U.S. Must Respond to Major Threats in the Indo-Pacific

Admiral John C. Aquilino, U.S. Navy Commander, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, recently testified to Congress about the threats America faces in the Indo-Pacific region.

He warned that America must “move at the speed and pace required to address the rapidly evolving security environment.” He noted that “The complexity of the threats we face requires the U.S. to mobilize the whole of government and use all elements of national power to “counter revisionist powers and their proxies committed to overturning the rules-based order for the benefit of themselves and at the expense of everyone else. However, we must recognize that the most dangerous national security challenges are evolving faster than our current government processes allow us to address them. “

Admiral Aquilino stressed that Each of our three major state threats in the Indo-Pacific region, including the People’s Republic of China, Russia, and North Korea “are taking unprecedented actions that challenge international norms and advance authoritarianism. These adversarial regimes are increasingly interconnected, which is evident in Xi and Putin’s declaration of a ‘no limits friendship’ as well as Kim Jong Un’s materiel deliveries to Putin in support of the illegal invasion of Ukraine.”

The Admiral emphasized that China is the only country that has the capability, capacity, and intent to upend the international order. “Even amidst slowing economic growth, China continues its aggressive military buildup, modernization, and coercive “gray-zone operations.”

According to his analysis, “All indications point to the PLA meeting President Xi Jinping’s directive to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Furthermore, the PLA’s actions indicate their ability to meet Xi’s preferred timeline to unify Taiwan with mainland China by force if directed.”

Recently, Delays in delivering essential weapons system are jeopardizing international security. As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government has frequently noted, the U.S. Navy will be smaller at the end of President Biden current term than it was when he first took the oath of office.

A key example is the vital program to build more Virgina-class submarines, which are two years behind schedule. Theses vessels may well play the most important role in a dispute with China. According the Government Accountability Office. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106059 The subs are not the only problem. According to the U.S. Accountability Office, “The Department of Defense (DOD) continues to face challenges quickly developing innovative new weapons. These challenges persist even with recent reforms to its acquisition process intended to help deliver systems to the warfighter in a timelier manner. From DOD’s 2020 submission of reports on their major defense acquisition programs to 2022, the number of these programs declined. However, the portfolio’s total cost increased, and the average planned cycle time to deliver operational capabilities shows new delays. Over half of the 26 major defense acquisition programs GAO assessed that had yet to deliver operational capability reported new delays. Driving factors included supplier disruptions, software development delays, and quality control deficiencies. Additionally, these programs continue to make investment decisions without sufficient knowledge, which can increase the risk of delays. Net costs for the 32 major defense acquisition programs that GAO assessed both this year and last year increased by $37 billion. Rising modernization costs, production inefficiencies, and supply chain challenges drove the majority of costs.”

Aquilino addressed the issue bluntly, stating “…the risk we assume is high and trending in the wrong direction, specifically due to delayed delivery of military construction, advanced capabilities, and resources to persistently project and maintain forces west of the International Date Line. “Without a credible deterrent, China, Russia, and other revisionist powers will be emboldened to take action to counter U.S. interests. “

The recently passed budget, signed by the president in March, essentially cuts Defense appropriations when inflation is taken into account.

The irony is that as China gets stronger, Russia gets more aggressive, North Korea becomes a formidable nuclear power, and Iran is about to enter the atomic club, the U.S. is cutting back and dealing with a smaller and increasingly obsolescent force.

Photo: CNS Nanchang, A Chinese Type 055 guided-missile destroyer. (China Defence Ministry)

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.