What happens to Ted Cruz's delegates?

Emerging Technology

Article | July 16, 2022

Unless America and China assume joint leadership for global economic recovery, reconstruction of the post-coronavirus world could take years, with unimaginable consequences for the world’s 7.8 billion inhabitants, including unprecedented levels of global unemployment, famine, and even war. In the pre-coronavirus world, suggestions for a partnership between the world’s two superpowers would have been met with gales of laughter. But now, despite the two leaders’ daggers drawn posture, hundreds of doctors and scientists in the U.S. and China are already working together on clinical trials of potential coronavirus drugs; and one of China’s biggest property developers has funded a five-year $115 million project between Harvard University and the Guangzhou Institute for Respiratory Health. But the window of opportunity for acting together is short. The Covid-19 pandemic continues to decimate the world’s economies. Unemployment in the U.S. now tops 22 million, a level not seen since the great-depression of the nineteen-thirties; while China’s economy stopped growing for the first time in four decades as half a million small and mid-size businesses, the backbone of China’s economy closed; and Italy, the second largest manufacturing economy in the EU watches helplessly as the pandemic axe dismembers its economy. Were India and Africa were unable to control the coronavirus the results could be catastrophic. So, are there issues of such import and mutual benefit that they would convince President’s Trump and Xi Jinping to work together? I believe there are. My two cents worth below. The two superpowers could leverage China’s vast, trillion-dollar global infrastructure project—the Belt and Road Initiative or BRI, that aims to build infrastructure in over 120 countries of Asia, Europe, and Africa. The BRI is designed to act as a conveyer belt to transmit Chinese investment and technology into these countries to improve their economies, and to link them to China. But now Covid-19 has crimped China’s ability to sustain BRI’s trillion-dollar underwriting tab and President Xi Jinping’s grandiose vision is at risk. On the other hand, the United States, which has been searching for a counter to BRI, has settled on an initiative called the Blue Dot Network or BDN. The idea behind the BDN is the U.S. would rigorously vet infrastructure project applications in developing countries to ensure high levels of transparency, sustainability, and economic viability before seeding them with startup funds from the U.S. Government. The BDN hallmark would then inspire confidence in the projects to attract private U.S. funding. But the relatively paltry BDN budget of $60 billion (versus China’s 1000 billion or trillion-dollar BRI budget) and developing countries’ skepticism of Western (read U.S.) dominated standards for infrastructure construction have hobbled the BDN. If the U.S. and China could find a way to combine BRI and the BDN it would ensure a stream of dollars from private U.S. companies into BRI and ensure its projects remain on track to create jobs and raise living standards around the world. The compromises required by America and China to weld BRI and BDN together would ensure the U.S. gets a seat at the table to influence the adoption of standards for starting and executing BRI projects. Here’s another idea: The U.S. military is especially qualified to help fight natural disasters. In 2004, for instance, 3,000 U.S. military personnel were deployed to West Africa to help combat a deadly Ebola epidemic. Their work included constructing 17 hospitals, field training, and deploying assistance by air to remote villages. Today the U.S. military is being used to rapidly set up hospitals in U.S. cities to handle the burgeoning coronavirus caseload. The People’s Liberation Army meanwhile seems determined to play a more active global role in peace-keeping projects around the world. Coronavirus-aid projects delivered to less-off countries through joint U.S.-China military teams would double what the U.S. and China could do on their own. And help establish the military to military connections that the U.S. has tried to foster with China for some time. A working relationship between the two nations’ militaries might even lead to a more stable geopolitical balance of power. The Chinese word for crisis contains two characters. One signals danger, the other opportunity. Presidents Trump and Xi Jinping should boldly find a way to join forces to convert the deadly Covid-19 crisis into an opportunity that would supercharge global economic recovery and might well change the course of the 21st Century. It is a once in a lifetime opportunity that ought not to be squandered.

Government Business

Article | March 11, 2022

“Belonging to the essential nature of a thing; originating and included wholly within an organ or part.” That is the definition of “Intrinsic.” When we were developing the “IT Manhattan Project” framework, we were doing so in direct response to some of the most significant hacks in U.S. Federal history, which piled on to the already unprecedented push to expedite the modernizing of federal IT because of the COVID-19 response. The COVID-19 response shifted the way that the U.S. federal government operated, where our workforce worked from, the immediate need for mobile ‘available from anywhere’ workloads, and how to both secure and support that new way of doing federal business. A new, vigorous push towards rapidly modernizing federal IT environments was underway. Ultimately, it laid the groundwork for producing transformational federal memos and oversight by way of some of the following: Executive Order 14028: “Improving The Nation’s Cybersecurity” M-22-09: OMB’s Zero Trust Strategy M-22-09 NIST 800-53rev5: Fulfilling an expedited realization of the overall intent of NIST 800-53r5 through the emphasis on things like conditional access, TIC 3.0 frameworks, Secure Orchestration/Automation/Remediation, and modernized, agile approaches to secure micro-segmentation from Hybrid Environments up to Federal Cloud instances Overall mandates like these carry with them a consistent anthem driving at rapid IT modernization with rigorous proof of performance schedules attached. Piling on top of those Herculean efforts, the urgency was drastically increased by several of the highest profile cyber compromises in U.S. federal history. Rapid modernization had to happen right away. The time for IT transformation was here, backed by promises of significant funding and a high level of political visibility. The Shift to Zero Trust At their core intent, Zero Trust architectures are expected to provide a centralized policy structure that dictates how every individual flow in our IT environments are permitted to talk. No user, host, or flow is permitted without being subjected to rigorous authentication and authorization policy. This shifts our previous understanding of North-South, East-West traffic and how we police it. The foundational intent of Zero Trust architectures centers around applying unified policy to every transaction that occurs between enterprise resources, and doing so in ways that are agnostic to the IT Silo that they reside in. Zero Trust assumes there is no implicit trust granted to assets or user accounts based solely on their physical or network location.” NIST 800-207 aptly They go on to explain that the scope of this posture includes all assets, workflows, network accounts, and the like. In summary, police everything, abstract production traffic intent from the underlying infrastructure that supports it, and institute a unified security posture to execute the policing at every network entry point. Regardless of the domain. We all know that this is a tectonic but much-needed shift in our industry. I’d go so far as to say that the successful instantiation of this approach across Federal IT environments is critical to our national security going forward. Management Complexities Enterprise IT domains contain varied mixtures of OEM solutions, home-grown tools, and utilize a wide variety of protocols to intercommunicate that aren’t necessarily standardize. Each of these domains is normally managed by separate IT teams who specialize in maintaining those environments. In the federal landscape, each of these domains aren’t just managed by separate enterprise IT teams, but are commonly managed by different contractors. Therefore, IT security organizations have a difficult time achieving and maintaining the necessary operational awareness required to enforce centralized policy. These cultural complexities exacerbated by budgeting concerns have created a fatalistic mentality when it comes to far-reaching mandates. This is where the tectonic shift in architectural and administrative approach is so necessary. This is where multidomain architectures shine. Let’s define a common baseline of enterprise domains seen across traditional IT environments: Cloud Data Center Enterprise Networking Extended Enterprise (IoT, OT/ICS) Remote Access But to deliver a successful Zero Trust across the enterprise, it is first necessary to understand some foundational building blocks on which to construct our architectural approach: We can’t have MULTIDOMAIN POLICY without first achieving fuller We can’t deliver macro and micro-segmentation without first having robust MULTIDOMAIN We can’t have multi-vendor MULTIDOMAIN Zero Trust POLICY without sensical INTEGRATIONS to stitch each enterprise domain together. Let’s face it, enterprise IT environments don’t simply include infrastructure from a single manufacturer, or even a few key manufacturers. Rather, our Enterprise IT environments are represented by a plethora of IT manufacturers specializing in different niches of IT and the domains they are commonly found in. These environments are managed by different Federal IT organizations, different contractors who support these Federal IT organizations, and many different teams that support each common IT silo. Different teams that support oft-compartmentalized areas like Network Security Operations, Network Operations, Data Center Operations, Institutional Services, Wide Area Networking contracts, Operational Technologies, and dotted lines to different leadership oversight like CIO Programs, CTO Architecture, the Cyber Security Office, and the audit oversight bodies that they are subjected to. Each of these make up a complex support structure that isn’t necessarily streamlined for efficiency. Summary and Overarching Goals In articles to follow, you’ll see us referencing the IT Manhattan Project framework several times. Though many details of the framework can’t be discussed due to their sensitivity, the foundational principles are relevant across the board when pursuing intrinsic multidomain Zero Trust. Establish Visibility (Administration, Telemetry, Assurance) Define Straightforward Policy Structure and Hierarchy (Auth Chains) Perform Multidomain Integrations (API Integrations) Deploy Software-Defined Framework (Day-0, Programmable Fabrics, Multi-OEM Fabric Integrations) Establish Sensical Automation Runbooks (Day-2 Operations) We will also explore some areas that deliver unexpected value to the agency business in immediate ways. All of this will help create a cohesive story that helps CIOs, CISOs, and enterprise architects alike communicate the criticality of this multidomain Zero Trust approach to agency leaders across the federal spectrum.

Emerging Technology, Government Business

Article | October 7, 2022

The Russian-Chinese strategic partnership (RCSP), indoctrinated in 1996, is Eurasia’s geopolitical anchor in the 21st century, shaping its evolution and entrance into the Multipolar World. No other political relationship between the two continents’ actors even comes close, with the RCSP’s only formidable rival being the US via its privileged military alliances with NATO, the Gulf Kingdoms, and Japan. In this century’s struggle for the supercontinent, the interplay between the RCSP and the US will come to define global politics. Western media has been a lot of noise is being raised up, and some have stressed the importance of the Washington consensus, while others believe that it is Moscow's dependence in Moscow. The first is often trumpets Americans and prove the aggression of their government against Russia and China, while others are intended to promote the disinformation campaign to divide Russia and China from each other. The rare mention of the warning is raised up, and the United States to slow down its rules, which is the most responsible way for this development is the western voter. The purpose of this article is to provocatively state that being raised up are becoming a reality in the development and manifestation of a Washington nightmare, and which go beyond Eurasia, also from North Africa and Latin America. It strives to challenge the West's position, but to a direct transition to a multi-polar world, and this is the goal that both countries have expressed 1997 to show solidarity. The United States is not willing to recognize the tectonic changes that have occurred in the world since then, and its stubbornness in expanding the unipolar moment of depression is the largest source of global destabilization. Despite the fact that patients have difficulty with fear and the disorder is raised up quieter, more defensive and more consistent than ever. Discovering links with Russian-Chinese politics in Eurasia and beyond, art proves that lifted up and developing, is actively working on what the world is multi-polarizing for us. AND PART: Structure Russian-Chinese talks in Beijing, May 2014 Before starting geopolitical details, RCSPE must determine its structural basis. There are the role of Russia and China, the principles of their cooperation and institutional activities for the transformation of the international order. Russian balance and Chinese gate There are several roles segmented with which both partners communicate. Russia has a military and political balance in all of Eurasia, which represent an alternative (either the United States or China), the great powers, developing countries and interested organizations. This shows that Russia is working closely with China to ensure that this balance in line with the strategic goals of both sides, sometimes the dynamics of "good policeman, bad cop." China this year moves to the largest economy in the United States and is the dominant economic force in developing countries. Deep and privileged relations in the development of commodity and agricultural commodity markets in Africa, Latin America and Pearl economically valuable for Russia, especially in the light of recent events. So that Russia can provide military and political balance in China in key regions of the world, you can restore economic opportunities and facilitate trade through the established Chinese elite connections and networks. Of course, the tandem of energy between Russia and China is far from perfect, and its strategic use of the whole world, but the general theory of this approach is "hand in hand": Russia is balancing the Chinese gate. More and more people moving from these two countries, such as the Middle East and Latin America see more clearly the multipolar objectives and close cooperation in these countries; Just as two Eurasian seeds are getting closer and closer, relationships are increasingly difficult to understand. Cooperation cradle The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is at home, where he was born and grew up is raised. Founded in Shanghai in 1996. In 2001, with Uzbekistan, it was transformed into SCO. Since then he has started cooperation with Mongolia, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran, and has established a partnership with Sri Lanka, Turkey and Belarus. These countries are directly under the direct influence of the PRSP, where Russia and China could have a significant impact on a greater or lesser degree.

Article | July 22, 2020

While congressional leaders work diligently to develop the next COVID recovery bill, other interesting legislation also is being discussed. Many of the conversations focus on public funding options after COVID-19. There are no disagreements when it comes understanding the critical funding needs that will be front and center for cities, counties, states, schools, and hospitals as the country begins to emerge from a total focus on the coronavirus. Many public projects and initiatives will have to be addressed. First of all, crumbling, inefficient and unsafe infrastructure, of all types, must be a priority. Secondly, jobs will be a critical component of the successful re-establishment of economic stability. It is already apparent that a great deal of new funding will flow to long-standing federal programs. That’s a good thing because public officials already are aware of how those programs function. However, a number of new bills under discussion relate to the provision of additional and innovative ways for governmental entities to secure funding for projects that would stimulate the economy, create jobs, and address aging infrastructure. One particularly interesting new concept being evaluated is tax-exempt COVID recovery bonds. The current discussions focus on a federal COVID recovery bonding program that would be launched with approximately $25 billion. A small number of states have already initiated programs such as this on a smaller scale. The funding would be allocated to states based on population. From the governor’s office in each state, funding could be disbursed for projects of specific types. If COVID recovery bonds become a reality, the program would provide another way for public entities to secure funding that does not come solely from public coffers. Individual private sector contractors, investors, and organizations would provide the funding and work collaboratively with public officials. This program would be somewhat similar to private activity bonds which provide alternative funding for public initiatives. The new COVID recovery bonds would be tax exempt when used for permitted purposes such as financing airport, port, transportation, sewage, water, solid waste disposal, certain facilities, and other projects. In the following weeks and months, taxpayers and citizens should watch with eager anticipation. Congressional actions will boost America’s economic recovery and stabilize governmental organizations throughout the country. Inaction is a possibility, too, but that would risk missing out on recovery opportunities. Congressional representatives base their actions and their votes on input from constituents they represent. There are times when citizens, whatever their opinions, should provide input to elected representatives. This is one of those times. Mary Scott Nabers is president and CEO of Strategic Partnerships Inc., a business development company specializing in government contracting and procurement consulting throughout the U.S. Her recently released book, Inside the Infrastructure Revolution: A Roadmap for Building America, is a handbook for contractors, investors and the public at large seeking to explore how public-private partnerships or joint ventures can help finance their infrastructure projects.