This article is quite extraordinary. It's like trapped in amber from 15 years ago. wsj.com/articles/dont-…@elyratner A couple of point/counterpoints: 1/
"We'd be wiser to adhere to Physician heal thyself than to scapegoat China." Who's scapegoating China? The oped itself says: "China certainly bears enormous responsibility forpandemic". If that's true -as it is- aren't @SecPompeo@HawleyMO et al right to hold PRC accountable? 2/
#NSS & #NDS "overstate China’s ambitions and capabilities alike. China’s strategic preoccupation, as its 2019 defense white paper makes clear, is maintaining its territorial integrity & internal stability." Is this really using PRC white paper as authoritative source on goals? 3/
"China can best be understood as a regional power that seeks to reduce U.S. influence in its backyard and to increase its influence with its neighbors." Wait. Isn't China now largest economy in world in PPP? Why is its power so limited? 4/
Such a strong state seeking to increase power by necessity is like Jupiter in the Solar System. @haass compares to Mercury or some minor planet. 5/
"And when China does reach farther afield, its instruments tend to be primarily economic." Sure. But what about the global PLA that is emerging? media.defense.gov/2019/May/02/20… And what about China's global political coercion? voanews.com/covid-19-pande… 6/
This seems like a low bar that's a caricature of the USSR! "Unlike the Soviet Union, China isn’t looking to impose its model on others around the globe or to control international politics in every corner of the world." 7/
"China faces serious limitations in trying to extend its reach and influence. The era of double-digit Chinese economic growth is over." Sure - but what is growth rate of the advanced economies? It's comparative. 9/
"Of course, China poses both an actual and a potential threat—but it’s one that can be addressed without making China the focal point of American foreign policy." Why, given that China is 1st time US is not largest economy in global system since 19th century? 10/
This is the siren song toward failure right here: "the U.S. should push back against China where necessary to defend US interests. As much as possible, however, this competition should be bounded so that it doesn’t preclude cooperation with China in areas of mutual interest." 11/
No hard choices! Cake and eat it too!
America should stick with #NDS#NSS direction in which we're now moving.
See here in @FT. The United States must withhold key forces, not do nothing. Europe and the United States should work realistically to manage and address these vulnerabilities together. 2/
2) I do not think it is fair to say I "ridiculed" the comments there. The fact that I am engaging with places like Policy Exchange and many European outlets proves that I have deep respect and concern for the situation. I believe candor here are the best forms of allyship. 3/
“Even if Putin fails to secure such an outright triumph, Xi will have helped Russia drain the U.S. and its allies of military and financial resources, while pulling Putin’s weakened but resource-rich country closer into China’s orbit.” 1/
“ere’s a good chance that sanctioning China could produce the opposite effect, convincing Xi that a partnership with Putin to overcome American global power is the right course for China. From his perspective, China has too much to gain from fostering deeper ties to Russia.” 2/
“If anything, Xi’s incentives run in the other direction —and he gains by sustaining the Russian economy and prolonging Putin’s war. That way, Xi gets to create trouble for the U.S. and its European partners and bind Putin closer to him, with minimal risk to China itself.” 3/
A very important, compelling, and clear-eyed case for a fundamental change in our foreign policy toward a new American realism from @robertcobrien. @foreignaffairs
“Trump was determined to avoid new wars and endless counterinsurgency
operations, and his presidency was the first since that of Jimmy
Carter in which the United States did not enter a new war or expand
an existing conflict.” 2/
“America first is not America alone” is a mantra often repeated by Trump administration officials, and for good reason: Trump recognizes that a successful foreign policy requires joining forces with friendly governments and people elsewhere.” 3/
The notion this Administration is focusing on China is now truly dead.
They’re not even denying the need for priority. They’re saying Ukraine is #1.
This will only make the inevitable need to focus on China all the more painful when it does come. 1/ on.ft.com/3VxXu5R
“Biden said several nations had agreed to send Patriot and other systems to Kyiv, and that others expecting deliveries would have to wait because “everything we have is going to go to Ukraine until their needs are met”.
In case there was any ambiguity on the priority…2/
“A senior White House official said the US would be “re-sequencing deliveries” of air defence systems including Patriots “so interceptors rolling off the production line now are provided to Ukraine”. 3/
We need to be realistic about what to expect from Europe on China:
“But behind the group’s collective bravado on “getting tough” with China, the countries still have varying appetites for how far to actually go in challenging a world superpower...” 1/ politico.com/news/2024/06/1…
“differences that some officials worry could dent the coalition’s ability to fend off Beijing’s advances.” 2/
“While Europe harbors its own deep concerns about China’s expanding power, it has taken a more cautious approach, tempered by concerns about its own vulnerability to economic retaliation.” 3/
Leveraging new technology is key. But we can’t get the farm on new, untested technologies. We need muttiple lines of defense.
“That plan hinges on quickly building and deploying thousands of new drones that would swarm the Taiwan Strait…” 1/ washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/…
“and keep China’s military busy until more help can arrive, according to the top U.S. military official in the Pacific. But time is running out to turn these plans into a reality.” 2/
Paparo is correct. We need to be ready *now and tomorrow.*
“They want to offer the world a short, sharp war so that it is a fait accompli before the world can get their act together. “My job is to ensure that between now and 2027 and beyond, the U.S. military and the allies are capable of prevailing.” 3/