Is U.S. safety and national security being outsourced?

Americans should be distinctly uncomfortable knowing that many critical components for both our civilian and military infrastructure are increasingly imported, and in some cases, imported from nations that are our adversaries.

In the aftermath of the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor, it was the resilience of the U.S. manufacturing sector that made the rebuilding of the fleet possible and insured eventual victory. But currently, a disaster, whether from an enemy assault or from a natural catastrophe, might not have a similar positive outcome.

A report prepared for the Alliance for American Manufacturing by former Governor Tom Ridge, who served as the first Secretary for Homeland Security, and USAF Col. Robet B. Stephan (ret.) who served as the first Senior Director for Critical Infrastructure Protection for the White House outlines the issue.

Otherwise, it might offer a different reaction in the entire viagra 50mg price body. The balances on each account in the viagra prescription free debt settlement can usually be negotiated down by 40% to 60% The schedule for paying off the negotiated debt in full is flexible and based on the borrower’s budget. It has been observed that children who attend regular schools from a very young age, show great see this site buy cheap levitra improvement. Insomnia affects social and professional life as robertrobb.com tadalafil sample well. “The deterioration and offshoring of America’s industrial base is becoming more apparent with each passing day, leaving new national security and preparedness concerns in its path. In short, we are becoming too reliant on global suppliers (many of whom may not have our best interests at heart in a time of crisis), along with a highly complex and vulnerable global supply chain needed to bolster our weak points or come to our rescue in the midst of an emergency…

“Unfortunately, at its own peril, the U.S. has become dangerously reliant on foreign suppliers of products, materials and technologies that are critical to our ability to prepare for, respond to and recover from manmade and naturally occurring disasters. This situation could present serious problems in the context of a catastrophic event, particularly one brought about by a creative adversary with a working knowledge of nodal analysis and our supply chain interdependencies, or a natural disaster with acute, far-reaching international supply chain implications. As succinctly put in a WorldSteel Association report examining the nexus between the U.S steel industry and national defense, ‘Consider the potential difficulties the U.S. would face in defending, maintaining and rebuilding infrastructure in an environment where our nation is largely dependent upon foreign steel…’

“This negative trend signifying the decline of the U.S. industrial base has accelerated greatly in recent years, with a corresponding increase in our reliance on critical products and technologies manufactured abroad. For example, China is now the leading supplier of foreign steel to the U.S. market.”

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.