Thanks for this thoughtful analysis. I agree that building our confidence, and getting our own house in order are key elements of success in dealing with China. At least on the confidence front I'm encouraged by NATO's response to the invasion of Ukraine.
As to your future writings, I would like to read your input on bigger picture issues such as:
CLAIM: The marriage between violent men and an accelerating knowledge explosion is unsustainable.
If that is true, then it may not matter who wins the war in Ukraine, what happens in Taiwan, nor who prevails in any geopolitical competition. If it's inevitable that sooner or later some crisis will spin out of control in to nuclear exchanges, and it seems delusional to deny that, then the whole subject of geopolitical rivalry may turn out to be irrelevant.
From this perspective the enemy is not China or Russia, but first of all, nuclear weapons. To address that threat we might suggest to the Chinese that we will reduce our arsenal to their levels if they will stop building. We would both still have plenty of weapons left for deterring Russia.
But even nuclear weapons are not the real enemy. If we succeeded in getting rid of all nuclear weapons, violent men would then just turn their attention to other means of projecting power, generating threats and spreading chaos etc. And the knowledge explosion will be handing these violent men ever more powerful tools throughout the rest of this century.
I'm looking for writers willing and able to, at least occasionally, leap over the day to day details of current headlines to the real threat which will decide humanities future, violent men. The overwhelming vast majority of human chaos which concerns us, almost all of it, arises from that single source.
We have the option to say there's nothing we can do about violent men. But that option comes with a price tag, the inevitable collapse of this civilization. And that event will render everything everyone is writing about irrelevant. If this sounds hysterical, let us not forget, the machinery for bringing on the end of everything is already in place, ready to fly on a moment's notice.
We think we know this already. But if we did, we wouldn't be talking about much else.
Whenever I feel depressed about the state of this country, I ask myself: where would most people around the globe rather move? To America? Or to Iran or Russia or China or N Korea?
Ultimately, as you point out, almost nobody aspires to live in an autocracy. As long as we can resist the autocratic movement in our own country, I agree that we will prevail over autocracies elsewhere.
Thank you for these wonderful essays, Professor McFaul. I am a huge admirer, and eagerly read every word you write!
A question I have regarding something you’ve touched on in other pieces—why can’t we or aren’t we doing more to combat ant-Western anti-Democracy disinformation inside autocracies?
Thanks for sharing your views and excellent writing. I agree with your overall description of the situation. However, the term “confidence” can be problematic and even concerning, at least to me. Allowing me a bit of devil’s advocacy, I counter that “confidence” may not be the “secret to the sauce” of U.S. success or superiority. I cannot help but conflate “confidence” with “over-confidence” or even “arrogance.” One of our biggest enemies is complacency and even over-confidence in our capabilities; just because one spends (or wastes) a lot on military does not mean one is prepared. A modicum of fear and insecurity may go a long way to keeping us on our toes, self-aware, and on-guard. I’ve worked with plenty of arrogant/confident senior USG officials that have painted themselves into their own narrow-minded corners. The Ukraine-Russia situation may serve as a clear warning to any large power “confident” in its capabilities and resources.
As you mention, our strengths have also come from our nature and ability to develop and assist allies, even turning former enemies into like-minded nations. Molding such relationships does not come from an abundance of confidence, but perhaps from an ability to understand our own weaknesses and endear our values on others. The balance between empathy and confidence can be precarious as well.
So, I might posit that confidence isn’t the crux of the issue, but rather our lack of unity (political-social) and our inability to protect ourselves from outside forces that seek to divide us by exploiting our differences. It is these forces that erode our resiliency – our unity and our “confidence” in our long-standing democratic values and institutions.
As someone who lives in Billings, the general reaction around here was "meh." Despite the bombastic response of some Montana politicians (which can be reduced to any opportunistic reason to criticize Biden), nobody really believes the balloon was getting any information China doesn't already have from satellites. I mean, out of the entire state, only two people were cited for trying to shoot it down (both with shotguns). That should tell you how concerned people actually were. I think the whole thing was blown out of proportion for political points.
Appreciate your strategic and concomitantly compendious process of thinking and I concur fundamentally with you. US China policy has to be predicated on geopolitical strategy. US self-confidence is a significant contributory factor to the viability of any strategy. However, an associated factor (as you presciently observed in a December 2021 tweet) is the perception of US weakness by Xi and Putin (or any other adversarial state). Irresoluteness can have deleterious consequences. Sometimes, the US has to change the balance of power, in order to restore the balance of power(as what is required today to restore the European security order) and subsequently alter their perceptions.
Thanks, these are interesting and thought-provoking points. I like the suggestion of being more confident as a country, although I don’t care for the word swagger, as it has some negative connotations (perhaps just because it was so often used to describe Mike Pompeo’s behavior, which was often dismissive or disrespectful of other nations), but that’s neither here nor there! I also think we can be confident in many areas while simultaneously working hard on our weak spots---this shouldn’t be an either/or thing (although plenty of people/countries think it is).
Does your chapter discuss more areas where we can or should be more confident? It seems like we have plenty of potential areas, large and small. There are plenty of domestic and external forces that will try to throw up roadblocks to progress, but it's critical to plow ahead.
You are right. Our greatest threat comes from inside, and I think that Trump is at the core of this problem. It is necessary that our leaders see the big geopolitical picture and unite our country. The same thing is happening with our southern neighbor Mexico, and other South American countries that are dangerously inclining to the left. Maybe I’m wrong, but I believe that for many decades, Russia was behind social conflicts in many countries, and now China is following the same path. Nevertheless, as you mentioned, we have the tools to overcome this. One of our many advantages over autocracies is that our system rewards work and creativity, and that gives us the strength and confidence to fight for freedom and democracy. Don’t you think so?
Thanks for this thoughtful analysis. I agree that building our confidence, and getting our own house in order are key elements of success in dealing with China. At least on the confidence front I'm encouraged by NATO's response to the invasion of Ukraine.
As to your future writings, I would like to read your input on bigger picture issues such as:
CLAIM: The marriage between violent men and an accelerating knowledge explosion is unsustainable.
If that is true, then it may not matter who wins the war in Ukraine, what happens in Taiwan, nor who prevails in any geopolitical competition. If it's inevitable that sooner or later some crisis will spin out of control in to nuclear exchanges, and it seems delusional to deny that, then the whole subject of geopolitical rivalry may turn out to be irrelevant.
From this perspective the enemy is not China or Russia, but first of all, nuclear weapons. To address that threat we might suggest to the Chinese that we will reduce our arsenal to their levels if they will stop building. We would both still have plenty of weapons left for deterring Russia.
But even nuclear weapons are not the real enemy. If we succeeded in getting rid of all nuclear weapons, violent men would then just turn their attention to other means of projecting power, generating threats and spreading chaos etc. And the knowledge explosion will be handing these violent men ever more powerful tools throughout the rest of this century.
I'm looking for writers willing and able to, at least occasionally, leap over the day to day details of current headlines to the real threat which will decide humanities future, violent men. The overwhelming vast majority of human chaos which concerns us, almost all of it, arises from that single source.
We have the option to say there's nothing we can do about violent men. But that option comes with a price tag, the inevitable collapse of this civilization. And that event will render everything everyone is writing about irrelevant. If this sounds hysterical, let us not forget, the machinery for bringing on the end of everything is already in place, ready to fly on a moment's notice.
We think we know this already. But if we did, we wouldn't be talking about much else.
Whenever I feel depressed about the state of this country, I ask myself: where would most people around the globe rather move? To America? Or to Iran or Russia or China or N Korea?
Ultimately, as you point out, almost nobody aspires to live in an autocracy. As long as we can resist the autocratic movement in our own country, I agree that we will prevail over autocracies elsewhere.
Thank you for these wonderful essays, Professor McFaul. I am a huge admirer, and eagerly read every word you write!
A question I have regarding something you’ve touched on in other pieces—why can’t we or aren’t we doing more to combat ant-Western anti-Democracy disinformation inside autocracies?
Thanks for sharing your views and excellent writing. I agree with your overall description of the situation. However, the term “confidence” can be problematic and even concerning, at least to me. Allowing me a bit of devil’s advocacy, I counter that “confidence” may not be the “secret to the sauce” of U.S. success or superiority. I cannot help but conflate “confidence” with “over-confidence” or even “arrogance.” One of our biggest enemies is complacency and even over-confidence in our capabilities; just because one spends (or wastes) a lot on military does not mean one is prepared. A modicum of fear and insecurity may go a long way to keeping us on our toes, self-aware, and on-guard. I’ve worked with plenty of arrogant/confident senior USG officials that have painted themselves into their own narrow-minded corners. The Ukraine-Russia situation may serve as a clear warning to any large power “confident” in its capabilities and resources.
As you mention, our strengths have also come from our nature and ability to develop and assist allies, even turning former enemies into like-minded nations. Molding such relationships does not come from an abundance of confidence, but perhaps from an ability to understand our own weaknesses and endear our values on others. The balance between empathy and confidence can be precarious as well.
So, I might posit that confidence isn’t the crux of the issue, but rather our lack of unity (political-social) and our inability to protect ourselves from outside forces that seek to divide us by exploiting our differences. It is these forces that erode our resiliency – our unity and our “confidence” in our long-standing democratic values and institutions.
As someone who lives in Billings, the general reaction around here was "meh." Despite the bombastic response of some Montana politicians (which can be reduced to any opportunistic reason to criticize Biden), nobody really believes the balloon was getting any information China doesn't already have from satellites. I mean, out of the entire state, only two people were cited for trying to shoot it down (both with shotguns). That should tell you how concerned people actually were. I think the whole thing was blown out of proportion for political points.
Appreciate your strategic and concomitantly compendious process of thinking and I concur fundamentally with you. US China policy has to be predicated on geopolitical strategy. US self-confidence is a significant contributory factor to the viability of any strategy. However, an associated factor (as you presciently observed in a December 2021 tweet) is the perception of US weakness by Xi and Putin (or any other adversarial state). Irresoluteness can have deleterious consequences. Sometimes, the US has to change the balance of power, in order to restore the balance of power(as what is required today to restore the European security order) and subsequently alter their perceptions.
Thanks, these are interesting and thought-provoking points. I like the suggestion of being more confident as a country, although I don’t care for the word swagger, as it has some negative connotations (perhaps just because it was so often used to describe Mike Pompeo’s behavior, which was often dismissive or disrespectful of other nations), but that’s neither here nor there! I also think we can be confident in many areas while simultaneously working hard on our weak spots---this shouldn’t be an either/or thing (although plenty of people/countries think it is).
Does your chapter discuss more areas where we can or should be more confident? It seems like we have plenty of potential areas, large and small. There are plenty of domestic and external forces that will try to throw up roadblocks to progress, but it's critical to plow ahead.
You are right. Our greatest threat comes from inside, and I think that Trump is at the core of this problem. It is necessary that our leaders see the big geopolitical picture and unite our country. The same thing is happening with our southern neighbor Mexico, and other South American countries that are dangerously inclining to the left. Maybe I’m wrong, but I believe that for many decades, Russia was behind social conflicts in many countries, and now China is following the same path. Nevertheless, as you mentioned, we have the tools to overcome this. One of our many advantages over autocracies is that our system rewards work and creativity, and that gives us the strength and confidence to fight for freedom and democracy. Don’t you think so?
Really enjoyed and appreciated your insight on this topic.