Many individuals disengage when they encounter phrases such as “national security strategy.” In some ways, this somewhat complex terminology appears to be deliberately confusing and seems to be the domain solely of “experts.”
However, national security impacts us all, thus raising significant concerns.
Since World War II ended and the Cold War began, national security strategy has centered around three essentialprinciples. The first is maintaining a robust economy. The second involves forming alliances to safeguard against common foes like the Soviet Union. Third, it encompasses the ability to avert conflict, particularly in the thermonuclear era, when warfare could arise within society.
LeftLet’s not kid ourselvesIt was essential for engaging in combat and securing victories, assuming triumph was achievable.
These foundational principles are quite logical. While numerous wars and disputes have been averted worldwide, the confrontation between the West and the Soviet Union was constrained.
In fact, I contend that the military capabilities of the U.S. and its allies contributed significantly to upholding the irrational aspects of the Soviet regime. Mikhail Gorbachevassumed leadershipIn 1986, he aimed to reform and modernize his nation.Perestroika(restructuring)glasnost(transparency).
Nonetheless, the fragile system struggled to endure outside pressure for change;1989.
The collapse posed a significant dilemma for the United States and the West. What role would the new Russia play?Will it be competentin becoming an ally to Western democracy? If so, what strategies would facilitate that goal?
Nearly 40 years after the Soviet Union’s dissolution, the response became evident: “Nyet!”
Per U.S. strategy, Russia isan “acute”“threat while China is deemeda “pacing”threat. The difficulty lies in that neither term accurately captures the situation.
“Acute” implies “alarming,” “frightening,” or “serious.” It can also denote “keen,” “intelligent,” or “sharp.” “Pacing,” on the other hand, suggests moderation and steadiness.
Hence, it is unsurprising that the resulting strategies are flawed owing to the ambiguity surrounding risks.
The currentNational Defense Strategyhas remained relatively unchanged since the original 2014 Obama administration version, aiming to counter the prospective threats posed by China and Russia amidst competition, deterrence, and conflict. It prompts a series of critical inquiries.
Regarding competition, how is it defined and gauged? No clear definition exists. If assessed economically, Russia simply falls short. China presents a challenge, but which elements qualify as the pacing threat?
As for deterrence, what exactly is being deterred? China continues to extend its reach, posing threats to Taiwan, while amassing a formidable navy, at least on paper. Russia was not dissuaded from threatening Crimea in 2014, invading Ukraine three years ago, or contemplating the use of nuclear arms.
If conflict arises, it could involve nuclear and thermonuclear weaponry. By definition, thermonuclear weapons are 1,000 times stronger than nuclear bombs. Who could determine the victor in a thermonuclear or nuclear conflict? Likely, no one possesses that answer.
The astute individual inquires, “Can we enhance this situation?”
This necessitates accurately identifying the threat and formulating a strategy that surpasses vague terms like “competition,” “deterrence,” or “defeat.” It calls for beginning with core principles, comprehending the specific threats posed before maneuvering against strategies involving China or Russia.
We have long maintained that the most significant risk we face arises from “.A sweeping wave of chaos and devastation“wherever it pertains to humanity or the environment. Prevention, rather than deterrence, is essential in both instances. Attack is seldom anticipated by the adversary, perceiving it as inevitable, and averting a pandemic, calamitous storm, or earthquake is largely improbable.
Whether a massive wave of chaos and destruction is relevant or not, the current structure is essential. Trump’s three pillars for strategyAdministrativetariffs and tax policies are inflicting considerable harm on the economy. The “America First” policy is eroding partnerships. And we have yet to prevent any threats.
This necessitates a thorough reassessment of national security and strategy. However, the likelihood of adopting a truly fundamental principle approach in the present highly polarized political climate is non-existent.
The pivotal question is whether this nation can undertake such endeavors. Ultimately, our collective future may depend on it.
Dr. Harlan Ullmanserves as Arnaud Deborchgrave Distinguished Columnist at UPI, Senior Advisor to the Atlantic Council of Washington, DC, the chair of two private companies, and is the author of Principles of Shock and Appreciation. Alongside him, David Richards is the co-author of the forthcoming book, “Arc of Failure: Definitive Strategic Thinking Can Change a Dangerous World.”
