Power Matters More Than Diplomacy.

"Are we in a new Cold War, and if so, who is winning?

As policy makers wrestle with the consequences of the sharpening geopolitical rivalry between the U.S. and its allies and partners on the one hand and the Sino-Russian-Iranian axis on the other, there is not a lot of consensus about the nature of the conflict. For some, we are engaged in a new Cold War. Others warn that the current situation is so different from the long struggle with the Soviet Union that the Cold War label doesn't fit.

This is a tempest in a teapot. Call it Cold War II, call it a global Game of Thrones, call it a new era of geopolitical competition. Whatever we call this thing, our goal must be the same that we had in the Cold War: to preserve the American way of life and the security of our allies without triggering nuclear war. But the world situation is more complicated today than it was in 1948, and the U.S. and China have economic ties that we never had with the Soviet Union. Our approach to the contest will have to take these complexities into account. Competition over resources like rare-earth metals, competition in cutting-edge technologies, competition in space, alliance building, military power projection -- these are all part of the larger struggle.

It's harder to see who is winning. In the realm of diplomacy, the U.S. for the moment seems to be running rings around its opponents. Last week's trilateral leaders' summit among the U.S., Japan and South Korea was an unqualified success. Driven by mutual concerns about China's growing military might and diplomatic assertiveness, the two most important technological and economic powerhouses of Northeast Asia have, at least for now, buried the hatchet to work more closely with the U.S.

China responded to the summit with fury. Promoting hostility between Japan and South Korea has long been a Chinese priority. That looks increasingly difficult as South Korean public opinion reacts to Beijing's aggressive diplomacy -- and its support for North Korea. According to the Pew Research Center, 77% of South Koreans in a recent survey expressed unfavorable attitudes toward China and 79% had favorable views of the U.S. Attitudes toward Japan are changing, with South Koreans under 30 significantly more open than their elders to deepening relations. With China and Russia backing North Korea, Seoul seems likely to continue looking to the U.S. and Japan for defense in its dangerous neighborhood.

There was other bad news for China last week as its economic outlook worsened. With the real-estate bubble seemingly imploding, local governments awash in debt, and sky-high youth unemployment, analysts are ratcheting down their expectations of Chinese growth, and some believe that the size of China's economy will never surpass that of the U.S.

Yet Beijing continues to advance. It is building an airstrip on an island it seized from Vietnam. Work on a naval base in Cambodia that could accommodate one of China's new aircraft carriers moves steadily forward. China's grip on the oceans and skies around Taiwan is tightening as Beijing steps up military exercises in response to Taiwanese Vice President Lai Ching-te's recent "transit stops" in the U.S.

We can see something similar in Ukraine. The Biden administration has triumphed in the salons but fumbled on the field. It has built an extraordinary diplomatic coalition to support Ukraine, but the clinking of champagne glasses and the cascade of communiques can't conceal the reality of stagnation on the ground. Russia has not only, for the time being, frustrated Ukraine's much-anticipated counteroffensive. The Wagner Group, beleaguered at home though it may be, has successfully extended Russian influence across Africa even as it helps Bashar al-Assad consolidate his position in Syria.

This is all too reminiscent of American policy in Afghanistan, where for years American diplomats dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's, coordinated a complex international coalition, pursued a political and military agenda ranging from counterinsurgency to women's empowerment, and outclassed the Taliban's feeble efforts at tasks like economic development -- only to suffer humiliating defeat at the end.

During the post-Cold War decades when American power was largely uncontested around the world, too many American policy makers forgot that our adversaries are impressed by our will and power rather than our virtue or diplomatic dexterity. Franklin D. Roosevelt understood that it didn't matter how many inspiring ideas went into the Atlantic Charter or how brilliant the design of the Bretton Woods monetary system was if the U.S. and its allies couldn't defeat Germany and Japan on the ground.

We need to recover that realism today. Diplomacy matters, but power matters more." [1]

 

It is time for us to elect a government in Lithuania that would ensure Lithuania's neutrality in Eastern and Western conflicts. This can allow us to skillfully use our geographical position between East and West for economic development. Only a well-organized economy can ensure the prosperity of independent Lithuania and the support of the majority of us, Lithuanians, for our small state with a long and honorable history.

 

1. Power Matters More Than Diplomacy. Walter Russell Mead. 
Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 22 Aug 2023: A.13.