Follow us on social

Shangri-La Dialogue Hegseth

Hegseth: The US will remain an Indo-Pacific power

Secretary of Defense told the Shangri La Dialogue that America won't leave, but it won't provoke or wage ideological war either

Analysis | QiOSK

U.S. Secretary of defense Pete Hegseth's speech at this year’s Shangri La Dialogue, the biggest defense meeting in Asia, demonstrated major continuities in U.S. security policy in the Indo-Pacific, but also some significant shifts.

The former will not help de-escalate current tensions, but the latter will be welcomed by Asian states.

First, the good news. The Defense Secretary made it clear that the United States no longer subscribes to its past "moralistic, preachy approach" and will set aside ideology and culture as issues in the region. Notably he also spoke of President Trump as a man of peace and promised that the United States does not seek to encircle or change China, and will not act recklessly.

These will likely be welcomed by Asian states. Intruding into domestic politics and trying to rewire internal governance of other states has not worked well for the United States in the past. It will work even less well in a post-unipolar age that we are entering.

Hegseth also asserted the United States is an Indo-Pacific power and will not leave the region. This is a reality that China needs to accept — America counts one state and several territories in the Pacific and is an integral part of its political geography. Hegeseth's assertion that Europe should focus on Europe (so that the United States can focus more on Asia) was a positive departure from past U.S. policy, which has tried to create an international coalition to counter China. Such an expansive coalition feeds into China’s worst fears of the world ganging up against it.

But the Defense Secretary also clearly identified Beijing as the biggest threat in the Indo-Pacific, speaking of a “shield of deterrence” and telling assembled Asian defense leaders that “China seeks to intimidate you in your own waters.” He asserted a commitment of resolutely defending the first and second island chains (which include Taiwan) through an approach of preparing for war to ensure peace, and warned China that "any attempt to change the status quo by force or coercion" was "unacceptable."

This was very similar to the rhetoric of previous U.S. administrations. There was no mention of the possibilities of detente, nor of cooperation with China on de-escalating tensions or on solving global security problems such as piracy and organized crime. These remain under-explored opportunities, waiting for an administration willing to take that road.

A deterrence-heavy strategy has not worked so far in the Indo-Pacific. For example, as Washington has worked closely with Manila to focus almost exclusively on deterrence and ramped up the U.S. military footprint in the archipelagic nation, Chinese intrusive actions in the South China Sea have only become bolder.

Hegseth's implicit recommendation in his speech of a 5% of GDP target for Asian allies and partners on defense spending will find few takers in Southeast Asia. Though states such as Indonesia and the Philippines are pushing hard to modernize their militaries, these Global South states have urgent domestic needs of ending poverty and building infrastructure and industry that will typically override other demands.

While Hegseth properly paid glowing tributes to Singapore’s stunning success and the legacy of its founder-leader Lee Kuan Yew, Southeast Asian states would have noted that there was practically no reference to ASEAN in the speech. This regional organization which includes all Southeast Asian states has, for several decades, trailblazed an approach grounded in integration and cooperation. Singapore and other ASEAN member states strongly push the idea of “ASEAN centrality” in the region.

Almost all Southeast Asian states also see engagement rather than deterrence as the primary tool for solving regional challenges such as the rise of China.


Top photo credit: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Vietnamese Minister of National Defense Gen. Phan Van Giang participate in a bilateral exchange at the 22nd Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, May 30, 2025. (DoD photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)
Analysis | QiOSK
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
The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan
Taipei skyline, Taiwan. (Shutterstock/ YAO23)

The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan

Asia-Pacific

For the better part of a decade, China has served as the “pacing threat” around which American military planners craft defense policy and, most importantly, budget decisions.

Within that framework, a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan has become the scenario most often cited as the likeliest flashpoint for a military confrontation between the two superpowers.

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.