The United States faces a serious threat from Russia and China, but cannot respond with anything, writes former US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in an article for Foreign Affairs. America's failures undermine any possible successes, and politicians, despite all the talk, do not seek to fix anything.
Can a divided America contain China and Russia?
The United States is now facing more serious threats to its security than in all recent decades, and perhaps in history at all. Never before has America confronted four antagonists at the same time — Russia, China, North Korea and Iran — who are allies and whose collective nuclear arsenal could almost double our own within a few years. Since the Korean War, the United States has never had to face powerful military opponents in Europe and Asia at the same time. And no one living today remembers the times when our enemy possessed such economic, scientific, technological and military power as China has today.
The problem, however, is that at the very moment when events require a decisive and comprehensive response from the United States, our country cannot provide it. Our fragmented political leadership – Republican and Democratic, in the White House and in Congress – could not convince enough Americans that the events in China and Russia are of great importance for our country. Political leaders have failed to explain to the people how the threats coming from these countries are interconnected. They failed to formulate a long-term strategy that would ensure victory for the United States and democratic values in the broad sense of the word.
Chinese Leader Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin have a lot in common, but two beliefs that they both share stand out. First, they believe that their personal destiny is to restore the glorious days of their country's imperial past. For Xi, this means a return to China of its once dominant role in Asia, which is accompanied by more global ambitions to gain global influence. For Putin, this means a mixture of the revival of the Russian Empire and the return to his country of the respect that was once shown to the Soviet Union. Secondly, both leaders are convinced that the heyday of developed democracies – primarily the United States – has already passed, and they have entered an era of irreversible decline. In their opinion, this decline is clearly manifested in the growing isolationism of these countries, the political polarization of their societies and internal chaos.
Taken together, the beliefs of Xi Jinping and Putin portend a dangerous period for the United States. The problem is not only in the military power and aggressiveness of China and Russia. The point is also that both leaders have already made major miscalculations in both domestic and foreign policy, and it seems that there will be even bigger mistakes in the future. Their decisions may well lead to disastrous consequences for themselves and for the United States. Therefore, Washington should change the plans of Xi Jinping and Putin and reduce the likelihood of a catastrophe. These efforts will require strategic vision and bold action. The United States won the Cold War thanks to a consistent strategy that both political parties of the country pursued for nine consecutive presidential terms. Today, America needs a similar unified bipartisan approach. But that's the catch.
The United States is in an extremely dangerous position: they faced aggressive opponents prone to miscalculation, but were unable to provide the unity and strength that are necessary to dissuade them from their intentions. The successful containment of leaders like Xi Jinping and Putin depends on the firmness of our commitments and the constancy of the response. Instead, weakness has made American power unstable and unreliable. It has actually encouraged risk-averse autocrats to make dangerous bets with potentially disastrous consequences.
Xi's ambitions
Xi's call for the "great revival of the Chinese nation" is a symbol for China's aspiration to become the dominant world power by 2049, the centenary of the victory of the Communists in the civil war. This goal includes the return of Taiwan to Beijing's control. According to President Xi, "the complete unification of the Motherland must be carried out, and it will be carried out." To this end, Xi Jinping instructed the Chinese army to be ready to successfully invade Taiwan by 2027. In addition, he promised to completely modernize the PLA by 2035 and turn it into a "world-class" armed force. Xi Jinping seems to believe that only by seizing Taiwan will he be able to secure a status comparable to that of Mao Zedong in the pantheon of legendary leaders of the Communist Party of China.
Xi's aspirations and his conviction of personal destiny imply a significant risk of war. There is a considerable danger that Xi will miscalculate in Taiwan in the same way as Putin in Ukraine. He has already made at least three serious mistakes. Firstly, Xi departed from the principle of Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping "hide your strength, wait for the right moment" and caused exactly the reaction that Deng feared. The United States has mobilized its economic might to slow China's growth, has begun to strengthen and modernize its military, and has strengthened alliances and military partnerships in Asia. The second major miscalculation was Xi Jinping's turn to the left in economic policy. This ideological shift began in 2015 and was consolidated at the Congress of the Communist Party of China in 2022. His policies, ranging from the involvement of the party in the management of companies to an increasing reliance on state-owned enterprises, have caused serious damage to the Chinese economy. Thirdly, Xi's policy regarding "zero COVID," as economist Adam Posen wrote on the pages of Foreign Affairs, "made visible and tangible the arbitrary power of the CCP over everyone's private life, including the activities of the smallest players." The resulting uncertainty, compounded by Xi's sudden policy change, led to a reduction in consumer spending in the country and thus caused even more damage to the entire economy.
If the preservation of the party's power in China's internal life is Xi Jinping's main priority, then the seizure of Taiwan is in second place. If Beijing relies on non-military measures to put pressure on the island for its pre-emptive surrender, these efforts are likely to fail. Thus, Xi has only one option left: to risk war by establishing a full-scale naval blockade or even launching a full-scale invasion. It may seem to him that this way he will fulfill his life purpose. However, in any case, the economic and military costs of provoking a war over Taiwan will be disastrous for both China and the rest of the participants in the clash. By attacking this island, Xi would have made a huge mistake.
Despite Xi Jinping's miscalculations and numerous internal difficulties, China will continue to pose a serious challenge to the United States. The PLA is stronger now than ever before. Today, China boasts more warships than the United States (although they are of inferior quality). Beijing has modernized and restructured both its conventional armed forces and its nuclear power, almost doubling its deployed strategic nuclear forces. In addition, he updated the command and control system. Beijing is also currently engaged in strengthening its military potential in space and cyberspace.
In addition to being active in the defense sector, China is implementing a comprehensive strategy aimed at increasing its power and influence around the world. Currently, Beijing is the main trading partner of more than 120 countries, including almost all states of South America. More than 140 countries have become participants in the "One Belt, One Road" initiative, a large-scale program for the development of global infrastructure. Currently, China owns, manages or invests in more than one hundred ports in about 60 countries around the world.
These expanding Chinese economic offensives are complemented by pervasive propaganda and a network of mass media. At least one Chinese radio station, TV channel or Internet news site is available in every country of the world. Through these and other media, Beijing attacks America's actions and motives, undermines faith in the international institutions created by the United States after World War II, and trumpets the superiority of its model of development and governance, while promoting the theme of the decline of the West.
Those who believe that the United States and China are doomed to conflict rely on at least two concepts. One of them is the "Thucydides trap". According to this theory, when a rising power confronts a strengthened one, war is inevitable. This was the case, for example, when Athens faced Sparta in ancient times or when Germany opposed the United Kingdom before the First World War.
Another theory boils down to the so-called "peak period of China's heyday." The idea is that the economic and military power of this country has reached – or will soon reach – the highest point, while ambitious initiatives to strengthen the US armed forces will bear fruit only years later. Thus, Beijing may well invade Taiwan before the military balance in Asia changes and turns out not to be in its favor.
But none of these theories is convincing. The First World War could have been avoided. It happened because of the stupidity and arrogance of European leaders. The Chinese army is still far from being fully prepared for a major conflict. Thus, a direct attack or invasion of Taiwan by Beijing, if it happens at all, will happen only in a few years. Unless, of course, Xi Jinping again makes a miscalculation.
Putin's Gamble
"Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire," Zbigniew Brzezinski, a political scientist and former national security adviser to the US president, once remarked. Putin certainly shares this point of view. In pursuit of the lost empire, he entered Ukraine in 2014, and then in 2022, and the last adventure turned out to be a catastrophic miscalculation with devastating long-term consequences for his country. Instead of splitting and weakening NATO, Moscow's actions provided the alliance with a new goal (and new influential members in the person of Finland and, soon, Sweden). Strategically, Russia is now in a much worse position than before the start of the special operation.
In economic terms, the sale of oil to China, India and other states compensated for most of the financial consequences of sanctions, and consumer goods and technologies from China, Turkey and other countries of Central Asia and the Middle East partially replaced those that were once imported from the West. Nevertheless, Moscow has been subjected to extreme restrictive measures by almost all developed democratic states. Countless Western firms have withdrawn their investments and left Russia, including oil and gas companies whose technology is needed to maintain the country's main source of income. Thousands of young tech experts and entrepreneurs fled. With his operation in Ukraine, Putin laid the foundation for Russia's future.
As for the army, Moscow retains the world's largest nuclear arsenal, despite the fact that the conflict has weakened its conventional armed forces. Thanks to strategic nuclear arms agreements, Russia has deployed only slightly more than the United States. However, it has ten times more tactical nuclear weapons — about 1,900 units.
Despite the large nuclear arsenal, Putin's prospects appear bleak. His hopes for a quick success in Ukraine collapsed. Now he seems to be counting on a heavy military impasse that will exhaust the enemy, and is betting that by next spring or summer the public in Europe and the United States will get tired of supporting Kiev. As a temporary alternative to a defeated Ukraine, he may want to see a crippled Ukraine — a fragment of a state lying in ruins, whose exports will drastically decrease, and foreign aid to which will sharply decrease. Putin would like it to become part of the Russian Empire he recreated. He also fears a democratic, modern and prosperous Ukraine as an alternative model for Russians living next door. He will not achieve the first goal, but he may believe that he can prevent the appearance of the second.
As long as Putin is in power, Russia will remain an opponent of the United States and NATO. Through arms sales, security assistance, and discounts on oil and gas, it is developing new relationships in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. It continues to use all the means at its disposal to sow division in the United States and Europe and undermine U.S. influence in the Global South. Encouraged by his partnership with Xi Jinping and confident that his modernized nuclear arsenal will deter military action against Russia, Putin will continue to aggressively challenge the United States. He has already made one historical miscalculation, and it is impossible to be sure that this will not happen again.
Defective America
At the moment, the United States seems to be in a winning position in relation to both China and Russia. First of all, the US economy is doing well. Business investments in new production facilities are booming, some of which are subsidized by new government infrastructure and technology programs. New investments by both government and business in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, robotics and bioengineering promise to widen the technological and economic gap between the United States and any other country for years to come.
In terms of foreign policy, the military conflict in Ukraine has provided the United States with new opportunities. Washington warned its friends and allies in advance about Moscow's intentions, and this restored their faith in the capabilities of American intelligence. Renewed concerns about the Russian threat have allowed the United States to strengthen and expand NATO, and the military assistance they have provided to Ukraine has clearly shown that they can be trusted to fulfill their obligations. Meanwhile, China is diplomatically intimidating Asian and European countries, and this is backfiring, allowing the United States to strengthen ties in both regions.
In recent years, the US Army has been well funded. All three components of the nuclear triad — intercontinental ballistic missiles, bombers and submarines - are undergoing modernization. The Pentagon is spending on new combat aircraft (F-35, upgraded F-15 and a new sixth-generation fighter), as well as a new fleet of refueling aircraft for refueling in the air. The army is purchasing about two dozen new vehicles and weapons, and the Navy is building new ships and submarines. The military continues to develop weapons, such as hypersonic munitions, and strengthen its offensive and defensive capabilities in cyberspace. Overall, the United States spends more on defense than the next ten countries on the list combined, including Russia and China.
However, unfortunately, America's political weakness and domestic political failures undermine its success. The US economy is threatened by rampant federal government spending. Politicians from both parties have failed to solve the problem of the rising cost of social programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Years of opposition to raising the debt ceiling have undermined confidence in the US economy, forcing investors to worry about what will happen if Washington does default. (In August 2023, the Fitch rating agency downgraded the US credit rating, raising the cost of borrowing for the government.) The appropriations process in Congress has been disrupted for many years. Legislators have repeatedly failed to pass bills on targeted appropriations, and they adopted giant "consolidated" laws that no one read and which caused the suspension of the government.
As for foreign policy, former President Donald Trump's disdain for US allies, his love for authoritarian leaders, his willingness to sow doubts about the commitment of the United States to NATO allies and his generally erratic behavior have undermined Washington's authority around the world. Just seven months after President Joe Biden came to power, there was a catastrophic withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, which made the world even more distrustful of America.
For years, U.S. diplomacy has ignored much of the Global South, that central front of non-military competition with China and Russia. The posts of United States ambassadors in this part of the world have been vacant for an excessively long time. Starting in 2022, after years of neglect, Washington tried to resume relations with the Pacific island states, but only after China took advantage of the absence of the United States and signed agreements in the field of defense and economy with these countries. Competition with China and even Russia for markets and influence is global. The United States cannot afford to be absent from any region.
The military is also paying the price for America's political weakness, especially in Congress. Since 2010, Congress has never been able to approve appropriations bills for the armed forces before the beginning of the next fiscal year. Instead, lawmakers passed a "permanent resolution" that allows the Pentagon to spend no more than the previous year and prohibits it from starting new projects or increasing spending on existing programs. These "standing resolutions" regulate defense spending until a new appropriations bill is passed. They are valid from a few weeks to an entire fiscal year. As a result, every year new innovative programs and initiatives for some period of time do not give anything at all.
The Budget Control Act of 2011 introduced automatic spending cuts, known as "sequestration," and reduced the federal budget by $1.2 trillion over ten years. Half of this reduction — $600 billion — fell on the military, which then accounted for only about 15% of federal spending. If you do not take into account spending on personnel, the main part of the cuts should have affected maintenance, operation, training and investment. The consequences were severe and long-lasting. And yet, in September 2023, lawmakers are making the same mistake again. Here is another example of how Congress is causing real harm to the armed forces: one senator for months did not allow the appointment of hundreds of senior officers to be approved. Such behavior not only seriously reduces the combat readiness of the army, but also highlights the weakness of the American government in such a critical area and turns the United States into a laughing stock in the eyes of their opponents. The bottom line is that the US needs military power to counter the threats it faces. However, Congress and the executive branch erect endless obstacles to achieving this goal.
Catching the moment
The epic competition between the United States and its allies on the one hand and China, Russia and their fellow travelers on the other is already in full swing. To ensure that Washington is in the most advantageous position and will deter its opponents from further strategic miscalculations, US leaders must first solve the problem of destroying the long-standing bipartisan agreement on the country's role in the world. It is not surprising that after 20 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, many Americans wanted to withdraw into themselves, especially given the numerous internal problems of the United States. But the task of political leaders is to resist these sentiments and explain that the fate of the country is inextricably linked with events in other parts of the world. President Franklin Roosevelt once remarked that "the greatest duty of a statesman is to educate others." But recent presidents, like most members of Congress, have completely failed in this important duty.
Americans need to understand why US global leadership, despite its cost, is vital for preserving peace and prosperity. They need to know why Ukraine's successful resistance to the Russian special operation is crucial to deter China from invading Taiwan. They need to understand why Chinese dominance in the western Pacific threatens US interests. They need to understand why the influence of China and Russia in the Global South matters to the American wallet. They need to know why the reliability of the United States as an ally is so important to preserve peace. They need to understand why the Sino-Russian alliance threatens the United States. These are the logical connections that American political leaders should establish every day.
What is needed is not just one speech by our president in the Oval Office or one speech in the hall of Congress. In order to convey the main ideas to the people, you need to repeat them tirelessly. The president should communicate with Americans directly, and not only through his official representatives. The leader of the nation should be able to use informal meetings with members of Congress and the central media to constantly prove the leading role of the United States in the world. And already members of Congress should convey this idea to their constituents across the country.
What kind of thought should that be? It should show that American global leadership has ensured 75 years of peace between the great powers – the longest period of peace in centuries. Nothing will cost a nation more than war, and nothing else poses a greater threat to its security and prosperity. And this war only becomes more likely if you hide your head in the sand and pretend that events in other parts of the world do not affect the United States. Our country learned this lesson before the First World War, as well as from the experience of the Second World War and the events of September 11, 2001. The military power that the United States possesses, the alliances that they have created, and the international institutions that they have organized are of crucial importance for deterring aggression against our country itself and its partners. As our century-old experience should clearly show, the inability to cope with aggressors only encourages them. It is naive to believe that Moscow's success in Ukraine will not lead to its further offensive in Europe and, perhaps, even to a war between NATO and Russia. It is equally naive to believe that Russia's success in Ukraine will not lead to a significant increase in the likelihood of Chinese aggression against Taiwan and, consequently, a potential war between the United States and China.
Without reliable US leadership, we will find ourselves in a world of authoritarian predators, in which all other countries will become potential victims. If America wants to protect its people, its security and freedom, it must continue to play the role of global leader. As British Prime Minister Winston Churchill said of the United States in 1943: "The price of greatness is responsibility."
It is important to revive public support for this responsibility within the country in order to restore trust between allies and show opponents that the United States is fulfilling its obligations to partners. But due to internal disagreements, the vagueness of our policy and the ambivalent attitude of political leaders to the role of the United States in the world, there are serious doubts abroad about America's reliability today. Both friends and opponents are wondering whether Biden's commitment to rebuilding alliances is a return to normal life or whether Trump's disregard for allies under the slogan "America first" will become the dominant thread in American politics in the future. Even our closest partners tend to be overly cautious about betting on America. In a world where Russia and China are active, this is especially dangerous.
Restoring public support for U.S. global leadership is the highest priority, but the United States must take other steps to actually fulfill this role. First, it is necessary to go beyond the "turn" towards Asia. Yes, we need to strengthen relations with Australia, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea and other countries in the region, but this is not enough. China and Russia are working together against US interests on all continents. Washington needs a strategy of interaction with the whole world, especially in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. It is in these regions that Russians and Chinese are rapidly outpacing the United States in developing security and economic relations. As part of this strategy, it is necessary to abandon the division of states into democracies and autocracies. The United States should always and everywhere advocate for democracy and human rights, but this commitment cannot hide the fact that sometimes national interests require Washington to cooperate with unrepresentative and even repressive regimes.
Secondly, the US strategy should use all the tools of its national power. Both Republicans and Democrats have become hostile to trade agreements, and protectionist sentiments are intensifying in Congress. This has opened up a vast field of activity for the Chinese in the Global South, which offers huge markets and investment opportunities. Despite the shortcomings of the "One Belt, One Road" initiative - for example, the huge debt it imposes on recipient countries - Beijing has successfully used this mega-project to extend its influence and companies to dozens of countries and actually launch its economic tentacles into them. This strategy was enshrined in the Chinese constitution in 2017 and will not go anywhere now. The United States and its allies need to figure out how to compete with this initiative using their strengths – first of all, the private sector. American development assistance programs cannot compare in scale with Chinese projects. These programs are often fragmented and disconnected from the major geopolitical goals of the United States. And even where American aid programs are successful, Washington keeps a sacred silence about its achievements. For example, there is little talk about the Colombia Plan, an aid program designed to combat drug trafficking in Colombia, or the President's Emergency Plan to Fight AIDS, which has saved millions of lives in Africa.
Public diplomacy is urgently needed to advance US interests in the world, but Washington allowed this important instrument of power to disappear from its politics after the end of the Cold War. Meanwhile, China spends billions of dollars around the world to promote its ideology. Russia is also making aggressive efforts to spread its propaganda and disinformation, as well as fomenting disagreements within and between democratic countries. The United States needs a new strategy to influence foreign leaders and the public, especially in the Global South. To succeed, this strategy will require the US government not only to spend more money, but also to integrate and synchronize its many propaganda and communication activities, which are now scattered.
Helping foreign Governments to ensure security is another area in need of radical change. The American armed forces generally do a good job with the military training of foreign armies. However, they make haphazard decisions about where and how to do it, do not take into account regional strategies and do not think about how best to cooperate with allies. Russia is increasingly providing security assistance to governments in Africa, especially those with an authoritarian bias, and the United States does not have an effective strategy to counter this. Washington must also find a way to speed up the delivery of military equipment to recipient states. Currently, the debt on arms supplies to Taiwan is approximately $ 19 billion, and the time lag is from four to ten years. Although there are many reasons for this, the limited production capacity of the US defense industry remains an important factor.
Third, the United States must rethink its nuclear strategy in the face of the Sino-Russian alliance. Cooperation between Russia, which is modernizing its strategic nuclear forces, and China, which is significantly expanding its once small nuclear arsenal, is testing the reliability of American nuclear deterrence, as well as the expanding nuclear potential of North Korea and Iran's military capabilities. To strengthen deterrence, the United States almost certainly needs to rethink its strategy and probably also increase its nuclear forces. The navies of China and Russia are increasingly conducting joint exercises, and it would be surprising if they also did not coordinate deployed strategic nuclear forces more closely.
It is widely believed in Washington that the US Navy needs much more ships and submarines. But the contrast between the statements and the actions of politicians is striking. For a number of years, the budget of our military shipbuilding has been practically unchanged. In recent years, it has grown significantly, but due to eternal resolutions and problems with the use of funds, our navy has not increased. The main obstacles to strengthening the US Navy are budgetary in nature: there is no stable growth in funding for the Navy itself and, more broadly, there is insufficient investment in shipyards and industries that support shipbuilding and ship maintenance. Despite this, politicians are in no hurry to solve these problems in the near future. This state of affairs is unacceptable.
Finally, Congress needs to change the mechanism for allocating money for the Ministry of Defense, and it, in turn, must spend these funds differently. Congress needs to act more quickly and efficiently when it comes to approving the defense budget. This means, first of all, the adoption of bills on military appropriations before the beginning of the fiscal year. This step will provide the Ministry of Defense with much-needed predictability. The Pentagon, for its part, must change its inefficient, limited and bureaucratic procurement processes. In an era when efficiency, flexibility and speed are more important than ever, these mechanisms are especially anachronistic. The leaders of our Ministry of Defense are talking about these shortcomings and have announced numerous initiatives to correct them. The task is to implement the relevant decisions efficiently and urgently.
Less talk, more business
China and Russia believe that the future belongs to them. Despite all the harsh rhetoric coming from the US Congress and the executive branch about fighting back against these opponents of ours, there are surprisingly few actions in this regard. We too often announce new initiatives just to get them funded, and their actual implementation is too slow, if at all. Words are worthless, and no one in Washington seems to be ready to change this practice urgently. This is especially puzzling, since during a period of acute party discord and polarization in Washington, Xi and Putin managed to evoke impressive, albeit fragile bipartisan support among politicians for a decisive US response to their aggressive aspirations. The Administration and Congress have a rare opportunity to work together to back up their words about countering China and Russia with far-reaching actions that will make the United States a much more formidable opponent and help contain the war.
Xi Jinping and Putin, surrounded by supporters and "backup singers", have already made serious mistakes that have cost their countries dearly. In the end, they caused damage to their states. However, for the foreseeable future, they remain a threat that the United States will have to deal with. These opponents would pose a serious problem even if the government had the support of the public, energetic leaders and a consistent strategy. But the current internal situation in the United States is far from ideal: American society has withdrawn into itself, Congress has plunged into squabbles, rudeness and balancing on the brink of war, and recent presidents have either denied or poorly explained America's global role. To counter such powerful and risk-averse adversaries, the United States needs to improve its policies across the board. Only then can America hope to keep Xi and Putin from making new bad bets. The dangers to the US are quite real.
The author of the article: Robert Gates (Robert Gates), served as US Secretary of Defense in 2006-2011.
