Follow us on social

The 'rivalry peril' with China: toxic cold war is where we are headed

The 'rivalry peril' with China: toxic cold war is where we are headed

In their new book, Jackson and Brenes say Washington must abandon the primacist mindset

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

There is a bipartisan hawkish China consensus in Washington that has formed over the last fifteen years. Members of both parties are quick to link their preferred policies to the cause of “competing” with the Chinese government, and there is a tremendous appetite among our political leaders for exaggerating both Chinese ambitions and capabilities.

China rivalry has become a new catch-all justification for higher military spending, nuclear modernization, increasing America’s military presence in the Pacific, and establishing closer ties with China’s neighbors.

To promote the rivalry with China, hawkish analysts have been spreading a convenient myth about the Cold War that ignores the serious costs to American society and to the many countries that were devastated by direct interventions and proxy wars. According to that triumphalist myth, the U.S. “won” the Cold War against the Soviets and in the process became stronger and more unified as a nation, and now it can do the same thing by pursuing rivalry with China.

In their new book, “The Rivalry Peril: How Great-Power Competition Threatens Peace and Weakens Democracy,” Van Jackson and Michael Brenes debunk the triumphalist myths about the Cold War and remind us of just how destructive and deadly America’s last experience with great power rivalry was. As they put it, “Great-power rivalries throughout history, and especially during the Cold War, have entailed mass brutality, sacrifice, and perils borne disproportionately by ordinary citizens rather than elites.”

Jackson and Brenes directly challenge the emerging hawkish China consensus and spell out the steep costs and dangers of pursuing rivalry with China. They also counter irresponsible threat inflation and fearmongering about Chinese intentions. It is a crucial and valuable intervention in the debate over China policy and the direction of U.S. foreign policy more broadly that Americans of all political stripes would benefit from reading.

China hawks would have us believe that the U.S. should engage in a costly global struggle against a major adversary and that this will also somehow bring out the best in our country and heal existing political divisions. As the authors tell us, “The idea that competition brings out the best in a nation is romantic, but wrong. American politics has become even more divisive and caustic in the age of China rivalry. China features as an object fueling that polarization, not ameliorating it.”

The hawks’ myth also minimizes or erases the abuses and destruction caused by Cold War policies, and it presents a militarized contest that very nearly destroyed the world as something to be emulated and repeated.

As the full record of the history of Cold War shows, however, prolonged intense rivalry with another great power exacerbates internal political divisions, fuels toxic prejudices, and leads to trampling on the rights of minorities and dissenters. Rivalry doesn’t deliver the political goods that its supporters promise, and it threatens to wreck what remains of our democratic system. In addition, it also makes a catastrophic war between the U.S. and China much more likely.

The authors also explain how rivalry between the U.S. and China contributes to the concentration of wealth and the worsening of economic inequality in both countries. Rivalry feeds the consolidation of oligarchy on both sides of the Pacific, and increasing military spending diverts and wastes resources that would otherwise be put to more productive and peaceful uses. A relative few at the top benefit from a militarized rivalry between our countries while most people in the U.S. and China are consistently shortchanged. As Jackson and Brenes put it, “Not only does rivalry empower the already powerful; it further marginalizes the powerless.”

Great power rivalry inevitably stokes nationalism in both China and the U.S. Nationalists on either side use fear of the adversary to whip up support for a confrontational foreign policy and to stifle dissent. The rivalry also encourages both governments to assume the worst about the other’s intentions and to be reluctant to engage in anything beyond the most basic diplomatic exchanges.

If one of the key foundations of the Asian peace for the last four decades has been Sino-U.S. détente, as Jackson correctly argued in his previous book “Pacific Power Paradox,” the breakdown of that détente and the ensuing deep mistrust between our governments have brought our countries and the wider region much closer to disastrous conflict than we have been in generations.

This is exactly the time when we need both governments to repudiate rivalry as a framework for their policies rather than embrace it.

Jackson and Brenes do an excellent job of dismantling the case for rivalry, but they also offer a compelling alternative that restrainers should find appealing. One part of the solution is to abandon the pursuit of primacy. As Jackson and Brenes make clear, it is Washington’s pursuit of primacy that is wildly at odds with the political and economic realities in Asia and the Pacific, and it is the pursuit of primacy that is destabilizing.

To correct course, the “United States must relinquish its ambitions for primacy and work toward a stable equilibrium with China and other regional actors.” They recommend that the U.S. embrace military restraint paired with what they call a security dilemma sensibility. That sensibility is “the ability to understand the role that fear might play in their attitudes and behavior, including, crucially, the role that one’s own actions may play in provoking that fear.”

In short, U.S. policymakers need to consider how Chinese leaders perceive U.S. actions and try to understand how U.S. policies lead to Chinese responses to them.

U.S.-China rivalry has largely been accepted in Washington as the appropriate framing for U.S. policies in Asia and beyond. That has put U.S. foreign policy on a perilous path to a new cold war. The U.S. is not doomed to go down this path. There is still time for the U.S. to go in a better, more peaceful direction, but that requires recognizing how ruinous great power rivalry truly is and realizing that the U.S. needs a different strategy.

“The Rivalry Peril” is an important contribution in imagining what the strategy might look like.


Top photo credit: (Shutterstock/Motortion Films)
Analysis | 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.