Axis of Disarray – USA Gov Policy

Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping said long ago that “No matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat.” His economic adage can be applied to assess the state of the geopolitical world. Setting the type of governmental system aside, are nation-states doing a good job managing the threat level today as we approach the US presidential election? It may be time to sound the alarm.

In 2024 the democratic world is not stable, nor are the revisionist powers responsible actors in world politics. Over the last four years, there has been an increasing number of multi-dimensional threats. They are complicated and span the globe. The United States, presumed leader of the free world, is essentially headless and without a coherent foreign policy. Without strong leadership over the last four years, virtually every continent has suffered from either economic or political instability, or both. The international order is in disarray.

The existential threat of our lifetime comes from China and Xi Jinping’s aggressive policy positions. More than once, he has stated his intent to remake the world according to China’s image with the government in Beijing and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) at the head. The CCP literally has bought economic influence around the globe, including in Washington, DC, in pursuit of its goal. Former senior staffers of top Congressional officers are lobbying for Chinese military companies that the Department of Defense has designated as “directly or indirectly owned, controlled or beneficially owned by” the Chinese military, as well as those that contribute to China’s military-industrial complex, according to Robert Schmad of the daily Caller.

This comes at a time when China’s grey zone policies include ongoing attempts to quarantine Taiwan. Analysts in Washington openly discuss China’s military capacity to launch an invasion of Taiwan, conduct an air and sea blockade the island, and control commerce across the South China Sea. They also debate whether the US could win a war in Asia against the communist giant. China is also applying pressure on international organizations to exclude Taiwan’s presence. Beijing’s reach today spans the globe and includes missions conducting research in the Arctic that concern the Pentagon due to their military nature.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is another leader complicit in the Axis of Disarray. It extends beyond his invasion of Ukraine, now approaching its 28 months this week. Russia’s so-called private security firms, in the post-Wagner period, are active in many regions. In Africa they are physically supporting counter insurgencies and anti-rebel groups in the Central African Republic, Mali, Libya, Mozambique, and Sudan. Russia is also running active political commercial operations in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Madagascar, and Zimbabwe.

Military technology is posing yet another problem. For the first time in history, air defense systems are seeing a rapid proliferation of unmanned aerial vehicles capable of surveillance, carrying a payload of missiles, and other stand off fires. These low-cost systems enable state and non-state actors to engage in more extensive operations than in the past and further destabilize the world. It also adds the challenge of defending commercial sea routes. Once insignificant states, such as North Korea, now possess nuclear weapons and threaten to use them against the West.

The global supply chain faces a number of challenges, including how to secure the transit of ships carrying commercial goods though the Bosphorus Strait and Bab El-Mandeb Strait (near Yemen), and Suez Canal. China today controls approximately 90% of the South China Sea. That area is transited by more than two-thirds of the world’s oceanic commerce. China also runs the port authority at both ends of the Panama Canal.

Global instability is further exacerbated by state and non-state actors threatening the use of nuclear weapons. Iran is conducting a nuclear program it labels as a “Field Project” at the Iman Khomeini Space Center and Missile Headquarters. Two weeks ago, Iran conducted an underground nuclear test about 62 miles from its Semnan test facility, according to US intelligence sources. This is the same location where Iran conducted nuclear tests in 2003. Russian President Putin has also threatened the use of nuclear weapons if the West continues to oppose his occupation of Ukraine. The Kremlin has field exercised their use near the Ukrainian border.The revisionist powers, including China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, are coordinating their aggressive policies with the goal of eroding the balance of deterrence in the world. The threat level is high. With little leadership coming out of Washington, the Axis o

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.