No such thing as too much war for the US
The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) issued new research on 22 August, presenting a framework for how the US might discourage China and Russia from aggression in the short term using current troops and resources.
‘Campaign of Denial: Strengthening Simultaneous Deterrence in the Indo-Pacific and Europe,’ written by Becca Wasser, Senior Fellow for the Defence Programme and director of CNAS’s The Gaming Lab, suggests a new strategy to campaigning that connects US military efforts to warfare principles in order to improve deterrence through denial and react effectively to China and Russia’s threats.
US extended deterrence
To uphold America extended deterrence commitments, the US is required to project power into both the Indo-Pacific and Europe, however CNAS finds that the US is currently unprepared to ‘concurrently meet the challenges posed by both China and Russia.’
But the requirement to act remains.
CNAS examines the concept of peacetime deterrence the Biden administration has outlined, campaigning, but finds it loosely defined and at risk of being counterproductive. The recommendation the authors of the report put forward is to more directly link campaigning to warfare, and to narrow the focus on approaches the US can use to ‘set the theatre in the info-Pacific and Europe.’
‘Campaigning can become that new approach to strengthen the simultaneous deterrence to maintain a favourable balance of power in the Indo-Pacific and Europe in the near-term future… Campaigning provides a way to break from the long-standing reliance on presence and improve capabilities, posture, and activities in order to create a link between peacetime deterrence and war-fighting.’
Simultaneous campaigning for China and Russia
The paper develops campaign strategies to safeguard Taiwan and the Baltic states. The two plans explain how the United States may strengthen military posture and actions in the two zones to guarantee a successful transition from deterrence to battle if necessary. Furthermore, the research assesses the benefits and drawbacks of a two-theatre deterrent approach.
Outlined in the research is a focus on improving the warfare concepts by investing in the forces, posturing next-generation capabilities in locations relevant to the threat from China, lifting the capabilities to be ‘relevant to a high-end conventional fight’. It picks out Australia and Philippines as sites requiring new US base access, and an expansion of base access in Japan.
Within the campaigning framework, the US should seek contingency access to Sweden and Finland, opening up challenges to Russia within the borders of Nato’s newest members.
The authors also explicitly recommend using trainings and exercises as tools to bring forces to theatre where the likelihood of conflict is higher, at ‘key periods of aggression’, so as to serve a dual purpose of bringing forces to threatened locations. Stockpiling critical supplies and munitions in Europe and the Indo-Pacific is also recommended as an accelerant to moving from campaigning to active combat operations as well as signalling US preparation for an extended conflict.
Do read entirely at the link provided- everything about this article is way to justify war, look for war, prepare for war- because war is desired.
2 replies on “US urged to clarify simultaneous campaign for Russia and China”
Hi Penny,
I fail to see how this ‘new’ approach dubbed ” campaigning ” is any different than the policy of forward containment popularized by George Kennan in the early 1950’s. There have been US bases in the Philippines since the 1890’s and in Iwo Jima, South Korea and Australia since WW2. As for Sweden and Finland their recent attempts at joining NATO is folly in the extreme. They were already effectively covered under the US “nuclear umbrella”. This just radically extends the frontiers of NATO while hardly increasing the armed forces necessary to defend it. Helsenki is already within the range of Russian artillery and they are rapidly forming a new corps of 90,000 troops north of St. Petersburg.
“Stockpiling critical supplies and munitions in Europe and the Indo-Pacific is also recommended ,,,”. Well, I guess so, but new stockpiles do not exist and the US and EU do not have the heavy industrial capacity to rapidly ramp up production.
This “new ” policy is simply think tank regurgitated verbiage meant to bolster NATO self delusion, like putting lipstick on a pig.
Any talk of simultaneous armed confrontation with Russia and China is geo-political suicide, nothing but the desperate last gasp flailing for Imperial domination and should be avoided at all costs.
The Byzantine Eastern Roman Empire lasted a long time in the face of increasing enemy pressure and decreasing military capabilities by embracing diplomacy and compromise. If we are to perpetuate our species and save what’s left of our planet we must learn from history and do the same.
It’s a rebrand. Everything has to be rebranded in order for it to be perceived as new and improved, although it’s more of the same old, same old.
That saying there’s nothing new under the sun- maybe in some ways that’s true- thinking big on the cyclical nature of things (and being super tired)
“This “new ” policy is simply think tank regurgitated verbiage meant to bolster NATO self delusion, like putting lipstick on a pig.
Any talk of simultaneous armed confrontation with Russia and China is geo-political suicide, nothing but the desperate last gasp flailing for Imperial domination and should be avoided at all costs.”
What shocks me all these years of writing on geopolitics is the US never considers anything but war- In all this time. Economic war. Military war. It’s always attempting to subjugate, some people, some nations.
“The Byzantine Eastern Roman Empire lasted a long time in the face of increasing enemy pressure and decreasing military capabilities by embracing diplomacy and compromise. If we are to perpetuate our species and save what’s left of our planet we must learn from history and do the same.”
Agree, whole heartedly!