Financial Times (via archive.ph)
Those of us that really pay attention to global geo politics are most likely aware that the real target for the US is China. There are already rumblings about the need to shift gears, so, this article seemed a good basis for the topic.
It is increasingly common to hear from Americans that we must focus more on China and Asia and less on Europe. Unsurprisingly, this perspective is not always welcomed. Commentators often charge that such counsel is rooted in “isolationism”, “weakness” or the personal agendas of given leaders.
It is not. It is rooted in deep structural realities. The fact is that the US will have to prioritise China and Asia over Europe in the coming years, regardless of who is in charge — the primacy of Asia and the rise of a superpower China compel it.
Many opponents of a refocus towards Asia like to wrap themselves in the legacy of the cold war. But while the logic of cold war strategy — namely to prevent any potentially hostile power from dominating the most important industrialised region of the world — used to lead America to Europe, today it indicates America must concentrate on Asia.
Of course the US instigated Ukrainian war has helped destroy the European power house
Moreover, the most important American rival is itself in Asia: China. While the Chinese economy is smaller than America’s in dollar-denominated terms, it is comparable, if not larger, in more geopolitically relevant purchasing power parity terms. China’s military has grown at a breathtaking pace while the country is competing at the forefront of key military and dual-use technologies.
Any responsible American administration must therefore prepare for the possibility of a war with China. US policy should ideally seek to deter conflict with the manifest ability to deny China a successful invasion of Taiwan (or any other ally in Asia). Unfortunately that ability is not something that can be assumed. Indeed, credible sources indicate America is on track to lose such a war.
Many will concede this but say America should still be able to provide the bulk of the defence for its allies in both Asia and Europe. But this is simply not realistic. It is a fact that the US does not have a military large enough or appropriately designed to fight two major wars, especially should fighting break out simultaneously with China and Russia. And there is very significant overlap between the needs for a fight over Taiwan and one in Europe, not enough resources to go around, and an urgent demand for the US to make up lost ground in Asia.
We see the EU is talking up and creating EU Forces– “the European Union is holding its first live military exercise — an effort to show the world it’s a serious security and defense player that can operate without NATO.”
Europe (Germany) “Germany will strengthen its military to make it the backbone of deterrence and collective defence in Europe” has been talking and working on this project for some time now. And the EU nations do appear to have some sort of cooperative forces already engaged
Ending the FT’s article excerpts below, read entirely at link-
The answer lies between those two extremes, in strategic prioritisation: grappling with the reality of scarcity and the need for hard choices, focusing resources and willpower where America’s most important interests are endangered — Asia.
But this does not mean abandoning Europe. Rather, it involves inducing our European allies to take primary responsibility for their own defence. In 1988, West Germany alone boasted an army of 12 active and three ready reserve divisions. If we are serious about following the cold war example, then European rearmament is the way.