16 Nov Everything, Everywhere, All at Once – Part 3

“Life is a competition between predators and prey.” – The Lonely Realist

Whether in the animal kingdom or geopolitics, you’re either a predator … or you’re dinner. Which one is America?

TLR earlier this month wrote that Americans feel overwhelmed by wars and the potential for wars. They want out. But why should they be concerned? After all, America is has been the world’s apex predator. No other country has matched its military power or until recently its resolve. From Harry Truman to George HW Bush, America pursued a policy of “peace through strength,” which President Reagan elegantly summarized in his 1983 Address to the Nation: “Since the dawn of the atomic age, [America has] sought to reduce the risk of war by maintaining a strong deterrent…. ‘Deterrence’ means making sure any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States, or our allies, or our vital interests, concludes that the risks outweigh any potential gains.” What then would Reagan think of America’s retreat from alliances and international interests, its shrinking foreign entanglements and commitments, its skepticism about military re-armament, its enemies’ successful America-focused cyber-wars, proxy-wars and preparations for further wars, and a Federal budget deficit that devotes more to interest payments than to defense?

President Eisenhower crafted a Post-WWII Pax Americana that cemented America as global hegemon, the ultimate predatory “Leader of the Free World,” a role to which today’s America no longer aspires. John F. Kennedy wrote that America is “A Nation of Immigrants,” and the fact is that JFK’s America was “the” nation of immigrants, Ronald Reagan’s “shining city on a hill.” That “shining city” was emblematic of American ambitions, drawing aspiring people from everywhere. Today’s America no longer wants to wear the mantle of global leadership. It no longer strives to be a “shining” example that attracts “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” It also no longer aspires to be a fearsome global predator whose every action deters the aggressions of its adversaries. That’s why America’s enemies see today’s America as potential prey. So does much of the rest of the world.

While America has been the poster child for free trade and internationalism, and while the Statue of Liberty has epitomized the American ideals of freedom and opportunity, today’s America is openly hostile to immigrants, is a leading opponent of free trade, has abandoned any pretense of global economic integration, has lost interest in maintaining its global leadership role, and is skeptical of the value of supporting its allies and alliances. Americans, it seems, feel safe in their North American isolation, protected by the perceived insularity of two vast oceans. Reminiscent of the 1930s, no?

America’s retreat from the world stage arises in part from its military misadventures in Vietnam, Iran, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan, and its exhausting decades-long struggles with China, Russia and North Korea. Americans wonder what tangible benefits America has received from its foreign involvements and why its allies aren’t carrying a greater portion of the load. They fear repeating the mistakes of the recent past and, as a consequence, Americans favor isolationism. Their frustrations, fears and doubts are due in part to their personal situations, in part to Americans’ failure to absorb the lessons of history, and in part to failures in American leadership – recognizing that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

What does that portend for the incoming Trump Administration? President Trump will face immediate foreign policy challenges in Ukraine and the Middle East. America’s enemies, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and their allies – the Axis of the Sanctioned – will not be deterred by threats of more sanctions…, nor will they be seriously impacted. Each has blunted sanctions efforts over the last 8 years by building bilateral and international supply chains and by using in-kind swap arrangements to side-step currency restrictions. The prior Trump Administration policy of “maximum sanctions pressure” yielded little. Such a policy would be even less successful in today’s sanctions-busting world.

Ukraine is likely to be the new Administration’s first foreign policy test. The President-elect has vowed to resolve Ukraine on day one, the responsibility for which likely will fall on Secretary of State-designate Marco Rubio. A former war hawk, Mr. Rubio now says that America needs to cease funding this “stalemate war” and move on, “allowing Russia to control part of Ukraine.” The reality facing Mr. Rubio is that Ukraine is losing the war…, and will lose it quickly without American backing, a fact well-understood by Vladimir Putin, whose numerically-superior armed forces and munitions resources have been overwhelming Ukraine’s defenses. The Russian economy has become a war machine, a concerning reality to its neighbors. Without a pledge of increased American logistical support, it is difficult to see how Mr. Rubio can negotiate a lasting Ukrainian peace (as TLR warned in February 2022). The possibility that Mr. Rubio might use a “big stick” approach to Russia, however, appears unlikely, belied by National Security Adviser-designate Mike Waltz’s pronouncements that the Trump Administration intends to quickly press for a negotiated peace where Europe will become primarily responsible for Ukrainian security: “The era of Ukraine’s blank check from Congress is over.” The question, therefore, is whether the Trump Administration will be able to strike a deal with Vladimir Putin that does not result in further Russian empire-building expansionism. How will Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Finland, etc., react if Russia is conceded a piece of Ukraine and operationally retains a hyper-militarized economy with a standing army hardened by successful war-making? How might such a settlement impact on potential Chinese aggressions, North Korean nuclear ambitions, and Iranian Middle East goals? It is the latter question that is likely to become the Trump Administration’s second test. How much might the Trump Administration be willing to involve itself in the defense of Israel and the destruction of the Islamic Republic? And then there’s China and Taiwan, North Korea, Sub-Saharan Africa, Arctic and Antarctic resources….

Be that as it may, as The Economist observed, President-elect Trump has assured Americans that under his Administration, Americans will be able to “get on with their lives free from the weight of foreign responsibilities,” adding that, “and yet, two world wars and the ruinous collapse of trade in the 1930s say that America does not have that luxury.” Peggy Noonan has written that “People say they fear authoritarianism from Mr. Trump, latent or overt fascism, a reign of intolerance. My fears are in the area of foreign policy. Mr. Trump no doubt believes he’s ready for a major foreign crisis, but he’s never had one.” Stay tuned.

TLR Index

Prior TLR commentaries can be found here.

Finally (from a good friend)