Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines told the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday afternoon that China, Russia, and Iran pose the greatest concern for election security six months out from the big day.

“The most significant foreign actors who engage in foreign influence activity directed at the United States in relation to our elections are Russia, the People’s Republic of China or PRC, and Iran,” Haines said.

“Specifically, Russia remains the most active foreign threat to our elections,” Haines said, adding that the Russian government’s influence operations tend to include “eroding trust in U.S. democratic institutions, exacerbating socio-political divisions in the United States, and degrading Western support to Ukraine.”

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Jen Easterly said her agency was the most prepared for anticipated attacks as campaign season on both the federal and state level peaks in the coming months.

“Election infrastructure is more secure than ever,” Easterly said, adding that the threats were “more complex than ever.”

Officials are particularly concerned about the use of artificial intelligence in content that can alter images, videos, and audio to use whatever voice or person’s picture they wish to craft a message.

AI will increasingly be used by foreign actors and nonstate entities in content, much of which is posted on social media, according to Haines.

“The kind of audio and video manipulation that even as recently as four years ago and … eight years ago was still a challenge now can happen at a speed and scale, due to AI tools, that’s unprecedented, and literally, there’s not a week or month that goes by that those AI video and audio tools don’t continue to improve,” Haines testified.

Haines declared protecting the democratic process of elections in the United States was an “absolute priority” for the intelligence community and that it had “never been better prepared.”

However, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), the committee’s top Republican member, said he had yet to see an easy, specific plan for how the government planned to alert the public of disinformation circulating online.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Senate Intelligence Chairman Mark Warner (D-VA) said part of the problem was that more people have grown distrustful of the government, potentially setting up any government warning to look like political sabotage.

“We’ve witnessed increasingly large numbers of Americans, of all political stripes, who simply do not trust U.S. institutions, from federal agencies and local law enforcement to mainstream media institutions, coupled with an increased reliance on easily manipulated internet media platforms,” Warner said.

On both of those scores, Biden has learned a lesson from former President Donald Trump, probably for the better.

Throughout the entire life of most living Americans, U.S. presidents have launched wars of choice, and they’ve typically been bad ideas.

Ronald Reagan invaded Grenada. George H.W. Bush did Panama, went to war with Saddam Hussein, and sent U.S. troops to Somalia. Bill Clinton did two Balkan wars plus continued Somalia. George W. Bush did Afghanistan and Iraq. Barack Obama did Libya and almost did Syria.

Trump showed us it was possible for a president not to enter the U.S. into any wars. He had to resist calls for a regime-change war in Syria.

Biden, who had been a hawk on Iraq, has, as president, followed Trump’s lead instead and resisted calls for deposing Bashar Assad in Syria. He has also been careful not to inject the U.S. military directly into the war Russia started by invading Ukraine.

It seems Biden is older and wiser than he used to be.

Also, Biden was famously soft on China in the past. He even traveled to China and said the U.S. doesn’t question its human rights abuses. The Obama-Biden administration also heavily subsidized Chinese state-owned businesses.

During the 2020 campaign, Biden attacked Trump for his economic warfare against China.

One reporter once asked Biden, “Some have said Trump’s stance is a good one to counter China’s influence. Would you keep the tariffs?”

“No. Hey, look, who said Trump’s idea’s a good one?” Biden replied. “Manufacturing has gone into a recession. Agriculture lost billions of dollars that taxpayers had to pay.” Biden promised to end Trump’s tariffs and mocked them:

Now Biden is very hawkish on China, basically perpetuating Trump’s economic warfare.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Once again, Biden seems to have learned a valuable lesson from Trump: China is an adversary, and we should oppose China whenever possible.

“There’s nothing showing that Russia is on a trajectory away from this,” Swedish Civil Defense Minister Carl-Oskar Bohlin told the Washington Examiner. “We need to prepare ourselves accordingly, and that is why Sweden is one of the most ardent supporters of Ukraine, of course, but also making sure that we can fend for ourselves and make our own home work.”

Sweden, as NATO’s newest member, enjoys the shelter of the U.S. nuclear umbrella. And yet, the example of Ukraine looms large for Bohlin, the first Swedish civil defense minister since the World War II era, who credits the resilience of Ukrainian civil society with enabling the country’s stout resistance to Russia’s invasion. 

“Russia has [been] betting upon sort of trying to break the Ukrainian backbone by attacking healthcare institutions, by attacking the power grid substations,” he said during an interview at House of Sweden in Washington, D.C. “And they have failed because Ukraine has built a resilient, robust society. And, I think, the message from Sweden here is that we’re doing that as well.”

In 2018, Swedish officials distributed a brochure that urges households to stockpile “non-perishable food that can be prepared quickly, requires little water, or can be eaten without preparation” — pre-cooked lentils and canned mackerel fit the bill, for instance — and other supplies. The pamphlet notes that “everyone who lives here and is between the ages of 16 and 70 can be called up to assist in various ways in the event of the threat of war and war.” They are updating that manual, titled If Crisis or War Comes, in light of Russia’s war in Ukraine.

“Many have said it before me, but let me do so in an official capacity, more plainly and with naked clarity: There could be war in Sweden,” Bohlin said in a January speech. “But it is not enough to simply contemplate the question. Civil defense is not primarily a theoretical exercise. Awareness must be translated into practical action. Measures that actually raise the threshold.”

That address sent a signal for officials and leaders across Swedish government and society to begin the “contingency planning” that would equip them for their role in the “total defense” of the country.

“So Civil Defense encompasses everything from the energy sector to the financial services to rescue services to making sure that there are, you know, kindergartens, open for soldiers to keep leaving their children on in the event of they being needed for service,” Bohlin said. “The way we see it, [this is] an integral part of a credible defense posture — sort of creating the equivalent of a porcupine. … If you only focus on the military side of deterrence, then you run the risk of presenting a brittle posture.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Those efforts would seem to rest on an implicit premise that neither Swedish authorities nor civilians should assume that NATO’s nuclear umbrella amounts to a perfect shield against all forms of Russian aggression.

“We’re not, you know, saying that there is an imminent threat of war towards Sweden. … But we were saying that we cannot rule out that it would happen sometime in the future,” Bohlin said. “And that we, according to that judgment, need to take measurements, making sure that that does not happen and should it happen that we are able to fend for ourselves in such a situation.”

Victory Day, a celebration of the Soviet Union’s legitimately heroic victory over Nazi Germany, sees an annual Russian military parade and address by Vladimir Putin. Today, however, the Kremlin uses Victory Day as a propaganda tool to boost support for its war in Ukraine. It falsely presents that war as a successor to the just war against Nazi Germany. For this reason, many nations no longer send high-level delegations to the parade. China, however, is very happy to offer its support.

As the Global Times put it, “Neither the recent deadly Moscow terror attack, nor the smoke of conflict on the Ukrainian frontline has affected the celebratory atmosphere in Russia, as the country has found a unique path to national industrial revival under suffocating Western sanctions.” Interviewing two pro-Putin young people who claim their lives are better under sanctions, the Global Times then quoted a Chinese military analyst, Zhang Junshe. According to Zhang, the parade “showcased Russia’s military capabilities and demonstrates its defiance against Western pressure amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. The parade serves as a deterrent to NATO and highlights Russia’s resolve to continue the fight.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

This reportage and analysis doesn’t exactly support Xi Jinping’s insistence that China adopts a neutral stance to the war in Ukraine. On the contrary, this propaganda pageant shows that the Sino-Russian “no limits partnership” is vested in a shared sense of animus toward the West and all those who associate with Western democratic values. That shared animus underlines why China continues to provide critical trade flows to Russia, which are helping Putin’s government mitigate the impact of sanctions and sustain its war effort. Above and below the surface, Sino-Russian military cooperation is growing in tandem.

It’s easy to write off Chinese Communist propaganda as Xi’s veritable whistling in the wind. But sometimes, as here, that propaganda shows the true nature of Beijing’s agenda. It thus serves as a useful reminder that leaders such as Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz are deluding themselves in the belief that close cooperation with China is compatible with European security.

Drug Enforcement Administration Administrator Anne Milgram relatedly refused to field questions from four House Appropriations Committee lawmakers who pushed for answers to who was behind the sudden decision in an election year to move marijuana down the drug classification system, a move that would check off one of President Joe Biden’s campaign promises.

“Under the Controlled Substances Act, there’s a formal rulemaking process for scheduling or rescheduling controlled substances. That process is ongoing. The next step in that process will be a notice of proposed rulemaking, and then an opportunity for public comment,” Milgram testified during a House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies hearing on the proposed fiscal 2025 DEA budget. “Because DEA is involved very much in that scheduling process and the DEA administrator is personally involved in it, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it at this time.”

Plans to reschedule, or change the classification of marijuana as a drug, were first announced in late 2022, though President Joe Biden promised such a change while on the campaign trail in 2020.

Last week, Biden instructed the Department of Health and Human Services to look at the impact of changing marijuana from a Schedule I to a less serious Schedule III drug. Attorney General Merrick Garland “circulated a proposal to reclassify marijuana,” the Justice Department announced.

Schedule I narcotics include those that have a high potential for abuse and have no medical use, including ecstasy and heroin, according to the DEA. Down the ladder, Schedule III drugs include anabolic steroids and Tylenol with codeine.

Marijuana would not be decriminalized or legalized, but such a move would be a grand step forward after decades of the federal government’s war on drugs and ease legal business surrounding the drug.

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) warned Milgram that not going far enough to deschedule marijuana would create new “conflicts” between state and federal laws.

Fellow Democratic Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-PA) proposed that moving marijuana down the scheduling list could free up DEA agents who work on marijuana enforcement to instead focus on fentanyl, the leading cause of death in Americans between the ages of 18 and 45.

“Do we have agents that are working on marijuana investigations that could be freed up to go to work on cases tied to fentanyl?” Cartwright said. 

Milgram declined to comment “because some of this will implicate decisions that become a part of that rulemaking process.” 

Biden’s sudden move on reclassifying marijuana comes seven months ahead of the November presidential election and could set him up to appeal to some young voters after failing to wipe the slate of millions of college students with student loan debt.

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) asked Milgram who was behind the rescheduling effort, the White House or the DEA.

“Unfortunately, I’m not going to be able to get into this conversation right now,” Milgram said.

“You have said multiple times that it would be inappropriate for you to talk about this. Inappropriate or illegal?” Clyde responded.

“Inappropriate, according to our counsel, that I should not be engaged in a conversation about it … since DEA is ultimately the decider of scheduling and rescheduling, and the DEA administrator’s in that role, it would be inappropriate for me to make comments about this process or parts of that process,” Milgram said.

But Clyde refused to accept her withdrawal.

“We’re the United States Congress. You wouldn’t have authority if we didn’t give it to you,” Clyde said. “We make the law; you execute the law. We give you the authority; we’re asking the questions. So I mean, it’s like you’re an extension of us when we create the law. So I’m asking you a question. Where’s it coming from? Is it coming from DEA? Is it coming from the attorney general? Is it coming from the White House [Office of Management and Budget]?”

Again, Milgram declined to comment.

“Marijuana is a very, very dangerous drug,” Clyde retorted. “Not as dangerous as some of the others we’ve talked about here. … We’ve had a significant increase in traffic accidents that we have seen that sent people to emergency rooms … simply because they have been partaking of marijuana.”

Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) noted a 2023 study by the National Institute of Health that concluded the number of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, where a marijuana user may become violently ill.

“This same study that NIH referenced did numerous studies establishing a connection between marijuana use and elevated risk of psychotic conditions, including psychosis, depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, and substance use disorder,” Aderholt said. “The United States is in the midst of a mental health crisis, and with the adverse effects that I just mentioned, such as psychosis, depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, or substance abuse disorder, my concern is rescheduling marijuana would make the crisis worse.”

Last December, Biden pardoned all those arrested, prosecuted, or convicted of federal marijuana use charges, following through on his 2020 campaign promise to expunge cannabis use offenses.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The White House’s hope in taking such broad action was to make it easier for people with criminal records to obtain work and housing as a result of clearing their records of the felony offense.

Numerous states have decriminalized or legalized medical marijuana and marijuana.

Two key points bear note.

First, this announcement fits within a broader portfolio of escalating Russian intimidation tactics. Recent weeks have seen numerous covert sabotage attacks and plots across Europe, including a successful arson attack in London. Western intelligence services are highly confident that further attacks of this kind are being planned. The Russian rationale for these attacks is clear. Russian President Vladimir Putin is infuriated by French President Emmanuel Macron’s warning that a major Russian military breakthrough of Ukrainian defensive lines would lead him to consider deploying French forces to Ukraine.

Putin is also attempting to intimidate the United Kingdom. Following the Russian arson attack in London back in March orchestrated by the Russian intelligence service, the U.K. allowed Ukraine to use British weapons, such as the Storm Shadow cruise missile system, against targets inside Russia. Responding to the U.K., the Kremlin summoned the British ambassador to Moscow on Monday. Foreign ministry officials informed him that if U.K. weapons are used in Russia, then Russia may target U.K. military sites “beyond” Ukraine. The U.K. response to this threat will be to reinforce its commitment to defending itself and to triggering NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense stipulation if necessary.

Nevertheless, Putin’s intent is clear. He wants to provoke fear among Western populations that their governments are taking excessive risks in Ukraine’s support. Putin knows that the more cautious bloc of European leaders, led by Germany’s Olaf Scholz and supported by others such as Spain’s Pedro Sanchez, tends to bend whenever Russia ups the intimidation ante. Putin wants to catalyze this dynamic and see these leaders put pressure on their counterparts in France, the U.K., and Poland to placate Russia. He wants political and military breathing room to launch a major summer offensive in Ukraine.

The second takeaway here involves China.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping is on an official state visit to France. And while Xi has shown resolute support for Russia’s war effort via massively increased trade and the provision to Russia of sanctioned goods, he has also made clear that China views any prospective use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine as a red-line concern.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Scheduling these exercises just after Xi arrived in Paris, Putin is thus sending a message to European leaders that Xi’s influence over him has limits. The Chinese will be infuriated by Putin’s action, viewing it as disrespectful and undermining of Xi’s very carefully cultivated leadership narrative. Putin knows this. But he also knows that the Europeans and the United States also know it. In turn, his calculated repudiation of Xi is designed to reinforce the credibility of his nuclear brinkmanship against the West. Put simply, Putin is saying, “Don’t view these exercises as just for show.”

France, the U.K., the U.S., and other allies cannot afford to bow before Putin’s nuclear dagger. As in the Cold War, Russian nuclear brinkmanship can be deterred by two things: first, the presentation of a significantly greater nuclear threat against Russia than what Russia can present against the West and, second, the assurance by rhetoric and action that Russian brinkmanship will result only in greater Western resolution and excess risks to Putin’s standing. Oh, and the U.S. should also push China to explain how its pledge to seek only “win-win cooperation” with Europe is compatible with its close partner threatening to use nuclear weapons against Europe.

This bears particular note in relation to the U.K.’s Storm Shadow cruise missile, a number of which Ukraine possesses. Ukraine has previously used these missiles to great effect in targeting Russian naval forces in Crimea. But assuming its aircraft can survive Russian air defenses along Ukraine’s northeastern border, Ukraine will now be able to use Storm Shadow to reach targets in and around the Russian cities of Voronezh Kursk, Bryansk, and Orol. This will allow Ukraine to hold Russian command and logistics elements at far greater risk, complicating Russian ambitions to seize Ukraine’s eastern bastion city of Kharkiv.

This is a significant shift in U.K. policy. Britain has strongly supported Ukraine since the start of the war in February 2022, including (as first reported by the Washington Examiner) with robust special forces deployments. But in terms of British weapons provided to Ukraine, until now, the U.K. had restricted their use to Russian targets inside Ukraine. Two things have changed in the last few weeks, however.

First, Russian forces have made tactically significant offensive advances against Ukrainian forces. This has led to growing fears that a likely Russian offensive this summer may lead to major breakthroughs for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s forces. This concern underlines why France is warning that any such breakthrough might constitute grounds for a military intervention in Ukraine’s support. In that sense, the U.K. announcement is likely, in part, also designed to pressure France to allow its Storm Shadow equivalent, SCALP, to be used by Ukraine in the same manner.

Second, Russian intelligence services have launched a covert sabotage campaign against Western targets that Moscow deems to be providing support for Ukraine. Germany recently arrested two people suspected of plotting attacks on targets inside that country. And in March, a Ukrainian-owned warehouse in London was set alight by a group led by a person acting under Russian direction. Further incidents of this kind are anticipated across Europe in the coming weeks. As an extension, an unexplained fire on Friday at a major Diehl Group factory (Diehl is supplying military equipment to Ukraine) in Berlin will have to be investigated carefully.

At least from the U.K. government’s perspective, though, the key motive here is a refusal to allow Russia to set the terms of escalation in relation to the war in Ukraine. Russia wants the West to believe that its continued support for Ukraine risks a direct NATO-Russia confrontation and potentially even nuclear war. This intimidation game is a long-standing one that continues to pay dividends in dividing the West about how far to go in supporting Ukraine. Germany still refuses to provide Ukraine with its Taurus cruise missiles in the face of these threats, for example. The United States is similarly putting greater pressure on Ukraine to avoid striking targets inside Russia. Other European powers, such as Spain, want a return to appeasement.

It’s unsurprising, then, that Moscow is doubling down on its intimidation narrative in response to the U.K. announcement. Putin’s chief spokesman Dmitry Peskov declared on Friday that the U.K. decision “could potentially pose a danger to European security, to the entire European security architecture.” Playing to the Kremlin’s favorite nuclear war line, foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova asked, “How irresponsible and callous do you have to be not to realize what such statements lead to, especially with regard to countries with nuclear weapons?”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Yet what the Kremlin doesn’t seem to understand is that its war on Ukraine has already demolished the entire European security architecture. The U.K. and France recognize that just as Russian nuclear threats were effectively deterred in the Cold War, so can they be deterred today. But to allow Russia to set the terms of this conflict would be to allow Russia to dominate Europe.

And if the 19th and 20th centuries proved anything, it’s that the enabling of single-state dominance of Europe doesn’t ever lead anywhere good.

Macron often undermines U.S. security concerns in relation to China. Yes, a French warship joined South China Sea exercises with the United States and the Philippines last week. But Macron will now fete Xi with a state visit beginning on Sunday. For just one example of why this matters, consider China’s increased access to the French technology sector (which Macron says is on the table). Macron claims any technology sharing would be focused on civilian concerns. The problem is that China exploits any and all Western technology and research it accesses in order to strengthen the People’s Liberation Army. That puts American lives at greater risk in the event of any future, and likely, U.S.-China war.

Still, when it comes to Europe’s defense, Macron is proving an increasingly critical U.S. partner.

While Macron retains his lofty call for European “strategic autonomy,” that term no longer simply constitutes an excuse to ignore U.S. security concerns and appease China in return for Beijing’s increased trade. Macron is now putting teeth on strategic autonomy in a manner that manifestly bolsters Europe’s security. If he continues on this path via action as well as rhetoric, European strategic autonomy will become something that the U.S. should embrace.

Building a bridge over what was once a great chasm between Macron’s rhetoric and action, France has now enacted significant defense spending boosts. But Macron’s new leadership is also striking. Take Macron’s interview with the Economist, published on Thursday. Expounding on his recent warning that the future deployment of Western forces to Ukraine could not be ruled out, Macron said that troop deployments would need to “legitimately” be considered if Russia were to secure a major breakthrough of Ukrainian defensive lines. Macron added, “I have a clear strategic objective: Russia cannot win in Ukraine… If Russia wins in Ukraine, there will be no security in Europe. Who can pretend that Russia will stop there? What security will there be for the other neighboring countries, Moldova, Romania, Poland, Lithuania and the others?”

Macron knows what every Western intelligence service knows: that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s conquest of Ukraine would inspire his confidence to then swallow up the Baltic States. The former banker noted that Ukraine’s collapse to Russia would mean “an economic risk for [Europe’s] prosperity” and “an existential risk of internal incoherence and disruption to the functioning of our democracies.” Macron is referring to a likely scenario in which a victorious Russia would dangle its military power over Europe like a dagger, blackmailing populations and their leaders with the threat of a new war. European democratic sovereignty would perish under Putin’s now-vindicated imperial dreams.

Macron’s comments join alongside his recent warning that “Europe clearly faces a moment when it will be necessary not to be cowards.” This was most clearly a message to Germany, which is astonishingly weak in the face of Russian intimidation tactics. But other European Union powers such as Spain, Italy and Belgium also remain far too reluctant to act in recognition of Russia’s threat. Macron is also clearly motivated by the prospect of Donald Trump’s return to the White House. He knows that Trump part deux would mean a U.S. that is potentially less willing to support NATO. While Trump says he would “100%” order a U.S. military defense of NATO’s eastern flank allies (all of whom exceed the alliance’s 2%-of-gross domestic product spending target), Macron recognizes that Trump’s patience with European freeloaders such as Spain is likely depleted.

Yet the key takeaway from this Economist interview is clearly Macron’s formulation of what might lead him to send French military forces to Ukraine, namely a Russian “breakthrough.” Macron appears to mean a breakthrough that threatens the fall of Kyiv and displacement of the Ukrainian government. And while it might seem ridiculous that Western forces would fight in Ukraine under any scenario, Macron’s conditions are far more credible than they first appear.

After all, Macron is not talking here about a NATO or U.S.-involved intervention but rather a contingency European coalition of the willing. It is probable that Poland and perhaps also the United Kingdom (which, as the Washington Examiner first reported, has long had special forces operating in forward positions in Ukraine) would join a French expeditionary force under Macron’s “breakthrough” conditions. Indeed, recent U.K.-French reaffirmations of the 1904 Entente Cordiale agreements were not simply symbolic but also represent shared Anglo-French concerns over the destabilizing security environment in Europe. The U.K. has recently pledged its own major defense spending boosts.

This is not something Vladimir Putin can easily ignore. A significant Anglo-French-Polish military intervention in Ukraine would have the very credible potential of rapidly holding Russian forces in place before destroying Russia’s means of sustaining its offensive ground action. This force would then attempt to exploit Russian command and logistics weaknesses to create exploitable gaps for a counteroffensive.

One consideration remains, of course. The nuclear factor.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

But his oft-dangled threats to the contrary, there are three reasons why Putin would be highly unlikely to employ nuclear weapons in the event Western forces joined the fight. First, Putin would be at very significant risk of being shot by the Russian general staff or otherwise overthrown if he issued such an order. Second, China would very likely abandon Russia in fear of losing all economic relations with Europe and the U.S. if it did not do so. Third, the Russian leader’s much-vaunted new weapon systems aside, he knows Russia would lose a nuclear war with the West.

In short, Macron’s leadership is necessary and praiseworthy in constituting a new concern that the Kremlin cannot ignore.

Last Friday, the United Kingdom announced criminal charges against five men accused of a March arson attack on a Ukrainian businessman’s warehouse in London. The accused ringleader is a 20-year-old Briton, Dylan Earl. In addition to the arson charges, Earl is accused of “assisting a foreign intelligence service.”

Another Briton, 22-year-old Jack Reeves, is accused of accepting payment from a foreign intelligence service, namely from Wagner Group elements (the group formerly led by the late Yevgeny Prigozhin). Earl apparently paid other men to join the arson plot, although it is unclear if those others knew they were working acting on Russia’s behalf.

Similarly, two weeks ago, two German-Russian dual citizens were arrested in Germany on suspicion of acting for Russian intelligence services. German prosecutors allege that one of the men, identified only as “Dieter S.,” had been in contact with a Russian intelligence service. Dieter is said to have told his Russian handler that “he was prepared to carry out explosives and arson attacks, especially on infrastructure used by the military and industrial sites in Germany.” German authorities add that Dieter also “collected information about potential attack targets, including U.S. military facilities.”

These incidents draw us toward two conclusions.

First, the similarity in time and intent between the plots in the U.K. and Germany suggests a new and concerted Russian effort to conduct sabotage attacks on Ukraine-aligned targets in Europe. The repeated use of Russian intelligence cutouts rather than Russian intelligence officers indicates Moscow’s desire to mitigate evidence of its culpability in the event, as here, that its efforts are detected. Still, we know that where Russian President Vladimir Putin and his spymaster, Nikolai Patrushev, view an issue as sufficiently important, they will engage in explosives-centric action inside NATO states. In 2014, Russian GRU military intelligence service officers blew up an arms depot in the Czech Republic that was providing ammunition to Ukraine. Two people were killed in that attack.

Second, these incidents are likely only the tip of the iceberg. We should expect further arrests by Western security services of would-be Russian saboteurs in the coming weeks. The risk of successful attacks is also significant.

After all, the fact that the U.K. attack was successful and that the culprits were detained only “right of boom” is striking. Since the 2018 Skripal incident, Britain’s MI5 domestic intelligence service and Government Communications Headquarters signals intelligence service have prioritized their detection of Russian intelligence efforts on U.K. soil. These efforts have been broadly successful. That this warehouse attack was successful, however, underlines Russia’s retained ability to conduct hostile activity even against nations with highly capable intelligence services.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Regardless, NATO should not tolerate these Russian antics.

These attacks/plots constitute acts of war. They also stand in stark distinction with NATO’s military support for Ukraine. While NATO states support Ukraine with arms, aid, and other equipment, those states do not directly attack Russian targets on Russian soil. That Russia is targeting NATO interests on NATO soil should thus embolden the Biden administration to drop their opposition to Ukrainian strikes on Russian soil. Biden might also, for example, authorize sufficiently aggressive CIA activity that might actually lead to capturing a Russian radio frequency/microwave weapon.

Geography is key here.

The Scarborough Shoal is 142 miles west of the mainland of the Philippines, well within its exclusive economic zone, and 534 miles southeast of China’s Hainan Island. Nevertheless, the Chinese Communist Party claims the shoal and the near entirety of the rest of the South China Sea as its sovereign territory. International arbitrators and the vast majority of the international community recognize these claims as utterly devoid of legal standing. The three maps below tell the tale. The first map shows the distance between the Philippines and Scarborough Shoal. The second shows the distance between China and Scarborough Shoal. The third shows China’s vast “nine/ten dash line” claims over the East and South China Seas.

Those maps show how Chinese leader Xi Jinping claims the exclusive economic zones not just of the Philippines, but also of Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei. And, of course, Xi claims Taiwan in its entirety.

These claims are not new. What is new is the increasing teeth with which Xi is asserting them. Today, China is infuriated that Philippine President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos is defending his national interests. Beijing greatly laments the absence of Marcos’s predecessor Rodrigo Duterte, who acted as its supplicant footstool. And in an effort to scare Marcos into submission, the Chinese coast guard and maritime militia have escalated their harassment of Philippine vessels. This harassment has entailed the use of water cannons, ramming maneuvers, and sonic and laser devices.

Chinese militia vessels again fired water cannons at a Philippine Coast Guard vessel on Tuesday. The incident occurred at Scarborough Shoal. Fortunately, the Philippines recorded the incident and published a video of it. That’s a problem for Xi.

After all, Xi’s aggression makes it hard for China to earn trust around the world. More importantly, it complicates the ability of otherwise deeply pro-China leaders, such as Germany’s Olaf Scholz, to pursue relations with China through a solely trade-focused prism. In the same way, Xi’s blatant aggression encourages other leaders, such as France’s Emmanuel Macron and Australia’s Anthony Albanese, to rebalance their own China-security-versus-China-trade equations in favor of the security consideration.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Macron, who rightly identifies France as a Pacific power, best underlines this concern. Last week, France deployed its Pacific-based FS Vendemiaire warship alongside U.S. and Philippine warships in the South China Sea. Next week, however, Macron will host Xi on a much-feted state visit to France. Macron sees China as a key ingredient in his plan to bolster the French economy. At times, Macron has openly undermined U.S. security interests in pursuit of that agenda. At other times, as with the Vendemiaire’s deployment and comments last August by Macron’s national security adviser on Taiwan, the French president has bolstered stability in the Pacific. But with Xi so blatantly shredding that same stability, China’s water cannon antics pose a problem that Macron and other Western leaders cannot easily ignore.

Beijing disagrees, of course. It thinks this is a purely local matter and that its actions are wholly righteous. A Chinese coast guard spokesman asserted that the “water cannon warnings” were “professional, standardized, legal and legal.” A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman similarly declared that this was “seriously infringed on China’s sovereignty. … China urges the Philippines to stop making infringements and provocations at once.”

It’s unclear what will come of Xi’s state visit next week. But what Macron should say is that if China keeps this up, he might find that the next French navy deployment in the South China Sea may involve more capable warships from the U.S., Britain, France, Australia, the Philippines, and Japan and that France will support the U.S. in helping the Philippines replace the BRP Sierra Madre.

You can be sure such words would earn Xi’s concerned attention.