The Russia-China Axis. Douglas E. Schoen

Vladimir Vysotsky said, Moscow would have won its war against Georgia in “40 minutes.”⁷² And France isn’t just selling Russia the warships; it’s also training hundreds of Russian naval personnel to operate them. Put simply, a NATO ally is actively assisting Russia to beef up its military capabilities, even as NATO countries in Eastern Europe prepare for more Russian aggression.⁷³ U.S. objections have done nothing to dissuade the French; one imagines that, in an earlier time, American disapproval might have meant something.

      So withered has the American reputation become in Europe that the continent’s far-right parties, which won big in parliamentary elections in May 2014, celebrate Putin as their political inspiration. Aymeric Chauprade, for example, of France’s National Front, calls Russia “the hope of the world against new totalitarianism.”⁷⁴ The National Front’s Marine Le Pen said of Putin: “He’s aware we are defending common values.” When asked what values specifically, Le Pen replied: “The Christian heritage of European civilization.”⁷⁵ Nigel Farage, the leader of Britain’s far-right party, UKIP, says that he admires Putin most among world leaders. Greece’s Golden Dawn party, Austria’s Freedom Party, and Hungary’s Jobbik also strongly prefer Putin to an America they frequently denounce. One might dismiss this fact if these parties had remained marginal, as they were only a few years ago. Now, their appeal and influence are growing.

      INDISPENSABLE NATION, DISPOSABLE LEADERSHIP

      On May 28, 2014, President Obama delivered the commencement speech at the United States Military Academy at West Point, attempting—yet again—to lay out a clear and decisive foreign-policy vision and answer the mounting chorus of critics. And, superficially at least, he succeeded. He declared that “America must always lead,” spoke of his devotion to American exceptionalism, called America the “indispensable nation”—a phrase first coined by Madeleine Albright—and pledged support for our allies and for the cause of democracy. But notwithstanding the rhetoric, the speech offered no clear mandate for action, no clear framework for a strong and committed American presence in the world. Peel away the rhetoric, and the message was retrenchment and abandonment of responsibility.

      When even the New York Times judges that the speech “did not match the hype, was largely uninspiring, lacked strategic sweep, and is unlikely to quiet his detractors, on the right or the left,”⁷⁶ it’s a safe bet that the speech failed. The Financial Times joined the chorus of critics: “There was precious little to convince U.S. allies that Mr Obama is ready to step up his diplomatic agenda a gear or two.” Indeed, Obama’s omissions were glaring, with “barely a mention of how he would deal with China’s maritime boldness, nor of Russia’s neo-imperialist boundary-setting,” the paper added. “He did not mention the foundering trade negotiations in the Pacific and across the Atlantic.”⁷⁷ And so on.

      The speech failed because, at heart, it was defeatist; and in this, it reflected clearly on its author. Despite his occasional clarion calls to American greatness, Obama’s dominant tone was one of paring back the traditional post–World War II mission of the United States in the world. Where we have been, for 70 years, the world’s lead actor in protecting democratic governments, adjudicating disputes, and putting teeth into UN resolutions, Obama would have us walk back from this into a much narrower definition of American capabilities, interests, and options. He offers nothing that will dissuade our allies from their growing conviction that they cannot count on a paralyzed United States. John Bolton put it well when he wrote that Obama “has somehow managed to combine the worst features of isolationism and multilateralism.”⁷⁸ Indeed, a president so committed to multilateralism that he won’t act alone—even with compelling reasons to do so—is a president willing to hamstring American power, in a world in which other actors (such as Russia and China) feel no such compulsion to ask for permission. No wonder that, barely a week after the president’s speech, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, gave a speech of his own in Tehran—under a banner reading “America cannot do a damn thing”—in which he proclaimed that Obama has “renounced the idea of any military actions” against Iran.⁷⁹

      Traditionally, when a great issue has come to the fore demanding American action, American presidents have spoken to the world in clear and unequivocal language—saying, in effect, “We will handle this.” Obama, by contrast, says, “We will look into this and get back to you”—and then he does neither. For years, he has fostered the growing sense that America wishes to disentangle itself from leadership in the world. He seems unwilling or unable to recognize that when America steps away from leadership, the world becomes more dangerous.

      We remain convinced that strengthening, renewing, and promoting democratic institutions worldwide is a fundamental mission of the United States. This means championing U.S. and Western values whenever and wherever we can—through means such as the Voice of America—and providing far more robust assistance to democratic groups around the world while imposing tough penalties and sanctions on antidemocratic forces. Despite recent setbacks, the democratic ideal remains strong around the world, and the United States makes a profound mistake when it fails to promote democratic institutions globally to its utmost capacity. This diffidence is not only wrongheaded; it also carries ominous implications for our influence and authority around the world. It may be that democratic institutions are being tested in ways we never expected them to be. But it is the institutions and the politicians that are failing, not the democratic ideal or democratic values. If anything, those values become more essential in the face of autocracy, authoritarianism, and repression—as made clear by the courage and resolve of freedom-seeking people in Istanbul, Kiev, and Moscow, and around the Middle East. Exasperated with the Obama administration’s failures, some are tempted to look to 2016 for a change in the American approach. And yet, a crisis-ridden world will not cooperate with our desire to sit out until better leadership arrives. Two more years in the current climate is too long to wait. Somehow, the United States must regain a clear sense of foreign-policy mission. In our view, this mission means reassuming American preeminence—in our defense capabilities, in our stewardship of Western alliances, and in our articulation of democratic values. The longer we delay in righting our course, the more difficult the task will be.

      These truths are gaining acceptance across the American political spectrum. In May 2014, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates gave a commencement address at Georgetown. Gates said that the United States remains the country that the world looks to for advancement of the cause of freedom, liberty, and democracy. Yet, at a time of growing threats around the globe, we have degraded our defense capabilities severely. As Gates reminded his listeners, “soft” power means little without hard power to back it up. The Economist, always a fair and nuanced critic of the president, has made a similar point: “Credibility is about reassurance as well as the use of force. Credibility is also easily lost and hard to rebuild.” Arguing that Obama has been an “inattentive friend” to American allies, the magazine also invoked his Syrian retreat to underline that he had “broken the cardinal rule of superpower deterrence: You must keep your word.”⁸⁰

      Obama has often defended his approach by pointing to the growing isolationist sentiments of the American electorate. Polls do show such leanings, as they have for years, but the case for engagement remains compelling—and needs only a president who can make the public argument for it. Indeed, in an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in which respondents voiced isolationist sentiments, 55 percent nonetheless agreed that it was important for the U.S. to project an “image of strength.”⁸¹ In our view, this suggests that isolationist sentiment is only skin-deep. We believe that, recent discouragements aside, most Americans still identify with assertion over accommodation—and with standing up for our principles, our values, and our broader interests.

      This should not be confused with advocacy of endless war or of an overly intrusive United States. Rather, what we must do is offer credible deterrence again. As this book went to press, the Justice Department announced the indictment of five officers of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army for violations of cyber security. The charges are almost certainly symbolic—Beijing isn’t going to extradite these gentlemen to Washington for a trial—and more important, they are incomplete. We made no mention of going after government officials or Chinese businesses that enable and facilitate these hackers. However, at least the charges