo-Pacific region, including the People’s Republic of China, Russia, and North Korea  “are taking unprecedented actions that challenge international norms and advance authoritarianism. These adversarial regimes are increasingly interconnected, which is evident in Xi and Putin’s declaration of a ‘no limits friendship’ as well as Kim Jong Un’s materiel deliveries to Putin in support of the illegal invasion of Ukraine.”

The Admiral emphasized that China is the only country that has the capability, capacity, and intent to upend the international order. “Even amidst slowing economic growth, China  continues its aggressive military buildup, modernization, and coercive “gray-zone operations.”

According to his analysis, “All indications point to the PLA meeting President Xi Jinping’s directive to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Furthermore, the PLA’s actions indicate their ability to meet Xi’s preferred timeline to unify Taiwan with mainland China by force if directed.”

Recently, Delays in delivering essential weapons system are jeopardizing international security. As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government has frequently noted, the U.S. Navy will be smaller at the end of President Biden current term than it was when he first took the oath of office.

A key example is the vital program to build more Virgina-class submarines, which are two years behind schedule.   Theses vessels may well play the most important role in a dispute with China. According the Government Accountability Office. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106059  The subs are not the only problem. According to the U.S. Accountability Office, “The Department of Defense (DOD) continues to face challenges quickly developing innovative new weapons. These challenges persist even with recent reforms to its acquisition process intended to help deliver systems to the warfighter in a timelier manner. From DOD’s 2020 submission of reports on their major defense acquisition programs to 2022, the number of these programs declined. However, the portfolio’s total cost increased, and the average planned cycle time to deliver operational capabilities shows new delays. Over half of the 26 major defense acquisition programs GAO assessed that had yet to deliver operational capability reported new delays. Driving factors included supplier disruptions, software development delays, and quality control deficiencies. Additionally, these programs continue to make investment decisions without sufficient knowledge, which can increase the risk of delays. Net costs for the 32 major defense acquisition programs that GAO assessed both this year and last year increased by $37 billion. Rising modernization costs, production inefficiencies, and supply chain challenges drove the majority of costs.”

Aquilino addressed the issue bluntly, stating “…the risk we assume is high and trending in the wrong direction, specifically due to delayed delivery of military construction, advanced capabilities, and resources to persistently project and maintain forces west of the International Date Line. “Without a credible deterrent, China, Russia, and other revisionist powers will be emboldened to take action to counter U.S. interests. “

The recently passed budget, signed by the president in March, essentially cuts Defense appropriations when inflation is taken into account.

The irony is that as China gets stronger, Russia gets more aggressive, North Korea becomes a formidable nuclear power, and Iran is about to enter the atomic club, the U.S. is cutting back and dealing with a smaller and increasingly obsolescent force.

Photo: CNS Nanchang, A Chinese Type 055 guided-missile destroyer. (China Defence Ministry)

Clearly, the heightened presence of enemy forces throughout Latin America has the Pentagon worried.

In February, Daniel Erikson, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Western Hemisphere noted that “China and Russia each pose different challenges for Latin America and the Caribbean, so there needs to be adjustments to the Defense Department’s strategies as well.

“The Department of Defense clearly plays a very important role in terms of working with partner militaries in the region and enhancing defense cooperation and our ability to work together more seamlessly across multiple domains, including air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace,” Erikson emphasized at an Atlantic Council event dedicated to  Countering China and Russia in Latin America and the Caribbean.

The Deputy Secretary noted that there are some very important elements to the challenges posed by both China and Russia that require a whole-of-government response because they are pursuing economic, political and diplomatic interests. “With so many challenges, the department has had to prioritize and deal with core risks or threats to U.S. and allies’ interests. The importance of democracy and democratic governance in this region is one of the United States’s core ideals…We at DOD take very seriously the need for civilian control of the military, respect for human rights, and ensuring that militaries are abiding by the constitutional norms put forth by their democratic governments…”

Erickson added that “Besides military partnerships, it’s critical that the U.S. private sector, U.S. industry and relevant U.S. agencies are engaging with this region “to ensure that we can make available offerings — whether it’s in defense, cyber, or in other areas — to meet the core national security needs of the countries there, Erikson said. 

For example, it’s important for nations to protect their critical, national-security infrastructure and ensure that they are only using trusted vendors for such items as telecommunications equipment, which could have military benefits to China…I also think that across U.S. industry, there really needs to be a deeper dive into what we can do to provide Latin American and Caribbean countries with the capabilities that they require at a price that they can afford…”

Latin American governments are fiscally constrained and, in many cases, have underinvested in critical infrastructure for many years, he added. 

Countries in the region are facing transnational criminal organizations, climate threats, and border disputes. “So,” the Deputy Secretary noted,  “…they look at the risk posed by [China] as something that is going to come, perhaps, in the future — but not today. And so, really, educating our partners and making sure they’re aware of how some of the decisions that they make today could create long-term risk for them is really critical.”

South American nations have been using their military equipment for years, which limits interoperability with the U.S. and allies, he stated. “At the end of the day, the way that the United States can meet the challenge that’s posed by great power competition in Latin America and the Caribbean is, really, by having a very proactive, affirmative and engaged U.S. agenda with the region and not just telling other countries what they shouldn’t be doing with other partners, but what they can do with the United States…”

Discussions about equipment, alliances and the like are important. However, without the resolute will to counter enemy forces on America’s own doorstep, it will be irrelevant. According to some reports, President Biden considered suspending a U.S. submarine visit to Guantanamo Bay while the Russian naval flotilla. More rational individuals at the Pentagon stressed that this would send a terrible message of weakness, not just to the Russians and Chinese but to our allies worldwide.

Photo: Colombian Aerospace Force HH-60 Black Hawk helicopter prepares to take off during combined Exercises Angel de los Andes and Relampago VIII in Palanquero, Colombia, Aug. 22, 2023. U.S. Southern Command and 12th Air Force (Air Forces Southern) are committed to strengthening partnerships in Latin America and the Caribbean to improve collective ability to meet complex global challenges (DoD photo)

In 1962 the Soviet Union began installing missiles in Cuba that could launch attacks on U.S. cities. In response, John F. Kennedy blockaded the island nation to prevent Nikita Khruschev’s plan from going forward. Despite the dramatic risk that brought the world to the edge of a nuclear confrontation, the nation rallied around the young President. It was a strategic and moral victory for America and the West.

Sixty- two years later, the Russian navy has deployed a nuclear submarine and support vessels to the same general area. Along with China and Iran, Moscow’s military has been making significant inroads throughout the western hemisphere.  The response by the media has been a collective yawn. Robert K. Kennedy Jr.,  nephew of the late JFK, in a truly incredible example of bad timing, has called for cutting the defense budget in half.

The new Russian naval presence has teeth. According to a report by Zona Militar . The information released by the Cuban government reveals that “…the flotilla is led by the nuclear-powered attack submarine Kazan (K-561), accompanied by the missile frigate Admiral Gorshkov and support vessels. the Yasen-M class [is] one of the most modern in service with the Russian Navy. Conceived as part of the Russian Armed Forces’ strategic renewal projects, their design was based on experiences gained with ships from the Soviet era, such as the Akula and Alfa classes. With a displacement of 8,600 tons, these submarines are equipped with vertical launchers compatible with the Kalibr and Oniks anti-surface missiles. They also have 10 533mm torpedo tubes. In addition to the Kazan, the flotilla consists of the Admiral Gorshkov missile frigate, the lead ship of its namesake class, and one of the most advanced surface vessels in the Russian Navy …One of their main capabilities is the ability to conduct anti-surface attacks using the hypersonic 3M22 Zircon missiles.”

The Kremlin flotilla is not an isolated instance in the western hemisphere. Russian inroads into Latin America have increased significantly in recent years, according to the  Army University Press.  Russian inroads into Latin America have increased significantly in recent years. The National Defense University Press Russia’s growing strategic presence in the U.S. near abroad empowers anti-U.S. populist authoritarian regimes while gaining potentially important access points for Russia in the Western Hemisphere. Understanding and developing a comprehensive response to this asymmetric threat should be a hemispheric priority as the United States faces numerous strategic challenges with waning influence in the region. 

In one way the latest Caribbean challenge is more severe than the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Instead of just one adversary, The U.S. Naval Institute notes that China has a worrisome presence in the region. In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Army Gen. Laura Richardson, the  U.S. Southern Command’s commander, reports that China has the ability to flip its big money investments in the Caribbean and South American – ports, 5G telecommunications networks, space infrastructure and clean energy – from civilian to military use. Maj Gen Evan L. Pettus, USAF,  Commander of 12th Air Force (Air Forces Southern) outlined his concern last year: “I underestimated the extent of the influence operations conducted by the Chinese Communist Party–led government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in the region. As I approach the one-year mark in my command, I am increasingly concerned about the strategic risks the PRC’s actions pose to the national security interests of the United States and the sovereignty of our partner nations in Latin America. The PRC adopts various methods to enhance its access and influence in the Western Hemisphere, employing both subtle and overt approaches. The PRC establishes aggressive and coercive economic ties with nations in the region and uses those ties to exert deep influence over local and national governments. Levers of power include building and operating critical infrastructure, controlling information technology networks, and monopolizing access to vital supply chains. Additionally, the PRC strategically constructs ports near crucial maritime chokepoints that could potentially facilitate future military activities. Their investment in critical infrastructure extends to ostensibly civilian space facilities, which thinly veil their military connections and potential military applications.”

The article concludes tomorrow

Photo: The dry cargo/ammunition ship USNS William McLean refuels the hospital ship USNS Comfort off the coast of Panama (US DOD photo, 2018)

Russia’s long war in Ukraine is dragging into the summer months without any indication that an end is in sight. It is not the only place Putin is actively engaged in a battle. The Russian president is using his ability to sway political events among the regional elites in Chechnya, with the goal of replacing the Ramzan Kadyrov regime with one that is more amenable to Moscow’s influence. Such a transition in power, according to a Jamestown Foundation report this week, “would carry with it a significant potential for instability as the sudden changes in leadership, underlying tensions, and power struggles could destabilize the region’s power dynamics.”

The Chechens have sent a number of fighters to the front lines in Ukraine in support of the Russian war effort. Putin owes these soldiers and their Chechen leaders a debt. His support of a power transition in Chechnya is likely due to the lessened leverage he has with Chechnya since the Ukraine war began in February 2022. Ramzan Kadyrov’s regime is showing signs it is weakening. Putin appears to view this as an opportune time to work toward installing a less independence-oriented leader in the region; one who is more complicit with Russia’s desire to eliminate Chechen pro-independence voices. It is yet another piece of the puzzle Putin needs to complete his long-term goal of reassembling the broader Russian Empire. 

Political stability in the Chechen region is cemented through personal relationships and a signal to insiders of the state of affairs and infighting. A day after Daudov resigned from parliament he also resigned as president of the Alkhmat Grozny soccer club after serving for 14 years. His replacement is Ramzan Kadyrov’s son. Analysts in Washington view the change as a sign that the Kremlin is concerned about maintaining control in outlying areas that have a history of seeking greater autonomy. The Jamestown report also cites that when Daudov was appointed prime minister of Chechnya his predecessor was sent to Moscow as an aide to Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin.

In late April Novaya Gazeta-Evropa reported that Putin appointed Apti Alaudinov as the deputy head of the Main Military-Political Directorate of the Russian Armed Forces. Previously, he served as commander of a volunteer formation in Akhmat and in Chechen law enforcement. What is striking to Western analysts is that Aludinov has never served in the regular armed forces. Reports coming out of Chechnya speculate that Ramzan Kadyrov suffers from pancreatic necrosis and that the Kremlin may be touting Alaudinov as his replacement. It would be a stellar ascent for Alaudinov’s career. 

Numerous members of the Kadyrov family have not only flooded government positions in Chechnya but have also become known for their feuds, according to the Jamestown report. It says that “According to sources in the Russian security services, however, the Russian government is not inclined to allow Kadyrov to perpetuate his rule by appointing either one of his sons or a close associate as the next governor of Chechnya. Instead, Moscow allegedly contemplates a significant overhaul of the system of governance in the region, which aims at rendering it more like other regions within the Russian Federation.”

The type of changes occurring in Chechnya are reminiscent of how other imperial powers have decreased the level of political autonomy for newly conquered lands. After the Second Chechen War “the Kadyrov clan was allowed an unprecedented level of political autonomy to use brutal force to suppress the remaining elements of the pro-independence movement,” according to the Jamestown report. Radio Free Europe is reporting that it appears Russian political strategists plan to absorb Chechnya back in Russia by curbing its leadership’s liberties. 

Chechens who are unhappy with Kadyrov’s policies are likely to accept Moscow’s titular head. Ramzen Kadyrov met with Putin in Moscow in May and is expected to try to thwart the plan. “The Kremlin’s bet that the majority of Chechens are fed up with the monopoly on power enjoyed by the Kadyrov family in the region is not unreasonable. Nevertheless, it is difficult to determine how different actors will react to any abrupt changes in the region’s governance,” notes the Jamestown report.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

Increasingly, public educational schools are being used to push a partisan political agenda. That fact is offensive enough, but the stridently anti-American, antisemitic, and sexually explicit tenor of the curriculum is a deep cause of concern.

From coast to coast, outrageous examples abound. 

Real Clear Education notes that “Across the nation, parents have pushed back on teachers promoting a leftist political agenda in K-12 classrooms, from the purported teaching of forms of Critical Race Theory to documented evidence of politically charged rhetoric, such as one educator in Sparta, isconsin, calling conservatives “ignorant and poor.” According to our report released last month, leftist ideologies in K-12 classrooms have their roots in schools of education at universities. We utilized open-records requests to examine the course readings and goals for several education ourses at every public university in Wisconsin. We found that virtually every primary- or early-ducation major must take at least one course focused on how to implement “equity,” “diversity,” and “culturally relevant pedagogy”—buzzwords for radical identity politics—in their future K-12 classrooms. There is good reason to believe that Wisconsin’s universities are not the only ones suffering from this kind of indoctrination of future teachers. 

The New York Post reports that “A progressive activist group in California is paying students $1,400 each to become racial and social justice warriors — with the school district forking out hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund the “propaganda” programs, according to a report. The Long Beach Unified School District funneled nearly $900,000 for a one-year contract to Californians for Justice (CFJ), a “youth-powered” non-profit that provides education and organizing on racial justice issues, according to a copy of the agreement obtained by the Free Press.

A Heritage study notes that “It isn’t just a matter of actively teaching that America and the West are evil. Suppression of “wrongthink” is equally as important to the brainwashing process. The young adults who today gleefully tear down statues of the Founding Fathers were incubated in our very own schools. Conservatives must demand an end to the indoctrination of our youth or face a new American public taught since childhood that the country shouldn’t exist. Your children are being indoctrinated. The education system designed to teach them how to think critically has been weaponized by the radical left to push an anti-American agenda. It isn’t just a matter of actively teaching that America and the West are evil. Suppression of “wrongthink” is equally as important to the brainwashing process. The young adults who today gleefully tear down statues of the Founding Fathers were incubated in our very own schools. Conservatives must demand an end to the indoctrination of our youth or face a new American public taught since childhood that the country shouldn’t exist.

A Texas educational website did a deep dive on the topic. “A new documentary about education in America exposes a not-so-hidden agenda in public schools: indoctrinating kids with leftist ideologies. “Whose Children Are They?” features teachers, parents, and education advocates describing how public schools are failing kids by focusing on left-wing social issues instead of academics. Similar to “The Mind Polluters,” this new film shows shocking examples of graphic sex education lessons pushed on kids as young as elementary school. It also documents the current fixation on race in schools that’s led to treating kids of color like victims, shaming white students and teachers, “dumbing down” curricula, eliminating advanced courses, and failing to discipline students. The filmmakers place the blame for politicizing public education squarely on teachers unions and other national organizations that push policies and curricula like racial equity and social-emotional learning onto state and local education officials.

A Federalist Review stated that “As Matt Beienburg writes in National Review, this situation has led to schools adopting questionable content that seems to promote an ideological agenda over serious learning. In particular, he mentions the nationwide adoption of the New York Times’ “1619 Project” for history class, along with Seattle’s math ethnic studies framework. Although these represent the more extreme curriculum offerings, most public schools in both red and blue states routinely use left-leaning or “woke” materials while quietly doing away with older materials that encourage American patriotism, Western civilization, and Judeo-Christian values. In English class, this means replacing “Hamlet” and “The Scarlet Letter” with “The Hate U Give,” a novel based on themes from the Black Lives Matter movement, and “Symptoms of Being Human,” a novel about a gender-fluid punk rocker who blogs about his insecurities. In social studies, this means incorporating Howard Zinn’s anti-American interpretations of history. In science, this means teaching Darwinism as an unquestionable fact and sexual differences as subjective opinion. In math, this means conscientiously applying social justice values in word problems and learning goals.To make matters worse, many public schools never bother to tell anyone about these changes.

There are various approaches to deal with the open bias and misuse of educational resources for partisan purposes. The Washington Post reports that “Home schooling has become — by a wide margin — America’s fastest-growing form of education, as families from Upper Manhattan to Eastern Kentucky embrace a largely unregulated practice…The analysis — based on data The Post collected for thousands of school districts across the country — reveals that a dramatic rise in home schooling at the onset of the pandemic has largely sustained itself through the 2022-23 academic year, defying predictions that most families would return to schools.” Another option is the concept of school choice. U.S. News describes the practice: “Most parents send their children to their neighborhood public school. But other education options exist, including public charter, magnet, private, parochial and online schools, as well as homeschooling. Advocates use the term “school choice” to refer to programs and policies that let families use public money to access schools beyond their local option, including private schools. “At its core, school choice is really about parents and guardians having the ability to choose, regardless of how those options are funded,” says Amy Smith, interim dean of the school of education at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota. Currently 32 states plus Washington, D.C., offer some type of school choice program, according to EdChoice, a nonprofit that advocates for school choice. Robert Enlow, president and CEO of EdChoice, says the last two years saw more states than ever before enacting educational choice programs.”

A U.S. News  review discusses another alternative, known as School Choice. “Most parents send their children to their neighborhood public school. But other education options exist, including public charter, magnet, private, parochial and online schools, as well as homeschooling. Advocates use the term “school choice” to refer to programs and policies that let families use public money to access schools beyond their local option, including private schools. “At its core, school choice is really about parents and guardians having the ability to choose, regardless of how those options are funded,” says Amy Smith, interim dean of the school of education at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota. Currently 32 states plus Washington, D.C., offer some type of school choice program, according to EdChoice, a nonprofit that advocates for school choice. Robert Enlow, president and CEO of EdChoice, says the last two years saw more states than ever before enacting educational choice programs.”

Illustration: Pixabay

As described by Dr. Ron Martinelli, a criminologist who worked pro bono for the Kelly defense team, “the state has already spent upwards of $1 million in pursuit of this [case] drawing from taxpayer dollars in the state’s poorest county in an area situated along the U.S.-Mexico border.”

What is surprising is how Kelly came to be charged in the matter, and why he was prosecuted for an action which could have been justified under Arizona’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which states that “(a) person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.” 

If Kelly was legally justified to either threaten or use physical force to stop a trespasser, and there was no physical evidence to link Kelly to the deceased illegal alien found on his property, how did this hapless rancher come to be tried for this “crime” in the first place?

When we discussed this case in February of 2023, we noted that “Arizona has been discouraging property owners along the border from enforcing their property rights against illegal alien trespassers for years.”  We also cited to a previous instance where a rancher was forced to give up his property to satisfy a judgment brought against him by an illegal alien shot while trespassing on his property. 

According to Dr. Martinelli, “Santa Cruz County Attorney George Silva and Sheriff David Hathaway [exhibited] ‘extreme confirmation bias’ in their handling of the case…’This was a political prosecution,’ Martinelli added. ‘They had zero forensic evidence. They had tons of exculpatory information and evidence supporting Mr. Kelly’s innocence in this. Yet they continued to push forward and with their false narratives to convict this man. I would suggest, this is my opinion, that they used lawfare against him. I mean, they didn’t even have a motive that they were able to establish in this case.'” 

Regarding Sheriff Hathaway in particular, there is some evidence for Martinelli’s allegations.  Before the trial, Hathaway can be seen in a video interview accusing Kelly of being an “outsider” who came to Arizona to “hunt me some Mexicans.”  At one point during the trial, “[t]he defense team questioned the [personal] involvement of Hathaway in this case when he normally doesn’t get involved.” Hathaway testified that “others in the department and county attorney’s office were hesitant to go to Mexico [to interview witnesses] while he has experience in other countries.” 

While this may be true, it is equally a fact that Hathaway is a Democrat, elected Sheriff of Santa Cruz County in 2020, who has expressed his desire  “to preserve the relationship with Mexico, which is essential for the community’s shared economic and cultural interests.”   Hathaway has also stated that efforts to control illegal entry across the Southern border are unlawful, saying  “he doesn’t support the placement of double-stacked shipping containers along the southern Arizona border as he does not believe there is an invasion…Hathaway said if the containers arrive in Santa Cruz County, he’ll arrest construction and security crews and charge them with ‘illegal dumping on public lands’…he would prefer a four-strand livestock fence along the border.” 

In other words, the Sheriff of Santa Cruz County thinks Rancher Kelly is an “outsider” who “hunts Mexicans”; that the border is secure; that good relations with Mexico are essential; and was willing to travel across the border to find witnesses to testify against Kelly.  All in a State that has a history of discouraging property owners from defending their land and their rights from illegal alien trespassers.

Sounds like justice was served despite the efforts of Sheriff Hathaway.

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

Photo: Pixabay

In February of 2023, we discussed the criminal case brought against Arizona rancher George Alan Kelly, who was alleged to have shot and killed an illegal alien trespassing on his property.   We quoted the facts of the case, as discussed in a motion filed by Kelly’s defense counsel:

“On January 30, 2023…Mr Kelly had completed chores on his ranch and had come to his house to eat lunch with his wife.  As they ate, Mr. Kelly heard a single gunshot…he saw a group of men moving through the trees around his home.  They were armed with AK-47 rifles…he had not given any of them permission to come on his land…Mr. Kelly then went onto his porch with his rifle. The leader of the armed group of men saw Mr. Kelly and pointed an AK-47 right at him.  Mr. Kelly, fearing for his life and safety, fired several shots from his rifle…the group then began running into the desert surrounding his home.” 

Later that day, after calling Border Patrol Agents (who searched the property and found nothing), “Mr. Kelly noticed that his dogs were focused on something on the ground…Mr. Kelly approached his dogs, and observed a body lying face down in the grass.,,(w)hen law enforcement arrived, Mr. Kelly helped them find the body and he cooperated with their investigation.”

Most significantly, according to the Defense motion, “(i)t remains unknown what kind of bullet caused the wound to the person, what the time of death was, how long the body had been at that location, or where and in what position the person was in prior to receiving the fatal wound.”  

Kelly was initially charged with First Degree Murder, however, that charge was later reduced to Second Degree Murder, which does not require premeditation, but does necessitate “[k]nowing that the person’s conduct will cause death or serious physical injury, the person causes the death of another person.”  Prosecutors obviously believed this reduced charge to be easier to prove, since they alleged that “Kelly recklessly fired nine shots from an AK-47 rifle toward a group of men, including [the deceased], about 100 yards away on his cattle ranch.” 

From the outset, the evidence produced at trial was…unusual.  For instance, despite the body being found with what was claimed to be a bullet wound, according to a local Arizona news report, “[n]o bullet has been recovered from the single gunshot that killed Gabriel Cuen Buitimea Jan. 30, 2023.”  This left the prosecution was no other option but “trying to show that the wound could have been made by Kelly’s AK-47.”

“The prosecution’s case is that Kelly fired nine rounds from his rifle and struck Gabriel Cuen Buitimea once, about 115 yards away. The bullet went through Buitimea’s body and was not recovered. Forensic scientist Rick Wyant testified that the casings found on Kelly’s porch were in a location consistent with where Kelly could have been standing when he fired. He also testified the bullet wound was oval, not a circle, which is consistent with the bullet possibly hitting a branch as it traveled through heavy brush.”

However, this exchange between Wyant and Kelly’s defense counsel revealed the weakness of this testimony:

“Brenna Larkin: So, number one, you can’t prove who the shooter was, correct?

Rick Wyant: That’s correct.

Larkin: You can’t prove which firearm caused his wound, is that correct?

Wyant: Caused the wound? Correct.

Larkin: You can’t prove which type of ammunition caused this wound, correct?

Wyant: That’s true.

Larkin: You can’t prove which bullet caused this wound, correct?                      

Wyant: Also true.

Larkin: Can’t prove which direction the shot came from, correct?

Wyant: Correct.

Larkin: And we can’t prove how far away this shot came from, other than further than six feet away from this person, correct?

Wyant: Yes, that’s true.” 

With evidence of this caliber, it is no wonder that in late April of this year, the jury hearing the case of George Kelly deadlocked, and a mistrial was declared. Further, there was no surprise that the District Attorney’s Office for Santa Cruz County, Arizona, decided not to retry Kelly. 

Judge John Wilson’s analysis concludes tomorrow

Photo: Pixabay

Over the last few decades China has solidified its role as a powerful force in global politics. It operates the world’s second largest economy and commands a modern, world-class military. President Xi Jinping employs a multipronged approach toward global governance by supporting international goals that are in line with China’s interests and undermining those that diverge from the ideal communist model. He continues to support Putin’s war effort while also advancing Beijing’s agenda throughout Europe despite increasing domestic economic issues at home. Recently, the Chinese state won a tender in Russia’s back yard to construct a deep-sea port which could alter the power structure throughout the Black Sea region.

The Georgian Dream government announced that a Chinese-led consortium working with a Singaporean company will construct and manage the strategic Anaklia deep-water port. This latest Chinese geopolitical project, according to Giorgi Menabde of the Jamestown Foundation, “could drastically change the geoeconomic and geopolitical situation in the region, providing China more economic power and influence, and turning Tbilisi closer to Moscow through Beijing’s alliance with the Kremlin.” Western influence in Georgia, which had been growing stronger since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is starting to wane. Beijing is filling the gap once held by the West politically and economically. It is emerging as Georgia’s primary strategic partner while also strengthening its position in the South Caucasus. The strategic implications are enormous as China is outpacing Russia influence in the region. 

China and Georgia declared a “strategic partnership” last year that led to the May 29 announcement of the new port agreement. The consortium includes two major Chinese companies and two Chinese subcontractors. The “Anaklia Deep Sea Port” company, a Georgian-owned state company, retains a 51-percent share with the consortium  holding a 49-percent share. “The deep-sea port will reportedly be constructed based on Chinese cargo needs and looks to become a critical node in Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative,” according to Menabde. 

The Chinese company involved in the deal was blacklisted by the US Government in August 2020 for building artificial islands in the South China Sea for military use, according to the US Department of Commerce. In response to criticism over the move, the government in Tbilisi issued a statement saying that “blacklisted” doesn’t mean Washington sanctioned the firm. According to political analysts in Washington, this is a clear indication that Georgia is turning away from the West when it comes to what companies are acceptable as partners. Menabde says it is also a signal  of an “increase of influence [by China] on Tbilisi’s decision-making.”

Former President of the Georgian National Bank Roman Gotsiridze stated in his May 31 interview with this author that “the Anaklia deep-sea port project is not only an economic project. It directly concerns issues of Georgia’s strategic security.” Menabde adds he argued, “China’s dominance at the Port of Anaklia will have economic and political consequences for the security of the entire Black Sea region and in the context of a real alliance between China and Russia on the issue of Russian aggression against Ukraine.” At the same time as China is developing a significant port facility in the country, Russia is also building a naval base a few miles away at the Port of Ochamchire in the occupied Abkhazia region of Georgia. Some analysts suggest this is to hide the Russian navy’s warships that “escaped” from Crimea and that it will benefit Russia.  

A Georgian historian and political scientist Paata Chekurishvili, an advocate of the Georgian-Chinese partnership, told the Jamestown Foundation that “The case concerns the moving of the ‘Middle Corridor’ to the south toward the so-called Zangezur transport and energy corridor, which can be launched under the same patronage of the United States and the European Union.” … This is only in the interests of Georgia’s northern neighbor—Russia.” This deal cements China’s geopolitical involvement in the region and adds another notch in China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

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

Photo: Naval vessels attached to a destroyer flotilla under the PLA Eastern Theater Command sail towards the designated waters during a training exercise on May 14,2024. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Wan Haichao)

Exaggeration, as well as inaccurate statements and skirting the law are an unfortunate standard in politics.  The White House has recently admitted that the President made 148 verbal mistakes this year.

However, the issue is not the verbal gaffes made by Mr. Biden.  It is the outright lies, sheer nonsense, and refusal to ignore blatant abuses of federal and local power and funds currently being engaged in by the Democratic Party and its media allies, unlike anything previously seen.

Consider the lies.

The President continues to announce that he is cancelling portions of student debt, even after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the move was unconstitutional.

The Administration has insisted, even under oath, that the border is under control.  That, of course, is sheer nonsense. It’s wide open and an economic, crime, and social disaster for cities and states across the nation. The Biden Administration adamantly refuses to enforce existing law and regulations, and punishes state officials that seek to protect their citizens from this White House manufactured crisis. In defiance of the law, the current White House has not only violated its obligation to protect the borders, it has actually encouraged illegal immigration, even flying aliens to the U.S.

Despite statements by blue state attorneys general and local district attorneys, Crime is not under control.  Our streets and urban transit systems are deeply dangerous. Defunded police departments have been hit hard.  The fabrication that U.S. law enforcement is racist is sheer nonsense. Race-baiting leftist district attorneys and state attornies general ignore the blatant failure of their get out of jail free policies.

Biden alleges that he supports Israel.  However, he constantly undercuts most moves the nation makes in its own self-defense.

The Administration insists it is serious about national security, but its inadequate defense budgets, morale-busting personnel policies, and appeasement policies paint a different picture. The U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force are all on track to be smaller at the end of Biden’s first term than at the beginning. Biden’s botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, his comment that he wouldn’t respond to “a little” invasion of Ukraine, his refusal to take steps to shoot down China’s spy balloon, and his morale-busting woke policies within the armed forces demonstrate his lack of interest in defense matters.

The President proudly touts support for infrastructure, but will the cash from recent legislation actually be spent as advertised?

The Heritage Foundation reports that “While the plan relies on the moderate and uncontroversial term “infrastructure,” less than 5% would actually go toward traditional road infrastructure projects. Rather, it will be spent on corporate welfare, tax credits, and the left’s radical ‘green’ agenda.”

The Competitive Enterprise Institute notes that “Billions fill the coffers of trade unions and other special interests, who dutifully kick back a portion to their political benefactors in the form of campaign contributions. Investment and Jobs Act, and in addition much of the spending decisions will be distorted by climate policy considerations. All of this waste will also be seen with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and in addition much of the spending decisions will be distorted by climate policy considerations.”

The Brookings Institute notes that “On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed into law another large expenditure bill, the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill (“The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act”). This legislation authorized $550 billion in new funding for projects involving roads and bridges, improvements in water infrastructure, rail improvements, broadband internet and cybersecurity enhancements, replacement of hazardous lead pipes, port improvements, environmental projects, electric vehicle charging stations, and other infrastructure projects……the bill did not focus on the potential for fraud, and “the word fraud appeared only seven times in the 2000-page bill.”

Questionable assertions have become a standard in politics on both sides of the aisle, but the degree to which the Biden Administration engages in this tawdry practice is unprecedented.

Illustration: Pixabay

The worrisome revelations about America’s ability to arm itself and its allies were a key topic for the Pentagon this Spring. A study by the Texas National Security Review reported that the Defense Department has acknowledged the urgency of strengthening the linkages between a healthy defense industrial base and U.S. military power. Despite this, the views of defense-tech companies are often overlooked.

 President Biden, while signing vitally needed legislation aimed at providing $1 billion of vitally needed supplies to Ukraine, noted that items already in the U.S. defense arsenal would be utilized, and replaced as quickly as possible. Whether that can be done quickly enough is an important concern.

 There has been some improvement in manufacturing.  In the U.S., defense officials have said that production of 155 mm artillery ammunition recently surpassed 30,000 rounds per month. Through the opening of a new production facility in Mesquite, Texas, in May and other expansion efforts, output is expected to reach nearly 70,000 rounds per month by the end of year.

  But in the event of a major confrontation with Russia, China, or both, would the nation be able to produce the weapons needed?

The Department of Defense reports that “The events of recent years dramatically exposed serious shortfalls in both domestic manufacturing and international supply chains. The COVID-19 crisis demonstrated America’s near wholesale dependency on other nations for many products and materials crucial to modern life.4 Longstanding mobilization authorities, such as the Defense Production Act, were needed in the first months of the crisis to prevent expected shortages in medical equipment and other crucial items. The Russian Federation’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, followed the next year by attacks by Hamas on Israel, uncovered a different set of industrial demands and corresponding risks. The U.S. defense industry has been called on to surge production of military equipment in large quantities, especially munitions – from 155mm military artillery shells, a staple of armies since the First World War, to the most sophisticated missile defense systems.”

The Center for Strategic and International Studies warns that “In a major regional conflict—such as a war with China in the Taiwan Strait—the U.S. use of munitions would likely exceed the current stockpiles of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). … the United States would likely run out of some munitions—such as long-range, precision-guided munitions.This would occur in less than one week in a Taiwan Strait conflict….These shortfalls would make it difficult for the United States to sustain a protracted conflict.These problems are particularly concerning since the rate at which China has been acquiring high-end weapons systems and equipment is five to six times faster than the United States, according to some U.S. government estimates.”

Despite these findings, the Heritage Foundation has found that leaders in Congress and the executive branch have not yet chosen either to increase federal funding for defense or to make the difficult trade-offs (such as cutting entitlement spending) that would be necessary under such an increase to enable a restoration of this key capability. The global threat environment is growing more hostile as the economic and cultural factors that historically have supported U.S. military strength decline. Not only have manufacturing and key industrial processes moved overseas, but—even worse—they have moved to China, America’s chief rival. The U.S. is in a ‘new Cold War’ with China even as the two countries’ economies are deeply intertwined.”

The expected rapid pace of warfare on the horizon means that any delay in producing the weaponry and ammunition the U.S. and allied nations will require would prove fatal.