As savvy as Putin is, his moves reflect greater global trends that challenge our conventional (Western) legal and cultural notions of what constitutes “war” versus “crime,” or other forms of disruptive or aggressive geopolitical behavior. Our separate law enforcement, intelligence, and military bureaucracies have clearly defined roles and missions that align with these rigid constructs. And our national security and international relations architectures — largely forged between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries — bound how we think about and deal with threats to international order. [...]

Putin, as a head of state, can deny he has invaded Crimea, by claiming that the troops occupying buildings, holding territory, taunting Ukrainian soldiers, and intimidating the population could not possibly be under his command because they wear no military insignia on their military-like uniforms and are not, he claims, formally reporting to him up their chain of command. The Chinese play a similar game when they claim that their “civilian” China Marine Surveillance Fleet of coast guard-like ships that harass Japanese and Filipino fishing vessels in the East and South China Seas could not possibly warrant a military response from navies in the region (even though they reportedly coordinate with the Chinese Navy).

In all, these seemingly disparate challenges reflect an understanding by potential adversaries about the limits that Western society and the international community have placed on themselves in conducting warfare and responding to criminal behavior. “Bad guys” will continue to exploit the existing gaps, presenting threats to human, national, and international security in the coming decades if we, as governments and international institutions, do not develop better ways and means to respond.