As NATO eyes Ukraine and diplomatic manoeuvres in the Indo-Pacific create a stranglehold around China, the new cold war seems to be heating up as the US re-implements its old cold war strategies
Relations between Washington and Moscow have been degrading since the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, and tensions with Beijing have escalated since 2020 due to Covid-19, the Hong Kong national security law, and Chinese brinkmanship over Taiwan. The US has responded by advancing NATO interests in Eastern Europe, and by increasing its presence across the Indo-Pacific, tightening the noose around both Russia and China.
These seemingly new geostrategic movements date back to the mid 20th century, where three strategies were conceptualised, rollback, containment, and détente. Out of these stratagems; containment seems to be the go-to in this new 21st century cold war. A question arises, however, is containment the correct policy for the US to pursue, and will it work?
NATO in Ukraine?
As Russia annexed Crimea and sponsored separatists in Donbas, the US and the EU were caught off guard, incapable of doing anything but sanction Russia, sanctions that did little to avert Russian expansion. The solution according to Ukraine is to join up with NATO, and the US seems to agree.
Russia in turn has deployed 100,000 troops on its Ukraine border and has demanded that NATO stay out of Ukraine, meeting with US officials and all but snubbing the EU and Ukraine itself. In the eyes of the Kremlin, there is no difference between NATO and the US, and fears of NATO stem from having American troops on its borders, a direct threat to Russian national security.
The EU and Ukraine can be handled both militarly and economically due to the EU’s dependency on Russian energy and Ukraine’s far weaker armed forces. The US on the other hand has no such reliance on Russia and its armed forces are arguably the most advanced on the planet, enabling the US to carry out aggressive military operations against Moscow with no drawbacks.
To make matters worse, Ukraine is essentially an entry point into Russia from a military perspective, with Eastern Ukraine being a mere 490 kilometres from Moscow. If American troops and American technology are deployed that close to Russia’s seat of power the Kremlin will undoubtedly become nervous.
From an American standpoint having NATO in Ukraine will all but cripple any Russian expansionism, and from here NATO could potentially expand further East as Georgia has also shown interest in joining.
What the US seemingly fails to grasp, however, is that the Kremlin is unlikely to sit down and do nothing as Russia finds itself surrounded by potentially hostile armed forces. The reality is that the US is playing a dangerous game by putting Russia in a do-or-die situation. With its back to the wall, the probability of Russia lashing out and invading Ukraine, if not a large portion of Eastern Europe such as the Baltic states, increases.
Containment in the 20th century seemed to have worked moderately well, slowly surrounding the USSR and suppressing many pro-communist movements across the globe. The situation has changed dramatically in the 21st century, however. Russia is not planning on spreading its ideology abroad, nor does it have one to spread. Moscow simply wishes to maintain its natural sphere of influence for national security. US containment here is therefore missing the mark, a panic over Russian expansionism that only occurred out of Russian desperation.
If the US and the EU push Russia too far, war will indeed break out. Containment can still work, but the overall approach must be changed. Washington must draw a line with Moscow, no more interference in Ukraine by either Russia or NATO. Instead, the US should support the EU to slowly develop Ukraine economically and politically, something Moscow will find less dangerous and will look rather foolish for countering. This way the US contains any further Russian expansion and guarantees peace.
Can the US handle China?
On the other side of Eurasia, we have a completely different situation. China’s ambition to secure the Indo-Pacific for itself has been at the forefront of Chinese geo-strategy for many decades, with Xi Jinping simply speeding up the process, and in turn, more aggressive policies have been adopted by Beijing.
The most important and impactful of said policies has been the belt and road initiative. This worldwide geostrategic policy will, if successful, allow China to replace the US as the world’s hegemonic power, at least from an economic standpoint.
This plan has however lost momentum, as many nations are now worried by Chinese expansionism. This has played in favour of US interests, and as far back as the Obama administration’s “Pivot to Asia” in 2011, the US has eyed the Indo-Pacific region with interest.
Fast-forward to today and the US has established a handful of alliances in the region. The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or simply Quad, brings together the US, India, Japan, and Australia. The Quad is essentially made up of the most powerful nations in the Indo-Pacific with the exception of China itself. An interesting outcome of this has been the plan to present an Indo-Pacific economic framework in February. This will involve the members of the Quad, with Taiwan also showing interest. This may not counter the road and belt initiative, but it is the first step.
The treaty that turned the most heads however was AUKUS, a trilateral agreement between the US, UK, and Australia that was signed in September 2021. This treaty will allow Australia to deploy nuclear submarines in the region and also upgrade its cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, and quantum technologies. As the Anglosphere strengthens itself, China is beginning to feel the pressure in the Indo-Pacific, and if AUKUS goes smoothly even Australia with its meagre population of 25 million will present a deadly rival.
These treaties and dialogues may be dangerous, but in the eyes of Beijing, they pale in comparison to what is happening in Taiwan. The Chinese ambassador to Washington, Qin Gang, states the situation perfectly, “If the Taiwanese authorities, emboldened by the United States, keep going down the road for independence, it most likely will involve China and the United States, the two big countries, in a military conflict.”
From Beijing’s viewpoint, Taiwan is an intricate part of China, as well as a geostrategic asset since it allows for the near-complete control of the South China Sea. If Taiwan somehow becomes a fully independent nation-state, Beijing will be contained, destroying any hope China may have had of achieving hegemony in Asia. China, although it can potentially overpower Taiwan in an all-out war, cannot afford to do so, because it is backed by no one, except perhaps North Korea. China needs a real cause, one that includes a direct threat to Chinese national security.
Containment here, therefore, makes perfect sense. China is quite clearly challenging American interests and indeed the interests of many nations across the Indo-Pacific, not only including the members of the Quad, but also other minor and middling powers such as Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, and South Korea. As long as the US does not directly threaten China, Beijing will have no real reason to lash out. In fact, keeping Taiwan in a near-perpetual state of semi-independent nationhood is beneficial to the US, as other nations will look to Washington as Beijing will seem to be an aggressor in the region as it pursues Taiwan.
Is containment a viable policy?
As the US attempts to contain China and Russia, there is always a chance of war breaking out, albeit a minor one if Washington is careful. Moscow is desperate to not lose complete control over its ever-shrinking sphere of influence, and China is desperate to control its corner of Asia. The risk of war will always be a reality in the geopolitical plays of influential nations such as these, but the US must be careful not to turn a policy of containment into one of rollback, as in, an aggressive policy that aims to destabilise and replace the current regimes in Moscow and Beijing. If this were to occur, war is all but certain, and a war on this scale benefits no one.
Discover all the Eastwest European Institute’s courses.
