Preserving Peace and Security in a World Threatened by Dictatorships

by Ambassador Thomas Graham (Retired) and David Bernell

The global landscape is changing both significantly and rapidly. Moreover, this is happening in ways that challenge not only American security and global leadership, but also the international network of alliances, institutions, and relationships that for decades have fostered global economic growth and political cooperation while helping to keep interstate war at bay.

At the center of these evolving global changes are China and Russia, two authoritarian regimes whose wealth and power have grown immensely, who have increasingly seen their own interests aligned with one another, and who have come to share an antagonism toward the West in general and the United States in particular. In addition, both of these countries have looked to neighboring states – Ukraine in the case of Russia and Taiwan in the case of China – and see in these places territories they covet and seek to incorporate into their own countries.

Russia is about to enter its fourth year of waging a brutal war of conquest against Ukraine, engaging in widespread human rights violations, all while trying to end Ukrainian statehood and even wipe out Ukrainian culture and national identity. Russia routinely targets civilians, launches missiles into cities, kidnaps Ukrainian children and deports them to be raised in Russia (telling the children their parents don’t want them anymore), and carries out repeated war crimes consisting of “willful killing, torture, rape” and other crimes as it makes war on Ukraine.

China, for its part, engages in daily harassment of Taiwan. It launches missiles into the Taiwan Strait. Its planes and ships often cross the median line – the unofficial border in the Strait. Its military carries out live-fire exercises near Taiwan. It conducts drills that encircle Taiwan that the Chinese military says publicly are designed to simulate attacking Taiwan by land, sea, air. Moreover, President Xi Jinping’s rhetoric suggests he favors taking action on Taiwan sooner rather than later. His speeches state that China can achieve unification with Taiwan “without a doubt,” and that reunification is inevitable.

This state of affairs looks very different from where the world found itself at the end of the Cold War. The United States had no peer competitor, and while few expected that situation to last, there were signs of encouragement that this new era would see a world far less dangerous than what had preceded it. Russian and American nuclear arsenals were reduced, their economic engagement expanded, their governments found areas of cooperation (including among military forces), and a new “Partnership for Peace” was established.

Nuclear weapons that were left after the Cold War in Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan were given up. President George H. W. Bush had made it clear to these states that if they wished to gain recognition by the United States they would have to sign up to all major international treaties, including the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) to ensure that they would be free of nuclear weapons. While Ukraine held out for a few years, wanting to hold on to the Soviet arsenal of roughly 5,000 nuclear weapons left in its territory (which would have constituted the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal), it agreed to send the weapons to Russia in exchange for approval of the Budapest Memorandum, which provided a guarantee that Russia, the United States, and Britain would secure Ukraine’s borders and protect it from invasion.

At the same time, China had opened up to greater levels of global trade and engagement, joining the World Trade Organization in 2001 with the encouragement and support of the West. Its political, economic, and diplomatic ties with other countries were strengthened, and it became more economically prosperous every year. Where China, the United States, and Russia had once routinely armed opposing political factions in countries all over the world in their quest for greater global power and influence, after the Cold War they tended to find ways to advance their interests without directly targeting one another or engaging in proxy wars.

The passage of time has seen a big difference, as growing international conflict seems to be the order of the day. The Americans and their Western allies are by no means without fault in this worsening state of global affairs. For many years, and in many times and places, the United States wielded its military forces and its political muscle without regard for Russian and Chinese views and interests, while also employing economic sanctions to force its policy preferences on a large number of nations and individuals. Moreover, the power and wealth of Western countries, and their ability to shape the international environment provided them great advantages, often at the expense of others. So it is not surprising that this engendered a powerful response on the part of Russia and China as they became more capable of opposing American and Western power.

One way this growing antagonism to the West was manifested involved China and Russia’s founding of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in 2001, along with four central Asian countries (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan), and later India, Pakistan and Iran. The aim of the SCO is not only to foster closer ties and cooperation among its members, but also to foster a new international political and economic order. In other words, this is an organization that reflects Russia and China’s shared strategic objective to develop alternative international organizations and norms that are not dominated by the United States and the West.

This global political divide has only grown more intense since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping have declared their countries to have a friendship without limits, and China has provided military assets and financial support to Russia, while becoming the largest purchaser of Russian energy recourses. The military strengths of both countries have grown too. The Russian military has learned from its early mistakes and setbacks in the war in Ukraine, and has been making slow advances over the past year at the same time the Russian economy ramps up it wartime production. Advances in Chinese military capability are even greater, with air, naval and nuclear forces that continue to grow alongside China’s expanded global presence, which includes a military base in Djibouti. In addition, Russia and China have greatly expanded their ties and alignments with North Korea and Iran, which not only threaten the peace and security of their neighbors and engage in violence against them, but have also both provided military support to Russia, such as Iranian drones and even North Korean troops, of which an estimated 10,000 have been deployed to Russia and Ukraine.

This “Group of Four” – Russia, China, Iran and North Korea – represents a challenge to peace, to the security and independence of Ukraine and Taiwan, to the interests of countries in NATO and the European Union. In addition, there is one thing all four of these states agree on: they oppose the United States, which threatens all their goals. Russia wants the U.S. out of Europe, China wants it out of East Asia, Iran wants it out of the Middle East, and North Korea wants it out of their way.

In this context Western defense and intelligence officials are increasingly calling for greater readiness. Most ominously, H.R. McMaster, former senior US military officer and National Security Advisor during part of President Trump’s first term said that he believes that China is developing a first strike capability against the United States. But even well short of such a nightmare scenario, the Secretary General of NATO has asserted that NATO should adopt “a wartime mindset” to meet the challenges that are already underway in Europe, seeing as how the invasion of Ukraine has finished off any complacency that had previously existed regarding Russia’s strategic aims. Considering that Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons to rely instead on the United States and its assurance of protected borders, and that the U.S. did not deliver on this pledge when Russia invaded, two things are clear. One is that the United States and NATO owe a debt to Ukraine as repayment for the failure to keep the country secure from invasion. And second is that aid to Ukraine is crucial for European and global security. If Russia wins this war, or in some way is better off when the war ends, the Baltic states and Poland know that they could be the next target of an emboldened Putin. This is why the Baltic states are particularly concerned with the fate of Ukraine and have provided the largest levels of aid to Ukraine as a percentage of GDP. It is also why Estonia’s intelligence services have concluded that Russia is preparing for a military confrontation with the West in the next decade, and have called for their own preparations to address the threat.

This view of a more divided and dangerous and even violent world is not only gaining traction in the West. It is repeated in Russia too, and not only by Vladmir Putin. Retired Russian naval officer Konstantin Sivkov, in an article called “Ukraine Is Just the Beginning,” says that “we can safely say that Russia is currently at war with the united West.” The Western coalition, he says, consists of the United States and Europe, and those “oriented toward Western civilization.” He identifies the core of the opposing coalition as Russia and China, along North Korea and Iran (he also includes Belarus). This world war, Sivkov argues, “has all the hallmarks of a world war: the presence of opposing coalitions led by global centers of power that have entered directly into a military confrontation.” It is being waged at this time in a limited military theater – only in Ukraine – but it also takes place in the economic and information spheres, and it will continue to be fought even after a settlement is reached in Ukraine, no matter which side wins.

If there is ever a larger war that ensues along the lines that Konstantin Sivkov envisions, with a global division similar to what has developed in response to the invasion of Ukraine, it is certain that these “Group of Four” countries will be diametrically opposed to the United States, along with its NATO allies and the West in general.

So, what is the United States doing about this?

Upon entering office, Donald Trump’s early efforts have consisted of unleashing Elon Musk on the American government, starting with dismantling the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which supports health, education, and development programs around the world to countries friendly to the United States. The president also seems to target the majority of his hostility not toward those who pose a danger to the United States, but to America’s friends and trading partners, threatening them with misguided and potentially damaging trade wars.

With respect to the larger orientation of U.S. defense policy, the current administration seems to be absorbed with culture wars. Leading the Department of Defense in this effort is Pete Hegseth, who has no military leadership experience, no executive leadership experience, and little knowledge of military policy and strategy. In short, he is entirely unqualified to run the world’s largest bureaucracy and strongest military. Rather, he is known as a Fox News media personality, skilled as a culture warrior, but totally lacking as a real warrior. His major focus for the Defense Department stems from his complaint that the military is “woke,” and needs to clean house. This is code for saying that undesirable people (gay, transgender) are serving in the military and must be removed, and that women have harmed American military effectiveness and should be reassigned to roles the Secretary deems will be suitable for them.

Prior to his nomination, Hegseth said that “I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles.” He has even disparaged women more broadly, saying that, “Dads push us to take risks. Moms put the training wheels on our bikes. We need moms. But not in the military, especially in combat units.” After being sworn in, during his first address to the Pentagon’s workforce, Hegseth stated that “the single dumbest phrase in military history is ‘our diversity is our strength.’” Suggesting that wokeness and diversity are the biggest threats the U.S. military faces means that Hegseth’s attention is directed toward what are essentially made up and imaginary issues. However, treating them as real and important, and taking actions that supposedly address or correct these nonexistent threats can result in self-inflicted wounds to the readiness, capability, and morale of the U.S. military, and by extension its NATO allies.

Far more importantly, all this pales in comparison with the Pentagon’s primary responsibilities in preventing and preparing for military conflict, whatever form it comes in, be it coordinated attacks, multiple regional wars, or some combination of aggressive actions. The focus on diversity and wokeness diverts attention, resources, time, and energy away from other more important and pressing matters.

In a recent article, David Brooks made the point that the United States “is no longer a serious country.” In a serious country, he says, our focus on defense would involve questions such as, “How do drones change war fighting? How will artificial intelligence alter the nature of combat? How do we shift from a defense policy built around counterterrorism to a policy built around nation-state warfare?” Whereas this once was a country that could win World War II and face down the Soviet Union, now “[w]e live in a soap opera country” where the great focus on any issue centers around social media and TV, not “boring” policy.

The United States needs to find its way back to being serious when it comes to foreign policy and defense. Considering both the stated goals and the capabilities its adversaries, contrasted with growing proclivity of American leadership under Trump to undermine its own military with pointless efforts targeting diversity, while threatening its allies, friends and trading partners with tariffs, dismantling USAID programs around the world that save lives, and suggesting the U.S. take territory from Panama, Denmark (which governs Greenland), and Canada, is there (or should there be) confidence that the United States can deter others from aggressive action and defend itself, particularly if it spends so much of its time alienating its allies?

This is not a recipe for success.