Diplomacy & Crisis News

How much danger does this pose to us?

 

Ukrainians’ courage and conviction constantly amazes Americans watching the awful news from that nation.  We should take their inspiration to heart.  Not only will watching become more painful, but we will feel our own repercussions.  Some are scarier, and closer to reality, than we might think. 

We understand that Putin cannot afford to lose this war.  He apparently could not leave Ukraine in peace either.  Its independence and liberalization posed a standing rebuke to his rule.  In a certain logic of Russian leadership, any rebuke can lead to ouster or death.

As a possible path to winning, Putin can cast free nations as weak and hypocritical, so long as he continues his attack and the West continues to tiptoe around his red lines.  If we allow Ukraine to be crushed, in this view we reveal the emptiness of our claims of principle.  We “forcefully” pushed our Liberal World Order, starting with color revolutions and progressing to NATO expansion, but cower when force pushes back.  The West is no different from any other regime.  Our rules based order is only an order based on our rules.  Any advance in that perception is a win.

This logic might see America as the font of the trouble.  It is not incorrect: America cannot but stand as a rebuke to any dictator in the world.  This nation conceived itself on a principle, that all persons are equally endowed with rights we couldn’t give away, and that governments’ purpose is to secure those rights.  We rejected a standing government on this premise.  Thus, as John Quincy Adams said, “wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or will be unfurled, there will (America’s) heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.”  We believe all people have unalienable rights and cannot help but favor any who claim them, anywhere on the planet.  Promoting freedom is aggression for any dictator, and the most powerful nation identifies itself this way. 

This zero-sum logic leads to a clear, if we hope distant, danger.  Putin follows that logic in his warning not to “interfere in the Ukraine invasion and his alert of Russian nuclear forces.  On March 9, the Duma formalized his claim that the West is waging “economic warfare” on Russia, the same kind of sham threat he invoked for the invasion.  Putin points the nuclear gun at us, just as he pointed the invasion gun at Ukraine. 

If nuclear wars were deterred by the fear of Mutually Assured Destruction, Putin also saw America’s moral power destroy a Russian state.  He needs to erode that power.  Today he might settle for embarrassing us – if China brokers a peace, an effective dictatorship shows up free societies’ fecklessness.  But ultimately, the only difference between our threat of freedom and his threat of nuclear warfare is who gets destroyed.  In this calculus, a nuclear strike on an American target might help.  Saddling a free society with the choice whether or not to retaliate and risk Armageddon could make free society look either incompetent or immoral.  Putin could get a win.  It is an evil, but strategic, logic.

In Fiona Hill’s words, “yes he would, and he wants us to know that.”  We cannot know why, whether as negotiating maneuver, as key to some grand purpose, or simply to bully.  Michael O’Hanlon points out precedents in US-Soviet behavior.  Lawrence Freedman assesses Putin’s objectives as still strategically defensive.  But Americans cannot dismiss the threat because we think Putin would be crazy to act on it.  And people do copy others’ methods.  The question is how to deal with a strategically logical bully.

Would America abandon a nation under attack precisely for its freedom because Putin points the nuclear gun at us?  Are Americans ready to live under a nuclear threat over Ukraine?  How about for our creed?  We need to think about how we carry our founding tenets.  Our creed is the one thing American cannot afford to lose.  We must ensure its viability and our fidelity. 

This imperative puts certain demands on our responses.  First, our interest is not only to stop Putin but to keep fidelity to our principles.  Stopping him is urgent and imperative but he is not the only threat.  Losing a fully democratic – not just democratizing – Taiwan to PRC coercion would be at least as damaging as losing Ukraine.  Second, any compromise to our principles must be carefully weighed, or rejected outright.  Putin’s raw aggression may justify some easing of scruples, but engaging Venezuela to replace Russian oil – keeping prices down to limit our costs – risks moral debasement.  Third, we need to make clear that our sanctions aim at Putin’s regime, not the Russian people.  We must mount our opposition with judiciousness and clarity lest we paint ourselves as Putin would, interested really in power, not freedom.  Fourth, again, our standing rebuke will draw nuclear threats.  Our own nuclear force is a deterrent, but dictators will test it and confrontation always risks war. 

There is a logic that says Putin will eventually raise another threat, and not stopping him now will create a bigger problem later. By this logic we should defy Putin’s warnings, whether by setting a “no-fly zone” or sealing off western Ukraine from Russian troops.  Tempted as we may be, are we prepared for nuclear brinkmanship, unscrupulous countermoves, and casualties?  Have we devised ways to manage China relations, absorb economic costs, and deal with other painful effects?  The logic of calling the bluff is balanced by logics of prudence and preparation.  Convictions are meaningful only when followers shoulder the burdens, and we must acknowledge the burdens to truly shoulder them. 

Far from least, Americans need to commit at home as well as abroad, in our own lives and with each other, to realize our national identity of the self-evident truths.  We are tired, of pandemic, shortages, the presumptions of experts, the selfishness of the secure, the institutional callousness and personal meanness or condescension.  We are polarized by self seeking factions and their careerist leaders.  But the choices we demand, the equality we deserve, all rest on the creed we all share.  America cannot be the nation conceived in 1776 unless we validate its premises.  Tests are coming. 

Les pompiers sont en contact permanent avec les plus défavorisés. Ils assistent depuis une vingtaine d'années à la dégradation simultanée de leurs conditions de travail, sous l'effet des politiques de rigueur, et des conditions de vie de ceux qu'ils aident. Avec des conséquences politiques dont les (...) / France, Inégalités, Sécurité, Pauvreté, Protection sociale, Santé, Service public, Travail - 2017/03

Étroitement associé à la politique économique du président François Hollande, le candidat du mouvement En marche ! se présente pourtant comme un homme « hors système », loin des partis et des coteries. Cautionnée par la presse, la métamorphose de M. Emmanuel Macron en évangéliste politique masque mal la (...) / France, Banque, Économie, Élections, État, Finance, Idéologie, Personnalités, Politique, Néolibéralisme - 2017/03

Étrange démocratie française : depuis trente-cinq ans, les programmes des grands partis de gouvernement ne correspondent pas aux attentes économiques des classes populaires, qui représentent pourtant plus de la moitié du corps électoral. Contrairement aux idées en vogue sur l'effacement des clivages (...) / France, Citoyenneté, Élections, Idées, Parti politique, Politique, Société, Marxisme, Société civile - 2017/03

À bien des égards, les anciennes châtelaines auraient pu se reconnaître dans le tableau que M. François Fillon dresse des activités de son épouse. À une différence près, toutefois : les épouses d'autrefois n'étaient pas rémunérées. Quoi de plus naturel qu'un professionnel de la politique — tellement (...) / France, Femmes, Histoire, Inégalités, Travail, Corruption - 2017/03

La bannière européenne a perdu son éclat, tant les politiques de l'Union se sont révélées désastreuses. Partout ont fleuri des mouvements antisystème. Dans quelques pays, ils se situent résolument à gauche. Mais nombre d'entre eux font de la xénophobie leur fonds de commerce. / États-Unis, Extrême droite, (...) / États-Unis, Extrême droite, Idées, Immigrés, Nationalisme, Parti politique, Réfugiés, Relations internationales, Protectionnisme, Extrême gauche - 2017/03

On connaît peu, à l'Ouest, la fantaisie et le charme particuliers d'Odessa, grand port de la mer Noire, plaque tournante commerciale et pétrolière de l'Ukraine. Irena Wiszniewska, raconteuse d'histoires, inventrice d'un stratagème idéal pour sonder l'âme des individus et des peuples, y a succombé. / (...) / Russie, Ukraine, Culture, Histoire, Identité culturelle, Ville, Mer noire - 2012/04

Malgré la disparition de l'Union soviétique, malgré les appels à l'isolationnisme de certains élus américains, Washington ne renonce pas à ses objectifs planétaires considérés comme « vitaux » pour sa sécurité, notamment l'extension du « marché ». Les Etats-Unis continuent d'affirmer leur volonté d'assumer (...) / États-Unis (affaires extérieures), Libéralisme - 1993/11

Minorité ethnique, linguistique, culturelle et religieuse, les Assyro-Chaldéens des régions du sud et du sud-est de la Turquie (de Diyarbakir à Shemdinli) fuient vers l'Europe pour échapper aux persécutions des Turcs et des Kurdes. L'exode de cette communauté chrétienne a débuté en 1980, au lendemain (...) / Turquie, Minorité nationale, Europe - 1987/11

L'accord dont il est question ici, peu satisfaisant pour la technologie française, met en évidence les faiblesses structurelles de notre industrie, lourdes de conséquences. / France, Industrie, Mondialisation, Électronique - 1987/09 / France, Industrie, Mondialisation, Électronique - 1987/09

Très divisé, le conseil de sécurité des Nations unies a repris ses discussions sur l'Irak. Trois projets ont été soumis au débat, celui de la Grande-Bretagne, appuyé par les Etats-Unis, celui de la Chine et de la Russie et, enfin, un « document de travail » de la France. Le projet britannique pose de (...) / États-Unis (affaires extérieures), Irak - 1999/07

Le centenaire de la révolution de 1917 embarrasse les autorités russes, qui se félicitent de son retentissement mondial mais exècrent toute idée de renversement du pouvoir. Les rares commémorations doivent être l'occasion de réaffirmer l'importance de l'unité nationale, antidote à la lutte des classes. (...) / Russie, Histoire, Identité culturelle, Nationalisme, Révolution russe 1917 - 2017/03

Les premières discussions formelles des Nations unies pour interdire l'utilisation des systèmes d'armes létaux autonomes doivent se tenir l'été prochain à Genève. Sans un consensus pour encadrer les développements de l'intelligence artificielle en matière d'armement, la réalité pourrait bientôt (...) / Armée, Conflit, Défense, Industrie de l'armement, Mutation, Technologie - 2017/03

Fini le temps où les jeunes amateurs de musique occidentale devaient s'échanger sous le manteau les disques des groupes venus d'Europe ou d'Amérique. Les rockeurs les plus en vue sont désormais chinois et se produisent parfois sur les scènes internationales. Devenus très créatifs, ils découvrent les (...) / Asie, Chine, Culture, Industrie culturelle, Musique - 2017/03

La guerre du Golfe aura eu au moins le mérite de faire fonction de révélateur quant à l'état d'esprit de la société américaine. La docilité de la presse fut remarquable, parce que l'institution était censée représenter le « contre-pouvoir ». De même la furie guerrière et l'aboulie créatrice d'Hollywood, (...) / États-Unis (affaires intérieures) - 1991/07

La promotion de la langue française et de la diversité culturelle et linguistique figure en tête des missions de l'Organisation internationale de la francophonie. Écrivain sénégalais d'expression française, Boubacar Boris Diop écrit également en wolof depuis 2003. Il interpelle les auteurs africains : (...) / Afrique, Sénégal, Identité culturelle, Langue, Littérature, Francophonie - 2017/03

In this photo taken from video and released by the Russian Defense Ministry Press Service on Friday, Feb. 4, 2022, tanks and armored vehicles move during the Belarusian and Russian joint military drills at Brestsky firing range, Belarus. (Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP, File)

There have been several theories and muted responses to how to manage the Russian attack on Ukraine, but to this point the people of Ukraine have been mostly failed by the international community. Without truly committing to an effective plan of action, or delaying vital responses with full knowledge of the consequences, Ukraine has been effectively given to the winds.

Ukrainian leadership have been voicing a consistent message to us since well before this recent conflict, being met with deafening silence. When Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 was shot down over Ukraine by what was thought to be a BUK-M1 missile system in 2014, the victims were mostly ignored by the rest of the world after a few weeks. An incident like having an airliner full of innocents being destroyed would have contributed to the end of a regime as it did in the past with Korean Airlines Flight 007, but now victim’s families of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 and Ukraine International Flight 752 need to beg for the most basic application of justice, and are ignored in many cases by their own Government.

Following the details of how assistance to Ukraine is being applied, International Lawyer Mark Warner has shared information demonstrating that some of the aid is limited. It could be the case that due to the interests of some in power, aid is restrained to the point of being knowingly ineffective. Sanctions being put in by banks often ignore funds related to Russian oil and gas production. In a callous move, Russian oil and gas bans have been applied to crude oil that is not currently being imported, but ignore refined products that are still flowing to nations worldwide.

Oil and gas is the industry that runs money to Russia’s power elite, and as a result fuels the military with political leverage, petrol and ammunition. Effectively, each litre of gas you put in your tank is like giving a handful of bullets to a Russian soldier in Ukraine. The continued limitation of other oil producing nations in ignoring their ability to displace Russian fuel and dilute Russian leverage contributes greatly to the conflict at this very moment. Every delay in limiting the conflict results in lives lost.

The initial attack on Ukraine was done using common modern techniques, with cruise missiles and air to surface missile systems targeting Ukraine’s Air assets and their Air Defence network. Despite much bravado from international experts claiming the superiority of Russia’s military, much of Russia’s experience was based on using high tech missile systems and air power in Syria. Ground force operations were mostly clouded by their several difficult on the ground missions in Chechnya, many that were lost until the Russian Armed Forced decided to raze Grozny to the ground on their third major attempt. While more complex anti-tank equipment is making a great difference in the battles in Ukraine presently, they still lack many of the systems they have been asking for well before this conflict began. As has been pointed out by Ukraine’s leadership, they not only need ammunition, they need certain types of systems to stand up to Putin.

In this situation, the financial sanctions and displacement of Russian finances need to not only be done in a meaningful way, but rapidly. Delays are tantamount to death in the current siege of Ukraine, and masking real help with virtue is as bad as not helping at all.

To manage the threat of Russian Armour by inexperienced soldiers or average citizens, the anti-tank systems given to people need to be simple to use and effective. Advanced NATO systems will not be easily used by those without experience, and RPG-7 or other simple systems need to be sent to Ukraine to help over the next few days.

While Stinger and SA-7/SA-14 shoulder launched MANPADS are being used in Ukraine right now against air threats, they are not wholly effective against the protection of the SU-25 ground attack aircraft, faster attack aircraft and standard countermeasures. Shoulder launched missiles cannot stop long range missiles like the OKA or Iskander missiles that are being used to target Ukraine’s defenses. Systems like the 2S6 Tunguska and TOR-M1 and NATO systems like the Roland and the Patriot systems are what is needed desperately in Ukraine at this very moment. None of the coming supplies seem to address this crucial need, and with so many delays in supplying Ukraine’s Armed Forces with lethal weapons while ground is being lost, there is little chance that Russia’s Armed Forces would allow the transfer of those critical weapons systems to the front.

The lack of assistance to Ukraine over the period from 2014 until 2021 is notable, as it demonstrates the clear and present ignorance on foreign policy issues of those outside of Eastern Europe. The knowledge of the coming war in 2022 was at no point met with enough physical assistance in effectively blunting an attack, and initially rode on a narrative of hopelessness as an excuse for absent policy. Despite the knowledge and experience from countries like Poland in assisting Ukraine’s defense posture and the incredible aid given to Ukrainians fleeing the violence, intended delays and crumbs of assistance from those outside of the region has not reflected the language coming from average citizens all over the world claiming their support for the Ukrainian people. With so little attention acknowledging other human rights atrocities in the last few years, future generations will surely not look kindly on us.

Le dialogue américano-soviétique au sujet des euromissiles a suscité en France certaines confusions qui sont bien loin de favoriser une claire prise de conscience des véritables intérêts de l'Europe. Poursuivant un débat engagé dans « Le Monde diplomatique » du mois de février, M. Michel Jobert fait ici (...) / Sécurité européenne, URSS, Relations Est-Ouest, Stratégie - 1987/05

Ukrainian civilians practice throwing Molotov cocktails to defend the city of Zhytomyr as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continued on March 1, 2022.

Most of you will have heard of Sun Tzu- the Chinese author and military tactician who rose to prominence in the 4th century BC. Some of you may be familiar with his most prominent work- The Art of War. 

By now, you have heard about Vladmir Putin’s unwarranted aggression and despicable drive towards conquest in Ukraine. This expansionism has led to levels of violence in Europe that have not been seen since World War II,  and has forced the entire global community into a heightened state of military readiness. When troubling times like these arise, it can be useful to turn to trusted sources of guidance, and Sun Tzu’s Art of War is no exception.

While the Ukrainian force have achieved early successes in slowing Putin’s advance, the bulk of the fighting is yet to take place and the end result is far from determined. In the very first chapter of The Art of War Sun Tzu provides Seven Searching Questions through which he suggests we evaluate the outcome of a conflict. 

First, we are told to ask “Which sovereign is imbued with the moral law?” I understand this as a way of assessing morale and discipline. Which leader has the ability to rally and unify their nation behind their efforts?

Here, there can be little doubt that the advantage goes to the Ukranians, who have shown a resolve beyond the world’s highest expectations. Reports suggest that Ukranians both young and old, men and women, have rallied in support of their nation’s defense and have begun to form local militias and take on the auspices of military order. On the other hand, there are consistent reports about the lack of both training and low morale among Putin’s forces on the front and growing domestic dissent from all walks of life in Russia. The Ukranians appear far more unified behind President Zelensky than the Russians seem committed to Putin, and the loyalty that Zelensky has earned comes from respect rather than through fear.

Second, we are asked, “Which of the generals have the most ability?” There is no misunderstanding about  what Sun Tzu is asking here, but we do not yet quite know the answer as it pertains to this conflict.

There have been reports that Putin’s forces have been consistently undersupplied and that Putin’s generals struggle to communicate honestly with him. More than that, Putin’s forces have underperformed relative to their numerical advantage. Needless to say, these failures have resulted in the slow Russian advance that we have seen in the early days of the conflict. The quality of Ukrainian tactical leadership, however, is yet to be fully put on display. The United States and other democratic partners can aid Ukrainian generals by supplying timely, relevant battlefield information. With full engagement from democratic partners, Ukrainian generals may rise to the occasion, but we would be overly optimistic to assume that Putin will not address these early failures in tactics and logistics over time.

Third, Sun Tzu asks “With whom lie the advantages of the heaven and the earth?” Here, we are being asked to assess the battleground on which the conflict is being fought and the impact that weather will have on the fighting. 

Though Sun Tzu’s words may need parsing, there is no doubt that the Ukrainians, fighting from their homes (sometimes too literally) have a better sense of the terrain and are better prepared to use it to their advantage. Urban warfare is notoriously bloody, just as it is notoriously difficult for the aggressor. Similarly, as winter turns to spring, mud will increase the difficulty of Putin’s heavy artillery movements. Both literally and figuratively, the heavens and earth side with Ukraine’s defense.

Fourth, Sun Tzu asks us “On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced?” Unfortunately, this question continues the trend of Sun Tzu’s most direct questions resulting in our most murky answers.

Where the Ukrainian resistance is concerned, the idea of “discipline” as Sun Tzu means it is tough to evaluate. The formal Ukrainian military’s early success in deterring Putin’s aggression suggests that the troops are disciplined, but as the fighting takes place more and more in the streets, individual Ukranians defending their homes will likely lack a formal sense of “military discipline”. Russia’s sense of military discipline is more conventional, but there are serious questions about what that discipline entails and from where it originates. Certainly some (though not all) Russian soldiers on the front lines of the fighting have shown the “discipline”(however corrupted that sense of discipline may be) to carry out war crimes. However, if this discipline is derived from fear that Putin’s regime will punish desertion, it may falter as the Putin regime shows increasing signs of domestic cracks. Ultimately, time will tell if the righteousness of the Ukrainian cause will make up for their lack of formal military training. In either case, Ukraine’s democratic partners can bolster Ukrainian discipline by highlighting the righteousness of their cause in opposition to Putin’s growing list of war crimes. 

Fifth, we are asked the most direct question- “Which side has the stronger army?”

Putin has the stronger army– barring direct involvement from Ukraine’s democratic partners.  For those of us hoping to see a successful resistance to Putin’s aggression, this is by far the most challenging obstacle to overcome. This advantage is so flagrant that it has allowed Putin’s forces to maneuver in ways that would be easily punishable by a more heavily equipped foe- most notably the ever growing military caravan that has begun to surround Kieve. A Ukrainian resistance might still prove successful, but it will take place with a disadvantage of both soldiers and weaponry

Sixth, we are asked “On which side are the officers and men more highly trained?”. For those of us not seated in  the Pentagon, Kieve, or Moscow this is yet another difficult question to answer, but there are publicly available reports that can shed some light on the matter.

Reports suggest that Ukraine’s forces are relatively small, but highly effective. Many regiments of the Ukrainian army have undergone training with American partners following the 2014 invasion of Crimea, and stand prepared to face Putin’s offensive. Russian forces, on the other hand, appear to be largely conscripts, some of whom were brought to the front lines under false pretenses. The size and munitions possessed by Putin’s forces may eventually overwhelm the smaller Ukrainian force, but reports suggest that the average Ukrainian soldier has undergone more rigorous training than the average Russian fighting to advance Putin’s wicked cause. As the conflict rages on, democratic partners can aid the Ukrainian cause by providing tactical assessments and training exercises to maintain a heightened degree of readiness.

Seventh, Sun Tzu asks what might be his most important question, “In which army is their greater consistency in both rewards and punishment?” Yet again, we are being asked to consider the military motivation of both armies. 

More than that, we are being asked to evaluate how the stakes presented by the conflict will inspire the fighting that takes place on the ground. The stakes for the Ukrainian people could not be more clear- they are fighting for the future of their homeland as a free, independent, and democratic nation. As the fighting continues, their fighting will be inspired by the destruction of their homes and their desire to avenge loved ones who were killed or wounded in this senseless conflict. Both reward and punishment are crystal clear for Ukrain’s resistance. Individual Russians on the front lines are fighting for something somewhat less clear. Many are being told that they are fighting a “denazification” campaign, though that justification falls apart upon meeting with any honest intellectual resistance. Beyond that, individual Russians are fighting and dying for the deranged ambitions of a tyrant who has led their nation to economic ruin and global disrepute. 

On the basis of Sun Tzu’s Seven Searching Questions, the Ukrainians have three clear advantages- a “sovereign imbued with moral law”, “the advantages of heaven and earth”, and “greater consistency in both rewards and punishments”. Putin’s invading force has one clear advantage- its superior size. 

The remaining three matters – good generalship, discipline, and training all remain to be seen. However, in each instance Ukraine’s democratic partners can support the Ukrainian effort without a direct military intervention- through intelligence, international support, and armed assistance respectively. If the world’s democracies can turn these “toss-ups” into Ukraine’s favor, The Art of War may provide a pathway for Ukraine’s valiant defenders to win the day over Putin’s imperialistic ambition.

—

Peter Scaturro is the Director of Studies at the Foreign Policy Association

 

ZHUHAI, CHINA NOVEMBER 18, 2019: Fishing vessels in the South China Sea. Artyom Ivanov/TASS (Photo by Artyom IvanovTASS via Getty Images)

      China rapidly grew into the world’s second largest economy after opening its doors in 1978. The emerging power’s economic success allows it to continually improve its conventional and nuclear capabilities. A rising China poses a threat to U.S. allies in East Asia, most notably Japan. Japan falls under the umbrella of U.S. extended nuclear deterrence – if China acts against Japan, the United States will be obligated to respond. Japan’s alliance with the United States remains its main defense. The Trump administration weakened the credibility of the U.S. commitment to Japan, both in the eyes of the Chinese and the Japanese. As such, the current U.S. administration must reconsider its policy options to negate a rising China. Biden should consider three policy options: encourage Japan to develop nuclear weapons, increase U.S. conventional forces in defense of Japan, or adopt a grand strategy of neo-isolationism. I ultimately recommend that Biden reinforces the U.S. conventional commitment to Japan, while emphasizing the defensive nature of that commitment.

        The development of a Japanese nuclear arsenal would create an effective deterrent against China. A nuclear threat must be credible in order for deterrence to work. The previous administration’s behavior towards U.S. allies weakened the credibility of U.S. extended deterrence to Japan. Trump’s administration pulled out of multiple agreements, including the Paris Climate Agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. China may feel more empowered against Japan if it believes that the United States will not retaliate. By developing a nuclear arsenal, Japan would be less reliant on the United States. China would see the development of nuclear weapons as a credible threat and be less likely to act aggressively. The United States could continue supporting Japan without shouldering as much of the cost of defense. The development of Japanese nuclear weapons would also benefit U.S. relations with North Korea. In 2017, North Korea tested missiles able to reach mainland United States. Japan is situated approximately 700 miles from North Korea — if a nearby U.S. ally acquires nuclear weapons, it would deter North Korea from acting aggressively towards the United States.

         Encouraging nuclear development in East Asia comes at a great risk for both the United States and the international community. It could create a security dilemma domino effect – if Japan builds up its arsenal in response to insecurity created by China, China and North Korea will become increasingly insecure. These two nuclear states would in turn increase their own nuclear capabilities. Even current non-nuclear states could see the spread of nuclear weapons as a threat – South Korea may consider acquiring nuclear weapons. Encouraging nuclear development in Japan risks creating an arms race across Asia. The creation of more nuclear weapons, whether or not they are intended offensively, would increase the likelihood of nuclear war. The more weapons that circulate in the region, the higher the possibility that someone will use them. 

         Alternatively, the United States could decide to increase the capability of conventional forces dedicated to protecting Japan. This policy route would act within the boundaries of international norms; it does not threaten the use of nuclear weapons. Since the focus will be solely on conventional capabilities, this policy will reinforce the United States’ military commitment to Japan without encouraging proliferation. Additionally, this option greatly reduces the risk of igniting a nuclear arms race. Nuclear states will not be faced with an immediate nuclear threat, and the security dilemma on nuclear level will be much less severe.

         Increasing conventional capabilities does risk creating a security dilemma on a conventional level. The reinforcement of the U.S. conventional commitment to Japan could provoke China, who may decide to respond with conventional warfare. Considering the strength of Chinese forces, a conventional strike could be debilitating for Japan. On top of the economic costs of reinforcing conventional forces, the United States may have to face the human cost of a war with China. Conventional wars have the potential to turn nuclear, especially when nuclear states are involved. Considering both China and the United States possess nuclear weapons, a conventional war involving between the two has an increased probability of escalating.

         The United States could adopt a grand strategy of neo-isolationism, which would prevent U.S. involvement in an East Asian war. Neo-isolationism infers that the United States would step back from its alliances in Europe and Asia. The United States would no longer bear the burden of protecting Japan. It cost the United States nearly $34 billion to keep military forces in Japan from 2016 to 2019, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. By ending alliances, the United States could reallocate billions of dollars to domestic issues. Because of the size and survivability of U.S. nuclear weapons, the United States would still maintain a sufficient nuclear deterrent against its adversaries.

         A shift to neo-isolationism would critically impact the United States’ reputation. The international community generally dislikes when states withdraw from prior commitments, as exemplified by Trump’s time in office. The United States would lose access to the various benefits of alliances – the economic benefits of trade, additional military aid, and support from the international community. The most significant cost of neo-isolationism is the loss of influence in the international community. Right now, the United States acts as a global hegemon. The respect and economic power held by the United States allows it to impose its influence globally. If the United States resigns from its commitments, it would have a harder time influencing other states to act within its interests. The United States would thus resort to military power to exert influence, which would be costly and inconvenient.

         The damage done to U.S. alliances by the Trump administration begs the question – how will the Biden administration address this issue? Will it continue down a treacherous road towards isolationism, or will it re-emphasize its commitments? In his first year of presidency, Biden has sent mixed messages. He rejoined the Paris Climate Accords and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but he withdrew forces from a 20-year commitment in Afghanistan.  Biden’s alliances in East Asia will deeply impact how China behaves throughout the rest of this administration. As such, Biden’s administration should consider the second policy option. Reinforcing the U.S. conventional commitment to Japan will emphasize the United States’ dedication to its alliances without risking nuclear proliferation. Biden should simultaneously emphasize the defensive nature of this commitment to avoid exacerbating the security dilemma in Asia.