There is a growing threat of a two-front war with Russia and China due to their growing superiority over the United States in terms of nuclear weapons, electromagnetic pulses (EMP) and cyber weapons. Despite this growing strategic military inferiority of the United States, many, if not most, American policymakers continue to believe that the United States is the most powerful military power on Earth. the US electricity grid to deter a catastrophic attack from Russia or China. American leaders must reject their false and idealistic idea of a safe and secure unipolar world in which the United States is universally recognized as the most powerful superpower. The reality is quite different. America now faces increasingly difficult, limited and uncomfortable choices, and desperately needs a new grand, forward-thinking strategy that thwarts, divides and disrupts this budding alliance between two nuclear superpowers.
To address this unprecedented national security dilemma and ensure America’s survival, America’s leaders must replace their quest for hegemony, an outdated and failed grand strategy, with a strategy of strategic withdrawal and offshore balancing. A strategic withdrawal strategy would conserve America’s precious blood and treasure as well as its limited military resources and refocus them on defending essential and vital American interests. This would reduce the chances of starting an unnecessary war with opponents of the US nuclear superpower, leading to a safer, more secure and, hopefully, more peaceful world.
The entrenchment would aim to ensure that no major power dominates Europe and Northeast Asia. However, this would force allies of the United States to shoulder the primary security burden in their respective regions and rely on local powers to balance regional hegemons such as Russia and China. US military forces would remain stationed on the horizon, either offshore or within the United States, avoiding the forward-deployed posture where US forces essentially serve as “trigger wires” that ensure entanglement. of the United States in foreign wars in the event of aggression, but are insufficient to defend itself. allies of the United States or even to deter such aggression in the first place. An offshore balancing strategy would restore America’s freedom of action to choose which wars to participate in and which to avoid, as such wars could quickly and unexpectedly escalate to the nuclear level.
Accordingly, in order to reduce the growing risk of the United States becoming entangled in major power wars that would further expose United States territory to nuclear / EMP attack, the United States would withdraw its military forces from Europe, from Africa and Asia, including Middle East. It would also refrain from invading and occupying other countries or engaging in nation-building efforts. The United States would only send expeditionary forces if the nations within its sphere of influence or those constituting its vital interests, such as Western Europe and Japan, were under imminent threat of enemy attack. An exception could be made to keep a limited number of US troops deployed in Germany as a cover to deter possible Russian aggression against Western Europe – in recognition of the unique importance this region has to the US economy and industry. .
A reduced US military presence abroad would further reduce support for anti-American terrorism and, more importantly, significantly reduce the incentive for Russia and China to ally to counterbalance the United States. As part of this strategy, America would ultimately abandon its failed global war on terror, which wasted billions of dollars in unsuccessful counterinsurgency wars in the Middle East. Instead, after two decades of distraction in which Russia and China surpassed American capabilities in virtually every key area of strategic military technology, the United States would finally continue to modernize and rebuild its nuclear arsenal. strategy and their strategic defensive capabilities.
This theory of entrenchment is not new either; He has been championed by some of America’s greatest political scientists such as John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, Robert Pape, and Christopher Layne. In addition, the historical analysis demonstrates that most of the major powers in acute decline have adopted fallback strategies and have achieved significantly greater success than states that have implemented other policies.
The adoption of a major offshore balancing strategy could be accompanied by the continuation of an American diplomatic “peace offensive” and the negotiation of a global agreement. sphere of influence agreement that protects vital US interests to avoid the growing likelihood of an involuntary and cataclysmic war with Russia or China. The last sphere of influence agreement was negotiated by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet dictator Josef Stalin at the Yalta conference in February 1945. He succeeded in keeping the peace of the great power in Europe for more than half a century, thanks in large part to the United States’ maintenance of “crude” nuclear parity with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War.
A global sphere of influence between the United States, Russia and China could have similar success for the whole world. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that one of his main foreign policy goals is the conclusion of a “new Yalta” agreement. In such a scheme, the world would be divided into regions, each with its own dominant regional hegemon, with the primary objective of promoting the stability and peace of the great powers.
Under such an agreement, the United States would retain the greatest sphere of influence, including the entire Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, which would remain protected by the American “nuclear umbrella”. The Russian sphere of influence would include the former Soviet republics, Serbia, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya. China’s sphere of influence could include North Korea, Taiwan, South China Sea, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the four Marxist / Communist nations of Southeast Asia, and half a dozen nations. African women currently ruled by Marxist / Communist dictators. If the American leaders accepted such a plan and promised that no American troops would be deployed in Eastern Europe, except in the event of Russian aggression, Russia, having achieved its objective of ensuring military security along its western border, could focus eastward towards the growing threat from China.
As former Chinese general Sun Tzu wisely stated in The art of War, “So what is of the utmost importance in warfare is attacking the strategy of the enemy. Then, the best is to disrupt its alliances through diplomacy. Today, the United States might even agree to withdraw from NATO, which would continue to function as an alliance led by Europe rather than the United States, in exchange for a Russian withdrawal from its alliance with China and the end of any Sino-Russian army. cooperation and mutual aid. Such a comprehensive deal would recognize and respect the vital interests of the three nuclear superpowers and resolve any major outstanding disputes. This would minimize the potential risks of military conflict in the interest of preserving the peace of the great powers.
As Graham Allison Explain in an editorial published by Foreign Affairs, the preservation of this peace is essential to the national security of the United States:
Even a conventional war that could degenerate into nuclear war risks catastrophe. . . . In the future, American policymakers will have to let go of unattainable aspirations for the worlds they dreamed of and accept that spheres of influence will remain a central part of geopolitics. This acceptance will inevitably be a long, confusing and heartbreaking process. Yet it could also bring a wave of strategic creativity – an opportunity for nothing less than a fundamental overhaul of the conceptual arsenal of US national security.
Russia and China already have their own spheres of influence, Allison notes, whether American leaders recognize them or not. The repeated military incursions by the United States into these spheres of influence since the end of the Cold War (notably through the expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe in general and in the Baltic States in particular) have pushed the two to ally themselves more closely militarily.
Additionally, the United States has security commitments with more than a fifth of all countries, leaving their seriously overwhelmed military man. To remedy this problem, another more viable and politically acceptable alternative to reaching a comprehensive deal with Russia and China would be for the Biden administration to unilaterally withdraw US military forces deployed in front of Eastern Europe. , Central Asia, Middle East, South China. Sea, Japan and Korean Peninsula. American leaders continue to believe that the more allies the United States has, the safer and more secure the country. However, commitments to wage unconventional and potentially nuclear wars with Russia and China against nations that are not vital US interests create far more risks to US national security than benefits. . The Biden administration should subject all US alliances to a cost-benefit analysis to determine which ones strengthen US national security and which put it at greater risk of being drawn into great power conflicts. for secondary interests. America could give up all its security commitments that do not pass the test.
Most urgently, US leaders must immediately inform Moscow and Beijing that America will not intervene militarily in any potential war against Taiwan or the former Soviet republics (all of which are indefensible anyway), essentially forgoing future US military interventions. within their spheres of influence. Such actions would strengthen the national security of the United States and greatly reduce the chances of an attack by Russia and China on American territory by reducing the perceived threat to Moscow and Beijing while increasing the likelihood of rifts and dissension. between them, potentially dividing and disrupting their alliance over time. As history shows, nothing has united Russia and China more than America’s short-sighted attempts to project its might into Eastern Europe and East Asia and its efforts to become the dominant superpower. Without America arousing their anger, their historically confrontational relationship could have resumed long ago.