The dawning of the transatlantic century

On Remembrance Day 1982, President Ronald Reagan reminded us that “Peace is a product of strength, not of weakness- of facing reality and not believing in false hopes.” 

The president was applauding the commitment of all our veterans to winning a lasting peace through their sacrifice, but he was also prefacing his remarks to reporters on the death of then-Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev due to the heightened uncertainty of the moment. He wanted to remind us all to be clear-eyed, vigilant and strong and to warn us against grasping for ill-defined and unrealistic demands masquerading as peace overtures.

Today, at this less than peaceful juncture, this prescription for winning the peace by regaining our strength and confronting our realities seems as wise today as it was then, which is why “peace through strength” is an early hallmark of the incoming US administration. 

In reality, all nations act in their own self-interest all the time without exception– a fact that transcends changes in leadership. US military forces are in Europe because it is in their interest to be there.  Those forces operate within NATO because it is in the nations’ collective interest that they do so. Why? Economically, the US makes more money in Europe than anywhere else, owns more assets there than anywhere else and derives more investment in the US from Europe than from anywhere else. Militarily, Europe is the unsinkable aircraft carrier for projecting US power around the world. The sum of the contributions and capabilities of 31 other allies in NATO is staggering compared to any other region. Diplomatically, the alignment of the US, Europe and their Asian-Pacific and other global partners is irresistible when strength is required, and true hope is evident. The pathway to “peace through strength” from Washington definitely goes through Europe.

We exist in a deeply interrelated global ecosystem sustained by economic realities that drive systemic competition in which stakeholders use every tool at their disposal to gain advantage and to disadvantage their competitors. In this continuous borderless maelstrom, the notion of territorial defence short of a full-scale invasion is increasingly irrelevant. Today, every aspect of our existence is an opportunity for nefarious manipulation. Therefore, for deterrence and defence, crisis prevention and management and cooperative security, which are all NATO core tasks, we must be vigilant in our defence and resolute in our security response denying every opening and repulsing every incursion. 

The Soviet Union was an ideological competitor seeking to replace our system with theirs.  China’s designs are to dominate within the single system we created while adapting it to their desires. Russia under Putin seems trapped in the past, adrift in the transition, but nevertheless cornered and dangerous, but it is China that poses the most onerous, if not immediate, challenge.

The reality today is that we are defending the frontiers of our prosperity and lifestyle. To do so, we must invest a commensurate amount of that prosperity in our security to ensure the continuation of our way of life. This amount is defined by our reality and not by our hopes.  Fortunately, we have the means at our disposal and increasingly the necessary awareness. 

In the new book Confronting China: U.S. Defense Policy in an Era of Great Power Competition, my colleagues and I from the Pentagon during the first Trump administration offer a unique insider view of what we must do to deter, defeat and roll back the long-term security threat posed by China. My contribution is a chapter titled “Strongest Together: The Dawning of the Transatlantic Century,” which, in highlighting our strengths, concludes that should we choose to act in unison, freedom-loving nations can still be the dominant force for good in the world, but to do so we need to get out of our own way. The divisive and sometimes decisive elections of the past year illustrate the point.

To advance together we need to overcome our bias: the bias in reporting that favours one’s own beliefs (confirmation bias), the bias in argumentation that seeks to further one’s own agenda (pro-EU or pro-US), and the bias in analysis that is intentionally designed to reinforce one’s own pre-conceived conclusions. The pathway to overcoming these biases lies along the road of realistically assessing our interests and factually examining reality. 

The sobering assessment of the global situation is that our collective interest in using our combined strength for the good of all now clearly outweighs any national interest we may define as preferential. The geostrategic forces arrayed against us, therefore, argue in favour of transatlantic strategic autonomy – a partnership that respects independent decision making on both sides of the Atlantic while accepting that cooperative action is required. In the current transatlantic debates, both the positive imperative of the collective interest and the destructive application of our biases are evident, the latter in the extrapolation of, and conclusions drawn from, soundbites of President-elect Trump. 

Let’s take the most urgent example: the predominant view in some quarters is that President-elect Trump will force Ukraine to capitulate by withdrawing support; however, if we suspend our bias and analyse the thinking behind the carefully selected and often repeated clips, a different view emerges. For example, people close to the President-elect have clearly stated that in their view, Russia will only negotiate if it believes that its army will be defeated on the battlefield. Many Republicans point out that money sent to Ukraine to sustain the status quo on the battlefield is a wasted investment because the caveats on the assistance prevent the Ukrainians from achieving victory. This means America should invest in victory and define a clearly stated strategic objective, two things the current administration failed to do. Here it’s worth noting in the first Biden-Trump Presidential debate that the moderator pressed Mr Trump saying “are Putin’s terms acceptable to you, keeping the territory in Ukraine?” to which Mr Trump replied: “No, they’re not acceptable. No, they’re not acceptable.”

In the US, the bipartisan consensus is that China is the priority. To understand the President-elect’s approach, it’s necessary to reflect on the business case influencing his thinking, which Trump as a candidate elaborated on early in his political career, when he pointed out the reality that the US spends trillions hoping to solve problems around the world militarily while China spends nothing. 

Change the way you look at things and the things you look at will change, and when they do, reality comes into focus. Ronald Reagan changed the way we look at things, and 35 years ago, the Berlin Wall fell. Today, looking differently at the strength of the transatlantic relationship on the global chessboard, looking at it objectively and systematically, looking at it structurally and dynamically, reveals that the West has at this inflection point in global history, a unique opportunity to lead effectively and efficiently should we choose to do so.  China is not going away. Russia is not going away. Both are relatively isolated. The world’s nations are watching the US and the EU to see which way they should hedge. Rising to the occasion, thinking anew and acting new by demonstrating strong and courageous leadership in pursuit of a just cause, the United States and Europe together, can move the world toward more prosperity and peace, ushering in a Transatlantic Century. 

The views expressed in this #CriticalThinking article reflect those of the author(s) and not of Friends of Europe.