Follow us on social

Fp4a-panel-

How do you talk to an 'existential threat' (China)?

Lawmakers at a Democratic foreign policy conference today bemoaned escalating and useless rhetoric against Beijing on Capitol Hill.

Reporting | Asia-Pacific

China has been the chief foreign policy and national security obsession of the 118th Congress. Members have introduced over 300 pieces of legislation aimed at confronting the rise of Beijing and created the hawkish “Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party.” 

As the journalist Ed Luce, who moderated a panel on US-China relations during Foreign Policy for America’s annual Leadership Summit on Monday, noted, it is one of the few areas of bipartisanship in an increasingly polarized Congress. 

The four members of the House of Representatives who participated on the panel offered words of caution to their colleagues, warning that heightened rhetoric could leave Washington in a perilous predicament. “It’s really important that we remember, particularly when rhetoric continues to heat up, that, God forbid, we ever had to go to war with China, it is mutually assured economic destruction,” said Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich). “At the end of the day, a war will be a disaster for them and certainly for us.” 

If anything, according to Rep. Andy Kim, who sits on the select committee, the increase in tension between the two largest economies in the world should incentivize U.S. officials to engage with their counterparts even more. “When the chairperson or when someone else on [the select] committee talks about how China is an existential threat to the United States. That's a real problem,” remarked Kim (D-N.J.) “When you call someone or something an existential threat, how do you have a conversation? How do you have engagement? How do you have diplomacy?”

Luce noted that efforts to calm tensions have so far not been particularly effective, pointing to a recent Pew Research poll that indicates that four in ten Americans consider China to be an enemy, up thirteen points from when a similar poll was conducted last year. Kim called that polling data “a huge problem,” and Rep. Veronica Escobar said it was “very disconcerting.” 

All of the members acknowledged that Beijing does pose a significant challenge to the U.S. and the Chinese government had not seemed particularly interested in constructive engagement either, but maintained that the response should not be to treat conflict as inevitable.  “Some of the challenges I’ve seen, especially being on the select committee (...) is how reactionary we’ve become in terms of our foreign policy, especially when it comes to China,” said Kim noting what he saw as a bipartisan overreaction to the Chinese spy balloon and legislation aimed at banning TikTok.

One consistent theme throughout the panel was that there may be substantial ways in which Washington can and should compete with China, but those potential U.S. policies  are too often drowned out by legislation that is only intended to antagonize Beijing. “We have not had an immediate pressing reason in my opinion, to vote on anything related to China,” so far in this Congress, said Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.) She argued that all of the bills aimed at countering the CCP were messaging bills aimed at painting opponents as soft on China and “a lot of colleagues are trying to neutralize a CCP or Chinese attack in the electoral context by wrapping themselves in the blanket of bipartisanship” on the issue. 


Image: Office of Rep. Andy Kim / Twitter.
Reporting | Asia-Pacific
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.