One of the more curious — and frustrating— features of the foreign policy debate in the United States occurs when figures who generally advocate realism and restraint make a stark exception with respect to the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
Such deviations are evident in both the academic community and among some political leaders. It is an inconsistency that may cause significant credibility issues for the realism and restraint camp.
Among respected academics, University of Chicago Professor John J. Mearsheimer, considered the dean of the realist faction, is a prominent example. Mearsheimer has been an outspoken critic of Washington’s regime-change wars in the Middle East. He also was an early, vocal opponent of NATO expansion toward Russia’s border, warning correctly that the move would poison relations with Moscow. More recently, he has placed much of the blame for the growing tensions between NATO and Russia over Ukraine, culminating in the current war, on Washington and its allies.
Even earlier, however, Mearsheimer took a rather hard line toward Beijing, rejecting any notion of a major U.S. military drawdown in East Asia. He warned that China was likely to attempt to “push the United States out of the Asia-Pacific region,” in part by driving the U.S. Navy out of the ocean between China’s coast and the first island chain.
Mearsheimer’s perspective regarding the PRC has hardened over the years, and it encompasses opposition to the growing bilateral economic ties. Writing in 2021, he condemned Washington’s policy of close economic engagement with Beijing. “Since a mightier China would surely challenge the U.S. position in Asia and possibly beyond, the logical choice for the United States was clear: slow China’s rise. Instead, it encouraged it." Mearsheimer added that “engagement may have been the worst strategic blunder any country has made in recent history: there is no comparable example of a great power actively fostering the rise of a peer competitor. And it is now too late to do much about it.”
In the political arena, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) echoes many of Mearsheimer’s views. Hawley is a prominent proponent of avoiding unnecessary U.S. entanglements (especially military entanglements) in the Third World and even in Europe. Indeed, he was the only member of the Senate to vote against admitting Sweden and Finland to NATO in 2022. His criticism of the Biden administration’s unconditional support of Ukraine also has become increasingly vocal, and it seems to be gaining some traction within the Republican congressional delegation.
Yet Hawley is an outspoken hawk on matters relating to China, whether the issue involves trade policy, support for Taiwan, or the U.S. military posture in the Pacific. In his Senate floor speech opposing adding Sweden and Finland to NATO, he explained his underlying rationale:
“Expanding NATO will require more United States forces in Europe, more manpower, more firepower, more resources, more spending. And not just now, but over the long haul. But our greatest foreign adversary is not in Europe. Our greatest foreign adversary is in Asia. And when it comes to countering that adversary, we are behind the game. I'm talking, of course, about China, the communist government of Beijing has adopted a policy of imperialism. It wants to dominate its neighbors, dictate to free nations, it's trying to expand its power at every opportunities, and that includes power over the United States."
Hawley also drew a contrast between U.S. interests in Europe and those in East Asia. He voiced the need for Washington to adopt a more cautious, limited policy in Europe and instead focus more on the Chinese threat:
“Finland and Sweden want to join the Atlantic Alliance to head off further Russian aggression in Europe. That is entirely understandable given their location and security needs. But America’s greatest foreign adversary doesn’t loom over Europe. It looms in Asia. I am talking of course about the People’s Republic of China. And when it comes to Chinese imperialism, the American people should know the truth: the United States is not ready to resist it. Expanding American security commitments in Europe now would only make that problem worse—and America, less safe."
More recently, Hawley explicitly urged Secretary of State Tony Blinken to prioritize arming Taiwan instead of giving military aid to Ukraine. In his view, Ukraine is (at most) a marginal U.S. interest, while Taiwan constitutes a crucial one.
One can certainly make the case that China is a more plausible threat than such adversaries as Syria, North Korea, or even Russia to America’s security and overall interests. Nevertheless, being in the forefront of the faction that pushes a hardline, confrontational posture toward Beijing does not enhance the credibility of Hawley (or any other figure who advocates realism and restraint elsewhere in foreign affairs.)
A hawkish stance toward the PRC poses far more serious dangers to the United States than such a stance toward small rogue states does. Indeed, it exceeds even the considerable risks that Washington has incurred in using Ukraine as military proxy to bleed Russia. Defending an assortment of U.S. allies and clients in East Asia, especially Taiwan, means risking a direct war with China. Yet Hawley is AWOL when it comes to applying the strategy of realism and restraint to the most crucial situation of all.
It is an unfortunate lapse that limits his potential as a political leader who might be able to transform U.S. foreign policy into a more prudent and sustainable posture in world affairs.
![Following a largely preordained election, Vladimir Putin was sworn in last week for another six-year term as president of Russia. Putin’s victory has, of course, been met with accusations of fraud and political interference, factors that help explain his 87.3% vote share. If this continuation of Putin’s 24-year-long hold on power makes one thing clear, it’s that he and his regime will not be going anywhere for the foreseeable future. But, as his war in Ukraine continues with no clear end in sight, what is less clear is how Washington plans to deal with this reality. Experts say Washington needs to start projecting a long-term strategy toward Russia and its war in Ukraine, wielding its political leverage to apply pressure on Putin and push for more diplomacy aimed at ending the conflict. Only by looking beyond short-term solutions can Washington realistically move the needle in Ukraine. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion, the U.S. has focused on getting aid to Ukraine to help it win back all of its pre-2014 territory, a goal complicated by Kyiv’s systemic shortages of munitions and manpower. But that response neglects a more strategic approach to the war, according to Andrew Weiss of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who spoke in a recent panel hosted by Carnegie. “There is a vortex of emergency planning that people have been, unfortunately, sucked into for the better part of two years since the intelligence first arrived in the fall of 2021,” Weiss said. “And so the urgent crowds out the strategic.” Historian Stephen Kotkin, for his part, says preserving Ukraine’s sovereignty is critical. However, the apparent focus on regaining territory, pushed by the U.S., is misguided. “Wars are never about regaining territory. It's about the capacity to fight and the will to fight. And if Russia has the capacity to fight and Ukraine takes back territory, Russia won't stop fighting,” Kotkin said in a podcast on the Wall Street Journal. And it appears Russia does have the capacity. The number of troops and weapons at Russia’s disposal far exceeds Ukraine’s, and Russian leaders spend twice as much on defense as their Ukrainian counterparts. Ukraine will need a continuous supply of aid from the West to continue to match up to Russia. And while aid to Ukraine is important, Kotkin says, so is a clear plan for determining the preferred outcome of the war. The U.S. may be better served by using the significant political leverage it has over Russia to shape a long-term outcome in its favor. George Beebe of the Quincy Institute, which publishes Responsible Statecraft, says that Russia’s primary concerns and interests do not end with Ukraine. Moscow is fundamentally concerned about the NATO alliance and the threat it may pose to Russian internal stability. Negotiations and dialogue about the bounds and limits of NATO and Russia’s powers, therefore, are critical to the broader conflict. This is a process that is not possible without the U.S. and Europe. “That means by definition, we have some leverage,” Beebe says. To this point, Kotkin says the strength of the U.S. and its allies lies in their political influence — where they are much more powerful than Russia — rather than on the battlefield. Leveraging this influence will be a necessary tool in reaching an agreement that is favorable to the West’s interests, “one that protects the United States, protects its allies in Europe, that preserves an independent Ukraine, but also respects Russia's core security interests there.” In Kotkin’s view, this would mean pushing for an armistice that ends the fighting on the ground and preserves Ukrainian sovereignty, meaning not legally acknowledging Russia’s possession of the territory they have taken during the war. Then, negotiations can proceed. Beebe adds that a treaty on how conventional forces can be used in Europe will be important, one that establishes limits on where and how militaries can be deployed. “[Russia] need[s] some understanding with the West about what we're all going to agree to rule out in terms of interference in the other's domestic affairs,” Beebe said. Critical to these objectives is dialogue with Putin, which Beebe says Washington has not done enough to facilitate. U.S. officials have stated publicly that they do not plan to meet with Putin. The U.S. rejected Putin’s most statements of his willingness to negotiate, which he expressed in an interview with Tucker Carlson in February, citing skepticism that Putin has any genuine intentions of ending the war. “Despite Mr. Putin’s words, we have seen no actions to indicate he is interested in ending this war. If he was, he would pull back his forces and stop his ceaseless attacks on Ukraine,” a spokesperson for the White House’s National Security Council said in response. But neither side has been open to serious communication. Biden and Putin haven’t met to engage in meaningful talks about the war since it began, their last meeting taking place before the war began in the summer of 2021 in Geneva. Weiss says the U.S. should make it clear that those lines of communication are open. “Any strategy that involves diplomatic outreach also has to be sort of undergirded by serious resolve and a sense that we're not we're not going anywhere,” Weiss said. An end to the war will be critical to long-term global stability. Russia will remain a significant player on the world stage, Beebe explains, considering it is the world’s largest nuclear power and a leading energy producer. It is therefore ultimately in the U.S. and Europe’s interests to reach a relationship “that combines competitive and cooperative elements, and where we find a way to manage our differences and make sure that they don't spiral into very dangerous military confrontation,” he says. As two major global superpowers, the U.S. and Russia need to find a way to share the world. Only genuine, long-term planning can ensure that Washington will be able to shape that future in its best interests.](https://responsiblestatecraft.org/media-library/following-a-largely-preordained-election-vladimir-putin-was-sworn-in-last-week-for-another-six-year-term-as-president-of-russia.jpg?id=34283894&width=1245&height=700&quality=90&coordinates=0%2C77%2C0%2C77)
