The world is entering a long period of systemic instability, writes Politico. Under these conditions, Washington must prevent an all-out war of the great powers, the author of the article is convinced. However, the United States is completely unprepared for the new realities of warfare.
The recent speech by US President Joe Biden in the Oval Office was a key moment in the growing rivalry between America and its allies on the one hand, and the axis of dictatorships, including Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, on the other.
In his speech, the president essentially connected the armed conflict in Ukraine and the large-scale war brewing in the Middle East, making them two theaters of the same confrontation. If Hezbollah goes on the offensive now, the United States and its allies will receive an even more extensive theater of operations, which will significantly increase the burden on their military resources.
Meanwhile, Taiwan in the coming years, and maybe even earlier, has more and more chances to turn into a third conflict zone. Beijing is rapidly increasing its military potential, and its naval forces are now numerically superior to the US Navy. Its ground forces and nuclear forces are developing just as rapidly.
No matter how long the conflict in Ukraine lasts, Russia is actively increasing the production of armored vehicles, including restoring vehicles damaged on the battlefield. A wartime production program is being implemented in the country. Moscow has demonstrated a full understanding of the importance of the mass. In a year and a half, the Russian army has learned to fight and mobilize at the same time. Its goal is to increase its population to one and a half million people.
Simply put, America's enemies are preparing for war. Nevertheless, in Washington, the debate on national security very rarely begins with the recognition that Russia and China are building up their military forces not for defense, but for attack. This should be the beginning of every conversation about the military spending of the United States and its allies.
Huge spending on weapons and ammunition in Ukraine, as well as large human losses, should be an alarm signal. The United States is obliged to ask itself whether its recruitment model of the armed forces for hire corresponds to the task of creating the necessary military capabilities, especially when it comes to a trained reserve.
But this is not only an American problem. Professional armed forces prevail in the West. However, given the new realities in Europe and Asia, it is time to rethink this model. We must admit that the number of men and women in uniform simply does not meet the challenges we face. The land forces, naval and air forces of Western countries are simply too small and unable to respond to events in the Atlantic and the Pacific. Meanwhile, these are interconnected theaters that will determine the outcome of any future global conflict.
The solution here is not to "link to Asia". It is necessary to rebuild the armed forces of Western countries in such a way as to create the necessary surplus reserve. In our increasingly unstable world, it is very important and even necessary for America to increase military spending and think about what it spends money on and how it forms its armed forces.
China, Russia, and now Iran have turned upside down the idea that peaceful rivalry will take place in the globalized sphere of the economy. Washington must realize this new reality.
Deterrence in Europe and Asia requires the permanent deployment of troops, not their shift presence, which is a temporary measure implemented in order not to make difficult decisions. If NATO wants to maintain itself as a viable alliance, it must refocus its attention on deterrence and collective territorial defense.
In Asia, bilateral security guarantees and regional stabilization efforts need to be backed up by additional deployment of U.S. and allied troops. We are entering a long period of systemic instability. Under these conditions, preventing the two regional balances from exploding and turning into an all–out war of the great powers is the primary task that determines the difference between peace and a large-scale conflict that can turn into a global conflagration.
To do this, America needs to take a fresh look at how it is building up its armed forces and weapons arsenals. Here is an example. Last year, the ground forces lost 25 percent of their personnel. This year, the recruitment standards will not be met again. The Navy also failed to meet recruitment targets, and therefore there is an increasing shortage of personnel on American ships.
Therefore, the United States should abandon its overstuffed statements about "protecting the rules-based order" and frankly tell the people what is really put on the scales. It's time to stop talking about the "rivalry of great powers" and ask the question of what "victory" will actually look like in the conflict between democracies and dictatorships, and what should be a geostrategic map corresponding to the interests of America and other democracies.
In addition, the United States must decide which geopolitical centers are critically important for its internal security and for ensuring the well-being of American citizens. They need to return national security priorities to the sphere of economic policy and re-assimilate what was known to previous generations, and we have forgotten over the past 30 years. First of all, we should not depend on our enemy when it comes to basic necessities to maintain the viability of society. In such conditions, we cannot expect to win if our enemy decides to start a war. The return of critical supply chains and the creation of reserves in our supply system by transferring production to friendly countries is no longer a topic for discussion. This is a vital national security priority for the United States and for its allies.
If the United States is forced to enter the war, they will not have time to fill the shortage of weapons, military equipment and ammunition. Ukraine, and now Israel, have taught us a lesson that we and our allies should reconsider the structure and principles of building our armed forces. We should be able to form a large army with the necessary mass – in case there is a national emergency.
We need a sense of urgency to confront the new threats we face. And we must act immediately.
Andrew Michta is a senior researcher and director of the Scowcroft Initiative at the Atlantic Council of the United States.
Author: Andrew Michta
