The USA is stuck in the Cold War model of the 1950s

Photo source: Presidential Office of Russia – CC BY 4.0

The Biden administration is in denial about the dangerous Cold War currently raging between the United States, China, and Russia, which can be called Cold War II. The current Cold War promises to be more dangerous, costly, and relentless than its predecessor that dominated the 1950s and early 1960s. Fortunately, the administrations of John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon mitigated the effects of the Cold War in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the U.S. failure in Vietnam, respectively.

The Kennedy administration learned from the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 that it needed to increase dialogue between the superpowers, and so created a “High Line” between Moscow and Washington. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev also put the two nations on the path to arms control and disarmament with the signing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) in 1963. Kennedy had to deal with resistance from the Pentagon to gain support for the PTBT, which marked a crucial turning point in the bureaucratic politics of the 1960s. The dialogue on arms control opened the door to détente.

In the 1970s, the Nixon administration was even more adept, with National Security Advisor Henry A. Kissinger developing a triangular strategy that allowed the United States to maintain better relations with the Soviet Union and China than Moscow and Beijing did with each other. This triangular policy led the Kremlin to seek closer ties with Washington, resulting in two major arms control agreements: the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty and the ABM Treaty. U.S. relations with China also became more stable and predictable.

The Kennedy and Nixon national security teams recognized that George F. Kennan’s containment policy, which had dominated U.S. strategy internationally since the end of World War II, was no longer viable. Unfortunately, the Biden administration is relying on its own containment policy—indeed, double containment—to control its relations with Russia and China. The notion that China can be contained by U.S. power is counterproductive, as the Chinese have developed a strong military and economic position on the Asian stage, dominate trade in the Indo-Pacific, and are making significant advances in the Global South at the expense of U.S. interests.

Double containment fails for several reasons. First, the policy of lumping Russia and China together, supported by the mainstream media and the foreign policy community, is pointless. This policy has helped push Moscow and Beijing together, building their closest relationship in the country’s history. When it comes to triangulation, the United States is now the underdog, and the Biden administration is doing nothing to change this dynamic.

Moscow and Beijing were ideological allies in the first Cold War, but currently they have very different political interests. They have avoided a joint defense pact, and China has resisted Russia’s efforts to get Beijing to agree to a new natural gas pipeline between the two countries (“Power of Siberia 2”). In addition, China has avoided supplying Russia with lethal weapons for the war in Ukraine. China’s hesitation should open up diplomatic opportunities for the United States.

Second, popular opinion about Russia is based on a Cold War model that exaggerates Russia’s power and influence. President Vladimir Putin’s recent visit to North Korea has been the subject of much discussion, including hysteria about the threat of war in Asia and the possibility of an “October Surprise” between Moscow and Pyongyang that would target the U.S. I would argue that Putin’s visit to North Korea was a sign of Russian weakness, as Moscow needs more weapons to deal with the deadlock in Ukraine and as Russia’s military economy is in trouble and relies on the support of weak countries like North Korea and Iran.

Third, many countries in Asia, Africa and South America want nothing to do with a Cold War between the US, Russia and China. Biden’s national security team appears to be repeating the policy of John Foster Dulles, President Eisenhower’s Secretary of State, who preached to the international community that you are “either with us or against us.” It just doesn’t work! The global community does not believe in US exaggerations of Moscow and Beijing’s international power and influence. Unlike the US, Russia and China do not seek to ideologize or politicize their relations with the global South… and are far more successful in doing so than the US.

Fourth, the cost of the second Cold War will rise significantly if we do not reverse course. The Pentagon’s budget is already approaching $900 billion, and the total cost of national security spending exceeds $1.2 trillion, which is more than the budgets of all the countries in the world community combined. As a result of the worsening triangular situation, we are witnessing the beginning of a strategic and nuclear arms race that will benefit no one except the weapons manufacturers. The increased cost of military spending and nuclear modernization ignores the fact that we have weakened Russia by expanding NATO on its western border, and that we have overtaken China by expanding relations with Australia, India, Japan, and South Korea. Most NATO countries are significantly expanding their defense budgets, and the Indo-Pacific countries I mentioned are doing so as well.

Finally, it is essential to restore dialogue between the three major nuclear powers to return to the arms control and disarmament agenda. The United States has broken too many nuclear agreements and Washington should take the lead in restoring the agreements and bringing China into the conversation. The climate crisis is worsening daily and there can be no solution without the US and China agreeing on steps that must be taken immediately. The US and China are the main engines of global economic growth and must work on an economic agreement that rivals the one the European Union is negotiating with China. Issues related to immigration, terrorism and nuclear proliferation also require negotiations between the three states.