The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) says the federal government still does not know the extent of the damage from a hack of its system that occurred nearly six months ago.

National Security Tech Reporter Ryan Lovelace reports that CISA — the U.S. federal government’s top domestic cyber defense agency — is struggling to define the scope and consequences of the hack that exposed a tool used to track facilities with dangerous chemicals. “We hope that our security measures worked,” Kelly Murray, CISA associate director for chemical security, said in a webinar this week. “We have no evidence to state that they did not.”

CISA officials revealed last month that they spotted a breach of the agency’s Chemical Security Assessment Tool in January. The agency found no evidence that data had been taken but notified participants of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program about potential data exposure to hackers. The agency has said hackers may have accessed the personally identifiable information of chemical facility personnel and visitors with special access to the facilities.

The U.S. is joining forces with Canada and Finland to vastly increase the Coast Guard’s small, aging fleet of icebreakers, which now consists of two vessels, compared to Russia’s estimated fleet of some 36 icebreakers. The Icebreaker Collaboration Effort or “ICE Pact” was inked on the sidelines of the NATO leaders’ summit in Washington this week.

Analysts say the U.S. military badly trails Russia in the fleet race to exploit resources and trade routes of the Arctic that are opening up as the planet warms and the ice cover recedes. China has also declared itself a “near-Arctic state” and is seeking to boost its economic and security presence there.

U.S. officials said the plan now is to work with Finland and Canada to build about 80 icebreakers in the coming years and to have domestic shipyards in the three countries carry out the contracts.

China came under direct NATO criticism for the first time this week as a result of its support to Russia’s war in Ukraine and other policies, including its nuclear expansion and continuing cyberattacks.

Beijing angrily rejected the criticism on Thursday, calling the provisions in the official NATO summit communique on China “scaremongering” and insisting that claims of Chinese backing for Russia are U.S.-generated disinformation.

A communique agreed to by the leaders of NATO’s 32 member nations pulled no punches. China “cannot enable the largest war in Europe in recent history without this negatively impacting its interests and reputation,” NATO leaders said, calling out Beijing’s “large-scale support for Russia’s defense industrial base.”

“This includes the transfer of dual-use materials, such as weapons components, equipment and raw materials that serve as inputs for Russia’s defense sector,” the communique states. Additionally, the alliance stated clearly for the first time that China’s threat is not limited to the Asia-Pacific region but also affects European security.

Ukrainian soldiers facing the grim realities of war have embraced a modern way of preserving their legacy and helping build the future of their homeland by freezing their sperm so their partners and wives can bear their children if they are killed on the battlefield.

Threat Status Special Correspondent Guillaume Ptak has a dispatch from Lviv, Ukraine, featuring interviews with wives of front-line soldiers participating in the program, which is the brainchild of a leading Ukrainian OB-GYN specialist.

For the past two years, Dr. Stefan Khmil and his team have offered Ukrainian soldiers and their spouses or partners treatments to freeze their sperm and embryos, as well as in vitro fertilization, all free of charge. “As part of this project, we have already provided free in vitro fertilization programs to 370 people, which have so far resulted in 65 births,” said Dr. Khmil. “Currently, 83 additional women are pregnant.”

Retired CIA officer and Threat Status contributor Daniel N. Hoffman recalls how a Russian intelligence officer once told him that, for President Vladimir Putin, “all that mattered was to survive today, even if that meant creating a bigger problem for tomorrow.”

This is important when considering how to respond to “Mr. Putin’s transformation of Russia into a rogue pariah state, the capstone of which was his visit last month to Pyongyang,” writes Mr. Hoffman.

“The U.S. should respond by implementing a more comprehensive policy to deter and defend against Mr. Putin’s aggressive foreign policy,” he writes. “That means strengthening our relationships with Japan and South Korea as a counter to North Korea; carrying on to the fullest extent possible support to Ukraine in its existential war against Russia; and seeking to drive a wedge between Mr. Putin and his allies, particularly China, which likely does not appreciate Mr. Putin’s aggressive courting of Vietnam and his destabilizing provocations on the Korean Peninsula.”

More than two years after Russia’s invasion and war in Ukraine, the “bloody toll of losses and rate of devastation are steadily growing,” writes Jan Figel, a former deputy prime minister of Slovakia, who warns that “the damage is immeasurable” and “fatigue and apathy of the population are visible.”

“More than ever, one can hear appeals for a complex, just and sustainable peace. On the other side, the nexus of a great war is getting closer. Its probability is growing,” writes Mr. Figel. “The like-minded in Europe, the U.S. and Asia” must rally together to develop “Schuman and Marshall Plans 2.0” with the goal of successful reconstruction of destroyed territories, especially in Ukraine.

“Shared security should be offered and guaranteed to all states of NATO and the former Soviet Union,” he writes. “As Europe’s founders did, roots of conflict must be eliminated and prevention for the future lies in sharing resources and security.”

• July 12 — Europe’s Security After the Washington Summit: A Conversation with Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Radoslaw Sikorski, American Enterprise Institute.

• July 12 — Beyond the Summit: Outcomes and the path forward to Ukraine’s NATO membership, Atlantic Council.

• July 15 — How advanced technologies are reshaping manufacturing, Brookings Institution.

• July 16 — Why Peace Remains Elusive on the Korean Peninsula, U.S. Institute of Peace.

• July 16 — Connecting the Atlantic and Indo-Pacific: Reflections on the NATO Summit, Stimson Center.

• July 16-19 — Aspen Security Forum, Aspen Institute.