THU, FEB 17, 2022
LEON HADAR
IT
was not very long ago that members of the US foreign policy
establishment in Washington and pundits in the Mainstream Media (MSM)
told us that America would soon be entering a new Cold War. Forget the
old one with Russia. Cold War 2.0 would pit the United States against
its new major global rivalry, China.
There
is no need to provide informed readers with summaries of addresses by
government officials and lawmakers, op-ed pieces, magazine articles,
research papers, think tank seminars, that made it clear that the time
has arrived to switch the focus of American strategy from the Greater
Middle East and the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Which
made a lot of sense since the geo-strategic and geo-economic centre of
the international system was shifting to East Asia with its emerging
economies and an evolving middle class that have opened new and
promising markets to American businesses. And as it always happens when
it comes to the US position in the world, its military power tends to
follow its economic expansionism.
Hence
a series of crises in that region of the world, starting with the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan - including the so-called Arab Spring, the rise
of the Islamic State in Mesopotamia, civil wars in Syria, Libya and
Yemen, the threat of Iran's nuclear military programmes, not to mention
that good-ole Arab-Israeli conflict - have forced US administrations to
continue investing military and economic resources in dealing with the
problems there.
Which
was fine as far as China was concerned. It was able to expand its
economy and strengthen its military while the United States continued to
sink into new military quagmires in the Middle East. The irony of
ironies was that US military power helped secure cost-free China's
access to the oil resources in the Middle East.
But
while continuing US involvement in the Middle East made some strategic
sense, it became less obvious why the American foreign policy
establishment continued to be obsessed with developments across the
Atlantic.
After
all, the United States and its allies had won the Cold War as the
Soviet bloc collapsed and countries in Europe, such as Poland, Hungary
and Czechoslovakia, were freed from Russia's control.
Lest
we forget, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed in
1949 with one goal - contain the real threat that the Soviets had posed
to the democratic nations in Europe, including France, Italy, Great
Britain and West Germany.
Led
by the United States, NATO made its presence felt; so if Soviet forces
marched into Western Europe, the military alliance would block their way
and defend the French and the Italians against possible invasion by the
communists.
Well,
to recall, the Cold War ended - which raised the following question:
Wasn't it time to close shop and retire NATO (which was supposed to
possibly go to war with the Soviet Union) now that the USSR was no more?
But
back to inertia. Organisations do not want to go out of business even
if their missions are fulfilled. The March of Dimes organisation was
established in 1938 in response to the epidemic of polio. In the 1950s,
polio was trounced, but the March of Dimes continued to operate, with a
broader mission of fighting for the health of all moms and babies, which
was nice.
But
then NATO's mission wasn't to help moms and babies, but to protect West
Germany (and others) from Soviet invasion, to fight wars against the
rival Russia-led Warsaw Pact.
But,
Surprise! Surprise! Instead of disbanding or at least shrinking in the
aftermath of the Cold War, NATO continued to expand, and has grown from
the original 12 members in 1949 to 30, and that despite earlier American
pledges to the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, that the
organisation would not expand towards Russian borders after adding
Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia and a united Germany to the
organisation.
And
no. It was made clear that NATO did not regard Russia as its main
threat like during the Cold War. Which explains in part why the talk
about Ukraine's membership in NATO has angered the Russian leader.
Moreover,
at a time when American policymakers were considering that pivot to
East Asia, it certainly made strategic sense to reduce US military
commitments to NATO especially when one considers that some of its
leading and wealthy members, like Germany, have resisted pressure to pay
the dues they owed to the organisation?
In
fact, at a time when Washington was shifting more attention to the
military challenge from China, a realpolitik approach would have been to
strengthen ties with Russia and certainly not to alienate it and as a
result encourage the Russians to get closer to the Chinese. Which,
against the backdrop of the crisis in Ukraine, is exactly what is
happening now as the threat of a military confrontation between the
United States and its allies and Russia suddenly seems to emerge as a
realistic scenario: Back to Cold War 1.0.!
Even
as expected, the current crisis would end with some sort of a
diplomatic deal, expect US officials, lawmakers and pundits to call for
deploying American troops to Europe, in addition to the 6,000 that have
already been sent there and to prepare for a long and costly conflict
with Moscow that would have to involve major US commitments of air,
naval and logistics forces.
It
is true that the United States remains the world's most powerful
military power. But even then it does not have enough military and
economic resources to engage in two major global confrontations, with
Russia in Europe and with China in East Asia.
Recall
that only a few months ago, geo-strategists in Washington and elsewhere
were discussing the potential for a war between the US and China if the
Chinese decide to go ahead and invade Taiwan which it regards as part
of China.
To
put it in concrete terms, the United States would not be able to fight
two major wars - with Russia over Ukraine and with China over Taiwan -
at the same time. And let us not forget the potential for military
confrontations with North Korea and Iran.
The
reality is that unless Congress agrees to double the US defence budget,
American policymakers would have to decide sooner than later where its
long-term geo-strategic priorities lie - across the Pacific, as it
seemed a while ago, or across the Atlantic. If not, Russia and China
would eventually make that decision for them.