Beijing’s Escalation – USA Gov Policy

Two nuclear powers on alert, live fire exercises east of Taiwan, and the third person in line for the US presidency visiting Taipei. What could go wrong? Progressively belligerent behavior by China represents an increase in the risk that a mistake could lead to kinetic conflict between China and the United States and, perhaps, include America’s allies in the region. During Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent Taiwan visit the US Navy deployed a carrier battle group and increased patrols near Taiwan in the Philippine Sea to ensure her safety after threats from Beijing. In response to the announcement of the Speaker’s potential visit, the Chinese government ordered its navy to encircle the island and conduct live fire exercises and naval drills. Commercial airliners and ships were forced to detour three hours out of their way to avoid the hostile marine environment. Of the 11 Chinese missiles launched east north, and south of Taiwan, five landed in Japan’s economic zone. China’s actions went far beyond those of its navy.

Less reported by the mainstream media was Beijing’s highly coordinated, propaganda campaign to undermine the visit. As China’s physical strength has increased, so has its ability and determination to launch disinformation campaigns promoting false evidence on everything from the recent Supreme Court abortion ruling to bioweapons in Ukraine. Patrick Tucker, technology editor of the publication Defense One, says that “US cybersecurity company Mandiant discovered that the Chinese group, dubbed HaiEnergy, had published ‘two articles critical’ of Pelosi (D-CA), ‘in response to reports that she may visit Taiwan in early August.’”

Last Thursday HaiEnergy warned that Pelosi should stay away from Taiwan, claiming that a visit would “tarnish” relations between the US and China. Earlier this year in March the same group attacked former US Secretary of State Pompeo’s trip to Taiwan, using fake Taiwanese news sites, and pushed the narrative that the Washington would be an unreliable partner to Taipei in the event of a Chinese invasion. HaiEnergy has a long track record of going after academics and others who protest or expose China’s human rights abuses. Their operations are complex and multinational.

Using fake letters purporting to show that German anthropologist Adrian Zenz was receiving money from US government sources, HaiEnergy first tweeted a photo of the fabricated letter, which contained spelling and grammatical errors, and then used a fake Swiss news site to report on the tweet, according to Tucker. The group then apparently linked one of the faked letters to US Senator Marco Rubio (FL-R) and former White House Chief strategist Steve Bannon. “The other two letters implied that the financial support came from grants awarded to Zenz from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in 2020 and 2021,” according to US cybersecurity company Mandiant.When former US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo traveled to Taiwan in March, the group used fake Taiwanese news sites to suggest that the US would be an unreliable partner if China decided to invade the island. In Ukraine the group purported to show that the US used biochemical weapons against Russia. “In June, Mandiant traced a coordinated information campaign around rare-earth minerals back to a separate Chinese group called DRAGONBRIDGE, but Mandiant believes the tactics and digital infrastructure used in both cases suggests that they are separate efforts, according to Tucker.” So far, Mandiant has identified 72 websites (59 domains and 14 subdomains) hosted by Haixun, which were used to target audiences in North America, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. This is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Chinese disinformation campaigns. One military analyst in Washington suggested that China uses cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns to “soften up the populations of western countries,” split opinions, and improve China’s standing. While the physical threat of a live military drill may be blatantly aggressive, China’s cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns represent a more insidious threat to the long-term stability of the international community. These threats are subtle, increase in intensity over an extended period of time, and recur often enough that the message earns credibility simply through repetition. The danger is that too often members of a free society tend to believe what sounds familiar without independently corroborating the facts. Missiles are dangerous weapons but so are the fabrications the CCP uses to harm its competitors and enemies.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.