
Russian military exercises, file image.
Lieutenant General Scott Berrier, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, presented his agency's annual
World Threat Assessment before the Senate Armed Forces Committee on April 29.
The transcript of his testimony runs to fifty-seven pages and is broad in its scope and often detailed in its descriptions, so what follows is a
précis and one that dwells on the overarching theme of his presentation, leaving aside, for example, his discussion of the threats posed by what were formerly termed terrorist organizations and are now called violent extremist organizations (VEOs).
His comments largely passed unnoticed as such generally are outside the American governing and military castes except for a
CNN report of them that bears the title Top US military intelligence official says Russian military poses an 'existential threat' to the US.
His analysis of threats, military and non-military, to the U.S. and its allies is
entirely in keeping with those of other leading military, intelligence and foreign policy officials: four nations threaten the world, threaten it separately but mainly in conjunction with each other and threaten it on every continent and in every sea and ocean.
The four nations, collectively the new Axis of Evil, are Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. To employ the terms now in vogue in American military, intelligence and what can loosely be called diplomatic circles, the four are divided into near-peer and non-near-peer challengers and adversaries. The U.S. readily acknowledges it has no military equal in the world - and intends to keep it that way - except insofar as Russia maintains nuclear parity with it.
Comment: The problem is private funding's influence on the sanctity of the public election process and the partisan agenda behind it. Wisconsin's Legislature never gave municipalities the authority to adopt or accept private corporate conditions affecting existing state election laws: The cities, under fire for their participation in accepting private funding for election activities, will likely suffer consequences from investigations into the legalities of these actions. What, if any, will be the consequences for CTCL or its founders, Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan in their efforts to buy and control the results of the 2020 election?