Defining War – USA Gov Policy

Defining war is more nuanced today than on December 6, 1941, despite attempts by academics and policymakers to create descriptive labels encompassing a definition of modern warfare. Putin declared his February invasion of Ukraine a “special military operation.” The rest of the world identified it as a blatant “undeclared war” with tens of thousands killed in the kinetic conflict and innumerable physical damage done to the sovereign nation’s infrastructure. It is more challenging to recognize and label a country’s aggressive actions overseas that don’t involve kinetic warfare but do injure a foreign state, commercial entities, or a targeted population. Chinese foreign policy and military actions today represent a greater long-term threat to the free world than Putin’s special military operation in Ukraine. The communist regime in Beijing threatens the safety and stability of foreign governments and economies across the globe with, at times, 100% impunity. The CCP, using Huawei as one of its instruments, aggressively targets western regimes and other entities using its advanced technologies.

In response to the Chinese threat this week, the Biden Administration announced it is investigating Huawei’s operations inside the United States. Reuters is reporting that two US individuals with knowledge of the case admitted that Washington has concerns that American “cell towers fitted with its [Huawei’s] gear could capture sensitive information from military bases and missile silos that the company could then transmit to China….”

Due to the confidentiality and sensitive nature of the investigation, notes Reuter, the identity of the investigators remains protected. What is known is that US authorities are concerned that China could obtain sensitive data on military drills and the readiness status of American bases and personnel via Huawei’s equipment used on cell towers in the US. It is an almost invisible national security threat to our country but one that typically falls below the threshold for most definitions of war. Several policy analysts in Washington argue that the breadth of China’s intrusive operations in the US are reaching a critical point and may be preparation for more overt aggressive action in the future.

“The previously unreported probe was opened by the Commerce Department shortly after Joe Biden took office early last year, the sources said, following the implementation of rules to flesh out a May 2019 executive order that gave the agency the investigative authority,” writes AP’s Alexandra Alpers. Eight current and former US officials said the probe reflects lingering national security concerns about the company, she added. The Trump Administration imposed a series of restrictions on Huawei over concerns of espionage involving Chinese military-connected operations aimed at the United States. The current probe by the Commerce Department, if it determines Huawei poses a national security threat, could extend beyond existing restrictions imposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the US telecoms regulator.

The Trump Administration created encompassing rules permitting the Commerce Department to ban potentially all US transactions with Huawei. If a telecom carrier still relies on Huawei technology it could be forced to remove it or face fines or other penalties, according to the Reuters report. In a 2020 speech FBI Director Christopher Wray said: “If Chinese companies like Huawei are given unfettered access to our telecommunications infrastructure, they could collect any of your information that traverses their devices or networks.” The danger level increases dramatically when Huawei’s equipment is located next to a US military installation. Capturing data enables China to make predictions about US capabilities, readiness levels, and other vital national security-related information. Under Chinese law Huawei is required to spy for the government and must turn over whatever information it collects when Beijing demands it. The civilian-military fusion program in China virtually eliminates any line dividing the private and public sectors. “If you can stick a receiver on a [cellphone] tower, you can collect signals and that means you can get intelligence. No intelligence agency would pass an opportunity like that,” said Jim Lewis, a technology and cybersecurity expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington D.C.-based think tank,” Alper writes.

The looming question that remains unanswered concerns an answer to this question. Is this a form of warfare or a prelude to a kinetic war? China’s government plans for the long-term. In some cases, it is generational. By 2030, China estimates it will operate a fully-modernized military. The US is only in recent years taking action to protect against non-kinetic actions by China. There remains no consensus in Washington concerning the definition of an act of war. What is known is that the United States today is vulnerable to technology-based attacks on our infrastructure by the communist regime.

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.